Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

GOP Morons fighting it out for the Alabama Governership

  • 12-05-2010 08:10AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭


    I speak quite contemptuously of the modern Republican Party. I hope people don't mistake this for an ad hominem style, but rather recognise it as an acceptable and appropriate way to talk about dangerous idiots

    Via http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36337_Moron_vs._Moron_in_Alabama_Governor_Race
    In Alabama, the "True Republican PAC" is running an advertisement mocking Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne for supporting the teaching of evolution in schools.

    Yes, you read that right — these "True Republicans" are so proudly, invincibly ignorant that they're making fun of a fellow Republican for not being a moron.

    Except — Byrne actually is a moron too, just like the "True Republicans." And he's outraged that his moron credentials were questioned.
    Byrne responds to this "despicable attack" with a statement: "I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God… I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books."


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,083 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    What is really sad is that I am not one little bit shocked or surprised, I think I have just accepted these people as the norm now, that is really dangerous !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Oh God.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Jeez.
    Welcome to America, please set your clocks back 150 years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    My Boss is a Creationist....

    But then his kids are homeschooled.

    So its not like he's going to try and mess with other people's kids. His own kids are his responsibility and I can respect that. Actually a smart guy, just believes differently where we came from.

    What really pisses me off is people like these who want to impose this on others. Its fcukwitted. "God Created the Heaven and the Earth and put Dinosoaurs here to test your faith" "But teacher I don't believe in God, my family is Bhuddist/Atheist/Whatever" "Ohhhh Im sorry little girl. Here, have an F. Now you have no chance of getting to Yale."

    /okay, heyperbole :p


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    The Republican PAC ad against Byrne sounds as if they want a Bible informed theocracy rather than a representative democracy that constitutionally separates church from state?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Let's not forget that Alabama is the state that just a few years ago banned the sales of dildos and other, assorted adult toys.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Alabama politics? The State flag says it all.

    flag_alabama.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Overheal wrote: »
    My Boss is a Creationist....

    But then his kids are homeschooled.

    thats the problem i have with homeschooling

    he shouldnt get to decide to handicap his kids with his beliefs they should have a full and complete education(maybe even including peoples opinions on creationism) and left to make up their own mind

    and i apply that to any belief be it creationism, religon in general or atheism or political / social views


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    thats the problem i have with homeschooling

    he shouldnt get to decide to handicap his kids with his beliefs they should have a full and complete education(maybe even including peoples opinions on creationism) and left to make up their own mind

    and i apply that to any belief be it creationism, religon in general or atheism or political / social views
    I've discussed this with him. If you go find the numbers, the percentage of Home-schoolers reaching college level are higher than that of public-schoolers.

    Theres something to it.

    You're basically saying a Parent should not be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?? I'm baffled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Overheal wrote: »
    I've discussed this with him. If you go find the numbers, the percentage of Home-schoolers reaching college level are higher than that of public-schoolers.

    Theres something to it.

    You're basically saying a Parent should not be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?? I'm baffled.

    i didnt say i was against homeschooling i said i had one problem with it

    homeschooling is fine as long as the kids are taught to a certain basic minimum

    ie maths to a certain standard science to a certain standard english etc

    the parent should not get to choose to just leave out a massive part of the curriculim like science just because of their personal views

    also upbringing and education are not the same things

    education is one part of your upbringing

    edit; and because the parent IS responsible for the kids upbringing they should be forced to provide a good well rounded education


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I agree with Standards but fail to see why Creationism or Evolutionism prohibits an education about science.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Overheal wrote: »
    I agree with Standards but fail to see why Creationism or Evolutionism prohibits an education about science.

    evolution is probably the most important scientific theory ever

    believing the earth is 10K years old is contradictory to so much science that a belief in it pretty much means you dont believe in science

    and that is fine if that is what you believe but you should not force that belief on your kids

    i dont mind people believeing that god created the universe but if he did all the evidence says he did it with a big bang billions of years ago and as result of the big bang he created people evolved from one cell organisms

    i also dont care what the politicians believe as long as they keep it to themselves and preach tolerance and freedom of choice instead of forcing their beliefs down childrens throats


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    How is preaching to people not to force Creationism down their throats any different than saying Evolutionism is the most Important Theory in the Universe and we should ram it down people's throats?

    I happen to adopt the Theory of Evolution but what you're saying is contradictory.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Overheal wrote: »
    How is preaching to people not to force Creationism down their throats any different than saying Evolutionism is the most Important Theory in the Universe and we should ram it down people's throats?

    I happen to adopt the Theory of Evolution but what you're saying is contradictory.

    Because the evolution is based on solid, testable science, creationism, is not, it's a belief.

    Your acting like they are comparable somehow, which they are not it. It's not a choice of "believing" A or B.

    One is based on fact and observation, the other is a purely made up story with zero emperical evidence.

    One is science, the other is religion.

    To teach religion as science is dangerous and damaging both to the individual and to society as religion encourages blind adherence to it's representatives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    sorry overheal maybe i am not being clear

    while personally deep down i agree with memnoch i am prepared to accept people dont agree with me

    and i am prepared to accept that kids be made aware of creationism as an idea / theory whatever you want to call it in school or at home AS LONG AS it is not put forth as any sort of scientific theory that is based on anything but faith teach it as what it is dont try and dress it up and certainly dont try and put it in a science classroom beside say evolution

    if there is a homeschool enviroment i think the parent is obliged to teach both there are obviously going to be personal bias's that make one lean towards the other but this will happen in the classroom aswell and i dont have a problem with that

    i have a major problem with a creationist teaching his kids science and when they get to the chapter on evolution they skip it and replace it with the religous idea of creationism


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Wow.

    Just. Wow.

    Okay, I'm an athiest so I'll say this initially. What's the big deal about the bible.

    It's a book. Written by men.

    Equating Creatonism as some sort of legitimate explanation is up there with saying that God poured the milk into my cornflakes this morning.

    Going on television to seek election promoting your own stupidity is just, well wow. just wow.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard




    Going on television to seek election promoting your own stupidity is just, well wow. just wow.

    Not if you're promoting it to a stupid ignorant electorate. Then it's clever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Memnoch wrote: »
    It's not a choice of "believing" A or B.
    .....yyyyes it is. Its a Theory of Relativity for example: Not a Law of Relativity. Much unlike the Law of Momentum. Or the four laws of Thermodynamics.

    I've already told you that I don't adopt Creationism haven't I? What I am however trying to convey is that a Parent has a Right to teach their kids about the Theory of Creationism if they wish.

    And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Junior Cert never once said a damn thing about Evolutionary Theory; and I did not take up Biology for my Leaving. I still somehow managed to graduate and make it into College without being a PhD in Evolutionary Sciences.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Overheal wrote: »
    .....yyyyes it is. Its a Theory of Relativity for example: Not a Law of Relativity. Much unlike the Law of Momentum. Or the four laws of Thermodynamics.

    I've already told you that I don't adopt Creationism haven't I? What I am however trying to convey is that a Parent has a Right to teach their kids about the Theory of Creationism if they wish.

    And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Junior Cert never once said a damn thing about Evolutionary Theory; and I did not take up Biology for my Leaving. I still somehow managed to graduate and make it into College without being a PhD in Evolutionary Sciences.

    "Theory" in a scientific sense does not mean unproven. The Theory of Gravity is both a theory and a law.

    There is no controversy over the Theory of Evolution in in the scientific community.

    A parent certainly has the right to teach their child creationism, but doesn't have the right to have schools teach it to other people's children.

    The Bible is well worth studying in school as it is an important part of Western culture, civilization, literature. I read all the stories in the Bible as a child because I wanted to know the background to the Prodigal Son, David and Goliath, the Good Samaritan ect.

    However Creationism is something else, it makes Scientific claims that have no basis what so ever. Remember that it's supporters call it Intelligent Design, they put it forth as a legitimate theory. It should not be taught in schools. It's not a matter of two competing theories and both should be taught. One is Scientific fact, the other Theological fantasy.

    Getting back to the original point, I find it amusing that the Republicans in the race for the governorship are effectively arguing which one of them is a a bigger idiot. I suppose who ever can convince the Conservative base they are dumber wins?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,796 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Using the word "Theory" in both is a bit misleading.

    "Theory of Evolution" means scientific theory:
    In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.

    "Theory of Creationism" is not the same:
    Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.

    Talking about them both in any comparable way, you need to drop the word to save confusion. Otherwise, poor creationists get confused.

    With regard to teaching your own children creationism, it's akin to teaching them that the world is flat and when they grow up, they discover their parents lied to them......and it's not nice to lie.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    smokingman wrote: »
    Using the word "Theory" in both is a bit misleading.

    "Theory of Evolution" means scientific theory:
    In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.
    Indeed. It's rather unfortunate that this needs to be explained so often when creationism and evolution are mentioned in the same topic. While this isn't a science forum (nor is it a religious one), it's important that people realise the disparity between "Theory of evolution" and "theory of creation" when comparing and contrasting the two. Unfortunately, so many appear not to do so.

    The distinctions between "scientific theory", "everyday theory or basic idea or notion" and "theoretical" are both wide and important. Ditto with the distinction between a "scientific theory" and a "scientific law" but that's not part of the relevant confusion here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Either way, the debate stems from the Constituency of Alabama wishing Creationism to become the Curriculum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,796 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Either way, the debate stems from the Constituency of Alabama wishing Creationism to become the Curriculum.

    In which case I say let them have it - seriously.
    It would be a good test case for scientists to see how a populace de-evolves - sure they don't believe in Evolution anyway so they wouldn't be worried :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    There will be a repeat of Kitzmiller v. Dover if they actually try it. It will be expensive, losing and will make people look very very silly. It's a cute election gambit by hopefuls in counties or states where this sort of idiocy is more popular than in other areas but all they'll ultimately end up with is a supreme court ruling that creationism is religious-based and ID is creationism in newer clothes and that's all. I'm not so cocky as to say the battle is over as there always seems to be a new wave of wannabes pimping the teaching of creationism as science in schools but there are idiots everywhere who believe that the decision in the Scopes trial was correct and are openly hankering after a return to those days. Some of those idiots run for election, that's how it is. You think these guys are all Republicans? You've got to be kidding me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    So we live, we die, and we're gone? If so, it’s a pretty sad state of existence. Anyone here ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

    One of the best quotes I’ve read about the formation of life was from the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge, who’s opinion that the chance development of life on earth was nonsense of the highest order.
    …anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10(to the power of 50) blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.

    Hearing it put that way, it sure doesn’t sound too idiotic to me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Amerika wrote: »
    So we live, we die, and we're gone? If so, it’s a pretty sad state of existence. Anyone here ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

    One of the best quotes I’ve read about the formation of life was from the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge, who’s opinion that the chance development of life on earth was nonsense of the highest order.

    Hearing it put that way, it sure doesn’t sound too idiotic to me.

    Anyone who believes that such events or develops can themselves be quantified usable probabilitites represents the height of intellectual dishonesty and him/herself is a master practitioner of the art of nonsense.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Did you ever hear of a theory that if a peice of string can get itself into a knot it will!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Amerika wrote: »
    So we live, we die, and we're gone?

    the existence of god and creationism are not dependant on eachother

    i have no problem with people believing in a god

    i have a serious issue with people believing the earth is 10,000 years old, but if they want to thats up to them, idiotic, but up to them

    my point is parents donts have the right choose what they teach their kids if they are going to teach creationism they MUST be forced to teach evolution so the kid can make up its own mind

    If so, it’s a pretty sad state of existence. Anyone here ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

    One of the best quotes I’ve read about the formation of life was from the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge, who’s opinion that the chance development of life on earth was nonsense of the highest order.


    Hearing it put that way, it sure doesn’t sound too idiotic to me.

    /facepalm

    with the size of the universe the chances of it NOT happening are what is small


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,075 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Alabama politics? The State flag says it all.

    flag_alabama.gif
    Isn't that the same as the Irish flag when it was part of the United Kingdom?
    Overheal wrote: »
    .....yyyyes it is. Its a Theory of Relativity for example: Not a Law of Relativity. Much unlike the Law of Momentum. Or the four laws of Thermodynamics.
    Incorrect. The 'Laws' of science can be wrong as well, they are just based on repeated observation. "A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation" (Wikipedia). Newton's law of universal gravitation is wrong, and has in fact been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of relativity

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



Advertisement