You can but it would be a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
You can but it would be a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No. I am saying they more than valued it- they implemented it.The sole philosophical foundation for the document is what we find in the document.
There may well have been other influences. I'm not denying that. The philosophical foundation must be in the document. Where else are we going to find it.
Tut
No it is not .Without discounting the impact the Enlightenment had on the founders thinking ,it was not the sole inspiration. As an example; the governing bodies are closer in structure to the Iroquois Confederacy model than any European Parliamentary model .
The founders had high hopes when they wrote the constitution, but as humans they didn't exactly meet the mark, because history tells us for all their morals,and high hopes, they had many exemptions to the goals they professed, and they justified through their morality, about what men qualified for life and liberty,and the pursuit of happiness, and the rest they subjugated.
Just as today, the minorities are subjugated by that same morality that continues to deny them access to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Saying the words is the easy part.Turning them into actions has been less easy.
Yes, and Democrats should be ashamed for holding African-Americans hostage.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I showed you what the Texas school book people wanted to do with the text of our history books.. They want to DUMB it down.. They want to bring RELIGION into science class. You do too, don't you??
Religion ISN'T science... As long as people like you INSIST on dumbing down our science curriculum, we're going to fall FURTHER and FURTHER down that list...
You're DAMN right I blame the right wing.
excon
My offer at compromise has been made clear more than once so I'm not going to honor your distraction with a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The fact is liberals have been running public schools and the majority of higher education for decades, the failing results belong to them.
You're just mad because they run from you guys like a plague, and cannot understand why they refuse to act against their own self interest like you guys do. Females, and minorities have rejected the policies of Romney, and the conservative right wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
States run their own school districts, and the red ones are no more successful than the blue ones.Quote:
The fact is liberals have been running public schools and the majority of higher education for decades, the failing results belong to them.
I seem to have missed the compromises you and Tom have submitted, sorry, if you could help me find it,I would be grateful.
Did you not read my posting about Michelle Rhee ?
And what is the compromise? Where do the kids go that are not accepted ,due to no more room, or underqualified? Your position is unclear to me so I beg your indulgence.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Blacks don't run from me and I don't run from them, neither does Mitt - unlike the current president.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Dude, we're not the ones telling them that all their problems are caused by white people and their only hope is government, particularly black politicians. We can see how the first black president has shown that vision to be hopeless, so yeah, why would blacks vote against being used as tools for the left's big-government agenda?
Or why would women vote against being told they're too helpless to take care of themselves, they're all just Julia's waiting for Obama to come to their rescue?
It just tells me the liberal indoctrination in schools has worked, blacks and (liberal) women are now too stupid to see what's in their own best interest.
Sorry, not going to do your work for you.Quote:
I seem to have missed the compromises you and Tom have submitted, sorry, if you could help me find it,I would be grateful.
That's been the conservative religious argument for centuries. YOU know what's best for someone else because they are stupid, and only you are smart.Quote:
It just tells me the liberal indoctrination in schools has worked, blacks and (liberal) women are now too stupid to see what's in their own best interest.
Translation- " My way, or the highway"!! Your interpretation of the word compromise is FLAWED!
Follow-up to the last post, Obama has made another move in his imperial presidency, he just gutted work rules from welfare reform.
Yes of course, one more way for the class warrior in chief to divide America and build on his government dependent constituency instead of helping people improve their lot in life.Quote:
Chairman Jordan: Add Welfare Reform to the List of Laws Obama Won’t Follow
Washington, Jul 12 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan responded to today’s announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that it would violate the 1996 welfare reform law by waiving work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract. In exchange for taxpayer-funded TANF payments, the law calls on able-bodied adults to work, look for work, take classes, or undergo drug and alcohol counseling. It’s the tough love that gives people motivation to help themselves.”
“By waiving the law's requirements, President Obama will make it harder for Americans to escape poverty. He is hurting the very people he claims to help.”
Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws, King Obama has decreed it and thus it is so.Quote:
“Today’s action is also a blatant violation of the law. After immigration, education, marriage, and religious conscience protections, we can now add welfare reform to the list of laws President Obama refuses to follow.”
Been hanging out in opposite land again Tal? I made the compromise offer, you first ignored it, then said it was too difficult, then said you missed it so you're just pulling answers out of your rectum instead of dealing with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If you are saying that government has manifested itself in practice through a variety of inspirations then I am happy to go along with that.
However, that is to the point I am making. The history of government is littered with examples of theory not quite matching practice. Sometimes it turns out that theory has very little do do with practice. But again this is not the issue I am raising.
I was putting up a challenge to the claim that the founders were NOT committed to secular government. I think we have established they were because the document is actually a secular document. Isn't that a commitment?
Therefore, I know they were in fact committed to a secular government because the evidence is in the document. Are you wanting to challenge this aspect? I am not challenging your other claims as they may well be correct for all I know.
Tut
Then we wasted a bunch of words. I have never challenged thatQuote:
was putting up a challenge to the claim that the founders were NOT committed to secular government. I think we have established they were because the document is actually a secular document. Isn't that a commitment?
Therefore, I know they were in fact committed to a secular government because the evidence is in the document. Are you wanting to challenge this aspect? I am not challenging your other claims as they may well be correct for all I know.
. But I think you are missing the point... Trust me ;the fact that a "secular state " was estabilshed is being taught .It iis drilled into our heads .;;;;; and the rest is being excluded from the liberal education . It is a purging of anything that doesn't toe the liberal line. That is why Texas is taking the bull by the horn... to reintroduce the missing facts from public education.
Being a product of the same education;it took me years to deprogram .
I am assuming you have read Ex's link. So you are happy with everything that is said in the article. Does this represent in you view what the curriculum should pursue in relation to history and evolution? In other words, this approach would represent is a legitimate reflection of some of the missing 'facts'?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
Yes they would... It is way too simplistic to say 'they created a secular government ' while excluding the other factors that influenced their thinking .I have provided enough evidence of the fact that there was much more on their mind than secular Enlightenment thought. To exclude it is to create an agenda based education system .
Don't worry about it Tom. It's a circular argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
Maybe from the outside looking in... From here it amts to another front in a ideological war. Not all the 'facts ' taught in our public k-12 education system are facts ;or if they are facts ,they are facts spun and filtered through an ideological agenda. The Texas school board is looking to restore balance.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Let me say again, that Intelligent Design is RELIGION.. If you think it's science, and INSIST on teaching it in SCIENCE class, you're contributing to the decline of those numbers in the OP..
That is just a fact, and I don't care if they don't believe it in Texas.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes, well if everything else fails may as well conduct a war.
Well Ex ;Tut and I were discussing the founders and their beliefs .
But if the conversation is about ID ;then let me tell you AGAIN ,that ID is not Science . It is not science because it does not offer an alternate scientific explanations to the highway size holes is pokes through Darwin's theories. Instead it's fall back position is Creationism ;and as you know,there is no way to prove or falsify Creationism . Therefore it is not a science.
Tut ,they drew 1st blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
First of all Texas is not teaching that ID or creation is science. You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
P.S. Is gutting work requirements for welfare part of making America exceptional again?
And here I thought the President wanted to go back to Clintoon era policies .
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, I don't have a problem with alternative theories.
I have problem is with people who put forward alternative theories and fail to have a understanding of the theories they are putting forward.
Tom creationism is an explanation as darwinism is an explanation and contrary to popular view neither are science. What I want to know is if we have been here for millennia and some scientists think this is so, what caused our sudden development?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Clete ,I said the ID people have poked huge holes in Darwin's hypothesis,and don't offer a scientific theory in return. However ,certain parts of Darwin's hypothesis have been validated as scientific theory .
My position has always been that evolution and creation are not inherently in conflict. Nor will be creationism and the apparent confirmation of the existence of a Higgs Boson (yes I used Capital letter in Boson to honor the forgotten scientist in the name ;Satyendra Nath Bose).
So we have discovered yet another among the two hundred particles that make up matter as we currently know it, Hooray! We can now go on to something more important and inherrently useful because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science, have we discovered a way to make things heavier, MacDonald's outstripped that research by years.
You see there really isn't a practical application for Darwin's theories because what he really theorised was that the earth was older than we thought. Well maybe it is, our written history encompasses about six thousand years, before that who knows? But one thing I do know is that those objects we are looking at in the cosmos for the most part no longer exist and so I don't see how that fact and Darwin are related. I also know that the dinosaurs disappeared in a mass extinction event and our written history includes such an event and that if we had been here for millions of years our species, because of it's very nature would no longer exist
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hi Clete,
These types of question would be better answer by physicists and biologists, but I will try a different perspective.
There is link between Darwin and the Higges Boson, and that link is the scientific method.
The Standard Model of partical physics has been around a long time. The problem is that you can only work with what you have. If this Standard Model is the only one available then this is what you work with.
As it turns out the Standard Model is inadequate when it comes to explaining mass. Yes, you are right the process has been for a long time smashing larger particles into smaller ones in order to get ever smaller ones.
The big problem is that when we total the mass of these particles they only can account for about 1% of the total mass. Where is the other 99%? Well that is the big question.
In terms of what is being talked about in this post- that must be one massive hole -in the explanation. I guess we can say that Darwin and Higgs (for the purpose of this exercise) have a lot in common. Large holes in the theories.
I think it is a common misunderstanding to think that science has all the answers. For some reason we seem to have this obsession with knowing 'the truth'. If something is not a total explanation then it can be discarded. I think it must be some type of psychological malaise we humans suffer from.Science would never even begin to say it has discovered the whole truth.
The reality is that science couldn't care less about the holes in their theories. They actually welcome it. The more holes the better. All science is interested in is filling in the holes using the scientific method. If the theory doesn't fit the observation then we think of a new theory. In this case the Standard Model is inadequate, hence Higges's new theory for the origin of mass.
In the final analysis Darwin is no different to Higgs. It is just that Darwin gets a lot more bad publicity because he seems closer to home. As you say, in the end most people couldn't care less about Higgs. After all it is a long way from home.
If you are interested I can have a go at trying to answer the questions in your previous post.
Can't say I will be successful though.
Tut
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It rains... We know WHY it rains.. But, I think it's the rain fairy... That's an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain.. So, according to YOU, we should present THAT theory, as an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain, because it might make children THINK...
In reality, what it would do, is make the children STUPIDER, and STUPIDER, and even STUPIDER than that..
Now, tom has disavowed teaching ID IN a science class, but apparently YOU haven't... I think YOU represent the right wing in that regard MORE than tom does. Therefore, I say again, the things YOU, and your right wing cohorts, want to do, and ARE DOING, in our schools is the single item that is MOST responsible for the decline in the numbers in the OP.
excon
Ex ;you cannot deny the dominance that liberal progressives have had in shaping the majority of the public school agenda in our lifetime. Your conclusion could only be correct if there was a sudden drop in the last couple years in Texas only. The conservative kick back for more balance in the curriculum goes a lot further than ID and hard science .
And because you can't find a practical application means that one doesn't exist ? I bet someone has thought of one ;maybe they are already working on it. Don't forget the spin off inventions that came from the race to the moon.Quote:
because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science,
Fair enough, but the left here has a collective hissy fit at the mere thought of presenting a possibility other than Darwinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Darwinism and abortion are unassailable religious dogmas to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom I'll try to answer both yourself and Tut at the same time, Science for sciences sake leads us nowhere but into a great big hole. Scientists split the atom, found a practical application and we have been trying to deal with the problems they created ever since.Quote:
If you are interested I can have a go at trying to answer the questions in your previous post.Can't say I will be successful though.
Tut
There are some like yourself who like to justify the space race by the spinoffs it created when in fact it was just the US and the USSR satisfying their ego and testing some weapons at the same time
Tut the questions I was asking were rhetorical, I wasn't looking for a dissertation on science and darwinism. I don't happen to think that just because we think a thought it should be explored. Like Einstein, I just want to know the thoughts of God because everything else is just the details and that is all science is doing, playing with the details
Well Clete ,humans blew that chance at no curiosity when Adam gave Eve the apple.Also ,I'd argue that the splitting of the atom was a good thing and probably the key to our energy future.
"That which is impenetrable to us really exists.
behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion."Albert Einstein
Yes Einstein had it right . There is no conflict between science and religion. You should consider that .
You might have a point if you weren't just making assumptions. That seems to be a problem with liberals, the absence of evidence reinforces their preconceived notions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm OK with leaving the ideology out of public education, but I said that already though I think you ignored it and Tal danced all around it after saying such a compromise was too difficult. That's my compromise and I'll throw in a bonus - let's leave religion out - including the religious dogma aspect of evolution.
Progressive indoctrination as opposed to critical thinking makes children stupider and stupider as your stats from this OP demonstrate perfectly.
Then why don't you tell kids you don't know? At least that's the truth. Maybe they will follow their own journey to facts and evidence, without our prejudices.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 AM. |