Another Pro-Creationism Bill in OK Legis.

Posted 560 day(s) ago by OUMallen3828 Views 301 Replies
Results 151 to 200 of 302
Page 4 of 7 2 3 4 5 6
  1. #151
    It's pretty simple, learn science in science class, 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


  2. #152
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,596
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    It's pretty simple, learn science in science class, 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.
    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.
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  3. #153
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Only dipshits like you and okie would think that a bill that is crafted ONLY for allowing creationism in the classroom ISN'T doing exactly that because they worded it so that it wouldn't be offensive to science or unconstitutional on its face.

    You know, this shouldn't be too subtle of an issue for you, but clearly it is. Go find another thread to ruin.
    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?

  4. #154
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    It's pretty simple, learn science in science class, 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.
    What part of the bill contradicts that?

  5. #155
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.
    LOL Mallen thinks this is a personal or religious issue to me.

  6. #156
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.

    You have a persecution complex. Seek help while you are still young.

  7. #157
    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    It's pretty simple, learn science in science class, 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.
    Hey, see, you and I can agree with each other.

  8. #158
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    It's pretty simple, learn science in science class, 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.
    So you think APG is a fact beyond debate?

  9. #159
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Hey, see, you and I can agree with each other.
    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 shit. You know, nucleotides or whatever."

    Cite the specific language in the bill that would allow that to happen.

  10. #160
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    Your lack of understanding your own positions is your own worst enemy.

    You have a persecution complex. Seek help while you are still young.

    Mostly he also fails to understand his opponents position. That is why he gets so frustrated any time someone disagrees with him.

  11. #161
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,596
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    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?
    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.

  12. #162
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,596
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    LOL Mallen thinks this is a personal or religious issue to me.
    It certainly isn't a Constitutional issue in your mind, as it should be.

  13. #163
    How did the primordial soup turn into a living thing?

  14. #164
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    It certainly isn't a Constitutional issue in your mind, as it should be.
    Are you now arguing that the bill is unconstitutional?

  15. #165
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Mostly he also fails to understand his opponents position. That is why he gets so frustrated any time someone disagrees with him.
    Agreed.

  16. #166
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,596
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Are you now arguing that the bill is unconstitutional?
    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.

  17. #167
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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 assertion is true. I am willing to give you another chance though.
    Cite the specific language in the bill that would allow that.

  18. #168
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,596
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Mostly he also fails to understand his opponents position. That is why he gets so frustrated any time someone disagrees with him.
    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 assert 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 class? 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 assert 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 class.

  19. #169
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.
    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.

  20. #170
    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 class I would be fine with that.

  21. #171
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    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 class 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?

  22. #172
    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...

  23. #173
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    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.

  24. #174
    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    What part of the bill contradicts that?
    None of it.

  25. #175
    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    How did the primordial soup turn into a living thing?
    Because Darwin and shit.

  26. #176
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Aaaaand, we made Comedy Central.

    http://www.indecisionforever.com/blo...cience-classes

    Looking good, guys. Big League City; Big League State. Bring your businesses and children here, America! SMH
    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:
    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.
    Literally, Comedy Central is arguing that because the Legislature acknowledges that certain scientific concepts are controversial that they are rejecting them.. ALL.

    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 shit. I get it. I really do. It isnt worth lying for though.

  27. #177
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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 assert 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 class? 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 assert 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 class.
    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


  28. #178
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,158
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Exactly. They're trying to change and/or water down the wording enough to see if they can get it through. The intent and potential impact is the same: protecting creationism and other faith-based philosophies in public schools. It's inappropriate.

    But the apologists that can't think for themselves in this thread say: har har, did you not READ the bill? It don't say nothing about God! You must be stupid or something!

    Even several people have said that at BEST it's a 100% ineffective bill. Then you should be offended we're wasting time and resources on 100% ineffective bills, even if you like the actual underlying intent.

    Sigh.. Not only does it not mention god, they spent an entire ****ing paragraph explaining that religious bullshit 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


  29. #179
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    Sigh.. Not only does it not mention god, they spent an entire ****ing paragraph explaining that religious bullshit 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.

    Well, Comedy Central agreed with him... so he must be right. Plus how else is he supposed to feel good about himself?

  30. #180
    The big bang and evolution hinges on the fact that a inanimate mass 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....

  31. #181
    Morningwood's Avatar
    Posts
    2,564
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    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...

    So much this.

    I don't discount evolution and natural selection; rather I think it's part of the design.

    Let's assume 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.

  32. #182
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,855
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    None of it.
    But Comedy Central says....

  33. #183
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    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

    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.

  34. #184
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    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.
    How did that first living cell come to be?

  35. #185
    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    How did that first living cell come to be?
    I already told you. Darwin and shit.
    The following users like this post: Sancho


  36. #186
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I already told you. Darwin and shit.
    Not you!


    Why is this question being overlooked...

  37. #187
    Omega's Avatar
    Posts
    3,749
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Paris of the Plains

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    How did that first living cell come to be?
    How did an invisible man in the sky come to be?

  38. #188
    Originally Posted by Omega View Post
    How did an invisible man in the sky come to be?
    Always was. That's easy.

  39. #189
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Not you!


    Why is this question being overlooked...
    You're trying to bring the supernatural into the discussion...very offensive.

  40. #190
    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


  41. #191
    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    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.
    This isn't about what's being taught--it's about what positions are able to be argued by a student.

  42. #192
    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    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.
    is creating a living thing from a clump of ooze or a rock science?

  43. #193
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    This isn't about what's being taught--it's about what positions are able to be argued by a student.
    Correct...

  44. #194
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,158
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    This isn't about what's being taught--it's about what positions are able to be argued by a student.
    Should a religious argument be allowed in a science classroom? I'd say most likely not.

  45. #195
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,456
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by JDShellnutt View Post
    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.
    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?

  46. #196
    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    Should a religious argument be allowed in a science classroom? I'd say most likely not.
    I think Al Gore's global warming is already being taught in classrooms isn't it?

  47. #197
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,158
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I think Al Gore's global warming is already being taught in classrooms isn't it?
    I'm not sure really.

  48. #198
    Omega's Avatar
    Posts
    3,749
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Paris of the Plains

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Always was. That's easy.
    That's un-possible!

  49. #199
    Omega's Avatar
    Posts
    3,749
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Paris of the Plains

    I stay out of these conversations because, honestly, I don't know. And neither does any one else.

  50. #200
    Originally Posted by Omega View Post
    I stay out of these conversations because, honestly, I don't know. And neither does any one else.
    That's exactly the point.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 45
    Last Post: December 6th, 2012, 10:17 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 29th, 2012, 07:15 PM
  3. Creationism
    By XxSuBLiMexX in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 20th, 2012, 06:59 PM

Tags for this Thread