In 2006, Sarah Palin advocated for creationism in science class!

[Fedup 0]

Who wants the 'religion' of global warming taught in the classroom? Global warming is a scientific theory with a plethora of scientific data that is being used to evaluate the theory. It's not a theory that is using a book written by man 2000 years ago and counting to evaluate the theory.

I see your a devotee of the religion. The two ideas (creationism and man made global warming) have about the same basis in facts.

Gee, let's see what sounds more like reality and truth:

1. The more stuff you burn, the warmer it gets.

2. Everything in the Universe, including life, was created in 6 days.

How many marbles one has to have to figure that out?

Probably more than that chick from Alaska.

[IAMX 3,055]

Question:

When creationism is being discussed here, what ideas are in mind? Humor me for a moment and assume I've never heard of it.

Religion, i.e. subjective belief that there is a god, and the teaching of it. The creationism brought up to schools reject evolution, reject the inherentness of homosexuality, and are overtly theistic and, yet again, reject the subjective/irrelevant belief of when life begins within the woman's body.

[bhajishah 4]

I did a travel assignment in Alaska , and i lasted about 4 weeks !!!! what a strange peoples. fared better in south asia. wow he met her once impressive. who going to be able to take care of economy etc.. Bush's left overs Im sure WOW.

[Niels Bohr 72]

This debate is long gone rectified. This is mis-information from politicians, and informants.

Religious ideas cannot follow the scientific method, therefore, it's not science and cannot be taught in a science classroom.

Evolution can be tested. It's tested into fruitflies, algae, etc...They tested that every 186,000 generations of streptococcus bacteria there occurs a mutation in a gene that may make it fit or not to thrive more successful than others (aka super bug).

I have not seen in the books that creationism can be subjected to any tests using the scientific method. No wonder the US is c-o-o-k-o-o in science. Well, for the most part as it indicated in the lists of developed countries.

On another note, many professors in the big name schools are generally from foreign countries not the US. Alot are from China. Who says stuff made from China are low qaulity?

Edited August 30, 2008 by consolemaster

[IAMX 3,055]

On another note, many professors in the big name schools are generally from foreign countries not the US. Alot are from China. Who says stuff made from China are low qaulity?

Professors are made from plastic. It's fantastic!

Sorry, had to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Question:

When creationism is being discussed here, what ideas are in mind? Humor me for a moment and assume I've never heard of it.

Intelligent Design is what people object to most - not specifically the idea of creation or that there isn't a place for God in regards to that, but that faith can be proven using scientific means- and the ID is a scientifically sound theory.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Science is about the scientific method. If we cannot test it, it's not permitted in schools and leads to more mis-information. This is turning into the case of alchemy versus chemistry back during the middle-age times.

Lousiana just enacted a law called the Academic Freedom Act. This law permits ID to be taught in schools. If you ask pretty much any scientists working in the field, you'll find out that they generally do not support ID. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who are fighting it.

The publication from Nature, NewScientist, Science, Scientific American, etc...all fight ID. It's the non-science or pseudo-science people that supports ID.

[symbiosis 0]

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

Ah, another global warming denialist nutcase. It's all coming together.

[GaryC 7]

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

Ah, another global warming denialist nutcase. It's all coming together.

Ah, another GW advocate nut case. It's all coming together. I have a pretty clear picture of you now.

[HAL 9000 96]

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

Ah, another global warming denialist nutcase. It's all coming together.

I would please ask you to not insult brother Gary. One thing is to deny GW or be ignorant of the science behind many observations, another is to be a nutcase, and I do not see Gary as a nutcase. Nuts about his Luz, perhaps, and that is something we should all strive to imitate.

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

Ah, another global warming denialist nutcase. It's all coming together.

Ah, another GW advocate nut case. It's all coming together. I have a pretty clear picture of you now.

Don't ruin it Gary. {Knee-jerks hamper your argument}

[GaryC 7]

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

Ah, another global warming denialist nutcase. It's all coming together.

I would please ask you to not insult brother Gary. One thing is to deny GW or be ignorant of the science behind many observations, another is to be a nutcase, and I do not see Gary as a nutcase. Nuts about his Luz, perhaps, and that is something we should all strive to imitate.

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

Ah, another global warming denialist nutcase. It's all coming together.

Ah, another GW advocate nut case. It's all coming together. I have a pretty clear picture of you now.

Don't ruin it Gary. {Knee-jerks hamper your argument}

It was an attempt to show his close minded statement with an equally close minded statement. I was hoping to show him how dumb he sounds.

[Peikko 1,575]

You want us all to be nuts about Luz? I see...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't think Gary would like that.

[symbiosis 0]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

Edited September 2, 2008 by symbiosis

[HAL 9000 96]

You want us all to be nuts about Luz? I see...

Well I know I'm nuts about my Mària.