16% of US science teachers are creationists by Niki2

America loves a winner!

I'd like to hear what 'creationists', specifically young earth types, have to say about the bio stratification of the fossil record.

Oh, that's right.. THEY CAN'T !

They may try some silly explanation involving Noah and the flood, but sadly for them, there IS no evidence which supports their views. It's not even a theory.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 11:55 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'd like to hear what 'creationists', specifically young earth types, have to say about the bio stratification of the fossil record.

Oh, that's right.. THEY CAN'T !

They may try some silly explanation involving Noah and the flood, but sadly for them, there IS no evidence which supports their views. It's not even a theory.

Maybe you should ask Sarah Palin, since she's such a big hero of yours. It's really funny how many of those young Earth creationists you support. Just another example of your myriad hypocrisies.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:19 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Without reading any of that......

Assuming you're not a micro-biologist....

What makes any "theory" more important than the other?

I'm just asking because even though I refuse to dive headfirst in either the Evolution or Creationism pool, I also can't find any logical argument that they could both exist in a plain that wasn't exclusive of each other.

Actually, I find both sides to be quite obnoxious....

I'm glad I'm not going to school now.

Being taught either Evolution or Creationism as fact as a 12-18 year old would be the same as the Jahova's Witnesses bothering me every Sunday at 1:00PM sharp like clockwork on Sunday.

At least I don't have to open my door to them or be graded on it.

In the end, who really gives a flying F?

If dinosaurs of Evolution or dragons of WoW existed, that seems really cool.

If my ancestors were red-assed monkeys that threw shit at each other and fucked any female monkey not already pinned down.... cool...

If the world is only 6,000 years old today and the "bones" buried underneath were just tools of a god to see how we'd react to them..... cool....

In the end, it effects my life no different either way.

F Evolution,

F Religion,

F Government Education,

F The Vatican's (non taxed) Teachings

If you have faith, you have it. If you don't, you don't. I see no harm in children being taught both ways at the same time. Let them decide for themselves.

Since Science will NEVER prove or disprove "God", I think it's all the biggest red-herring and BullShit point out there when there are real issues to discuss.

F Religion, or the lack-thereof......

Invest your time into something worthwhile and stop talking about this bullshit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:19 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Maybe you should ask Sarah Palin, since she's such a big hero of yours. It's really funny how many of those young Earth creationists you support. Just another example of your myriad hypocrisies.

More of a 'big tent' view, actually. No hypocrisy here. But keep on reachin', lil guy.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:36 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174

Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:43 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174

Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?

No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.

Now, kindly go frack yourself.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:01 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What makes any "theory" more important than the other?

*sigh*

A theory is a scientific model, based upon solid evidence, and agreed to be generally correct by a community of researchers who are experts in the field. Theories can be expanded upon or updated, but many of them are very close to being scientific law (example: the Theory of Gravity has been updated to the Law of Gravity, because a metric shit-ton of empirical evidence has shown that, yes, gravity always works like that, and there are equations that describe the behavior of objects interacting with gravity accurately every time they are run. Equations can't really describe evolution, so it may never become a scientific law; but it's not far from one is the point I'm making.) What makes the theory of evolution/natural selection "more important" is that it is actually a theory. It has been observed, repeatedly, by several research groups, in the laboratory and the field. Bacteria go through several generations in the space of a week, and can be observed adapting and evolving by anyone with a petri dish and a microscope. The famed fruit flies are the same way, and you don't even need the petri dish or microscope.
Contrast "intelligent design," which is not a model based on testing or observation, has never been peer reviewed, in fact cannot be peer reviewed, is not agreed to be generally correct by experts in the field of biology, and basically does not fit the actual definition of the word theory. In scientific terms, it is a postulation, at best, and will never be more than that because testing and observation are not possible. Therefore, as the courts have ruled, it is not science and should not be taught in the context of science class.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:21 PM

MAL4PREZ

Well done PR. If folks would take the time to read and understood what you just wrote, the world would be a much less batshit crazy place.

And I have to say to 6 - I haven't seen you around here in a long time (I've been out of it a while myself), but I don't recall you walking so close to the border of batshit crazy land as you're doing in these recent threads. What's up? How did you get so bitter and emotion driven -- nearly irrational, I'd say -- in the year or so since you last posted here? It's quite a change.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:12 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What makes any "theory" more important than the other?

*sigh*

A theory is a scientific model, based upon solid evidence, and agreed to be generally correct by a community of researchers who are experts in the field. Theories can be expanded upon or updated, but many of them are very close to being scientific law (example: the Theory of Gravity has been updated to the Law of Gravity, because a metric shit-ton of empirical evidence has shown that, yes, gravity always works like that, and there are equations that describe the behavior of objects interacting with gravity accurately every time they are run. Equations can't really describe evolution, so it may never become a scientific law; but it's not far from one is the point I'm making.) What makes the theory of evolution/natural selection "more important" is that it is actually a theory. It has been observed, repeatedly, by several research groups, in the laboratory and the field. Bacteria go through several generations in the space of a week, and can be observed adapting and evolving by anyone with a petri dish and a microscope. The famed fruit flies are the same way, and you don't even need the petri dish or microscope.
Contrast "intelligent design," which is not a model based on testing or observation, has never been peer reviewed, in fact cannot be peer reviewed, is not agreed to be generally correct by experts in the field of biology, and basically does not fit the actual definition of the word theory. In scientific terms, it is a postulation, at best, and will never be more than that because testing and observation are not possible. Therefore, as the courts have ruled, it is not science and should not be taught in the context of science class.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

I'm not arguing gravity, and good for it being upgraded to "law" status....

If I fall off a 500 foot cliff, the "law" of gravity dictates that 9 times out of 10 it will kill me.

Disproof of God or Proof of God will never reach that conclusion....

I don't care how many brilliant scientists, whether they're in the 19% or not have a go at it....

It's an unwinnable argument

I'd hate being a student being taught either one of those unproved "theories" as fact on tax payer dollars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174

Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?

No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.

Now, kindly go frack yourself.

Sure, sure ... Nixon and Ford raised them but DIDN’T 'try' high taxes. And Carter who LOWERED them, did 'try' high taxes. That's why you're so fun to laugh at. You and your RapFacts™

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:25 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd hate being a student being taught either one of those unproved "theories" as fact on tax payer dollars.

*sigh*

I will attempt to simplify what I said, since you clearly did not understand it.

Theory = proof exists

Religion = no proof exists

Therefore, religion cannot= theory.

Following that:
Intelligent design = religion, and religion cannot= theory

Therefore, intelligent design is not a theory.

BTW:

Quote:
If I fall off a 500 foot cliff, the "law" of gravity dictates that 9 times out of 10 it will kill me.

No, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't dictate anything. It reflects the simple fact that you will fall, and describes how rapidly you will accelerate towards the ground.
There is nothing in the law of gravity describing its lethality to you or any organism. The lethality of a fall is determined by other factors; gravity just makes the falling possible, and the scientific laws describing the behavior of objects falling due to gravity... they are not like legal terms. They do not "dictate" anything, but rather describe known phenomena. This isn't something that someone came up with and said, "This is the law, now." This is something that decades of observation, measurements, and calculation led to the construction of, and because it was always accurate through thousands of tests, it is referred to in science as a law.
I can't stress this enough: Scientific laws are not abstract rules for behavior, they are descriptions of reality, arrived at through exhaustive testing and observation by multiple parties. Scientific theories are, in essence, the same thing, but may be missing mathematical formulas in their descriptions of reality, or may be adding detail as more testing is done. Something as huge and varied as evolution is a theory because testing of all its possibilities would take more time and resources than we will likely ever have, and also because we don't have time machines to go back and examine all the details of how every species evolved. None of this invalidates it as a scientific model that describes known, observed phenomena. "Intelligent design" is not such a model and it should not be taught as such.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 4:27 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174

Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?

No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.

Now, kindly go frack yourself.

Sure, sure ... Nixon and Ford raised them but DIDN’T 'try' high taxes. And Carter who LOWERED them, did 'try' high taxes. That's why you're so fun to laugh at. You and your RapFacts™

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty. Can we stay on subject, here? Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue? The rest of us will just check in from time to time to see how it's going.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 4:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hi Mal4, missed-cha! Interesting to hear Six didn't used to be so angry/crazy...I think I only met him this time around.

As to folks reading and understanding, as we've discussed before, it doesn't WORK that way. Religious types would of course come up with "Yes, God can't be proven, that's the whole point of faith" or else "...but the Bible says..." or somesuch thing. It's not about reading and understanding, it's about, first off, actually raeding, and second, being willing to even conceive of the possibility.

And not only do some want creationism taught in science class--the LAST place it belongs, but in some cases they want it taught INSTEAD of evolution, which I find...well, there are no words! There's nothing wrong with teaching "intelligent design"--or whatever--but also the idea that it's being taught in SCIENCE class! Whtever their argument in favor of it is, exactly what Rose explained is why it has no business whatsoever being in a class about science, obviously.

Thanx for finding out which countries were involved in that study--between my eyesight (and yes, I did enlarge it) and time, I didn't bother. I do wonder how/why those were picked, as opposed to some others you mentioned. Surely Germany would have been relevant, and unquestionably the Nordic countries...

It's just another sign of the dumbing-down of America, to me--yet another thing I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 7:45 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

In eighth grade our science teacher mentioned in passing that she was a creationist, but we did spend time watching well put together videos about evolution in class. My tenth grade biology teacher spent lots of time on evolution, I think she probably believed it, but who really knows, I guess that's private if someone doesn't want to tell. I certainly believe in evolution on a small scale, breeds and similar species of animals, bacteria, survival of the fittest, the basic stuff, but it derails for me when we talk about things evolving into totally different things.

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 9:00 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue?"

I keep inviting him over to the proper thread. I even post the topic AND link! But for some reason he never shows up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 9:03 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174

Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?

No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.

Now, kindly go frack yourself.

Sure, sure ... Nixon and Ford raised them but DIDN’T 'try' high taxes. And Carter who LOWERED them, did 'try' high taxes. That's why you're so fun to laugh at. You and your RapFacts™

LOL!

Beautiful.

Of course, that simple logic will be ignored, but well done anyway.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 9:04 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty. Can we stay on subject, here? Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue? The rest of us will just check in from time to time to see how it's going.

She started it.

And I got man parts.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 11:22 AM

DEVERSE

Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.

Had to say – PHOENIXROSE, best explanation I’ve seen in two eloquent and simply worded posts – beautifully done – I’m jealous as hell.

Why those 13 countries in the comparison? In December 1989 (when the referenced study Changing America was published) those were probably the top 13 “most educated” countries in what I think would be the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the referenced study identifies the comparison was to “countries the US is in competition with” and that is pretty much what OECD is about.
(sorry, have no idea what criteria is used to select “most educated”)
The OECD under their Directorate for Education lists as of April 2012 (the latest data I have), the “most educated” countries as;
1. Canada
2. Israel
3. Japan
4. United States
5. New Zealand
6. South Korea
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Australia
10. Finland

If someone is interested for specifics there is http://www.oecd.org/home that does offer a pretty wide range of statistics on a variety of subject matter. I do caution though, to quote Homer S., “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”

I find it interesting to note that in my country, creationism is a topic that is discussed in a number of high school science curriculums for the purposes of explaining why creationism had no scientific basis and the difference between scientific methodology and other methodologies. I will note that the teaching of creationism exclusively is illegal in any school that receives government funding.

While I didn’t have many good thoughts about GWB, he did say one thing I thought was rather intelligent in regards to the teaching of creationism/evolution, “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . .”
I guess everyone has their moments, or maybe just a good writer….

Anyway, the topic just caught my eye and I figured I’d throw my few thoughts out.

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 1:13 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx, Deverse, I really appreciate that information. Is that list of countries in the order of highest educated in general? Would find that interesting, if it were.

I also get a giggle out of WHY creationism is taught in "your" country (which is?). That's the best purpose I've heard of yet for it to be taught!

As to what Dubya said, it has validity except in that creationism doesn't belong IN SCIENCE CLASS. Used the way you wrote, it's appropriate, but used as one of two scientific "choices", to me it's not. Maybe in a phylosophy clss? "Modern Thought"? Sociology? Anyway, some other class than science, because Creationism isn't Science.

Thanx for "throwing" your thoughts out, I sure appreciated them. Come back to the kitchen some time...if you can "handle the heat", that is! ;o) Intelligent voices are always appreciated (begged for, wished for, hoped for...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty. Can we stay on subject, here? Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue? The rest of us will just check in from time to time to see how it's going.

She started it.

And I got man parts.

Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 1:25 PM

Try basing all of science and medicine on your so-called "theory" of a 6000 year-old Earth, and see where that gets you, Jack.

Nobody but a true idiot could believe in any such "theory".

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 1:40 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.

Hello,

I'm not sure sexual orientation or obesity are relevant to the topic, even tangentially.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 2:04 PM

DEVERSE

Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Thanx, Deverse, I really appreciate that information. Is that list of countries in the order of highest educated in general? Would find that interesting, if it were

@NIKI2
The list I posted is just the top 10 “most educated” countries OECD lists and is supposed to be in order of most educated at the top to least educated to the bottom. I too am a bit surprised at the list order, but since I do not know what the specific criteria are being measured to make the determination of who is 1st, 2nd. 3rd, etc., I have to suspect the criteria is finger painting, naval gazing and flower arranging as Canada is #1 (I’m from Canada so.....).

I find it logical that creationism is a discussion topic in school and is probably not a “bad” thing as a means to differentiate between a theory and a belief, as common usage of the word “theory” tends to make one think of an unsupported explanation. I agree that creationism is not science and schools should be teaching science in a science class.
Where creationism fits in to a school subject, I’m not sure, but philosophy sounds like a good place as it fits with the concept of rational argument.

As for handling the heat.... ROFL – I’m a fire fighter. Got to be able to handle “heat” in all its forms in my job.

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 2:52 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Hi Mal4, missed-cha! Interesting to hear Six didn't used to be so angry/crazy...I think I only met him this time around.

Yeah, 6 was around before and was hot headed, but in a very different way. I have a theory as to why he's so different now, but I won't share.

Yay again PR, so well explained! It's a shame though, that it will go nowhere. Folks who operate under BELIEF rarely are capable of understanding what science really is. They don't seem to be able to grok the connection between evidence and theory.

I'm a bit at a loss as to what 6 thinks he's arguing here. No, the existence of God cannot be disproved. That's why creationism, etc, does not belong in the science classroom. It's not complicated. In fact, you'll find it in chapter 1 of any basic science textbook: if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it is not science. God is not science.

Evolution is science, because we see it all around us. It is reality. It is not a belief system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 2:57 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Deverse,

thank you very much for your input. You seem to have directly answered my question. I wasn't being snarky or conspiratorial in asking why those countries were chosen. ( Well, I was , actually, but I didn't really mean it. more of a Devil's Advocate stance.) And not that I'm accusing you of claiming that. I appreciate hearing the probable basis for the selection.
And the reasoning behind teaching creationism/intelligent design in your country is purely genius.

Thanx again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:

Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.

Hello,

I'm not sure sexual orientation or obesity are relevant to the topic, even tangentially.

--Anthony

You're right, of course; they aren't.

I'm just putting this on a level that Rappy will be able to understand at his grade level.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 4:14 PM

DEVERSE

Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Deverse,

thank you very much for your input. You seem to have directly answered my question. I wasn't being snarky or conspiratorial in asking why those countries were chosen. ( Well, I was , actually, but I didn't really mean it. more of a Devil's Advocate stance.) And not that I'm accusing you of claiming that. I appreciate hearing the probable basis for the selection.
And the reasoning behind teaching creationism/intelligent design in your country is purely genius.

Thanx again.

No harm – no foul – and I didn’t take your post that way as I looked at the list and wondered why those countries and where the information came from as well. “Changing America” doesn’t specifically say, but OECD data makes sense. The CIA World Factbook or the UN’s Education Index didn’t make sense as they generally measure literacy rates of age groups rather than specifics in selected subject matter that are considered to be critical to overall development of a country. The latter being an OECD thing.

Again, I only think they are OECD data.

I was also wondering about those countries (Germany, France, China, India, and Russia) so I just searched and it seems while the 2012 OECD report does not appear to be on the web, the 2011 is still available and can be found here; (just be careful of the PDF under the “How to Obtain this Publication” as it is big and could take a while if you don’t have a really good internet connection)
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011

or here for 2009 results
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 4:38 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.

Heard that one a lot in your day, huh?

So, implying that a straight man is gay... seems like quite an insult in your world, huh? Nothing could be worse than being gay, is that what you're saying ? Seems so.

Homophobe. But leave it to Kwickie to drag the thread down several notches, and way off topic. Again.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 5:29 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"More of a 'big tent' view, actually. No hypocrisy here. But keep on reachin', lil guy."

More of a clueless chasing after the most-right-wing-favorite-of-the-moment.

"And I got man parts."

You do? Is that why you keep running away from threads where you're wrong?

"So, implying that a straight man is gay... seems like quite an insult in your world, huh?"

No seriously, more like it’s the only way you'll ever have those 'man parts' you claim to have.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 18, 2012 7:04 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by DEVERSE:
Had to say – PHOENIXROSE, best explanation I’ve seen in two eloquent and simply worded posts – beautifully done – I’m jealous as hell.

Why thank you

Trust me, I've worked hard to be able to explain things like this. I'm a science major, and my dad is always very interested in what I'm studying and/or talking about, but he is not a scientist, so I need to be able to break it down for him. I also have a close personal relationship with someone who commonly gives presentations on human anatomy, biology, and evolution, so I get a lot of knowledge from him as well as from my classes. Apparently there's always at least one person who wants to debate evolution with him, so after a decade he's gotten a lot of answers all neatly lined up, and he likes to share his stories.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'm a bit at a loss as to what 6 thinks he's arguing here. No, the existence of God cannot be disproved. That's why creationism, etc, does not belong in the science classroom. It's not complicated.

Yeah, I'm always a bit flabbergasted by the "you can't disprove god" argument. That sort of statement is vacuous in science, and there's no context where it works. If I claimed there was some chemical in the brains of dolphins that controlled ocean currents and backed it up with, "Well, prove me wrong!" the scientific community would shake its collective head and laugh at me. If I told a group of astronomers to disprove the existence of Endor, they would blink and tell me to get the hell away from their expensive equipment. And if I tried to introduce those sorts of postulations into the science curriculum of a nation's schools, claiming they were theories, every teacher and administrator would personally slap me upside the head. For the life of me, I will never understand why things get so muddied up when it comes to religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I have a theory as to why he's so different now

Heh...

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.

Heard that one a lot in your day, huh?

Who was it who said, "So, implying that a straight man is gay... seems like quite an insult in your world, huh? Nothing could be worse than being gay, is that what you're saying ?"

Oh yeah - that would be you. So why did you just imply that I was gay? Is it because that's the worst insult you could come up with?

It's okay, Rappy, we all know how homophobic you are; you show it every time you prattle on about how marriage has "always" been one man-one woman...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"More of a 'big tent' view, actually. No hypocrisy here. But keep on reachin', lil guy."

More of a clueless chasing after the most-right-wing-favorite-of-the-moment.

I'll take Palin over Biden 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. Hell, I'll take her 2-3 times, EVERY day !

And speaking of 'favorite-of-the-moments', it seems more and more is coming out about the Dem's former choice for the man who'd be king, John Edwards. Seems he had an array of mistresses, at the same time, while campaigning for President, and betraying his terminally ill wife.

Bravo, Dems. Real class act ya got there.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:42 AM

America loves a winner!

Kwickie - How is stating that marriage historically has been between a man and a woman in the least bit 'homophobic '? It's hating gays to tell the truth now ?

And you have some serious comprehension issues. I didn't imply you were gay. You implied it towards me. You're confused, and it shows.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:26 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Try basing all of science and medicine on your so-called "theory" of a 6000 year-old Earth, and see where that gets you, Jack.

Nobody but a true idiot could believe in any such "theory".

I didn't say that I believed in that. I think I've made it quite clear that I'm an Agnostic, and I actually base most of my beliefs on anything based off the fact that since I'm 50/50 about there even being a god that you're going to have to do a lot better than cite books written by people I've never met to convince me that many other things I don't have experience with are fact.

If you want to know about things I view as fact today, I'd be happy to tell you the best way to extend electrical fixtures, the best ways to restore cracked walls and ceilings and the best paint to use to finish the job. Although I haven't figured out exactly the best way of growing new grass over 1,600 sq ft of bare dirt, I can tell you what I would NEVER do again and what I would try the next time. I can tell you have a good chance of being able to fix your own furnace without shelling out more than 10 bucks if you know how NOT to blow yourself up while working on it. I could talk all day about a hundred different ways you could make your hard earned money work the best for you, and the FACT that the money you can save after you have made it and paid taxes on it is actually worth more than securing a raise that will bump you up into a higher tax bracket. I could teach you how you can navigate the housing market today and that even if it takes you almost a year to find it, as long as you're willing to put in the work, you can buy a house today that would have cost nearly 3 times back in 2005. I could tell you that if you do your due-diligence and build an UN-breakable case for your arguments that you can see a meaningful reduction in your property taxes without having to hire a lawyer.

These are tangible things. These are real life experiences, a majority of which I've only experienced for the first time in the last 2 years. These are the things I believe in. These are things that I can actually prove.

I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove is any more legitimate than what the religious community's justifications about their beliefs are. There's only 4 possible solutions to the whole Religion VS Science...

1) Science is right, and Religion is wrong.
2) Religion is right, and Science is wrong.
3) Neither of them are right.
4) Both of them are right at the same time.

And whatever gray areas exist in between...

My whole point is, any way that all pans out, and I doubt any one of us will know the answer to that until we're dead, it doesn't effect my life positively or negatively any way.

All I'm saying is that you Science Minded people are as annoying as the Jehova's Witnesses who keep knocking on my front door every Sunday at 1PM like clockwork.

No thanks.....

I will not join either of your cults.....

Far too many important things in life that I actually have control over to hand my "faith" over and worship at the shrine of either Religion or Science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:31 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove...

This, right here, is where the whole thing falls down. What, exactly, does the scientific community "believe and can never prove"? Please give me specifics, because you are throwing out this accusation of belief without proof, when the entire purpose of science is to collect data and believe in things that are proven.
Since I've already given you examples of evolution that can be observed in the space of a week, and you have ignored that, I want to know what "proof" you think it is that biologists don't have for their model of how it works.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie - How is stating that marriage historically has been between a man and a woman in the least bit 'homophobic '? It's hating gays to tell the truth now ?

It's hating gays to deny them the same marriage rights based solely on their orientation and what your religion (wrongly) claims. Marriage simply HASN'T "historically" been between a man and a woman for the majority of history.

Quote:

And you have some serious comprehension issues. I didn't imply you were gay. You implied it towards me. You're confused, and it shows.

How did I imply it towards you? I implied that you never had any man parts, unless they were in your mouth. I've never implied that you were a man. When I implied that you had them in your mouth, your responded with "bet you've heard that before", which IS implying I'm gay, to the exact same degree I implied it about you. No more, no less.

The reading comprehension issues are, as always, all yours.

You can be as gay or straight as you want, and I'll still support your right to marry whomever you love, as long as you're all consenting adults (I still won't endorse your plan to get with 14 year-old cheerleaders, though).

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove...

This, right here, is where the whole thing falls down. What, exactly, does the scientific community "believe and can never prove"? Please give me specifics, because you are throwing out this accusation of belief without proof, when the entire purpose of science is to collect data and believe in things that are proven.
Since I've already given you examples of evolution that can be observed in the space of a week, and you have ignored that, I want to know what "proof" you think it is that biologists don't have for their model of how it works.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

Jack has funny notions of what constitutes "facts", PR. Why, just yesterday he claimed it as an irrefutable "fact" that unemployment has NEVER been this bad.

Kinda hard to convince someone using facts when they don't even understand the meaning of the word "fact" in the first place.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:24 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Prove dark matter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Prove dark matter.

Hello,

To my knowledge, Dark matter is unproven by science. It was, last I heard, a hypothesis.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:40 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Prove dark matter.

It was, last I heard, a hypothesis.

Dark matter is a theory. That is, a scientific model based on observations of gravity in space. It is currently considered the prevailing theory, the one that best explains all the observations that have been made to date.

The evidence of dark matter lies in its gravity. As I previously discussed, gravity has several decades of testing and observation backing it up, and yes it always behaves that way. The observation of gravity interacting with matter in space gave rise to several models that might explain it, but dark matter won out in 2006 when images of galaxies colliding showed strong evidence that something invisible to our eye was exerting gravity on them. Alternate models had included gravity being stronger than predicted in certain contexts, which would explain certain observations, but these models could not explain the interaction of colliding galaxy clusters. From NASA:
In galaxy clusters, the normal matter, like the atoms that make up the stars, planets, and everything on Earth, is primarily in the form of hot gas and stars. The mass of the hot gas between the galaxies is far greater than the mass of the stars in all of the galaxies. This normal matter is bound in the cluster by the gravity of an even greater mass of dark matter. Without dark matter, which is invisible and can only be detected through its gravity, the fast-moving galaxies and the hot gas would quickly fly apart.
The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required.
This result also gives scientists more confidence that the Newtonian gravity familiar on Earth and in the solar system also works on the huge scales of galaxy clusters.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:50 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

So are you saying that dark matter was "discovered" to explain the currently un-explainable?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
So are you saying that dark matter was "discovered" to explain the currently un-explainable?

Hello,

To my knowledge it hasn't been discovered yet. But it would help to explain things that are confusing otherwise.

Everything science 'discovers' to use your word helps to explain things that are confusing otherwise.

'Un-explainable' is a loaded premise. Everything science has explained was once 'un-explainable' to someone. Until it wasn't. Like the properties of the computer you are using.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:17 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
To my knowledge it hasn't been discovered yet. But it would help to explain things that are confusing otherwise.

Pretty much spot-on. "Impossible" might be a better word than "confusing." The point of the quotes I posted was that the observed behavior would not be possible without the existence of matter we could not see.
Let me repeat that, because I'm sure that aspects of what I'm saying will be ignored or over-simplified: the observed behavior would not be possible without the existence of matter we could not see.
Similarly, the observed behavior of multiple generations of life would not be possible without mutation, variation, and natural selection; the theory of evolution.

Quote:
'Un-explainable' is a loaded premise. Everything science has explained was once 'un-explainable' to someone. Until it wasn't. Like the properties of the computer you are using.

Also spot-on.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Something I always find interesting about the science vs religion debate is this...

Science isn't trying to disprove God. It's just trying to describe the universe.

Religion frequently tries to disprove science.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:35 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove...

I will not join either of your cults.....

You don't care about evidence in the face of mythology, and Science is a cult. Ooooh kaaaay, crazy man. Whatever you say. Ill be backing away now...

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:39 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

Something I always find interesting about the science vs religion debate is this...

Science isn't trying to disprove God. It's just trying to describe the universe.

Religion frequently tries to disprove science.

--Anthony

A good point, and a solid correlation to the notion that science changes with new evidence, whereas religion stands resolute in the face of it.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:59 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Even an educated guess is still a guess.

I am no creationist, far from it. But I do have an open mind.

It used to be a widely held scientific belief that the sun revolved around the earth. This was a hypothesis which fit the perceived evidence of the time.
I am not saying dark matter does not exist. But it is a hypothesis which best fits with the identifiable evidence which currently exists.

I think this is kind of what Jack was talking about earlier but I could be wrong.

I think he was right about the vehemence found on both sides though, IMHO.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:19 AM