"Anti-science Bills in the South"

[Father Heathen]

Calling evolution FACT when it is still a hypothesis,

Um, but it's not. Those who lack education shouldn't be discussing how education should work.

 

[Father Heathen]

Now THAT is a good thing. I remember where one teacher was showing a movie where cats were coming out of a skull... Maybe she was teaching evolution, I don't know.

Cat's coming out of a skull?!?! *clutches pearls*

 

[Revoltingest]

How exactly would children receiving a substandard education benefit you?

Science is in limited quantity.
The less they have, the more for me.
Is it not obvious!

 

[Father Heathen]

To be able to question what they are being spoon fed

Now that you know what it is, why not but it into practice?

 

[james bond]

According to the NCSE link, Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science writes in the Orlando Sentinel that

Science education in Florida’s public schools is facing an unprecedented assault that started last year and has the high potential to escalate this year. Evolution and climate change are the targets of a coordinated attack as detractors of these concepts seek to balance lessons with some forms of creationism or denial of human-caused climate change.​

Mr. Haught warns of a new law that, incredibly, allows any citizen to challenge instructional materials that they do not like. Another pair of bills would allow school districts to set their own science standards and allow “controversial” theories to be “taught in a factual, objective, and balanced manner.” Balanced treatment; critical thinking. I think we all know what that means.

Perhaps worse, a bill introduced in the Alabama House would

allow teachers to present “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” in any class discussing evolution, “thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept.” The bill would also ensure that creationist students would not be penalized for answering examination questions in a way reflecting their adherence to creationism, “provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.”​

The bill, according to NCSE, is modeled on a Kentucky law that was enacted in 1976, before the Supreme Court killed the balanced-treatment ruse. NCSE calls the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
source


So, bad, bad, bad; good; or who cares?

.

This is good, good, good, bad. Your headline is misleading in that it's not "anti-science," but pro creation science and anti fake science.

Anytime the NCSE uses the word "fact" or "facts," then you know they're lying. Facts can be used by everybody and not just pro evolution teachers or followers of satanist Al Gore.

 

[james bond]

What evidence can you provide?

One can't have singularity or "infinite" temperature and density as proposed by the BBT unless you divide by zero. Only God, oops I meant the creator, can divide by zero.

 

[Father Heathen]

This is good, good, good, bad. Your headline is misleading in that it's not "anti-science,"

Anything that's irrational and not only lacks evidence to support it but also ignores any evidence to the contrary most certainly is anti-science. Your viewpoint boils down to "I reject this simply because it conflicts with ancient goat herder fables."

 

[Kenny]

Evolution is a very solid theory. To claim it a hypothesis only demonstrates your own ignorance of it, and science as a whole.

I was told by an evolutionist on this forum that it was a hypothesis. Maybe you should talk to your own camp.

 

[Kenny]

So you can post one list of Creationists that all come from the same pro-Creationist source?
I can pull from medical, psychological, anthropological, biology, and paleontology sources to provide evidence for evolution. And from many different journals and websites from the same disciplines.

I could get names from another source too.

My posiion is that scientists still disagree... the list proves it.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

One can't have singularity or "infinite" temperature and density as proposed by the BBT unless you divide by zero. Only God, oops I meant the creator, can divide by zero.

The singularity is not a thing but the result of 'running the movie backward'. It is the point at which the math does not work anymore, because as you said it involves division by zero, There is no really coherent theory of what the beginning could have been like. A quantum gravity theory might tell us but we are not there yet.

I thought Chuck Norris could divide by zero.

 

[Skwim]

This is good, good, good, bad. Your headline is misleading in that it's not "anti-science," but pro creation science and anti fake science.

First of all, it's not my personal title, but that of my source. Secondly, when people challenge a conclusion of science with non-scientific claims, all in hopes of defeating it---creationists would love to do nothing better---I too consider it anti-science.

Anytime the NCSE uses the word "fact" or "facts," then you know they're lying.

Why is that? When you use the word fact, as in "It's a fact that I had coffee this morning" should we assume you're lying, and that you didn't have any coffee at all this morning? Why can't they use the word "fact" or "factual"?

Facts can be used by everybody and not just pro evolution teachers or followers of satanist Al Gore.

So what?

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My posiion is that scientists still disagree... the list proves it.

It does show that some scientists can agree. But that they are all from the same pro-Creationism source it doesn't provide much. I can cite some doctors who say there is no link between head trauma and playing football, but those sources are few and far between, and it's not unusual for their studies to be funded by the NFL, unlike the tons of other studies that have shown a link between head trauma and playing football and come from a variety of sources.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was told by an evolutionist on this forum that it was a hypothesis. Maybe you should talk to your own camp.

First, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." There are no "gravitationists," or "germists," or "dopplarists," or "magnetists."
Second, you were told incorrectly by whoever told you that, and I doubt anyone who has accepted the theory of evolution told you it was a hypothesis. Could happen, but I doubt it.

 

[Kenny]

It does show that some scientists can agree. But that they are all from the same pro-Creationism source it doesn't provide much. I can cite some doctors who say there is no link between head trauma and playing football, but those sources are few and far between, and it's not unusual for their studies to be funded by the NFL, unlike the tons of other studies that have shown a link between head trauma and playing football and come from a variety of sources.

Yes... that knife cuts both ways

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes... that knife cuts both ways

It doesn't cut both ways though, because for it to cut both ways both would have to be correct. But, obviously, both are not correct. One group has tons and tons of research spanning over a century and pulls from so many different disciplines, the other has nothing outside of their own circle jerks and keeping to their own material. One group sees bacteria becoming treatment resistant as a predictable outcome based on the development of life, the other can't say anything without first attaching a needless puppet master to address the subject.

 

[james bond]

The singularity is not a thing but the result of 'running the movie backward'. It is the point at which the math does not work anymore, because as you said it involves division by zero, There is no really coherent theory of what the beginning could have been like. A quantum gravity theory might tell us but we are not there yet.

I thought Chuck Norris could divide by zero.

"Singularity" has taken on a life of its own such as when machines become self-sufficient or what you described, but for quantum mechanics and theory of relativity purposes, it's some location of an invisible environment or situation where time stops, space stops of infinite temperature and density. All these wonderful things happen there including a white hole where universes pop out. Creationists would call that a creator since infinity cannot happen in a material world. We just have uncountable objects. While in math, it is usually undefined but people have made their own rules. Still, a million times 0 cannot equal ten million or even one. A million quantum particles of the right variety still produces nothing. The only way it can is a creator can create the one or ten million objects in the universe. Thus, how can the universe be here when there should be nothing?

 

[james bond]

First of all, it's not my personal title, but that of my source. Secondly, when people challenge a conclusion of science with non-scientific claims, all in hopes of defeating it---creationists would love to do nothing better---I too consider it anti-science.


Why is that? When you use the word fact, as in "It's a fact that I had coffee this morning" should we assume you're lying, and that you didn't have any coffee at all this morning? Why can't they use the word "fact" or "factual"?


So what?

.

It's not non-scientific as atheist science has taught you, but creation science terms. There is no such occurrence where something comes from nothing in the universe or biology unless there is a creator. One day we found the chicken is the evidence just as one day we found a black swan. Not one day the egg developed. Atheist science has enough time to produce something from nothing, but they have failed miserably and have become laughingstocks. That is the evidence. A creation from a white hole is theoretically possible, but one would need a creator to do that, as well.

Someone would have had to witness or you took a selfie with a time/date stamp for your statement to be fact. Science can't go by probability or based on your personal habits. Science has already answered the question if a tree falls in the forest, then does it make a sound? This could be creation science over atheist science since I was the one who knew this ha ha.

So what? It means we cannot admit as scientific fact that you had coffee this morning, but we can based on you making testimony by raising your right hand and swearing to tell the truth (with your left hand on a Bible in the old days).

 

[Skwim]

It's not non-scientific as atheist science has taught you, but creation science terms.

You mean that because it uses creation scientific jargon it's a scientific enterprise?

There is no such occurrence where something comes from nothing in the universe or biology unless there is a creator.

Did someone, me specifically, say something comes from nothing. If not, then what are you going on about?

Atheist science has enough time to produce something from nothing,

Really? Just how did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you carefully looked into all the relevant aspects of the relevant sciences and understand them well enough to form such a firm conclusion? Not to demean you, but my guess is that you did not.

but they have failed miserably and have become laughingstocks.

Oh! you meant to say "Atheist science has had enough time . . . ." It would help if you proof read your replies before posting them.

That is the evidence.

Evidence of what?

A creation from a white hole is theoretically possible, but one would need a creator to do that, as well.

Because . . . . ? Oh, because that's what you believe. I get it. The facts of science rest on what james bond believes.

So what? It means we cannot admit as scientific fact that you had coffee this morning, but we can based on you making testimony by raising your right hand and swearing to tell the truth (with your left hand on a Bible in the old days).

Sorry but I can't take any more of your nonsensical non sequiturs.

Have a good day.

.

 

[ChristineM]

Who cares? Any idea can be challenged and/or criticised. Why should science be immune to this?

Stomping your foot without evidence to challenge with is not a challenge but petulance.

Provide evidence then challenge challenge science to your heart's content. Thats how its done. Thats how progress is made

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

According to the NCSE link, Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science writes in the Orlando Sentinel that

Science education in Florida’s public schools is facing an unprecedented assault that started last year and has the high potential to escalate this year. Evolution and climate change are the targets of a coordinated attack as detractors of these concepts seek to balance lessons with some forms of creationism or denial of human-caused climate change.​

Mr. Haught warns of a new law that, incredibly, allows any citizen to challenge instructional materials that they do not like. Another pair of bills would allow school districts to set their own science standards and allow “controversial” theories to be “taught in a factual, objective, and balanced manner.” Balanced treatment; critical thinking. I think we all know what that means.

Perhaps worse, a bill introduced in the Alabama House would

allow teachers to present “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” in any class discussing evolution, “thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept.” The bill would also ensure that creationist students would not be penalized for answering examination questions in a way reflecting their adherence to creationism, “provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.”​

The bill, according to NCSE, is modeled on a Kentucky law that was enacted in 1976, before the Supreme Court killed the balanced-treatment ruse. NCSE calls the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
source


So, bad, bad, bad; good; or who cares?

.

Climate Change and global warming are PC BS and have been exposed. Evolution, on the other hand, has been virtually proven. Lesson: libs should learn to be objective instead of pursuing socialism as their own brand of blind faith religion.