Absolutely un-***** believable!

evince said:
the chemicals created and released when man processes and uses certain naturally accuring substances does not disapear.

They effect the world.


Pretending that they have no impact because man gets a freebe from god is complete insanity.


Every sane person knows these emmisions effect the enviroment.

only partisan idiots pretend if their man made they dont effect anything.
Click to expand...
Where did I mention god?

So you show no hard proof that global warming is caused by man, but call those who don't adhere to your theory, insane?
Sounds like prosetlysing religious types sowing intolerance.
 
evince said:
the chemicals created and released when man processes and uses certain naturally accuring substances does not disapear.

They effect the world.


Pretending that they have no impact because man gets a freebe from god is complete insanity.


Every sane person knows these emmisions effect the enviroment.

only partisan idiots pretend if their man made they dont effect anything.
Click to expand...

I can't help when I release gasses! :mad:
 
evince said:
the chemicals created and released when man processes and uses certain naturally accuring substances does not disapear.

They effect the world.


Pretending that they have no impact because man gets a freebe from god is complete insanity.


Every sane person knows these emmisions effect the enviroment.

only partisan idiots pretend if their man made they dont effect anything.
Click to expand...

Dont be drawn on this. It matters not whether man caused or had anything to do with climate change. We all, even republicans, have a duty to protect our planet and leave as few footprints as we can. The climate IS changing, it has always changed. There IS more pollution and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is LIKELY that that has contributed to climate change but not certain.
It is not about left or right, it is about doing our best to leave a planet worth living on for our children and grandchildren.
Idiots who argue that man did not cause climate change and therefore we need to do nothing have missed the point completely.
This particular idiot exhibits mental health concerns. You, and everyone, would serve him better by ignoring him and encouraging him to seek help. His life has included very unfortunate experiences which seem to be a weight he has difficulty with.
I hope that is not seen as a nasty dig as it is not intended to be.
 
007 said:
Where did I mention god?

So you show no hard proof that global warming is caused by man, but call those who don't adhere to your theory, insane?
Sounds like prosetlysing religious types sowing intolerance.
Click to expand...


pearls before swine.

You absorb no facts.


The mountain of evidence is everywhere except at fox news.


this denial of the said facts is held mostly by the religious right.


they dont care because god is coming anyway.
 
Lowaicue said:
This is staggering.. and people have the bloody cheek to talk about Islamists wanting to take the world back to the 7 Century.

Four US states considering laws that challenge teaching of evolution

Critics charge 'academic freedom' legislation in Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma is just creationism in disguise

Paul Harris in New York

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 31 January 2013 16.31 GMT

Jump to comments (227)

Four US states are considering new legislation about teaching science in schools, allowing pupils to to be taught religious versions of how life on earth developed in what critics say would establish a backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution.

Fresh legislation has been put forward in Colorado, Missouri and Montana. In Oklahoma, there are two bills before the state legislature that include potentially creationist language.

A watchdog group, the National Center for Science Education, said that the proposed laws were framed around the concept of "academic freedom". It argues that religious motives are disguised by the language of encouraging more open debate in school classrooms. However, the areas of the curriculum highlighted in the bills tend to focus on the teaching of evolution or other areas of science that clash with traditionally religious interpretations of the world.

"Taken at face value, they sound innocuous and lovely: critical thinking, debate and analysis. It seems so innocent, so pure. But they chose to question only areas that religious conservatives are uncomfortable with. There is a religious agenda here," said Josh Rosenau, an NCSE program and policy director.

In Oklahoma, one bill has been pre-filed with the state senate and another with the state house. The Senate bill would oblige the state to help teachers "find more effective ways to represent the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies". The House bill specifically mentions "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning" as areas that "some teachers are unsure" about teaching.

In Montana, a bill put forward by local social conservative state congressman, Clayton Fiscus, also lists things like "random mutation, natural selection, DNA and fossil discoveries" as controversial topics that need more critical teaching. Meanwhile, in Missouri, a bill introduced in mid-January lists "biological and chemical evolution" as topics that teachers should debate over including looking at the "scientific weaknesses" of the long-established theories.

Finally, in Colorado, which rarely sees a push towards teaching creationism, a bill has been introduced in the state house of representatives that would require teachers to "respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution". Observers say the move is the first piece of creationist-linked legislation to be put forward in the state since 1972.

The moves in such a wide range of states have angered advocates of secularism in American official life. "This is just another attempt to bring creationism in through the back door. The only academic freedom they really want to encourage is the freedom to be ignorant," said Rob Boston, senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Over the past few years, only Tennessee and Louisiana have managed to pass so-called "academic freedom" laws of the kind currently being considered in the four states. Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and close observer of the creationism movement, said that the successes in those two states meant that the religious lobby was always looking for more opportunities.

She said that using arguments over academic freedom was a shift in tactic after attempts to specifically get "intelligent design" taught in schools was defeated in a landmark court case in 2005. Intelligent design, which a local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, had sought to get accepted as legitimate science, asserts that modern life is too complex to have evolved by chance alone. "Creationists never give up. They never do. The language of these bills may be highly sanitized but it is creationist code," she said.

The laws can have a direct impact on a state. In Louisiana, 78 Nobel laureate scientists have endorsed the repeal of the creationist education law there. The Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology has even launched a boycott of Louisiana and cancelled a scheduled convention in New Orleans. Louisiana native and prominent anti-creationist campaigner in the state Zack Kopplin said that those pushing such bills in other states were risking similar economic damage to their local economies. "It will hurt economic development," Kopplin said.

There is also the impact on students, he added, when they are taught controversies in subjects where the overwhelming majority of scientists have long ago reached consensus agreement. "It really hurts students. It can be embarrassing to be from a state which has become a laughing stock in this area," Kopplin said.

Others experts agreed, arguing that it could even hurt future job prospects for students graduating from those states' public high schools. "The jobs of the future are high tech and science-orientated. These lawmakers are making it harder for some of these kids to get those jobs," said Boston.
Click to expand...
Where have you been? We've been putting up with these reactionaries since the 1920's. This shit is a significant reason why I didn't become a science teacher when I had the opportunity. I'm not going to put up with some mouth breathing illiterate telling me what the standards of my profession should be.
 
Shy Guy said:
How narrow. Religion has played an unimaginably huge role in history, and while that role has been complex and often negative, it should be allowed to maintain itself. Granted, I don't believe in theocracy, but politicians should be allowed to draw morality from religious teachings.

It should also be taught in schools - I'm about to get some flak from fellow democrats. World views consist of politics, religion, economics, history, literature and the like. Should we really not be developing the whole person alongside the academic?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with religion being taught in school as long as it is a comparative religious course of study, an elective course and it does not advocate one religion over another nor does it proselytize students in the class. Religion has no place what so ever in the science class room.
 
007 said:
Define science.

If it can't be seen, studied or touched it isn't real?

Show me a photograph of thought?
Click to expand...

Start with the scientific method and we can go from there. Don't be daft, there are not photographs of everything. I don't think we are discussing a visual aids class.
 
007 said:
Aspects from all I think is what SG is suggesting.
Interesting idea, give kids an understanding of all other faiths?

Personally to teach religion is not bad, to preach religion is not good.

Science should be taught as ever changing theories where no solid factual evidence exists.
Click to expand...
So those of us educated in science are supposed to allow persons like you, who are ignorant of science and who don't even understand what the scientific method is, dictate how we should teach our profession? Yea...right. Not gonna happen buddy.
 
Lowaicue said:
Dont be drawn on this. It matters not whether man caused or had anything to do with climate change. We all, even republicans, have a duty to protect our planet and leave as few footprints as we can. The climate IS changing, it has always changed. There IS more pollution and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is LIKELY that that has contributed to climate change but not certain.
It is not about left or right, it is about doing our best to leave a planet worth living on for our children and grandchildren.
Idiots who argue that man did not cause climate change and therefore we need to do nothing have missed the point completely.
This particular idiot exhibits mental health concerns. You, and everyone, would serve him better by ignoring him and encouraging him to seek help. His life has included very unfortunate experiences which seem to be a weight he has difficulty with.
I hope that is not seen as a nasty dig as it is not intended to be.
Click to expand...



dont feel for him too much because hes liar.


He is representative of some actual voters in this country so to NOT deal with him is to allow stupid to fester in our society.
 
007 said:
Science can teach unproven theories as fact though?
Click to expand...

Yes. But you first have to get rid of the notion that a theory is just a guess. In the scientific community, a theory is based on much research. And it is always open to being disproven or amended.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So those of us educated in science are supposed to allow persons like you, who are ignorant of science and who don't even understand what the scientific method is, dictate how we should teach our profession? Yea...right. Not gonna happen buddy.
Click to expand...
How am I dictating anything?
Science is pushing a falsehood in claiming that global warming is caused by human activity.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes. But you first have to get rid of the notion that a theory is just a guess. In the scientific community, a theory is based on much research. And it is always open to being disproven or amended.
Click to expand...
So you cannot prove climate change is a result of human activity?
You will however push it as a fact, vigorously, oppressively and violently.
 
WinterBorn said:
Start with the scientific method and we can go from there. Don't be daft, there are not photographs of everything. I don't think we are discussing a visual aids class.
Click to expand...
Show me factual evidence that emotion exists!
Scientific evidence of course!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top