NationStates

European Socialist Republic wrote:

Nazis in Space wrote:This wouldn't have happened if the Nazis had won.

If the Nazis had won, I'm sure we'd be taught how Hitler created the universe...

*shudders* When Hitler first created the world... he sent invasions on all of humanity so everyone would respect him...

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

[/quote]

Micro-evolution can be observed in the immune system "evolving" to protect against a certain pathogen, or in a bacteria "evolving" to become resistant to a certain drug. Macro evolution has never been substantiated, ever. Aside from some fossils that may or may not be indicative of genuine links, provided they're authentic to begin with. Falsely equating micro and macro evolution under the same "supreme scientific fact" umbrella-argument does nothing to advance acceptance of your theory.

Neither creationism or evolution can be proved or disproved, so why should we not have schools teaching both of the theories? It would be terribly close-minded to take either one of them out of the classroom.

Castille de Italia wrote:As a Texas teacher and a staunch conservative, this is wrong. Schools receive federal funding, therefore there has to be separation of church and state. This is against the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court agrees.
Edwards v. Aguillard

The Holy NeoSpanish Empire wrote:

Divair wrote:Because it's a bunch of nonsense that was banned long ago.
Edwards v. Aguillard

i see youre intolerant

That's a nice tu quoque.

European Socialist Republic wrote:

Nazis in Space wrote:This wouldn't have happened if the Nazis had won.

If the Nazis had won, I'm sure we'd be taught how Hitler created the universe...

You forgot the solar system, the sun, and all life through his "super Aryan powers!" In German of course...Heil Hitler! Just kidding on the last two words.

The Scientific States wrote:

The Holy NeoSpanish Empire wrote:
they indoctrinated you

, I can't take you seriously when you post this stuff.

That is by far the most contradictory post I've seen in my life, creationism in public schools defines indoctrination.

He went to a religious school in Belgium. Doesn't that answer everything?

Why does it bother people? Texas is a state and it will be able to do what is wants with its education department.

We wouldn't want to censor anything, now would we?

Need a name wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
How is breaching the separation of church and state a redeeming factor?

It is a step towards Texas becoming more Godly, which is good.

Breaking the line between church and state isn't good.

Why would one include theology in the physical science classes? Makes no sense what-so-ever.

Tatooene wrote:Neither creationism or evolution can be proved or disproved, so why should we not have schools teaching both of the theories? It would be terribly close-minded to take either one of them out of the classroom.

Creationism isn't a theory and evolution has been proven true for a long time.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Lost heros wrote:

Bundesdeutschland wrote:I really wouldn't mind putting creation in our textbooks...but the fact that people see this as a step to teaching that the Earth is flat is absolutely ridiculous and annoying, in my opinion.

Creationism is an outdated belief, as is the Earth being
it wont be as long a single catholic stands against atheism

The Holy NeoSpanish Empire wrote:

European Socialist Republic wrote:Uh, no. I went to a Catholic school here in Belgium. Guess what? They taught us evolution is true and creationism is false!

they indoctrinated you

Oh you're adorable. You don't know what that word means.

Acsicurezza wrote:Why does it bother people? Texas is a state and it will be able to do what is wants with its education department.

Wrong.
Edwards v. Aguillard

The Nuclear Fist wrote:

Shaggai wrote:Would you expect anything else from your soul?

I wouldn't know, I've been sleeping.

Ah. Makes sense.

Need a name wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
How is breaching the separation of church and state a redeeming factor?

It is a step towards Texas becoming more Godly, which is good.

No. It really isn't.


I don't know about you guys, but I'd be perfectly fine with Nuclear Fist's version of creationism:

And on the 1st day, Fist pulled himself out of the abyss. He them proceeded to violently sodomize the abyss, and the big bang happened. God came out 9 months later, and Fist taught his son how to create a universe. It was pretty bad for a first try, but it had hookers and blow. So Fist kept it anyway.

Sensorland wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:No. Science class is for science, not quackery, which creationism is. Put in a church (or mosque, etc etc.) and keep it out of science since it isn't science.

I cannot tolerate intolerance! It's a viscious cycle. I accept and even understand your beliefs, but your skull is as thick as diamond.

What's wrong with putting it into a history or religious studies class? It cannot be in a science class because it isn't science.

Divair wrote:

Castille de Italia wrote:As a Texas teacher and a staunch conservative, this is wrong. Schools receive federal funding, therefore there has to be separation of church and state. This is against the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court agrees.
Edwards v. Aguillard

I'm not too familiar with the case. I'll have to look into it. Thank you pointing that out though.

Tatooene wrote:Neither creationism or evolution can be proved or disproved, so why should we not have schools teaching both of the theories? It would be terribly close-minded to take either one of them out of the classroom.

1. Evolution has been observed.
2. Evolution is one of the best established theory known to mankind.
3. Creationism makes no falsifiable and testable claims which means it is not a hypothesis let alone a theory.

Christian Union wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

Micro-evolution can be observed in the immune system "evolving" to protect against a certain pathogen, or in a bacteria "evolving" to become resistant to a certain drug. Macro evolution has never been substantiated, ever. Aside from some fossils that may or may not be indicative of genuine links, provided they're authentic to begin with. Falsely equating micro and macro evolution under the same "supreme scientific fact" umbrella-argument does nothing to advance acceptance of your theory.[/quote]
Yep Micro Evolution over extended periods of time does not produce macro evolution. As this analgoy so cleaerly demonstrates.

Acsicurezza wrote:Why does it bother people? Texas is a state and it will be able to do what is wants with its education department.

Teaching a false hypothesis with no evidence to be superior to a scientific theory with a large backing

is just silly.

Tatooene wrote:Neither creationism or evolution can be proved or disproved, so why should we not have schools teaching both of the theories? It would be terribly close-minded to take either one of them out of the classroom.

ER! WRONG!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

What a fucking stupid idea, Texas.

Castille de Italia wrote:

Divair wrote:The Supreme Court agrees.
Edwards v. Aguillard

I'm not too familiar with the case. I'll have to look into it. Thank you pointing that out though.

I'll quote the very important bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.