Don't roll them. Dump them into one of those counting machines at the super market and get a gift card. Normally at least amazon is available, often the grocery store the machine is in as well.
How can you use something very old to prove the earth is not very old?
All of the arguments you linked to are utter flights of fancy. They toss out any rational assumptions to get to those conclusions. You might as well toss out all the facts at that point. In fact they do with the argument about naturalism, if you are willing to replace rational though with "God did it" I am afraid we cannot continue this discussion. For the same reason as if I suggested magic pixies or unicorns created the universe as it is 5 minutes ago. I will however try.
The concerete example is either red shift proves that or we might as well toss out all known science and replace it with "God did it".
Instead of attempting to bend facts to make your beliefs true, why not simply see where the facts take you without any such assumptions?
Your over reaching arguments are quite ridiculous.
The reason for the USA not to take EU human rights pronouncements seriously is because as much as I love my country it does continue to violate basic human rights of many of it citizens.
Why would you not be allowed to teach children the truth? Do you also hide death from them? Doing that seems even worse than failing to teach them about science.
Setting children up for failure to appease your own mythology is abuse. I cannot come up with another term for it. While it is milder in many ways that other forms it has just as lasting an impact. Others might go even further and claim that teaching children myths as reality is abuse.
I believe depriving children of an education is abuse. If you disagree that is fine, but it is an odd position for a teacher to hold.
I disagree. You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
You may feel free to teach them about evolution and your own view that a magic man in the sky created everything. That would be silly, but not abusive.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that would actually hurt someone.
There is no point in making dollar coins and notes, unless you just want to waste money.
The same way you carry quarters. Whatever you are using for that will work.
Why would we need to admit how little $1 is worth. Just go to the store and look around. Not like it has been worth much for a long time.
Don't roll them. Dump them into one of those counting machines at the super market and get a gift card. Normally at least amazon is available, often the grocery store the machine is in as well.
I use them. Way easier to keep a bunch in the ash tray to pay tolls with.
People would use them if they stopped printing dollar bills.
You insert them in the slot.
Is this really that hard to figure out?
We should abolish all change below the dime, and turn the one and five into coins.
So drop all the theories look at just the evidence. Assuming you had never heard of a God or of an old Earth, what conclusion would you come to?
There is no need to disprove magic pixies, without evidence for them we can ignore them. Like we do with unicorns and leprechauns.
It will not be faster. Moving a controller many inches is not going to be faster than me moving the mouse a half inch or so.
How can you use something very old to prove the earth is not very old?
All of the arguments you linked to are utter flights of fancy. They toss out any rational assumptions to get to those conclusions. You might as well toss out all the facts at that point. In fact they do with the argument about naturalism, if you are willing to replace rational though with "God did it" I am afraid we cannot continue this discussion. For the same reason as if I suggested magic pixies or unicorns created the universe as it is 5 minutes ago. I will however try.
The concerete example is either red shift proves that or we might as well toss out all known science and replace it with "God did it".
Instead of attempting to bend facts to make your beliefs true, why not simply see where the facts take you without any such assumptions?
No, all of those are testable.
To be a theory they merely have to be testable in some way, not in an easy way or a way we can do that now.
Your yoda like english is pretty bad.
Your over reaching arguments are quite ridiculous.
The reason for the USA not to take EU human rights pronouncements seriously is because as much as I love my country it does continue to violate basic human rights of many of it citizens.
Why would you not be allowed to teach children the truth? Do you also hide death from them? Doing that seems even worse than failing to teach them about science.
To protect the child?
Those parents should also be required to teach him to read, write, do math even if they think algebra is the work of evil mooslims.
Eugenics was not a fact, it was a practice. An applied science, essentially animal husbandry applied to humans.
I am not talking about something popular with the scientific community I am speaking of something rather basic like the shape of the earth.
I am not suggesting proper anything, merely a standard for curriculum.
So being taught an important scientific theory is out in the same way that being taught an important book you don't like is out?
I never mentioned stealing their kids. I merely stated we have already taken that step for other kinds of abuse.
I am not a Brazilian tax payer, but I would hope some education is at least available to those kids as they may well need it.
Setting children up for failure to appease your own mythology is abuse. I cannot come up with another term for it. While it is milder in many ways that other forms it has just as lasting an impact. Others might go even further and claim that teaching children myths as reality is abuse.
I believe depriving children of an education is abuse. If you disagree that is fine, but it is an odd position for a teacher to hold.
There are 12 years of basic education, surely 30 minutes can be devoted to evolution.
For the record I do believe children should have to learn about Newton's laws of motion.
Why?
Eugenics should be taught in a history class. To be unaware of something that shaped so much 20th century history would be insane.
That sounds fit for a philosophy class then, not science.
So demanding that something be taught is too much?
No one is suggesting the removal of any other topic only the minimum inclusion of one.
Should we allow people to never teach their children to read? What about Math? or is it just science you feel this way about?
Could you explain your seemly contradictory first could sentences?
My understanding is if you accept the facts than you cannot hold to a belief in a young earth. How do you reconcile those two?
There are no supernatural theories. They cannot exist as they are not testable and therefore not theories.
If you want to say myth or guess, just say so.
I disagree.
You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
You may feel free to teach them about evolution and your own view that a magic man in the sky created everything. That would be silly, but not abusive.
Your two statements are in conflict.
Unless you plan to destroy more than 1 phone per year you plainly state it is more expensive to insure than replace.
With all money comes control. If the religious nutters want to fund a school they will demand it teaches to their liking.
What if I did it all in a time travel accident?
Your claim is untestable therefore does not belong in a science class room.
Why is it the Christian God and Devil are so hard to tell apart when judged by the actions their believers ascribe to them?