Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans

[DiveCon]

(R-handjob) = Republican handjob....... but I'm willing to bet there is a town called Handjob in Texas.

ah, ok, so it wasnt like you were trying to just report on the story
i'll make note not to ever take you serious

 

[Jay Canuck]

yes....I can see that you are a very serious dude.

 

[DiveCon]

yes....I can see that you are a very serious dude.

no, not always, but then i dont choose to editorialize in the middle of a news report

kerry on dude

 

[Jay Canuck]

yes....I can see that you are a very serious dude.

no, not always, but then i dont choose to editorialize in the middle of a news report

kerry on dude

thanx for your permission to continue!....and because you said you weren't serious all the time should I never take you seriously or will you just let me know when you are being serious?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Link


Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. “Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.”

Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). “You can’t effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this “contentious fight.” As long as the teachers avoid “engaging in religious indoctrination,” these classes should benefit everyone.

That’s one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers haven’t been trained to teach “such an explosive topic,” and Texas didn’t provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will “devolve” into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-alls—and “dozens of inevitable lawsuits” will follow.



Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?

Every state university in the country, and most of the others, teaches classes in the Bible as literature, for precisely the purpose of acquainting students with its stories, themes, and words so that they can understand it as background to Western culture. Are you suggesting that our universities are unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for doing so?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's cut to the chase.

ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.

Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Same for evolution.

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Same for evolution.

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You know you can't, kitten, so take the nonsense elsewhere. For a Christian to bear false witness is a sin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You know you can't, kitten, so take the nonsense elsewhere. For a Christian to bear false witness is a sin.

Actually, I can, puppy, and I notice that your approach is to tell me to shut up and try to dismiss me, not to challenge me and debate me. What're you afraid of? Is it my religion or the fact that I'm a woman that's got you running like a scalded bitch? Which one has you scared that your dick is going to shrink even further?

 

[rdean]

Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Same for evolution.

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You can't name one respected biologist that would agree with you. Not one. Your arguments are even more lame than Behe's Theory of "Irreducible Complexity".

 

[Cecilie1200]

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You can't name one respected biologist that would agree with you. Not one.

Ah, goal post-moving. One of the classic signs of a debater in deep shit.

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You can't name one respected biologist that would agree with you. Not one.

Ah, goal post-moving. One of the classic signs of a debater in deep shit.

and whoever you might name they would discount
works perfect for dishonest assholes like him

 

[xsited1]

Someone sent this to me via email. Interesting take:

Some reasons why scientists adopt liberal politicial views:

1. They believe that all problems are fixable with the right data, research effort and funding.
   
2. Only massive public funding, without "strings" -- like performance standards -- will provide the right answers .... in time. Any money spent on higher education is well spent no matter the quality of the returns.
   
3. Average people have nothing to offer in life experience, publications in journals or wisdom that gives them a place at the table when the big issues are being resolved.
   
4. Being out of touch massively with developments outside their narrow field of expertise causes them no qualms in prescribing nostrums for the rest of us.

In short, most of them tend to fit perfectly into the liberal powerbroker establishment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't name one respected biologist that would agree with you. Not one.

Ah, goal post-moving. One of the classic signs of a debater in deep shit.

and whoever you might name they would discount
works perfect for dishonest assholes like him

Exactly. "We only respect people who agree with us, therefore you can't name anyone respected who disagrees with us, therefore we are correct because everyone respected agrees with us, because if they didn't, we wouldn't respect them."

It's circular thinking, insofar as you can consider it thinking at all.

 

[rdean]

Ah, goal post-moving. One of the classic signs of a debater in deep shit.

and whoever you might name they would discount
works perfect for dishonest assholes like him

Exactly. "We only respect people who agree with us, therefore you can't name anyone respected who disagrees with us, therefore we are correct because everyone respected agrees with us, because if they didn't, we wouldn't respect them."

It's circular thinking, insofar as you can consider it thinking at all.

The problem with you is that you simply don't understand the "Scientific method".

Real scientists start off with observation, collecting data and then making their first hypothesis. The goal of every credible scientist is to disprove the work of other scientists. They welcome it. They want to be proven wrong. And after everyone checks and double check AND if it stands up the scrutiny, then, it's "considered", but only considered.

THERE IS NO SCRUTINY OF MAGICAL CREATION THAT ISN'T A LAUGH.

Scientists who think like you already know what to expect. They read it in a book written by primitive desert people who didn't know to wash after wiping. If they believe that "data" supports their position, they keep it. If it doesn't support it, they ignore. The difference is, they already know what they are looking for. Somebody told them.

 

[geauxtohell]

You can't blame biologists for being somewhat opposed to conservatism.

They saw "intelligent design" as a full fledged assault on their profession.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You know you can't, kitten, so take the nonsense elsewhere. For a Christian to bear false witness is a sin.

Actually, I can, puppy, and I notice that your approach is to tell me to shut up and try to dismiss me, not to challenge me and debate me. What're you afraid of? Is it my religion or the fact that I'm a woman that's got you running like a scalded bitch? Which one has you scared that your dick is going to shrink even further?

[Jake grins and sips some coffee, knowing that he has burned the kitten where she sits. He told her she bore 'false witness', not to shut up. She has soiled her religion, and her sex is immaterial. All of the red herrings she has dragged have died and are rotten. Like an alabaster tomb, she shineth on the outside and stinketh on the inside -- revealed as a Christian hypocrite. Jake knows he does not need to return to this thread.]

 

[rdean]

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

You know you can't, kitten, so take the nonsense elsewhere. For a Christian to bear false witness is a sin.

Actually, I can, puppy, and I notice that your approach is to tell me to shut up and try to dismiss me, not to challenge me and debate me. What're you afraid of? Is it my religion or the fact that I'm a woman that's got you running like a scalded bitch? Which one has you scared that your dick is going to shrink even further?

Running like a scalded bitch?
Your dick is going to shrink even further?

You might consider putting that creative mind to something good and stay away from the nasty and violent imagry.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Same for evolution.

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

The problem with intelligent design or creationism or whatever is not whether or not they are true. That can never be proven.

The problem is that they rely on the existence of a supernatural power. In doing so, they automatically remove themselves from the scientfic method, which makes no provisions for entities outside of the natural world.

If these things are to be taught, they can't be taught in the science classroom, as they aren't science. I suppose you could squeeze them into a philosophy class.

That was the finding of the court in Dover as well.

 

[rdean]

The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.

Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree. Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.

The problem with intelligent design or creationism or whatever is not whether or not they are true. That can never be proven.

The problem is that they rely on the existence of a supernatural power. In doing so, they automatically remove themselves from the scientfic method, which makes no provisions for entities outside of the natural world.

If these things are to be taught, they can't be taught in the science classroom, as they aren't science. I suppose you could squeeze them into a philosophy class.

That was the finding of the court in Dover as well.

"That can never be proven."

As soon as you made that one statement, you lost the right. They're argument is if you can imagine the occult, it must be true and real.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Link


Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. “Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.”

Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). “You can’t effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this “contentious fight.” As long as the teachers avoid “engaging in religious indoctrination,” these classes should benefit everyone.

That’s one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers haven’t been trained to teach “such an explosive topic,” and Texas didn’t provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will “devolve” into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-alls—and “dozens of inevitable lawsuits” will follow.



Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?

Every state university in the country, and most of the others, teaches classes in the Bible as literature, for precisely the purpose of acquainting students with its stories, themes, and words so that they can understand it as background to Western culture. Are you suggesting that our universities are unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for doing so?

what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.”