US presidential election 2012 - Page 71 - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1051 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 03:47 AM
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 15,560
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

The best predictor of the election result is the result of the Washington Redskins game on the Sunday before the election. They lost today. Romney wins!

JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1052 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 05:05 AM
Registered User
 
Jimnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 20,932
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught. Such as Creationism.

Theories are tested on whether they stand up to scientific observation. But since there has not been a scrap of evidence offered for Creationism it can't be tested. But this is where the fundamentalists shine. They challenge you to prove it wrong. And if you can't prove it wrong, they claim it must be true.

I think you are the proponent of brainwashing, proposing the teaching of illogical theories based on imagination and nothing else. Why put that nonsense in a kid's head?
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.
Jimnik is offline  
post #1053 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 06:48 AM
Registered User
 
Ace Pounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In-between Cringe City and Ruinsville
Age: 27
Posts: 12,987
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.
Isn't it the real problem, hm? Science is all about objectivity; it's not what we think is true, but what is true, with materialized proof.
Ace Pounder is offline  
post #1054 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 08:23 AM
Registered User
 
Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 7,481
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Echoes going overboard as usual. Define general theory please? Every religious person I know laughs about the idea of teaching anything but evolution in schools. Of course, we do have religion classes where religion is taught . However, even those classes never dispute evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.
Check out the video I posted, you can see a Republican strategist/spokesperson advocating this. It's really difficult to understand in Europe and we don't have such a problem in Finland except maybe within certain sects of the church. There are also people who are campaigning on teaching "the alternative" in science classes, don't know whether they're republican or not though. However, there were MANY republican presidential candidates that deny evolution.

Look, there is of course room for faith in this world and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. The beginning of the universe, how it all got here... there are philosophical arguments (and could be discussed in philosophy class !). I personally don't buy the religious ones but some people do and it's ok. However, evolution isn't debatable and it creates a lot of unnecessary friction between the scientific community and religion.

After Nadal beat Monfils at Doha, before AO 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSMnadal View Post
lol, who will beat him? Wawrinka? Berdych? Gulbis? Rosol? Federer?

Only Del Potro can take him out before the semis, and he won't. Nadal is winning the AO, bet your house on it.
Somewhere out there, there is a homeless person who once took betting advice from GSMnadal
Lopez is offline  
post #1055 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 11:50 AM
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 15,560
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.
Unless you want to nitpick over the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then I name George Bush.

I am not sure why it has to be a Republican. The teaching of Creationism in science class has been a public issue in the US for some time.

Science journals and publications publish evidence on the subject discussed (observations made) and may go on to theorise based on that observed evidence. The same can not be said for the bible because there is no evidence offered to substantiate the claims made. Also, science journals don't publish anonymous articles.

JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline  
post #1056 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 11:58 AM
Registered User
 
Echoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 33
Posts: 1,902
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught.
Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

Every sane, open-minded and culturally knowledgeable person reading this thread can realize that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lopez
Every religious person I know laughs about the idea of teaching anything but evolution in schools.
I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.



Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.
Echoes is offline  
post #1057 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 12:13 PM
Registered User
 
Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 7,481
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes View Post
I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.



Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.
If it's a language issue I'm pretty sure it's not mine .

Anyways, I'm definitely not against talking about religious philosophy in philosophy class, so maybe we don't differ as much.

After Nadal beat Monfils at Doha, before AO 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSMnadal View Post
lol, who will beat him? Wawrinka? Berdych? Gulbis? Rosol? Federer?

Only Del Potro can take him out before the semis, and he won't. Nadal is winning the AO, bet your house on it.
Somewhere out there, there is a homeless person who once took betting advice from GSMnadal
Lopez is offline  
post #1058 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 12:26 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Har-Tru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 30
Posts: 20,524
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.
Try again.

Evidence is "that which attests to the truth of an assertion". Subjectivity plays a role in borderline cases, but that is not the same as saying "all evidence is subjective" which is what you are saying. The more subjective a piece of evidence is, the worse the evidence. Good evidence is evidence that is independent of personal interpretation.

Take the statement "I can juggle five balls at a time". I can provide a wide arrange of evidence attesting to the veracity of that claim. I can try to show that is true by:

a) Stating that my mother says I can.
b) Showing that it says so in a book (my diary).
c) Performing the act.

c) is a better piece of evidence than a) or b). It is not 100% conclusive evidence (there is no such thing as that). I could have hypnotised you; it could be that I have an identical twin brother, unknown to all of those involved, who can do it; I could be an all-powerful, mind-bending alien... but if confronted with such a situation, we would all agree c) is undoubtedly more solid than a) and b).

A piece of evidence will be solid if it succeeds at offering proof for the veracity of a claim, and it will be shaky evidence if it doesn't.

Religious "evidence" has a formidable track record of being wrong about the things that we can subject to scrutiny. Its realm has been confined to the space occupied by untestable, unsupported propositions about things the veracity of which we can't determine.

Science's strength is that it works. Its evidence pays up, it is accessible to all, it is palpable. The proof that quantum mechanics works is the fact that you're reading these lines right now on a computer. The proof that the theory of relativity works is in every GPS navigator in cars all over the world. That is not subjective, it is objective. And on account of it being objective, it is better.

For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit.
Har-Tru is offline  
post #1059 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 01:02 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Har-Tru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 30
Posts: 20,524
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes View Post
Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

Every sane, open-minded and culturally knowledgeable person reading this thread can realize that.




I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.



Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.
Again, I agree!

In addition to the already mentioned proposals about teaching astrology and witchcraft to children in school, may I add also the proposal that the Flat Earth theory and the Lunar Effect theory be added to geology classes, Psychich Surgery to biology (and medical school!) and the Perpetual Motion theory in physics.

More to come.

After all, they're all general theories with sophisticated rationales and many followers worldwide.
Har-Tru is offline  
post #1060 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 02:56 PM
Registered User
 
clandis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 480
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.
Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, many more. Google it
clandis is offline  
post #1061 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 06:22 PM
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 15,560
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes View Post
Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

.
I thought we were talking about evolution versus creationism here. I am not aware of any of the great philosophers that espoused creationism. The large majority of religious people are quite happy with the evidence of evolution. So I am in no way dismissing philosophica/theological doctrines of the past - unless of course they have been 100% disproved. As is the case of a young earth. It is harder to disprove Creationism because there is no evidence to test.
It is only the extreme fringe that claims a literal view of religious texts and tries to impede every scientific fact that comes along. It is obvious to me by now that every scientific advance in chemistry and genetics continues to prove that evolution is a fact. If you believe in Creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith then just come out and proudly say so and there will be nothing more to discuss. Right now you are hiding behind the vagueness of terms like ''all general theories.''

JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline  
post #1062 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 08:27 PM
Registered User
 
habibko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Age: 30
Posts: 19,876
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

LOL teaching psychic surgery in medical school, too good

quite the apt comparison, creationism has precisely as much evidence backing it up in Biology as psychic surgery in Medicine

there's a reason someone like Echoes doesn't single out much besides creationism and goes out of his way to justify teaching it on equal footing as proper science, and it has all to do with their blind faith to which they dearly and desperately hold onto, a total waste of time trying to reason with them as that's exactly what they are battling against

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Federer View Post
If I can help the game of tennis with the image or with making it more popular, that’s enough for me really. I want to leave the game better off than when I came into this great game
habibko is offline  
post #1063 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 08:29 PM
Registered User
 
HoorayBeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 1,842
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
The best predictor of the election result is the result of the Washington Redskins game on the Sunday before the election. They lost today. Romney wins!
That is the exact predictor that landed President Kerry in the whitehouse
HoorayBeer is offline  
post #1064 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 08:33 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Har-Tru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 30
Posts: 20,524
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoorayBeer View Post
That is the exact predictor that landed President Kerry in the whitehouse
The rule was "redefined" after the 2004 fiasco as referring to the last winner of the popular vote (Gore won in 2000).
Har-Tru is offline  
post #1065 of 1174 (permalink) Old 11-05-2012, 09:26 PM
Registered User
 
Echoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 33
Posts: 1,902
                     
Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
I thought we were talking about evolution versus creationism here.
Headline says "US presidential election 2012"

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
So I am in no way dismissing philosophica/theological doctrines of the past - unless of course they have been 100% disproved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly
There are churches for teaching faith based, non-scientific theories.
So do you know what you mean?

Philosophical doctrines are faith based and non-scientific: existentialism, stoicism, epicurianism, ...
Political ideologies: even more clearly faith-based.
Literary movement: romanticism, classicism, naturalism: non-scientific theories.
And of course religions ...

You want this to be taught at schools or not? If not, then it's just ... frightening. Some kind of Brave New World ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
If you believe in Creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith then just come out and proudly say so and there will be nothing more to discuss. Right now you are hiding behind the vagueness of terms like ''all general theories.''
Amazing! So I'm forced to give an opinion. Why should I?

I'll repeat my answer for the 4th and - this time I hope it's - the last time:

Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)


Perhaps I'll have to make clear that this was a formated answer proposed by the webmaster of the test, in case you did not get that ...

I have no guarantee to give you on the matter. I don't give a damn about it. I am no biologist and I let other 'competent' people debate on it without me. And I don't think it would be the role of the state to impose an opinion on anyone on this. It's a matter for scientists. Just like no legislators cannot impose a view on history on its people (as is the case in France, e.g.). It's a matter for historians. Hence, my response to the question was immediate (and I really thought this was crystal clear but apparently not and I hope it's over now.)
Echoes is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome