How interested in the US elections are you?

Do the US elections matter to you?

  • Hugely important

  • Taking a casual interest

  • Meh...

  • There's an election?


Results are only viewable after voting.

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Meh... McCain and Obama are the same candidate, the only difference being skin colour.

I was highly disappointed over the % of votes that Ron Paul received. This shows that the American people enjoy their decline, and don't want change, i.e. they're brainless.

Maybe from your POV, but many would disagree. Out of interest what's a Anarcho-Primitivist? Is it some kind of get back to nature type philosophy? Somewhat like hunter gatherers?

I suppose now your rooting for Bob Barr?
 
Upvote 0

huldah153

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2007
501
13
✟742.00
Faith
Maybe from your POV, but many would disagree. Out of interest what's a Anarcho-Primitivist? Is it some kind of get back to nature type philosophy? Somewhat like hunter gatherers?

I suppose now your rooting for Bob Barr?

You can learn more about it here.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You can learn more about it here.

Thanks; Interesting.



As for the OP I'm quite interested in the election. At the moment I'd rather they start from scratch with new candidates as I don't think either one is terribly impressive but from what is on offer I would certainly prefer Obama.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Meh... McCain and Obama are the same candidate, the only difference being skin colour.
Huh. Obama is extreme left - not even liberal, but left - and McCain is middle-of-the-road right. How are they the same?

I was highly disappointed over the % of votes that Ron Paul received.
Agree, actually. He was the better Republican candidate.

You're free to believe what you wish but creationisms is useless as a science (it isn't science) and thats why it shouldn't be seen as a legitimate subject within a science classroom.
Without this turning into a creationism/evolution thread, you don't think there's room for both to be taught?
 
Upvote 0

huldah153

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2007
501
13
✟742.00
Faith
Huh. Obama is extreme left - not even liberal, but left - and McCain is middle-of-the-road right. How are they the same?

All their policies are the same. They both believe in over-spending, illegal immigration, gun-control, NAFTA & GAT, foreign aid, the welfare state, the Patriot Act, the Terrorism Prevention Act, and both have pledged allegiance to AIPAC. Now within those policies they may differ to a minor degree, but the basic thrust is the same.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Without this turning into a creationism/evolution thread, you don't think there's room for both to be taught?

Because creationism isn't science. Some people believe it because of the bible but there is no physical evidence of events depicted in the bible relating to Genesis. If creationism was discussed in science classrooms then it would be as a discarded idea, falsified by evidence.

I'm sure your suggestion of teaching both comes from a sense of fairness but science doesn't care about fair it cares about a theory being backed by data and making predictions towards new data. Anything that fails is discarded.
 
Upvote 0

Judy02

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2006
5,634
516
England.
✟28,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Because creationism isn't science. Some people believe it because of the bible but there is no physical evidence of events depicted in the bible relating to Genesis. If creationism was discussed in science classrooms then it would be as a discarded idea, falsified by evidence.

I'm sure your suggestion of teaching both comes from a sense of fairness but science doesn't care about fair it cares about a theory being backed by data and making predictions towards new data. Anything that fails is discarded.

Even as a Christian, I don't understand why some people really try and push 'creationism' to be taught in science lessons to be honest. I suppose I don't go around seeing the scientific theories and what's in the bible to be automatically at odds or working against each other anyway. The bible was never intended to be treated like a scientific textbook. Science seems to concern itself with how the earth physically came about, the bible with reasons why. I suppose I don't see creationism not being taught in science lessons as a threat, because they're both different in what they primarily concern themselves with. I suppose if we got really preoccupied with the rules of equality and fairness, we could suggest evolution being taught in religious education. (I don't think it makes sense personally but I'm just turning the tables to explain my line of thought I suppose).
 
Upvote 0

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because creationism isn't science. Some people believe it because of the bible but there is no physical evidence of events depicted in the bible relating to Genesis. If creationism was discussed in science classrooms then it would be as a discarded idea, falsified by evidence.

I'm sure your suggestion of teaching both comes from a sense of fairness but science doesn't care about fair it cares about a theory being backed by data and making predictions towards new data. Anything that fails is discarded.
It's not so much fairness... I just don't see why any of us have the right to nix the idea of kids being taught both. Just as Christians have no right to prevent schools from teaching about evolution, secularists have no right to prevent schools from teaching Christian kids about creationism. And, yes, as a science.

While you and I don't hold to a 6-day creation, many do. And they're entitled to. We simply don't have the right to decide for them what their children will be taught.

So teach them both - provide the evidence/facts/anecdotal evidence pertaining to both, and let the kids decide for themselves.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No disrespect meant at all, just wanted to make that clear. But how do you see the belief that God created the earth as scientific?
You don't think God created the earth, at all? I see God everywhere - even down to something as miraculously prosaic as Fibonacci's regularity throughout nature. ID is unequivocal, imo.

This is primarily a 6-day site, so you can parse much of it, but it has some fascinating information about ID in general - Clicky
 
Upvote 0

Judy02

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2006
5,634
516
England.
✟28,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You don't think God created the earth, at all?

Of course I do...I never once became close to suggesting I didn't.:confused: Maybe it was a misunderstanding but please don't put words into my mouth. I just wondered how you saw that belief as something that could be taught scientifically that's all.
 
Upvote 0

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course I do...I never once became close to suggesting I didn't.:confused: Maybe it was a misunderstanding but please don't put words into my mouth. I just wondered how you saw that belief as something that could be taught scientifically that's all.
Oh, no, definite misunderstanding, then :hug: We were both asking questions, and saw implicit statements instead :D

Tis so easy to misconstrue stuff here.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
65
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Without this turning into a creationism/evolution thread, you don't think there's room for both to be taught?

Not in science class. The theology of creation can be taught in RE, but "creationism" is nothing more than bad science chasing bad theology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not in science class. The theology of creation can be taught in RE, but "creationism" is nothing more than bad science chasing bad theology.
Many disagree. And they're entitled to have their children be taught both.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Many disagree. And they're entitled to have their children be taught both.

And when the student goes to university to study one of the many sciences it contradicts (it's not just the theory of evolution) and finds out that their belief in creationism is regarded as a sick joke within those subjects, then what?

Scientific theories earn their way into schools and school science lessons are there to give students a taste of the scientific methodology and knowledge that has been built up. Creationism doesn't figure into this at all, it goes against the methodology (not a science) and what little it does predict (age of the universe, evidence of a worldwide flood) is contradicted by the knowledge we have of chemistry, physics and geology. Science lessons don't exist to pander and reinforce peoples ideas of how the word works.

Teaching creationism in a science class would be akin to teaching pick pocketing in a good citizenship class.
 
Upvote 0

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And when the student goes to university to study one of the many sciences it contradicts (it's not just the theory of evolution) and finds out that their belief in creationism is regarded as a sick joke within those subjects, then what?
Christians are already lambasted. If someone is further mocked at uni for believing Biblical creationism, it's no big thing. There are many, *many* Christians who are also scientists. The 2 don't run counter to one another.

Scientific theories earn their way into schools and school science lessons are there to give students a taste of the scientific methodology and knowledge that has been built up. Creationism doesn't figure into this at all, it goes against the methodology (not a science) and what little it does predict (age of the universe, evidence of a worldwide flood) is contradicted by the knowledge we have of chemistry, physics and geology. Science lessons don't exist to pander and reinforce peoples ideas of how the word works.
You're entitled to your opinion. Truly. This is being discussed in depth in the conservative Christian forum today, in fact. But if parents wants their kids taught creationism as a science, and the kids are willing to listen to both "sides" and make their own decision, we have no right to infringe upon that.

Teaching creationism in a science class would be akin to teaching pick pocketing in a good citizenship class.
Nifty rhetoric. Nonsensical, pejorative analogy.
 
Upvote 0

MarcusHill

Educator and learner
May 1, 2007
976
76
Manchester
✟16,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Many disagree. And they're entitled to have their children be taught both.

Many people think that Shakespeare wrote "Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him well." Are they entitled to have their children taught that alongside the real Hamlet? No, because they're simply wrong. Science is not a democracy and popular misconceptions are still misconceptions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Christians are already lambasted. If someone is further mocked at uni for believing Biblical creationism, it's no big thing. There are many, *many* Christians who are also scientists. The 2 don't run counter to one another.




It’s not about mocking it’s about being ill equipped to do a subject because they're ill informed of the realities of science.

Most of the people in uni I've known were Christian (a few dozen) but only one was a creationist and she wasn't mocked. My MSc supervisor was a devout Christian who did a talk in his church every week and occasionally reminded me about how he worried about my atheism, he also considered creationism to be invalid as a science.

You're entitled to your opinion. Truly. This is being discussed in depth in the conservative Christian forum today, in fact. But if parents wants their kids taught creationism as a science, and the kids are willing to listen to both "sides" and make their own decision, we have no right to infringe upon that.
As Marcus stated science isn’t a democracy, science lessons should reflect the realities of science in academia and industry. Creationism is simply not used by either because it’s useless when it comes to scientific research so what’s the point of teaching it?

If people want their kids taught creationism they should send them to a church that holds that view, or give them genesis to read. There is nothing to be gained by giving it some false legitimacy in a science lesson but I do think if a student does bring up a question on creationism it should be addressed and not dismissed.


Many parents hold beliefs in Ghosts, homoeopathy and a small number hold the sun goes round the earth, should these things be also taught as science?

Nifty rhetoric. Nonsensical, pejorative analogy.
I’m not implying believing in creationism is criminal and I'm sorry if you thought that was my implication. I’m saying that creationism is essentially anti-science. My analogy might be overly emotive but that’s how I as a scientist feel. Creationism weakens science because it adds untestable elements that make the whole process of science useless.
 
Upvote 0