"God Bless You" Should Be Banned?

[theophilus]

school administrators should follow the law, which says that they can't show favor to one religion over others.

Saying "God bless you" does not favor one religion over another because it doesn't specify which God you mean. School administrators and the ACLU must follow the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech for everyone.

[EssentialSacrifice]

edwardmurphy wrote:
Long story short, the argument that "evolution is just a theory" is spurious. Evolution is scientific fact

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html ...
the folks at the National Academy of Sciences* Engineering* Medicine disagree .

edwardmurphy wrote:
The fact that some people object to it on religious grounds is immaterial. Those people are factually incorrect

no one is factually incorrect until all the facts are known, as you said yourself ... "The main idea of the theory - natural selection - is as rock solid as anything in science, but some the details are still being worked out." hmm... if it's so rock solid, how can details still be worked out that, through that same scientific investigation may be disproved, altered, dismissed or confirmed in the future... examples below, and these are only a very few ...

http://www.reasons.org/articles/pikaia- ... y-paradigm
http://www.reasons.org/articles/darwin-s-doubt
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-lea ... bipedalism

to state evolution as verifiable fact alone, not theory also is folly and Those people who do are factually incorrect.

[edwardmurphy]

The point is that all aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or both. The same cannot be said of ID.

[RickD]

The point is that all aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or both. The same cannot be said of ID.

How is biological evolution, specifically molecules to sentient man, testable?

[EssentialSacrifice]

by edwardmurphy » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:24 pm

The point is that all aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or both. The same cannot be said of ID.

Actually edward, no ... not all aspects of ToE are testable/falsifiable and this has been known for 30 years.
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability

and here's another... among many untestable/falsifiable presuppositions ...
http://www.reasons.org/articles/darwins ... f-language

[edwardmurphy]

The first link just said that ID is silly, and the second is about an area of human development that the Theory of Evolution cannot currently explain. Neither of those seems like a problem.

[EssentialSacrifice]

However, a caveat is necessary before we proceed. Creationists are mistaken in their presupposition that the theory of evolution must be classified as either a theory or a fact. One of the many problems with that presupposition results from the sloppy use of the indefinite article a in the phrase a fact. Such usage treats the theory of evolution as if it consisted of a single proposition whose evidential status is all-of-a-kind and which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. But if anything is evident, it is that the theory of evolution consists of many propositions whose evidential status is not all-of-a-kind. Proving the untestability of the theory of evolution, then, would consist of the piecemeal task of considering each separate proposition individually and demonstrating that each is untestable. Furthermore, since research is currently being done in evolutionary theory, not all of the propositions are in, making the task even more difficult.

This section, from the first link you say only calls "ID silly" is anything but, in regards to your :

by edwardmurphy » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:24 pm

The point is that all aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or both.

As I said, they (all aspects) are not, and this has been known and unchanged for over 30 years. You simply need to read past the 1st paragraph.

Neither of those seems like a problem.

Be my guest then, since neither seems a problem for you.

[B. W.]

My sons get told by teachers they come from apes even at primary school - now is that 'fair'? Why are my rights as a parent not just as vaild as a non christian parent's rights?

Doesn't evolution get pretty much taught as a fact not just a theory?
Im not too sure on the US school system tho.

Why is it wrong to expect more of a balanced world view in public schools?

Nessa, Mr Ed does not believe, nor does the ACLU that a woman has the right to tech their own Kids. They do believe a woman has a right to kill their kids as a right of choice, but teach their own children about God - NO - absolutely not.

They, in reality do not believe, nor actually hold, to a woman's right to choose as much as they claim. In fact they are anti-woman rights. Unless women conform to their liberal male notions of avoiding responsibility of fathering children.



-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

You said it "is" easily falsifiable. That's not quite what you meant. So, nevermind.

It would be easily falsifiable if it were false?

However, a caveat is necessary before we proceed. Creationists are mistaken in their presupposition that the theory of evolution must be classified as either a theory or a fact. One of the many problems with that presupposition results from the sloppy use of the indefinite article a in the phrase a fact. Such usage treats the theory of evolution as if it consisted of a single proposition whose evidential status is all-of-a-kind and which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. But if anything is evident, it is that the theory of evolution consists of many propositions whose evidential status is not all-of-a-kind. Proving the untestability of the theory of evolution, then, would consist of the piecemeal task of considering each separate proposition individually and demonstrating that each is untestable. Furthermore, since research is currently being done in evolutionary theory, not all of the propositions are in, making the task even more difficult.

The part that you quoted doesn't say what your saying it says, but in the interest of moving the conversation forward I will amend my statement:

All aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or under construction.

Long story short, it's a comparison between a scientific theory, a creation myth, and a creation myth in a lab coat. I'm picking the scientific theory.

My sons get told by teachers they come from apes even at primary school - now is that 'fair'? Why are my rights as a parent not just as vaild as a non christian parent's rights?

Doesn't evolution get pretty much taught as a fact not just a theory?
Im not too sure on the US school system tho.

Why is it wrong to expect more of a balanced world view in public schools?

Nessa, Mr Ed does not believe, nor does the ACLU that a woman has the right to tech their own Kids. They do believe a woman has a right to kill their kids as a right of choice, but teach their own children about God - NO - absolutely not.

As usual, B.W. is entirely correct, and not at all insane. I recently banned homeschooling, Sunday school, and any and all interaction between women and their kids that could be deemed "teach(ing) their own children about God." Obviously I cannot take all of the credit - without the assistance of the elite ACLU storm troopers I'd never have been able to enforce the ban.

They, in reality do not believe, nor actually hold, to a woman's right to choose as much as they claim. In fact they are anti-woman rights. Unless women conform to their liberal male notions of avoiding responsibility of fathering children.

Yet again, this is a completely true statement, and not merely the nonsensical gibbering of a lunatic. I don't feel like women should have any rights unless they agree to avoid taking responsibility for any children that they father, much like I have avoided taking responsibility for mine. However, if they agree to father lots of children and then abandon them I'm cool with women having rights.

[EssentialSacrifice]

ed wrote:
The part that you quoted doesn't say what your saying it says,

Actually edward, it is the perfect example of my point and says and means exactly what I said. You, carte blanche, issued a statement regarding the entirety of ToE.

edward wrote:
The point is that all aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or both.

es wrote from article posted:
But if anything is evident, it is that the theory of evolution consists of many propositions whose evidential status is not all-of-a-kind. Proving the untestability of the theory of evolution, then, would consist of the piecemeal task of considering each separate proposition individually and demonstrating that each is untestable.

Absurd, I know, but your proposition left open so many unanswered previously known"holes" in your statement that i could not let it go by without clarification and correction. Your inference is an either/or proposition to the fallibility of ToE. It is not, it is both theory and fact an will remain so until everything that can be known of ToE's complete makeup.

edward wrote:
All aspects of the Theory of Evolution are testable, falsifiable, or under construction.

this is far closer to reality and should have been known by you as you said ...

The main idea of the theory - natural selection - is as rock solid as anything in science, but some the details are still being worked out.

even though, in many instances, your idea of rock solid isn't verified or even yet validated.