Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[Si modo]

And the THEORY of evolution is taught in science class. Is it proven science??? Does it belong in a science classroom??

Yes, evolution is proven science. The theory of gravity is proven science.

What makes them both theories is that the explanations for the exact scientific mechanisms that lead to both gravity and evolution are not fully understood. We're still trying, for example, to prove the existence of graviton.

But the lack of proof of a Graviton doesn't mean that things don't fall when you drop them.

I wonder when Churches are going to allow this sort of debate?

You don't know much about the Vatican, then.

 

[SniperFire]

And the THEORY of evolution is taught in science class. Is it proven science??? Does it belong in a science classroom??

Yes, evolution is proven science. The theory of gravity is proven science.

What makes them both theories is that the explanations for the exact scientific mechanisms that lead to both gravity and evolution are not fully understood. We're still trying, for example, to prove the existence of graviton.

But the lack of proof of a Graviton doesn't mean that things don't fall when you drop them.

I wonder when Churches are going to allow this sort of debate?

John Wycliffe, Oxford University, circa 1340.

 

[8537]

I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.

And if you don't allow me to teach it, you're flat-earther. 'cuz kids should be allowed to debate and discuss these things instead of learnin' readin, writing and math.

 

[Sallow]

Yes, evolution is proven science. The theory of gravity is proven science.

What makes them both theories is that the explanations for the exact scientific mechanisms that lead to both gravity and evolution are not fully understood. We're still trying, for example, to prove the existence of graviton.

But the lack of proof of a Graviton doesn't mean that things don't fall when you drop them.

I wonder when Churches are going to allow this sort of debate?

You don't know much about the Vatican, then.

Nice place to visit..but I wouldn't want to live there.

How did you like it when you went?

 

[Si modo]

I wonder when Churches are going to allow this sort of debate?

You don't know much about the Vatican, then.

Nice place to visit..but I wouldn't want to live there.

How did you like it when you went?

Never been. Why?

 

[SniperFire]

I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.


Again, why are you so afraid?

 

[Seawytch]

That is your opinion. Not shared by the vast, vast majority of Americans.

The vast, vast majority of Americans? Really? Teach creationism in philosophy class, not science class.

The vast, vast majority of Americans aren't knuckle dragging anti-science people. The vast, vast majority of Americans recognize fable when they see it.

So I understand you and SeaWytch are saying it's OK to teach creationism as long as it's not in science class.

It depends on how it is being taught. You have to be careful because there IS a constitutional aspect. You cannot teach religion, but you can teach about religion.

I believe that religion should be taught about in schools. We are woefully ignorant about religion in this country as a recent Pew survey found.

• The average respondent answered 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions correctly.
• Just 2% of those surveyed answered 29 or more questions correctly (including just eight individuals, out of 3,412 surveyed, who scored a perfect 32);
• 3% correctly answered fewer than five questions (including six respondents who answered no questions correctly).
• Only 47% of the respondents were able to accurately identify the Dalai Lama as Buddhist
• Only 54% could identify the Quaran as the Muslim holy book.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

ROTFL I'm sorry but "magic" isn't science its fantasy

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is indeed magic. Yet it is the basis of evolution theory.

Why are you so afraid of having young minds consider all of the theories?

I think most that do not believe in Creationism are very afraid that THEIR children just MIGHT learn something, and they MAY just decide to believe in that instead of that we came from monkeys! They want their kids to only learn about things that THEY want them to learn and brainwash them into believing there's no other possible answer.

A lot-of-it has to do with "conservatives'" sheer-Dread of DEATH!!!


They're thinkin'....if they don't buy any-and-ALL Judeo-Christian Absolutes....they're not gonna get their "Golden Ticket" thru the PEARLY GATES!!!....and, they surely don't need any smart-mouthed kids, in the household, asking questions and sowing doubt!!!!

After all.....if (even) ONE Absolute is disproven.....ya' gotta question all the OTHERS!!!

....And, "conservatives" are having problems, enough.....just getting thru the day.....​

 

[SniperFire]

I believe everybody scrolls right past the Shaman troll because he insists on using big letters as a surrogate for his small dick.


But that is just a working theory. Discuss!

 

[Si modo]

I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.


Again, why are you so afraid?

Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.

Teach about religion, too.

But, never teach religion and never teach ID. Teach about them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sure it is.

No, it's not. You've spent too much time at the ID school of science.

Why should a flat-earther such as yourself be permitted to frame parameters of debate based on your fear of losing your belief in mythology?

^See, this is how you know you're debating a fucking moron.

I see. You want to pre-define the parameters of debate to exclude examination of tenets you accept on pure faith, as having them questioned would rock your world.

Gee......almost like lookin'-in-a-mirror, huh??


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj16X3xlnsg]George Carlin Religion Is Bullshit - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[konradv]

I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.

Again, why are you so afraid?

Because the schools have enough problems without teaching something in science class that isn't science.

 

[SniperFire]

I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.


Again, why are you so afraid?

Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.

That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?

 

[jillian]

A victory for freedom of thought and individualism in the school, and a stinging defeat for the secular mind police. We enjoy freedom of speech, not freedom from speech you find disagreeable.



'NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A bill that encourages classroom debate over evolution will become law in Tennessee, despite a veto campaign mounted by scientists and civil libertarians who say it will reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state's schoolchildren.'

Tenn. governor allows evolution debate bill to become law

Imagine the lively debate and opening of minds which can now flourish in the previously flat-earther science rooms across Tenn, and hopefully the rest of America!

if you want to "debate" evolution, do it in church or during a comparative religion class.

it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.

no debate. *shrug*

 

[SniperFire]

I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.

Again, why are you so afraid?

Because the schools have enough problems without teaching something in science class that isn't science.

Intelligent Design is the ultimate science.

You may disagree.

Let the young minds discuss it and stop being such a flat-earther.

 

[konradv]

I believe everybody scrolls right past the Shaman troll because he insists on using big letters as a surrogate for his small dick.

But that is just a working theory. Discuss!

One troll calling out another. What's to discuss?

 

[konradv]

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.

Again, why are you so afraid?

Because the schools have enough problems without teaching something in science class that isn't science.

Intelligent Design is the ultimate science.

You may disagree.

Let the young minds discuss it and stop being such a flat-earther.

Let them discuss it in social studies. If something isn't testable, it isn't science.

 

[konradv]

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.

Again, why are you so afraid?

Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.

That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?

What force? How do you measure it? If you can't, it isn't science.

 

[Si modo]

Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.

Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.


Again, why are you so afraid?

Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.

That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?

Not really debatable, except for one round, maybe.

For a theory to be a scientific theory, BY DEFINITION, it must be a falsifiable theory. That means that there must exist a data set, either real or hypothetical, that can falsify the theory.

ID is basically the "God did it theory". There is NO data set that can prove that wrong (God can do everything and anything, according to believers), except the data set that a god does not exist. That in and of itself, makes the theory invalid, though, not false.

Great subject matter for a critical thinking or philosophy class, though.

 

[Cowman]

A victory for freedom of thought and individualism in the school, and a stinging defeat for the secular mind police. We enjoy freedom of speech, not freedom from speech you find disagreeable.



'NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A bill that encourages classroom debate over evolution will become law in Tennessee, despite a veto campaign mounted by scientists and civil libertarians who say it will reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state's schoolchildren.'

Tenn. governor allows evolution debate bill to become law

Imagine the lively debate and opening of minds which can now flourish in the previously flat-earther science rooms across Tenn, and hopefully the rest of America!

What's next, astrology and alchemy classes?

I think students should freely be able to debate the merits of astrology and alchemy.

What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid of retards. I'm afraid of retards making our country even less able to compete in the world market of ideas. Debate the merits of astrology and alchemy... Jesus Mother Fucking Christ on Cross.