Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 198 of 283 (650526)
01-31-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
I don't think that track record can be used in deciding upon allowing him to propose future bills. It may be used by the constituency if they want to vote for someone else, but I think that each bill has to be "looked" at in an objective light ...
That's objective. He is objectively a creationist jerk.
it could still be a coot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4d8KMIwJI
(which is in the Rallidae family and not the Anatidae family that ucks are)
Coots don't quack like ducks.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:41 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 201 of 283 (650530)
01-31-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 5:57 PM


Re: SHOW ME
No, of course not. That is why this whole thing is pointless, which leads me to think that it is authoritarians trying to control the people of Missouri, anyone with half a thought can see that elementary teachers won’t be doing any of that.
However, what teachers can do, if they are incompetent, is recite halfwitted creationist lies. But "anyone with half a thought" can, as you admit, see that the creationist cover story is a load of bollocks. Did you forget what you were trying to argue for? Go back and try again.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:57 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 283 (650533)
01-31-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 5:57 PM


Re: SHOW ME
The bill doesn’t state that, you are reading into it too much.
The act of killing someone by hitting them in the head with a blunt instrument doesn't state whether it's murder, manslaughter, or a legitimate act of self-defense. This is why we try to find out what the actual motives were with reference to things other than the mere fact of the blow to the head.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:57 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 11:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 283 (650536)
01-31-2012 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 6:13 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
I have called this a waste of time for a minute now. If you can’t show me where in this bill there is a motion to teach religion in science then guess what you have no case either, buddy.
See my previous posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 6:13 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 224 of 283 (650640)
02-01-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 11:39 AM


Re: SHOW ME
Its definitely not Kosher or Halal.
Did you reply to my post by drawing random words out of a hat?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 11:39 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 225 of 283 (650641)
02-01-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Well shit. Why not straw man me like everyone else and tell me what I am arguing? Rofl.
It seems unnecessary when you can be wrong without my assistance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 226 of 283 (650644)
02-01-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:12 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
To me this bill simply gives more power to the local policy makers, the local school boards and educators, instead of a large central government meddling with every facet of everyone lives down to elementary school education, and as a small government conservative, I really do not see the issue.
But this has nothing to do with the federal government meddling, that doesn't remotely come into it. What are you talking about?
The question would be, can a sufficiently local government trample on the constitution? If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?
It could mean that people in Vienna, MO may, but then Vienna is 99% white, and 80% baptist (normal, Southern, and landmark), and if they want to be ignorant they are going to be ignorant, but trying to control them is not the way to go about it.
the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me ...
Well no-one said that.
If you passed a bill making murder legal, then I guess most people wouldn't murder most other people. So no "slippery slope" there. On the other hand, the murder rate might go up ...
this is a bill for rural people in poor tiny communities, who want to govern themselves, and set their own curriculum.
Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:12 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 237 of 283 (650769)
02-02-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:30 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri.
Although I am a non-voter in Nevada, I am not the federal government.
If the whole community agrees, why not?
Because of the constitution.
Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.
How low does your head have to be to have a point that obvious sail over it?
I never said that "poor rural people in tiny communities" owned slaves. I said that their poorness, their rurality, and the size of their communities wouldn't protect them from the Constitution if they wanted to make slavery legal. And I am right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 251 of 283 (651297)
02-06-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Artemis Entreri
02-06-2012 9:10 AM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Ya don’t say?
http://www.american-slavery.org/our_mission.html
FinalCall.com News
Why Am I Not Surprised?
There were/are still slaves in the 20th / 21st century in the rural deep south. Sure, they didn’t call them slaves, but as you say if it sounds like slavery and looks like slavery
I didn't say it couldn't happen. I said they couldn't make it legal. Even if they passed a law in favor of it (which your articles do not, on a brief perusal, allege) that still wouldn't make it legal, 'cos of the constitution.
Ronald Regan writes:
It isn’t that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
Ronald Reagan writes:
My surname has an a after the e. Now, what was I saying about liberals? I forget, I have Alzheimer's and I was never all that bright to begin with.
What were you saying again about the constitution, and how poor rural people were protected by it?
Nothing, I said that their poorness and their rurality didn't protect them from the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:10 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 257 of 283 (651598)
02-08-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 12:03 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
If that was true then evolution would have never been taught and we wouldn’t be were we are today.
A point. However, the people who figured out evolution for themselves did not suffer from the handicap of being taught, as fact, the stuff that creationists have made up. If they had, and they believed what they were taught, they wouldn't have. Creationists have made up all sorts of stuff that, if true, would annihilate evolution; for example, their claim that there are "no beneficial mutations". If they were right, that's the game.
Now, OK, if we "teach both sides" then the kids are in with a chance, but have you ever thought about how that's meant to work?
The biggest creationist lie, which subsumes all the other creationist lies, is that evolutionists and creationists are "looking at the same facts", and have different "interpretations" of them. But this isn't true. Creationist rhetoric depends on statements which are false as to fact. My interpretation of the "fact" that there are no beneficial mutations would be exactly the same as a creationist's interpretation of it, namely that Darwin sucks donkey balls. But it is not a fact, 'cos of not being true.
So teaching both sides goes like this: "There are no beneficial mutations, yes there are."
At this point little Timmy raises his hand.
"So, of the two things you just told us, one is a lie."
"Yes."
"Which one?"
If the teacher answers this honestly, s/he isn't teaching both sides, but if s/he refuses to answer, s/he isn't even teaching. The students have gained no knowledge. After listening to the teacher, they would know that there either are or there aren't beneficial mutations, which is just the law of the excluded middle. It would be as though math teachers were required to teach that seven eights either are or are not fifty-six, and that seven eights either are or are not forty-three. What would be the point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 1:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 261 of 283 (651625)
02-08-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 1:07 PM


Teach Both Theories: How?
sry but I doubt timmy learns much of anything about mutations.
Well, what does he learn about? What, exactly, are we teaching when we "teach both sides"?
We have to teach some creationist propaganda, don't we? Or we're not teaching both sides?
"yes it is a KIND of fruit bearing tree, it was created on the x day"
Now, let's teach both theories.
"It was created on the x day no it wasn't."
I am not even sure the teachers dispense that much knowledge to begin with. I think the knowledge comes from reading materials that are assign as homework and study.
But the teachers assign the homework and study, yes?
So what happens then? The textbook says: "There are no beneficial mutations yes there are"?
Or there are two textbooks saying different things? But then what happens when someone asks the teacher which is true?
if you really wanted to teach both sides, then give the data on both sides
Yes, but this is what I'm talking about. The "data" on the creationist side is lies that creationists made up. It's not data. Teaching the "data" on both sides involves saying: "There are no beneficial mutations yes there are, there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record yes there are, there are no "ape-men" in the fossil record yes there are, there is no evidence for evolution yes there is, speciation has never been observed yes it has, Darwin himself admitted that he couldn't explain the evolution of the eye no he didn't, the second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible no it doesn't, genetic analysis shows that humans are more genetically similar to frogs than to chimps no it doesn't, the eye of a human is more similar to that of an octopus than that of a chimp no it isn't, Archaeopteryx is anatomically a completely modern bird no it isn't since it has gastralia and no pygostyle and no synsacrum unlike every modern bird ..."
Creationism is not another interpretation of the data. If it was, I would support teaching it. It is based on claims that are simply false as to fact.
The last guy I saw on the internet calling for "teach both theories" gave as his single example one thing that he thought should be taught. I quote:
Why can't both sides be taught. 'Here is what the bible states. Here is what we are finding through science.' There are still so many unexplained "Scientific Facts" that science is unwilling to take an unbiased look at. Example: The turkey found during a dinner in Pompeii during the eruption. It was carbon dated to millions of years old, though it wasn't. Science is constantly being proven wrong and your asking the world to toss everything aside. I know where my faith will stay.
He can have his faith in God and Jesus if he likes. So can you. But his faith that there was a turkey in pre-Columbian Europe is something that he should keep to himself. How are we to "teach both theories"? "Scientists have found a turkey in the ashes of Pompeii no they haven't BWAHAHAHAHA! Creationists are so retarded."
If it was a question of the interpretation of the data, then, as I say, there would be some room to discuss creationism. But there isn't. Scientists have actual data, creationists have made-up "data". How are we meant to teach both sides? "This is true and this is also false."
Well at that point little Timmy is going to raise his hand.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 1:07 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024