• 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!

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
You should ask him if he's a democrat. And admit your error if he's not.
I'm quite certain he votes solidly Democrat in presidential elections, so that's Democrat enough for me.
 
I call it regressive because it IS regressive.

But it's wrong. It's just as wrong as pedophiles calling for the right to get some alone time with minors. No, what's wrong is wrong, and SSM is wrong. I just need to fulfill my due diligence before the real justice kicks in.

Or may as well work on things I can control, like fighting regressive degenerates who are screwing with time honored traditions.

Regressive is a subjective term you applied for sake of your propaganda. Same sex marriage is also not on par with pedophilia so that comparison is out the window. You're free to fight anything you wish, but on this subject your side is dying out.
 
I'm quite certain he votes solidly Democrat in presidential elections, so that's Democrat enough for me.

This just goes to show your assumptions and suppositions are incorrect.
 
Regressive is a subjective term you applied for sake of your propaganda.
Correction: It's a relevant term used to dispel your definition of Progression.

Same sex marriage is also not on par with pedophilia so that comparison is out the window.
It's still wrong as hell, so it comes right back into the room with the window sealed shut, walled over, and freshly painted.

You're free to fight anything you wish, but on this subject your side is dying out.
Your side is gaining momentum, but this is nowhere near at the end.
 
Do we have any scientists disputing the theory of relativity? No we don't.
We did have a small group of physicists that disputed it for well over 20 years and some did until they died, which was much later. When AGW has been around for over 100 years, like relativity has, we can revisit it's 100% acceptance.


Lol! What? I don't know of anyone except for very few who don't want their children to learn about the theory of evolution. Some of them would like the religious theory included too, that doesn't mean they're against learning about other theories as well. Why does it have to be one way or the other with some of you people?
You should go to Kansas where they stopped teaching evolution for a couple of years - until the State Board of Education members that made that dumb-ass decision were tossed out by the more rational parents. Don't kid yourself, some people are friggin' stupid and sometimes that minority are vocal enough that even their somewhat limited viewpoints and bias take the stage even when they're invalid.


As for "one way or another": It's a matter of whether you want to teach science in science class or if you want to teach religion and politics, too. I prefer to keep a well-defined border between science and religion/politics. Obviously you don't agree. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
We did have a small group of physicists that disputed it for well over 20 years and some did until they died, which was much later. When AGW has been around for over 100 years, like relativity has, we can revisit it's 100% acceptance.


You should go to Kansas where they stopped teaching evolution for a couple of years - until the State Board of Education members that made that dumb-ass decision were tossed out by the more rational parents. Don't kid yourself, some people are friggin' stupid and sometimes that minority are vocal enough that even their somewhat limited viewpoints and bias take the stage even when they're invalid.


As for "one way or another": It's a matter of whether you want to teach science in science class or if you want to teach religion and politics, too. I prefer to keep a well-defined border between science and religion/politics. Obviously you don't agree. :shrug:

There is absolutely no reason why you can't teach all theories. It's not as complicated as you are trying to make it sound.
 
There is absolutely no reason why you can't teach all theories. It's not as complicated as you are trying to make it sound.
How many hours of school are you willing to devote to learning this "science" of yours where they teach all the possibilities instead of the scientific consensus?

Will your geography class teach the Flat Earth?
Will your history class teach the moon walks may not have been real?
Will your English class teach the Urban Dictionary alongside Webster's?
Will your social studies class include evidence of UFO's, Close Encounters, and ET?

All those are simply "opposing theories" in their respective disciplines ...
 
How many hours of school are you willing to devote to learning this "science" of yours where they teach all the possibilities instead of the scientific consensus?

Will your geography class teach the Flat Earth?
Will your history class teach the moon walks may not have been real?
Will your English class teach the Urban Dictionary alongside Webster's?
Will your social studies class include evidence of UFO's, Close Encounters, and ET?

All those are simply "opposing theories" in their respective disciplines ...

Now you're being facetious. Of course they wouldn't teach theories that have been proven to be false.
 
Correction: It's a relevant term used to dispel your definition of Progression.

It's still wrong as hell, so it comes right back into the room with the window sealed shut, walled over, and freshly painted.

Your side is gaining momentum, but this is nowhere near at the end.

I'm certain we had "anti-fire" cave people. And those who were certain chipping flint was an abomination.

Fortunately they failed to convince the smarter cavefolk to sit starving in the dark.
 
How many hours of school are you willing to devote to learning this "science" of yours where they teach all the possibilities instead of the scientific consensus?

Will your geography class teach the Flat Earth?
Will your history class teach the moon walks may not have been real?
Will your English class teach the Urban Dictionary alongside Webster's?
Will your social studies class include evidence of UFO's, Close Encounters, and ET?

All those are simply "opposing theories" in their respective disciplines ...

I also have to mention that those on the left don't seem to have a problem with spending school hours talking up homosexuality. That's correct, isn't it?
 
There is absolutely no reason why you can't teach all theories. It's not as complicated as you are trying to make it sound.

Yes, by all means lets completely abandon any pretext of critical thinking and turn our schools into the real-life equivalent of our moronic conspiracy theory section.
 
Yes, by all means lets completely abandon any pretext of critical thinking and turn our schools into the real-life equivalent of our moronic conspiracy theory section.

Who made such a suggestion? Be realistic will you? The most popular and accepted theories should be discussed. You might not like it, but the creationist theory is among those.
 
I'm certain we didn't.

The anthropological evidence shows almost universal superstition and reverence for fire in early societies. I would bet that groups who didn't HAVE fire pretended they didn't want it at first and then eventually took the position that it was actually undesireable and then forbade it outright.

Human nature at work.

Until that group GOT fire, and then established a priest class to dictate how it was to be used and who could use it, probably selling licenses to "fire specialists" who extracted taxes and levied fines.

Eventually, people got sick of this and began to ignore the "priests", using fire as they saw fit. For which they were probably burned for their heresy.

This probably worked for a while, until enough people realized they were being had and got shed of the priests completely.

And right up to the end there were fundamentalists who considered use of fire a sin. Because if god wanted us to have fire he'd have given us matches for fingers.
 
The anthropological evidence shows almost universal superstition and reverence for fire in early societies. I would bet that groups who didn't HAVE fire pretended they didn't want it at first and then eventually took the position that it was actually undesireable and then forbade it outright.

Human nature at work.

Until that group GOT fire, and then established a priest class to dictate how it was to be used and who could use it, probably selling licenses to "fire specialists" who extracted taxes and levied fines.

Eventually, people got sick of this and began to ignore the "priests", using fire as they saw fit. For which they were probably burned for their heresy.

This probably worked for a while, until enough people realized they were being had and got shed of the priests completely.
You should write fiction.

And right up to the end there were fundamentalists who considered use of fire a sin. Because if god wanted us to have fire he'd have given us matches for fingers.
Or maybe God just wanted them to come up with ideas and present them to him themselves. Of course, only the faithful would've had the capacity to do that, so the rest must have settled in, like good little Democrats, and believed what they were told to believe.
 
Last edited:
Who made such a suggestion? Be realistic will you? The most popular and accepted theories should be discussed. You might not like it, but the creationist theory is among those.

No-- the theories actually backed by science should be taught. Appeals to popularity are fallacious,especially as they only serve the most stupid and superstitious.

Just because absolute morons want to subvert our schools in order that he schools can match their own level of stupidity, that is not a good reason for our schools to follow suit. If they want to teach that in their churches, go right ahead. Nobody is telling them they can't teach superstion. Our schools should be under noobligation to follow suit because fortunately we aren't some inbred knuckle dragging cesspool like Afghanistan.
 
Who made such a suggestion? Be realistic will you? The most popular and accepted theories should be discussed. You might not like it, but the creationist theory is among those.

They can be discussed in their appropriate subjects. Religious subjects don't belong in science class.
 
You should write fiction.

Or maybe God just wanted them to come up with ideas and present them to him themselves. Of course, only the faithful would've had the capacity to do that, so the rest must have settled in, like good little Democrats, and believed what they were told to believe.

Nope, a God who actually interacts eliminates the need for priests.

And God said no fire. Its right here on this scroll. Are you trying to get drowned for heresy?
 
Nope, a God who actually interacts eliminates the need for priests.
No good. Priests have their role, and regular followers have theirs. EACH must maintain communication with their maker.

And God said no fire. Its right here on this scroll. Are you trying to get drowned for heresy?
Which scroll?
 
Now you're being facetious. Of course they wouldn't teach theories that have been proven to be false.
OK, you can cancel the Flat Earth for geography, what about the rest?

The Urban Dictionary is false? That's not even a half-truth, it's very real.

UFOs/ET/Close Encounters have been proven false? That's news to me. Lots of eye witness will tell you different and there are scientists who claim they're real.

As for the moon landings & walks, where's the proof of those being real? Plenty of people believe they were faked, including a few Hollywood types who can even tell you how to fake them.
 
I also have to mention that those on the left don't seem to have a problem with spending school hours talking up homosexuality. That's correct, isn't it?
I wouldn't know, I'm not "on the left" - and I don't know what you mean by "talking up" even if I were.

If you'd like me to comment on Ernst's rant about MA schools, I have no problem with the schools teaching what the laws are, especially new laws. When I was in school we learned consumer protection laws in Civics because those were relatively new. Today they probably don't bother because everyone's heard the term "false advertisement" and knows what it means.
 
Who made such a suggestion? Be realistic will you? The most popular and accepted theories should be discussed. You might not like it, but the creationist theory is among those.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. You may not like it but that's the way it is. Why should it be taught in science class if it's not science?
 
Back
Top Bottom