McCain chose woman VP (Palin)=win
- Thread starter cressidakiller
- Start date
- Replies 186
- Views 12K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
I knew the book list was fake, however the fact that she asked about it "hypothetically" or not bothers the bejesus out of me.
"In 2006, Palin did say that, if a student brings up creationism, it should be discussed in class."
Absolutely not, unless it is used to show an example of bad science and a lack of understanding of scientific terms. Creationism belongs in a theology class, not a science class. End of discussion on that topic.
cressidakiller
Member
answering a student's question and having a topic be part of the curriculum are 2 very different things.
Last edited:
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
So-called "Academic Freedom" acts blur that line.
Sorry, I've seen the cdesign proponentists (look that up) try and push their theology into the classroom too many times to believe that it won't happen again.
I can almost guarantee it will keep happening...you'd think the west would be the first people to lose religion in the class rooms, but we are clinging to it like fucking junkies. Even my fiance is pro-religion-in-schools, and she isn't the only person I know that's like that. But i do live in texas, so take that how you will.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Almost? I can guarantee flat out that it will keep happening. ACLU vs Stearns, Kitzmiller vs Dover, "Academic Freedom", the switch from creationism to intelligent design, over and over and over. These people will never stop pushing their religion into the classroom.
Personally, I think (now you can file this in my "if I were a deity") that anyone who thinks evolution isn't fact should be exempt from all of its applications... like the influenza vaccine.
My ideal president:
i could go on for hours, but that's the gist of it.
- understands seperation of church and state.
- does not end speeches with 'God Bless America'
- has no issues nor opinion on creationism vs science; believes both should be taught, compared, and contrasted, and let the student make his own choice on what to believe in.
- understands the middle class.
- taxes appropriate
- relates to life issues, such as retirement plans, job market
- understands the poor
- why they are poor
- why they stay poor
- does something to promote self-revolution
- understands foreign nations
- why they all hate us
- why we spend $$$$$$$ overseas aid, but lack in our own cities
- understands the concept of America First.
- enacts 'accountability' legislation
- you want funding, show me where it's going, how much, and why
- remove useless funding, agencies, worthless positions, etc and move monies to other areas that need them, like roadways, public transport, and education
- understands and agrees with capitalism, not socialism
- does not agree with government bail outs
- believes gay marriage is not a government issue and should stay out of it (let the states decide)
- believes abortion is not a government issue and should stay out of it (let the states decide)
- believes that all new vehicle sales on cars under 30mpg city and trucks under 20mpg city shall impose a $1500 'green' tax. This tax will be used to fund research on alternative fuels and promote america to buy better and smarter . The is similar to the current luxury tax and gas guzzler tax, and will be above and beyond those.
- will finish the damn war already.
- fix the housing market by letting banks fail. don't bail them out. lend them money at 6% interest like they do to the common person in need of money
i could go on for hours, but that's the gist of it.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Should students be taught medicine AND voodoo? How about astronomy AND astrology? Physics AND mysticism? Perhaps we can teach them about the idea that invisible gnomes pull everything to the ground alongside the theory of gravity.
To allow unscientific, unfalsifiable, untestable, religious doctrine to be taught alongside scientific theory serves to completely undermine the scientific method as well as science itself. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works and why is reached the answers it has. Furthermore it serves to confuse the currently uneducated student by teaching them the rigors of the scientific method then thrusting an idea in front of them that goes against every single bit of that teaching and then telling them "Well, make up your own minds."
There is no "choice" in science. It's either valid fact or it is not. It's like telling someone they have a choice between believing the sky is blue or plaid, then telling them both are perfectly valid. It doesn't work that way.
Evolution is a key cornerstone of our scientific knowledge. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolutionary theory, just as nothing in chemistry makes sense without atomic theory and nothing in physics makes sense without the theory of relativity. To undermine these cornerstones of science, for which our knowledge is built upon serves to destroy proper education.
Do you want to know why we are losing our scientific edge? This is why.
UNDR8D
...has a job!
Nothing in biology makes sense without evolutionary theory? I believe that all life, human or otherwise, evolves. Clearly, this can not be argued. But Evolution as it is taught is flawed. Even if all life and matter is derived from one mass of matter, where did that matter come from? A thing can not both exist and not exist at the same time, and therefore, can not have created itself. This can not be argued. You can not have willed yourself into existence. Either you already exist, in which case you need not will yourself to be, or you do not exist, in which case, you are capable of nothing because there is no you. Knowing this, how then did the original matter that our world is derived from, come to be? It can not have always existed infinitely. ALL matter is contingent upon some other action. This has been pointed out by many philosophers, religious and nonreligious. How does science explain the existence of matter. Trace it back as far as you'd like, to a single electron buzzing in a vacuum...it can not be its' own creator so where did it come from?
What's funny is, She fired the librarian immediately after asking about the process of banning books because of the librarian's complete opposition.
Most local times in the country are smearing her. She's mostly described as, "An Spoiled Teenager who wants her way", or "Married to the NRA and the republican way of life".
At that, I like her economic spending, outside of oil.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
That is correct. Evolution is a mechanic of life.
First thing's first. Show me ANYWHERE that evolutionary theory deals with the origins of matter. That question displays a fundamental lack of understanding of exactly what evolutionary theory says. It does NOT deal with the origins of matter, that's not its job. It never was. Where all matter in the universe came from is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. All matter could have been brought into existence by a chartreuse three-legged squirrel with nuts the size of Texas who decided that he needed some friends to keep him company... and it would not alter evolutionary theory ONE BIT.
Evolution does not address the origins of matter. Evolution does not address the origins of life. What does it address? "The Origin of Species". It's the friggin title of Charlie's book. It addresses the question of the diversity of life, nothing more.
This had diddly to do with evolutionary theory. If you want to know more about that, look up the Big Bang. "Matter" as we know it was created from a massive and near instant phase transition that allowed sub-atomic particles (the ones that particle accelerators, including the LHC, have shown us) under intense heat and pressure, to bond together.
Really? Show me why. That is a question that nobody, not even science, can answer. Answers can only be found after a time called the 'Planck Epoch', which is the nanosecond after the Big Bang. Why can't we go back farther than this? Because the numbers go beyond infinite, and no mathematical equations can be done at that point.
Again, what's this got to do with evolutionary theory? What you're attempting to say is equivalent to saying that just because gravity can't answer the same question, that it must be invalid as well. That's ridiculous simply because that's not gravitation theory's job.
UNDR8D
...has a job!
In response to Slammed 98, It's all rhetoric and bullshit. The politicians spend the majority of their time trying to get you to hate their opponent rather than get you to like them based on their stances on issues and their own records. Even when they do try to shamelessly promote themselves, it comes across as watered down because they need to please everyone. McCain chose Palin because he knew having a woman would work to his advantage on several levels, NOT because she is a tough accomplished politician. Fuck this shit. I want Alan Keyes back.
Last edited:
cressidakiller
Member
B
i agree w/ you on letting states decide. federalism is a beautiful thing. i'd rather have 49 messed up states than 1 messed up country. abortion was previously decided on the state level before roe v wade. Using federalism is the compromise on abortion or non.
so many bail outs: airlines, banks, now talk of ford, chrysler, gm. US automakers do pretty good overseas, CAFE regulations and UAW and quality issues hurt them here. and yes, on the honda site here come the US cars suk flames.
Slammed,
Palin almost fired the librarian (Emmons), but it was because Emmons publicly supported palin’s opponent. Emmons actually resigned near the end of palin’s first term. Similar to the big deal w/ W and Alito and US attorney firings. They serve at the politician’s pleasure. Clinton fired the conservative attorneys when he started.
i agree w/ you on letting states decide. federalism is a beautiful thing. i'd rather have 49 messed up states than 1 messed up country. abortion was previously decided on the state level before roe v wade. Using federalism is the compromise on abortion or non.
so many bail outs: airlines, banks, now talk of ford, chrysler, gm. US automakers do pretty good overseas, CAFE regulations and UAW and quality issues hurt them here. and yes, on the honda site here come the US cars suk flames.
Slammed,
Palin almost fired the librarian (Emmons), but it was because Emmons publicly supported palin’s opponent. Emmons actually resigned near the end of palin’s first term. Similar to the big deal w/ W and Alito and US attorney firings. They serve at the politician’s pleasure. Clinton fired the conservative attorneys when he started.
I'm talking about when she was mayor of wasillia. She fired all 3 employees at the library. She then fired the chief of police because he didn't agree with her weekly checks, while he was already doing daily checks. It's in the record, and its a fact, because frankly, she was sued for wrongful termination. 
UNDR8D
...has a job!
I do understand evolutionary theory. Look, I'm with you back til this point. This is the gap in the whole premise that weakens the structure of the theory. We are talking about evolution vs. creation. Creation explains the origin of matter and forward. If evolutionary theory does not involve God and is presented as an alternative explanation, it too should offer an explanation for the origin of matter. Otherwise, what is the answer? Even if you are correct, and these sub-atomic particles joined together under intense heat and pressure, where did those particles come from?
The reason we are discussing this is because B said that creation and evolution should be taught together in school. In schools, the Big Bang theory accompanies evolution and is taught as a precursor to, to explain the existence of the matter that evolved, without incorporating God or "intelligent design". That is why I mention origins.
I'm no physicist or mathematician but I do believe there is no beyond infinite, or were you speaking colloquially? Regardless, there has to be a beginning. Matter can not have created itself so where did it come from?
As far as equations, just because something can not be quantified, does not mean it is not real. There are physiological symptoms related to human emotion, but we all know it is more than that. No series of complex equations can quantify happiness. I'm not likening scientific theory to emotion, but rather, just trying to point out that some things are beyond measure and must be accepted as truth based on logic.
I feel it necessary to point out that I am not some bible beater. I am not one of those, "the mountains are beautiful because God made them that way" type of people. That's childish. The premise of an omnipotent being in relation to the origin of our world is no more far fetched than the idea that sub atomic particles that came from nowhere fused together and all life originated from there. And, I hate to pull out something so cliche but, you treat evolution as if it is absolute irrefutable truth when in fact, it is only a theory. Extensively studied, documented, and quantified, but a theory nonetheless. None of us were there or even close enough to say that we have a good idea. It is what the scientific community has deemed to be the most likely explanation for a chain of events that is really far beyond our comprehension.
Last edited:
UNDR8D
...has a job!
Sorry Chaz, gravity is most assuredly law. There is no theory. There is a very sound and simple explanation for why we do not fall off the earth. Evolution though, is educated supposition, not concrete law.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Really? Then I'm sure you'll be able to tell me exactly what causes mass to exert a gravitational force.
There has not been a single observed mechanic that explains how the force of gravity is exerted. The graviton particle is hypothetical, never been observed. So what about mass creates a gravitational force?
Last edited:
TommyTheCat
Gonzo Scientist
I am not a monkey, my daddy taint a monkey, and my grand papy aint a monkey. Yall are wrong 'bout evulutionistory theorizing. Evolooshun doesn't tell me where everthing done come from, why the earth is round, and why i love america so much - so its wrong.
Seriously though, why should creationism be taught anywhere near a science class? No ID or Creationist doctrine has any scientific backbone to speak of.
The problem is when people with agendas (and/or way too much time on their hands) make it their goal to keep repeating things even in the face of opposing evidence, the general populace starts to believe. People still believe Iraq had WMDs, that McCain had an illegitimate black child, that people used to live to be 900 years old, that morning after pills are abortion pills, and that evolution proposes that we are descendants of creatures that still exist today. Somehow the inertia of the retarded masses allows these misconceptions to propagate though society (to some extent, whether large or small).
Seriously though, why should creationism be taught anywhere near a science class? No ID or Creationist doctrine has any scientific backbone to speak of.
The problem is when people with agendas (and/or way too much time on their hands) make it their goal to keep repeating things even in the face of opposing evidence, the general populace starts to believe. People still believe Iraq had WMDs, that McCain had an illegitimate black child, that people used to live to be 900 years old, that morning after pills are abortion pills, and that evolution proposes that we are descendants of creatures that still exist today. Somehow the inertia of the retarded masses allows these misconceptions to propagate though society (to some extent, whether large or small).
Last edited:
