14 May 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672So let me ask you, If you was President of the USA, would you let someone who said who said he wants Israel and USA wiped off the globe, have WMD's?
Captain Bejnood, I think the argument you're making is that people are pretty much the same all over. I more or less agree with you. I think that in your country, I could probably walk down the street and be very well received. And you and your family have found, I'm sure, the U.S. to be a most inviting and hospitable place, on balance. You're right ...[text shortened]... utterly avoidable conflict. Let's hope that someone on either side regains their sanity.
That's a "yes" or "no" question.
If you say no, then you must firmly believe that, and do all within your power, to not let that happen, even if last resort is a military strike.
President Bush decided "no", If you disagree with him, then that's to bad, there will be disagreements with any decision a President makes.
The difference between Iran and America, is that Iran wants to wipe a country off the map because of religious reasons, whereas America wants to protect themselves from someone who wants to blow us up. Why is it you liberals think that BOTH governments are both in the bad? President Bush has a strong faith, but the government is not controlled by it, .
You think we set a double standard? of course we do. As you said, the Iran people don't want to go to war, yet they have no say in the matter. Its not a Democratic country. (Unlike the USA btw which takes by far many more people then one to decide to go to war.) whereas I wouldn't mind if a country like Iraq had WMD's now that Iraq is a free country controlled by the people.
14 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseThe last I checked, The Theory of Evolution, is still a theory. As with ID is still a theory. You make it out as if it was fact.
See the problem there is the word 'Story'. Evolution is an attempt to take all the scientific evidence gleened by centuries of very hard working and very intelligent scientists putting together the best idea of how things are changing in life on earth. This is not a creation story. This is a theory of how things changed AFTER creation, however that came abo ...[text shortened]... up to the task at this point in time of making confirmable theories about the genesis of life.
ID Also has very intelligent scientist, and they think of an evolutionist, as you do a Pseudoscientist.
The difference is that most evolutionist think that your little theory is correct, and therefore the goverment should ban ID from schools. I dont see many people wanting to ban Evolution.
It just sounds commie to me, to want laws that schools are required ban all teachings except what they THINK is correct
14 May 06
Originally posted by General PutzerIf the US is getting closer andcloser to being a christain theocracy all the time - the president, for example, supports the teaching of ID in science classes. He's always banging on and on about Christian family values. Seriously give the guy another term and you'd all be prayiing in schools again.
Uhhhh....dude.....there aren't any Christian theocracies....western governments believe in seperation of church and state, so your statement is kind of asinine.
And Bush never said "God told me to invade Iraq" , you just made that up.
As you the "God told me to invade Iraq", I think you'll find it's true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece
Try looking these things up and you won't make such a fool of yourself in the future.
14 May 06
Originally posted by flyUnityID is not a theory. It's not even science, being completely untestable, and relying on the supernatural (which of course cannot be proven or disproven).
The last I checked, The Theory of Evolution, is still a theory. As with ID is still a theory. You make it out as if it was fact.
ID Also has very intelligent scientist, and they think of an evolutionist, as you do a Pseudoscientist.
The difference is that most evolutionist think that your little theory is correct, and therefore the goverment should b ...[text shortened]... o me, to want laws that schools are required ban all teachings except what they THINK is correct
Teach ID in a religion class, fine. But not a science class - it has no scientific merit whatsoever.
14 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI appreciated how my science teacher dealt with this problem. He stated that some people believe in ID, that there is a God who created the earth. He then said that science is trying to prove the theory of Evolution, and that it is a touchy subject to most people.
ID is not a theory. It's not even science, being completely untestable, and relying on the supernatural (which of course cannot be proven or disproven).
Teach ID in a religion class, fine. But not a science class - it has no scientific merit whatsoever.
Ommiting one or the other is insulting to our students. The "purity" of 7th grade science isn't important enough to insult our students. Anyone who believes that ID shouldn't be mentioned in a science class is a fanatical moron. Anyone who believes that ID is the ONLY thing that should be taught is a fanatical moron as well.
14 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat you say here is odd in my opinion. I have serious doubts that Muslims are taking over our country and that people actually think that the state should be run by the church. Religious fanatics do not qualify as a majority opinion.
Hate to be the one to burst your bubble but who do you think elected the bushwhacker? There are major forces all around the world trying to kill that idea of separation of church and state and its starting to make inroads here in the US as well. We all know what happens to most countries when the Muslims take over, the religion IS the state.
But its happen ...[text shortened]... on the shoulders of GB and his fundy cronies.
But I guess you agree with everything he says.
I think when a religious fanatic fights against the teaching of evolution in schools it is more out of ignorance than some grand "control" scheme. Believing that they are out to get control over things shows as much ignorance as they show.
When you are done looking down on others, especially people who don't believe like you do (for example, people from a religion that doesn't believe in evolution), perhaps you will realize that YOU are in fact the one who believes the exact same as the rest of the world and THEY are the unique ones. There aren't many out there, so it can't be some sort of conspiracy to control or to take over.
Silly kid
15 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusAh, yes, giving false impressions of reality to students - the true way of the educator.
I appreciated how my science teacher dealt with this problem. He stated that some people believe in ID, that there is a God who created the earth. He then said that science is trying to prove the theory of Evolution, and that it is a touchy subject to most people.
Ommiting one or the other is insulting to our students. The "purity" of 7th grade science ...[text shortened]... e who believes that ID is the ONLY thing that should be taught is a fanatical moron as well.
However, I'd happily run a course on ID at university level, in order to show by example what science is and what science is not.
As I say, no problem with ID being taught in a religion class (in a fair manner), but I don't believe it should be taught in a science class, unless we also teach the Maori creation legend, the Aboriginal one, and every other creation legend in the world, which is ludicrous, pure and simple.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusI wasn't saying Islam is taking over the US or even trying to take over here. I am saying there are forces in CHRISTIANITY trying to kill the concept of separation of church and state. They would not hesitate to make the US a theocracy, a Christianized version of Iran if they had the power. THEY being the likes of Pat Roberston and the slimey bottom feeders controlling GB.
What you say here is odd in my opinion. I have serious doubts that Muslims are taking over our country and that people actually think that the state should be run by the church. Religious fanatics do not qualify as a majority opinion.
I think when a religious fanatic fights against the teaching of evolution in schools it is more out of ignorance than som ...[text shortened]... out there, so it can't be some sort of conspiracy to control or to take over.
Silly kid
15 May 06
Originally posted by flyUnityEr, would you want corrupted, big business lapdog who believes in Apocalypse as the so called president? 😉
So let me ask you, If you was President of the USA, would you let someone who said who said he wants Israel and USA wiped off the globe, have WMD's?
..cut...
whereas I wouldn't mind if a country like Iraq had WMD's now that Iraq is a free country controlled by the people.
Ah, the free Iraq controlled by _the_ people! 😀
15 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusThere is a big problem with your conception as to what is science and what is theory and what is a story. Evolution has the weight of over a hundred years of piece by piece solving of puzzles seeing where part A fits with part B. You make a basic assumption, try to fit the data to your assumption and if the two seem to match, you write a paper professing your data and your assumptions are a match. The thing that separates science from religion here is your paper you just published is subject to the review and scrutiny by other scientists who will attempt to tear it apart because maybe they have a differant idea of what is reality. That kind of thing happens time and time again and other people will weigh in on one side or the other and a consensus will eventually appear that says, hey, he was right, his insight is correct, it has been verified by differant means by several other teams working on the same problems. Thats when a theory starts not being a theory but accepted fact. Evolution has gone through that process a thousand times over the last hundred years and there has been no smoking gun evidence show stopping counter theories to kill evolution as a viable account of how changes have happened to life on earth. You need to understand this point very clearly to see the differance between evolutionary theory and ID. The 'science' of ID has no such review and counter arguments in the ID community itself. ID'ers common goal is to kill evolution theory any way they can. There is no internal peer reviewed counters amongst ID'ers themselves as opposed to the internal reviews done by evolutionary sciences. Another BIG problem in the battle between evolution and ID is evolution has NEVER said it knows how life started, only how it is changing. ID is first and foremost a story of how life BEGAN and that is where they should keep it. Evolutionists make NO claim they know how life started and they make no bones about it. ID'ers have no real interest in peer reviewed science because there is no science in ID, only statements that cannot be proven or disproven. Don't you see the differance? You can't present ID as science because it is in the realm of folklore and religion and thats the proper domain for it.
I appreciated how my science teacher dealt with this problem. He stated that some people believe in ID, that there is a God who created the earth. He then said that science is trying to prove the theory of Evolution, and that it is a touchy subject to most people.
Ommiting one or the other is insulting to our students. The "purity" of 7th grade science ...[text shortened]... e who believes that ID is the ONLY thing that should be taught is a fanatical moron as well.
15 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAlthough I think your class would be interesting, I don't agree with you on what a science class should be. Just because science class uses the name "science" doesn't mean that it should only teach what scientists deem acceptable. Not only does normal core curriculum in our classes, including science class, completely stink, we would do a disservice to education to allow only one subject to be taught per period per teacher. In other words, there are many things that our teachers should and could teach that have nothing to do with core curriculum or even the name of the class.
Ah, yes, giving false impressions of reality to students - the true way of the educator.
However, I'd happily run a course on ID at university level, in order to show by example what science is and what science is not.
As I say, no problem with ID being taught in a religion class (in a fair manner), but I don't believe it should be taught in a ...[text shortened]... iginal one, and every other creation legend in the world, which is ludicrous, pure and simple.
About the giving of false impressions of reality to students, I think it is insulting to a student to think that they can't decide for themselves what to believe and instead are subject completely to what their teachers say.Besides that, I know of no high school that teaches a religion class.
I also think it would be of great educational worth to teach the maori, aboriginal and other creationism myths. Who knows, the students might actually learn tolerance (though I could see the same lessons being taught in a social studies class instead of a science class).