Page 25 of 30 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 300

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

  1. #241
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    And while your brain continues to operate at a level just unconceivable to some, you still haven't the slightest of clues as to where evolution began. You conveniently ignore the single most important aspect of the discussion, and discount a higher being as impossible. Evolution to some degree is obvious, but the levels you want to take it to are still vastly unproven and not understood at all. Anybody's guess.
    OMG!?!

    This post is why I fear American's role as the world's superpower. Yikes!

  2. #242
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Fox_86 View Post
    OMG!?!

    This post is why I fear American's role as the world's superpower. Yikes!
    Well, we've been a superpower a little over a half century and hate to tell ya, but Erod's view was more like a majority view a half century ago. You're fear seems unfounded and possibly misplaced.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #243
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Well, we've been a superpower a little over a half century and hate to tell ya, but Erod's view was more like a majority view a half century ago. You're fear seems unfounded and possibly misplaced.
    If a large portion of the country remains as ignorant on the subject of science, I have a hard time seeing us remain the top superpower.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #244
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    If a large portion of the country remains as ignorant on the subject of science, I have a hard time seeing us remain the top superpower.
    But, But, But... the way to remain a superpower is to support the troops and return to god... right?

  5. #245
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    If a large portion of the country remains as ignorant on the subject of science, I have a hard time seeing us remain the top superpower.
    It didn't seem to hurt us 50 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 5 years ago so what makes you believe it will cause a hard time today or in the future?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #246
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,952

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

    I would like to know the context of the question. Regardless, I'd rather have O'donnell than Coons. I doubt she will win though, Delaware is too blue (most of that region is).
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #247
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    weak sauce. weak sauce.





    what context would you like this fail to be put in.


    please, pretending like you are all worried about context now? It rings hollow dude.
    It cames from a lefty didn't it?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #248
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,168

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    For example Galilei suggested the earth was moving, not the sun and the stars... it was controversial. Even though it was true, it wasn't proven indefinitely true until we sent satellites up in space and saw he was right. For that reason, in Galilei's lifetime his suggestion was a theory and not a fact.
    It's still a theory - a mere model of reality.

    What you refer to is called heliocentrism, which can be contrasted with a "geocentric" view. Now, I'm sure that when you were taught about this (I'm guessing in high school) you were spoon fed this appealing and simplistic view of how the scientific revolution began when we questioned our center position in the universe, found out we were were not even the center of our solar system, blah blah blah. This is no more "indefinitely true" than the crap you were probably taught about how electrons are little negative particles that travel around atoms like a little solar system.

    Take your statement above, "the earth was moving, not the sun and the stars" that right there is untrue. Not only is the earth moving, but so are the sun and stars. Now, let's launch your satellites. Guess what? They're moving, too.

    Now the question: which is "right"? the heliocentric model or the geocentric model? How about neither, or both? Whether the earth appears to be "traveling around" the sun or vice versa is all dependent on some fixed frame of reference. One that is completely arbitrary. The heliocentric model is not a "true" description of the (so-called) "solar system" (and certainly not "indefinitely true") - it's a mental representation that appeals to us because it is more simplistic and "elegant" than a geocentric model.

    The "solar system" itself is a theory... an abstraction of what is really a complex, dynamic relationship between masses that "move" relative to one another. And if all of that is not complex enough for you... maybe ponder what the hell "motion" really is given that we tend to define it in terms of some arbitrary fixed point frame of reference.

    So yeah... the idea that we were able to prove that theory to be an "indefinitely true" statement of fact by launching some satellites?

    Absurd nonsense by someone suffering many of the misconceptions about science I outlined in that first post.

  9. #249
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,168

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Science is a form of logic... Science follows the principles of logic, and the scientific method sets up the rules for correct reasoning in the science community. Logic is the foundation of science.
    Yes, science uses logic. No, science is not a "form of logic." You've got a hell of a lot of philosophers rolling over in their graves with that remark.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Science doesn't claim to be true or to find the truth as a whole, hence somethings are laws and theory. That is exactly why there is a uniform agreement in science as what constitutes as theory, law, hypothesis, and fact. There are subjective judgement from each scientist, but not a fallible subjective voice coming from the community. Theory is theory, law is law, fact is fact.. Disagree with what the scientific method is and says, then apply you're reasoning to the method and challenge the community again and again. Even in tests and studies were well thought out, somebody else in the community will always criticize the test.. especially if people know they are being tested. The Milligram experiments tried to remove the influence of knowledge from some of their subjects, but those tests and experiments are still very controversial and disputed.
    Great. At some level you understand that science is fallible, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not. We can move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Just because there is a consensus view in science doesn't mean the community was saying that was a fact... Sometimes theories are more popular than others. Plate Tectonics is a popular theory, it doesn't mean it's true or scientists are pushing it as truth. Just because Wegener's theory was rejected, it doesn't mean the scientific community was wrong.. It just means his theory wasn't sound proof, and his theory wasn't accepted util Plate Tectonic Theory became an accepted theory that further explained Wegener's continental drift.

    The scientific community is more inclined to challenge new ideas than accepted them.. In science everything begins as an idea or a hypothesis. The more scrutiny it goes under, the stronger it gets or the more it falls apart. If can't be proven or disproven it gets stuck in scientific limbo as a theory for a while or until it's improved or disproved..

    Yes, science won't accept facts like the Earth is revolving on an axis immediately.. but it will NEVER accept something wrong like the earth is flat and guarded by dragons either.. which is why you'll never find an example of the community shoving a lie down your throat.
    None of this refutes the fact that science isn't inherently objective. Objectivity applies to theories as well as facts. If you're not convinced by my little blurb, there are a dozen books on amazon that deal specifically with the failure of the scientific community to accept Wegener's objectively superior alternative theory. Pick one.

    What's more disturbing is your misconception that science is in the business of turning theories into facts. Theories are not "proven." Theories and facts represent different kinds of knowledge. Theories are models of reality used to explain natural phenomena (i.e. facts) and to perhaps make predictions.

  10. #250
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,464

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    It's still a theory - a mere model of reality.

    What you refer to is called heliocentrism, which can be contrasted with a "geocentric" view. Now, I'm sure that when you were taught about this (I'm guessing in high school) you were spoon fed this appealing and simplistic view of how the scientific revolution began when we questioned our center position in the universe, found out we were were not even the center of our solar system, blah blah blah. This is no more "indefinitely true" than the crap you were probably taught about how electrons are little negative particles that travel around atoms like a little solar system.

    Take your statement above, "the earth was moving, not the sun and the stars" that right there is untrue. Not only is the earth moving, but so are the sun and stars. Now, let's launch your satellites. Guess what? They're moving, too.

    Now the question: which is "right"? the heliocentric model or the geocentric model? How about neither, or both? Whether the earth appears to be "traveling around" the sun or vice versa is all dependent on some fixed frame of reference. One that is completely arbitrary. The heliocentric model is not a "true" description of the (so-called) "solar system" (and certainly not "indefinitely true") - it's a mental representation that appeals to us because it is more simplistic and "elegant" than a geocentric model.

    The "solar system" itself is a theory... an abstraction of what is really a complex, dynamic relationship between masses that "move" relative to one another. And if all of that is not complex enough for you... maybe ponder what the hell "motion" really is given that we tend to define it in terms of some arbitrary fixed point frame of reference.

    So yeah... the idea that we were able to prove that theory to be an "indefinitely true" statement of fact by launching some satellites?

    Absurd nonsense by someone suffering many of the misconceptions about science I outlined in that first post.
    You're embarrassing yourself. You are just trying to pick at my words and focus on them.. ignore the rest, right? Just single out on part of my post where I made a gaffe.

    You caught me making an misstatement in a long winded post.



    Of course the stars move, planets move, heavily bodies move.

    Galilei challenged the concept that only the objects in the sky moved, and the Earth was still. That is not a theory.

    I wasn't talking about the geocentric model or the heliocentric model. I was talking about the Earth revolving around the sun.

    VATICAN CITY -- It's official: The Earth revolves around the sun, even for the Vatican.

    The Roman Catholic Church has admitted erring these past 359 years in formally condemning Galileo Galilei for entertaining scientific truths it long denounced as anti-scriptural heresy.

    Pope John Paul II himself turned up Saturday for a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to help set the record straight on behalf of the 17th century Italian mathematician, astronomer and physicist who was the first man to use a telescope and who is remembered as one of history's greatest scientists.
    http://www.imahero.com/herohistory/g...erohistory.htm

    http://christiangays.com/articles/galileo.shtml

    Planets do orbit the sun.. sorry


    And FTR, I study science in college.. didn't quit in high school. I am an undergrad.. not a PHD or anything impressive, so you really are just embarrassing yourself like I said.
    Last edited by SheWolf; 10-22-10 at 01:31 AM.

Page 25 of 30 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... 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
  •