View Poll Results: Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    33 56.90%
  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    14 24.14%
  • Other

    11 18.97%
Page 32 of 42 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 412

Thread: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

  1. #311
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,919
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No it wasn't
    LOL
    better luck next time
    I may be wrong.

  2. #312
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.
    it is when your entire arguement hinges on the definition of the term.

    It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof. asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  3. #313
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    If teachers cannot call creationism "superstituous nonsense" then they cannot be allowed to call natural phenomena we understand "superstituous nonsense" which includes explaining how lighting is not caused by Zeus.
    Because calling it "superstitious nonsense" is the only way to explain what causes lightning
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #314
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,919
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof.
    I might like his definition. Who knows?
    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
    It prob'ly would have taken less effort than than the run around that has taken it's place.
    but w/e
    I may be wrong.

  5. #315
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    it is when your entire arguement hinges on the definition of the term.

    It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof. asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
    *yawn*

    OK Oscar, let's review. theplaydrive, you and I were discussing evolution and whether it was "proven". tpd was saying that evolution had not been "proven" while I was saying that it was. As a result of that discussion, it became apparent that theplaydrive was using the term "proven" to mean "absolutely proven" while I was not. When the playdrive stated this, I agreed that when using proven to mean "absolutely proven" that he was right and to show that I then understood that our disagreement was the result of our using different definitions of the same term and I even "liked" his post to acknowledge that.

    Since science does not absolutely prove anything, I began using the phrase "scientifically proven" to distinguish what I was saying from the "absolutely proven" that tpd was referring to. "Scientifically proven" is a commonly used figure of speech used by laypeople to describe concepts that have been tested using the scientific method, found to be useful to accurately make predictions, and reviewed by other scientists with similar results and so have become generally accepted by scientists to be true. In other words, "scientifically proven" is a phrase used to describe the result of a process by which hypotheses become theories and when I said that "evolution has been scientifically proven" I was merely stating a truism.

    Since you have already asked me for definitions of other terms which you could have easily looked up yourself, I got the impression that you were merely engaging in a form of rhetorical game similar to a child who asks a question and then responds to any answer you give with "why is that?" and when you answer that, the child again asks "why is that?". The point of that game is not to actually learn, but to "win" by frustrating the responder with disingenuity.

    Words can have several meanings, and often the intended meaning of words spoken need to be taken in context in order to be understood. In a discussion, all parties nees to make a minimum effort to understand what is being communicated, and show a minimal ability to understand context. Your repeated demands for definitions of words and phrases that you could have looked up yourself has demonstrated to me that you are not willing to do the minimal effort needed to communicate. Instead of trying to understand, you're trying to "win" by somehow proving that a simple figure of speech (ie "scientifically proven") is "wrong"

    For my next act, I will describe how "the circular file" is not really a place to file documents for later retrieval, and why no matter how much time you "save", you will not be able to withdraw it for use at some later date when you don't have enough time to complete a task. Then, you can provide me with a detailed definition for the phrase "generally accepted" means
    Last edited by sangha; 08-23-11 at 10:03 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #316
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    *yawn* blah, blah, blah blah blah
    bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  7. #317
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.
    SO you asked for a definition, and when I provided it and you can't refute it, you just repeat something I did not disagree with?

    It seems that my suspicions (about your not wanting to discuss the issue) were true
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #318
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That might work until you realize Creationism is not a religion.
    It certainly is. It explicitly invokes a deity.

    I'm Christian and I say Creationism is superstitious rubbish.
    Good for you. So what? What does YOUR opinion have to do with someone ELSE holding that religious view?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #319
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.
    as much is sangha is a dishonest debater, he is arguing on the right path. nothing can be proven absolutely. not by math, logic or anything else. math and logic rest on the assumed truth of premises that cannot be demonstrated as infallible and absolute. with this in mind its silly to define "proven" as "absolutely true" or "fact" because nothing we know of is proven and facts are an entirely different matter. So if we drop the pointless notion that "proven" is something that cannot ever be wrong and that in regards to science, "proven" is a scientific theory that explains a large body of evidence, has undergone rigerous testing without fail, and is accepted by the scientific community. in this context, the theory of gravitation, disease, and evolution are all "proven"
    Last edited by scourge99; 08-23-11 at 02:34 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  10. #320
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    SO you asked for a definition, and when I provided it and you can't refute it, you just repeat something I did not disagree with?

    It seems that my suspicions (about your not wanting to discuss the issue) were true
    seems, you were wrong and can't bring yourself to admit it, so you deflect. color me surprised
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Page 32 of 42 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •