The creationists are BACK

[Jack Fate]

Yeds and no...

Evolution is not always a good thing, every time something is born it is slightly different that the parents and siblings... It's just the way things are.

Creationism is not even a theory, it’s an idea and a shitty one at that. Creationism has absolutely ZERO proof what so ever. Evolution in no way disproves God while creationism’s sole purpose is to counter evolution for NO FUCKING REASON. Creationism is LITEARLLY religious noobs putting words in GODS mouth.

Nothing you've mentioned matters. The fact is Americans have the right to believe whatever they want to regarding God. That's is what the US Constitution states. A lot of people are confused. You have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to determine who can believe what and what is credible and what isn't. That's not your right.

Yes but when bitchs claim evolution should not be taught in schools, or creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools things get REALLY fucking dumb quickstyle.

The constitution also never mentions the Christian God, ever… so lets leave that crap outa the thread please.

What does the US Constitution say about God?

 

[Avorysuds]

Nothing you've mentioned matters. The fact is Americans have the right to believe whatever they want to regarding God. That's is what the US Constitution states. A lot of people are confused. You have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to determine who can believe what and what is credible and what isn't. That's not your right.

Yes but when bitchs claim evolution should not be taught in schools, or creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools things get REALLY fucking dumb quickstyle.

The constitution also never mentions the Christian God, ever… so lets leave that crap outa the thread please.

What does the US Constitution say about God?

Not one thing.

 

[Jack Fate]

Yes but when bitchs claim evolution should not be taught in schools, or creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools things get REALLY fucking dumb quickstyle.

The constitution also never mentions the Christian God, ever… so lets leave that crap outa the thread please.

What does the US Constitution say about God?

Not one thing.

What does it say about religion?

 

[Avorysuds]

Well, asshole, it's about teaching things that you or I may deem inapropriate Mr. 21/3 results in a fraction.

Yeah, like teaching religious concepts in public schools.

that stuff belongs in church.

Again, that's your opinion. Give us your constitutional argument.

I see your point but you seem to fail at understanding that you argue for a useless disproven formula "creationism" to be taught next to a formula that is proven zillions of times over. You might not agree with evolution but that does not change that you probably understand and agree with it.

Question, what happens when a human family fucks family members only for generations, meaning they produce children or offspring from people they are related to only… That’s right, genetic weaknesses become more and more obvious and a retard is born!

 

[Jack Fate]

Yeah, like teaching religious concepts in public schools.

that stuff belongs in church.

Again, that's your opinion. Give us your constitutional argument.

I see your point but you seem to fail at understanding that you argue for a useless disproven formula "creationism" to be taught next to a formula that is proven zillions of times over. You might not agree with evolution but that does not change that you probably understand and agree with it.

Question, what happens when a human family fucks family members only for generations, meaning they produce children or offspring from people they are related to only… That’s right, genetic weaknesses become more and more obvious and a retard is born!

That's nice, but what you fail to understand is the US Constition. What does it say regarding religion?

 

[Skynet]

I'd agree to that if the whackaloon left would agree that teaching how to put a condom on a banana and "My Two Moms" to 6 year olds is more than a bit inappropriate.

how is sex education equal to creationism?

O palease, sex education is not the teaching of homosexuality and condom usage to small children who can barely grasp the concept of washing their hands before they eat. What your advocating is borderline pedophilia.

do you have proof of people being taught to be homosexual? or proof that 6 years old are learning about condoms?



i simply stated teaching creationism and sex education are not equal. what are you gonna rally against next? teaching the arts?

 

[Mr Natural]

Yeah, like teaching religious concepts in public schools.

that stuff belongs in church.

Again, that's your opinion. Give us your constitutional argument.

I see your point but you seem to fail at understanding that you argue for a useless disproven formula "creationism" to be taught next to a formula that is proven zillions of times over. You might not agree with evolution but that does not change that you probably understand and agree with it.

Question, what happens when a human family fucks family members only for generations, meaning they produce children or offspring from people they are related to only… That’s right, genetic weaknesses become more and more obvious and a retard is born!

And given the limited population and mobility of the day, there was probably a lot of that going on at the time.

Hence, the rather fanciful stories.

 

[Skynet]

Americans have the right to teach creationism. That's my point.

if there is supposed to a be separation between church and state, the only place you could legally teach creationism would be in a private or religious school. which i would have no problem with as you are choosing that education for you child. it should not be taught in public school, as that would be using tax dollars to teach a religious idea.

Where does the US Constitution mention "separation of church and state"?

the constitution does not in fact not mention the exact words "separation of church and state". although its has been interpreted that way by the Supreme court.

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

 

[Jack Fate]

how is sex education equal to creationism?

O palease, sex education is not the teaching of homosexuality and condom usage to small children who can barely grasp the concept of washing their hands before they eat. What your advocating is borderline pedophilia.

do you have proof of people being taught to be homosexual? or proof that 6 years old are learning about condoms?



i simply stated teaching creationism and sex education are not equal. what are you gonna rally against next? teaching the arts?

I don't believe kids are being taught to be homosexual, but they are being taught homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. That is not the place of the schools. You can teach about homosexuality, but the determination of homosexuality being "normal" is not the school's business.

 

[Avorysuds]

Again, that's your opinion. Give us your constitutional argument.

I see your point but you seem to fail at understanding that you argue for a useless disproven formula "creationism" to be taught next to a formula that is proven zillions of times over. You might not agree with evolution but that does not change that you probably understand and agree with it.

Question, what happens when a human family fucks family members only for generations, meaning they produce children or offspring from people they are related to only… That’s right, genetic weaknesses become more and more obvious and a retard is born!

That's nice, but what you fail to understand is the US Constition. What does it say regarding religion?

The thread topic was about creationism... who the fuck cares what the constitution says about religion, god or otherwise? The debate seems to be some people wanting a failed (wrong) math formula to be taught as if it we a viable option despite ALWAYS getting the wrong answer next to the correct method, that always gets you the right answer.

 

[Jack Fate]

if there is supposed to a be separation between church and state, the only place you could legally teach creationism would be in a private or religious school. which i would have no problem with as you are choosing that education for you child. it should not be taught in public school, as that would be using tax dollars to teach a religious idea.

Where does the US Constitution mention "separation of church and state"?

the constitution does not in fact not mention the exact words "separation of church and state". although its has been interpreted that way by the Supreme court.

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

We can fix that by taking the government out of the education business.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have no problem with our schools presenting the concept of Intelligent Design and discussing all the evidence for and against it. Let it meet the same scientific standards that evolution does. Then your children can make the decision which theory makes the most sense

Do you religious fanatics really want creationism to go head to head with evolution on a scientific basis? I don't think you will be too happy with the conclusions your children reach

Funny you should mention that.

This is something I kind of worked up during the Dover trial. It doesn’t address creationism and is focused more on ID.

None of the ID supporters were very thrilled with the idea; I guess because it didn’t just support ID and then require further mention to be cutoff, it actually examined the history and validity of the ID concepts.

A couple of problems with this:

1. My daughter was in 9th grade biology and Evolution is actually a very small portion of the curriculum, about 2-4 weeks (at about 4 hours per week.) so you would be taking generalized concepts and providing the underlying validated research to support them.
2. The full course would take about 2 years to teach.
3. Heavy math would need to be included in the Freshman/Sophomore years to prepare for the class.

I attempted to be very fair in providing basis/evidence/history sections for each concept.

Mark

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proposed “Origin of the Species” Curriculum

Preliminary Basics:

* Types of Paradigms
. . . . . Theoretical Science
. . . . . Natural Science
. . . . . Philosophy
. . . . . Theology
* Probability Analysis
. . . . . Defining conditions of probability
. . . . . Criteria definition in probability analysis
. . . . . What does impossible mean
. . . . . What does low order of probability mean
. . . . . How does increased event frequency impact probability (parallel v. serial occurances)
* Theories
. . . . . Scientific Method
. . . . . What is a fact
. . . . . What is conjecture
. . . . . What is a hypothesis
. . . . . Development of Scientific Theories
* Colloquial Theory Vs. Scientific Theory – Define, explain, and compare
* Value of empirical evidence
* Value of Peer Review of empirical evidence
* Methods of Radiological Dating
* Methods of Geological Dating
* Methods of Fossilization
* Determining the age of fossils
* Premise of Irreductible Complexity
* Premise of Specified Complexity

Evolutionary Biology Science
* History of Evolution
. . . . . Scientific validation
. . . . . Peer Review
. . . . . Depth of Research
* Theory of Evolution
* Environmental Factors as a catalyst for change
. . . . . Proofs of change (Radiological, Geological, Fossil Record)
. . . . . Criticisms of change (Radiological, Geological, Fossil Record)
* Environmental Factors in species survival
. . . . . Proofs of species survival (Radiological, Geological, Fossil Record)
. . . . . Criticisms of species survival (Radiological, Geological, Fossil Record)
* Validation
. . . . . Status of empirical evidence
. . . . . Status of peer analysis
. . . . . Evaluation in terms of probability analysis
* Legal & Societal aspects in the history of Evolution

Biology of Intelligent Design
* History of Intelligent Design
. . . . . Scientific validation
. . . . . Peer Review
. . . . . Depth of Research
* Theory of Intelligent Design
* Irreducible Complexity
. . . . . Proofs of Irreducible Complexity
. . . . . Criticisms of Irreducible Complexity
* Specified Complexity
. . . . . Proofs of Specified Complexity
. . . . . Criticisms of Specified Complexity
* Validation
. . . . . Status of empirical evidence
. . . . . Status of peer analysis
. . . . . Evaluation in terms of probability analysis
* Legal & Societal aspects in the history of Intelligent Design


>>>>

 

[Jack Fate]

I see your point but you seem to fail at understanding that you argue for a useless disproven formula "creationism" to be taught next to a formula that is proven zillions of times over. You might not agree with evolution but that does not change that you probably understand and agree with it.

Question, what happens when a human family fucks family members only for generations, meaning they produce children or offspring from people they are related to only… That’s right, genetic weaknesses become more and more obvious and a retard is born!

That's nice, but what you fail to understand is the US Constition. What does it say regarding religion?

The thread topic was about creationism... who the fuck cares what the constitution says about religion, god or otherwise? The debate seems to be some people wanting a failed (wrong) math formula to be taught as if it we a viable option despite ALWAYS getting the wrong answer next to the correct method, that always gets you the right answer.

Spoken like a true totalitarian.

We care about what the Constitution says because we don't want people like you telling us what we can believe.

 

[Skynet]

O palease, sex education is not the teaching of homosexuality and condom usage to small children who can barely grasp the concept of washing their hands before they eat. What your advocating is borderline pedophilia.

do you have proof of people being taught to be homosexual? or proof that 6 years old are learning about condoms?



i simply stated teaching creationism and sex education are not equal. what are you gonna rally against next? teaching the arts?

I don't believe kids are being taught to be homosexual, but they are being taught homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. That is not the place of the schools. You can teach about homosexuality, but the determination of homosexuality being "normal" is not the school's business.

your more arguing the curriculum rather the the principle, but i do see and understand your point. trying to rationalize anything as "normal" is wrong, not just when it comes to sexuality. i believe that would teach our children that if you dont fit that mold, you are not "normal"

 

[Jack Fate]

do you have proof of people being taught to be homosexual? or proof that 6 years old are learning about condoms?



i simply stated teaching creationism and sex education are not equal. what are you gonna rally against next? teaching the arts?

I don't believe kids are being taught to be homosexual, but they are being taught homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. That is not the place of the schools. You can teach about homosexuality, but the determination of homosexuality being "normal" is not the school's business.

your more arguing the curriculum rather the the principle, but i do see and understand your point. trying to rationalize anything as "normal" is wrong, not just when it comes to sexuality. i believe that would teach our children that if you dont fit that mold, you are not "normal"

Exactly. I think we all can agree that the policy of our public education system is to get everyone on the same page as accepting homosexuality to be "normal". That's the problem. Indoctrination. That's where the state oversteps its place. The people determine how far the state is allowed into our lives. Not the state.

 

[Skynet]

I don't believe kids are being taught to be homosexual, but they are being taught homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. That is not the place of the schools. You can teach about homosexuality, but the determination of homosexuality being "normal" is not the school's business.

your more arguing the curriculum rather the the principle, but i do see and understand your point. trying to rationalize anything as "normal" is wrong, not just when it comes to sexuality. i believe that would teach our children that if you dont fit that mold, you are not "normal"

Exactly. I think we all can agree that the policy of our public education system is to get everyone on the same page as accepting homosexuality to be "normal". That's the problem. Indoctrination. That's where the state oversteps its place. The people determine how far the state is allowed into our lives. Not the state.

anyways this is a separate argument for another thread.

still if there is suppose to be a separation between church and state as established by the supreme court, why should a religious theory be taught in tax funded public school?

 

[Avorysuds]

That's nice, but what you fail to understand is the US Constition. What does it say regarding religion?

The thread topic was about creationism... who the fuck cares what the constitution says about religion, god or otherwise? The debate seems to be some people wanting a failed (wrong) math formula to be taught as if it we a viable option despite ALWAYS getting the wrong answer next to the correct method, that always gets you the right answer.

Spoken like a true totalitarian.

We care about what the Constitution says because we don't want people like you telling us what we can believe.

You are off topic sir and that's why you call me a "totalitarian." I didn't tell anyone what can and can't believe you fucking commie child beating slave killer (you like that BS name calling?).

The topic is if creationism should be taught next to evolution in public schools TODAY. Sure, I'm all for ending the DoE and all that great stuff but that's not what the topic is, here, now, today.

It would be great if schools were left up to states and privet schooling... Like evolution a religious school would have to update past all the creationism bullshit or get left behind and fail in the real world.

 

[Jack Fate]

your more arguing the curriculum rather the the principle, but i do see and understand your point. trying to rationalize anything as "normal" is wrong, not just when it comes to sexuality. i believe that would teach our children that if you dont fit that mold, you are not "normal"

Exactly. I think we all can agree that the policy of our public education system is to get everyone on the same page as accepting homosexuality to be "normal". That's the problem. Indoctrination. That's where the state oversteps its place. The people determine how far the state is allowed into our lives. Not the state.

anyways this is a separate argument for another thread.

still if there is suppose to be a separation between church and state as established by the supreme court, why should a religious theory be taught in tax funded public school?

The USSC can change. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits teaching creationism in schools that are tax funded. Those are judicial opinions.

 

[Ringel05]

Ahhhh yes, here's this argument again. One set of beliefs vs another set of beliefs.

 

[Avorysuds]

Exactly. I think we all can agree that the policy of our public education system is to get everyone on the same page as accepting homosexuality to be "normal". That's the problem. Indoctrination. That's where the state oversteps its place. The people determine how far the state is allowed into our lives. Not the state.

anyways this is a separate argument for another thread.

still if there is suppose to be a separation between church and state as established by the supreme court, why should a religious theory be taught in tax funded public school?

The USSC can change. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits teaching creationism in schools that are tax funded. Those are judicial opinions.

Again, off topic. Show us where the constitution says schools can't teach a 6 year old how to use a condom, birth control and that being homosexual is natural for some (not normal for all, wtf).

I see where sex education in schools go too far and mainly I just don’t agree with public education… However creationism is not even a theory, and in fact I doubt it can even be taught without huge massive ugly glaring gaps that would leave teachers and students confused…