Page 21 of 30 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 300

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

  1. #201
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Why not pay for it with tax dollars?
    If you want the government's money to teach be prepared to teach what the government says. Most religious would simply object to this. So no point in giving them funding to run churches posing as schools. If you want your kids being taught religion then you'll have to fund it out of your own pocket.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #202
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Creationism leads itself into a loop with no way of verification or testing. That's why the scientific community doesn't support it.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    There is no consensus among the scientific community on whether or not to "support" creationism. Some may, some may not. It's not a scientific question. It cannot be determined scientifically.

    This doesn't really have much to do with verification or testing, but falsifiability.

    If you guys are going to preach the importance of science, at least try to know what you're talking about.

  3. #203
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If you want the government's money to teach be prepared to teach what the government says. Most religious would simply object to this.
    Of course. The tax dollars are for a basic education. If we don't get what we pay for, you don't get the money. This should apply to all schools, including those that happen to be affiliated with religion.

  4. #204
    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


    All evolution may not be an improvement.

    This argument over whether to teach creationism or evolution is a colossal waste of time.

    Everyone is thinking what they believe is what's right and that's wrong.

    These two theories are not mutually exclusive. I thought I made that clear.

    They can be fit together by the thoughtful logical use of both science theory and theological writings.

    I am not going to try to explain it all because these are things that can teach you if you apply your intellect to the questions.

    I have spent a great deal of time theorizing all of the possibilities and ramifications to arrive at this conclusion, and I am now secure in my concepts on this topic.

    Think about how the two can work together and your own theory may evolve.

  5. #205
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    There is no consensus among the scientific community on whether or not to "support" creationism. Some may, some may not. It's not a scientific question. It cannot be determined scientifically.

    This doesn't really have much to do with verification or testing, but falsifiability.

    If you guys are going to preach the importance of science, at least try to know what you're talking about.
    Are you even joking about this? Seriously? There's no consensus?

    Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

    Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]
    I'd say 95% of scientists acknowledging evolution is a consensus. Stop it please.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 10-21-10 at 02:53 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #206
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Are you even joking about this? Seriously? There's no consensus?

    I'd say 95% of scientists acknowledging evolution is a consensus. Stop it please.
    I don't really know what you're all excited about. You've highlighted a poorly sourced and unsubstatiated claim from wikipedia regarding evolution, and some "1987 estimate" that narrowly defines creationism as an abrupt emergence of complex lifeforms. Even those who espouse intelligent design wouldn't agree with that. Besides, can we really determine a scientific consesus through individual polling? What's next, a "scientific consensus" that funds for basic research should be increased? I wonder what the scientific consensus is on which fast food chain has the best french fries?

    I really have no idea how many scientists hold individual beliefs related to creationism, but do know that a belief in evolution need not preclude such beliefs.

    I also know that creationism is not a scientific question, and THAT'S the only real scientific consensus:
    Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."

  7. #207
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,690

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Are you even joking about this? Seriously? There's no consensus?

    Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    I'd say 95% of scientists acknowledging evolution is a consensus. Stop it please.
    I would agree, though they have not stagnated, or if they have, they are seeking a way out. Many are now asking whether we need to move beyond Darwin, intellectually.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  8. #208
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I don't really know what you're all excited about. You've highlighted a poorly sourced and unsubstatiated claim from wikipedia regarding evolution, and some "1987 estimate" that narrowly defines creationism as an abrupt emergence of complex lifeforms. Even those who espouse intelligent design wouldn't agree with that. Besides, can we really determine a scientific consesus through individual polling? What's next, a "scientific consensus" that funds for basic research should be increased? I wonder what the scientific consensus is on which fast food chain has the best french fries?

    I really have no idea how many scientists hold individual beliefs related to creationism, but do know that a belief in evolution need not preclude such beliefs.

    I also know that creationism is not a scientific question, and THAT'S the only real scientific consensus:
    Ah so what you're saying is that creationism isn't a scientific question. Not that there is no consensus among scientifists that creationism is not a viable explanation for the development of life on earth. Well that's completely different. Actually no, it's not. Let me introduce you to your new friend: 'semantics'. Semantics is a debate tactic where you create the idea that scientists supporting creationism is completely different than scientists own personal beliefs on creationism. A scientist who truly sees creationist ideas as plaussible explanation for science would pursue it. One who does not, would not. The polls I quoted are a reflection of this claim. That you keep crying and complaining because polls show how the scientific community has decided to back evolution over creationism is beyond me. I'm simply not willing to play this game of semantics with you though.

    There is controversy though but it's not among the scientific community. It's among the mostly illiterate masses. Whereas polls show that scientists have a near-uniform voice when speaking about evolution, polls also show that the masses are split down the middle. As I have said before, the only division in this issue is among A) the knowledgeable; scientists and B) those who relly on the knowledge of others to make their opinions; the masses.

    Serioulsy, this is not an issue which is up for discussion.

    American Beliefs: Evolution vs. Bible's Explanation of Human Origins

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Controversy about the origin of human beings continues to rage even today, nearly 150 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. School districts have attempted, with varying degrees of legal success, to force teachers to teach students that the Darwinian, evolutionary explanation for the origin of life is just one of many theories. Advocates of the "creationism" perspective (and to some degree, the newer "intelligent design" perspective) continue to argue that the biblical story of creation -- in which God created humans in their present form on the sixth day of creation -- is as viable and as valid as the evolutionary perspective. Scientists largely assume that the argument should be over and that the evolutionary explanation is so well established by scientific evidence that there is no longer any room for debate.
    On Darwin

    As Darwin is being lauded as one of the most important scientists in history on the 200th anniversary of his birth (on Feb. 12, 1809), it is perhaps dismaying to scientists who study and respect his work to see that well less than half of Americans today say they believe in the theory of evolution, and that just 55% can associate the man with his theory.

    Naturally, some of this is because of educational differences. Americans who have lower levels of formal education are significantly less likely than others to be able to identity Darwin with his theory, and to have an opinion on it either way. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans' religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin's theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #209
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Semantics is a debate tactic where you create the idea that scientists supporting creationism is completely different than scientists own personal beliefs on creationism. A scientist who truly sees creationist ideas as plaussible explanation for science would pursue it.
    As I've said in the last two posts - creationism is not a scientific question. Thus, it makes no sense that a "scientist would pursue it" scientifically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That you keep crying and complaining because polls show how the scientific community has decided to back evolution over creationism is beyond me. I'm simply not willing to play this game of semantics with you though.
    Again you fail to address my position. I have no problem with - nor do I need polls - for your absurdly obvious point that "scientists support evolution." I do reject your implicit assumption that support for evolution indicates a rejection of creationism. Advocates for science need not be atheists. I'm sure those that aren't have found ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    There is controversy though but it's not among the scientific community. It's among the mostly illiterate masses. Whereas polls show that scientists have a near-uniform voice when speaking about evolution, polls also show that the masses are split down the middle. As I have said before, the only division in this issue is among A) the knowledgeable; scientists and B) those who relly on the knowledge of others to make their opinions; the masses.
    What? MORE proof that scientists that do work on evolution support a scientific theory of evolution??

    Thanks Captain Obvious!

    What's next? Undeniable proof that religious leaders have formed a consensus and agreed on the existence of God? Can you imagine the uproar that's going to create...

  10. #210
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    03-20-13 @ 04:18 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    254

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

    Creationism has been passed off as an scientific theory to evolution: Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

Page 21 of 30 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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
  •