• 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!

When Did the the Right Start Ignoring the Poor?

There is no scientific principle of "Evolutionary Origins". Evolution doesn't speak about origins, it speaks about change from one life to another, not where life originated. Abiogenesis =/= Evolution. There are alternatives to Abiogenesis, mind you, including creationism; Approximately 32% of Americans believe in Evolution, but not Abiogenesis, a so called "god guided evolution". I really have no idea where people are getting this "Evolutionary Origins" concept, because it's not from science.
I will try to make it easy so that we might be done with it. First, not all concepts must originate in the science world. To insist on that would be hubris of the most arrogant kind.

Answer these, please:

1. If there is no creator... where did everything come from?

2. If you are unable to answer that but are still of the belief there is no creator, where did we humans, according to science, come about?

3. If you are unable to answer that but are of the belief there was Abiogenesis without evolution, that from something non living into something living, and then evolution begins... then perhaps you believe in, what is essentially, our Evolutionary Origins? I am not here to get into semantic traps, just trying to determine how you believe we, humans, came about.

4. Or not, you tell me. And since you clearly show that there are many different theories none of which is proven or even much of a front runner, then you should agree, as it is not imperative that children in public schools be taught something that is no closer to being real than many of the alternatives.

That last is the crux, and you totally avoided it...
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Religion ==/==> Government
,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Government ==/==> Religion
No, you start off wrong, so you must end up wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That does in no way equal the equation you then put forward...which is

Religion ==/==> Government

Actually, what ESTABLISHMENT actually and exactly means is that there IS NO NATIONAL CHURCH OR RELIGION.

Simple as that...throws off your entire equation as a National Religion would be a single specific religion required of all citizens. Does not say anything about no involvement by religions in government.

That is just totally manufactured.

The second equation, in my opinion, is valid.
 
The real problem is with this idea that the government is persecuting religious people; I don't really see that happening in America.

A lot of people have noted religious decorations and rituals being banned; there is no such law. You can have any religious decoration or rituals you want on private property. Many people are self-censoring their religion, but you really can't blame anyone else for that. People need to know their rights; if they are hurting themselves out of ignorance, that's not my fault or the fault of any government policy.

There is no real ban on public religion. If you can show me something to the contrary, I'd appreciate the talking points, but every example I've received involved self-censorship; I've yet to see a law "banning" any Christian practices from the public square. I could be wrong, so please show me what you mean.

How about this...you seem fairly reasonable most of the time, so, what are your thoughts of this display in a courtroom that was banned by concept of church and state...

Ban on judge's Ten Commandments poster stands as Supreme Court declines case - CSMonitor.com

And of course anybody can have religious decorations at their own private property... that was not argued...it is the public square... I can tell you these ideas/concepts have had a chilling affect on school children and what they think they cannot even bring up, think they are not allowed to bring up, in a classroom.
 
I will try to make it easy so that we might be done with it. First, not all concepts must originate in the science world. To insist on that would be hubris of the most arrogant kind.

Answer these, please:

1. If there is no creator... where did everything come from?
There are theories on the subject, but if you actually mean my personally belief, I have none. It's not something I sit around thinking about; no matter who you talk to, it was in the past and isn't happening now, so it's somewhat immaterial to me. I don't waste time thinking about immaterial things.
2. If you are unable to answer that but are still of the belief there is no creator, where did we humans, according to science, come about?
The leading and most supported theories all involve evolution from a common ancestor of modern Primates. I'm certain you knew that, so I don't know why you asked.
3. If you are unable to answer that but are of the belief there was Abiogenesis without evolution, that from something non living into something living, and then evolution begins... then perhaps you believe in, what is essentially, our Evolutionary Origins? I am not here to get into semantic traps, just trying to determine how you believe we, humans, came about.
Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution simply addresses the diversity of life, it doesn't address where life came from. As I said before, you could believe that god did it, just as 32% of Americans do right now. Personally, I see no problem with Abiogenesis and I see "god" as an Argument from Ignorance; just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean "god did it". But, that seriously has nothing to do with Evolution, because if it did, those 32% of Americans that believe in both god and evolution, wouldn't exist. When I said there are other theories to Abiogenesis, I truly meant it; there's Exospermia Theory or Panspermia, which essentially say we came from outerspace as bacteria. I don't like that theory, and neither do most scientists, but there is scientific research on it.

My main point, is that you keep putting Abiogenesis and Evolution together, when no scientist does. They truly are separate, in that if Evolution was disproved, Abiogenesis wouldn't be, and if Abiogenesis was disproved, evolution wouldn't be. They don't need each other, so they're separate theories. This term "Evolutionary Origins", is never used by scientists to mean a connection between Abiogenesis and Evolution; if it's used at all, it's used as a synonym to "common ancestor".
4. Or not, you tell me. And since you clearly show that there are many different theories none of which is proven or even much of a front runner, then you should agree, as it is not imperative that children in public schools be taught something that is no closer to being real than many of the alternatives.

That last is the crux, and you totally avoided it...
Can you prove that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? You can't, absolute proof is impossible. But, just as we all "know" that the sun will rise, despite any proof from the future, we have reasonable expectations of proof. Evolution has met that standard, in that it matches the evidence we have, and is practically useful in predicting the outcome of events that relate to it. That's reasonable proof, in that it has a good track record of giving useful results; we use Evolutionary theories in almost every industry, and they work.
No, you start off wrong, so you must end up wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That does in no way equal the equation you then put forward...which is

Religion ==/==> Government

Actually, what ESTABLISHMENT actually and exactly means is that there IS NO NATIONAL CHURCH OR RELIGION.

Simple as that...throws off your entire equation as a National Religion would be a single specific religion required of all citizens. Does not say anything about no involvement by religions in government.

That is just totally manufactured.

The second equation, in my opinion, is valid.
Well, me, most people I've talked to, and the SCOTUS disagree with you. But, here's my logic behind my choice;

The word "religion" is obviously plural when it's applied to the things that government can't touch, so it must be plural on the other side of the equation, as well. That only allows for two possible interpretations of the first sentence; either it says all religions can influence the law, or it says all religions can't influence the law. It's obviously not a matter of democracy, since nobody would even propose that we vote as to whether the government is allowed to infringe someone's religious rights; it's an absolute, not up for a vote. That would apply to the other sentence as well, so it really is a dichotomy, all or nothing. If all religions get a say, then no laws should exist, because every law upsets one religion or another. If it's the other interpretation, that religion isn't allowed to influence the law, there's no problem and laws stay valid. "All" doesn't work, and "Nothing" works fine.

How about this...you seem fairly reasonable most of the time, so, what are your thoughts of this display in a courtroom that was banned by concept of church and state...

Ban on judge's Ten Commandments poster stands as Supreme Court declines case - CSMonitor.com

And of course anybody can have religious decorations at their own private property... that was not argued...it is the public square... I can tell you these ideas/concepts have had a chilling affect on school children and what they think they cannot even bring up, think they are not allowed to bring up, in a classroom.
I see Ten Commandment's posted by a public official as an infringement of the First Amendment and support the ban. It represents a preferential treatment to other Christians, implying that he gives unfair sentences to non-Christians. As an Atheist, I'm flat out scared of Judges like this. I should get a fair trial if I'm accused of breaking the law, just as all people should; if this guy is going to bring his religion into his court room, it would show me and everyone else that he's not willing to do that.

As for school children, they have no such restrictions. While in school, both public highschool, and a private university, I studied the bible as a hobby on many of my breaks. To the people around me, who didn't know of my Atheism, I would have looked like a Christian worshiping; I was never bothered or even questioned. I support bans on teacher led prayer, but I support the rights of individuals, including children, to worship as they want; as long as it's not unreasonably distracting from class time. I support the bans on officials from leading these prayers, because that's essentially me paying the school to be like a church; it's obvious to me that it's not only a First Amendment violation, but it's also a misuse of my tax money.

I'm not anti-Religion (for the most part); I've stuck by my friends and even some complete strangers when my highschool had banned crosses at school. The ban was lifted within a couple days after we stopped going to class and started talking about lawyers and lawsuits. I'd be lying if I said I don't want religion to go away, but I've never supported force as a means to an end. I support the religious people around me, despite my disbelief in their religions; I support all people in all their rights, and I fear the drop of a Separation of Church and State as a quick path to losing most of those rights.
 
Not to mention the Democrats who are delaying the healthcare requirement for unions, large companies, and Congress plus their staffers a full year but not doing the same for individual citizens thus allowing large companies to drop their workers from their healthcare coverage so that the individual HAS to buy gov't insurance therefore pushing all of the costs down to the individual while the rich get richer. Did you get all that?

/long, low whistle

That had to be the fastest deflection I've ever seen.
 
There are theories on the subject, but if you actually mean my personally belief, I have none. It's not something I sit around thinking about; no matter who you talk to, it was in the past and isn't happening now, so it's somewhat immaterial to me. I don't waste time thinking about immaterial things.
Exactly my point, which is why it means so little to have to teach, to force it upon, school children. You make my point but yet seem to contradict yourself with your last point [below]. It will neither help public school children to know at this stage, nor will it hinder them at this stage not to know.

So, we are settled that it need not be taught in public schools, should not be forced upon our kids.

That is a major hurdle.

The leading and most supported theories all involve evolution from a common ancestor of modern Primates. I'm certain you knew that, so I don't know why you asked.
Well, you were having such apparent difficulties with what I was getting at, I am thinking you still do, so I had to go through the steps to get you aboard the thought...since you were avoiding it or being obstinate...

So, if we came from a common ancestor, where did that common ancestor come from, originally? What was this common ancestor before it was what it became, our common ancestor?

Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution simply addresses the diversity of life, it doesn't address where life came from. As I said before, you could believe that god did it, just as 32% of Americans do right now. Personally, I see no problem with Abiogenesis and I see "god" as an Argument from Ignorance; just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean "god did it". But, that seriously has nothing to do with Evolution, because if it did, those 32% of Americans that believe in both god and evolution, wouldn't exist. When I said there are other theories to Abiogenesis, I truly meant it; there's Exospermia Theory or Panspermia, which essentially say we came from outerspace as bacteria. I don't like that theory, and neither do most scientists, but there is scientific research on it.

My main point, is that you keep putting Abiogenesis and Evolution together, when no scientist does. They truly are separate, in that if Evolution was disproved, Abiogenesis wouldn't be, and if Abiogenesis was disproved, evolution wouldn't be. They don't need each other, so they're separate theories. This term "Evolutionary Origins", is never used by scientists to mean a connection between Abiogenesis and Evolution; if it's used at all, it's used as a synonym to "common ancestor".
So, lets try to flesh this out this way then...for there to be diversity of life there first has to be life, correct? Where did this life come originally from, if it was not created? And then, if it somehow spontaneously came about, and there were more than one form of life [diversity] might that not mean a coupling of evolution with Abiogenesis? Could you have what we have now, the observable diversity [again, in the absence of a creator], without some very simple form of life somehow creating itself ...and then "evolving"?

Nobody is, or at least I am not, going through using one to disprove the other...both at that stage are simply not knowable, are in far too primitive stage of our "science" to be of any worth at K-12 levels and thus have absolutely no business in a public school classroom.

Period.

Can you prove that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? You can't, absolute proof is impossible. But, just as we all "know" that the sun will rise, despite any proof from the future, we have reasonable expectations of proof. Evolution has met that standard, in that it matches the evidence we have, and is practically useful in predicting the outcome of events that relate to it. That's reasonable proof, in that it has a good track record of giving useful results; we use Evolutionary theories in almost every industry, and they work.
Evolution, change over time, is useful and observable as we have contemporary real time examples. The ideas of where we came initially came from, how we originally came about [ we will call it just origins then, since you seem completely unable to cope with the idea of the term "Evolutionary Origins" ] with the many "scientific theories", you suggest a few, have no place in the public school class unless its a debate or side discussion just for fun.

While wikipedia is not necessarily a good source for obtaining the definitive, it does allow one to get a good handle on topics, it is a common tool and has within it, ofttimes, good individual sources...

Here from the article on Abiogenesis [ a term which would seem, to itself, to be interpreted straight out as biology + origins ] this apparently coming from the source Bernal J.D. "The physical basis of life"

"The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell


Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2"

Which would seem to suggest that maybe some in science do, or have, believed that there was a coupling of the start of life with evolution [ seems pretty logically certain that something like this must certainly have occurred, especially in the absence of a creator, right? ] ...which would further suggest that what you say: "Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution" may not, indeed, be absolutely accurate.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care to reassess?
 
/long, low whistle

That had to be the fastest deflection I've ever seen.
Not a deflection. Simply stating that, while many would love to believe their beloved Democrats are the party of the poor, it isn't the case. The Democrats are just as guilty as any other politician of furthering the gap between the rich and the poor. They just have different methods of doing so.
 
Exactly my point, which is why it means so little to have to teach, to force it upon, school children. You make my point but yet seem to contradict yourself with your last point [below]. It will neither help public school children to know at this stage, nor will it hinder them at this stage not to know.

So, we are settled that it need not be taught in public schools, should not be forced upon our kids.

That is a major hurdle.
I support Abiogenesis being taught, in that it answers the most common question that kids ask, "How did the first Common Ancestor arise?" You point at it yourself, so you know it's an issue. Whether it's "proved" or not isn't the issue, because nothing is "proof" for anything. We use the evidence to lead us to the most likely conclusion, and abiogenesis is that conclusion. Those scientific conclusions should be taught in science class, whether they'll have practical use or not. I was a College Math tutor for 3 years, and almost all of my students questioned the practical use of Math. Just because I don't know when they'll need this math doesn't mean I stopped teaching it to them.

Nobody knows why magnets work; scientists can describe the poles and flux fields and all that, but they'll also acknowledge that they are simply mathematical constructs for quantifying magnetic effects; nobody actually knows what it is that makes a magnet pull ferromagnetic materials towards it, or repel like poles. We don't know. Should we not teach magnetism in science class? Not having all the answers is what science is about.

So, if we came from a common ancestor, where did that common ancestor come from, originally? What was this common ancestor before it was what it became, our common ancestor?
Abiogenesis, if you ask me. It's not like we're hiding the issue; the word 'Abiogenesis' literally means "life from the lifeless".

So, lets try to flesh this out this way then...for there to be diversity of life there first has to be life, correct? Where did this life come originally from, if it was not created? And then, if it somehow spontaneously came about, and there were more than one form of life [diversity] might that not mean a coupling of evolution with Abiogenesis? Could you have what we have now, the observable diversity [again, in the absence of a creator], without some very simple form of life somehow creating itself ...and then "evolving"?
You still haven't really addressed the problem with Abiogenesis. It's already understood that it's not proved, but nothing is proved. If you're issue is with the unlikelihood of it happening, I can address that on a post; but if it's simply a lack of "proof", I really can't help you at that point, because science isn't about "proving" things.

Nobody is, or at least I am not, going through using one to disprove the other...both at that stage are simply not knowable, are in far too primitive stage of our "science" to be of any worth at K-12 levels and thus have absolutely no business in a public school classroom.
That's your opinion, not an observable fact.

Evolution, change over time, is useful and observable as we have contemporary real time examples. The ideas of where we came initially came from, how we originally came about [ we will call it just origins then, since you seem completely unable to cope with the idea of the term "Evolutionary Origins" ] with the many "scientific theories", you suggest a few, have no place in the public school class unless its a debate or side discussion just for fun.
Whether you like it or not, all of those theories are discussed in most schools. I think that we should answer every question we can, to help children grow, and I fear "gaps" as an easy target for religious corruption.

While wikipedia is not necessarily a good source for obtaining the definitive, it does allow one to get a good handle on topics, it is a common tool and has within it, ofttimes, good individual sources...
Wikipedia gets a bum rap. It's been independently rated as being second only to the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of Accuracy. For scientific articles, it's even more accurate, on average.

Here from the article on Abiogenesis [ a term which would seem, to itself, to be interpreted straight out as biology + origins ] this apparently coming from the source Bernal J.D. "The physical basis of life"

"The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell


Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2"

Which would seem to suggest that maybe some in science do, or have, believed that there was a coupling of the start of life with evolution [ seems pretty logically certain that something like this must certainly have occurred, especially in the absence of a creator, right? ] ...which would further suggest that what you say: "Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution" may not, indeed, be absolutely accurate.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care to reassess?
Sure, Mr. Bernal's theory isn't the modern understanding of Abiogenesis; he misused the term 'evolution' a lot, and his 3 stage model doesn't adequately explain how they actually cause life. His theory was proposed in 1924, and was quickly surpassed by a dozen other variations of "abiogenesis". Look up the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, where they showed that amino-acids and other organic chemicals could arise from sterile carbon slurry when shocked with electricity. They even found some amino-acids that aren't found in nature, so there's very little doubt in the validity of their discovery.Miller
 
Last edited:
SO you admit it actually both parties. I would like to see an organized effort to vote out EVERY incumbent including Mitch McConnell, Pelosi, and Reid.

Everybody supports this plan.

The guy in Kansas says, "Vote out all of congress and the senate. The only exception would be my congressman and my senator. They are the only good ones."

The guy in New Jersey says, "Vote out all of congress and the senate. The only exception would be my congressman and my senator. They are the only good ones."

The guy in California says, "Vote out all of congress and the senate. The only exception would be my congressman and my senator. They are the only good ones."

Your plan is not original but for some reason it never works.

vasuderatorrent
 
I support Abiogenesis being taught, in that it answers the most common question that kids ask, "How did the first Common Ancestor arise?" You point at it yourself, so you know it's an issue. Whether it's "proved" or not isn't the issue, because nothing is "proof" for anything. We use the evidence to lead us to the most likely conclusion, and abiogenesis is that conclusion. Those scientific conclusions should be taught in science class, whether they'll have practical use or not. I was a College Math tutor for 3 years, and almost all of my students questioned the practical use of Math. Just because I don't know when they'll need this math doesn't mean I stopped teaching it to them.

Nobody knows why magnets work; scientists can describe the poles and flux fields and all that, but they'll also acknowledge that they are simply mathematical constructs for quantifying magnetic effects; nobody actually knows what it is that makes a magnet pull ferromagnetic materials towards it, or repel like poles. We don't know. Should we not teach magnetism in science class? Not having all the answers is what science is about.
You are wrong, "the most common question that kids ask," is not "How did the first Common Ancestor arise?". It is probably more like, "...can I have a pass to the rest room?"

All of which goes towards contradicting your necessity of this being something critical to be taught...asserting that most kids are concerned about this, the vast majority are not one whit concerned, its you folks on the other side that are most concerned, have your own anti religious agenda, want to jam your less than "scientific" views down our kids throats in an effort to push them away from their and their parent's beliefs...

And, you see, just because a "scientist" comes up with something does not automatically mean its science. That is the "scientific corruption" that has blinded you into believing the idea of the "religious corruption". Which one is currently in the position to be corrupting, eh?

And the kids no more need to do learn this at that stage of their lives than they need to know to perform brain surgery at that same juncture, since some may someday become brain surgeons.

How magnets work or don't is not in contention for our belief systems... you do not believe, apparently, in god, so you want to try to assure that nobody else will have that belief, either...

You and your side simply DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. Sorry, but if the game were suddenly turned and all students were not allowed to be taught science and ONLY religion, people on your side would have a cow...of course if that cow could have further cows, maybe then you could produce proof of cross species jumps...as of now tho, that is a joke. Your views of science are a JOKE.


Abiogenesis, if you ask me. It's not like we're hiding the issue; the word 'Abiogenesis' literally means "life from the lifeless".
So, you have just proven, at least to you, that Evolution would be a necessary ingredient in the equation, along with Abiogenesis...to go from lifeless to our common ancestor to...us. So the two are indeed associated, together this association could easily be identified as, called Evolutionary Origins even though you have fought this every single step of the way. For what reason who knows? Not for science surely...perhaps for the furtherance of scientific corruption... again, who knows?


You still haven't really addressed the problem with Abiogenesis. It's already understood that it's not proved, but nothing is proved. If you're issue is with the unlikelihood of it happening, I can address that on a post; but if it's simply a lack of "proof", I really can't help you at that point, because science isn't about "proving" things.
Well, if we are going to put forth unproved, probably unprovable, theories that directly challenge what parents might be teaching their kids on everyday of the week but especially Sundays, as is THEIR FULL RIGHT, then you would surely accept that Intelligent Design be taught along side Abiogenesis, coupled with Evolution, in our public schools.

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander you are aware...the use of such sauce being observable and provable...


That's your opinion, not an observable fact.
Let's just say its my logical and "scientific" theory and thus, according to you, should be allowed to be taught in our schools. And it, along with the beliefs that are held by many if not most parents, should be the deciding factor. Sorry, your unproven opinions do not have more weight by some magic [ what you might just call "science"].


Whether you like it or not, all of those theories are discussed in most schools. I think that we should answer every question we can, to help children grow, and I fear "gaps" as an easy target for religious corruption.
See, there now we have seen your agenda. You want to convert kids to your side... that is just utter corruption without any redeeming qualities. At least we are getting down to motives finally.


Sure, Mr. Bernal's theory isn't the modern understanding of Abiogenesis; he misused the term 'evolution' a lot, and his 3 stage model doesn't adequately explain how they actually cause life. His theory was proposed in 1924, and was quickly surpassed by a dozen other variations of "abiogenesis". Look up the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, where they showed that amino-acids and other organic chemicals could arise from sterile carbon slurry when shocked with electricity. They even found some amino-acids that aren't found in nature, so there's very little doubt in the validity of their discovery.Miller
Again, just proof that, had we taught school children in the 50s-70s Dr. Bernal's now erroneously considered beliefs it would not have helped them one whit...and yet you want to force this upon our kids...

Absolutely absurd and, at minimum, slightly totalitarian.
 
Last edited:
You can't even click on two links and play word games on every post. Have a nice day, dude; I'm ending this conversation.

well for one you offered points in no way relevant to the argument,you tried to use republicans more conservative than ever as a statement to blanket all conservatives,ofcourse you failed at it,you mad bro??????
 
You are wrong, "the most common question that kids ask," is not "How did the first Common Ancestor arise?". It is probably more like, "...can I have a pass to the rest room?"

All of which goes towards contradicting your necessity of this being something critical to be taught...asserting that most kids are concerned about this, the vast majority are not one whit concerned, its you folks on the other side that are most concerned, have your own anti religious agenda, want to jam your less than "scientific" views down our kids throats in an effort to push them away from their and their parent's beliefs...

And, you see, just because a "scientist" comes up with something does not automatically mean its science. That is the "scientific corruption" that has blinded you into believing the idea of the "religious corruption". Which one is currently in the position to be corrupting, eh?

And the kids no more need to do learn this at that stage of their lives than they need to know to perform brain surgery at that same juncture, since some may someday become brain surgeons.
Should we not teach math? What if they aren't going to be Mathematicians?

How magnets work or don't is not in contention for our belief systems... you do not believe, apparently, in god, so you want to try to assure that nobody else will have that belief, either...
You have a bad habit of putting words in another man's mouth. I have not only never said that, I've even said that I don't want to use force.

You and your side simply DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. Sorry, but if the game were suddenly turned and all students were not allowed to be taught science and ONLY religion, people on your side would have a cow...of course if that cow could have further cows, maybe then you could produce proof of cross species jumps...as of now tho, that is a joke. Your views of science are a JOKE.
You understand that you can bring your kids to whatever church you want; how are we stopping religion from being taught? We don't want it in schools, that's all. Just as we're making no attempt to force science into your churches.


So, you have just proven, at least to you, that Evolution would be a necessary ingredient in the equation, along with Abiogenesis...to go from lifeless to our common ancestor to...us. So the two are indeed associated, together this association could easily be identified as, called Evolutionary Origins even though you have fought this every single step of the way. For what reason who knows? Not for science surely...perhaps for the furtherance of scientific corruption... again, who knows?
And the formation of earth is necessary for Abiogenesis, and star formation was necessary for that, and galaxy formation for that, and the Big Bang before that, and the universal laws settling before that, and then a brane collision before that, ad infinitum. What are you getting at? That science isn't religion? Because it's not. There's no big conspiracy of how Science isn't Religion. We aren't teaching Religion in school, there are churches for teaching religion. There's nothing unfair going on, you can teach religion to your child if you want, just don't expect the public dime to pay for it.
Well, if we are going to put forth unproved, probably unprovable, theories that directly challenge what parents might be teaching their kids on everyday of the week but especially Sundays, as is THEIR FULL RIGHT, then you would surely accept that Intelligent Design be taught along side Abiogenesis, coupled with Evolution, in our public schools.
All Scientific Theories are unprovable! What about that, do you not understand? It's not a strange concept that we recently invented; science is about disproving theories, not proving them. Proof isn't possible for any claim involving the physical world. Mathematical theorems can be proved, Logical theorems can be proved, Science can not be proved, that's not the point of science. Common misconceptions about science I:

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander you are aware...the use of such sauce being observable and provable...
No idea what you're getting at.

Let's just say its my logical and "scientific" theory and thus, according to you, should be allowed to be taught in our schools. And it, along with the beliefs that are held by many if not most parents, should be the deciding factor. Sorry, your unproven opinions do not have more weight by some magic [ what you might just call "science"].
Education isn't a democracy, but even if it was, belief in Evolution is the plurality. Gallup polls show 47% of Americans believe in Evolution, where only 46% do not (The rest didn't respond). Respectfully, it's a small margin, but it's still in our favor.

See, there now we have seen your agenda. You want to convert kids to your side... that is just utter corruption without any redeeming qualities. At least we are getting down to motives finally.
Yup, I hate children and values; that's why I want them to get a good education. I'm just a monster.

I also have to ask, even if I was just trying to get them on my "side", what does that make you?
Again, just proof that, had we taught school children in the 50s-70s Dr. Bernal's now erroneously considered beliefs it would not have helped them one whit...and yet you want to force this upon our kids...
We teach children that "it's what the leading theory is", never that it's the end all, be all, absolute truth. Those words have never escaped the lips of a Science teacher. We want children to question these ideas, and to follow the new evidence and theories as they are uncovered.

Absolutely absurd and, at minimum, slightly totalitarian.
Again, we could say the same thing about all school activities. It's mandatory, by law; all school functions are based on totalitarianism. That's the point; if we let kids decide, it'd be video games, junk food, and sleeping, school. It's like my tutoring days, "I don't know if you'll need this, but you better shape up or you'll be lucky to flip hamburgers." I don't want a generation of hamburger flippers, I want a generation of hard working, quick thinking, skeptically minded citizens. The world needs it.
 
Should we not teach math? What if they aren't going to be Mathematicians?

You have a bad habit of putting words in another man's mouth. I have not only never said that, I've even said that I don't want to use force.

You understand that you can bring your kids to whatever church you want; how are we stopping religion from being taught? We don't want it in schools, that's all. Just as we're making no attempt to force science into your churches.

And the formation of earth is necessary for Abiogenesis, and star formation was necessary for that, and galaxy formation for that, and the Big Bang before that, and the universal laws settling before that, and then a brane collision before that, ad infinitum. What are you getting at? That science isn't religion? Because it's not. There's no big conspiracy of how Science isn't Religion. We aren't teaching Religion in school, there are churches for teaching religion. There's nothing unfair going on, you can teach religion to your child if you want, just don't expect the public dime to pay for it.

All Scientific Theories are unprovable! What about that, do you not understand? It's not a strange concept that we recently invented; science is about disproving theories, not proving them. Proof isn't possible for any claim involving the physical world. Mathematical theorems can be proved, Logical theorems can be proved, Science can not be proved, that's not the point of science. Common misconceptions about science I:


No idea what you're getting at.


Education isn't a democracy, but even if it was, belief in Evolution is the plurality. Gallup polls show 47% of Americans believe in Evolution, where only 46% do not (The rest didn't respond). Respectfully, it's a small margin, but it's still in our favor.


Yup, I hate children and values; that's why I want them to get a good education. I'm just a monster.

I also have to ask, even if I was just trying to get them on my "side", what does that make you?

We teach children that "it's what the leading theory is", never that it's the end all, be all, absolute truth. Those words have never escaped the lips of a Science teacher. We want children to question these ideas, and to follow the new evidence and theories as they are uncovered.


Again, we could say the same thing about all school activities. It's mandatory, by law; all school functions are based on totalitarianism. That's the point; if we let kids decide, it'd be video games, junk food, and sleeping, school. It's like my tutoring days, "I don't know if you'll need this, but you better shape up or you'll be lucky to flip hamburgers." I don't want a generation of hamburger flippers, I want a generation of hard working, quick thinking, skeptically minded citizens. The world needs it.
this silliness has gone on quite long enough, I tire of your constant dodges.

Math is a practical tool used every single day by probably, in some form or another, every sentient and conscious person to achieve actual results. So your analogy proves inadequate and somewhat juvenile.

Okay, I will break it down for you on the force thing. If you cannot afford private school or home school, what is your choice? Its not just keeping your kids home, you will THEN be forced to put them in public school...right or wrong?? Since you will try to slide out of this as you have everything else, I will just tell you the observable truth, You have to go to school, its the law.

Now, if you have to go to public school and they are teaching your unproven, plausibly if not probably false pseudo-"science", would that not be force? I will answer for you, ditto previous explanation, YES.

For as smart as you seem to try to imply you are, you cannot see that your side should not be able to force our children to be taught, then assessed giving your side the answers they want to hear from our children... "So Billy," asks the science teacher, " just how did life originally come about?" Think the student will get a good grade if he gives the credit to god? I cannot see how you cannot see that as indoctrination to your point of view, mandated by law.

As regards your brane brain collision et al... yes, nothing that our children need know in K-12, they will not starve to death, won't be asphyxiated if they do not learn it early... so you are just trying to impose your views so as to imprint them on the minds of our children... so at least you admit you are trying to do that, that our common ancestor, at least in your estimation, would have evolved out of life from the lifeless...so Evolutionary Origins is your proven hypothesis finally admitted.

Then it stands to reason that if scientific theories are ALL UNPROVEN, LETS HAVE SOME OTHER MORE ACCEPTABLE ONES THERE TO CHALLENGE THE OTHER UNPROVEN ONES... or how about just leave it be, since its just plain stupid to push such silliness.

Right ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

My god, the inanity of your premise and its amazingly simple and reasonable resolution to which your side, being more than slightly totalitarian-ish ideologues, cannot acquiesce...which is correspondingly and appallingly irritating.

No idea what I am getting at... and yet want to be in the ranks of the ones trying to dictate the learning of the implausible to our children...niiiiiiiiiiiceee...

Evolution in the concept of slow change over time is easily agreed to... Evolutionary Origins [ please do not start with all the EO is not a scientific blah blah blah blah...] is something else... do they ask that question? Do they ask where do we all come from, do they ask if we all basically descended from rocks and gases, if they believe that DNA created itself, rocks and gases somehow figuring it all out...absurd, and you want us to respect your beliefs? Might as well be a religion for as much credence one can put into such hogwash.

You dislike religion, you have already admitted as much... you like children being taught your beliefs, good education not withstanding.

What does that make me? Someone that wants parents to have a right to have their children be taught more along the lines of how they want their children to be taught.

And so if the answers are outside the realm of science to discover...what then? Don't you want critically thinking children to be able to throw in other things which may be true, but, just like ALL your theories, cannot be proven?

Hamburger flipping nor being President nor being a scientist will be contingent upon being forced to learn your view of origin which you believe is science. If you want that view, pay for it at college, that is what college is for nowadays, far out concepts that have to have no real practical purpose, but could have. Have at it at that level, be our guest to waste your money, just don't waste the taxpayers on such silliness and what is, admittedly, your belief system so you go along with it... that is simply insufficient as a reasoning as there is no real reason to it.
 
this silliness has gone on quite long enough, I tire of your constant dodges.

Math is a practical tool used every single day by probably, in some form or another, every sentient and conscious person to achieve actual results. So your analogy proves inadequate and somewhat juvenile.

Okay, I will break it down for you on the force thing. If you cannot afford private school or home school, what is your choice? Its not just keeping your kids home, you will THEN be forced to put them in public school...right or wrong?? Since you will try to slide out of this as you have everything else, I will just tell you the observable truth, You have to go to school, its the law.

Now, if you have to go to public school and they are teaching your unproven, plausibly if not probably false pseudo-"science", would that not be force? I will answer for you, ditto previous explanation, YES.

For as smart as you seem to try to imply you are, you cannot see that your side should not be able to force our children to be taught, then assessed giving your side the answers they want to hear from our children... "So Billy," asks the science teacher, " just how did life originally come about?" Think the student will get a good grade if he gives the credit to god? I cannot see how you cannot see that as indoctrination to your point of view, mandated by law.

As regards your brane brain collision et al... yes, nothing that our children need know in K-12, they will not starve to death, won't be asphyxiated if they do not learn it early... so you are just trying to impose your views so as to imprint them on the minds of our children... so at least you admit you are trying to do that, that our common ancestor, at least in your estimation, would have evolved out of life from the lifeless...so Evolutionary Origins is your proven hypothesis finally admitted.

Then it stands to reason that if scientific theories are ALL UNPROVEN, LETS HAVE SOME OTHER MORE ACCEPTABLE ONES THERE TO CHALLENGE THE OTHER UNPROVEN ONES... or how about just leave it be, since its just plain stupid to push such silliness.

Right ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

My god, the inanity of your premise and its amazingly simple and reasonable resolution to which your side, being more than slightly totalitarian-ish ideologues, cannot acquiesce...which is correspondingly and appallingly irritating.

No idea what I am getting at... and yet want to be in the ranks of the ones trying to dictate the learning of the implausible to our children...niiiiiiiiiiiceee...

Evolution in the concept of slow change over time is easily agreed to... Evolutionary Origins [ please do not start with all the EO is not a scientific blah blah blah blah...] is something else... do they ask that question? Do they ask where do we all come from, do they ask if we all basically descended from rocks and gases, if they believe that DNA created itself, rocks and gases somehow figuring it all out...absurd, and you want us to respect your beliefs? Might as well be a religion for as much credence one can put into such hogwash.

You dislike religion, you have already admitted as much... you like children being taught your beliefs, good education not withstanding.

What does that make me? Someone that wants parents to have a right to have their children be taught more along the lines of how they want their children to be taught.

And so if the answers are outside the realm of science to discover...what then? Don't you want critically thinking children to be able to throw in other things which may be true, but, just like ALL your theories, cannot be proven?

Hamburger flipping nor being President nor being a scientist will be contingent upon being forced to learn your view of origin which you believe is science. If you want that view, pay for it at college, that is what college is for nowadays, far out concepts that have to have no real practical purpose, but could have. Have at it at that level, be our guest to waste your money, just don't waste the taxpayers on such silliness and what is, admittedly, your belief system so you go along with it... that is simply insufficient as a reasoning as there is no real reason to it.
You've asked the same questions and put forth the same points over and over now. I can't keep saying the same thing and it suddenly make sense to you. You want to put religion in school, I want to keep it in church, I don't see how that's wrong of me.

Teaching Abiogenesis is not high on my list, you act like it's a priority of mine; I propose it as nothing more than an answer to a probable question. It's not proved, just like no theory can be proved. You keep knocking that as if you've found the flaw in my logic; there is none. Science is not about proof...

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur"
Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."
Common misconceptions about science I:

"In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field"
WHAT IS A THEORY?
 
You've asked the same questions and put forth the same points over and over now. I can't keep saying the same thing and it suddenly make sense to you. You want to put religion in school, I want to keep it in church, I don't see how that's wrong of me.

Teaching Abiogenesis is not high on my list, you act like it's a priority of mine; I propose it as nothing more than an answer to a probable question. It's not proved, just like no theory can be proved. You keep knocking that as if you've found the flaw in my logic; there is none. Science is not about proof...

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur"
Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."
Common misconceptions about science I:

"In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field"
WHAT IS A THEORY?
Totally aware of what science indicates it can and cannot do, so you can step down from what you think is a high horse. What we can determine by all this that you put up is that even science says it cannot provide all the answers... and there can be answers, whether you and your side believe it or not, outside of science. So our side and science agree somewhat.

The statement, ""In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur"...sorry, that statement is simply untrue.

You want to maintain the exclusion of our belief systems in the schools yet maintain your own...hmmmm... sounds kinda discriminatory in favor of only your belief system. Yours, as you have agreed, having no true answers... and the theories are pretty meaningless even if true...especially at the K-12 level....whether it is a specific priority of yours or not, it is a priority of your side's.

Through the constant and "evolving" questions and points I have put forth we finally arrived at your admission of not only a belief in a term you wanted no part of, originally, and yet to actually wanting this belief, Evolutionary Origins, under whatever name you care to give it taught in our schools without any real competition to these theories that, again, you yourself say are not provable. So we see the agenda, be it yours specifically, or only to be placed on your side.

So, if nothing else, this should have been instructive to you as to what your side is actually attempting...and proved through one of the two you indicate can do so, not math but through logic, so thanks for showing us by playing along.
 
Totally aware of what science indicates it can and cannot do, so you can step down from what you think is a high horse. What we can determine by all this that you put up is that even science says it cannot provide all the answers... and there can be answers, whether you and your side believe it or not, outside of science. So our side and science agree somewhat.
Can you show where I said that, because I'm pretty sure I didn't.

The statement, ""In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur"...sorry, that statement is simply untrue.
I agree; I only posted that quote as proof for my claim, that science isn't about proof. I think information is readily attained without the scientific method, I just don't think that useful conclusions will consistently flow without using it.

You want to maintain the exclusion of our belief systems in the schools yet maintain your own...hmmmm... sounds kinda discriminatory in favor of only your belief system. Yours, as you have agreed, having no true answers... and the theories are pretty meaningless even if true...especially at the K-12 level....whether it is a specific priority of yours or not, it is a priority of your side's.
Not if you have churches. You keep ignoring that fact; the state isn't stopping you from going to church, with your children.

Through the constant and "evolving" questions and points I have put forth we finally arrived at your admission of not only a belief in a term you wanted no part of, originally, and yet to actually wanting this belief, Evolutionary Origins, under whatever name you care to give it taught in our schools without any real competition to these theories that, again, you yourself say are not provable. So we see the agenda, be it yours specifically, or only to be placed on your side.
I have no problem with religious opposition being taught, as long as it's not taught as science. You have churches for that, or do you not?

So, if nothing else, this should have been instructive to you as to what your side is actually attempting...and proved through one of the two you indicate can do so, not math but through logic, so thanks for showing us by playing along.
It was never a big secret. We don't want religion in school, any more than you want science in church. That's fair, unless you can show why it's not.
 
Can you show where I said that, because I'm pretty sure I didn't. OMG, think I am going to waste time on that, what would be the purpose... if science itself says it cannot ever prove anything... you are mainly into sophistry and I will no longer play that game.

I agree; I only posted that quote as proof for my claim, that science isn't about proof. I think information is readily attained without the scientific method, I just don't think that useful conclusions will consistently flow without using it. See, logical proof that even you agree to a certain extent. What is your opinion about the useful solution given, mainly by people of religion, over the policy of slavery... what did science say about slavery? When "science" started thinking about it at all "science" arrived at the idea of Social Darwinism and then eugenics...what does science say about being moral, does it have a position? No, science cannot have a position as it is supposed to be neutral...supposed to be unbiased... just the facts, m'am...


Not if you have churches. You keep ignoring that fact; the state isn't stopping you from going to church, with your children. Yes, but the state is forcing our children into schools which preach your counter message to ALL children, no matter if their parents go to church, believe in a religion, or not.


I have no problem with religious opposition being taught, as long as it's not taught as science. You have churches for that, or do you not?I have no problem with Evolutionary Origins being taught if not taught in a science class as well, along side of competing philosophies [religion and the pseudo sciences ] and science [ID] and almost science. You have universities for your brand of "science", do you not?

It was never a big secret. We don't want religion in school, any more than you want science in church. That's fair, unless you can show why it's not. Again, that is not even closely approximating fair... folks are not forced into church, they are into school... everyone gets your message, gets assessed and graded upon how they respond... in church you listen and can agree or disagree, take what you will, walk away from it if you should so choose... why do you not apply your scientific method, test if that is the same... logic would tell you that it is not... but then again, some of us may have descended, based on "science" and the observable, from some of the smarter rocks I am guessing...

I think you are done here...I know I am.
 
Seems like back when I was a fan of the Republicans, they at least pretended to care about the disadvantaged. The argument back then was basically, "Teach a man to fish don't just hand him a free meal." But, it didn't take long to figure out what that was all about--a bunch of crap.
Why?

Well, that's obvious, the Right had no intention of educating the disadvantaged. They've proven that much with their plans to defund public education while handing vouchers to people willing to toe their line. The Right is about Power and greed. Power over people and feeding the greedy who run the charter schools that pass RW Muster.

And, that leads me to why I left the Republican Party. The idea of education on the Right is to teach that the Flood was real and that Evolution is a Liberal conspiracy. They want the idiots dependent on them to believe in Intelligent Design not running around practicing the dangerous activity called Critical Thinking. It wasn't rocket science...in fact, the Right still prayed to keep the candles lit. It was the left who pursued higher learning. Hell, if it wasn't for a couple of ex-Nazis, we'd still be on the ground.

So what do we have left? We have a party that keeps people down. In GOP world, if you're not born into wealth, you better do as they say and then they throw you a few crumbs. And, your education? Well, it won't involve biology. It won't include geology. And, it most certainly will not involve and World History. The last thing the Right wants is to pass onto the next generation anything resembling factual regarding history, be it World or US. Nope. That definitely is not happening.

The GOP aims to keep the poor ignorant and dependent on psalms. Because, we know this, if it "weren't in the Byebull, tit aint in no ways real."

Looks like another attempt at lying without a shred of credible evidence.
/thread
 
Looks like another attempt at lying without a shred of credible evidence.
/thread

When you see the zombies on the Right protesting healthcare for poor people, its hard not to start thinking they've been taken over by evil spirits. The Right has been like a band of Pentecostals writhing on the floor ever since Obama got elected.
 
When you see the zombies on the Right protesting healthcare for poor people, its hard not to start thinking they've been taken over by evil spirits. The Right has been like a band of Pentecostals writhing on the floor ever since Obama got elected.

"protesting healthcare for the poor....." :roll: Yeah, more bull**** on top of bull****.
 
Seems like back when I was a fan of the Republicans, they at least pretended to care about the disadvantaged. The argument back then was basically, "Teach a man to fish don't just hand him a free meal." But, it didn't take long to figure out what that was all about--a bunch of crap.
Why?

Well, that's obvious, the Right had no intention of educating the disadvantaged. They've proven that much with their plans to defund public education while handing vouchers to people willing to toe their line. The Right is about Power and greed. Power over people and feeding the greedy who run the charter schools that pass RW Muster.

And, that leads me to why I left the Republican Party. The idea of education on the Right is to teach that the Flood was real and that Evolution is a Liberal conspiracy. They want the idiots dependent on them to believe in Intelligent Design not running around practicing the dangerous activity called Critical Thinking. It wasn't rocket science...in fact, the Right still prayed to keep the candles lit. It was the left who pursued higher learning. Hell, if it wasn't for a couple of ex-Nazis, we'd still be on the ground.

So what do we have left? We have a party that keeps people down. In GOP world, if you're not born into wealth, you better do as they say and then they throw you a few crumbs. And, your education? Well, it won't involve biology. It won't include geology. And, it most certainly will not involve and World History. The last thing the Right wants is to pass onto the next generation anything resembling factual regarding history, be it World or US. Nope. That definitely is not happening.

The GOP aims to keep the poor ignorant and dependent on psalms. Because, we know this, if it "weren't in the Byebull, tit aint in no ways real."

:aliens1::aliens3:






Meanwhile, back on planet earth...
 
"protesting healthcare for the poor....." :roll: Yeah, more bull**** on top of bull****.

That's about how I view the Sarah Led Right. Pure Bull****.
 
Everybody supports this plan.

The guy in Kansas says, "Vote out all of congress and the senate. The only exception would be my congressman and my senator. They are the only good ones."

The guy in New Jersey says, "Vote out all of congress and the senate. The only exception would be my congressman and my senator. They are the only good ones."

The guy in California says, "Vote out all of congress and the senate. The only exception would be my congressman and my senator. They are the only good ones."

Your plan is not original but for some reason it never works.

vasuderatorrent

Mitch and Rand are mine and I would send them packing if Pelosi and Reid went with them
 
Mitch and Rand are mine and I would send them packing if Pelosi and Reid went with them

Pelosi is from San Francisco and going nowhere, Reid was just re-elected both of which show that liberals have no conscience and don't really care about results. The only ones that have principles are conservatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom