morriswalters wrote:As written this is incorrect, especially in response to what he was quoting when he wrote it. The law doesn't forbid it because it's dangerous, it forbids it because of the Constitutions establishment clause. Which prevents it from expressing any opinion at all.
No, wrong, demonstrably incorrect. The fact that public school curricula do not include Creationism in the US has jack all to do with the Establishment Clause. Wrong facts espoused by religions are not the only wrong facts disallowed in public school curricula. Cdesign propnentsists might, for instance, only obviously have been shilling for a religion, rather than being actually selling the religion itself, but the proposals to bring their obviously wrong and unscientific arguments into school curricula were rejected on their own merits. Whether or not a thing is true definitely has some bearing, however indirectly that may come about, on whether teachers in US schools are allowed to teach it. That is also extremely obvious in the process by which the science of biological evolution was itself accepted into US public school curricula in the first place.
The implication is that there is something peculiar to Creationism that forbids the practice.
The fact that it's demonstrably and obviously wrong and lying isn't "peculiar" to Creationism, but it's a fair bit more widespread than belief in a flat Earth and this sort of thing, so it comes up more as a point of contention. The Flat Earth Society hasn't taken any school boards to the courts that I know of, etc.
I never said or implied that science was lying about carbon dating.
I didn't mention carbon dating, I mentioned carbon atoms. You have correctly intuited the reference of the statement far enough to assume that much. I find it difficult to believe that you have not further made the connection to the category of arguments that I am claiming your argument falls under, those that draw a false equivalence between science and religion in terms of their relative dependence on arguments from authority. If you made that further step, you would know that carbon dating was not relevant to anything either of us was talking about and wouldn't need to point out that you hadn't referred to it. You may have your red herring back, I do not much like fish.
The implication always is that there is something obvious in science. There isn't. It takes the application of significant effort to understand something as complex as carbon dating not to mention special tools generally only available in labs. It requires the trust of those people who you are selling it to. And without that trust you are talking to a wall.
And I specifically said that the reasons for "trusting" the scientific consensus insofar as that is a thing that a person does are the obvious thing, or specifically the thing that is "not hard," because I do think it's important to say that it's also not a trivial step, either.
What you may wish to do is indoctrinate the inmates of those prisons we call schools so that when John Q Scientist says that red is red that we accept it.
John Q. Scientist is not the whole of the global scientific establishment. When all of the people who study a particular thing agree that x is the thing observed, you'd better have a damn good reason for coming to the conclusion that they're lying. You do not need to know anything of physics, biology, chemistry, or psychology to practice skepticism of social institutions.
In point of fact Science is a belief system.
Very good argument, A creationist would start reading the Bible to me and praying over my misbegotten immortal soul. While reminding me that I would burn in hell. Yours is so much more compact.
It's not your beliefs that ultimately offend me, mw. I think I was pretty straightforward about that, too. I don't think you have
anything substantive to say on this subject, by which I might then take offense, and I don't know whether you substantively disagree with anything in particular that anyone else has said in the thread. So far as I can tell, you're engaging in semantics trolling for its own sake. As I said, it is my honest belief that that behavior could be translated to any other thread on this forum, and be equally annoying, insubstantial, and counterproductive.
That's why the breed has been banned in a number of places and why they have been voted dog most likely to bite.
Actually, they're not significantly more aggressive than other breeds, and many others are more so. They're also a target of media scaremongering - if there's a dog attack in the newspaper, they won't bother to mention the breed unless it is
a pit bull, and will call it that even if it's a mix....
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.
she / her / her