0
   

Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 05:57 pm
What are "moderates" wande?

People who agree with you eh?

That's the lowest form of propaganda.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 09:09 pm
wandeljw wrote:
The Kansas Board of Education has ten members. Six conservative members voted for the controversial change in science standards. Four of those six conservative members are up for re-election next year. If Kansas voters replace these four conservatives with moderates, the newly configured board could possibly repeal the new standards before they go into effect.


spendius responded:
Quote:
What are "moderates" wande?

People who agree with you eh?

That's the lowest form of propaganda.


I am trying to compare my post with your response, spendius. I am unable to figure out what you are saying.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 08:46 am
No worries, Spendy rarely undestands what he is saying, so you needn't feel dismayed . .
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 08:57 am
Well wande-

I think we all agree that "moderates" is a sort of nice word.Complimentary as opposed to those nasty conservatives who were a majority of 6 to 4.

He who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions.(Confucius I heard.)

A quote from the Sunday Times-

"It is our biological destiny,some scientists say,to grab power by vanquishing others and to wage war in perpetuity."

Do evolutionists agree with that or are there other scientists who disagree.Which scientists are we to be guided by.It would follow I suppose that "moderation" is simply just another selfish power grab and implies no moral superiority.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 09:34 am
spendius,

I still have no idea what you are talking about. You speak from a perspective that I do not understand.
0 Replies
 
jstark
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 09:54 am
spendius wrote:
Well wande-

I think we all agree that "moderates" is a sort of nice word.Complimentary as opposed to those nasty conservatives who were a majority of 6 to 4.

He who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions.(Confucius I heard.)

A quote from the Sunday Times-

"It is our biological destiny,some scientists say,to grab power by vanquishing others and to wage war in perpetuity."

Do evolutionists agree with that or are there other scientists who disagree.Which scientists are we to be guided by.It would follow I suppose that "moderation" is simply just another selfish power grab and implies no moral superiority.


Moderation in this case is the desire to propose as truth things that are verifiable. Truth itself is not subject to power grabs. Claiming the Sun orbits the Earth does not make it so. The desire to impose creationism on science does not make creationism true. Verifiable research would.

-J
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 10:07 am
I'm sorry wande.

It is as easy as 2 plus 2 to me.I don't know how I could explain it more simply.

Perhaps you just don't understand the amoral scientific mind which is quite happy to allow fundamentalists of any sort to keep order while he gets on with his iconoclastic thinking.

It amazes a scientist that billions of words have been written fulminating against scientific evolution applied to last things,often by very eminent people,and some think they can just dismiss it all with a "stupid" or a "silly" or a "crap".Scientists studying out-of-control arrogance need look no further than here to find convenient objects for their research.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 02:39 pm
spendi. Youve come to these discussions later. ALL the arguments invoking the mountains of evidence have been presented. The Creationists have a single methodology, they keep bringing up the same "arguments" infront of new people. Either the Creationists are terribly senile or they are, as Setanta states , merely wishing to be seen as the "last guys standing" You dont help matters much because youre points are often in a phrase structure thats only clear to you. Now where I comew from, when only the speaker understands what hes saying thats either

1Glossolalia of the truest kind or

2 The speaker ought to reconsider what hes saying and try to include the audience(The purpose of these threads is , after all , communication, not mystification.

Just a thought.
Quote:
billions of words have been written fulminating against scientific evolution applied to last things,often by very eminent people,and some think they can just dismiss it all with a "stupid" or a "silly" or a "crap"
.
All of the points that are brought up by the "eminent" scientists who published these "Billions" of words, have been carefully and concisely demolished with clear evidence. Science has always been polite in considering these evidentiary musings and philosophy (AT LEAST THE FIRST TIME) However, when the same arguments that appeared in 1975 to the ICR by Duane Gish are being presented today as "new stuff", IT is crap. Youve not taken the time to do a historical survey. Sine, I believe you stated that you were a philosopher? Youd appreciate Michael Ruse" book

The Evolution-Creation Struggle2005, Harvard Press. Its his latest and, like the earlier works of this man, he exposes his Christian beliefs and then proceeds to take apart anti-evolution for what it is, essentially fact free products of a small, yet vocal number of religious groups that have gothemselves painted into a modernist v fundamentalist corner. They are unable to back themselves out without disassembling their religious beliefs.Thats none of my concern, as long as they dont try to seep their sewage into our schools . The battles will rage on and science will prevail because it has nothing to rely upon except facts. Thats good enough for me. Whatever name you wish to attach to scientists remember, they live for ignorance, they get up in the morning to plow in the fields of ignorance. Thats where the work is.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:18 am
Another part of the Kansas science standards require students to be made aware of the following criticisms of scientific explanations of the origin of life:
Quote:
a. A lack of empirical evidence for a "primordial soup" or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.
0 Replies
 
Equus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:39 am
As a Kansas resident, I would like to point out that I, as well as most of my neighbors, disagree with what the State School Board did. It is reminiscent of the Church disciplining Galileo for his unpopular ideas about the Earth not being the center of the universe.

As for the school board---maybe they're not descended from apes. But descended from jackasses, maybe...
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:51 am
Equus,

Four of the six board members responsible for the change will be up for re-election in 2006. Do you know of any predictions about how the vote will go?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:20 pm
Equus wrote:
As a Kansas resident, I would like to point out that I, as well as most of my neighbors, disagree with what the State School Board did. It is reminiscent of the Church disciplining Galileo for his unpopular ideas about the Earth not being the center of the universe.

As for the school board---maybe they're not descended from apes. But descended from jackasses, maybe...


Equus,

Sorry, your comparison doesn't hold up very well. Galileo advocated an unconventional idea against an entrenched establishment that was resistant to change.

You are on the evolutionary side. Well, don't look now but YOU are the entreched establishment. The public schools ALREADY have the Evolution 24/7 format that you desire.

For you to play the persecuted minority, well............. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:23 pm
Evolution "24/7"? ! ? ! ?

Your hysteria is showing, "real life."
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:26 pm
On another thread, farmerman mentioned that "Evolution 24/7" is the latest creationist slogan.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:31 pm
The sky is falling ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

-- C. Little, date of attribution unkown
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:33 pm
wandeljw wrote:
On another thread, farmerman mentioned that "Evolution 24/7" is the latest creationist slogan.


it is? that must be a figure of speech; liberals-democrats-moderates-secularists-atheists-etc need time for other causes, like Roe vs. Wade, removing life-support from terry schiavo, gay marriages, sending the wrong message to terrorists by questioning George Bush's honesty, and so on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:40 pm
Don't forget fawning over Castro, we got a new thread 'bout that, too . . .
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:48 pm
wandeljw wrote:
On another thread, farmerman mentioned that "Evolution 24/7" is the latest creationist slogan.


Well that's very flattering. I must be quite a trendsetter. Laughing

(Or maybe others are just expressing the obvious, as I am also.)
0 Replies
 
jstark
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:49 pm
real life wrote:
Equus wrote:
As a Kansas resident, I would like to point out that I, as well as most of my neighbors, disagree with what the State School Board did. It is reminiscent of the Church disciplining Galileo for his unpopular ideas about the Earth not being the center of the universe.

As for the school board---maybe they're not descended from apes. But descended from jackasses, maybe...


Equus,

Sorry, your comparison doesn't hold up very well. Galileo advocated an unconventional idea against an entrenched establishment that was resistant to change.

You are on the evolutionary side. Well, don't look now but YOU are the entreched establishment. The public schools ALREADY have the Evolution 24/7 format that you desire.

For you to play the persecuted minority, well............. Laughing


So shall we bring back the "Earth is the Center of the Universe" crowed simply because the "Earth is not the Center of the Universe" is now the entrenched "dogma"?

Also note that while the rest of the secular world does believe in evolution the Church seems to be having a hard time with it. So the analogy to Galileo is at least apt on the relevant points.

-J
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 12:56 pm
Setanta wrote:
Don't forget fawning over Castro, we got a new thread 'bout that, too . . .


i noticed that...the puritan work ethic can't hold a candle to the leftists'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:16:47