• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judiciarchy

Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Is it bad that astrology is a scientific theory? Yes, I did, but what I was trying to talk about was about the origin of life moreover the small-scale evolution. He said it was a theory, and that there are some controversy with the theory, but I do not argue w/ him because me, going to a public school in mass. In addition to being an outspoken conservative would lower my grades, so instead I try to funnel out all my objections on this particular forum. The point is that being a monk ordained in the holy order of the Catholic Church, Catholicism has done a lot for science, and it was there to show you that my claim was true. No I understand and respect the decision of the court, it was a high profile case, but nonetheless, I have to be aware that there will be many more court cases on this most likely from different judges with different perspectives. Umm I posted the website I got it from, and you are the one calling me ignorant?
*sigh* ok fine do you want the lists of websites that I am using for my paper? In addition, this is about ‘judiciarchism’ NOT I.D. vs. Evl.

Hmm I wonder if I can trust you with giving you my school district, after all with all the news of teens being kidnapped and stuff, I do not know. HOWEVER, I go to a public school in Mass, A regular public school.

Now with all that said can we go back to the original posts’ question, not all these sub-debates in science.

Yes, they are next in big fat lawsuits. Unless KS AGAIN kick out the fundie idiots that they elected, KS is the next lawsuit, and another paycheck for the ACLU lawyers. Dover now have to come up with $ 1 mill. How much do you think KS has to pay? And then on to Ohio and SC.

Now whose speculating?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Is it bad that astrology is a scientific theory? Yes, I did, but what I was trying to talk about was about the origin of life
The Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.
moreover the small-scale evolution.
What is that?
He said it was a theory,
It actually is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I bet you havn't bothered yet to check out what the Scientific Method is, and therefore don't know how ignorant and dishonest that claim is?
and that there are some controversy with the theory,
Just like ther is "controversy" about the Earth being round, with a couple of fringe hystericswho insist otherwise against all evidence. JUST like the creationists. JUST like the IDers.
but I do not argue w/ him because me, going to a public school in mass. In addition to being an outspoken conservative would lower my grades, so instead I try to funnel out all my objections on this particular forum.
Before "funneling" anythign else, could you please start showing that you actually know what you are talking about? merely spweing falsehoods as "facts," just because you wnat them to be so, that doesn't win you credibility; rather it win's you rapidly being placed on "ignore" as an ingorant loon. (Just some firendly advice).
[The point is that being a monk ordained in the holy order of the Catholic Church, Catholicism has done a lot for science, and it was there to show you that my claim was true.
Whatclaim? About ID? THAT is what we were discussing here, after all.
No I understand and respect the decision of the court, it was a high profile case, but nonetheless, I have to be aware that there will be many more court cases on this most likely from different judges with different perspectives.
But the facts remain the same; and ID and creationists will continue to be proven as fundies who seek to push a relkigious agenda against evidence.

Now, YOU talked an awful lot about evidence. When will you actually rpoduce it?
Umm I posted the website I got it from, and you are the one calling me ignorant?
Umm, you posted it 3-4 posts later.
*sigh* ok fine do you want the lists of websites that I am using for my paper?
Well, most likely they are creationist sites so I couldn't care less as they lie anyway. Now, I am interested in the SCIENTIFIC evidence that you got.
n addition, this is about ‘judiciarchism’ NOT I.D. vs. Evl.
Since this is the subject that you decided to speak about, that is indeed the subject. YOU claimed all sorts of stuff about ID, and I am simply waiting for you to provide the evidence. Not that I ever think it will come.
Hmm I wonder if I can trust you with giving you my school district, after all with all the news of teens being kidnapped and stuff, I do not know.
:roll:
HOWEVER, I go to a public school in Mass, A regular public school.
Well, I will check out the state curriculum.
Now with all that said can we go back to the original posts’ question, not all these sub-debates in science.
Well, does that mean that you are retracting all your false claims about science? otherwise, we can of course NOT go back as the falsehoods haven't been clarified.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blizzard Warrior said:
We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47195)

ok so basically they have siad that parenthood is unconstitutional, luckily congress i belive has over turned this decision. by the way what do people think of the term "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" [good justice is broad jurisdiction]?

That you summarize the above decision with this sentence shows a broad ignorance. Education involving one of the most fundamental human needs is ignored in public schools for the most part. And I think parents who disagree with this decision are those most likely unable or unwilling to teach their children about sex at home.

There is no activism above. The worst example of activism I have lately seen in the courts was the misplaced, grandstanding action the Senate took in the Terri Schiavo case here in Florida. They attempted to override a court decision that had been made years before, and had been appealed many times, but withstood all scrutiny. They tried to control the Florida federal court system, and change a series of decisions because they were opposed to the decisions. This is activism, and it is dangerous. And the bottom line is the Senate did this to garner more votes in the upcoming elections. They were completely irresponsible, and UnAmerican.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.

Quote:
Then what theory does?
Quote:

It actually is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I bet you havn't bothered yet to check out what the Scientific Method is, and therefore don't know how ignorant and dishonest that claim is?

Quote:
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. -http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Hopefully you didn’t place any bets with anyone

Just like ther is "controversy" about the Earth being round, with a couple of fringe hystericswho insist otherwise against all evidence. JUST like the creationists. JUST like the IDers.
Quote:
Do you have a reference to a site where people think that the earth is flat? In addition, they have reasoning behind it.
Before "funneling" anythign else, could you please start showing that you actually know what you are talking about? merely spweing falsehoods as "facts," just because you wnat them to be so, that doesn't win you credibility; rather it win's you rapidly being placed on "ignore" as an ingorant loon. (Just some firendly advice).
Quote:
I’ve got the evidence, but I think its wiser to make a different thread, after all this wasn’t anything about science.
Whatclaim? About ID? THAT is what we were discussing here, after all.
Quote:
That is just a little something that was brought up that I said I would love to discuss in a DIFFERENT thread.
But the facts remain the same; and ID and creationists will continue to be proven as fundies who seek to push a relkigious agenda against evidence.

Now, YOU talked an awful lot about evidence. When will you actually rpoduce it?
Quote:
dido
Umm, you posted it 3-4 posts later.
Quote:
Actually, I do recall the information being 11,493 characters long so I had to break it up into 2 posts THEN I posted the source info right after that AND I made a reference to where that source came from.
Well, most likely they are creationist sites so I couldn't care less as they lie anyway. Now, I am interested in the SCIENTIFIC evidence that you got.
Quote:
Dido
Since this is the subject that you decided to speak about, that is indeed the subject. YOU claimed all sorts of stuff about ID, and I am simply waiting for you to provide the evidence. Not that I ever think it will come.
Quote:
Well you began questioning me about it, and now you have changed the whole direction of the debate. As I said (dido), do you want to create a different thread for this?

Quote:

Well, I will check out the state curriculum.
Quote:
What did you find out?
Well, does that mean that you are retracting all your false claims about science? otherwise, we can of course NOT go back as the falsehoods haven't been

No, it just means that we should make a different thread so you can enlighten me on my spewing falsehoods
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is no activism above. The worst example of activism I have lately seen in the courts was the misplaced, grandstanding action the Senate took in the Terri Schiavo case here in Florida. They attempted to override a court decision that had been made years before, and had been appealed many times, but withstood all scrutiny. They tried to control the Florida federal court system, and change a series of decisions because they were opposed to the decisions. This is activism, and it is dangerous. And the bottom line is the Senate did this to garner more votes in the upcoming elections. They were completely irresponsible, and UnAmerican.

I dont know, the erecting of a wall between church and state was quite a big jump in hte 1950/60's when prior to that, the supreme court spoke quite positivly about religion, especially Christianity. Now the whole terri Schiavo thing was something that i wasnt follow too closely but im talking more about judicial activism, not just general activism. Now about the florida court system there was a case of a sex offender who was set free in '02 with 200 dollars bail then in '04 he was accused of a similar offense, the judge was removed i belivive, and florida has passed many strict sex offender laws, some of the strictest in the nation i believe.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
That you summarize the above decision with this sentence shows a broad ignorance. Education involving one of the most fundamental human needs is ignored in public schools for the most part. And I think parents who disagree with this decision are those most likely unable or unwilling to teach their children about sex at home.

There is no activism above. The worst example of activism I have lately seen in the courts was the misplaced, grandstanding action the Senate took in the Terri Schiavo case here in Florida. They attempted to override a court decision that had been made years before, and had been appealed many times, but withstood all scrutiny. They tried to control the Florida federal court system, and change a series of decisions because they were opposed to the decisions. This is activism, and it is dangerous. And the bottom line is the Senate did this to garner more votes in the upcoming elections. They were completely irresponsible, and UnAmerican.
Kristi Seymour did not explicitly state that some of the questions were sexual in nature. Her letter did say that the questions were about "early trauma (for example, violence)" and that "answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable".

Also, Kristi Seymour and the Palmdale school district deliberately withheld the afore posted sex based questions while telling the parents that they were, in fact, in possession of the compleat list.

This deception is the same as if the parents were asked for permission for the school to take their children on a field trip, and told that the list of stops (provided) was a compleat list, when in fact it was not.

The 9th. could have affirmed the District's ruling by reiterating the fact that the parents had not brought a coherent legal argument, nor could they show damages and, thus, their case had no federal claim upon which relief could be granted.

However, the 9th. went far beyond the logical necessity of their duty and stated "We conclude only that parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any form or manner they select."

Do you have ANY idea what that miens? Any clue at all?
The 9th. just abolished parental consent for sex-ed.

S.T.D.'s and condoms are one thing, but now if the public school wishes to show pornography to 3rd. graders, they can do exactly that; and your only recourse is to completely withdraw your child from public schools.

Fields -v- Palmdale School District basically defends those who lie and deceive parents and promote sexual deviancy.

And that, my friend, IS activism.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Busta said:
S.T.D.'s and condoms are one thing, but now if the public school wishes to show pornography to 3rd. graders, they can do exactly that; and your only recourse is to completely withdraw your child from public schools.

Uh, are you thick? Purchasing or showing pornography for/to anyone under 18 is illegal. Of course children are still protected from anything that could be considered wildly inappropriate or anything even close to molestation.

If the hypothetical situation of porn being shown to 3rd graders ever occurred, believe me that the parents would sue and the people responsible would be fired and most likely imprisoned. It's a criminal offense, you know.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
The Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.

It does not attempt to. Criticizing Evolutionary Theory for not explaining the origin of life is like criticizing General Relativity for not explaining the political climate of post-WWII Germany.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Engimo said:
Uh, are you thick? Purchasing or showing pornography for/to anyone under 18 is illegal. Of course children are still protected from anything that could be considered wildly inappropriate or anything even close to molestation.

If the hypothetical situation of porn being shown to 3rd graders ever occurred, believe me that the parents would sue and the people responsible would be fired and most likely imprisoned. It's a criminal offense, you know.
*Ahem*
Have you ever heard of "Intellectual Freedom" or COPA?
"Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" Library services, materials, and programs representing diverse points of view on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation should be considered for purchase and inclusion in library collections and programs. (ALA policies 53.1.1, 53.1.9, and 53.1.11). The Association affirms that attempts to proscribe or remove materials dealing with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgendered life without regard to the written, approved selection policy violate this tenet and constitute censorship."

"Articles III and IV mandate that libraries "challenge censorship" and cooperate with those "resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas."

"Article V holds that "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background or views."

So, pornography is allowed in the library and, according to the A.L.A, preventing a child from seeing "materials" which deal with sex (and who can argue that pornography does not "deal" with sex?) is a violation of the First Amendment.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

You know, Murder was once illegal until the Supreme Court said that an unborn child (that's a legal term, no flag on the field) was not a person. Now Murder is legal.

So much easier then Roe -v- Wade will it be, having bypassed parental authority with Judicial Bypass and the afore posted 9th. circit ruling, to make commonplace sexual deviancy in the pubic school.

Oh, and no, the parents can not sue a school should said school present its student with pornography.
Didn't you read "We conclude only that parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any form or manner they select."

"ANY" form or matter. "ANY". Not "some". Not "select". Not "appropriate".
"ANY".

Yes, I am quite thick. My skull is jam packed with logic, reason, knowledge, common sense and, lest we forget, God.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blizzard Warrior said:
I dont know, the erecting of a wall between church and state was quite a big jump in hte 1950/60's when prior to that, the supreme court spoke quite positivly about religion, especially Christianity. Now the whole terri Schiavo thing was something that i wasnt follow too closely but im talking more about judicial activism, not just general activism. Now about the florida court system there was a case of a sex offender who was set free in '02 with 200 dollars bail then in '04 he was accused of a similar offense, the judge was removed i belivive, and florida has passed many strict sex offender laws, some of the strictest in the nation i believe.

The concept of the wall of separation was considered a century before what you claim.

The main reason I bring up the Schiavo case is because the people in Congress who talk about activist judges are the same who became activist to thwart a court decision. It can't go both ways.

The case you mention in Florida is hearsay until you present a link. But it doesn't sound like an activism issue anyway.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Busta said:
"Article V holds that "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background or views."

So, pornography is allowed in the library and, according to the A.L.A, preventing a child from seeing "materials" which deal with sex (and who can argue that pornography does not "deal" with sex?) is a violation of the First Amendment.

Way to straw man, there. The right to use a library is entirely different from having the right to access all of the contents of a library. If it is illegal to show children pornography, the right to use the library does not change the fundamental illegality of doing so. Doubtlessly, the "materials" they are referring to are those of an academic nature that explain what sex is, not things that are graphic and illegal for minors to watch.


You know, Murder was once illegal until the Supreme Court said that an unborn child (that's a legal term, no flag on the field) was not a person. Now Murder is legal.

Untrue. Murder is a legal term, which, by definition, cannot be legal.

Look at the definition of murder:

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." -Dictionary.com

If you want to make the claim that abortion is homicide, that is entirely different, but it is certainly not murder because it is legal.

Didn't you read "We conclude only that parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any form or manner they select.".

This whole thing is answered with a simple question:

Q: Is showing pornography to minors a crime?
A: Yes.
Q: Would people that are showing pornography to 3rd graders be commiting a crime?
A: Yes.
Q: Would said people be open to prosecution?
A: Yes.

This ruling doesn't change the fact that the schools cannot do anything that is illegal, like showing pornography to minors.

Edit: Also, stop calling everyone a communist, it's getting a little tiresome.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Busta said:
Kristi Seymour did not explicitly state that some of the questions were sexual in nature. Her letter did say that the questions were about "early trauma (for example, violence)" and that "answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable".

Also, Kristi Seymour and the Palmdale school district deliberately withheld the afore posted sex based questions while telling the parents that they were, in fact, in possession of the compleat list.

This deception is the same as if the parents were asked for permission for the school to take their children on a field trip, and told that the list of stops (provided) was a compleat list, when in fact it was not.

The 9th. could have affirmed the District's ruling by reiterating the fact that the parents had not brought a coherent legal argument, nor could they show damages and, thus, their case had no federal claim upon which relief could be granted.

However, the 9th. went far beyond the logical necessity of their duty and stated "We conclude only that parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any form or manner they select."

Do you have ANY idea what that miens? Any clue at all?
The 9th. just abolished parental consent for sex-ed.

S.T.D.'s and condoms are one thing, but now if the public school wishes to show pornography to 3rd. graders, they can do exactly that; and your only recourse is to completely withdraw your child from public schools.

Fields -v- Palmdale School District basically defends those who lie and deceive parents and promote sexual deviancy.

And that, my friend, IS activism.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Probably some parents didn't want the new math taught at one time, definitely some even now don't want the theory of evolution taught. There was a very important legal case on the latter some years ago, maybe you know it?

If the educators lied, that is wrong. But along with biology, home ec, and chemistry, there needs to be a proper form of sex education in public schools. It is vital to the health and future of the children

You became a little hysterical on the pornography issue you invented, but, as engimo said below, its illegal to show children that.

By the way, please explain to me what the Constitution says about child rearing.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Busta said:
You know, Murder was once illegal until the Supreme Court said that an unborn child (that's a legal term, no flag on the field) was not a person. Now Murder is legal.

You know, abortion is legal now, but before abortion was illegal, it was legal (this sounds like a John Kerry sentence, but bear with me). Abortion was not illegal the first two hundred years of our history. The first laws were passed against it in the 1820's.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
HOWEVER, I go to a public school in Mass, A regular public school.

http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/0501.pdf
From December 2000 to May 2001 the framework underwent an intensive review for scientific and technological accuracy. The wording was revised and specific examples were added to help clarify the learning standards. Changes at this final stage of review include the following:

For grades PreK-2, students’ sense of geologic time is strengthened in the earth science strand with the standard “Recognize that fossils provide us with information about living things that inhabited the earth years ago.”

Life science standards in the lower and middle grades were strengthened and made more specific to develop concepts

By high school, students learn the importance of Darwin’s theory of evolution as a framework for explaining continuity, diversity, and change over time
...

The theory of organic evolution is fundamental to understanding modern biology. It provides a framework for explaining why there are so many different kinds of organisms on earth; why organisms of distantly related species share biochemical, anatomical, and functional characteristics; why species become extinct; and how different kinds of organisms are related to one another.


Also check document-pages 48, 50, 97, 98

The MA school system clearly mandates teaching of Evolution. BTW, a search on “creationism” or “intelligent design” showed no presence in the content of the MA state science curriculum

Seems like your teacher is lying to you and filling you with falsehoods that will make you fail tests. You should turn in your teacher.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
The Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.
Then what theory does?
There is not yet a SCcientific THEORY on this subject. There are the models of ABIOGENESIS, but it does not yet have enough data to confirm it as an actual Scientific Theory.


(Here is when you need to know the names of the steps of the Scientific Method to understand what I am saying about the different steps.)
It actually is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I bet you haven't bothered yet to check out what the Scientific Method is, and therefore don't know how ignorant and dishonest that claim is?[/Quote:]Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason……... -http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Hopefully you didn’t place any bets with anyone
I am glad you finally checked it out. So why did you use the terminology in an invalid form. Right there, in the text you copied, it was clear that to talk about “only a theory” is flagrantly dishonest.
Just like there is "controversy" about the Earth being round, with a couple of fringe hysterics who insist otherwise against all evidence. JUST like the creationists. JUST like the IDers.
Do you have a reference to a site where people think that the earth is flat? In addition, they have reasoning behind it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

Well, I will check out the state curriculum.
What did you find out?
See my above post. Your teacher is lying to you.

Well, does that mean that you are retracting all your false claims about science? otherwise, we can of course NOT go back as the falsehoods haven't been
No, it just means that we should make a different thread so you can enlighten me on my spewing falsehoods
Ah, there are several treads on this, pick one.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Of course the concept was around I don’t recall saying the concept was not around, I just said that prior to the court ruling in the 50’s/60’s (I should find the case probably) the idea wasn’t fully utilized in government, they had prayers in schools, including bible readings et cetera. Um the judges job was in interpret the laws, not make laws. The congress’s job is to CHECK on the court systems and to pass the laws that they interpret. No it was not mean to be an activism issue, it was meant to show that there was some serious corruption in the FL court systems like the whole sex offense issues that they had, and recently they passed some tough laws, remember. For example they (sex offenders) have to wear little metal bracelets around there ankles so people can track them and what not.

There is not yet a SCcientific THEORY on this subject. There are the models of ABIOGENESIS, but it does not yet have enough data to confirm it as an actual Scientific Theory.

So what are ID’ers and Creationists saying is wrong with evolution if it doesn’t interfere with the idea that God created the first organisms?

(Here is when you need to know the names of the steps of the Scientific Method to understand what I am saying about the different steps.)
Quote:
It actually is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I bet you haven't bothered yet to check out what the Scientific Method is, and therefore don't know how ignorant and dishonest that claim is?[/Quote:]Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason……... -http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Quote:
Hopefully you didn’t place any bets with anyone
I am glad you finally checked it out. So why did you use the terminology in an invalid form. Right there, in the text you copied, it was clear that to talk about “only a theory” is flagrantly dishonest.
Quote:
Quote:
Just like there is "controversy" about the Earth being round, with a couple of fringe hysterics who insist otherwise against all evidence. JUST like the creationists. JUST like the IDers.
Do you have a reference to a site where people think that the earth is flat? In addition, they have reasoning behind it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
There is not yet a SCcientific THEORY on this subject. There are the models of ABIOGENESIS, but it does not yet have enough data to confirm it as an actual Scientific Theory.

(Here is when you need to know the names of the steps of the Scientific Method to understand what I am saying about the different steps.)
Quote:
It actually is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I bet you haven't bothered yet to check out what the Scientific Method is, and therefore don't know how ignorant and dishonest that claim is?[/Quote:]Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason……... -http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Quote:
Hopefully you didn’t place any bets with anyone
I am glad you finally checked it out. So why did you use the terminology in an invalid form. Right there, in the text you copied, it was clear that to talk about “only a theory” is flagrantly dishonest.
Quote:
Quote:
Just like there is "controversy" about the Earth being round, with a couple of fringe hysterics who insist otherwise against all evidence. JUST like the creationists. JUST like the IDers.
Do you have a reference to a site where people think that the earth is flat? In addition, they have reasoning behind it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
DISCLAIMER:

This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The TalkOrigins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society. Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blizzard Warrior said:
Of course the concept was around I don’t recall saying the concept was not around, I just said that prior to the court ruling in the 50’s/60’s (I should find the case probably) the idea wasn’t fully utilized in government, they had prayers in schools, including bible readings et cetera. Um the judges job was in interpret the laws, not make laws. The congress’s job is to CHECK on the court systems and to pass the laws that they interpret. No it was not mean to be an activism issue, it was meant to show that there was some serious corruption in the FL court systems like the whole sex offense issues that they had, and recently they passed some tough laws, remember. For example they (sex offenders) have to wear little metal bracelets around there ankles so people can track them and what not.

Please work on the way you use the quoting system, its hard to tell what is going on in your responses.

Read my signature, written by Thomas Jefferson, on his interpretation of what was written in the Constitution. He should know what the establishment clause meant.

As far as led prayer and Bible scripture in schools, those wrongs are being corrected. The 'under God' recently made the leading of the Pledge in schools ruled un-Constitutional. There is an upcoming case to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency. We'll see how that goes.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Please work on the way you use the quoting system, its hard to tell what is going on in your responses.

Read my signature, written by Thomas Jefferson, on his interpretation of what was written in the Constitution. He should know what the establishment clause meant.

As far as led prayer and Bible scripture in schools, those wrongs are being corrected. The 'under God' recently made the leading of the Pledge in schools ruled un-Constitutional. There is an upcoming case to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency. We'll see how that goes.

Yea but that is often taken out of context, think about how the Birtish (the people they just got independence from) had an established relgion (church) the Anglican church, and the baptists were afraid of the rumors that congrationalists were gonna become the state relgion and Jefferson said it taht there is freedon OF religion not freedom FROM religion AND that the govermnt cant screw around w/ religion. Those wrongs have been around sinec the begining of America. and quite frankly non of the founding fathers were opt to change it cuase they didnt and let it go, for hunderds of years.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
Probably some parents didn't want the new math taught at one time, definitely some even now don't want the theory of evolution taught. There was a very important legal case on the latter some years ago, maybe you know it?
I don't recall the case off-hand, but I remember it being a big deal a few years back.
I believe that with any change there will always be resistance. One thing that I love about math is that the numbers and equations, themselves, are so totally devoid of bies and opinion. Having only been taught the "new" math, I have no experience with the "old" math to make a personal comparison......but I do remember "specialists" trying to teach my class that a close guess was "good enough", and a close guess was counted as an actual correct answer.
Perhaps that is what the objection was over. 2+2=4. If you answer 3 or 5, your answer is wrong.
P.C. has no place in school.

As for evolution, I believe that it belongs in both the science classroom and the philosophy classroom. Where I run into static from people is when I say that, in addition to evolution, (secular) I.D. should also be in the science classroom, because (secular) I.D. is a scientific topic.
I would love to discuss the scientific evidence supporting I.D., but I am not yet ready to argue I.D.; so I will have to let it drop for now.
If the educators lied, that is wrong. But along with biology, home ec, and chemistry, there needs to be a proper form of sex education in public schools. It is vital to the health and future of the children.
And on this, we agree.
Where we, the public, tend to differ is on exactly what constitutes "proper".

You became a little hysterical on the pornography issue you invented, but, as engimo said below, its illegal to show children that.
Showing a possability is not hysteria.
I am not the 9th. circit, so I invented nothing.

By the way, please explain to me what the Constitution says about child rearing.
"Liberty".
Everything ells is president.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Busta said:
As for evolution, I believe that it belongs in both the science classroom and the philosophy classroom. Where I run into static from people is when I say that, in addition to evolution, (secular) I.D. should also be in the science classroom, because (secular) I.D. is a scientific topic.
I would love to discuss the scientific evidence supporting I.D., but I am not yet ready to argue I.D.; so I will have to let it drop for now.


If you are not aware of all the evidence and facts surrounding I.D. (of which there is actually none), do not make the claim that you know that it is a scientific theory. I am well-informed on the issue and I can tell you definitively that there is no scientific basis to I.D., drop it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
I don't recall the case off-hand, but I remember it being a big deal a few years back.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

And the new one regarding ID:
http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3327204

I believe that with any change there will always be resistance.
yes, every time there have been scientific discoveries that religious types perceive as going against their faith, they have raised a ruckus.
One thing that I love about math is that the numbers and equations, themselves, are so totally devoid of bies and opinion.
Ah, like science. OK.
Having only been taught the "new" math, I have no experience with the "old" math to make a personal comparison......but I do remember "specialists" trying to teach my class that a close guess was "good enough", and a close guess was counted as an actual correct answer.
Perhaps that is what the objection was over. 2+2=4. If you answer 3 or 5, your answer is wrong.
P.C. has no place in school.
Indeed. So relying on facts and evidence rather than wishful thinking or "goddidit" unsubstantiated postulations should be purged, certainly from the science curriculum.
As for evolution, I believe that it belongs in both the science classroom and the philosophy classroom.
Why philosophy? Perhaps the impact of the science is affecting philosophy and worldview, but the Scientific Theory of Evolution is pure science.
Where I run into static from people is when I say that, in addition to evolution, (secular) I.D. should also be in the science classroom, because (secular) I.D. is a scientific topic.
Well, actually it isn't. For something to be a scientific "topic," it would have to be possible to evaluate it through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. otherwise, it is not science. And up until now, NOBODY have been able to propose a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis regarding ID that can be tested.

So your claim is flatout false.

I would love to discuss the scientific evidence supporting I.D., but I am not yet ready to argue I.D.; so I will have to let it drop for now.
And we would have to wait a very long time as there is NO actual evidence supporting ID.

But WAIT A MINUTE. You are claiming that ID is science, and yet you don't know of any Scientific Evidence? That makes your claim sound very DISHONEST. If you insist that ID is science, it must be because you have evidence that it is science.

Yet, now you say that you don't know enough about it. How is that NOT dishonest?
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Engimo said:
Way to straw man, there. The right to use a library is entirely different from having the right to access all of the contents of a library. If it is illegal to show children pornography, the right to use the library does not change the fundamental illegality of doing so. Doubtlessly, the "materials" they are referring to are those of an academic nature that explain what sex is, not things that are graphic and illegal for minors to watch.
Sorry buddy, but....."Article V holds that "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background or views."
Preventing someone, regardless of age, from accessing certain "material" is abridgment.

Msn/Hotmail Dictionary;
abridge
1. to shorten a text, for example, by cutting or summarizing it
2. to reduce something in scope or extent
3. to deprive somebody of rights or privileges (archaic)

This is the exact same 14th. Amend. Equal Protection Claus bull $#!T that pro. GM people pull.

Shall I create a so-called "slippary-slope" for you?
Here, try this one:
Third graders must be legally allowed to view, read and/or have read to them soft-core and/or hard-core pornography in the school, if that is the manner the school selects, because thirdgraders being legaly allowed to view, read and/or have read to them soft-core and/or hard-core pornography must happen as a consiquence of "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background or views."

Likewise, if the legal ability to marry "anyone of your choosing" is a part of the fundamental right to marry, then minor children must be allowed to marry.
Perhaps if said minor child can not obtain their parent's consent to marry, since a minor can not sign a contract, they can obtain a Judicial Bypass.

You see, my final event MUST occure as a conciquence of (P).

When those "materials" visually show or graphically explain what sex is, that is pornography.
It is for the parent, not the school, to decide what is age appropriate for the individual child.

What may be appropriate for highschoolers is likely wholly inappropriate for 3rd. graders. But now, thanks again to the 9th. circit, parents have no say.

The school can certainly offer an elective class, and the parent can choose to send their child or not, and I would have no problem with that because the controle remains with the parent.

Given the many interpretations of what is obscene and what is not, any type of sex-ed that the school mandates will be wrong and unconstitutional.

Offering elective classes is the best option. Why it must be made mandatory is suspect.

Untrue. Murder is a legal term, which, by definition, cannot be legal.

Look at the definition of murder:
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." -Dictionary.com

If you want to make the claim that abortion is homicide, that is entirely different, but it is certainly not murder because it is legal.
From law Dictionary
Murder;
n. "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority."

According to our Founding Fathers, the right to life is conferred upon us at creation. Creation happens at conseption, not birth.
At conception, we are "people".
Like they, I see the right to life as the most important right, because with out it there would be no others.

In a nutshell, no ZEF was given legal representation at the trial of Roe-v-Wade, nor any abortion since. Thus, it's right to life was denied without Due Process.
That is unconstitutional, hence, illegal.
Roe-v-Wade is illegal.

Given that the mother's "legal excuse and authority" to end the life of the ZEF inside her is bogus and false, abortion is premeditated, first degree Murder (unless "Justifiable Homicide" can be proven).

This whole thing is answered with a simple question:

Q: Is showing pornography to minors a crime?
A: Yes.
Q: Would people that are showing pornography to 3rd graders be commiting a crime?
A: Yes.
Q: Would said people be open to prosecution?
A: Yes.

This ruling doesn't change the fact that the schools cannot do anything that is illegal, like showing pornography to minors.
Given your example of Murder, all some Judge has to do is say that pornography is either not pornography, or that showing it to third graders is no longer illegal, and showing pornography to third graders will be legal.

My point being that when this happens, there will be no other recourse for parents then to completely withdraw their child from the public school.
Edit: Also, stop calling everyone a communist, it's getting a little tiresome.
I have not called anyone a communist/socialist.
There are powers and principalities at work, and I am showing them for what they are.

But don't take my word for it......keep watch and look for 3 things:
1st. The name will be changed.
2nd. People will be pressured and bullied into complying with the new view.
3rd. Anyone who absolutely refuses to comply with the new view will be labled and defamed.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
From law Dictionary
Murder;
n. "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority."
"With no legal excuse or authority." Right there it mandates that for an act to be murder, it must for sure be illegal.

So as abortion IS legal, the claim of it being murder is a lie, it is revisionist linguistic misrepresentation, deception and hyperbole.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hay steen, good to see you.
I'm short on time so I'll summarize:
*Thanks for the Links;
*Religious folk will always make a ruckus no matter what. Just do as I do and make some popcorn;
*I think that evolution has a place in Philosophy because our ideas regarding how everything came into being exercises a great deal of influence over our reasonings. I do not mien for it to have a place in philosophy as a scientific theory, but as a logical reasoning of origins.
*Yes, I do know of scientific evidence supporting I.D. I have not yet reviewed it so I can not make any judgment on it; let allone base a pro. I.D. argument on it.

I'm sure that you are reading my prior post right now and, no doubt, have many fundamental objections regarding abortion.
I respect your view and know the need for everyone to see both sides.
However, you tend to be very passionate on this subject, as am I, and I do not wish to take part in a prolonged argument that you and I have had many times already.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
*Yes, I do know of scientific evidence supporting I.D. I have not yet reviewed it so I can not make any judgment on it; let allone base a pro. I.D. argument on it.
That does make me curious, as I have NEVER seen Scientific evidence for ID.:confused: And yes, I have looked a lot.
 
Top Bottom