|
|
It's pretty simple, learn science in science cl****, and Learn religion at church. I don't see the problem here, it's a pretty simple ****ing concept.
Science is based on facts and evidence, religion is based on faith, because there is no facts or evidence with religion, and has no place in a science classroom.
3 users like JDShellnutt's post: OnlyOneOklahoma, OUMallen, URNotserious
It should be that simple, but okie and Sancho only believe in the Constitution when it agrees with their personal and religious mores.Originally Posted by JDShellnutt
That, plus they would say the sky isn't blue just to contradict me. They hump my leg so hard that they don't care about ridiculous positions or how stupid they look. They just have to argue with anything I say.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
Hey Einstein...still think America is saving its oil? Even Comedy Central could have a good laugh with that one.
I know dealing with multiple topics is impossible for you but I'll narrow it down for you. I have only expressed with JOY that the bill appears to allow open debate on APG so that an unthinking simpleton like yourself would actually realize that the facts are not all in, that there are holes in the theory, that global warming may be naturally occurring if it is occurring at all.
So you are worried that man made global warming issue going to be turned into a God warming issue? Heh, heh...do you sleep with a night light?
What part of the bill contradicts that?
LOL Mallen thinks this is a personal or religious issue to me.It should be that simple, but okie and Sancho only believe in the Constitution when it agrees with their personal and religious mores.
That, plus they would say the sky isn't blue just to contradict me. They hump my leg so hard that they don't care about ridiculous positions or how stupid they look. They just have to argue with anything I say.
Your lack of understanding your own positions is your own worst enemy.It should be that simple, but okie and Sancho only believe in the Constitution when it agrees with their personal and religious mores.
That, plus they would say the sky isn't blue just to contradict me. They hump my leg so hard that they don't care about ridiculous positions or how stupid they look. They just have to argue with anything I say.
You have a persecution complex. Seek help while you are still young.
Hey, see, you and I can agree with each other.
So you think APG is a fact beyond debate?
I doubt anyone on this thread disagrees with his him on this... the disagreement is that you and Mallen are claiming (lying) that the bill in question does something that it doesnt do.
I am still waiting for either of you to respond to this:
I want OOO or Mallen to cite the specific part of this bill that would prevent a teacher from penalizing a student for basing a paper on global warming on the following:
"Because Al Gore said so"
Or for basing a paper on evolution on the following:
"Because, Darwin and ****. You know, nucleotides or whatever."
Cite the specific language in the bill that would allow that to happen.
Mostly he also fails to understand his opponents position. That is why he gets so frustrated any time someone disagrees with him.
Only you would think that schoolchildren should be eschewing our best science and coat it with "debate". You dense, dense monkey, you can't even see what the point of the bill is, and you're just prattling on and on and on...we're getting laughed at as a state, and you don't even get it. It's just sad, really. But I maintain hope that, since you aren't a legislator or in the OK dept. of education, your ignorance can't further hurt our children's education experience.
It certainly isn't a Constitutional issue in your mind, as it should be.
How did the primordial soup turn into a living thing?
Are you now arguing that the bill is unconstitutional?
Agreed.
It is trying to stay constitutional on its face as much as possible while injecting creationism and other non-science based ideologies into schools. (You're like the ONLY person that doesn't get that, BTW.)
That's a large reason why other people are saying that the bill appears to be largely pointless. They have to water down the language so much for it to not be offensive to notions of Constitutionality that it ends up being mushy.
But, yes, it is a Constitutional issue, but more it's an education issue, IMO.
So the bill is Constitutional then?
injecting creationism and other non-science based ideologies into schools. (You're like the ONLY person that doesn't get that, BTW.)
You have failed repeatedly to prove this ****ertion is true. I am willing to give you another chance though.
Cite the specific language in the bill that would allow that.
Sancho, I've told you this before and I'll say it again: you just let the board know any time you come up with ANYTHING that ANY of us can't understand.
What others are saying:
1. The language in this bill doesn't do anything effectively, so stop worrying about it. I think this is not a terrible argument, as the language is so watered down so that it's not clearly unconstitutional/promoting non-science in the classroom. But then you have to ask yourself: what's the point of this bill? Why is it being proffered? Perhaps the author actually intends it to have a function of some sort, right? And what is that function? Pretty clearly, given the author's past, previous legislative attempts, the political climate in the OK legislature, and even the specific language in this bill talking about religious and conservative hot-button issues, it's to promote the ability of children to ****ert non-science in the classroom.
2. That this bill only allows debate in school for children, which is a good thing, so stop worrying about it. Well, I think we ALL agree we want our kids to be curious, inquisitive and critical thinkers. But were kids not already allowed to have rousing discussions in cl****? Were kids being punished? Almost certainly not. Moreover, it isn't up to our school children to eschew modern science in the name of academic debate. In fact, we're in big ****ing trouble if we're relying on children to find the answers to "controversial" theories. This bill does not promote debate any more than it already did, and if the intent of the bill is REALLY to allow children to ****ert and learn non-science and/or disfavored notions in the name of "debate", then it's wildly inappropriate.
What else has actually been said in favor of this bill that had any substance...? Fill in the blanks for the cl****.
Please explain the point of the bill as it applies to APG (since it was referenced by your MOTHER JONES ARTICLE...and don't forget the "code") to bring GOD into the classroom discussion about APG. I know your ignorance on the subject will present challenges for you which is what I don't want to befall on our students that, like you, would swallow some PC pablum without slightest idea of the validity of the issue.
I don't see it as a this vs that type of thing, I'll go back to my last post it's pretty simple concept. I don't see that faith based anything should be taught in a science classroom. Science is a fact based view of the world. Now if they wanted to discuss the two opposing views in a school philosophy cl**** I would be fine with that.
So you have no problem with APG being debated or do you accept APG as fact beyond a student's ability to debate it?
Which is tougher to believe, prove, or disprove...
That there is a God
Or...
That a clump of something inanimate suddenly became a living thing...
For many, including myself, the belief in a force, supreme being, etc... is not at odds with the concept that billions of years ago life formed in a primordial soup and evolved to man...nor do they care if that supernatural spark is ever suggested in a classroom.
None of it.
Because Darwin and ****.
What is especially hilarious about this is that you actually posted a link to a comedy site that is blathering even more blatant lies than the one you regurgitated originally, and you think it supports your position.
Directly from your link:
Literally, Comedy Central is arguing that because the Legislature acknowledges that certain scientific concepts are controversial that they are rejecting them.. ALL.The fun in this bit of fundamentalist legislation begins in the findings section, which reads [.pdf warning], "The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy."
Not since Newt Gingrich last responded to a debate question have so many premises been rejected in a single sentence.
Acknowledge as controversial = full rejection of science.
Are you prepared to defend this tripe, Mallen?
The bill simply doesnt say what you wanted it to say. I know, you wanted to feel all smart and intellectually superior and enlightened and all that ****. I get it. I really do. It isnt worth lying for though.
Just for fun.
On #2, check this out. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...rove-big-bang/
A BEAUTIFUL MIND? 12-YEAR-OLD BOY GENIUS SETS OUT TO DISPROVE BIG BANG
Sigh.. Not only does it not mention god, they spent an entire ****ing paragraph explaining that religious bull**** was exempt from the damn bill.
You are pretty much being shown a blue sky and seeing a red one. I'm sorry.. I agree that there is not a need for this bill.. but it's not bringing down the foundations of scientific theory like you seem to claim it does.
The following users like this post: Tundra
Well, Comedy Central agreed with him... so he must be right. Plus how else is he supposed to feel good about himself?
The big bang and evolution hinges on the fact that a inanimate m**** somehow became a living thing...with our current scientific knowledge that is an impossible task...only Frankenstein has been successful at creating life...just as impossible as a supreme being snapping it's fingers and creating the entire mess....
So much this.
I don't discount evolution and natural selection; rather I think it's part of the design.
Let's ****ume all life evolved from a primordial, simple life form. Forget the word "God" for a moment. The harder you look at the "beginning of life" problem, you have to consider how ridiculously complicated are the inner-workings of the simplest bacteria or amoeba. Eventually after much thought and analysis, the notion of a "creator" seems plausible. Then when you grasp the incredulously far-reaching mathematic probability that these systems came together by chance, a "creator" of some sort becomes a real possibility.
Was life built-in to the universe, not by a 'creator' but by nature, and set to spring forth under the right conditions? Maybe so, but science is impossibly far from being able to try explaining that theory.
The 'intellectuals' who say science proves there is no creator are on the same level as 87sooner. Blind faith and lots of bluster.
But Comedy Central says....
Not giving Glenn the ad revenue. I bet this is a tale of a boy genius who is questioning The Big Bang Theory but still has no mention of God? Nothing wrong with that, I await his peer reviewed paper.Just for fun.
On #2, check this out. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...rove-big-bang/
A BEAUTIFUL MIND? 12-YEAR-OLD BOY GENIUS SETS OUT TO DISPROVE BIG BANG
How did that first living cell come to be?
I already told you. Darwin and ****.
The following users like this post: Sancho
Not you!
Why is this question being overlooked...
How did an invisible man in the sky come to be?
Always was. That's easy.
You're trying to bring the supernatural into the discussion...very offensive.
It's not the fact that either view can be proven or disproven. The theory of evolution is a theory not a fact, but it's a theory based on science and not on religion. Religion is faith based, on a God that can't be seen or tested so its not Science and has no place in Science classroom. I'm not saying it's not a valid theory but it's not science based. Just as I wouldn't expect evolution to be taught at Sunday school. The problem with teaching faith based theories in school is that there is about 100 different religions all with different theories of creation. Shall the science teacher be required to cover every theory based on religion? Sticking with science based, fact based theories in a science classroom is really the only option. Common sense is required here, not left right ideology. It's the same with prayer in school, should they do Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc... Prayers to cover everyone? I would say no, and that it has no place in a government funded school. Private schools can and should do whatever they wish. Because if you don't like it don't send your kids there.
The following users like this post: Dexa
This isn't about what's being taught--it's about what positions are able to be argued by a student.
is creating a living thing from a clump of ooze or a rock science?
Correct...
Should a religious argument be allowed in a science classroom? I'd say most likely not.
Does this bill require creationism to be taught in school or even suggest it?
But you still haven't answered my question on APG which is really all I was interested in challenging. Do you consider it fact and a non debatable topic for schools?
I think Al Gore's global warming is already being taught in classrooms isn't it?
I'm not sure really.
That's un-possible!
I stay out of these conversations because, honestly, I don't know. And neither does any one else.
That's exactly the point.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
