NationStates

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:44 am**

Divair wrote:
Pavlostani wrote:
It's also appalling how children are brainwashed to believe that some magical force called gravity keeps us on the ground. I think that children should both be taught about gravity and Loony Tunes cartoons to make up for this.

Teach the controversy!

Atleast post the entire pic!

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:45 am**

Keep myth out of science books.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:46 am**

Divair wrote:
The Tundra wrote:1. yes, it does, in the form of genetic engineering by aliens. some, some, some, some, some

There's no evidence to indicate any such nonsense.

The Tundra wrote:2. it is a origin of humans theory, aka creation theory

Wrong.

A. Evolution is evolution, not creation.
B. Abiogenesis explains our origins. And it's still not a creation theory because we weren't created.

i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:46 am**

Genivaria wrote:Keep myth out of science books.

Creationism cannot qualify as mythology is is sewage.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:46 am**

The Tundra wrote:
Divair wrote:There's no evidence to indicate any such nonsense.

Wrong.

A. Evolution is evolution, not creation.
B. Abiogenesis explains our origins. And it's still not a creation theory because we weren't created.

i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:47 am**

Ameca wrote:
The Scientific States wrote:
I really wouldn't give a crap if they left the US. Id be a little happy if they did.

The would be taken over by a Mexican drug cartel in less than a week

Still don't care.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:47 am**

Blasveck wrote:
The Tundra wrote:
i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

Aliens. *nod*

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:47 am**

The Tundra wrote:i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

If you cannot back up your silly claims, don't make silly claims in the first place.

The Tundra wrote:for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

Wrong. Abiogenesis and evolution are entirely different. And misusing words results in backlash.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:47 am**

Blasveck wrote:
The Tundra wrote:
i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

Gawd.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:48 am**

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:
Blasveck wrote:What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

Gawd.

An inflammatory joint disease is worshipped as a deity?

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:49 am**

Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine. Teaching it as an outright fact, however, is not okay.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:49 am**

What's the chance of this happening?

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:49 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine.

No it isn't.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:49 am**

Benuty wrote:
Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Gawd.

Joint disease is worshipped as a deity?

At least it gets something done, unlike Yahweh.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:50 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine. Teaching it as an outright fact, however, is not okay.

It's not, because creationism isn't a theory.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:50 am**

Do all those who are against homeschooling still think that parents should send their children to Texas public schools to learn myth instead of staying at home and learning science?

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:50 am**

Blasveck wrote:
The Tundra wrote:
i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

not many, 2 or 3 at most that don't involve a god

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:50 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine. Teaching it as an outright fact, however, is not okay.

If its an alternative theory then we should teach all alternative creation theories.

Lets teach the Scientology ones, the Babylonian ones, the Greek ones etc, because they are alternative theories and must be taught.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:50 am**

Divair wrote:
Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine.

No it isn't.

Students have a right to learn about different theories.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:50 am**

The Scientific States wrote:
Yes there are many people who hold alternative views because they've been taught to believe that bullcrap. I have yet to meet a scientist or hear of a scientist who does not believe in evolution. Thankfully the public is realizing that creationism is incorrect and that due to the fact that evolution is nearly proven they're starting to drop the whole creationism thing. Lets not revert back to the way things were, that's what'll happen if we teach creationism in schools.

Besides why teach creationism if there is a separation of church and state? It's a completely Abrahamic viewpoint.

I have heard of several scientists who do not "believe" in evolution. Even my high-school biology teacher in liberal New York State was able to admit to herself and the class that evolution is still a theory which is far from concrete. I say it's you who have been brainwashed to accept a certain spin on things. And to all who say that "opinions don't matter", you're right, they don't. Which is why creationists around the world will continue to disbelieve your opinion on the origins of humanity. Another poster mentioned something about "evolution being demonstrated". Micro-evolution is not at all the same as macro, even by evolutionary standards. If it demonstrates any principle, it's that humans will exaggerate any bit of data to support an otherwise preposterous belief.

As for creationism being completely abrahamic, include other views like those of Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Let all views be included instead of perpetuating the model of the intellectual superiority complex which has used so many different fronts over the centuries, militant Christianity included.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:51 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:
Divair wrote:No it isn't.

Students have a right to learn about different theories.

No they don't.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:51 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:
Divair wrote:No it isn't.

Students have a right to learn about different theories.

It's not a theory.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:51 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:
Divair wrote:No it isn't.

Students have a right to learn about different theories.

Present an alternative Scientific Theory and we'll talk.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:51 am**

Divair wrote:
Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Students have a right to learn about different theories.

No they don't.

Says who? Suppression of knowledge is wrong.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:52 am**

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:
Divair wrote:No it isn't.

Students have a right to learn about different theories.

Students have no reason to learn about a hypothesis that has absolutely no evidence for it and therefore is not a theory at all.

NationStates

Texas: Put Creationism In Every Textbook!!!