If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   A half-naked witch doctor is why creationism is still being taught in Louisiana schools. No, really   (slate.com) divider line 62
    More: Stupid, Education Act, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Bobby Jindal  
•       •       •

8998 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-05 03:16:51 PM
7 votes:
Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.
2013-05-05 06:10:46 PM
6 votes:
www.yoism.org
2013-05-05 04:03:14 PM
6 votes:
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

"My work is done, thanks to Da Jindal! MWAHAHAHAHA!"
2013-05-05 04:42:34 PM
5 votes:
I, for one, would love to see children contribute more to science classes by allowing children to propose their own theories about evolution, the beginning of life, and global warming.  Why, when I was a lad of five, I believed aliens farted us into existence on a big ball of shiat created by super dinosaurs that lived in the moon, and these super-dinos were directing our evolution toward being the ultimate half-time snack, and, when humans contained exactly the right ratio of bones/fat/muscle, they would hoover us all up to their secret dino-base in the moon and eat us.

Prove me wrong, evilutionists and creatards.  Don't dare stifle my open-minded pursuit of knowledge!
2013-05-05 07:58:14 PM
4 votes:

Epoch_Zero: TheDarkSaintOfGin: Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.

Except that we, as a species, never were tree-dwelling peoples.  Homo Homo Sapiens (As opposed to Archaic Homo Sapiens) do, in any of our fossil records, have the adaptability to have lived in trees.  To find a possible common ancestor that was even both ground and tree-dwelling you have to go back MUCH farther.

FWIW
Our "closest" ancestor which lived both in trees and on the ground was Australopithecus afrerensis.


Forgot this:
i2.kym-cdn.com
2013-05-05 04:53:17 PM
4 votes:
Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.""Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man-in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed-if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.


The joke is that his "medical ailment" was male pattern baldness.

2013-05-06 12:49:01 AM
3 votes:
Wow, things are getting kind of heated in here! My fellow Farkers, let's take advantage of the wonderful opportunity in this thread to laugh at fundies and post pictures of Christine O'Donnell.
i1243.photobucket.com

Here's an unintentional avant-garde interpretation of Go Tell It on the Mountain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg7uGL6Ku20
2013-05-05 08:06:20 PM
3 votes:
SkinnyHead:
i0.kym-cdn.com
/guys...
2013-05-05 07:07:27 PM
3 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

This of course is true. The inefficiences and maladaptions of the human body make sense as a product of a long evolutionary process that is inherently conservative (in the traditional, non-partisan sense). As the one-off construction of a supernatural engineer however, it just plain sucks.

So either life on Earth wasn't designed, or the designer wasn't very intelligent. Tough choice, that one.


You are clearly not the real Wolf Blitzer.  He never would have written something that intelligent.

cdn.uproxx.com
2013-05-05 04:43:14 PM
3 votes:
I'm reminded of a certain RPG where a roll of a critical success would frequently result in things going horribly right.  I'm envisioning a dude at a celestial game table saying "I roll to con the senator into buying that i'm actually a tribal medicine man"... roll roll roll ... "shiat."
2013-05-05 04:13:26 PM
3 votes:
Did they put the lime in the coconut?
2013-05-05 11:05:07 PM
2 votes:
Just because this thread needs more Christine:
i1243.photobucket.com
2013-05-05 10:10:11 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works.

Now, as for how life got to be life in the beginning, its a fascinating story. Allow me to explain (go get some coffee):

Physics, chemistry and biology are what make life. In that order: You need the physics to attract the elements, the chemistry to form the molecules, and the biology to combine the compounds. Because of this, certain things are always going to happen in the Universe because of physical laws. For instance, all snowflakes are going to form hexagrams because of the triangular shape of water molecules (H2O).

Much like the structure of the snowflake, life also has very few options. Sure, we see unlimited diversity all around us, but it's all obedient to a single basic form, like fingerprints. With all the elements and all the molecules and all the possible choices in the Universe, when it comes down to it, life only has one chance to exist. The secret is carbon.

All life on Earth is carbon-based. Why carbon?

Well, let's break this down statistically. Hydrogen and Helium make up about 98% of the Universe. If we want to argue for random chance creating life, we should all be gaseous entities. But we're not and probably for good reason. Hydrogen is highly flammable and only useful for igniting stars, not life (its simplistic structure makes it an excellent bonding agent but more on that later). And Helium is a noble gas and is therefore inert to the complex chemical reactions required for life as we know it. So no dice there.

Oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur make up about 99.999% of that other 2%. If life can't be made from these basic ingredients, there is absolutely no chance with any heavier elements because they're far too rare to occur in any abundant capacity favorable toward life. So let's work with these.

Neon is also a noble gas, so you can nix that idea. Of the rest, only carbon and silicon are tetravalent, meaning they bond really well with other elements to the point where they can form long, complex chemical chains that might eventually sort of kind of maybe exhibit some characteristics that one might conceivably hesitate to consider almost proto-life. Per se.

Wait - carbon and silicon? So where is the silicon-based life? Especially since silicon is about 135 times more abundant on Earth than carbon. Statistically speaking silicon should have been the runaway winner. There should be a separate, affluent domain of silicon organisms lurking about, vying for foodstuffs. Why are there not any funky silicon-based plants?

Well, as it turns out, silicon just isn't very good at making the compounds that beget the acids that beget the peptides that beget the proteins that beget the enzymes that beget the nucleotides that beget the polynucleotides that beget the RNA that beget the DNA that beget the chromosomes that beget the nucleolus that beget the nuclei that beget the cells that beget the life that beget the multi-cellular life that beget the complex multi-cellular life that beget the intelligent complex multi-cellular life that beget the books with lots of begets in them.

For one thing, silicon is almost 2.5 times heavier than carbon. Its size and density makes it cumbersome for forming long, complex chemical chains required for life. So although the bonds are strong, they frequently break apart. Silicon is like the fat kid on the school playground who makes friends easily but none of his relationships last very long (usually after a ride on the teeter-totter). Carbon is the popular kid - the Ferris Bueller of atoms. It can bond well with damn near anything, especially other carbon.

The other essential ingredients to life are hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. With carbon they make the Big Four. When carbon bonds with oxygen it creates gases called oxides which are really useful for interacting with other chemical bondy things. It does the same thing with hydrogen too - the gases are called alkanes. And with nitrogen it makes nitryls and imines and other gaseous stuff.

Gases are really useful for complex chemical reactions and carbon makes this easy to do. When silicon bonds with the other three elements it makes hydrosilanes, nitrides and quartz (with oxygen), which is a rock that just sits there not doing anything fun.

Probably the most important advantage carbon has over silicon is how it reacts to water. Carbon chains are unaffected in water. Silicon chains dissolve. This is crucial because a water-based medium offers less stress to biochemical processes than a dry one. In other words, gravity is strong, land is hard, and atmospheres don't help atoms get together. If life is going to get invented it needs the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment to work its magic. It's a good thing our planet has plenty of it.

So there you go. Carbon is lighter, more robust, it makes complex longer-lasting chains, it makes gases with other elements and it loves the water. Silicon is heavy, inefficient, hates the water and everything it bonds with turns to hard, lifeless rock.

We have now narrowed down the complexity of a random series of events to one possible atom that is extremely adept at chemical bonds all by itself without anyone's help. There are, of course, hundreds more steps to go, but just getting to this point through physics instead of divine interference is pretty impressive.

So let's whistle through this process as fast as possible and get to the point. During the tumultuous period of early Earth known as the Archean era, complex carbon chemical chains constantly banged into other complex carbon chemical chains. Sometimes nothing happened and sometimes they stuck together, producing organic acids. Sometimes, due to planetary bombardment or other factors, heavy pressure and heat fused these acids together to create peptides. These peptides were simple polymers (repeating molecular structures, usually in some elegant pattern like a lattice) and some of them gathered more organic acids to extend their patterns, in effect copying themselves. No one told them to do this. They were compelled to do it through the physical forces and properties of the Universe. In fact, they can't not do it. They're just doing what molecules do.

The more complicated the copies got, the less accurate the copying became. The laws of physics acted like a sifter of the copying process - the weak copies broke apart and didn't do anything while the strong copies assembled more acids and continued copying.

Once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement: The peptides grew larger and folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins. Some proteins were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process of replication, improving efficiency. The accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids (hydrophobic fat molecules) for use as insular membranes against harm. In time, these became vesicles and then hardened, cellular walls. This permitted the formation of symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption, including vacuoles, centrioles, lysosomes, nucleic acid and ribosomes. These were the first proto-cells.

This is not something that just happened, suddenly and unexpectedly, with no precursor. This was an arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years and needed a lot of favorable conditions to progress through its myriad stages, including an abundant level of carbon, a watery environment, lots of heat and pressure and maybe even an orbital bombardment period or two. That always helps.

The history of life on Earth - which for 90% of living history was smaller than the naked eye - is largely the history of changes in our atmosphere's composition due to chemical reactions within these self-replicating microscopic engines. These things did nothing but consume sunlight and carbon and produce oxygen as a waste product for billions of years. The same oxygen we breathe today.

Our understanding of the origin of life is far from complete. There are still a lot of things we don't quite understand about how it all fits together. Really, none of this is as far-fetched as it sounds. The thing you must understand that it was not some crazy roll of the dice that purposed life - it happened naturally and inevitably. These chemical chains started forming not from some insurmountable cosmic fluke but because they preferred to. The simple physics of the Universe and its properties compelled these molecules to form together and we are the happy result of that.

Life exists because it's impossible for it not to exist.
2013-05-05 10:04:29 PM
2 votes:

Apos: Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?

Awesome!

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 400x240]


media.tumblr.com

"I'm not a witch," my ass...
2013-05-05 09:52:21 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid


How about some ladybug cosplay?

www.gadailynews.com
2013-05-05 08:45:35 PM
2 votes:

WordyGrrl: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

"Because a theory is just a guess!"


az58332.vo.msecnd.netwww.pedaltonepublishing.comwww.hatfieldmusic.comstore.drumbum.comi43.tower.comedwintchilds.comia600804.us.archive.orgthechurchpianist.com
Oh, wow! Music hasn't been proven to actually exist! It's just a theeeeeeeory!!
2013-05-05 06:59:41 PM
2 votes:
img.photobucket.com

ARISE CHICKEN! So I can fark you some more.
2013-05-05 05:23:27 PM
2 votes:

bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?


In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.
2013-05-05 05:08:47 PM
2 votes:
Well yeah but shiat.

Prayer is just hoping. Voodoo gets results.
2013-05-05 04:41:03 PM
2 votes:
freethoughtblogs.com
2013-05-05 04:27:21 PM
2 votes:

BitwiseShift: I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.


img707.imageshack.us
2013-05-05 04:15:12 PM
2 votes:
So Guillory says it's ok to teach Islam in schools as science?
2013-05-05 04:13:04 PM
2 votes:

Apos: [images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 725x408]

"My work is done, thanks to Da Jindal! MWAHAHAHAHA!"


Time for some un-cola.
2013-05-06 07:00:18 PM
1 votes:
Wait...WHICH Doctor's half naked?

/pleasebeTenpleasebeTen
//Eleven would also be acceptable
///Nine's getting too old
////disappointed in you Farkers
2013-05-06 05:52:04 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: //believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn


I'm only rude in Economics threads. Because Austrians piss me off far more than Creationists.
2013-05-06 10:09:54 AM
1 votes:
Lousyiana: Broke and Stupid.

like the rest of the South


did i mention its also Republican territory.  like the rest of the south.
2013-05-06 09:02:36 AM
1 votes:

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Voodoo gets results


yeah, I do.
2013-05-06 05:27:11 AM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


Creationism = a pig
Creation Science = a pig in a tuxedo
Intelligent Design = a pig-shaped tuxedo, but no pig
Teach the Controversy = squirt BBQ sauce on the other guy's tuxedo
2013-05-06 03:35:45 AM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did.


Every portion of the brain lights up under some stimulus, so what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums, exactly?  What does it correlate to that's unexpected?

By telling us that there are regions of the brain that light up when hanging out with a cold-reader, all you're telling us are that the cold reader is a thing, that exists, that the subjects can sense.

... holy shiat, you've proven that psychics aren't invisible.  WOAH MIND BLOWN.
2013-05-06 01:58:14 AM
1 votes:
Come on, stop feeding the troll.

i1243.photobucket.comi1243.photobucket.comi1243.photobucket.com

Also, Senator Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas) mentioned in TFA is a moran. His vouching for the credibility of a witch doctor to allow creationism to be taught in schools is ridiculous. The witch doctor as well as most people with mystical/magickal approaches to spirituality, most likely have a very different (and probably open-ended) view of cosmology than fundies or even followers of organized religions in general.
2013-05-06 01:21:06 AM
1 votes:
So, I'm just curious. After seven pages of getting people to respond to him, how many times has SkinnyHead came?
2013-05-05 10:54:10 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.


That's because evolution is not explaining the ability to replicate. For that you need biochemistry.

Evolution is explaining this:

www.ishkur.com

If you want to disprove evolution, disprove this.

SkinnyHead: And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting. Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?


No.

What "intelligent" agent takes a billion years to create a protein molecule?

/Stupid, Slow and Lazy Design.
2013-05-05 10:13:58 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.


If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?
2013-05-05 10:09:55 PM
1 votes:

Apos: Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?


Awesome!


It's some weird Christine O'Donnell slash SkinnyHead slash psychics are real to me damn it thread. So it's Fark, basically.
2013-05-05 09:58:39 PM
1 votes:

COMALite J: WordyGrrl: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

"Because a theory is just a guess!"

[az58332.vo.msecnd.net image 432x575][www.pedaltonepublishing.com image 350x457][www.hatfieldmusic.com image 173x216][store.drumbum.com image 139x180][i43.tower.com image 200x263][edwintchilds.com image 200x267][ia600804.us.archive.org image 368x500][thechurchpianist.com image 313x400]
Oh, wow! Music hasn't been proven to actually exist! It's just a theeeeeeeory!!


"The laws of physics are not God's laws! therefore... I can fly!"
/Tee hee hee
2013-05-05 09:34:59 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.

The bold part is the really big point.

To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

So, if Randi were putting out a public-service stunt to tell people about evidence, well, that'd still be anti-ethical since he's pretending it's an experiment as hard as he can...but as it is? That's a hell of a lot of blue links on my side, and a guy who  can change the rules of his 'experiment' whenever he wants and has a million dollars at stake on the other.

I know which one I wouldn't submit as a paper.


If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?
2013-05-05 09:34:55 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Skinnyhead's version of God: intellectually on the same level as the guy who designed the Pinto.
2013-05-05 09:11:33 PM
1 votes:
At this point, I am all for Zalgo coming so we can be rid of Skinnyhead.
2013-05-05 09:01:16 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?


Come on e you have been here awhile
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
2013-05-05 08:26:04 PM
1 votes:

Walter Paisley: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

Christine O'Donnell?


She's not a witch just a sexually repressed Ladybug.

/Never really got all the love for Granny Palin but CO'D? Oh yeah, big time.
2013-05-05 08:22:01 PM
1 votes:

culebra: To be fair, he does eat da poo poos.


t0.gstatic.com
2013-05-05 08:09:37 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: I don't have anybody on ignore. Frankly, I don't see the point.

I don't let what trolls write get me exercised (usually, I just skim over their nonsense) and, it's possible they might occasionally say something interesting or, at least, mildly entertaining. So why would I ignore them? I'm a grown man, not a delicate flower.


Interestingly enough, the people who usually say bullshiat like this are concern trolls, themselves.
2013-05-05 07:59:22 PM
1 votes:
Really? I'm first?

ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
2013-05-05 07:58:07 PM
1 votes:

Raharu: Imagine this woman with a very skinnyhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekFGksvuDU
Richard Dawkins debates Wendy Wright (She is however very wrong)


Accurate description:

Wright: There's no evidence that evolution exists.
Dawkins: Yes there is evidence, it's in museums
Wright: Well I just don't buy it.

Good lord is this woman a vapid idiot.

She also seems to think that evolution is the explanation for all the bad stuff in the world.
2013-05-05 07:45:42 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Darwinists


i159.photobucket.com
2013-05-05 07:24:33 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.


David Brinn finds your comments very uplifting.

*blink*
2013-05-05 07:07:33 PM
1 votes:

Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.


Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...
2013-05-05 05:25:48 PM
1 votes:

Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.


That was you?  I kept saying "hi" through the ages, and you just ignored me. Talk about antisocial.
2013-05-05 05:16:56 PM
1 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


I find myself strangely attracted to you.
2013-05-05 05:15:30 PM
1 votes:

Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.


How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?
2013-05-05 05:09:13 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?


So, the bill does not allow for discussion of creationism/intelligent design in the classroom, because neither of those things use logic or critical thinking skills.

"Teacher, the Bible says god created life, can we discuss that?"
"No, because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, so it could not create life.  Prove god exists, scientifically, prove such a god could create life, scientifically, get it peer reviewed and published, then we will discuss it."

"Teacher, my pastor said that god intelligently designed humans, can we discuss that?"
"No, because there is no scientific evidence that the body is intelligently designed. The human body is full of flaws and weaknesses that no intelligent designer would allow to exist.  Logically,  it would be more likely to suppose that the body was designed by an unintelligent or or evil being.  But, unless you can scientifically prove the existence of even this piss-poor designer, we must discount their existence, as well."

Whelp, that's a waste of five minutes of class time.
2013-05-05 05:08:44 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?

Considering we're talking about religious people, yes.


Creationism is not taught at any of the Catholic schools in New Orleans, but bigots like you find facts inconvenient.
2013-05-05 05:04:42 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.


Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.
2013-05-05 05:01:08 PM
1 votes:

thamike: Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.""Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man-in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed-if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.


The joke is that his "medical ailment" was male pattern baldness  ED


FTFY
2013-05-05 04:59:48 PM
1 votes:

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?

No, no it does not. All this does is open the way for bullshiat to be taught in the classroom. Do not teach religion in the science classroom. We don't go around teaching biology in the a religion class.


Teaching critical thinking skills and logical analysis is now considered bullshiat?
2013-05-05 04:56:48 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Isn't that an anti-logic position?


Like saying someone believes things are settled based on fark threads, when he neither said nor implied any such thing, fark face?
2013-05-05 04:56:33 PM
1 votes:

BitwiseShift: I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.


25.media.tumblr.com

Think about it, it's f*cking genius!
2013-05-05 04:44:47 PM
1 votes:
Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.
2013-05-05 04:40:04 PM
1 votes:
...after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had

[idontwanttoliveonthisplanet.jpg]
2013-05-05 04:33:44 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: evolution


Settled. No controversy.

the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.

global warming

Developing, but as far as climate scientists are concerned, not very controversial. See about a thousand previous Fark threads.

...and human cloning.

That one would be an interesting topic of discussion for an ethics class.
2013-05-05 04:24:06 PM
1 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


bing bang
walla walla

they are going about it the wrong way
(seriously)

use this ill written junk
to "teach the controversy"   of say
dianetics
voo doo (hey we already got one convert)
kama sutra
the invisible flying spegetti monster

then after that gets outrage
point at those politico's as having brought in those "false religions" on purpose
2013-05-05 04:21:50 PM
1 votes:
I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.
 
Displayed 62 of 62 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report