• 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!

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

To me it's a wash, I am not impressed with o'donnell in the least, but the mouth foaming for her while others won't even ACKNOWLEDGE coon's inability to answer reeks of hyper-partisan bullplop.
When discussing your beliefs and accomplishments makes you more unpopular with voters - I suppose there's not much to do but pretend that the opposition are all witches and nazis :D

What happened to all those complaints about the "Party of No?" :lamo


Morons were so out of touch, they thought people would be be angered over obstructions to the liberal agenda.
 
I make no assumptions one way or the other.

I feel tempted to go on some spiel about you assuming about me assuming about someone else assuming, but I won't.
I'm probably just trying to make sense out of something that just doesn't make sense.
 
It takes some serious mental gymnastics to assume her saying "That's in the constitution?" directly responding to the establishment clause is somehow about different wording that Coons didn't actually use.

The only way for the regressives spin on this to make sense is that O'Donnell didn't actually listen to his answer before "repeating her question." Even that's a stretch, because there was this long, incredulous pause before she asked "That's in the constitution?"

Is there video for Coons' alleged flubbing of the same topic? I didn't see the debate live so didn't see that one.
 
Last edited:
Of more importance IMO is that she did not know the 16th considering her tax stance instead of the quibbling over the 1st.
 
Of more importance IMO is that she did not know the 16th considering her tax stance instead of the quibbling over the 1st.

Her tax stance is bog standard "LOWER TAXES." I don't think I've heard her say we should repeal the 16th.... has she?

I think her support for having public schools teach religious doctrine is the scary part. She said it's about supporting "the local school board." Five bucks says if a local school wanted to teach children about something Islamic, she would go back to "INDOCTRINATING OUR KIDS." ID? Oh that's ok! Yeah, somehow for her it's ok for the school to teach my kids a religion I don't follow. Christianity gets a pass from her, and many Americans, but would you think the same way if it was Buddhism being taught to your kids?

It's horse****. Intelligent Design is just Creationism with pseudo-scientific terminology tacked on. There's no scientific basis for Creationism or Intelligent Design. They're religious philosophies. Period. They do not belong in a science classroom. Ever. Calling Intelligent Design a "theory" is deliberately misleading people in an attempt to put it on the same footing as evolution, because when most people say "theory" they really mean "hypothesis." There's an enormous difference.

Evolution is a scientific theory with a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it. The hardcore religious types might tell you otherwise, they'll spout bull**** about carbon dating being a lie, about how there's no "transitional forms." They're wrong. 100%, unequivocally wrong.

Want to teach Creationism/ID? Fine. Put it in a philosophy or comparative religions class, and put it along side other cultures'/religions' creation stories. (eastern cultures, norse, greek/roman, etc.) Keep it the **** out of the science class because those things are not in the least bit scientific.
 
Last edited:
Want to teach Creationism/ID? Fine. Put it in a philosophy or comparative religions class.

Public schools have philosophy and comparative religion classes?

You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.

But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.
 
Public schools have philosophy and comparative religion classes?

You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.

But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.
The great thing about ID, or creationism, is that you can attribute any evidence of whatever period as "*insert entity here* wanted it that way, and it was so."

On the other hand, I think some mention of the various views counter to evolution should be mentioned in any situation where evolution is being taught.

Sort of a "this is what most scientists are behind, but here are a few opposing/differing views", and leave it at that.

An in-depth discussion of the varied views and such would be better suited for a philosophy or history class, or more likely, college.
 
Her tax stance is bog standard "LOWER TAXES." I don't think I've heard her say we should repeal the 16th.... has she?

I think her support for having public schools teach religious doctrine is the scary part. She said it's about supporting "the local school board." Five bucks says if a local school wanted to teach children about something Islamic, she would go back to "INDOCTRINATING OUR KIDS." ID? Oh that's ok! Yeah, somehow for her it's ok for the school to teach my kids a religion I don't follow. Christianity gets a pass from her, and many Americans, but would you think the same way if it was Buddhism being taught to your kids?

It's horse****. Intelligent Design is just Creationism with pseudo-scientific terminology tacked on. There's no scientific basis for Creationism or Intelligent Design. They're religious philosophies. Period. They do not belong in a science classroom. Ever. Calling Intelligent Design a "theory" is deliberately misleading people in an attempt to put it on the same footing as evolution, because when most people say "theory" they really mean "hypothesis." There's an enormous difference.

Evolution is a scientific theory with a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it. The hardcore religious types might tell you otherwise, they'll spout bull**** about carbon dating being a lie, about how there's no "transitional forms." They're wrong. 100%, unequivocally wrong.

Want to teach Creationism/ID? Fine. Put it in a philosophy or comparative religions class, and put it along side other cultures'/religions' creation stories. (eastern cultures, norse, greek/roman, etc.) Keep it the **** out of the science class because those things are not in the least bit scientific.

That part of the debate really bothered me too.

There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution..

Everybody (expect O Donnell) knows micro evolution and adaption is observable and is accepted by EVERYBODY in the science community.. Evolution is even an acceptable scientific term to describe the adaptation of viruses and bacteria.. and in everything from incests to mammals

O Donnell's lack of brains really shined through on this one.. I hated how she tried to argue it's just a theory, like it shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY.

Theories are commonly taught in science classrooms.. such as the THEORY of Plate Tectonics (one of my favorite theories). The point of studying scientific theory in a classroom is to learn about the scientific method.

Science is about theories, hypothesis, and laws.. It's about thinking, logic, and being critical.

If O'Donnell isn't afraid of people being critical, then she shouldn't have a problem with classrooms continuing to teach theory.. lol
 
That part of the debate really bothered me too.

There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution..

Everybody (expect O Donnell) knows micro evolution and adaption is observable and is accepted by EVERYBODY in the science community.. Evolution is even an acceptable scientific term to describe the adaptation of viruses and bacteria.. and in everything from incests to mammals

O Donnell's lack of brains really shined through on this one.. I hated how she tried to argue it's just a theory, like it shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY.

Theories are commonly taught in science classrooms.. such as the THEORY of Plate Tectonics (one of my favorite theories). The point of studying scientific theory in a classroom is to learn about the scientific method.

Science is about theories, hypothesis, and laws.. It's about thinking, logic, and being critical.

If O'Donnell isn't afraid of people being critical, then she shouldn't have a problem with classrooms continuing to teach theory.. lol

Unfortunately, she has no idea how the word "Theory" is used in science. In this sence of the word it doesn’t mean speculation. It is not a derogatory term.
 
Last edited:
Everybody (expect O Donnell) knows micro evolution and adaption is observable and is accepted by EVERYBODY in the science community.. Evolution is even an acceptable scientific term to describe the adaptation of viruses and bacteria.. and in everything from incests to mammals

Please provide some form of evidence that she doesn't believe that micro evolution happens. When people say they don't believe in evolution, they almost always mean macro evolution - the evolving of one species into another.
 
Please provide some form of evidence that she doesn't believe that micro evolution happens. When people say they don't believe in evolution, they almost always mean macro evolution - the evolving of one species into another.

Coons said it was a fact, and she correct him "it's a theory, not a fact"... rather condescending too.

YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution (go to 7:03, 2:37, 3:35) fameappeal.com

1:50 mark

And I brought up micro because it's the easiest to understand.. but even macro evolution is widely accepted. Such things like speciation are observable in nature and created in labs, biodiversity is also explained by marco evolution and is widely accepted..

THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence

But the theories proposed by Darwin are the most controversial.. they involve both micro and macro concepts as foundations for his theories.
 
Public schools have philosophy and comparative religion classes?

You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.

But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.

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.
 
Last edited:
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."

If they want it in a science class as a mention or a side note, I wouldn't care.. As long as it's not presented as a scientific theory, or attempted to be taught as a science. It can't be tested, so I am not even sure if it even qualifies as a hypothesis.. lol.. def not a scientific hypothesis
 
If they want it in a science class as a mention or a side note, I wouldn't care.. As long as it's not presented as a scientific theory, or attempted to be taught as a science. It can't be tested, so I am not even sure if it even qualifies as a hypothesis.. lol.. def not a scientific hypothesis

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)
 
Yah....she mostly sounds like an idiot. It's amazing that she wouldn't be better prepared.
Anyone else hear Rush today? He used the one quote that SoCS wasn't in the Constitution to defend her. Which she is right about. it's not in the Constitution.
But he just "happened" to leave out the rest.
The evolution part is not even relevant. Neither can do anything about that!
I'd still vote for her over Coon.
 
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.
:lol:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
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!"
 
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:

Thomas Nagel said:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom