Shelved by: giantpenguin87 on 2012-01-24
Comment on This Post:
Wastes of education! O.o Fucking cultists!
Moooooooorrrrmmmooooonnnsss. I mean, look at their comments! "Praying for you Whitney". Seriously, wtf?
She says she goes to Southeastern which is a Christian school LOLZ www.seu.edu
I think its now law that schools have to teach you about evolution no matter what type of school it is (at least, in the UK it is)
In the UK people, at least during their school years, tend to keep their religious views to themselves, lest they be questioned. Religious studies is a separate subject (although it goes by different names) and outside of it you rarely have religion feature in your lessons, even in Science.
In our school we had Religious Education which was compulsory until you hit sixth form/A-level related stuff. You only did it once every two weeks if you didn't take it as a GCSE.
Before high school though, I went to a very very religious school where you sang hymns, joined choir, had to pray all the time, etc. My teacher wasn't too happy when I said "if God made us then who made God? And it doesn't say anywhere that God made the other planets, so who made them? I think someone is telling porkies"
Made my friends laugh...
Really, compulsory at GCSE? I picked IT, History, Music and French for mine, so the rest of mine were English, Maths and Science, I didn't have to do RE after Year 9. It was called PR (Philosophy & Religion) at my secondary school. We did "Citizenship" as a subject but it was more on all social aspects rather than singularly religion. Weird.
Once every two weeks we had an RE lesson instead of an English lesson. TBH, we did about a mix of things at GCSE level, but it mainly a way of teaching us that "this bad shit happened to them because people didn't like their religion/skin/whatever. This is sick and wrong, don't treat people like this"
it is in the States too but its also said that we are not allowed to interfere with people's beliefs...
Idiocy like this is why I stopped mentioning I believe in God.
I threw up in my mouth a little
I couldn't even finish reading this.
Honestly made my stomach turn :(
Oh America. So glad I live in the sceptical, miserable land of Britain.
we have guns... :p
As do we!
Only the ones they let you! oh wait... shit.
Maybe one day she'll evolve into a less retarded person.
I know not to expect intelligent, well-thought-out debate on image-posting sites, so it doesn't surprise me no one has mentioned yet the notion of creationism and evolution working together.
Assuming that a creator exists, what states that the evolutionary process itself wasn't created? Keeping in mind the strong possibility that the scientific method had not evolved to its current state when those individual books were written, it's likely that the notion of a several-thousand-year-old world was itself based fantasy rather than any semblance of reality, and as such the existence of the early world as depicted in religious texts is as likely as a universe created to evolve.
Knowledge is just belief if it has no factual basis. What "science" assumes is correct is based on observation, which physics is beginning to uncover as a fallacy in itself. Mathematics shows that the physical universe can be perceived as two dimensional; quantum entanglement and recent developments connecting the nature of black holes to something as tiny as a photon suggests that the universe is, in fact, completely dimensionless, and dimensions are only layers of reality perceived at various points of view. We've always assumed the universe has three dimensions, but if that assumption is based on observation, and the perspective used to come to that conclusion itself is unreliable, how much of what science uncovered is also unreliable?
Science is the method. Philosophy is what we build from knowledge derived from the method.