she wants kids to be taught in schools (paid for by the state) that Creationism is true
Why is it that Liberals are such liars?
Seriously.
Quote:
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
The simple fact is, and I'm sure you know this but lie through your teeth in order to serve your perverse needs, that most Christians don't want creationism taught as fact. It would be quite impossible to do so because there is no single interpretation of creationism that everybody agrees upon.
She wants it taught as a theory, just like the theory of evolution.
Quote:
"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."
Quote:
Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.
Behold facts, and see how they destroy the lies of the Liberal Socialist Totalitarian Oppressor, aka Rankenstein.
It is in fact the First Amendment to the Constitution. What she wants to put into law is something that is expressly forbidden for Congress to put into law.
No, it's not. She wants it taught as another theory alongside evolution as to offer students access to two differing and widely believed possibilities.
The first amendment stops the government from establishing a state / national religion or persecuting those who choose an alternate religion or no religion. It in no way stops the government from acknowledging religion, even in classrooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein
She's sponsoring Creationism and you know very well she means Christian Creationism.
She's a Christian, no doubt, but there are many religions that accept the Old Testament as theological truth. For those that don't, it would be taught just like evolution. "Here's what it's about and here's why the people who believe it say they do. Now do with that what you will."
Why do you care if it's being taught as simply alternate theory? You want the entire concept buried because you personally don't accept it?
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Creationism is a religious belief, not a theory. Evolution is scientifically accepted. Even by John McCain. Even by the Pope. (Well, the last one anyway, God knows what Pope John Ratzenberger thinks. Wait, that's the guy from Cheers, I meant the other one.)
Creationism has no place in a school room as an alternative explanation to evolution. It's that straightforward.
I have no objection to having a religious ed. class that teaches kids about the various religions. I had that myself and I'm the richer for it. But what she proposes is a no go. That dog won't hunt, Monsignor.
Not really. A know a lot of people who reject every single religion known to man who think that a Creator created us. You should spend some time in Japan. Everybody has their own nice little beliefs as to how we came about.
Quote:
Evolution is scientifically accepted. Even by John McCain.
Oh, well, if McCain believes something, surely then it must be true. LOL!
That was the silliest statement you could have made. Who give a flying rat's ass what McCain believes?
Quote:
Creationism has no place in a school room as an alternative explanation to evolution. It's that straightforward.
Well, if you say so, then I guess we really don't need a premise or two that leads to that conclusion. We'll just take your word for it. I mean, hell, let's forget logic and reason and just accept whatever Lord Oppressor Totalitarian God Hater believes.
Whew, I crack myself up, but I couldn't do it without your nonsensical posts.
Creationism is a religious belief, not a theory. Evolution is scientifically accepted. Even by John McCain. Even by the Pope. (Well, the last one anyway, God knows what Pope John Ratzenberger thinks. Wait, that's the guy from Cheers, I meant the other one.)
Creationism has no place in a school room as an alternative explanation to evolution. It's that straightforward.
I have no objection to having a religious ed. class that teaches kids about the various religions. I had that myself and I'm the richer for it. But what she proposes is a no go. That dog won't hunt, Monsignor.
Well you make it pretty clear. If you don't believe something yourself then it should be eliminated, silenced. It's typical liberal hypocrisy and the intellectual equivalent of book burning.
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
I do make it pretty clear. It's a religious belief, not an alternative to evolution. Teach it in a religion class along with the other religious beliefs. Don't teach it alongside evolution. You have to be crystal clear about this sort of thing, because otherwise kids will be coming home from a University Science course with a First in Intelligent Design, which is as much to say, a First in Jack.
I do make it pretty clear. It's a religious belief, not an alternative to evolution. Teach it in a religion class along with the other religious beliefs. Don't teach it alongside evolution. You have to be crystal clear about this sort of thing, because otherwise kids will be coming home from a University Science course with a First in Intelligent Design, which is as much to say, a First in Jack.
Again, your slip is showing. This isn't a matter of whether or not evolution is fact or whether or not creationism is fact. It's simply a students right to be presented with the two most widely accepted beliefs, the criteria surrounding those beliefs, and then being allowed to debate it and come to a decision themselves. To deny them that is to say that only your opinion should matter which makes you no different than any religious extremist you vilify. You are just as close minded as they are. Who are you to decide what information a student should be allowed to consider?
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Well, if you say so, then I guess we really don't need a premise or two that leads to that conclusion. We'll just take your word for it. I mean, hell, let's forget logic and reason and just accept whatever Lord Oppressor Totalitarian God Hater believes.
Good, it took time, but we are finally getting somewhere.
do you guys actually think you're gonna change each others' minds?
No, and that's not the purpose of a debate. The purpose of a debate it to humiliate the other by demonstrating his fallacious arguments and inferior intelligence.
BTW, I like your avatar. I know it was probably meant to annoy, but I agree with it. Of course, the modern defining values of liberalism in no way matches those He taught, but He certainly shook up the status quo.
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
BTW, I like your avatar. I know it was probably meant to annoy, but I agree with it. Of course, the modern defining values of liberalism in no way matches those He taught, but He certainly shook up the status quo.
Yeah, I don't mean a bogeyman liberal, I hate the way the word has been hijacked. But he was inclusive, which I take to mean much the same thing. Whereas the Pharisees and Sadducees were anything but, which is why he got up their nose. I do take Jesus to be a real person, though not the son of God.
Please don't tell me that Palin isn't talking about Christian Creationism - you would only demean yourself.
I didn't say she wasn't. I said that many other religions follow the same text as Christians. You did read that, right? I also said other things that make this statement irrelevant. Perhaps you missed it.
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
