Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-19-2010, 11:54 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,224,259 times
Reputation: 9628

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The ruling doesn't say that creationism cannot be taught as fact. It says creationism cannot be taught as science. Because creationism isn't science.
And neither is evolution...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2010, 11:55 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,472,051 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The ruling doesn't say that creationism cannot be taught as fact. It says creationism cannot be taught as science. Because creationism isn't science.
That's what I meant. So what did O'Donnell propose?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:00 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,118,704 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
I read it and it is a BS ruling.
Your claim, however, was that the Supreme Court never ruled in such a manner. Your welcome for informing you as to the fact that they did.

You certainly are entitled to disagree with the ruling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
This is where the Progressives got us off track of our Constitution. They invented "case law" precedence, which is NOT Constitutional law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made."

This was clearly a case of some Constitutional confusion (although not very much in my mind). It was clearly decided correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
That ruling was an abomination from a Liberal judge.
You do realize that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
The big thing here is that even this abomination of a ruling isn't so cut and dry either, it only states that it can't be taught as fact, again, did O'Donnell say that it should be taught as fact?
That's not what the ruling said. Plus your whole notion of teaching it as fact vs. not fact is just absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:01 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,118,704 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
And neither is evolution...
Evolution isn't science???????? Seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:01 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,925,599 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
And neither is evolution...
Evolution is science. It's a theory that explains a large quantity of scientific evidence. It's a theory, just like all science is theory. As new evidence is discovered, it either further supports the theory or the theory has to be changed. For instance, the theory once believed that Neandertals were part of the evolutionary chain that resulted in modern man. But the evidence did not support that, it supports the idea that Neandertals were a separate branch, that we are not descended from Neandertals at all. The theory was revised to reflect the evidence available. Creationism is not a theory. It is a matter of faith. And as a matter of faith, it cannot be subject to be disproved. Evolutionary theory can be disproven. But to do so requires a startling new discovery, that can be observed, tested, and explained by a different theory. The fact that Creationism does not depend on evidence, and could not be refuted by new scientific evidence means that it's not science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:05 PM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,224,259 times
Reputation: 9628
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Evolution isn't science???????? Seriously?
It's about as scientific as the man caused earth warming theory. Even Darwin himself was not confident in his theory, and it is still only theory. Secular humanists insist that the unprovable theory is proven fact. Simply not so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:08 PM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,624,486 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Evolution isn't science???????? Seriously?
You're right...it's science....




really, really, really BAD science...but a lot of "scientists" make their living at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:12 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,472,051 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Your claim, however, was that the Supreme Court never ruled in such a manner. Your welcome for informing you as to the fact that they did.

You certainly are entitled to disagree with the ruling.



"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made."

This was clearly a case of some Constitutional confusion (although not very much in my mind). It was clearly decided correctly.



You do realize that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court?



That's not what the ruling said. Plus your whole notion of teaching it as fact vs. not fact is just absurd.
Yes I know about there being 9 judges. I misspoke.
BTW, taught as science not fact.
Quote:
Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief.
Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:15 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,118,704 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
You're right...it's science....




really, really, really BAD science...but a lot of "scientists" make their living at it.
If evolution is "really, really, really BAD science", how is it that attenuated vaccines work? In other words, please explain attenuated vaccines to me without using the principles of evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:17 PM
 
Location: AL
2,476 posts, read 2,606,750 times
Reputation: 1015
Shes right,sorry to break it to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top