Thread: Tennessee: Nearly as stupid today as in 1925

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Lol @ "fiction"

That's why there's all those pictures of people using a wheelbarrow full of gold to buy a loaf of bread

There's a good chance the second most important fiat reserve currency may not exist in a few years, but gold is fiction. Got it.

Now you're going to talk about fiat currency and the gold standard?

I can't wait to see what you'll say!

Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Ever try to make a sandwich using 2 bricks of gold for Bread?


Gold is worth something only because people believe it is worth something.

Tell me this, can you really get 1500.00 dollars worth of use from an ounce of soft and shiny metal?

?

So why is your dollar worth something?

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

?

So why is your dollar worth something?

I can wipe my ass with a dollar (cotton, you know) so thats a more basic value than the corrosion free not as good conductor that gold is.


was it canned products in postwar Japan or Korea that everyone assigned value to some canned meat/veg (20 for a car, 5 for a steak dinner, 2 for ronteles nonvirgina bunghole) and when someone opened it to find it was spoiled was told "you aren't supposed ot eat that, it's for trading"

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

I can wipe my ass with a dollar (cotton, you know) so thats a more basic value than the corrosion free not as good conductor that gold is.


was it canned products in postwar Japan or Korea that everyone assigned value to some canned meat/veg (20 for a car, 5 for a steak dinner, 2 for ronteles nonvirgina bunghole) and when someone opened it to find it was spoiled was told "you aren't supposed ot eat that, it's for trading"

Rontele would have a tough time rolling these home after a night working the docks (not to mention the constant visual reminder)

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

Rontele would have a tough time rolling these home after a night working the docks (not to mention the constant visual reminder)

He'd make cufflinks out of them.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

Wow, you shut up fast! How nice!

Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

I think your posts need more exclamation points, ms. benes

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

He'd make cufflinks out of them.

I thought they were for webbed feet

Originally Posted by archer

...I think conservatives like us have to be very careful about being perceived as unscientific because of our opposition to Evolution...

ROFIMOPFLSH!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-fi...124614291.html

This goes here

Context might be useful here. On the surface this sounds as stupid as the Scopes trial. I am curious what the back story is.

trollling trolling trolling, keep those wannabebros trolling! ilikeeelsex!

PM Dowork dude

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-fi...124614291.html

This goes here

Weird, you guys seemed so against indoctrination at the start of this thread,what happened that now it doesn't bother you?

Originally Posted by archer

The world is not flat. It is, in actuality, round. Even though I am a conservative and I support Romney and his War with Iran, I think conservatives like us have to be very careful about being perceived as unscientific because of our opposition to Evolution and I think the idea that the world is flat, which I'm told is a scientific error, is not very helpful.

.Funny..

Originally Posted by USNews

"The bill, which seeks to "[help] students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories."

Yes, we can all see what they're driving at here, BUT isn't the very thing they're suggesting to do at the core of any good scientist? No matter what you believe, you should always try to prove AND disprove your ideas.

What is wrong with looking at the strengths and weaknesses of evolution? Remember, truth does not fear examination! If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelmingly bulletproof, then you have nothing to worry about, right? I understand your concerns about injecting religion into the classrooms, but I saw nothing in the bill mentioning religion. Until we see them saying anything about Christianity or any other religion in a science classroom, then what are you so worried about?

My wife is a school teacher and had to go to an ACLU workshop last year, in which I got to read the handbook on what is allowed and not allowed in the American classroom. Most of it was actually pretty agreeable and even commendable. However, what caught my attention is that in regard to science, it said that the very topic at hand was not even allowed. Without even mentioning ID or religion, the book said that a teacher is not allowed to ask students to even look at the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. What kind of science is THAT? Where you're not even allowed to question? Not allowed to critically examine something? I understand only wanting to present one side (evolution) if that's where the overwhelming evidence lies and the school year so limited, but to not allow any discourse on the topic seems to be in poor scientific taste.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Yes, we can all see what they're driving at here, BUT isn't the very thing they're suggesting to do at the core of any good scientist? No matter what you believe, you should always try to prove AND disprove your ideas.

What is wrong with looking at the strengths and weaknesses of evolution? Remember, truth does not fear examination! If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelmingly bulletproof, then you have nothing to worry about, right? I understand your concerns about injecting religion into the classrooms, but I saw nothing in the bill mentioning religion. Until we see them saying anything about Christianity or any other religion in a science classroom, then what are you so worried about?

My wife is a school teacher and had to go to an ACLU workshop last year, in which I got to read the handbook on what is allowed and not allowed in the American classroom. Most of it was actually pretty agreeable and even commendable. However, what caught my attention is that in regard to science, it said that the very topic at hand was not even allowed. Without even mentioning ID or religion, the book said that a teacher is not allowed to ask students to even look at the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. What kind of science is THAT? Where you're not even allowed to question? Not allowed to critically examine something? I understand only wanting to present one side (evolution) if that's where the overwhelming evidence lies and the school year so limited, but to not allow any discourse on the topic seems to be in poor scientific taste.

I don't mind seeing creationism taught in possibly a history course or a course on world religion, but where I do have a problem is when it's portrayed as a scientific theory. It's simply not a scientific theory...neither is ID or other similar ideas on where we came from. So the problem is that politicians are trying to force educators to make creationism, ID, etc. equivalent to the theory of evolution taught in tandem during a science class. Even if you believe every word in the bible, you should understand that religion does not equal science, thus creationism does not equal science.

I seem to move around on this issue, Man is a very unique Mammal. I for most of my life have considered myself an Atheist who believes in the Moral foundations of organized religion, Just long learned rules developed so humans can get along in a community. We are the only being on this planet with FREE WILL. And there are rules to live by in a community.

How those rules and morality are impressed on (Church) or some other way it still needs to be done in order for humans to function together in a community.

But as I get older, I no longer see people with a belief in (A higher power) as ignorant or naive. There is an awful lot about man, that today cannot be explained. Maybe? Just maybe we are not simply a logical progression of evolution?

I try not to dwell on it, Rather just focusing on being a good human and enjoying what I am.?

To dismiss the Idea that man on Earth might be the creation from someplace else or a God like entity, is not well thought out?

Thoughts on the part of this thread that ISN'T a year old?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Thoughts on the part of this thread that ISN'T a year old?

I guess someone could check and see if the measure ever passed? I think the state has multiple lawsuits pending in federal Court?

For a moment, please remove religion, creationism, ID, and all such things from the debate. Just for a moment, please.

Here is the problem that I have had with the way evolution has been presented to me. It's been presented to me just as dogmatically and ideologically as anything I've ever heard from the other side. That would be ok IF the science behind certain ideas backing evolution were more sound, BUT as I've witnessed over the years, scientific findings have changed drastically over the years.

For example, I was taught in school my entire life that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles, period, end of story. As a kid, I questioned that, wondering how it could have been possible to evolve from a 3-chambered heart as most reptiles have (minus the alligator/croc), to a 4-chambered heart as mammals have, and evolve from cold-blooded to warm-blooded. Now we're hearing that some may have been warm-blooded endotherms! Ok, I support that theory that some may have indeed been endothermic, but why then was the previous theory presented as such, rock solid fact? I in fact did ask that question as a kid, and my science teacher quickly shot me down, saying we know that was for sure the case because of all the overwhelming paleontological evidence. That's the way science classes have been for a long time, and still are. You are not allowed to question the establishment. Well, looky here. Looks like 'ol Austin might have been right as a smart-ass lil kid after all! (This is one reason I think the proposed bill is there. To protect teachers and students like me who like to ask questions).

Another example, is the infamous "Haeckel's Embryos" illustration. That was pretty much tossed out by the scientific community not long after WWI, and was never meant to be the end-all of embryology. Yet, almost 80 years after it was dismissed, I clearly remember it in my biology text books in high school and college as evidence of evolution, and was treated as gospel, and NOT as a historical footnote of science as most the actual scientific community (and not textbook authors) believes it to be.

A common example is how documentaries are presented to the layman (ie NatGeo or Discovery pseudo-documentaries). Have you ever watched those Walking with Dinosaurs/Prehistoric Beasts shows? Pay attention to how they word things. They don't say, "we believe this is how this animal behaved," or "we think this how their physiology worked." Nope. They instead say "this animal behaved in this way," or "this is how their physiology worked."

They present things with such absolution. As such truth. Although, if you pay attention to the science world (as many of you do), you have observed how theories are updated all the time. That's great. That's wonderful. That's what we need. However, that's EXACTLY why we should question everything. We need to quit acting like we know everything, and that's that, period, end of story. It's ok to say to say "I believe in evolution, and this is why..." However, it's wrong to say "This is how it happened, and if you believe anything else, you're some backwoodsy retarded hick." Seriously. How does that advance science? Allow the discourse, the dissent, the questioning. THAT'S what science is all about!

Originally Posted by MTT

Man is a very unique Mammal.

No we are not. We just happen (through evolution) to have a bigger brain, just like an elephant has a bigger trunk, or a cheetah can run faster. Over all we are a rather pathetic mammal, and certainly nothing special, and no more unique then any other organism with a well developed evolutionary characteristic. .

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-fi...124614291.html

This goes here

Since you people are too lazy to click a link:


Aaron Harvey's son wrote as part of a school lesson, "I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure." TheBlaze has redacted the child's name.

Harvey's son attends Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, Fla. Back in January, a local attorney came in to teach the students about the Bill of Rights. But after the attorney left, fourth-grade teacher Cheryl Sabb dictated the sentence to part of the class and had them copy it down, he said.

Originally Posted by hutash

No we are not. We just happen (through evolution) to have a bigger brain, just like an elephant has a bigger trunk, or a cheetah can run faster. .

God you are an ignorant old man. We do not have a bigger brain than all other mammals, certainly not bigger than the elephant you reference. Perhaps you should take a class or two on biology

The ironic part of the entire debate is how it is people like Hutash and other staunch atheists, are actually the ones who display the most amount of religious bias. When a group of people suggests the mere discussion of the pros and cons of evolution (never even mentioning religion...at all), Hutash et al get their panties in a wad and act like they're shoving bibles down his throat, performing exorcisms in science rooms, preaching about damnation, and all sorts of other nonsense that NOBODY in the academic world is proposing be introduced to the conversation.

If people on the strict evolution side of the debate could remove their OWN dogma and bias, I think we could have a much more positive discourse, and dare we say "evolution" of scientific thought and reason.

Seriously. Why the hatred? Why the insults? Would it not be more productive to just keep on presenting the observations supporting your side and let that continue to speak for itself?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

God you are an ignorant old man. We do not have a bigger brain than all other mammals, certainly not bigger than the elephant you reference. Perhaps you should take a class or two on biology

Since you are too dense to figure it out, I was not referring to you. Your brain is obviously much smaller then average.

Relatively speaking, Homo sapiens' brain is the largest. Try using yours.