Roll of the dice election

[USSEnterprise]

I'm starting to realize how I should vote this year. I am simply going to take into the booth a six sided die. For one through three, I'll vote McCain, and four through six, Obama. Because, as I see it, no matter how we vote, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. On the one side, we have Obama, the pinnacle of inexperience, who by the way, has a pretty good chance of not making it out of the oval office alive. Then we have the experienced McCain, who flip flops all over the place, shows a scare tactic video at his convention, and also probably won't make it out of the oval office alive (not that zombie man is alive right now.)

Anyone else voting similarly?

[LetItSnow]

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure why I'd vote in the first place. New York is, has been, and will be sending its electoral college goods in a shade of blue.

While said electoral college exists, should we just let the swing states vote and leave the rest of the country out of it? It's a crummy thing to say, but it's not far from true! The system doesn't allow for tremendous change in the polls. Half plus one wins, whether it's 90% or 51%.

[dcarrb]

On the one side, we have Obama, the pinnacle of inexperience, who by the way, has a pretty good chance of not making it out of the oval office alive.
No minor concern there, and that's such a shame.

dcb

[Royal Tiger]

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure why I'd vote in the first place. New York is, has been, and will be sending its electoral college goods in a shade of blue.

While said electoral college exists, should we just let the swing states vote and leave the rest of the country out of it? It's a crummy thing to say, but it's not far from true! The system doesn't allow for tremendous change in the polls. Half plus one wins, whether it's 90% or 51%.

Excellent point. The electoral college should award votes by county, not state.

[Weebitob]

And have some corrupt counties like the one I live in through some FUBAR actions has become a place that is so dominated by the Republican party or any single one for that matter hold even more influence on the national outcome? I presently live in a town where only Republicans are able to run for mayor and town counsel. Which then means people must sign up as Republicans in order to be able to participate in elections, which then effects the census taken into account when finding out whether counties are "red" or "blue?"

No, and in fact I would go as far to state that party politics should be outlawed from being directly involved in local elections like what happened in Nashville, Tennessee. In fact with that in mind you can see how much these political parties that are supposed to represent public interest are increasingly consolidating it. (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/24/gop-chair-wont-say-whether-rove-ordered-ban/)

[downforlow]

is it just me or did we not have much of an option in the last couple elections either. :mad:

[greggbzz]

I don't like either candidate.

Obama is to vague and the more I see him, the more left he seems. I'm not sure he really knows what he's doing.

Now it's McCain with the dirty politics. I mean some of his adds in PA turn my stomach. He's in touch with the old white crusty political machine, for sure.

Palin want's to teach intelligent design in science class. That supremely irks me.

[SVXMAN2001]

Many people feel that choosing between Obama and McCain is choice between the lesser of two evils, myself included. I try harder and harder to sift through the rhetoric of both parties only to find that both are raising thick smoke screens over our country. I am sick of hearing what we need is CHANGE, no ****! But simply preaching that what hasn't worked in the past and chose me for a new beginning without any substantive policies, leaves us in as bad as a position as before. My principle concern is the economy, the tax policies presented by Obama and McCain achieve ultimately the same end goals, really just a false sense of our country's distribution of wealth.

[NikFu S.]

Palin want's to teach intelligent design in science class. That supremely irks me.

Source? I'll drop Palin like a rock if this is true.

[LetItSnow]

Not that we necessarily want to get into this sort of thing (way OT) but would it be that intelligent design was taught alone? If its concepts were contrasted between itself, creation and evolution, then it might hold some sort of merit, given that it wasn't used to steer any student's preference of what to believe.

After all, wouldn't the scientific types be surprised in the afterlife to find that God had placed dinosaurs and evolutionary concepts just to test man's belief!

Returning to topic: If there's one thing I can say about being a New Yorker, it's that whichever candidate we receive as president, my hands are clean!

[greggbzz]

Source? I'll drop Palin like a rock if this is true.

On the issues, check under education. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm)

Anchorage Daily News (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html)

I respect what the scientific method has done for humanity. Most of us owe our lives to it.

[greggbzz]

Not that we necessarily want to get into this sort of thing (way OT) but would it be that intelligent design was taught alone? If its concepts were contrasted between itself, creation and evolution, then it might hold some sort of merit, given that it wasn't used to steer any student's preference of what to believe.

After all, wouldn't the scientific types be surprised in the afterlife to find that God had placed dinosaurs and evolutionary concepts just to test man's belief!

Returning to topic: If there's one thing I can say about being a New Yorker, it's that whichever candidate we receive as president, my hands are clean!

I'm not sure how to take your post or what side you are on, but I will rant for the edification of those reading. This is a very important issue, and I think it gets ignored or laughed at far to often.

Creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever, fails to adhere to the scientific method and is not science. It should not be taught as such.

Any idea can be presented, but when it fails under the scrutiny of peer review, and does not comply with the steps in the scientific method, there is no way to know if it's really true. That's the crux of it right there. Science deals in facts that you can verify. Experiments are done with a predicted result based on someones theory. When your experiment repeatably produces a result you did not predict, it's time to realign the theory, much as Einstein did when he discredited something we took for granted for hundreds of years, namely Newtonian physics.

Now, it's all well and good to present a contrary idea, but your idea HAS TO PLAY BY THE SAME RULES. I've not seen the experiment yet that can validate the existence of an intelligent designer. Intelligent design therefore falls flat on it's face during step 2 of the scientific method. Sorry, the existence of an "intelligent designer" can't be proven as fact. Not with any experiment I know.

In case you forget, the scientific method is presented in the first chapter of every basic science book I've ever seen, and is the methodology that defines the discipline itself. If we starting teaching things that are not science in science class, we are undermining the core of the curriculum.

Most people take our modern world for granted, they think the technology is the science. It's not. We just owe our technology to science. Science is an arduous method in order to prove what is true. The real truth is the best thing we have. We owe it so, so very much. This is why I get angry.

I'd suggest the readings of an good modern scientist, such as Carl Sagan or Richard Feyman. They put these things better then I ever could.

[Landshark]

The Limits of Science

DQaF4YXCXsc

[greggbzz]

Now you've done it. My new hobby is alcoholism. :lol:

[NikFu S.]

Not that we necessarily want to get into this sort of thing (way OT) but would it be that intelligent design was taught alone? If its concepts were contrasted between itself, creation and evolution, then it might hold some sort of merit, given that it wasn't used to steer any student's preference of what to believe.

After all, wouldn't the scientific types be surprised in the afterlife to find that God had placed dinosaurs and evolutionary concepts just to test man's belief!


You can't "teach" intelligent design. That would require some kind of unification of all religions. "Teaching" just one religious system isn't school, it's indoctrination..
If parents want that sort of thing they enroll their kids in a Catholic or Christian (or whatever) school.
I went to a Catholic school for my first year of Elementary. St. Clair over in/near Detroit or wherever in Michigan. There was nothing unusual about it other than they tried to make us write in italics. :confused:

--
+1 to Carl Sagan. Youtube him for teh good sciences.

[ensteele]

If you want to think that you came from pond scum, that is fine with me. I find that more difficult to believe than being created with intelligent design along with all of the other incredible creatures of this world. That would be like blowing up boxes of newspapers and getting a dictionary to appear without the help from a designer. :o

[Landshark]

If you want to think that you came from pond scum, that is fine with me. I find that more difficult to believe than being created with intelligent design along with all of the other incredible creatures of this world. That would be like blowing up boxes of newspapers and getting a dictionary to appear without the help from a designer. :o


separation of church and state.

i don't care what anyone believes, but that stuff doesn't belong in public schools.

[greggbzz]

If you want to think that you came from pond scum, that is fine with me. I find that more difficult to believe than being created with intelligent design along with all of the other incredible creatures of this world. That would be like blowing up boxes of newspapers and getting a dictionary to appear without the help from a designer. :o

Well why not accept the whole doctrine then? Teach the whole Bible (or any other holy book) in science class as the only way things are. You down with that?

Or, does picking and choosing which parts "seem right" to you make more sense?

We lived and learned like that once and some parts of the world still do. I think we can all agree it ain't good.

Sigh.. I will agree that life is.. well, life's greatest mystery.
But the way to learn about the world around you is with science, not by presuming to know the answers without really knowing the answers.

I stopped being afraid of not knowing a long time ago. Consider me an agnostic republican. :)

BTW this debate is as old as time. There's no sense taking anything personally.

[ensteele]

Well why not accept the whole doctrine then? Teach the whole Bible (or any other holy book) in science class as the only way things are. You down with that?

Or, does picking and choosing which parts "seem right" to you make more sense?

We lived and learned like that once and some parts of the world still do. I think we can all agree it ain't good.

Sigh.. I will agree that life is.. well, life's greatest mystery.
But the way to learn about the world around you is with science, not by presuming to know the answers without really knowing the answers.

I stopped being afraid of not knowing a long time ago. Consider me an agnostic republican. :)

BTW this debate is as old as time. There's no sense taking anything personally.

I know that this debate is as old as old can be. I find it difficult to look at everything as it is and not think that there is some intelligent design behind it all.

As far as seperation of Church and State. That is the way most people want to use the phrase, but that isn't what it meant back when it was written. It meant that the State would not select what religion people would believe in. The state did sponsor religious things and religion was a big part of what this country was founded on and what gave us many of our rights of today.

[lhopp77]

Need I say it????? Evolution as taught is still a THEORY!!!! Why close your minds to any other possibility??? It almost borders on some type of religious fanaticism to think that humans really swam in the ocean at one point and then crawled on the land finally to develop in to what we are today. Wouldn't you say??? :p

Lee

[Landshark]

I find that more difficult to believe than being created with intelligent design along with all of the other incredible creatures of this world. That would be like blowing up boxes of newspapers and getting a dictionary to appear without the help from a designer. :o

where did the "designer" come from?


It almost borders on some type of religious fanaticism to think that humans really swam in the ocean at one point and then crawled on the land finally to develop in to what we are today. Wouldn't you say??? :p


http://www.stjohn.org/StaywellTesting/img.aspx?6097

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/darwinguide/images/homology_lg.jpg

[greggbzz]

Need I say it????? Evolution as taught is still a THEORY!!!! Why close your minds to any other possibility??? It almost borders on some type of religious fanaticism to think that humans really swam in the ocean at one point and then crawled on the land finally to develop in to what we are today. Wouldn't you say??? :p

Lee

It's a scientific theory. That has it's own special meaning. One day we might find something better. My mind is open. However, since ID is not a scientific theory, I can't test it's validity, so how do I know it's better? Because someone with a nice outfit says so? Lee, learn the scientific method. Really learn it.

I can babble on about all of this, but it still remains that ID cannot be tested, it cannot be validated, I've never seen any experiment that can do this. There have been many experiments in medical science, genealogy, biology etc.. that validate evolution. You can google them whenever.

People will believe all different things, and it's a deeply intimate and personal decision. I will never disrespect that. But failure to understand how science works is ignorance.

[lhopp77]

It's a scientific theory. That has it's own special meaning. One day we might find something better. My mind is open. However, since ID is not a scientific theory, I can't test it's validity, so how do I know it's better? Because someone with a nice outfit says so? Lee, learn the scientific method. Really learn it.

I can babble on about all of this, but it still remains that ID cannot be tested, it cannot be validated, I've never seen any experiment that can do this. There have been many experiments in medical science, genealogy, biology etc.. that validate evolution. You can google them whenever.



I don't anyone here even begins to advocate that intelligent design REPLACE the theory of evolution, but that it has equal validity until proven otherwise. :p

By all means--try to prove the theory in any way possible. BUT, at the same time be realistic and let students know at an early age that there are definitely alternative theories. Until proven otherwise it has as much validity as the evolution theory.

Asking where the "designer" came from has the same place in the issue as "where did life come from"?

Lee
PAC

[SomethingElse]

Choices suck as usual. The way I see it, if the old white hair guy who dont know how to use a computer wins, everything will continue to go the way it has been going for the past 8 years...If Osama wins, he can mix the pot up a little bit.

[lhopp77]

Choices suck as usual. The way I see it, if the old white hair guy who dont know how to use a computer wins, everything will continue to go the way it has been going for the past 8 years...If Osama wins, he can mix the pot up a little bit.

Sounds like the democratic party line to me--I still fail to see how ANYONE can say that McCain is even marginally like Bush on most things. He has ALWAYS been known as a maverick and has many MORE joint legislative efforts with the democrats than any combined efforts in the other direction. About the only thing he is consistent with Bush is the war on terror--and thats a no brainer.

He obviously does follow more of the republican philosophy, but is a long ways from being the same as Bush. And Palin of course took on the republican party corruption and good old boy network, so she is not the same. The democratic leadership should figure out that "four more of the same" message is falling on deaf ears for anyone other than the voters they were already going to get. Just because you are not a far lefter does not mean that you are stupid.

Lee

[NikFu S.]

Evolution is NOT a theory of abiogenesis, evolution DOES NOT disrupt ID creation uh... myths. It does call a few facts into question, sure, like the age of the world, but evolution and even scientific abiogensis theories can coexist with an intelligent design... belief.

Nobody here came from pond scum, or a rock. Life is the result of the affinities between proteins and amino acids, that has been proven. Everyone came from their parents who was a lot like you, but slightly different. Selection and adaptation and mutation is constant. Evolution has been witnessed and more or less proven. If you want to believe there is an unseen "hand" aiding these processes, go ahead.
Science has undergone many revolutions, why not religion? Why cling to a system written by people with no sense of scale who would think a lightbulb is magic?

I know this is hard to swallow, but my belief is life is a random occurrence, though I also believe the world is "designed" to support it, and I doubt it is uncommon in the universe. What is the point of the universe if not for life, I say.

Anyway, here is something fun to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

[SomethingElse]

Sounds like the democratic party line to me--I still fail to see how ANYONE can say that McCain is even marginally like Bush on most things. He has ALWAYS been known as a maverick and has many MORE joint legislative efforts with the democrats than any combined efforts in the other direction. About the only thing he is consistent with Bush is the war on terror--and thats a no brainer.

He obviously does follow more of the republican philosophy, but is a long ways from being the same as Bush. And Palin of course took on the republican party corruption and good old boy network, so she is not the same. The democratic leadership should figure out that "four more of the same" message is falling on deaf ears for anyone other than the voters they were already going to get. Just because you are not a far lefter does not mean that you are stupid.

Lee

If you think its necessary to label me a democrat, thats up to you. Ive never had a strong positive feeling for either side. I wanted Ross Perott to win when I was in middle school:p. Democratic line or not, I think O'bama would have a better chance of making people thinking we are out of this bush rut. even the majority of the world would rather have him. Anyway, when is the last time we had a black president? (movies don't count) would'nt that be interesting? We can never legitimatly here the term.. "its a white mans world" oh snap!

[Royal Tiger]

Obama: Socialisim You Can Believe In!

No Thanks.

[NikFu S.]

About the only thing he is consistent with Bush is the farce on terror--and thats a no brainer.

That is the main point of contention behind the whole "more of the same" thinking, and that is the biggest issue on a lot of people's minds.

Iraq has little if nothing to do with the "war" on terror, and I maintain that it should not even be called a war.

[gstape]

Logic: the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

That is, a logical conclusion is not limited to being a scientific conclusion, or scientific conclusions are not the only source of truth.

I could argue that intelligent design is logical, and big bang / evolution is not.

I will grant you that science class may be the wrong place to teach intelligent design / creation...

How about that for my first post here? I've been a reader for several years and have two 1992 SVXs one with 4.44 and one with 4.11 and open rear diff. (did you guys know that you can use a left rear drive shaft on the right and use the Legacy open diff?) ... sorry thats off topic.

[NikFu S.]

I could argue that intelligent design is logical, and big bang / evolution is not.

You are certainly allowed to, but who could actually pull that off? That's something I'd consider paying to see.

I must reiterate, neither big bang nor evolution discredit IDesign. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[greggbzz]

The foundation for belief in ID seems to come from 2 things:

A.) I look at this world and it's just so beautiful that I can't imagine that it just happened by chance.
B.) How can something (life) so complex happen by chance?

So, that happened by chance idea is the first mistake. Genetic mutaions happen by chance, sort of, but the survivability of subsequent generations is dictated by their environment. This process is very orderly.

So, I counter with - yes the world is beautiful. It's intricacies and workings are endlessly fascinating and elegant. But, when you dig down and really really get to know something, like say.. cellular metabolism, you begin to realize there's no magic. You no longer need to use your imagination to understand it. And when you coalesce several disciplines, you get a strong notion that everything is built with the same physical laws.

Also, billions of years? Can anyone truly comprehend that?

Give me that news paper, let me blow it up thousands of billions of times, and I just might get a dictionary. We've PROVEN that evolution makes slow progressive steps. That's a non-debate as far as I'm concerned. Give evolution 4 billion years, and is it really that unfathomable that we have walking talking humans?

You know, the Buddhist have it going. They are willing to change their concepts.

ID is just another in the long line of compromised Judo-Christian belief systems. Eventually, I feel, it will no longer be a popular idea.

Kind of like, that whole Earth center of the Universe, 6000 year old stuff.

[ensteele]

OK, for you scientists (I happen to be one too), are mutations to a species usually better or worse for a species? Why do they call all of these mutations to humans "Birth Defects"? The order of things is disorder. Does a room become more clean or dirty with time? Do gene pools become better, or watered down? Why with time, would a species become better instead of worse by the birth defects or changes of a species? If the first fish that crawled out of the water to become a lizzard could breath air, where was the other one that it could breed with? Remember, it is a mutation that is not happening all of the time, so how long could it wander around until if found another one to produce more? If there are only a couple of animals and they breed, the genitics of interbreeding would produce more negative mutations than better ones. I find it takes more faith to believe in this. :o

[Landshark]

OK, for you scientists (I happen to be one too), are mutations to a species usually better or worse for a species? Why do they call all of these mutations to humans "Birth Defects"? The order of things is disorder. Does a room become more clean or dirty with time? Do gene pools become better, or watered down? Why with time, would a species become better instead of worse by the birth defects or changes of a species? If the first fish that crawled out of the water to become a lizzard could breath air, where was the other one that it could breed with? Remember, it is a mutation that is not happening all of the time, so how long could it wander around until if found another one to produce more? If there are only a couple of animals and they breed, the genitics of interbreeding would produce more negative mutations than better ones. I find it takes more faith to believe in this. :o

here, its even fish related: :)

http://current.com/items/88968153_theory_of_evolution_proven_again

[BeneathNorthernSkys]

I find it interesting that the argument is being presented that ID might not be true and that all of these other "scientific" theories are ABSOLUTE. So how do you know that what is consider to be fact, has any true merit. I will argue for the sake of argument, that you simply rely on intelligent men to be correct, they pinky swear to you that what they...prove, to be a fact is a fact. I believe in a lot of things, the earth is round, gravity, so on and so forth. However just b/c some things are proven to be doesn't mean that they function as we've discovered them to. And what I mean by that is simply the facts are made by beings with the capacity to have error. So on that note, I'll get back to topic.

I think both parties are very foggy, neither has a lot of definitive statements about how to lead this country into a better future. However, I feel that Obama will do a better job, call in a gut feeling, or for the sake of irony, faith that he will be a better president than most of us think. Whatever happens though, we all should strive to forget things like political allegiances and just try and make the country stronger as a whole.

Jordan

[RSVX]

If you think its necessary to label me a democrat, thats up to you. Ive never had a strong positive feeling for either side. I wanted Ross Perott to win when I was in middle school:p. Democratic line or not, I think O'bama would have a better chance of making people thinking we are out of this bush rut. even the majority of the world would rather have him. Anyway, when is the last time we had a black president? (movies don't count) would'nt that be interesting? We can never legitimatly here the term.. "its a white mans world" oh snap!

Did you ever stop to think that the rest of the world wants Nobama to be President is because he would make us weaker, more vulnerable?

[gstape]

I could argue that intelligent design is logical, and big bang / evolution is not.

You are certainly allowed to, but who could actually pull that off? That's something I'd consider paying to see.


There are a lot of people that have. Try Google, or Amazon.com.

Can you tell me where all of the matter and energy (I guess it is the same thing?) that started the big bang came from?

The universe is finite and expanding, what is beyond it? Nothing? what is nothing?

[NikFu S.]

There are a lot of people that have. Try Google, or Amazon.com.

Can you tell me where all of the matter and energy (I guess it is the same thing?) that started the big bang came from?

The universe is finite and expanding, what is beyond it? Nothing? what is nothing?
Google and Amazon are not going to help me sift though piles of crap.
Honestly, my point is it is not possible to discredit evolution with any faith-based "theories". It can't be done.

I can't tell you where everything came from because that is something nobody knows. My belief is the first matter always existed. I don't believe in the concept of "nothing".

We don't know that the universe is finite. Our ability to view the universe is finite. I'd love to continue but I have to go.

I'll expend on this later.

[greggbzz]

You never prove things right in science, only invalidate. No science theory is absolute.

The whole point of science is to find out more, to keep learning, to keep adjusting wrong ideas.

A theory is openly published, and thrown to the wolves, who do their best to discredit / validate it. This is called peer review. You do an experiment to see if the other person was right. Almost invariably, every experiment that we can think of says that evolution is right. Until someone can show that it's wrong, well.. we have it.

The peers have reviewed ID for 50 years. It's just is not better. Sorry.

Now the problem with ID is that's it's just not testable. Plus, frankly, it does not make any sense to me.

I read an interesting article years ago, about the rate robotic development as compared to biological evolution.

You can't even graph the discrepancy in scale. No picture gives it justice. The chart they showed was a flat horizontal line along the very bottom (evolution) and a straight vertical line shooting up the left side (humans building robots).

The fact is, these intelligent designers (humans) have made more progress in a 20 years then evolution did in 1 or 2 billion years. So, if
life really is the design of someone infinitely intelligent, why has it taken them hundreds of millions of times longer then the pitiful humans to build a biped?

Evolution just makes more sense to me and a lot of people more brilliant then me, sorry.

[msvx95]

Did you ever stop to think that the rest of the world wants Nobama to be President is because he would make us weaker, more vulnerable?

I heard alot of this foolish talk about if there is a Democrat in office, all of the sudden our military will collapse...WTF, please! We will always have a strong military to protect us. What is the reason we would be weaker??

[NikFu S.]

The fact is, these intelligent designers (humans) have made more progress in a 20 years then evolution did in 1 or 2 billion years. So, if
life really is the design of someone infinitely intelligent, why has it taken them hundreds of millions of times longer then the pitiful humans to build a biped?

My answer to this is humans had a pretty decent model to copy from. :p

Humans had to be designed from the ground up, literally. ;)
I heard alot of this foolish talk about if there is a Democrat in office, all of the sudden our military will collapse...WTF, please! We will always have a strong military to protect us. What is the reason we would be weaker??
This is what I'd like to know.

[msvx95]

From what I listened to when he was in denver giving his speech...he was fired up about the fact that Bush and McCain still want to keep the focus on Iraq while he wants the military to hunt out Osama and get that scum in his cave!
So why again would we be weaker?

[lhopp77]

I heard alot of this foolish talk about if there is a Democrat in office, all of the sudden our military will collapse...WTF, please! We will always have a strong military to protect us. What is the reason we would be weaker??

Dead wrong. How big were the reductions under Clinton???? Some were called for, of course, because of the changing world picture, but he over did it. That is why we are having problems now. Even in apparent peaceful times we need strong military and intelligence agencies. Clinton raped the intelligence budgets to help in his so called balanced budget.

The far left democrats don't believe in a strong military. They are against it--remember San Francisco that doesn't even want to let the military recruit there?????????????? :rolleyes:

Lee

[lhopp77]

From what I listened to when he was in denver giving his speech...he was fired up about the fact that Bush and McCain still want to keep the focus on Iraq while he wants the military to hunt out Osama and get that scum in his cave!
So why again would we be weaker?

Pure politics. Anyone with any common sense knows that it will be very difficult to find Obama--I mean Osama as long as he stays low and hides in radical muslim tribal areas. It is not possible to do any more militarily to find him--at this point its and intelligence game.

He is using the Osama card as pure politics.

Lee

[gstape]

Evolution just makes more sense to me and a lot of people more brilliant then me, sorry.

Thats fine and I have no problem with that point of view in public schools. After all as you say there are a lot of people that believe evolution makes the most sense. But teach it as a theory, not as truth or fact.

But why not teach creation / intelligent design as another possibility? After all that makes sense to the 2 billion people in this world that call themselves christians (including 70% of Americans). And among those 2 billion people there are a bunch of brilliant ones.

(I think that Islam also believes in ID too? Alah is the creator. If that is the case that makes it 3.25 billion people that believe in ID.)

I would want my kids to be tought about the world, the people who live in this world and what they believe (again you don't teach as truth and probably not in a lot of depth). Isn't that at least in part what education is about?

I might be a little bias here because I think Todd Palin is cool... 4 time champion of the 2000 mile Iron dog smowmobile race. Articat team racer is a bit of a negative. I ride a Skidoo.

[NikFu S.]

Thats fine and I have no problem with that point of view in public schools. After all as you say there are a lot of people that believe evolution makes the most sense. But teach it as a theory, not as truth or fact.

It is taught as theory. Highly plausible theory.

But why not teach creation / intelligent design as another possibility?

Parental responsibility. This increases the school's burden greatly, not to mention there are far too many variations in faiths. In my high school we did read Genesis, but it was "taught" purely as literature, in a mythology elective.
There are too many people who do not want other people force feeding children a belief system.

After all that makes sense to the 2 billion people in this world that call themselves christians (including 70% of Americans). And among those 2 billion people there are a bunch of brilliant ones.

Source for your statistic? The Census Bureau apparently does not record this one.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popdata.html

I would want my kids to be tought about the world, the people who live in this world and what they believe (again you don't teach as truth and probably not in a lot of depth). Isn't that at least in part what education is about?

This kind of information has little value outside of the home/congregation. It has little or no use in the career field. Ignoring that, the majority of people acquire the basic principles of their regions major faith whether they like it or not. Teaching it at length is either redundant or pointless depending on parties involved and I state once again there are schools devoted to indoctrination. If this is important to a parent, they will enroll their kid in a Christian (or whatever) school.

Words6789.

[triumph1902]

Obama as president would be a worse disaster then Bush was.

[Landshark]

Thats fine and I have no problem with that point of view in public schools. After all as you say there are a lot of people that believe evolution makes the most sense. But teach it as a theory, not as truth or fact.

i don't ever remember hearing about the "Law of Evolution" - its always been the "Theory of Evolution".

But why not teach creation / intelligent design as another possibility? After all that makes sense to the 2 billion people in this world that call themselves christians (including 70% of Americans). And among those 2 billion people there are a bunch of brilliant ones.

why not teach reincarnation, alien spawn, and every other religions ideas?


I would want my kids to be tought about the world, the people who live in this world and what they believe (again you don't teach as truth and probably not in a lot of depth). Isn't that at least in part what education is about?

that's great - they can learn that in whatever church their parents raise them in.

[Royal Tiger]

When I entered the Air Force Reserve in 1994 we had 88 people per SF Flight. When Clinton left office in 2000 we had 46. The C-141 squadron was 12 planes per flight; in 2000 there were 7. I saw FIRST hand the dismemberment of the military under slick willy. Save me the Obama won't hurt the military garbage.

[RSVX]

But why not teach creation / intelligent design as another possibility?

That's easy.

Separation of Church and State.

If they want to learn about ID, go to a private school sponsored by a Church, or learn about it in your Church, Bible study, etc...

But in public schools? See above.

[RSVX]

When I entered the Air Force Reserve in 1994 we had 88 people per SF Flight. When Clinton left office in 2000 we had 46. The C-141 squadron was 12 planes per flight; in 2000 there were 7. I saw FIRST hand the dismemberment of the military under slick willy. Save me the Obama won't hurt the military garbage.

I was in the USAF Active Duty from 1994-2002...

And what this man speaks is the truth.

[gstape]

It is taught as theory. Highly plausible theory.

Higly plausible? ... and you say:

I can't tell you where everything came from because that is something nobody knows. My belief is the first matter always existed.
the origin of matter and energy is the essential first step in evolution theory, and we have absolutely no understanding of it. Yet we call evolution theory "Highly plausible".

(Just to be clear I am not talking about changes of spiecies over time... that is more than plausible, that is documented. For example people are taller than they were on average 100 years ago, I am talking about evolution explaining the origin of life vs a creator)


Source for your statistic? The Census Bureau apparently does not

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm


I am not as I said in favor of teaching creation as truth, (or any other religous doctrine for that matter) I am in favor of teaching a broad world view... and again I am not talking necessarily about science class. Just don't exclude anything and everything because it may have some religious connotations. Why leave creation and ID out in favor of only evolution when you are teaching about the origin of life and the world? Maybe we should just leave it all out, because none of it has been proven scientifically.


This kind of information has little value outside of the home/congregation. It has little or no use in the career field.

And evolution does? Of course I think it does if taught accuratly, knowledge has value.

Isn't it Obama that says he is uniquely qualified to be commander in cheif because of his world experience?... his life in other countries, and his studies in school? ( I would argue Mccain is more qualified though based on experience)

Relating to, understanding, and working with people that have a different world view is extremly important in many career fields. In
fact discussions like this are valuble too, we all get to understand eachother a little better.:o

[RSVX]

Higly plausible? ... and you say:


the origin of matter and energy is the essential first step in evolution theory, and we have absolutely no understanding of it. Yet we call evolution theory "Highly plausible".

(Just to be clear I am not talking about changes of spiecies over time... that is more than plausible, that is documented. For example people are taller than they were on average 100 years ago, I am talking about evolution explaining the origin of life vs a creator)

Then you are talking about abiogenesis vs. ID, not ID vs. the Theory of Evolution.

That's the primary point here. The Theory of Evolution has ZIP to do with how we were created, but everything to do with how we have changed since then.

[greggbzz]

Ya'll just need to tell me ID's testable hypothesis and be done with it.

Until then, it's not science. It should not be taught in science class. Sorry.

How many of you debating really know how the scientific method works?
:eek:

[gstape]

I don't make policy, but at least I get to vote in a "swing state" :o Actually I hate the way that works.

Then you are talking about abiogenesis vs. ID, not ID vs. the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is NOT a theory of abiogenesis, evolution DOES NOT disrupt ID creation uh... myths. It does call a few facts into question, sure, like the age of the world, but evolution and even scientific abiogensis theories can coexist with an intelligent design... belief.


Chris and Nikfu, Sorry I missed that distinction. My bad. I was using the word evolution as synonymous with abiogenesis.

And Nikfu I like your words teach as theory and belief. I don't like the word myth though thats where I get defensive... when so many people (including many brilliant people) believe in creation or ID then the word myth doesn't do it justice. Belief is accurate.

Ya'll just need to tell me ID's testable hypothesis and be done with it.

Until then, it's not science. It should not be taught in science class.

Yup, As I said earlier, don't teach ID or creation as science its not. But if part of the school's cirriculum addresses the origin of life how can you leave it out? Teach it as a belief. Teach abiogenesis as scientific theory. And leave it at that.

[NikFu S.]

I am talking about evolution explaining the origin of life vs a creator)

There are quite a few hypotheses on the scientific origin of life, but I do not recall there being a standard accepted model. I also do not recall any origin of life being taught in any class I ever had.
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis.
I feel ID and non-ID origins are in the same boat, here. Neither can be verified, and both can be considered in extracurricular lessons. There is nothing stopping anyone from choosing which path to take, unless Palin gets in there and screws things up by making ID a requirement of public schooling.

This to me shows a lack of foresight on her part, maybe a general lack of understanding the scientific model, separation of church and state, various other related things.
What is the point of secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state) when our leaders keep shoving God in our faces?

--
To recap the important point here: I do not believe any version of abiogenesis is taught in public (k-12) schools.

--

myth
–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

[gstape]

Thats all good, thanks for the good discussion. :o

FYI I just saw an interview with Palin on Fox with Sean Hannity and Sean asked her the question of teaching evolution. Her answer was something like this... My dad was a science teacher I have great respect for science to be taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes... she did not go any further than that in the interview.

[Royal Tiger]

I was in the USAF Active Duty from 1994-2002...

And what this man speaks is the truth.

Thanks Chris. I was Reserves from 1994-2005 with 18 months active following 9/11. We had it bad, but the 141 guys (McGuire was a MAC then AMC base) had it worse. 1/2 the men and equipment, and twice the missions.

[shotgunslade]

Speciation through natural selection is an observed process, just like the revolution of the earth around the sun. It is not a theory. The proliferation of beak shapes on finches in the Galapagos islands and the acquisition of antibiotic immunity in bacteria are well documented examples. There has been so much work done to observe the evolution of different biological functions and bodily parts in various species. For example, it has been documented that some body parts have a single beginning and can be traced back to a single species, while other bodily mechanisms seem to have arisen multiple times. All of this work is observation not theory. It is in the fossil record, or in the catalogue of species alive today.

The theory of intelligent design is that the complexity of organisms cannot be fully explained by natural selection. The challenge for this theory is to create an experiment and prove that a single biological function cannot be arived at by a process of natural selection. That has not occurred. Nor have its proponents offered any more than a few half-a$$ed exmaples that have been discredited.

Evolutionary science when well described should say that there is currently no evidence that any mechanism other than natural selection has been proven to drive speciation.

Intelligent design says that there is an alternate force at work, but it has demonstrated neither the exception (evidence that some function cannot be arrived at by natural selection) or the example (evidence of creation of some biological mechanism by a designer).

Intelligent design is a theory, one that its proponents have not subjected to rigorous experimentation. Evolutionary science is observation. To date, all documented processes of speciation have occurred through natural selection.

[RSVX]

Thanks Chris. I was Reserves from 1994-2005 with 18 months active following 9/11. We had it bad, but the 141 guys (McGuire was a MAC then AMC base) had it worse. 1/2 the men and equipment, and twice the missions.

Um, thats where I was stationed... 605th AGS...

141s, I am guessing you were 305th?

[Royal Tiger]

Um, thats where I was stationed... 605th AGS...

141s, I am guessing you were 305th?

305th was active duty. I was refrencing the 141 guys as they were beyond stretched thin. Thanks bill.

I was 514 SFS/SFTC.

Here is a bit of info I was told by a reliable source but was never able to verify:

For over 50 years, Pamona Air Station, right outside Atlantic City, had the responsibility for East Coast Air Defense. They used to have a pair of F-106's ready at all times for when the Soviets used to "bounce" the east coast with "Bears" on the way to Cuba. They were the highest rated F-106 Squadron in the whole Air Force and as such were the last to convert to F-16's. That part is all 100% true and accurate.

On 9/11/01 after the first Tower was hit and the events unfolded with the 3 other planes, 2 F-15's were scrambled from Massachusetts with the intent of downing the other aircraft, but arrived too late. That part I was never able to verify. Under clinton, Pamona lost it's Air Defense responsibility and stopped manning alert planes. Part of the great military raping under slick willie. That part is true. Now if the other is, the F-16's from Pamona would have made it to NYC far quicker then the F-15's from Massachusetts. A moot point, but one to ponder and think about in a larger picture when realizing what clinton did to the greatest military the Earth has ever known. Like how he and his asshat DoD Les Aspin totally f'd up in Somalia, or how the "great" General Wesley Clark had his Army constantly "pinned down" by mountain rebels in the Balkans.

[RSVX]

305th was active duty. I was refrencing the 141 guys as they were beyond stretched thin. Thanks bill.

I was 514 SFS/SFTC.



Oops, I missed the SFS reference, and yeah... reserves...

How long have you had your SVX? I ran into a guy or two there that had SVX's...

Actually talked to one once, over by what we referred to as the "Old SFS buildings"...

[Royal Tiger]

Oops, I missed the SFS reference, and yeah... reserves...

How long have you had your SVX? I ran into a guy or two there that had SVX's...

Actually talked to one once, over by what we referred to as the "Old SFS buildings"...

I had my SVX from 1999 to 2003. I was active from 11/01 to 4/03.

[lhopp77]

Check out Obamas relationships with corrupt and now jailed Chicago slum lord Rezko!!!

Lee

[NikFu S.]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

So what?

[lhopp77]

It's only a "mistake" if you get caught, but a "super under the table deal" (read bribe) if you don't. :)

Lee

[NikFu S.]

Explain how a bribe or underhanded deal took place.

[lhopp77]

Obama got a super deal on a house and land well below market in exchange for some favorable legislation and probable some future promises--you know like "you owe me". :)

Sort of like Hillary's $1000 investment (that someone else even put for her) that returned $100,000 a few months later. (Get the picture?)

Sweetheart deals--Obama has gone from taxable income of around $200K to over $4M last year in a matter of just a few years. He made nearly as much as Cindy McCain last year without having a business or any notable investments. It just shows you that he is a typical corrupt politician and is probably one of the reasons he is on the non-partisan Top 10 Corrupt Politician List.

Lee