An excerpt from the program "Bull****".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doyUDjoC5fc
Discuss.
I always find these extreme-view shows fascinating. Good find!
To be honest, with regards Creationism/Evolution - neither should be presented to children, especially impressionable ones, as hard facts. Both are simply theories currently, so there's no concrete proof for the former or latter.
:cool:
I find it hard to believe that there are people dumb enough to label this science. If they want to teach it in a philosophy or religions calss, go right ahead; thats what it is. But by trying to dress it up as science, you lmislead the children of America.
[quote]there's no concrete proof for the former or latter
not true. there IS proof of evolution. we just havn't been able to prove the existance of g0d.
Stop making quality posts, go[COLOR=Black]dd[/COLOR]ammit. I want to have a fair and balanced opinion of you. DO SOMETHING STUPID.
Back on topic, the fact that there is even a coalition of scientists actively trying to put this stuff in ours science classes is truly frightening. Its just another tool for power.
I think you have to learn both sides of things.This will lead to people thinking instead of haveing a one thought set mind.Two is allways better than one,thats what makes us different,we can think more than one sided.And it is fun to disagree on some things.We are not all the same,why should we think the same?
The issue is about proven truth and science vs. unproven myth and faith.
Faith has no place in a classroom. End of story.
i'm sorry :(. i lost my temper with the retard in that other thread, that wasn't very scholarly of me.
anytime you try and debate religion vs science its an uphill losing battle for both sides. science is based and grounded upon hypothesis's, testing them, compiling similar results into theoroms, and establishing proof to support your claims.
religion, by the nature of it itself, is founded on faith and faith alone. they have no proof that the current interpretation of the bible is the correct one. they have no proof that everything written in the bible is meant to be taken litterally. they have no proof to support anything from genesis about some miraculous "higher being" creating all within our existence in only a few short days. in essence, it is their own theory that these events happend.
unlike us scientists though, devout religious people dont feel they need proof since they have their faith. therefore, us scientists are better ;)
I love you please have my children they will rule the world.
i'll add your name to the list of potential sperm donors when my biological clock starts beating down my door.
I've come up with a solution.
If they put creationism back in schools they will then need to make me happy. So in addition to evolution and creationism, they need a Tolkenism class. One where it explains where the race of elves and dwarves came from.
Talk about an uphill battle.... I've been trying to get this in schools for years.
Either that, or theists can stop *****ing and leave it to science to do the work in schools.
People are a product of programming. If you tell a child something is the truth and it is right, and you drill that untill they have fully developed they will most likely believe that for the rest of their lives. I know someone who just can't seem to get into the DaVinci Code, and I know why. She's a serious catholic, the beliefs that were taught to her from a young age are preventing her from enjoying the book, shes rejecting it because it goes against her morals. This is why I believe children should be taught everything for what it is, philosophy or science. Let them make the decision for themselves when they want to about what they want to believe in.
*shrug*
I personally lean more toward Creation, being a Christian, but I often find alot of Christian ideas pretty... unfounded, I guess. Personally, I don't believe in forcing my religion on others. Plenty of people (in America, at least) are exposed to it enough to make a decision on whether they believe in it or not. I don't really think it's appropriate for me to try and make anyone believe something they really don't.
But, as I said before...
[Quote]they have to teach them something, or else they'll be completely uninformed from either side. Even if teaching them evolution is considered warping their minds to some, and vice-versa, they have to be taught something besides, "Step 1: Man happens. Step 2: We invent wheel."
...which still holds true to seperation of church and state, which I'm also for. Sending your children to a Christian school and whatnot, sure, go for it. If you want them to learn from a Christian standpoint, then send them.
I have no doubt that mankind has progressed, but I don't think it to be from some speck, ape, or some other form. I believe we have progresses in technology, civilization, and the like. However, hear me out. I completely respect anyone else's beliefs. Those are your own, and I have absolutely no place to try and change those. I'm merely stating my personal beliefs.
In all honesty, I don't even think about Creation/Evolution that much. The most research (if you can even call it that) I've done on the subject was reading "Did Man Just Happen?" by W.A. Criswell in school, and that was only because it was a required book. Some good points were brought up in it, but I didn't look into it any further than the book.
Also, while this is on my mind and it's somewhat relevant, do any of you ever remember an old news spot where an exploration team apparently found Noah's Ark? I seen this on CNN or something a year or so ago, so it's bound to be floating around the Interweb. There was a helicopter photo of what looked like a ship in ice, and they'd brought back town pieces of timber, if I remember correctly. The location was Mount Ararat, which is where I'm pretty sure the Bible says the Ark was supposed to have landed.
[quote=nich]People are a product of programming. If you tell a child something is the truth and it is right, and you drill that untill they have fully developed they will most likely believe that for the rest of their lives. I know someone who just can't seem to get into the DaVinci Code, and I know why. She's a serious catholic, the beliefs that were taught to her from a young age are preventing her from enjoying the book, shes rejecting it because it goes against her morals. This is why I believe children should be taught everything for what it is, philosophy or science. Let them make the decision for themselves when they want to about what they want to believe in.
I hated the Da Vinci Code. The fact that its a terribly written and unoriginal idea prevents me from enjoying it.
And there you go.Both things should be there.Two is better than one thought.Give life a 2nd look deside what you think.
The thing you call fact is also what people who are for Creationism think,but we think that we were never monkeys.Fact and fiction does not apply.People who have to have facts are crazy,its a matter of trust.
A guy who trusts magical gnomes named Jesus calls me crazy for trusting facts.....
The only thing I have against teaching creationism in schools is when its labeled as science. It isnt, since it cant be tested or observed, whereas evolution can be. That being said, if they tried to teach creationism in a philosophy or religion class, I'd actually be for it, since then kids would be able to discuss it in the proper format.
Missing link goes where?
Saying that shows a complete lack of understanding for the ways that fossils form.
Lets see if I got sky diving, I would go with people I know and trust, but if that was not the case then I would have to trust the guy.I dont know what one looks like so I wouldn't have anything real to go by. If I picked wrong then I will leave it in the hands of *** but thats not what I was saying.I'm saying there shouldn't be only one thing to go by.
Still doesn't answer my question. :o
What was your question?
There is far more support for the scientific claim of evolution than there is of the faith based claim of creationism. The vast majority of creationism claims rely on pointing out that science cant explain everything, and then saying "LOL WUT R TEH ODDZ" when it comes to evolution. That isnt proof.
And as for saying that jesus was a real dude... so what? That doesnt make him the son of ***. Troy was a real city, and ancient Greece was real, but that doesnt mean that its ***s were.
Fossils arent the only thing that supports it. There is also genetics, and that fact that adaptation can be observed in the wild.
[quote=keyartist]The thing you call fact is also what people who are for Creationism think,but we think that we were never monkeys.Fact and fiction does not apply.People who have to have facts are crazy,its a matter of trust.
What you think is irrelevent. If you disagree with facts then you are wrong, plain and simple.
And evolution is proven, it has to be if it's going to be a theory.
[quote=Alastor]If it's proven, then shouldn't it be considered a fact instead of theory? I thought a theory was something of an unproven thought. Dictionary.com says, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." I'm not questioning whether or not evolution is fact, though. Your choice of words just confused me a bit.
There are many definitions of "theory". This is the meaning they use for scientific theories:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Based on fact + used to make predictions + predictions proven correct = proven theory.
oh wow. . . zealots talking about other zealots. How cliche and typical.
[quote=Lord of Spam]The only thing I have against teaching creationism in schools is when its labeled as science. It isnt, since it cant be tested or observed, whereas evolution can be. That being said, if they tried to teach creationism in a philosophy or religion class, I'd actually be for it, since then kids would be able to discuss it in the proper format.
I'm against it for that same reason, as well as seperation of church and state. However, since there are no philosophy or religion classes in middle school and below, it probably wouldn't work for these levels. Also, we already have church to teach creationism. It's not that complicated of a concept anyways, so why even include it in school? Read the Bible on the weekend if your that interested, and for discussion groups, that's what debate clubs and forums are for.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]oh wow. . . zealots talking about other zealots. How cliche and typical.
Short one-liner from someone obviously way out of his depth, how typical.
Churches don't necessarily teach Creationism. Maybe Sunday School or something, but I've never heard a sermon on Creationism. If you have, then something's wrong with the preacher or that church as a whole.
Edit: To make myself clear, I mean that they don't necessarily teach it directly. It might be the church's view, but they're not going to teach it in the same way it would be taught in a classroom.
Woah, wait? If you're going to put *** in it, either don't go at all or go all the way. (Not "you" specifically)
You make arrogant, detached posts with minimal involvement to the topic at hand.
What we are not saying is that creationism isn't realy the teaching of ***.
Creationism is the universe being created with balance, or perfect, and falling to imperfect, or chaos. The other one, the one we are taught in school is, the universe being created out of chaos and then balanceing out thought evolution. There saying *** created it perfect only to fall into chaos.
Hey I'm sorry you can't understand anything anyone writes. From that post tell me how many mistakes I made. But I think and I'm sure others who read it, if they are able to think outside things I've said in the past, would agree.
I'm pretty sure that you were trying to clarify in the second post, but it only made me more confused.
fail@english
Tell me why you guys don't under stand it. I used proper spelling and grammer.I use my . , and ' where I needed to.So even with Spelling, Grammer, and Puncuation you still can't read it. Must not be my fault then.
i can understand people around here perfectly fine, typos and all. it's YOU that i can't understand
my attempt at editing your post..... and i'm sure i'll interpret it wrong, because your didn't convey your message clearly. which is why we have an issue with the way you type. which is why we have repeatedly asked you to correct yourself, to which you reply 'i dont care'. which leaves us very frustrated. and ultimately, what makes you a retard.
Yeah, see, THAT I understood.
It doesnt help that you are wrong, but at least I understand what you are saying.
Why would I have to say those things? Your retarted. What you did is retype my post. My post was never wrong. And if it was then HOW can you correct it. How come you don,t understand. Your just being a *****. Trying to put down everything I say. That post does not need correction, what I wrote is readable as is.
And you lord of spam are even more of a retard for agreeing with queen.
Eh, I could actually comprehend the post. He made only slightly more errors than most people do (LoS amirite?) This whole ragging thing has gone a teensy bit too far. If there is the remotest chance that he will continue improving, I say we call off the dogs.
Unless, of course, you (the individual) enjoy flaming him. In which case, who am I to stop you?
EDIT: NES Queen did have a point. Her post was a model of what it should be.
The fact that I disagree with the theory entirely is different.
What I said did make sense right? I did stick to the thread topic right?
[SIZE="5"]stop f[COLOR="White"]u[/COLOR]cking double posting! [/SIZE]
where's a mod when you need one.....
What did not make sense. Not the spelling or the mistake of using a comma on don't.I mean the thoery.
Let me. Do to how you hate me so much reflects on me as well. Even if I do or say something that is 100% correct, you will still say I'm wrong.Oh yeah queen I's are always capitalized if alone, and when you start a sentence, the first letter should be an uppercase.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]you assume too much, my pastie, egotistical friend
Either jump in the pool or go get dressed.
Can I make a request please? Actually no, two.
Number one:
[SIZE=7]SHUT THE F[COLOR=black]UCK[/COLOR] UP, ALL OF YOU. GET BACK ON TOPIC.
[SIZE=2]Second request: Now that we are actually ripping apart posts which have visibly improved,can we please now apply the same typo-nazi policy to *all* the noobies? I'm in the mood for blitzing the KH board with 'ZOMG SPELING ERROR' posts, and it will make the rest of us look less like unilateral hypocrites. Seriously, there are many equally bad posters in the KH boards who are going quite unmolested as we speak. Let's bash 'em good.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
i'm always up for a good ol' gang bang
*ok, i'll stop now*
Do you *have* to flaunt your sexuality just to torture frustrated puritans like myself?
yes, i must. years of evolution and natural selection have made me this way.
*weak attempt at a segue*
...have made you a total, but lovable, internet-whore? Cuz thats kinda hawt.
Hell, I'm fappin'.[spoiler] Not really lol[/spoiler]
But yeah, creationism isnt science. Hence, it shouldnt be taught in science class. LOL THAT WUZ HARD.
But it is science. Evolution starts with chaos and Creationism ends with chaos. So if both talk about the same thing, even if the start and end are not the same, there both related views.
What? That must be some of the worst logic I've ever heard. If the beginning and end of two separate processes are equal, that does not mean they are doing the same work.
No, what I meant was, if you talk about "the Big Bang theory" which is the universe being created out of chaos and then though evolution, ending with perfection, then I think you should talk about Creationism , which is the world being created and starting off perfect but then though man, falling into chaos. When I said it was the same I meant it is of a related subject.
but evolution has nothing to do with perfection. its about preserving minor changes and mutations in the genetic code which display some type of advantage over previous organisms lacking such a mutation. those mutations help the organisms "outlive" the ones lacking, hence allowing them to pass the mutation on to future generations while the ones lacking just die off.
this "perfection" you try to link it to is never achieved. we never stop growing or changing or mutating. so it will never ultiimately end when we reach the status of "supremely perfect higher power". so your theory about how creationism and evolution are one in the same is majorly flawed.
With Creationism comes the implicit idea of divine retribution for disruption of the design. Thus, no chaos. *** Wins.
Have one thing to say to Keyartist: THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTION YOU STUPID TWAT!
But there is chaos and yes spam I think it is you that doesn't know what they are talking about. First off I never said any thing about the bible, and creationism isn't teaching us about ***, its teaching us another view and yes the big bang theory would apply here for it is the oppisite of the teachings of creationism. Are you saying you can't observe the fall of a nation or any thing of that sort. And nes queen, why do you think I'm linking perfection to creationism? The truth is I'm not. And evolution can also be said to be organisms adapting to an envirment for the better of that organism, making it balance out for the envirment that it lives in, making it perfect for that which it made itself though evolution. Are you also saying that evolution is never ending? And yes I did use the survival of the fitest in my text, but I feel that it and evolution go hand in hand.And are you saying that creationism can't be tested, why? I got this from wikipedia you guys should first read everything about it first before you start saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
"In Abrahamic religions, creationism is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe have a miraculous origin in a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge). Although the term is sometimes used in such a broad sense, it has come to be more commonly associated with the religiously conservative beliefs that conflict directly with aspects of modern science."
ok, you contradict yourself a few times here so i'm going to try and make sense of all this.
[QUOTE=keyartist]First off I never said any thing about the bible, and creationism isn't teaching us about ***,
maybe its just my own atheist views thinking here, but the bible and g0d go hand-in-hand in my eyes. again, correct me if i'm wrong since i've never even read the thing, but isnt the bible the "Book of G0d"? meaning his teachings, and views, and the story of how "he" created the universe and man and all that other stuff? from your own definition of creationism that you pulled off wikipedia (which isnt the end-all be-all of things in existence btw), [quote]creationism is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe have a miraculous origin in a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention.
how are you interpreting that? to me, it says "creationism is the belief that everything in existence miraculously came about as a direct result of a 'supreme being' (aka: G0D) intervening and making it so." if you can't see the connection between creationism and g0d, then just give up now.
[quote]its teaching us another view and yes the [COLOR="Red"]big band (lol)[/COLOR]theory would apply here for it is the oppisite of the teachings of creationism.
the big band theory? no. the big bang theory? yes. but as Brandon pointed out, the big bang theory is not the same thing as evolution. those are 2 completely different scientific viewpoints/theorums/rules/ideas which, although possibly distant cousins, are not directly related or synonomous with each other. the big bang theory hypothesizes how the world came into existence. evolution discusses how organisms and life in general has changed since our existence. they're different. completely.
[quote]Are you saying you can't observe the fall of a nation or any thing of that sort.
i dont see the relevence to this sentence. nations rise and fall continually. seasons come and go. the sun rises and sets daily. your point?
[quote]And nes queen, why do you think I'm linking perfection to creationism?
i have no idea. please, tell me.
[quote]The truth is I'm not.
:eek:
[quote]And evolution can also be said to be organisms adapting to an envirment for the better of that organism, making it balance out for the envirment that it lives in, making it perfect for that which it made itself though evolution.
ok, you started off good.... but then just couldn't bring it home. yes, organisms adapt to changes in their environment in order to survive. however, i'm just having an issue with your choice of word "perfect". nothing, i repeat, nothing in life is perfect, nor will it ever be that way. the meaning of life is not to pursue absolute equilibrium and perfection (possible side thread for the meaning of life? i'm curious to hear keytard's view on this one).
"making it perfect for that which it made itself th[COLOR="red"]r[/COLOR]ough evolution." there's no higher being out there (unless you're a believer in the whole creationism thing, in which case this could be a paradox since believers in creationism don't usually believe in evolution) who picks and chooses how and when to generate a mutation within a species and then selects which of these mutations will be permited to carry on with the cycle of life in the next generation.
[quote]Are you also saying that evolution is never ending?
yes
[quote]And yes I did use the survival of the fitest in my text, but I feel that it and evolution go hand in hand.
um, yes. because that is a very modified definition of evolution. wtg, you're learning :cookie:
[quote]And are you saying that creationism can't be tested, why? I got this from wikipedia you guys should first read everything about it first before you start saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
your wikipedia definition mentions nothing about testing the theory of creationism. show me one test or sign of proof (other than faith based things, i'm looking for concrete evidence) that a supreme higher being created the antibiotic resistent bacteria we have in today's society as opposed to them evolving into "superbugs" due to adaptation from changes in their environment (ie. evolution).
I understand what you are saying but as you said ior someone else said, that its based on our beliefs. That is true so no point of mixing white and black thoeries because I don't think anyone will agree with the grey thoery. But that last thing I posted was just for info on it. And about creationism being tested was a single remark asking why. I think it can, if you are open minded.
evolution is not based simply on beliefs and faith (as creationism is). it based on facts and proven scientific data. i've supplied a handful of links supporting my belief in evolution, that list concrete testing that was performed in order to prove this theory.
where are your links? where's your proof? where's your testing?
sure, anything in life is possible if you ignore certain rules or laws (sure it's possible that i could fly without the assistance of a mechanical device - if the laws of gravity didn't apply), but that doesn't make it true or correct or mean that is how things are.
it's not about being open minded. show me the proof, and i have no choice but to believe.
Evolution is based on tested stuff but not really facts, there still theories. DO you wanna believe that you started as a tree or a puddle of slime. All my proof is in the bible, which is based on ideas before evolution. And I know that perfect is never really perfect, all christians know that. When I say created perfect I mean it never realy was. Because since man we where all ready to sin. Other proof is that the did live a man named Jesus 2006 years ago, they did have a great flood along time ago. And all of that is in the bible.I'm not say there is no evolution but I'm saying it started by the grace of *** and if you believe you will be shown the answer. I don't got links.I'm not telling you to believe me and this topic is way off. But I think we should give the kids in school a choice. Are you ppppro-choice, or are you one to agree with one thing and one thing only?
won't someone please think of the children!!!1!
Quote:
I'm not say there is no evolution but I'm saying it started by the grace of *** and if you believe you will be shown the answer.
oxymoron alert. you can't say that g0d created everything in existence and then go on to say that you also believe in evolution. those two things contradict each other so you cant fully believe in both.
thats not true. I'm saying that we do adapt. But why do you need proof, not your silly answers that you have been giving me, I wanna hear what YOU think. Lets throw every thing out, I'm not going any futher you either believe or not, but what is your opinion. Why shouldn't it be taught in schools, I think it should to give the kids two things to go by, but what you have been saying is that you are a follower not a leader.
Your right, I have no say in this because I am not a scienctist, or a religious teacher, but I'm also not a follower, yet I am. A follower of christ leads thereself.But from what you say you truely are smart. I don't tell people what to say I just want my ***s voice heard, but we christians hear both sides out but stick to the one we now in our heart is right, but you don't even bother to hear us out. I still think they should teach it in school, if not for the religious part, but for the information on it even if its for a short time, I mean at least talk about it. In my bio class we did talk about both for one week as a kind of debaiting trial. Do you feel it would be all right to at least make one refrence to it?
Well, if we teach your ***'s word, we would need to have extensive classes on all the major religions. And then there would be an uprising for the lesser known faiths to be taught. If we stick to the scientific evidence, we should be left alone. The problem is, the religous zealots complain because thay can not handle the fact that they could be wrong. So they try and force their views on other people, and conform them to their ways. If you are truly interested in finding out about religion, do what I do, and study in your own time.
i'm thoroughly enjoying The Simpsons tonight and their take on this topic....
[QUOTE NES Queen]thrombocytopenic purpura
I don't know why ANYONE would want to spend a week studying that.
because it's interesting? and it's a real medical condition that's been studied by scientists, as opposed to the magical make-believe story of creationism. ;)
Okokok... how about we ignore science and religion altogether, and shape the weltanschauung of our children with philosophy of mind instead! We'll give them such models as 'Brains in a Vat', 'Forms before substance', 'Existence before essence' and 'strings of perception' and let them decide for themselves what makes sense, seeing as the crap we'll be spewing won't.
Honestly. Explanations of the universe have no place in schools, thats why we invented the Internet.
ahhh, but that's why we have multi-disciplinary schools. where young impressionable types are exposed to a myriad of different ideas, thoughts, and subject matters (including science, religion, and philosphy) - in different classes. its just when you try and combine more than one subject matter and say they are one in the same, it just doesn't work. thats like trying to mate a kangaroo with a chinchilla.
and the internet was invented for easier access to porn. everyone knows that silly.
*runs off to dl more snuff*
The only reason I can see to putting creationism in schools is that it's a heck of a lot more interesting than anything evolutionary scientists churn out...
And videogames and porn are infinitely more interesting then that, yet I dont see you advocating teaching them. Phail.
[quote=Lord of Spam]And videogames and porn are infinitely more interesting then that, yet I dont see you advocating teaching them. Phail.
I ADVOCATE IT.
except the second one, cause that would be bad, right?
Depends on if you're uptight about sex:cookie:
And if you seriously advocate that, you're a complete and utter twat.
You used the term "twat", which makes me immune to your comment.
And I still advocate it, but I would call it "electronic competition training"
I really, really hope you are kidding. Teaching video games is retarded. If I EVER found out that there was a class being taught on something so pointless, I'd be up in arms. It would be an even bigger waste of tax dollars than teaching religion, and THATS an accomplishment in and of itself.
[quote=Lord of Spam]I really, really hope you are kidding. Teaching video games is retarded. If I EVER found out that there was a class being taught on something so pointless, I'd be up in arms. It would be an even bigger waste of tax dollars than teaching religion, and THATS an accomplishment in and of itself.
Kids would learn more in that class than any science course, and if you really think it's so pointless, why aren't you protesting athletic courses?
the battle amongst religons ist nothing more than who has the better imaginary friend.nuffsaid
[quote=Lord of Spam]Kid will learn little if anything that will help them in real life. Althletics teach valuable health traits that can stick for life.
You can talk about how cool video games are all day, but its kinda hard to argue with muscle when its beating you senseless.
Think about it from a student's point of view. What would you rather discuss, video games or trigonometry? Evolution or creationism?
...fact is, evolution isn't that interesting.
I enjoyed both trig and evolution. Your example fails, good sir.
And besides, I'll say it again. Which would most high schoolers rather go to: Get **** Drunk and Watch Porn 101 or Calculus? School is not intended for fun; it is meant to teach you skills that you can use later in life. If it happens to be fun, or if you can make the subject matter fun, by all means do. But completely chaning it just so that morons will pay attention isnt a good idea.
[quote=Lord of Spam]And besides, I'll say it again. Which would most high schoolers rather go to: Get **** Drunk and Watch Porn 101 or Calculus?
Seeing as how I'm currently in school, you must see where I'm coming from. :cookie:
Yes, I do. You're coming from a moroninc and childish view that you just want to sit back and have fun. I'm telling you that its a poor expenditure of tax dollars.
[quote=Lord of Spam]Yes, I do. You're coming from a moroninc and childish view that you just want to sit back and have fun. I'm telling you that its a poor expenditure of tax dollars.
That's a little harsh. I did specifically say that I didn't want creationism to be in schools, but I did say if there was a reason for it, that would be it.
And I pointed out that its a mind bogglingly retarded reason. Your move dip****.
He has no move. His point started out dumb and continued to get worse.
Is he idea of a being creating all life and yadda yadda etc taught in religioues classes in America? Seeing as I'm not longer in education or an American one at that I need this to be answered. Becuase if so I cannot honeslty understand why it would need to be tuaght alongside a scientific theory if its taught elsewhere.
I'd just like a better take on it. This is Michael Moore all over again. Interview pro-evolution mayors, professors, and the like, while the pro-creationalism people are elementary school teachers. Hence, fanatics covering fanatics. It's too biased for me to take it seriously. Frankly I didn't care about the issue before, and this crap didn't sway me either way.
Well, yeah. With only a few exceptions, "creationists" are lay-people, uneducated in the relevant fields. The bias BJ speaks of is a bias of reality, in this case.
Penn and Teller isn't supposed to sway you. Its an opinion show. Its about Penn screaming and Teller...
being Teller.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]I'd just like a better take on it. This is Michael Moore all over again. Interview pro-evolution mayors, professors, and the like, while the pro-creationalism people are elementary school teachers. Hence, fanatics covering fanatics. It's too biased for me to take it seriously. Frankly I didn't care about the issue before, and this crap didn't sway me either way.
Reality is generally biased towards the truth. Fact is thereare no professors of creation because it's not science. Anyone who is actually a qualified scientist can see that proposing to teach creationism in a science class is absolutely prepostorous, it makes about as much sense as teaching french in and english class.
Wasn't Penn and Teller part of the lyrics to the opening song of Kenan and Kel?