Communism Gaining Ground?

[Vladimir Lenin]

(Rebuttal, Vlad? )

newp, I prefer a free society with equal opportunities for everyone (and none of that religious nonsense)

whether you call it communism, socialism, capitalism or onanism, is of no importance to me

and yes, eastern block honeys 0wN aLL fat, meat and potato eatin', irish, british and german bred cows that this land is poisoned with

that iz all

 

[Timebuilder]

newp, I prefer a free society with equal opportunities for everyone (and none of that religious nonsense)

It's clear, Vlad.

The founders didn't design America for your liking.

I understand that Aeroflot flies out of Dulles. Maybe there's a destination with an environment that you would prefer.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I understand that Aeroflot flies out of Dulles. Maybe there's a destination with an environment that you would prefer.

You might want to go too, T.B. Find some place where everyone's required to think the same way. Must drive you nuts, living in our little democracy here...

 

[Timebuilder]

You might want to go too, T.B. Find some place where everyone's required to think the same way. Must drive you nuts, living in our little democracy here...

Not at all. I detest what the liberals have done to education in America, and the erosion of our basic freedoms by the courts, but that's no reason to give up.

What is at stake is a choice betweeen freedom and tyranny. It's that simple.

What is going on right now might be correctly referred to as a juristocracy.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I detest what the liberals have done to education in America...

The liberals aren't the ones trying to get books of the Bible into biology classes...

Both sides, libs and cons, are equally harmful to education. If there is any part of our society that needs balance, this is it.

 

[Timebuilder]

You mean that taking one week in a 12 week biology class to study creationism wouldn't be balanced?

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

well, our beloved French are on to it

Chirac bans all religious garb in public schools

linkoffsky

 

[Snakum]

You mean that taking one week in a 12 week biology class to study creationism wouldn't be balanced?

In my opinion, the study of creationism, being based on mythology and not provable via science to any degree ... would be kinda out of place, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that fit better in a religious studies class er sump'n? I'm not arguing for or against, but I don't think Physical Science class is the place for debating cultural superstitions. Socialogy maybe?

Minh

 

[dmspilot00]

Let's not forget how we drove off American manufacturing to the third world by means of mimium wage laws and the EPA.

The market wages in the United States for the jobs you refer to are already above the minimum wage. Not a valid argument. You should blame our standard of living instead.

 

[Typhoon1244]

You mean that taking one week in a 12 week biology class to study creationism wouldn't be balanced?

There's balance and there's reality. We don't teach our children about astrology in Science classes. Why should Biology classes cover Bible passages?

Now the Taliban incorporated a lot of religious teachings in their educational system...such as it was. Maybe that'd suit you better.

 

[bart]

What happened to reading, writing and arithmetic? It seems that with all the Degreed Education Specialists running around, we have alot of people who supposedly know HOW best to teach our children and precious little of WHAT to teach them (other than leftist indoctrination).

Seems when I got my CFI, FOI was rather intuitive and not worthy of a four year degree. I guess idiots feel more sophisticated when they complicate the PROCESS and dumb down the MATERIAL.

Makes it more acceptable for them not to be accountable for results.

 

[Typhoon1244]

It seems that with all the Degreed Education Specialists running around, we have alot of people who supposedly know HOW best to teach our children and precious little of WHAT to teach them...

You got that right. I agree with you completely.

...other than leftist indoctrination.

Well, almost completely.

 

[TonyC]

In my opinion, the study of creationism, being based on mythology and not provable via science to any degree ... would be kinda out of place, wouldn't it?

Why should it be treated any differently than the religion of evolution? (Seriously, you don't think any element of general evolution is scientifically provable (to use your word) do you?)

 

[Snakum]

The theory of Evolution is grounded in the known science of how organisms mutate/evolve, and of course, on the fossil records.

The theory of Creationism is based on the scripture of just one religion out of many religions. If we force teachers to discuss Creationism in Physical Science class we will be forced (lawyers ... you know) to discuss the origins of life expoused in the scriptures of the other major religions (except Buddhism, which doesn't have one).

Think of it ... the NC House of Representatives passes a bill that requires one week of Creationism in all NC classrooms. The Christians, Muslims, and Jews are happy at first. But before you know it, the local Islamic and Jewish groups have lawyers filing suit over the minute differences in the interpretations of the origins class. They want their specific versions taught, as well. They say "it's only fair", and they'd be right, actually. Then the Hindus protest the schoolboard meetings and they eventually get a lawyer ... you get the idea, I'm sure.

Isn't it better to stick to accepted scientific fact and leave mythology out of it?

With respect ...

Minh

 

[Typhoon1244]

Seriously, you don't think any element of general evolution is scientifically provable do you?

Sure I do, don't you?

Tell you what. You bring me a fossilized angel, and I'll convert to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam tomorrow.

 

[chawbein]

Wow!! What a thread. I'm proud of myself for getting such a good discussion started, and there have been no flames as of yet. The movement to a more centralized authority i.e. federal government makes it easier for a tyrannical system to evolve in this great nation. Just look at the McCain-Feingold Law that was passed and then ruled as
C O N S T I T U T I O N A L ! ! ! ! ! ! !

If you are not frightened by this dismantling of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, then you are part of the problem. I know that most here are, but let me give a small example for those that have a thinking disability.

The most hated man in the airline industry (Frank Lorenzo) decides he wants to run for president. Now all those ALPA members know that he is a BAD, BAD man in their eyes. Under your new McCain Feingold Law, ALPA (a special interest group) cannot run ads against this man 60 days before the election. Do you comprehend this, the government just said that you cannot publicly explain why this man should not be president 60 days before the election (which is when most people "in the middle" decide who they are going to vote for). The only way that you can get your opinion heard to a wide audience is if the news media decides to put you on. The federal government has just trampled on one of the rights that makes this nation free (those being freedom of speech and the right to own property).

There's my rant.

 

[bart]

To the folks that hold evolution so dear:

How do you rationalize the science of quantum mechanics and nuclear physics? Small particles behave in such a way so as to predict the intention of the experiment, completely defying the laws of physics. What say you to observable, and complete violations of one science by another?

As a matter of fact, there are experiments that create matter from energy and vice versa that seem to happen just because the observer is looking for them. Expand upon that and perhaps there is scientific fact behind a being manifesting matter.

Quantum mechanics can be very frightening for those that hold a scarcity mentality near and dear. It's ramifications are immense and application is not well understood and even less applied. On the intuitive end, Richard Bach understands it as well as Hawkins.

Don't be surprised one day if creationism in a different light supersedes evolution as the "science" of life.

 

[Typhoon1244]

How do you rationalize the science of quantum mechanics and nuclear physics? Small particles behave in such a way so as to predict the intention of the experiment, completely defying the laws of physics. What say you to observable, and complete violations of one science by another?

That's why science is flexible. Fluid. That which can adapt survives. Few wars have been fought over science.

How many have been fought over the inflexible Bible (in it's many guises)?

I agree with you about one thing: one day we may indeed get out heads out of our butts and realize that science and religion are most likely complimentary.

P.S. Don't sell quantum physicists short. There are many Christians, Jews, Budhists, etc. among their ranks!

 

[TonyC]

The theory of Evolution is grounded in the known science of how organisms mutate/evolve, and of course, on the fossil records.

Fossil records "prove" that a single organism could exist simultaneously in millions of years of strata. Or do you know of a more logical exlanation for fossils that are preserved perpendicular to the multiple layers of "history"?

SPECIFIC evolution is a scientific fact - - animals of a species change to adapt to the environment. Even as they adapt, their species remains the same. Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, horses are horses, snakes are snakes.

What most folks refer to as "evolution" is actually GENERAL evolution, the theory that requires one species to evolve from another species. There is no scientific proof that such an evolution has EVER occurred. As many different ways as we can breed dogs to produce new breeds of dogs, they always come up being dogs. Never do we wind up with a horse. Never.

Isn't it better to stick to accepted scientific fact and leave mythology out of it?

That works for me. We can begin removing the THEORY of General evolution from textbooks immediately.

We all understand the definition of "theory," right?

Originally posted by Typhoon1244
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TonyC
Seriously, you don't think any element of general evolution is scientifically provable do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure I do, don't you?

No, see above. Show me one example of any species creating another, and I'll change my mind.

 

[bigD]

To the folks that hold evolution so dear:

How do you rationalize the science of quantum mechanics and nuclear physics? Small particles behave in such a way so as to predict the intention of the experiment, completely defying the laws of physics. What say you to observable, and complete violations of one science by another?

I'm not really choosing sides here one way or another - but I'm curious what it is about quantum physics (or specifically mechanics if you wish) that contradicts some other accepted laws of physics?