Palin wants creationism taught in schools

[editec]

what aquatic animal could YOU survive in for three days, dude? If you are a diver try to answer this question without the benefit of your scuba tank.

I'm not certain, but if I had no choice I suppose I'd go for three day hiatus in a LUNG fish.

 

[KMAN]

Of course they do, she's just another version of Bush.

You libs are scared to death of Palin...I LOVE IT!!!!!

I guess I can understand... I mean she is for stopping wasteful spending, cutting taxes and giving more power back to the people.... makes sense... LOL

 

[DiveCon]

what aquatic animal could YOU survive in for three days, dude? If you are a diver try to answer this question without the benefit of your scuba tank.

this would only be possible with a supernatual event
and thus not impossible, but improbable with out such an event

 

[Shogun]

this would only be possible with a supernatual event
and thus not impossible, but improbable with out such an event

SUPER natural. Say.. what does that prefix mean? What OTHER SUPER natural events can you give me evidence for? Improbable my ass. Know what else was SUPER natural? The entire Greek pantheon.

 

[DiveCon]

SUPER natural. Say.. what does that prefix mean? What OTHER SUPER natural events can you give me evidence for? Improbable my ass. Know what else was SUPER natural? The entire Greek pantheon.

believe what you wish
but in that, it might be good if you don't denigrate what others believe in the process

 

[Shogun]

believe what you wish
but in that, it might be good if you don't denigrate what others believe in the process

SCIENCE is not merely a matter of what we BELIEVE. So, yes, when some dogma junkie wants to pretend that a man lived in a fish for three days and insists that creation is equal to evolution i'll go ahead and point out how utterly fucking incredulous both claims are.


Physical evidence. If you can whip that shit out to provide support for your mythology then do it. If not. Then sit back and let the science class talk about science without prefixes like SUPER tossed around in order to open the door for theology.

 

[sealybobo]

or a pineapple

Are you a Republican Del?

 

[Paulie]

I'm late here, as usual with religion threads.

But my take on it is, how can you possibly teach something to someone that has no historical or scientific proof of existence or occurance?

Can someone kindly point me to where it can be proven that two people were magically created out of thin air?

A public school at the very least, has no business teaching kids how we came to existence. There is no definitive proof of how it occured, so therefore it does not belong in the cirriculum.

It should be the parents' job to talk to their kids about the many different possibilities, and let them form their own opinion or conclusion how they see fit.

 

[Sunni Man]

A public school at the very least, has no business teaching kids how we came to existence. There is no definitive proof of how it occured, so therefore it does not belong in the cirriculum.

Scientists have absolutely NO idea what gravity is or how it works.

But the existence of gravity is taught in public school.

So what's the difference?

Isn't school for discussing and teaching all kinds of knowledge and theorys?

 

[Paulie]

Scientists have absolutely NO idea what gravity is or how it works.

That's a pretty absolute statement right there. I'd say in the least, it's a bit disingenuous. At least we know it exists.

Isn't school for discussing and teaching all kinds of knowledge and theorys?

Um, no, not when it's a government sanctioned public school and it deals with religion, in the United States of America. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Those kinds of discussions are for the household.

 

[Sunni Man]

Scientists can't explain gravity or God.

 

[del]

Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School | Wired Science from Wired.com

kirky/corky/ chrissie;
i can see where you'd feel threatened by gradeschoolers with the ability to intelligently debate a position. you'd be getting your ass handed to you on a perpetual basis by 9 year olds.

 

[Luissa]

Scientists can't explain gravity or God.

Of course scienctists can't explain God, there is no solid proof that he exsists that is why it is called faith. And we have seperation between church and state for a reason because even though 78% of Americans are christian that is not 100%. LIke someone else said on here, it is something that should be discussed at hom and church.

 

[Abelian Sea]

Scientists can't explain gravity or God.

Science's essential utility lies not in explaining things but in describing them.

An engineer, qua engineer, has no particular reason to care what gravity really is and why it really works. All he needs to know is what effect gravity will have, and that is something on which science has pretty firm grasp.

Evolutionary theory is current science's best attempt to describe how species developed. As such it is appropriate material to cover in a science class. That the description may be less accurate than, say, Newton's laws of motion, can be easily inferred from the relative paucity of evidence. Still, based on what physical evidence we have, modern evolutionary theory is where the scientific method has led the consensus, and so it is fit meat for science classes.

God, being quite unpredictable, not directly observable, and notoriously difficult to physically trace, is currently far out of science's league. Since even the hypothesis that God does/doesn't exist at all is practically untestable, there is basically nothing to be said about Him in the context of science or, by extension, a science class. Stories of His exploits are similarly inappropriate for science classes.

 

[Shogun]

Scientists have absolutely NO idea what gravity is or how it works.

But the existence of gravity is taught in public school.

So what's the difference?

Isn't school for discussing and teaching all kinds of knowledge and theorys?

The difference is that the is a PHYSICAL evidence of gravity. Go drop something and see if the prefix META or SUPER come to mind. And no, SCIENCE class is for teaching SCIENCE.

 

[Shogun]

Scientists can't explain gravity or God.

There is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of gravity. Show me the same of god.

 

[jillian]

kirky/corky/ chrissie;
i can see where you'd feel threatened by gradeschoolers with the ability to intelligently debate a position. you'd be getting your ass handed to you on a perpetual basis by 9 year olds.

you mean gradeschoolers for whom the difference between science and theology is intentionally blurred?

creationism isn't science.

science isn't theology.

each belongs in its own class and neither should be mistake for the other.

 

[Luissa]

you mean gradeschoolers for whom the difference between science and theology is intentionally blurred?

creationism isn't science.

science isn't theology.

each belongs in its own class and neither should be mistake for the other.

I agree and when they teach it, they should teach them about every religion!

 

[Girlcanfish]

What will she offer as proof that creationism is anything more than a fantasy?

WOW!~ I am going to pray for you!

 

[-Cp]

I disagree. Only creationism should be taught. I think we should strive to dumb down our population...we could become like a backward muslim nation or something.

Uh.. yeah.. cause somehow it's more dumb to think we were Intelligently designed rather than believe the misconception we came from nothing?

WoW.....