Page 10 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 300

Thread: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

  1. #91
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No. It doesn't belong in a science classroom because nothing about it is scientific. It's an insult to centuries of scientific progress to put it in the same classroom or textbook.

    It belongs in a philosophy or religion class, because it's a religious topic. You've fallen prey to exactly what the creationism supporters wanted: confusing the issue to get their religious doctrine taught in public schools.

    (ID is creationism)
    I see your point.. but I don't have a problem with teaching religion in schools either. I am not saying somebody needs to teach kids how to pray and which religion to follow, but more of a liberal arts type of class.

    I know it's risky though.. get one biased teacher and they might start filling kids heads with hate and lies. Teachers will need specialized training before it happens. It's sad people are so afraid of permitting children to learn about religions and philosophies they disagree with..

    And I think if ID is mentioned in a science classroom.. pupils would be able to realize evolution and ID are nowhere on the same level. They'll see ID for what it is. I am not afraid my belief in science isn't going to hold up to ID.

  2. #92
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No. It doesn't belong in a science classroom because nothing about it is scientific. It's an insult to centuries of scientific progress to put it in the same classroom or textbook.

    It belongs in a philosophy or religion class, because it's a religious topic. You've fallen prey to exactly what the creationism supporters wanted: confusing the issue to get their religious doctrine taught in public schools.

    (ID is creationism)
    Any theory eventually boils down to **poof** and life exists. You can call that by the hand of God or happenstance. Mostly which ever you choose depends on if you sit in a pew on Sunday or not. Both theories have issues.
    From the ashes.

  3. #93
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Any theory eventually boils down to **poof** and life exists. You can call that by the hand of God or happenstance. Mostly which ever you choose depends on if you sit in a pew on Sunday or not. Both theories have issues.
    Do we really have to go over what the word theory means, again?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #94
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Do we really have to go over what the word theory means, again?
    I am actually disturbed by the amount of people who are clueless about these things... And much of it comes from grade school, science class, basic stuff.

  5. #95
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Coons said it was a fact, and she correct him "it's a theory, not a fact"... rather condescending too.
    I'm not a fan of her, at the same time I think she does, at least on some points, get a bum rap by the media. But, she didn't indicate that she doesn't believe in micro evolution in that clip. She just said evolution.

    For example, I don't believe that some single cell species evolved to a fish, then to a monkey, then to a human. On the other hand, I absolutely believe in small changes within a species allowing it to adapt and survive - I would accept a giraffe evolving a longer neck over time to reach higher leaves, we can see it in dogs and plants.

    However, if I were debating the topic with someone, I would just say I don't believe in evolution. In my experience, the individual i'm discussing it with would understand exactly what I meant

  6. #96
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    For example, I don't believe that some single cell species evolved to a fish, then to a monkey, then to a human. On the other hand, I absolutely believe in small changes within a species allowing it to adapt and survive - I would accept a giraffe evolving a longer neck over time to reach higher leaves, we can see it in dogs and plants.
    It's a good thing you don't believe that because that's not really how it works.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #97
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I'm not a fan of her, at the same time I think she does, at least on some points, get a bum rap by the media. But, she didn't indicate that she doesn't believe in micro evolution in that clip. She just said evolution.

    For example, I don't believe that some single cell species evolved to a fish, then to a monkey, then to a human. On the other hand, I absolutely believe in small changes within a species allowing it to adapt and survive - I would accept a giraffe evolving a longer neck over time to reach higher leaves, we can see it in dogs and plants.

    However, if I were debating the topic with someone, I would just say I don't believe in evolution. In my experience, the individual i'm discussing it with would understand exactly what I meant
    It was obvious that he said evolution was a fact, and she was in disagreement.. I bet she doesn't know evolution is a fact at all.. She probably thinks it's all just a theory.. otherwise, she would have worded it better and saved herself from looking like a moron. I actually laughed when I saw that part.

    Evolution isn't just about "small changes" either.. It's not like a bunch of small little factoids about getting taller.. It's much more complicated than that, and over millions of years of evolution, you can't really say it's all micro anymore. Macro evolution results from the compounded affects of micro evolution and explains why humans are dominate creatures today. It explains why other species went extinct and where they came from. It's a really great and interesting science to learn about..

    Suggesting it's all just a theory, makes one appear as though they are ignorant and place no value on sciences or understanding the world..
    Last edited by SheWolf; 10-20-10 at 01:58 AM.

  8. #98
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    For example, I don't believe that some single cell species evolved to a fish, then to a monkey, then to a human. On the other hand, I absolutely believe in small changes within a species allowing it to adapt and survive - I would accept a giraffe evolving a longer neck over time to reach higher leaves, we can see it in dogs and plants.
    It's a good thing you don't believe that, because that's not really how it works. It's more like a tree than a chain. We didn't evolve from chimps or orangutangs, but we share a common ancestor. Go far enough back and we have a common ancestor with fish even.

    Anyway, there's an enormous amount of evidence from multiple fields backing up evolution. Intelligent design has... "this makes more sense!"
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    There's not a single study or peer-reviewed paper that supports ID, because ID is not science. ID and creationism, by definition, require the existence of something that can't be measured. God.

    The jury is not "still out" because there isn't anything to talk about. Read any discussion on ID. They make statements that can't be backed up by any evidence, but rather focus on trying to lead you to some conclusion in absence of evidence because it "makes sense."

    edit: The other thing they'll do is try to poke holes in evolution (again, without any real evidence), usually by attacking Darwin himself. As if Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and nobody bothered to do further research in the last hundred and thirty years.
    You're going too far. ID might not be supported by any papers (yet) but it can still be framed scientifically. Almost anything can. You say that it requires the existence of something that can't be measured. That's really an inaccurate characterization of ID theory. Here's what Thomas Nagel thinks about it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Nagel
    The claim that ID is not a scientific theory implies that even if there were
    scientific evidence against evolutionary theory, which was originally
    introduced as an alternative to design, that would not constitute any
    scientific evidence for ID. We might have to give up evolutionary theory,
    but then we would be constrained by the canons or definition of science
    to look for a different scientific, i.e., nonpurposive, explanation of the
    development of life, because science prohibits us from even considering
    ID as a possible alternative explanation, one whose eligibility would
    otherwise be enhanced by the rejection of the leading scientific expla-
    nation, namely evolutionary theory.
    What would it take to justify the claim that there are propositions
    such that the discovery of evidence against them can qualify as science,
    but evidence in favor of them cannot? Someone who accepts this view
    would probably extend it to propositions about ghosts or extrasensory
    perception. Research showing that effects that some benighted souls
    have attributed to ghosts or mental telepathy can be explained in a
    perfectly naturalistic way would count as science, but any argument
    that the evidence does not support those explanations, and that
    significant experimental or observational data are better explained
    by ghosts or by ESP, would not count as science, and could therefore
    be ruled out of consideration. On this view it would not even be a
    false scientific claim.
    The idea is that any naturalistic or nonspiritual explanation of a phe-
    nomenon can be either confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical evi-
    dence together with causal and probabilistic reasoning. No empirical
    evidence against such a nonspiritual alternative, however, nor any
    other kind of empirical evidence, could provide a reason for believing
    the spiritual hypothesis. Belief in something like that is necessarily the
    result of a different cognitive process, having nothing to do with the
    scientific evaluation of empirical evidence (rank superstition or blind
    faith, to give it its true name). I submit that this way of drawing the
    boundaries around science depends not on a definition but on the
    unspoken assumption that all such propositions are obviously false—
    there are no ghosts, there is no ESP, and there is no god—so that to
    invoke such things to explain any observed phenomenon, even one for
    which no other explanation is available, reveals a disposition to take
    seriously a possibility that a rational person would not consider. Without
    this assumption the exclusion of ID from consideration cannot be defended.

  10. #100
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Her statement about Separation of Church and State not being in the Constitution is 100% accurate it is not here at all and never was.

    As to evolution being real or a theory, look not farther than man.

    The average height for an early 17th-century man was approximately 5' 6". Today it's 5'9". We have evolved into taller people.

    It does not mean that some supreme being had nothing to do with it
    either it only means that things change and no one can know the true reasons why with absolute certainty.

    Our minds have evolved or at least some of us have others are still no much smarter than cave dwellers of 250,000 years ago.

    I have heard people say it's not evolution that made men taller it's diet and better living and we got smarter also because of diet better living conditions that gave us more time to ponder the mysteries of the universe.

    Great ideas only they are exactly what evolution is all about.

Page 10 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •