[quote=PwnPirate] If my goal was to make a valid point, it wouldn't be tactful to make mistakes, therefore they wouldn't be tactics. If my goal wasn't to make a valid point and I just wanted to spam, I wouldn't be making an argument in the first place. Your idea doesn't work in both ways. With your definition, absolutely every action is a tactic, which it isn't. [/quote] You're just trying to be a clever spammer disguising your posts. Of course you won't make it blatantly obvious to the random person reading this topic that you're spamming or else a mod would come in here and instantly remove it. [quote=PwnPirate] A tactic can only be defined when one person is trying to get an edge over another person, which obviously isn't the case here, I was just presenting my ideas and they were refuted (which I have mentioned several times now). You are trying to win an argument which I have constantly said that I've withdrawn anyways. If not, you are attempting to argue with me about my own thoughts, and I've tried to end this argument a couple times so don't blame me when you find out this argument is useless. [/quote] I don't see the definition saying anything about trying to get an edge over someone. These kinds of assumptions are your problem.

Quote from PwnPirate

If my goal was to make a valid point, it wouldn't be tactful to make mistakes, therefore they wouldn't be tactics. If my goal wasn't to make a valid point and I just wanted to spam, I wouldn't be making an argument in the first place. Your idea doesn't work in both ways. With your definition, absolutely every action is a tactic, which it isn't.

You're just trying to be a clever spammer disguising your posts. Of course you won't make it blatantly obvious to the random person reading this topic that you're spamming or else a mod would come in here and instantly remove it.

Quote from PwnPirate

A tactic can only be defined when one person is trying to get an edge over another person, which obviously isn't the case here, I was just presenting my ideas and they were refuted (which I have mentioned several times now). You are trying to win an argument which I have constantly said that I've withdrawn anyways. If not, you are attempting to argue with me about my own thoughts, and I've tried to end this argument a couple times so don't blame me when you find out this argument is useless.

I don't see the definition saying anything about trying to get an edge over someone. These kinds of assumptions are your problem.

The fact that people want Creationism taught in public schools is an absurd idea. In my opinion, it's just another way to strengthen a kid's belief in the Christian religion, or to brainwash more kids into the religion. I believe it would be acceptable though, as an elective that includes creationist theories from many religions(including the flying spaghetti monster. :P)

The fact that people want Creationism taught in public schools is an absurd idea. In my opinion, it's just another way to strengthen a kid's belief in the Christian religion, or to brainwash more kids into the religion. I believe it would be acceptable though, as an elective that includes creationist theories from many religions(including the flying spaghetti monster. )

[quote=WoAHorde]I believe it would be acceptable though, as an elective that includes creationist theories from many religions(including the flying spaghetti minster. :P)[/quote] It would be acceptable, but still I think that school and church should be completely separate. Have the students that would like to take that class learn about it at their church. Sunday school, or whatever church functions needed to educate the people who want to learn about this.

Quote from WoAHorde

I believe it would be acceptable though, as an elective that includes creationist theories from many religions(including the flying spaghetti minster. )

It would be acceptable, but still I think that school and church should be completely separate. Have the students that would like to take that class learn about it at their church. Sunday school, or whatever church functions needed to educate the people who want to learn about this.

[quote=AntiSleep] In order to be useful, a hypotheses must make novel testable predictions, this is part of why string theory is not taken seriously(and should not really be called a theory). This comic sums it up quite well: http://xkcd.com/171/ Now, the rhetoric of intelligent design is none of this. If you think intelligent design is science, or even a hypotheses, I encourage you to read about the dover trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District The churchgoing republican Judge Jones said in conclusion, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Intelligent design is not a viable scientific hypotheses, and thus the only way to get it into a science class was via politics, instead of scientific consensus, it was shut down for hopefully obvious reasons.[/quote] Heh, I should have removed the part I was not replying to, to avoid confusion. :P I'll re-quote what I was replying to and point out what my points were when I was replying. [quote=UnholyUrine]Since Schools (public schools) follow the scientific method, Creationism should NOT be taught. However, it should be dealt with and talked about (and be proven wrong too). For Catholic schools.. then maybe u can teach Creationism.. But still that'd kind of confuse the child when he/she goes to public school/college/University. Of course.. It is up to you what to believe.. But the evidence of Evolution is out there...[/quote] I do agree with the part that it should not be taught in the Science classes. As far as being dealt with in some way; possibly, but it may be better to just not talk about it. If it is mentioned at all, I'd say it should simply be a little side comment about that God or some other being may have guided things along their course, but that it has yet to be proven either way - wrong or right. I do not agree with the part about actually attempting to prove it wrong in class though (at least, as far as the type of belief I mentioned), since it cannot be proven wrong (or right either, for that matter, unless given some kind of physical documentation of it or similar from God or whatever other being you may believe in, which is unlikely). Basically the point of my post was that people who believe in that would not (or at least should not) object to evolution or any kinds of scientific theories that would be taught.

Quote from AntiSleep

In order to be useful, a hypotheses must make novel testable predictions, this is part of why string theory is not taken seriously(and should not really be called a theory). This comic sums it up quite well:
http://xkcd.com/171/

Now, the rhetoric of intelligent design is none of this. If you think intelligent design is science, or even a hypotheses, I encourage you to read about the dover trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The churchgoing republican Judge Jones said in conclusion, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Intelligent design is not a viable scientific hypotheses, and thus the only way to get it into a science class was via politics, instead of scientific consensus, it was shut down for hopefully obvious reasons.

Heh, I should have removed the part I was not replying to, to avoid confusion. I'll re-quote what I was replying to and point out what my points were when I was replying.

Quote from UnholyUrine

Since Schools (public schools) follow the scientific method, Creationism should NOT be taught.
However, it should be dealt with and talked about (and be proven wrong too). For Catholic schools.. then maybe u can teach Creationism.. But still that'd kind of confuse the child when he/she goes to public school/college/University.

Of course.. It is up to you what to believe.. But the evidence of Evolution is out there...

I do agree with the part that it should not be taught in the Science classes. As far as being dealt with in some way; possibly, but it may be better to just not talk about it. If it is mentioned at all, I'd say it should simply be a little side comment about that God or some other being may have guided things along their course, but that it has yet to be proven either way - wrong or right.

I do not agree with the part about actually attempting to prove it wrong in class though (at least, as far as the type of belief I mentioned), since it cannot be proven wrong (or right either, for that matter, unless given some kind of physical documentation of it or similar from God or whatever other being you may believe in, which is unlikely). Basically the point of my post was that people who believe in that would not (or at least should not) object to evolution or any kinds of scientific theories that would be taught.

[QUOTE]I don't see the definition saying anything about trying to get an edge over someone. These kinds of assumptions are your problem.[/QUOTE] It's a logical assumption, if you can even call it an assumption (because you can't even have tactics for one thing, it's impossible, tactics can only be used with two things Eg. "These are the [B]Nazi's[/B] tactics against the [B]Allies[/B]). don't blame me about making assumptions with at least some base when you are making conspiracy theories out of the blue. [QUOTE]You're just trying to be a clever spammer disguising your posts. Of course you won't make it blatantly obvious to the random person reading this topic that you're spamming or else a mod would come in here and instantly remove it.[/QUOTE] Edit: In the chance that you aren't actually making crazy posts and you are instead trying to prove a point, it's wrong. I've mentioned more than once that I would take back what I said if the original poster told me otherwise, and afterwards I've said more than enough times that I made the wrong assumption. You on the other hand, are still going even when I've told you that I didn't do it on purpose.

Quote

I don't see the definition saying anything about trying to get an edge over someone. These kinds of assumptions are your problem.

It's a logical assumption, if you can even call it an assumption (because you can't even have tactics for one thing, it's impossible, tactics can only be used with two things Eg. "These are the Nazi's tactics against the Allies). don't blame me about making assumptions with at least some base when you are making conspiracy theories out of the blue.

Quote

You're just trying to be a clever spammer disguising your posts. Of course you won't make it blatantly obvious to the random person reading this topic that you're spamming or else a mod would come in here and instantly remove it.

Edit: In the chance that you aren't actually making crazy posts and you are instead trying to prove a point, it's wrong. I've mentioned more than once that I would take back what I said if the original poster told me otherwise, and afterwards I've said more than enough times that I made the wrong assumption. You on the other hand, are still going even when I've told you that I didn't do it on purpose.

[quote=ShadowFlare] I do agree with the part that it should not be taught in the Science classes. As far as being dealt with in some way; possibly, but it may be better to just not talk about it. If it is mentioned at all, I'd say it should simply be a little side comment about that God or some other being may have guided things along their course, but that it has yet to be proven either way - wrong or right. I do not agree with the part about actually attempting to prove it wrong in class though (at least, as far as the type of belief I mentioned), since it cannot be proven wrong (or right either, for that matter, unless given some kind of physical documentation of it or similar from God or whatever other being you may believe in, which is unlikely). Basically the point of my post was that people who believe in that would not (or at least should not) object to evolution or any kinds of scientific theories that would be taught.[/quote] One very important thing both you and UnholyUrine need to understand is that if a hypotheses does not make testable predictions, it is absolutely worthless. ID does not make any predictions that, if tested, have the potential to falsify it.

Quote from ShadowFlare

I do agree with the part that it should not be taught in the Science classes. As far as being dealt with in some way; possibly, but it may be better to just not talk about it. If it is mentioned at all, I'd say it should simply be a little side comment about that God or some other being may have guided things along their course, but that it has yet to be proven either way - wrong or right.

I do not agree with the part about actually attempting to prove it wrong in class though (at least, as far as the type of belief I mentioned), since it cannot be proven wrong (or right either, for that matter, unless given some kind of physical documentation of it or similar from God or whatever other being you may believe in, which is unlikely). Basically the point of my post was that people who believe in that would not (or at least should not) object to evolution or any kinds of scientific theories that would be taught.

One very important thing both you and UnholyUrine need to understand is that if a hypotheses does not make testable predictions, it is absolutely worthless. ID does not make any predictions that, if tested, have the potential to falsify it.

[quote=PwnPirate]It's a logical assumption, if you can even call it an assumption (because you can't even have tactics for one thing, it's impossible, tactics can only be used with two things Eg. "These are the Nazi's tactics against the Allies). don't blame me about making assumptions with at least some base when you are making conspiracy theories out of the blue. [/quote] It's not impossible, "These are PwnPirate's tactics for arguing against Felagund." I'm not making conspiracy theories, I'm just pointing out certain patterns of fault in your behavior based on your posts.

Quote from PwnPirate

It's a logical assumption, if you can even call it an assumption (because you can't even have tactics for one thing, it's impossible, tactics can only be used with two things Eg. "These are the Nazi's tactics against the Allies). don't blame me about making assumptions with at least some base when you are making conspiracy theories out of the blue.

It's not impossible, "These are PwnPirate's tactics for arguing against Felagund."

I'm not making conspiracy theories, I'm just pointing out certain patterns of fault in your behavior based on your posts.

[quote=AntiSleep]One very important thing both you and UnholyUrine need to understand is that if a hypotheses does not make testable predictions, it is absolutely worthless. ID does not make any predictions that, if tested, have the potential to falsify it.[/quote] And my own point was not whether it can be proven or not or whether it has any worth as any type of hypothesis. I mean, who even cares whether that can be proven or not? The only reason someone would have to try to prove it is so they could rub it in everyone's face and say "You're wrong and I'm right." I'm not trying to really make any arguments against anything at all and I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, so stop making it into that. :P My point in my posts was that it is a type of belief where the various scientific theories are considered and not just discounted, so they can believe it and still go along with whatever the latest scientific theories are, unlike the belief of these people who think that God literally created everything in 6 Earth days. Whether things simply happened by chance or were guided by another being does not change how it happened, so it is indeed worthless as far as science. And I've already supplied my own reply to the topic's question, "Should we be teaching creationism in public schools?" My exact reply to that question is this. No, it should not be taught in public schools, except in some type of religion class (in the schools where they do exist). Even then, some discretion should be taken about the way it is taught. The one teaching about that should not try to force any belief in any type of literal interpretation onto the students and should not be closed-minded about the way things can be interpreted. The possibility of the 6 days not being 6 Earth days should be discussed, for example. Just in case you forgot what I was talking about by this sentence; just a reminder that those last few sentences are describing my opinion on how it should be taught if it was in a religion class. Keep that in mind if replying to this paragraph in this message.

Quote from AntiSleep

One very important thing both you and UnholyUrine need to understand is that if a hypotheses does not make testable predictions, it is absolutely worthless. ID does not make any predictions that, if tested, have the potential to falsify it.

And my own point was not whether it can be proven or not or whether it has any worth as any type of hypothesis. I mean, who even cares whether that can be proven or not? The only reason someone would have to try to prove it is so they could rub it in everyone's face and say "You're wrong and I'm right."

I'm not trying to really make any arguments against anything at all and I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, so stop making it into that. My point in my posts was that it is a type of belief where the various scientific theories are considered and not just discounted, so they can believe it and still go along with whatever the latest scientific theories are, unlike the belief of these people who think that God literally created everything in 6 Earth days. Whether things simply happened by chance or were guided by another being does not change how it happened, so it is indeed worthless as far as science.

And I've already supplied my own reply to the topic's question, "Should we be teaching creationism in public schools?" My exact reply to that question is this. No, it should not be taught in public schools, except in some type of religion class (in the schools where they do exist). Even then, some discretion should be taken about the way it is taught. The one teaching about that should not try to force any belief in any type of literal interpretation onto the students and should not be closed-minded about the way things can be interpreted. The possibility of the 6 days not being 6 Earth days should be discussed, for example. Just in case you forgot what I was talking about by this sentence; just a reminder that those last few sentences are describing my opinion on how it should be taught if it was in a religion class. Keep that in mind if replying to this paragraph in this message.

My point was that having a new hypotheses that fits the existing evidence is absolutely worthless if it does not make any new predictions. There is no point distinguishing between a hypotheses that has no predictions, and one that has been shown incorrect. Belief has nothing to do with it.

My point was that having a new hypotheses that fits the existing evidence is absolutely worthless if it does not make any new predictions. There is no point distinguishing between a hypotheses that has no predictions, and one that has been shown incorrect. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Heh, anyway, if you call it a hypothesis, it is less of a hypothesis about the science stuff, but more a hypothesis about the meaning of certain parts of the Bible.

Heh, anyway, if you call it a hypothesis, it is less of a hypothesis about the science stuff, but more a hypothesis about the meaning of certain parts of the Bible.

Why do people still think the bible is a good source of ethics anyway?

Why do people still think the bible is a good source of ethics anyway?

It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.

It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.

[quote=ShadowFlare]It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.[/quote] Or what interpretation of what part you are talking about. Vagueness for the win!

Quote from ShadowFlare

It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.

Or what interpretation of what part you are talking about.

Vagueness for the win!

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=ShadowFlare]It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.[/quote] Or what interpretation of what part you are talking about. Vagueness for the win![/quote] Or just take the bible literally. Fundamentalism for the win!

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from ShadowFlare

It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.

Or what interpretation of what part you are talking about.

Vagueness for the win!

Or just take the bible literally. Fundamentalism for the win!

I know of at least one person who takes the bible literally. He's really boring.

I know of at least one person who takes the bible literally.

He's really boring.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=ShadowFlare]It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.[/quote] Or what interpretation of what part you are talking about. Vagueness for the win![/quote] Yeah, that's basically how it goes. Then which translation of the Bible into English as well (or whatever other language). So you need to decide which translation you think is correct, and then after that decide whether you should take a section literally or not. If not, then you need to decide on what you think it is supposed to mean by what it says. That is why there are so many different Christian denominations.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from ShadowFlare

It depends on which part of it you are talking about, really.

Or what interpretation of what part you are talking about.

Vagueness for the win!

Yeah, that's basically how it goes. Then which translation of the Bible into English as well (or whatever other language). So you need to decide which translation you think is correct, and then after that decide whether you should take a section literally or not. If not, then you need to decide on what you think it is supposed to mean by what it says. That is why there are so many different Christian denominations.

Right now, I am taking this course called Intro to Human Geography. Initially I thought it was just simply a class where it talks about the countries and their locations and stuff but in actuality, it goes further than that. It discusses alot about the cultures and ideals of the people of each region and one of the biggest chunks of that class is Religion. So far we've already spent a few weeks purely on religion; we learned about what christianity (all of its different branches), muslim (both types), buddhism, and a couple other smaller asian ones. We even talked a little about what people believed in, including a [I]little [/I]bit about creationism; we didn't go much into detail about it. We've even seen videos of small asian countries who've been quite adament about their religion and how bringing in modern technology, such as television, affects their everyday lives including their religious practices. I've learned quite a bit about other religions (and even bits of other branches of christianity that I am not all too familiar with) in this class. No matter how dumb some religions may be, they are a VERY important aspect of various cultures and traditions around the world; knowing nothing about religions leaves one completely ignorant when it comes down to knowing about cultures and traditions apart from your own, it's like not teaching about the American Revolution in a US History class.

Right now, I am taking this course called Intro to Human Geography. Initially I thought it was just simply a class where it talks about the countries and their locations and stuff but in actuality, it goes further than that. It discusses alot about the cultures and ideals of the people of each region and one of the biggest chunks of that class is Religion. So far we've already spent a few weeks purely on religion; we learned about what christianity (all of its different branches), muslim (both types), buddhism, and a couple other smaller asian ones. We even talked a little about what people believed in, including a little bit about creationism; we didn't go much into detail about it. We've even seen videos of small asian countries who've been quite adament about their religion and how bringing in modern technology, such as television, affects their everyday lives including their religious practices. I've learned quite a bit about other religions (and even bits of other branches of christianity that I am not all too familiar with) in this class. No matter how dumb some religions may be, they are a VERY important aspect of various cultures and traditions around the world; knowing nothing about religions leaves one completely ignorant when it comes down to knowing about cultures and traditions apart from your own, it's like not teaching about the American Revolution in a US History class.

[quote=moneylover][quote=WoAHorde]I believe it would be acceptable though, as an elective that includes creationist theories from many religions(including the flying spaghetti minster. :P)[/quote] It would be acceptable, but still I think that school and church should be completely separate. Have the students that would like to take that class learn about it at their church. Sunday school, or whatever church functions needed to educate the people who want to learn about this.[/quote] No, I'm suggesting that you teach it as an elective to inform kids of each religion's morals and creation beliefs. If you were a teenager/kid and were looking for a new religion or lack of religion to find, why not take an elective that informs you of many different religions?

Quote from moneylover

Quote from WoAHorde

I believe it would be acceptable though, as an elective that includes creationist theories from many religions(including the flying spaghetti minster. )

It would be acceptable, but still I think that school and church should be completely separate. Have the students that would like to take that class learn about it at their church. Sunday school, or whatever church functions needed to educate the people who want to learn about this.

No, I'm suggesting that you teach it as an elective to inform kids of each religion's morals and creation beliefs. If you were a teenager/kid and were looking for a new religion or lack of religion to find, why not take an elective that informs you of many different religions?

They already have such classes... "World Religions" is usually offered in colleges. Hell, my Catholic high school offered it.

They already have such classes... "World Religions" is usually offered in colleges. Hell, my Catholic high school offered it.

[quote=Mini Moose 2707]They already have such classes... "World Religions" is usually offered in colleges. Hell, my Catholic high school offered it.[/quote] No wonder Moose is such a-- Nevermind. :P

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

They already have such classes... "World Religions" is usually offered in colleges. Hell, my Catholic high school offered it.

No wonder Moose is such a--

Nevermind.