O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Ravi]

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

I would like to see a link to a textbook or school curriculum or state framework that teaches Evolution as "fact". They are pretty much all available on line for you.

Do all Teachers follow the Textbook word for word?...

Obviously it's a Theory, but most Teachers Believe it is Fact and Teach with that Tone... While saying "Theory".

Creationism is also a "Theory", but it won't get the same Tone if it's Mentioned at all.



peace...

It is a fact that you are a moron.

Science teachers teach science and have ethical standards. Sadly, you do not.

 

[jillian]

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

I would like to see a link to a textbook or school curriculum or state framework that teaches Evolution as "fact". They are pretty much all available on line for you.

Do all Teachers follow the Textbook word for word?...

Obviously it's a Theory, but most Teachers Believe it is Fact and Teach with that Tone... While saying "Theory".

Creationism is also a "Theory", but it won't get the same Tone if it's Mentioned at all.



peace...

scientific 'theory' is not the same as your ideas and life theories.

they are tested using the scientific method. they are as close to fact as possible given the knowledge available today. Scientific theories, unlike your own life theories, are amended as more information is available.

it is not just what scientists come up with while contemplating their navels.

 

[mal]

I would like to see a link to a textbook or school curriculum or state framework that teaches Evolution as "fact". They are pretty much all available on line for you.

Do all Teachers follow the Textbook word for word?...

Obviously it's a Theory, but most Teachers Believe it is Fact and Teach with that Tone... While saying "Theory".

Creationism is also a "Theory", but it won't get the same Tone if it's Mentioned at all.



peace...

scientific 'theory' is not the same as your ideas and life theories.

they are tested using the scientific method. they are as close to fact as possible given the knowledge available today. Scientific theories, unlike your own life theories, are amended as more information is available.

it is not just what scientists come up with while contemplating their navels.

Evolution is Taught more as a Fact from the Teacher than it is the "Theory" that it Technically is...

Of course they say "Theory", but it's Certainly not a Challenged Theory in the Classroom.



peace...

 

[drsmith1072]

There has been more threat to Liberty since the DNC gained control.

What a crock and such a lame excuse for the party of NO obstructing so much more than their predecessors. LOL

Got any specifics or are we just supposed to take your word for it??

What has the DNC done to threaten Liberty and can you show how every filibuster has been justified in order to protect Liberty??

Your Statist Progressive Agenda is an Offense to Liberty. It is a direct offense. I don't expect you to understand that, without an intervention. A perfect example of the hypocrisy and arbitrary application of flawed reasoning of the left is now playing out with NPR. Liberty, there is no substitute Smith. We need productive contributors, not Parasites. Big Government is the worst of them. You are killing the host.

LOL so in other words you were asked for specifics and all you have to offer is a lame and desperate attempt to smear me with your baseless vague generalities becuase you have NO specifics. Got it.

However, please enlighten me and others by telling everyone SPECIFICALLY what MY "Statist Progressive Agenda" is and please give examples of me supporting what you are going to contionue to assign to me.

Come on intense, I know you at least think that you can do better than this vague generalized bs so how about you give a try?

 

[drsmith1072]

for anyone that missed the full exchange and thinks O'Donnell was taken out of context, watch the video at this link

Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh | World news | The Guardian

You can THINK whatever you want to but the FACT remains that coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked "that's in the constitution?" showing that she has NO clue.

 

[DiveCon]

for anyone that missed the full exchange and thinks O'Donnell was taken out of context, watch the video at this link

Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh | World news | The Guardian

You can THINK whatever you want to but the FACT remains that coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked "that's in the constitution?" showing that she has NO clue.

and just what do you think i have been saying with nearly every post in this thread

read for comprehension PLEASE

 

[topspin]

after reading what qualifies for food stamps in Ha and NY I'd vote for her in a second.

 

[manifold]

Do all Teachers follow the Textbook word for word?...

When it comes to science class, I'd say pretty much yes. There really isn't a lot of room for "interpretation."

But if you have evidence that suggests there are a lot of rogue science teachers making shit up then I'd like to see it.

Obviously it's a Theory, but most Teachers Believe it is Fact and Teach with that Tone... While saying "Theory".

Your unsubstantiated opinion is hardly a compelling case one way or the other.

Creationism is also a "Theory", but it won't get the same Tone if it's Mentioned at all.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. Evolution is. That is a VERY important distinction.

 

[shintao]

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

I would like to see a link to a textbook or school curriculum or state framework that teaches Evolution as "fact". They are pretty much all available on line for you.

Do all Teachers follow the Textbook word for word?...

Obviously it's a Theory, but most Teachers Believe it is Fact and Teach with that Tone... While saying "Theory".

Creationism is also a "Theory", but it won't get the same Tone if it's Mentioned at all.



peace...

Hmm, why can't god write? Surely, a guy that can scorch the ten commandments (that no one in their right mind will say exists), can do more on parchment with a letter head.

 

[drsmith1072]

no shit moron
why dont you actually read my posts in this thread before you get snarky

Why is that snark? I was just telling you my opinion on the topic. Where does my quote say anything about disagreeing with you? Why are you so nasty all the time?

as if i was saying she WAS

So you try to jump at queen as you accuse her of assuming that you were defending o'donnell even as you assume that queen was disagreeing with you. LOL that's hilarious. LOL

 

[DiveCon]

Why is that snark? I was just telling you my opinion on the topic. Where does my quote say anything about disagreeing with you? Why are you so nasty all the time?

as if i was saying she WAS

So you try to jump at queen as you accuse her of assuming that you were defending o'donnell even as you assume that queen was disagreeing with you. LOL that's hilarious. LOL

just as you did at me a bit ago

 

[LuvtheStars]

O'Donnell's correct.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The establishment clause and religious freedom are related, but different concepts in the 1st amendment.

Lets be real, someone like Christine O'Donnell has very strong religious based "opinions" as well as many other views on which direction the country should be going. The truth of the matter is that most religious fanatics are starting to drop in numbers (thank god - lol) and more and more people are starting to see things from a more realistic point of view...bottom line, i dont think people should have religious views shoved down their throats BUT people should have the right to practice any religion their parents choose for them...i mean they were raised to believe...i mean they eventually choose O'Donnell said that evolution is a theory so is gravitation, and i wonder how that worked out for her....

 

[Liability]

One of the many problems of any "argument" on this topic is that it leads (too often) to the assumption that if I criticize the method of teaching things like the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution, I "must" reject both.

In fact, I happen to be disposed to accept the Big Bang Theory (but I simultaneoulsy accept an initial gaping hole in that theory). I also am persuaded that natural selection DOES explain a great deal of biological evolution on planet Earth.

That said, when a TEXT BOOK on the Big Bang Theory says something like "By measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe as it is now, astronomers can calculate that the big bang was about 12,000 million years ago!”* we can (if we are of a mind to admit it) begin to see a problem in HOW it is taught.

Note it: The big bang WAS 12,000 million years ago. A component of the theory stated AS a "fact." {I saw this criticism of that textbook on some Christian-teaching web-site which I came across via Google, but despite that possible bias, the fact itself is not really subject to dispute. Either the textbook ASSUMES the conclusion as a premise and then uses that conclusion as a part of the text's factual predicate, or it doesn't.}

______________________
* Johnson, K., Physics for You, Nelson Thornes, 2001.

 

[shintao]

I think we can disprove creationism based on no god has ever come forward to accept the blame for the creation. A god would have to first exist, and there is no physical proof one does. When you can hoist him on a Popsicle stick, give me a ring................

 

[drsmith1072]

for anyone that missed the full exchange and thinks O'Donnell was taken out of context, watch the video at this link

Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh | World news | The Guardian

You can THINK whatever you want to but the FACT remains that coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked "that's in the constitution?" showing that she has NO clue.

and just what do you think i have been saying with nearly every post in this thread

read for comprehension PLEASE

I comprehended THIS post just fine and stated my argument in response to THIS post just fine too. I am responding to THIS post not your others so what you may or may not have said in previous posts is of little consequence and has NOTHING to do with my response.

 

[drsmith1072]

as if i was saying she WAS

So you try to jump at queen as you accuse her of assuming that you were defending o'donnell even as you assume that queen was disagreeing with you. LOL that's hilarious. LOL

just as you did at me a bit ago

What does what you think I said based on your previous post have to do with your contradiction?? I am laughing at how you are trying to smear queen for assuming even as you make your own assumptions about what queen said. LOL

So how is my laughing at your hypocrisy, just like your hypocrisy?? Furthermore, how does that excuse your hypocrisy?

 

[DiveCon]

So you try to jump at queen as you accuse her of assuming that you were defending o'donnell even as you assume that queen was disagreeing with you. LOL that's hilarious. LOL

just as you did at me a bit ago

What does what you think I said based on your previous post have to do with your contradiction?? I am laughing at how you are trying to smear queen for assuming even as you make your own assumptions about what queen said. LOL

So how is my laughing at your hypocrisy, just like your hypocrisy?? Furthermore, how does that excuse your hypocrisy?

queen was attempting to argue a point i never made, asswipe, just as you are doing NOW
**** off you pathetic PoS

 

[drsmith1072]

just as you did at me a bit ago

What does what you think I said based on your previous post have to do with your contradiction?? I am laughing at how you are trying to smear queen for assuming even as you make your own assumptions about what queen said. LOL

So how is my laughing at your hypocrisy, just like your hypocrisy?? Furthermore, how does that excuse your hypocrisy?

queen was attempting to argue a point i never made, asswipe, just as you are doing NOW
**** off you pathetic PoS

And yet according to YOU, queen agreed with you that o'donnel wasn't taken out of context so how did she try to argue a point that you never made?? No one is trying to argue a point that you never made. Do you just make shite up as you go along??

This is what YOU said

for anyone that missed the full exchange and thinks O'Donnell was taken out of context, watch the video at this link

apparently trying to point out that she wasn't and then queen responded with.

I watched the whole thing. She wasn't taken out of context. She didn't know what the 1st amendment said. She's clueless.

Apparently you both AGREE. Queen made a statement about o'donnell and at no time did she try to argue that YOU said anything but that didn't stop you from ASSUMING that she did.
Then you try to attack queen claiming she made an assumption that you were defending o'donnell even as you made your own assumptions about what you THINK queen was saying. There in lies your hypocrisy and that is what I am laughing at. LOL

 

[DiveCon]

What does what you think I said based on your previous post have to do with your contradiction?? I am laughing at how you are trying to smear queen for assuming even as you make your own assumptions about what queen said. LOL

So how is my laughing at your hypocrisy, just like your hypocrisy?? Furthermore, how does that excuse your hypocrisy?

queen was attempting to argue a point i never made, asswipe, just as you are doing NOW
**** off you pathetic PoS

And yet according to YOU, queen agreed with you that o'donnel wasn't taken out of context so how did she try to argue a point that you never made?? No one is trying to argue a point that you never made. Do you just make shite up as you go along??

This is what YOU said

for anyone that missed the full exchange and thinks O'Donnell was taken out of context, watch the video at this link

apparently trying to point out that she wasn't and then queen responded with.

I watched the whole thing. She wasn't taken out of context. She didn't know what the 1st amendment said. She's clueless.

Apparently you both AGREE. Queen made a statement about o'donnell and at no time did she try to argue that YOU said anything but that didn't stop you from ASSUMING that she did.
Then you try to attack queen claiming she made an assumption that you were defending o'donnell even as you made your own assumptions about what you THINK queen was saying. There in lies your hypocrisy and that is what I am laughing at. LOL

no hypocrisy from me, asswipe

 

[drsmith1072]

queen was attempting to argue a point i never made, asswipe, just as you are doing NOW
**** off you pathetic PoS

And yet according to YOU, queen agreed with you that o'donnel wasn't taken out of context so how did she try to argue a point that you never made?? No one is trying to argue a point that you never made. Do you just make shite up as you go along??

This is what YOU said



apparently trying to point out that she wasn't and then queen responded with.

I watched the whole thing. She wasn't taken out of context. She didn't know what the 1st amendment said. She's clueless.

Apparently you both AGREE. Queen made a statement about o'donnell and at no time did she try to argue that YOU said anything but that didn't stop you from ASSUMING that she did.
Then you try to attack queen claiming she made an assumption that you were defending o'donnell even as you made your own assumptions about what you THINK queen was saying. There in lies your hypocrisy and that is what I am laughing at. LOL

no hypocrisy from me, asswipe

LOL once again you turn tail and run from the content as you pretend it doesn't exist. typical.
Keep running coward your and her words are right there. You BOTH agreed that o'donnell wasn't taken out of context and queen never mentioned you. So for you to ASSUME that she was somehow assuming that you were defending o'donnel even as you try to attack queen for assuming, when she didn't but you did, IS hypocrisy on your part.

Ignoring the FACTS won't make them go away. LOL