Palin & Teach Both - Page 2

Kernel Sanders · 10-07-08, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Okay. I still don't have a teaching Plan for creation 'science.'

But how would there be experiments to prove such ideas?

I can run bacterial vector experiments to show cross transfer of genes in science to support evolutionary changes in traits. (I did this when I was 16)

You did that in high school? I'm impressed by the district. Evolution never left a textbook when I took 9th grade bio. On that level of detail/scrutiny I could easily make Creationism seem as a valid alternative to evolution

Quote:

What can someone do for creation science to show it has at least SOME validity?

Nothing, because it isn't valid. As I said, creation can't stand up to any sort of peer review, but it sounds good enough to fool a fourteen year old

jallman · 10-07-08, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Nothing, because it isn't valid. As I said, creation can't stand up to any sort of peer review, but it sounds good enough to fool a fourteen year old

To be fair, not just 14 year olds...

Kernel Sanders · 10-07-08, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

To be fair, not just 14 year olds...

Regrettably so

Simon W. Moon · 10-07-08, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

When you bother to read the entire link, get back to me. I'm not interested in you peddling half assed editorials lifting snippets that are convenient to your idiotic interpretations while ignoring the entirety of the reference.
And I am especially not interested in your assholish sarcasm, which would work if you were even moderately informed on the issue. But since you aren't...

So you're not gonna try to explain which meaning of 'proponent' Palin was using that is not a synonym for supporter?

Personally, I am a supporter/proponent of fencing and other sorts of martial arts being taught in phys ed classes. But, 'It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'

Now, am I a supporter of having fencing and other sorts of martial arts being taught in phys ed classes?

Explain away

jallman · 10-07-08, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

So you're not gonna try to explain which meaning of 'proponent' Palin was using that is not a synonym for supporter?

Personally, I am a supporter/proponent of fencing and other sorts of martial arts being taught in phys ed classes. But, 'It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'

Now, am I a supporter of having fencing and other sorts of martial arts being taught in phys ed classes?

Explain away

Play your semantic gymnastics with someone else. When you can show any evidence that she pressed the issue beyond her personal support, for example using her office to make changes to the curriculum, then get back to me. As it stands, her record sides with my assessment.

Simon W. Moon · 10-07-08, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

When you can show any evidence that she pressed the issue beyond her personal support, for example using her office to make changes to the curriculum, then get back to me. As it stands, her record sides with my assessment.

Afaict, the statement that started it was somewhat different from how you have now phrased it. Moving the goalposts.

to wit

...Sarah Palin has made it clear that (Palin & Teach Both)she supports teaching both evolution and creationism in the science classroom.

To which you replied, "No, she hasn't."

Yet, even the site you cite clearly states,"

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

Please feel free to explain the difference between the two assessments. AFAICT, the bolded parts use very similar words. But, sometimes words can mean different things.

So, please explain which definitions are being used that make, "She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution," so very different from, "she supports teaching both evolution and creationism."

jallman · 10-07-08, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

Afaict, the statement that started it was somewhat different from how you have now phrased it. Moving the goalposts.

to wit

...Sarah Palin has made it clear that (Palin & Teach Both)she supports teaching both evolution and creationism in the science classroom.

To which you replied, "No, she hasn't."

Yet, even the site you cite clearly states,"

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

Please feel free to explain the difference between the two assessments. AFAICT, the bolded parts use very similar words. But, sometimes words can mean different things.

So, please explain which definitions are being used that make, "She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution," so very different from, "she supports teaching both evolution and creationism."

How about you take in the entirety of her stance and all applicable quotes rather than zeroing in on the one snippet that makes your case for you?

Simon W. Moon · 10-07-08, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

How about you take in the entirety of her stance and all applicable quotes rather than zeroing in on the one snippet that makes your case for you?

My case is merely that she has made it clear that she supports teaching creationism. You said she hadn't.

I see now that you agree that she has.

jallman · 10-07-08, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

My case is merely that she has made it clear that she supports teaching creationism. You said she hadn't.

I see now that you agree that she has.

Then you are blind.

Simon W. Moon · 10-07-08, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Then you are blind.

What parts aren't clear? She said so herself. The source you cited says so too.

What's the rebuttal?