Conclave sweat threat: Who will be the next pope?
Pope Francis has left the table. The first Latin‑American pontiff played every street of his twelve‑year run
So I suppose you are also against teaching the bible since it's as false and way more harmfull?
what would "advocating" evolution even mean? can you "advocate" for gravity? or for impollination?
1. We can advocate for the science of gravity and similar things because they are things that are occurring in the here and now that we can analyze as they are happening.
2. Particles-to-People Evolution allegedly happened in the distant past and as such is neither observable nor replicable. (Two aspects of the Scientific Method.)
3. Things evolve all the time. Cross-breeding has been done with dogs for a long time, but they're still doggies!
4. Maybe we can take this to the relevant thread in RGT?
5. Have a good day!
Because it's false and harmful.
There are several threads about this in the RGT Forum.
You can't possibly expect anyone to be persuaded by those threads in RGT.
Are you mainly dubious about abiogenesis (which Darwin barely addressed at all except in a letter or two) or are you dubious about the entire theory of natural selection?
Now do viruses.
I have no "expectation" one way or another. Not sure why you would either.
Are you mainly dubious about abiogenesis (which Darwin barely addressed at all except in a letter or two) or are you dubious about the entire theory of natural selection?
I believe in Natural Selection.
I don't think teaching the Bible in a public school is a good idea. Especially if some heathen teacher is teaching it.
Obviously, I don't believe the Bible is false or harmful.
I think it's folly not to teach a little about the bible if you teach art or history or literature because there are too many biblical references you cannot comprehend if you have 0 biblical knowledge.
There is ofc no need to teach biblical morality unless you are teaching religious history though
I think it's folly not to teach a little about the bible if you teach art or history or literature because there are too many biblical references you cannot comprehend if you have 0 biblical knowledge.
There is ofc no need to teach biblical morality unless you are teaching religious history though
Very well said. I agree with all of this.
Teaching about the Bible is fine. Just like teaching about Evolutionism is fine.
That's no answer. The most recent common ancestors of both **** sapiens and chimpanzees were mammals.
1. We can advocate for the science of gravity and similar things because they are things that are occurring in the here and now that we can analyze as they are happening. 2. Particles-to-People Evolution allegedly happened in the distant past and as such is neither observable nor replicable. (Two aspects of the Scientific Method.)3. Things evolve all the time. Cross-bre
I dont understand, we don't "advocate for gravity", we teach gravity existing as something we can measure the effects of in reality.
And we use it to describe past events as well. I mean we teach how stars and planets get formed right? even if we never assisted such events in real time
as for 3) geeze, dogs are NOT wolves right? pigs are NOT boars...
I should have said you can't possibly believe that the anti-evolution posters in that thread were making compelling arguments.
If you believe that random genetic variation happens, and you believe Natural Selection selects genes that are beneficial for survival, it's difficult to see how you don't arrive at the conclusion that evolution happens. It's almost a tautology. It's like you agree with all of the premises but you don't like the branding.
I think teaching about evolutionism is fine. But that's different than advocating for it.
Is it OK to use it to breed new kind of roses, crops, cats etc.?
Quite so. (Air-quotes certainly appropriate there.)
I didn't know members of congress had been polled on this topic.
Not by polling, I can tell by their actions and rhetoric.
I am certain evolution is true, but I certainly don't advocate it. It's the thing which makes the world horrifying.
I dont understand, we don't "advocate for gravity", we teach gravity existing as something we can measure the effects of in reality.
And we use it to describe past events as well. I mean we teach how stars and planets get formed right? even if we never assisted such events in real time
He seems to be using the word "advocate" to mean "assert as true", which isn't exactly correct but is likely a fairly common (mis)usage.
I dont understand, we don't "advocate for gravity", we teach gravity existing as something we can measure the effects of in reality.
And we use it to describe past events as well. I mean we teach how stars and planets get formed right? even if we never assisted such events in real time
That’s a rather naive view of gravity. The laws of motion we teach are, strictly speaking, false. They have been replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics.
In school we teach stuff that is close enough to the truth to be practical.
