Further Dumbing Down of America

[jschild]

This is just sad.

http://duggmirror.com/space/Creationists_can_t_fail_Earth_Science_Oklahoma/

or http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/09/oklahoma-one-step-from-doom/

if up.

[PlayThemAll]

I guess this means we'll soon be seeing a dropping of the attunements for college as well.

[rgirty]

I'm from oklahoma and I know a lot of people who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I've seen people burst out into tears during class during these types of debates.

These are the people who really get out and vote, and your candidate is pushed from the pulpit.

I go to church, my minister believes the world is only 6,000 years old and thats fine with me because I have a mind of my own.

The funny thing is when I tell him I believe in bigfoot and he tells me i'm crazy :P

[jschild]

The belief itself, is fine.

Any attempt to legitimize it as science, or de-legitmize science, however is not.

[PlayThemAll]

In my freshman physics class (college level) my professor asked what was heavier a pound of feathers of a pound of lead. It was asked in jest but one of the students ernestly said "lead". The prof just stood there speechless for quite some time and you could have heard a pin drop in the lecture hall.

The student dropped the class by the next session.

Legislation like that is why I'm an Athiest, never trust a single source of information and dislike Tom Cruise.

[corga]

the earth being more then 10k years is not fact it is theory. the same as evolution. You guys are silly :)

[rgirty]

hate

When this starts getting tossed around describing feelings towards others who think differently is when we start having problems.

Any attempt de-legitmize science, however is not.

I changed your wording a small amount, but if you replace science with "religion" you can see the pasture from the other side of the fence if you get my meaning.

[PlayThemAll]

When this starts getting tossed around describing feelings towards others who think differently is when we start having problems.

fixed :thumbsup:

[jschild]

The biggest problem is the slippery slope.

How big is the earth. 4,000 miles..I believe god says its that big so its equally valid in a science class.

I believe 2+2=5, that is what my god says and such it is equally valid.

I believe sinners should be stoned because my god said so, so I can stone and kill them. It's totally valid.

Except they are not. Not in science class, and often not in life. Personal beliefs have no business in science class. Science is what should be taught in science class. That simple.

Science does not claim to be the end all. It is, by design, testable.

There is nothing testable by faith. Nothing you can demostrate.

However, despite more and more techniques become available, the more refined our techniques, something that is scientific theory will either stand up or it will fall.

It is testable. Faith cannot be tested in such a way.

I know when I drop a ball, it will fall. Thanks to testing, we know the exact rate it will fall. Newton's theory worked on the small scale, but when we tested it on planetary motion, it fell short. It was off.

Einstein changed the way we looked at gravity and we now know WHY newton's math was off. Gravity curved space, which altered our measurements. That is the difference. It is not respect.

If I believe god snapped his finger and created light, is that a correct answer to how we have light? If you think we should allow "GOD DID IT" to science class answers, education is essentially worthless.

Why learn anything when I can get an A by saying "GOD DID IT"

[elsegundo]

age of the earth cannot be determined. it can be guessed based on scientific experiments and the like. i have some religous background and i think the earth is way more than 6000 years old, as there is no reference to passing of time in the beginning of the bible. i am assuming the 6000 years pertains to a biblical belief. but no matter which was you slice and dice it, no one can be for sure since no one was there when the earth was formed, however you think it to be formed is up to you.

with that said, a simple preface should suffice. teachers who do not preface a question with the words, "according to recent scientific studies..." are also invoking their own beliefs on their students.

[rgirty]

Science does not claim to be the end all. It is, by design, testable.

There is nothing testable by faith. Nothing you can demostrate.

However, despite more and more techniques become available, the more refined our techniques, something that is scientific theory will either stand up or it will fall.

It is testable. Faith cannot be tested in such a way.

I know when I drop a ball, it will fall. Thanks to testing, we know the exact rate it will fall. Newton's theory worked on the small scale, but when we tested it on planetary motion, it fell short. It was off.

Einstein changed the way we looked at gravity and we now know WHY newton's math was off. Gravity curved space, which altered our measurements. That is the difference. It is not respect.

If I believe god snapped his finger and created light, is that a correct answer to how we have light? If you think we should allow "GOD DID IT" to science class answers, education is essentially worthless.

Why learn anything when I can get an A by saying "GOD DID IT"

I went to school with a lot of kids who got an A because they were an athlete.

That happens much more than what you are describing.

Hitting a ball with a stick is one of the best jobs in america.

To me, dumbing down there is just as strong.

What % of college athletes get a degree?...

[jschild]

Nothing in science is 100% certain. That is the whole point of it. Science never says..well, that's it. Let's stop working on that subject.

The age of the earth can be estimated however, with a high degree of accuracy. I hate to say it, but if science was as lackadaisical and just "another" belief system, we would not have cars, computers, medicine, space craft, etc. We have actually photographed electrons and teleported photons. The amount of precision required for anything to stand up to scruitiny is immense. Some things don't stand the test of time, others do. That is how science works. It is not a faith. It is not a belief. It can be treated as such by some people, but as a whole it is not.

I went to school with a lot of kids who got an A because they were an athlete.

That happens much more than what you are describing.

Hitting a ball with a stick is one of the best jobs in america.

To me, dumbing down there is just as strong.

What % of college athletes get a degree?...

Oh, I won't argue with you there. There is a difference though.

In your situation, someone is being passed because they help the sports team. IE, they are ignoring the grade and posting false ones to keep them in the team.

In the other, they are saying that non-scientific ideas are equally valid in a science class. They are saying essentially "GOD DID IT" as an acceptable scientific answer. They are saying their answer is scientifically correct. It is not. It is a completely valid belief, but it has nothing to do with science and thus, should not be allowed in a science class.

You can argue the science with science, not with faith though. If you have scientific evidence that the age of the earth is incorrect, you can challenge it. If you have no evidence except for a book with more changes in it than words in it, then you have no science and cannot challenge it scientifically. THAT is the difference.

[rgirty]

Oh, I won't argue with you there. There is a difference though.

In your situation, someone is being passed because they help the sports team. IE, they are ignoring the grade and posting false ones to keep them in the team.

In the other, they are saying that non-scientific ideas are equally valid in a science class. They are saying essentially "GOD DID IT" as an acceptable scientific answer. They are saying their answer is scientifically correct. It is not. It is a completely valid belief, but it has nothing to do with science and thus, should not be allowed in a science class.

You can argue the science with science, not with faith though. If you have scientific evidence that the age of the earth is incorrect, you can challenge it. If you have no evidence except for a book with more changes in it than words in it, then you have no science and cannot challenge it scientifically. THAT is the difference.

Being the star sportsplayer has nothing to do with getting an A in science either, but its been happening in oklahoma for 50 years.

"i play basketball, i turn in a blank test that the teacher fills out later so I can remain eligible" is no better an answer than "god did it"

It didn't involve religion so people don't get upset.

Now religion is involved and people are already throwing around words like "hate".

[jschild]

No, i hate it when that happens too.

Think of it this way. They are essentially legalizing sport players to get A's, to use your situation. They are getting free A's. If you don't believe it, take the minor hit to your grade and get a question or 2 wrong. Because your answer will be scietifically wrong in a science class.

[rgirty]

I just see this as a small pebble on a beach representing all the problems in american society.

Parents letting their kids nearly drown because they are busy watching american idol, or spraying their kids with the pressure hose at the carwash for punishment is worse than this.

[xDarkDrifterx]

the earth being more then 10k years is not fact it is theory

:shocked:

Dude, time to open a book . . .

**helps lift corga's head out from under a rock**

[elsegundo]

corga never gave a definite age. he just said that the earth being older than blah blah blah is a theory.
just as much as the kid who says the earth is just 6000 years old... is just a theory.

the earth being more than 10k years old is a plausable theory. i believe it is 99.99% correct, with the .01% margin for error being that none of us was there to witness it, therefore we cannot measure.

haha. but the topic isnt really about what the correct age of the earth is, its about who's getting their beliefs and/or theories to be deemed "correct" and "factual".

[jschild]

No...no its not Elsegundo. There is NO scientific thoery that the earth is 6000 years old. There is zero evidence to support it. THis shows a major lack of understanding of what a theory even is.

Is it exactly 4.6 billion years old? Most likely, but no theory can be proven 100%. Evidence however can and does greatly support that.

And its about something that has NOTHING to do with science being accepted as science. That is the problem. That is what you are missing. There is NOTHING, no science whatsoever, no evidence, NOTHING AT ALL, to support the earth is 6000 years old. To accept, in a science class, that as a correct answer, is crazy.

Please keep religion out of science class. It has no reason to be there.

Rgirty is right aobut there being far worse problems out there, however. But as a parent of a child getting ready to go to school in the fall, I do not want religion being taught as science in his education. My advanced Biology teacher brought a creationist to give misinformation to the class to debunk evolution. I say misinformation because the man didn't even understand science. He just threw several strawman arguements out, most of which were silly.

I don't want my son to have to deal with that. No kid should have to deal with that in a science class. My son can read the BIble, Koran, take religion classes, whatever if he wants to learn about religion.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Here are just a very few reasons to question certain beliefs:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207135801.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22684589/

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/19/oldesttree_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070419100030&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000

__________

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_01.html

The Lucy story (whether believed to be our ancestor or not) still gives a relative date that she/it lived - which is far more than 6,000 years ago just like the above animals and tree.


I could go on . . .

[jschild]

This thread isn't meant to be one to question any religion. Its about religion being used to subvert education. Religion has no business being in a science class (except maybe a history of science class).

[elsegundo]

js... you make a good point. i overlooked all of that seperation you've made.
i do agree that science should be taught as such, and religion should also be taugh as religion, and that when someone says the world is 4.6mil years old, that they understand it is from a scientific point of view. having the boy state that it is only 6000 years old and being correct is a bending of the rules, and shouldnt be done unless clarified that it is not scientifically based, but religiously based.

i was under the impression that the earth's age being 6000 years, from the boy's religous point of view, was a theory.

[Shellar]

I see little difference between "Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so" and "Earth is 4.54 billion years old because the textbook says so". Both viewpoints indicate a certain degree of intellectual sloth.

[jschild]

To simply accept it and not think about it is intellectual sloth.

The simple fact of the matter is that a theory MUST be testable. It must make guesses that can be proven or not proven. A belief needs no evidence. It does not need to be tested and can be held onto even if all evidence points to the contrary.

However, understanding why one is a plausible theory and why the other is not is part of scientific understanding. To even attempt to say both are equally valid is an insult to every scientist. If that thinking prevailed, I simply shudder to think where we will end up. One is open to new evidence, is testable, and has already evolved as new knowledge has been discovered. The other is closed to all contrary evidence, is not testable, and will remain forever static no matter what new knowledge comes.

[corga]

Did you know that there 2 refrences in the Bible describing dinosaurs when people did not know of thier existince. And did you know that in africa there are cave paintings of dinosaurs, and places where colonies of dinosaurs have the perfect conditions and exclusion to go unnoticed. with native myths/stories of dinosaurs. *the more you know* I cannot know for sure how old the earth is, but it is alot shorter then most people think.


AND carbon dating is very faulty...

[jschild]

Please post the reference to dinosaurs. Or are you talking about the "giants who walked the earth" which in no way describes dinosaurs but is a vague statement which can mean anything.

Carbon dating is not the standard for dating the age of the earth, plus there are multiple varieties- it has come a very, very long way. It can only be used to date things that lived. Again, your complete lack of understanding of science is showing. I've seen paintings from the middle ages of jesus acending to heaven in what loooks to be a rocket or ufo. So Jesus is an alien. That's proof, right? I mean it cannot possibly mean stories have been passed down, I mean dragons are real too then right? Tons of drawings and stories aobut fire breathing flying monsters...100% true because there aer drawings. Right?

If this is your standard of evidence, then I'm sorry but I'm not impressed.

[Valas Azuviir]

, I mean dragons are real too then right? Tons of drawings and stories aobut fire breathing flying monsters...100% true because there are drawings. Right?
.

Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons For You Are Crunchy and good with ketchup. :grin:

[PlayThemAll]

We're all part of the Matrix, resistance is useless. :grin:

[jschild]

Lol...when I get eaten it will be with hot sauce, not ketchup.

EDIT: Since many people seem to not understand what a theory even is, versus an idea or a belief, he is some standard definitions of what a useful theory must entail. Copied from Wikipedia.com

Characteristics

The difference between science and unscientific nonsense was well caught in Wolfgang Pauli's famous comment on a paper he was shown: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong".

[edit] Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

[edit] Non-essential criteria

Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:

* is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data are discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
* is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.

Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. The predictions made by Classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate, but they are sufficiently good approximations in most circumstances that they are still very useful and widely used in place of more accurate but mathematically difficult theories.

[edit] Indistinguishable theories

Sometimes it happens that two theories are found to make exactly the same predictions. In this case, they are indistinguishable, and the choice between them reduces to which is the more convenient.

[edit] Criterion for scientific status

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem").

One can sum up all this by saying that according to Popper, the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Did you know that there 2 refrences in the Bible describing dinosaurs when people did not know of thier existince. And did you know that in africa there are cave paintings of dinosaurs, and places where colonies of dinosaurs have the perfect conditions and exclusion to go unnoticed. ...


Links please.

You do realize that the bible is not that old? Though written by many men over many years, Moses supposedly wrote the start (the first 5 books) around 1400 BC, there is one thing to know, and that's that even older civilizations have been making mention of, marking caves, sculpting figurines, etc, of everything from Dino's to their various god's, long before christianity was even an idea . . . in my opinion your phrase "when people did not know of their existence" is way off.

But yes, back to the point that js was making, the above IMO shows how one wide spread religious belief is permeating our science in a horrible way. Just like our money, government, laws, etc etc. Science and religion should NEVER be mixed, just like religion and politics.

[jschild]

At least one of his "references" I am certain is from genesis where it mentions "there were giants in those days". Of course, it does not say giant lizards, nor anything specific, so to claim it is referring to dinosaurs is a stretch at the extreme. Where are these dinosuar remains alongside men? We have tons of fire pit remains where we know what men back in the day ate because of the bones left behind. Amazing how every single dinosuar bone has disappeared. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, great claims require great evidence. But there is none. We are supposed to take a book written by men (sorry, its not the word of god, unless god have about 10 milliion variations on his word) as absolute truth in a scientific sense. Science treats all old books the same though. Unless evidence corrobarates a story, there is NO truth to it. Later on sometimes we find evidence for it (Troy for instance was believed fiction until the city was uncovered), while others still are considered fiction (no evidence has ever been found for a "garden of eden" complete with flaming swords).

[xDarkDrifterx]

'Thou Shalt Not Bogart the Doobage': Moses High on Drugs, Says Professor

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080304120710.ad7gm7i6&show_article=1

:evil:

sry had to link this . . .

[jschild]

Interesting story but unfort nothing to actually link it to Moses. If the bible mentioned him imbibing or using any plants, that would be a link, but nothing but suppostion there. Doesn't mean its not true but no way to verify it.

EDIT: That story is actually a good way to illustrate theory.

It is a guess, possibly an educated guess but it can never be a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified nor can it be tested nor can any predictions be made on it.

[Valas Azuviir]

At least one of his "references" I am certain is from genesis where it mentions "there were giants in those days". Of course, it does not say giant lizards, nor anything specific, so to claim it is referring to dinosaurs is a stretch at the extreme. .

It's been a while, but wouldn't that be a reference to either Nephilim, Anakim or Rephaim as opposed to Dino's? With Goliath being an example of such.

[Cembrelise]

Neither religion nor science should be used to maliciously undermine the other. Both have benefits and, yes, BOTH have their bad side. Science can and has been used for 'evil' so to speak just as religion can and has been used to hurt people.

From a religious standpoint, I see it this way: It's not about six days and not about how long ago, but the fact that through some means it happened by the hand of God who, really, didn't *need* 6 days when you break it all down. Religiously speaking (from a Judeo-Christian standpoint) time is a pretty vague concept in most parts when you really break it down. Sadly, I don't think your average high school or college Christian has studied so far to understand how blurred it is. "Six days? That must mean straight up six days, forget about any other parts that say, well, but six days to this is that and six days on this scale is that, etc. Screw you, SCIENCE!"

From a scientific standpoint, I see it this way: It's fascinating when the two do overlap and work together, but when they don't, I'm not just going to discredit one or the other. To totally discredit science by religion means to throw away intelligence - especially when the Bible is not a scientific textbook but a history lesson and spiritual self-help manual for those who believe in it. And as a religious person, if I had an existential crisis every time I opened a book, well, my spiritual side isn't that strong either.

It's a fine balance to walk but really not all that difficult once you get comfortable with who you are as a 50/50 scientific-religious hybrid spec. ;)

[jschild]

But that's the situation here. In this instance, the legislature IS undermining science. Religion has no reason being taught in science class, nor should its answers (which don't stand up to scientific scrutiny) be accepted as correct answers.

This is not a science is better than religion debate. This is a religion being forced into science class debate. Do not forget that difference. You are correct, a science teacher should not mock religion in his class, but neither should he count a 6000 years old answer as correct. Because from any possible scientific standpoint, it is not.

Leave religion out of science class and there is no problem. You don't want your kid to have any understanding of science, fine. Home school him or send him to a religeous school. Forcing a public school to accept religious answers as valid in science class however is wrong. Trust me I've been there.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n4_v13/ai_19074370

The part about Marshall County... thats where I am from, Benton, KY.

It's fun having kids ask you why you don't believe in god (I did at the time, which is the funny part) because you correct and challenge the creationist your Advanced Biology teacher brings in to "debunk" evolution.

[Cembrelise]

But that's the situation here. In this instance, the legislature IS undermining science. Religion has no reason being taught in science class, nor should its answers (which don't stand up to scientific scrutiny) be accepted as correct answers.

This is not a science is better than religion debate. This is a religion being forced into science class debate. Do not forget that difference. You are correct, a science teacher should not mock religion in his class, but neither should he count a 6000 years old answer as correct. Because from any possible scientific standpoint, it is not.

Leave religion out of science class and there is no problem. You don't want your kid to have any understanding of science, fine. Home school him or send him to a religeous school. Forcing a public school to accept religious answers as valid in science class however is wrong. Trust me I've been there.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n4_v13/ai_19074370

The part about Marshall County... thats where I am from, Benton, KY.

It's fun having kids ask you why you don't believe in god (I did at the time, which is the funny part) because you correct and challenge the creationist your Advanced Biology teacher brings in to "debunk" evolution.

Honestly, whether or not you believe in God doesn't belong in a science class discussion whether it's coming from a creationist or an atheist. More from the teacher than anything else of course, since as a student somebody's bound to start trouble, of course - on either side. ;)

My point here is that there is obviously a simple answer for the legislature to see: In a science class, religion itself or even the lack of is not something that's a discussion point - Athiesm and Christianity and everything else don't fall into 'science' unless you're including social sciences . . . ah ha ha ha. What belongs in a science classroom? Theory. Fact. Experiments. Pink unicorns do not, if that reference makes sense to anyone.

I do think, however, that smart people could see a decent resolution: I really do think that there should be a mandatory class for basic understanding of the world's major religions - in multicultural countries it's actually not a bad thing to try and kill some of the common misunderstandings about the basic beliefs of different faiths. There you go. It's not taught so as fact, instead it is history and literature, and it's not taught in a science classroom.

Of course people can be so bullheaded on both sides that there probably won't be any common ground to stand on. And since that's a pretty red area, looks like you'll be having God in attendance to science classes for a while. Might as well pick up an evolutionary textbook and go read it during church. ;)

[Shellar]

I think that the real culprit here is not religion, but politics. As long as politicians have control over what gets taught in schools, the educational process will continue to get subverted towards their ideological agendas. In this regard, the situation in Oklahoma is not all that different from that of Soviet teachers dismissing the concepts of genetics and cybernetics as incompatible with the Marxist doctrine and therefore wrong.

[jschild]

It is religion, or religious people at least, using politics to accomplish their means.

Politicians rarely get involved in education materials except at the behest of interest groups (generally religious).

Sex education is evil, only abstinance education should be taught (because every study shows it doesn't work, so that's a great idea).

Evolution is anti - god (Actually it has nothing to do with god, nor how live first came into being).

The earth is the center of the universe (lets just throw anyone who challeges that into permanent house arrest).

Science teachers who bash religion should be fired. Legislator's who force religion into science class should be removed. Its pretty much that simple.

[rgirty]

Religion/school/politics will never be separated. No matter what kind of "theory" or "science" you throw around.

The first and second amendment make sure of this.

Freedom of speech and Freedom of religion.

We do not see "freedom of science"

Someone being able to say "I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old" is a strong statement to me and is basically what this country is about for me. In other countries where you can't depict certain religious figures without being murdered I believe we have our priorities straight here.

In god we trust is on our currency for a reason.

[jschild]

The problem has nothing to do with someone saying that. The issue is that it is being forced to be accepted (with no evidence at all, completely contrary everything science is based upon) as an acceptable answer. That and nothing else.

In god we trust is on our currency because in the 50's we wanted to show how we were different from those godless communists. Same reason under god was forced into the Pledge of Allegience. Funny how those were not originally on our money or pledge.

Forcing a science teacher, in a science class, to say that Bob, who beieves that aliens made the earth 3 weeks ago, and all our memories are implanted, is correct has NOTHING to do with those you mentioned.

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. A student can put down any answer they want. That does not mean that answer is correct from a scientific and classroom point of view however.

That student is still free to believe and have faith however he wants.

Only the seperation of church and state is affected by that decision because it is FORCING religion into science class, where it has no business being.

Saying the student's answer should be considered correct is part of freedom of speech or religion is insulting to the extreme. In no way is a students freedom of either infringed when a teacher grades that answer incorrect. He can still say it and believe it.

[Shellar]

The post-Rennaisance schism between religion and science has dealt a major blow to both of them. Gone are the days when researchers were driven by fervent belief (rather than desire for grant money), and when priesthoods held some of the world's greatest intellectuals and masters of analytical debate among their ranks. I consider this divorce of Spirit and Reason to be one of humanity's greatest tragedies.

/sigh

They have forgotten that science is God's blueprint of Creation and mathematics is the language of the angels.

[jschild]

That assumes that everyone must believe in God.

Many of the greatest scientists did not view it as science vs religion.

Most still don't.

Religion started the war when it started crushing and opposing any science that it didn't like. It still does and now you have scientists fighting hard against religion in response because they pretty much have no choice. Most people have such a huge misunderstanding of science that they believe what their religious leaders tell them. They don't know misinformation and outright lies when they hear them.

I would prefer both sides to keep to their respective areas but the second any school my son goes to tries to force any religion onto him, I will fight it. I fought it when I was in high school and I will if I must again. Science class has not business teaching or supporting religion. Period.

[xDarkDrifterx]

In god we trust is on our currency for a reason.

This fact disgusts me in so many ways. There is no reason that our money should mention God - doing so puts a lid on the melting pot that is America. This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution, and here we are years and years later forcing the Christian God down the throats of Red Blooded American's who happen to be Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Our presidents can't even make decisions without religious views coming into focus - ie: Bush and gay marriage.

They have forgotten that science is God's blueprint of Creation and mathematics is the language of the angels.

That's assuming everyone in the world believes in the Christian idea of God and Angels.

News flash: They dont.

[rgirty]

This fact disgusts me in so many ways. There is no reason that our money should mention God - doing so puts a lid on the melting pot that is America. This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution, and here we are years and years later forcing the Christian God down Red Blooded American's who happen to be Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Our presidents can't even make decisions without religious views coming into focus - ie: Bush and gay marriage.

.

I didn't say the reason was valid.

I said there was a reason, and there is.

Note: the recent oklahoma representative stating that gay and homosexual lifestyle is the biggest threat to america, more so than terrorism or any other threat.

There is a reason, disgusting or not it is there.

[jschild]

What is funny, is you have all these religious people and politicians talking about how our founding fathers created a christian nation despite all evidence to the contrary.

1. Our national motto was "E Plurbus Unum", or "Out of Many, One", not In God we trust

2. Our pledge never had God in it.

3. Our Constitition makes no mention of any creator or god.

4. Our government, in its early days, even signed a treaty unanimously stating that the US was NOT a christian nation.

[xDarkDrifterx]

I didn't say the reason was valid.

I said there was a reason, and there is.

Note: the recent oklahoma representative stating that gay and homosexual lifestyle is the biggest threat to america, more so than terrorism or any other threat.

There is a reason, disgusting or not it is there.

I'm not direccting my disgust at you bro, but at the fact that you noted.

What, in your opinion, are the reasons for the above?

IMO - the reason is simple - there is no separation of church and state as our forefathers envisioned (post #16) (http://www.worldofwar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=409911&page=2). Unfortunately numbers are the big thing here, the numbers of christians that happen to hold certain positions and the effect they have on the laws, codes, and ordinances that make up our legal system and the fact that the US is a Christian Country whether we say we are officially or not. It's . . . /sigh . . . so annoying to me. lol

[jschild]

That was indeed an awesome post.

The problem, is just laying down and accepting things that are wrong.

Oh well, that's just how things are. It is that complacency that eventually allows entities such as the Taliban or Nazi's to take over. Small steps, taken gradually and over a long period of time, can cover great distances and lead us to places we never originally intended to go.

[rgirty]

I'm not direccting my disgust at you bro, but at the fact that you noted.

What, in your opinion, are the reasons for the above?

IMO - the reason is simple - there is no separation of church and state as our forefathers envisioned (post #16) (http://www.worldofwar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=409911&page=2). Unfortunately numbers are the big thing here, the numbers of christians that happen to hold certain positions and the effect they have on the laws, codes, and ordinances that make up our legal system and the fact that the US is a Christian Country whether we say we are officially or not. It's . . . /sigh . . . so annoying to me. lol

A large portion of our society starts attending church well before school.

A large portion of our society has their base of moral values and beliefs drilled into them at this young age.

A large portion of our society believes the church and religion are the only way to reach "heaven" or a Utopian type of existence.

Thats why.

It has always been that way, and will continue.

Have a look at racism, at how strong it is and it typically isn't actively taught, condoned and approved of the way religion is.

Christians control those positions because their beliefs are so strong that they actually get out and vote.

I have no actual data on this, but if you could someone amass some sort of data you would see that the % of church going Christians that get out and vote is much higher than any other demographic.

Because they are told who to vote for from the pulpit, and they believe in this cause as much as they believe in their religion because the person who they are voting for carries their same beliefs.

Several nations in the world (everyone knows this) are at war because their way to get to this Utopian existence is different than someone else's.

How can you change this? You can't.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again because I heard someone say it once and it made a lot of sense.

Until humans find a common enemy to battle against we will mercilessly battle each other.

[jschild]

Think you are paraphrasing Reagan there. He once mentioned to Gorbachov (sp?) that if aliens were to attack us, that is perhaps the one thing that could unite humanity.

Also part of the plot to a certain graphic novel (don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't read it).

That being said, that is no reason to just accept something. We should not let religion dictate science (nor the opposite). I won't argue that it doesn't happen, it does, but that does not mean it should be acceptable.

[xDarkDrifterx]

A large portion of our society starts attending church well before school.

A large portion of our society has their base of moral values and beliefs drilled into them at this young age.

A large portion of our society believes the church and religion are the only way to reach "heaven" or a Utopian type of existence.


IMO = out of these, the last is most likely the main culprit. I was all of the above as well (Baptist raised, Golden Rules, Heaven and Hell - though I was lucky enough to have intelligent parents that did not baptize my brother and I so not to force any religious beliefs on us) but I also learned to think for myself at a fairly early age, about the time I learned about various religions and their belief systems. Then I developed my whole attitude of "I'm gonna stand over here while you all fight about which imaginary entity really exists . . ." :grin:


Christians control those positions because their beliefs are so strong that they actually get out and vote.

I have no actual data on this, but if you could someone amass some sort of data you would see that the % of church going Christians that get out and vote is much higher than any other demographic.

Well my beliefs are very strong and I go out and vote . . . and not just on the presidency, but that doesn't keep religion from being shoved down our throats. I think the reason here is the second part of what's quoted due to the fact that they're not the largest % because their beliefs are that strong, but because they happen to be the largest % of the population of the United States.



Until humans find a common enemy to battle against we will mercilessly battle each other.

Cues alien attack lol

:wink:

__________________

BTW - nice topic and conversation all.

.

[rgirty]

You just agreed with me basically.

[xDarkDrifterx]

You just agreed with me basically.

?

I never disagreed really . . . I merely asked for your thoughts. (you haven't been forth coming with them lately bro lol:wink:) and I highlighted what IMO went along with what you were saying.

Just enjoying the conversation over here, a little point counter point and some agreeing. :smiley:

[rgirty]

?

I never disagreed really . . . I merely asked for your thoughts. (you haven't been forth coming with them lately bro lol:wink:) and I highlighted what IMO went along with what you were saying.

Just enjoying the conversation over here, a little point counter point and some agreeing. :smiley:

Because ultimately it does not matter what I think.

Each person must think for themselves and do what they think is right.

The old saying of "lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" is true in many facets of life.

Such as your religious upbringing where you were the horse, but you wouldn't drink.

Does not really matter what I think. I rarely post my opinions on the boards here anymore because I got flamed/bashed so much in the past. I don't even post here as much anymore.

Information is hard to get across due to limitations and I dislike the ads in every single thread of the site.

We did get the domain changed back, which was something I was vocal about for a while.

Not that what I say really matters, because it does not. Thats what i'm really saying here.

I'm just a guy who's made a few thousand posts trying to help folks out.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Because ultimately it does not matter what I think.

Each person must think for themselves and do what they think is right.

The old saying of "lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" is true in many facets of life.

Such as your religious upbringing where you were the horse, but you wouldn't drink.

Does not really matter what I think. I rarely post my opinions on the boards here anymore because I got flamed/bashed so much in the past. I don't even post here as much anymore.

Information is hard to get across due to limitations and I dislike the ads in every single thread of the site.

We did get the domain changed back, which was something I was vocal about for a while.

Not that what I say really matters, because it does not. Thats what i'm really saying here.

I'm just a guy who's made a few thousand posts trying to help folks out.

Dude . . . /pats you on the shoulder . . . /hands you a NewCastle . . . man, you've been saying this for a while now, but those of us that interact and enjoy your posts DO enjoy them and want to see them . . . isn't that the point? Who cares if the Mods and the Admins don't like you (I'm not saying they don't - I'm just going with your current feeling on the topic). This is a forum - the people that make the posts are who make it a good or bad forum, not the people who run it (the people who run forum sites can ruin them, but they can't make them great in terms of content). I know that people have been /kicked from the boards for some of our mutual feelings on certain subjects and the fact that we don't mind saying what we want to say. If that happens, so be it. There's plenty of other's - which I know you're fully aware of.

Your posts are helpful, and again, who gives a flying f**k if some old or new posters flame or bash you etc. It's nothing new :smiley:

Oh and BTW - this horse did drink, but it was from a much cleaner and clearer pool of water just down the road a bit, the one free from all the muck. :wink:

[Valas Azuviir]

This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution, and here we are years and years later forcing the Christian God down the throats of Red Blooded American's who happen to be Muslim, Buddhist, etc.

Don't think it bugs the Muslims that much actually. Jaweh, Jehova, God, Allah.. Same being in the end. Hindu's, Wicans, Sikhs, Tao and Shinto-ists etc might have a bit more of a problem with it. Budhists are flexible in that sense, they're fairly agnostic when it comes to whether or not there is a God or not.

You Yanks should really have a mandatory Social Studies class during High School. Teach folks, about the major religions in the world, where they overlap, where they differ. How the voting system works, different types of government, examples of such etc etc etc.

Might actually help folks understand what the term liberal actually means. :grin:

[jschild]

There is something other than America. Sorry but we don't want to know or care about anything but us, unless it affects us.

What is sad is that isn't really an exaggeration.

[Valas Azuviir]

There is something other than America. Sorry but we don't want to know or care about anything but us, unless it affects us.

What is sad is that isn't really an exaggeration.

Anything can affect you under the right circumstances. Forewarned is forearmed or some such drivel.

Although, I personally prefer the phrase: Information is ammunition and I sure as hell ain't going to a gunfight with an empty clip. :tongue:

[jschild]

Yes, but I am still surprised at the staggering lack of knowledge about the world that most Americans have. It literally comes from the sheer belief that we are better than every other country in the world and thus, why learn anything about them.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Don't think it bugs the Muslims that much actually. Jaweh, Jehova, God, Allah.. Same being in the end.

I feel that any of the various religions that aren't christian based may have a problem with all of our forced christian standards within the political realm. And the various uses of "god" though similar, aren't exactly the "same being in the end".

You Yanks should really have a mandatory Social Studies class during High School. Teach folks, about the major religions in the world, where they overlap, where they differ. How the voting system works, different types of government, examples of such etc

Definitely a good idea, my high school actually had this class, and is where I first began learning a bit about other religions outside of my own reading. Though it was only for one year, and should have been more well rounded and developed, this should be some type of class that every school has. Hey, they could add Christianity / Catholicism to that course and BAM! religion has it's own course instead of getting in the way of science class.

[jschild]

My first year in college took an Honors intro to religion class. Looked at religion from around the world. Honestly need that AND intro to world culture in high school class. Let people actually know what its like living in other countries instead of all the stupid misconceptions.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I think the USA is the best country in the world. Does that make me a bad person?

[jschild]

I think we are one of the best countries in the world.

It's more why. Why is our country better than others? If you can intelligently say why (doesn't have to be anything more than your opinion, as long as its an informed opinion) and actually understand the differences, then no.

The problem is when you have people screaming "USA, USA, USA" and that we are the most awesome nation in the world....yet they couldn't tell you one fact about any other nation in the world.

It's the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism.

[Clavina]

I think the USA is the best country in the world. Does that make me a bad person?

Why do you think this? Please list 10 reasons why USA is the best country in the world.

[Valas Azuviir]

Yes, but I am still surprised at the staggering lack of knowledge about the world that most Americans have. It literally comes from the sheer belief that we are better than every other country in the world and thus, why learn anything about them.

Well, there is this concept that you can learn from the mistakes of others. :grin:


I feel that any of the various religions that aren't christian based may have a problem with all of our forced christian standards within the political realm. And the various uses of "god" though similar, aren't exactly the "same being in the end".


Matter of perspective DD. To a Jew, the Christian God is not the same as Jaweh. To a Christian, Allah is not the same as God. (Hence why a certain US military officer once made a speech as some Right wing Christian gathering, about how, iirc it was, the War on Terror, was actually about showing them whose God was bigger.) To a muslim, Jaweh? God? Just other names for Allah. First he tried with the Jews, then he tried with the Christians, then he tried with the Muslims.

From a historical pov, the three monotheistic faiths are clearly built upon one and other, after of course having thoroughly ripped off the Zoroastrianism faith.

End of the day, you're still looking at a "being" beyond human understanding, so whether you want to call it God, Jaweh, Jehova, Allah or Bozo the Clown is completely immaterial. Concepts like names, gender etc etc are completely irrelevant when dealing with something that makes us look like a bunch of frelling amoeba.



Definitely a good idea, my high school actually had this class, and is where I first began learning a bit about other religions outside of my own reading. Though it was only for one year, and should have been more well rounded and developed, this should be some type of class that every school has. Hey, they could add Christianity / Catholicism to that course and BAM! religion has it's own course instead of getting in the way of science class.

You could even teach them about the varying branches of Christianity, so you won't get anymore.. Catholicism is not Christianity.. Or Mormonism = Satanism. Both statements have been made in relation to your current presidential candidacy campaign.

[odinsnephew]

Religion and other affiliated crap is something we British discarded many years ago ;)

[Clavina]

Religion and other affiliated crap is something we British discarded many years ago ;)

Not quite true. I went to a catholic school in the UK when I was growing up. We learned science in the science class and learned religion in the religion class.

On the subject of 'where we came from' we discussed both creationist and evolutionist areas in the religion class, and just evolution in the science class.

Science and religion can be taught in a balanced way but this whole 'religion is science' is farcical.

[jschild]

Yes, I can learn from the mistake of others, but when my entire country seems intent on going the other way, it kinda makes it hard for other people to learn crap.

[xDarkDrifterx]

C Catholicism is not Christianity..

Right, I just mentioned them as two of the major religions here, I guess the "/" made it seem like I was saying they are the same. I'm aware of all the differences. Speaking about this . . . anyone see Lewis Blacks "Root of all Evil" show last night? The Topic, which is more evil, Oprah or the Catholic Church? :grin:

Here's a snipet

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOBWFqSXmaw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_cOAhbBhDxY&feature=related

Concepts like names, gender etc etc are completely irrelevant when dealing with something that makes us look like a bunch of frelling amoeba.

:thumbsup:

[rgirty]

I think it all comes down to what you believe.

I personally think that humans are on the whole are destructive. Toward each other and everything we deal with, we'll battle each other over anything.

I stated earlier and i'll state once again, until there is a reason or a common foe for us to battle against we will continue to battle each other over any minute thing that we may be able to find.

9/11 was a good indicator of this, for a very brief window of time nearly every person in the united states was unified against a common foe.

That lasted for a little while then people found something new to disagree about.

[Dark Matter]

There are ignorant people in every race - no one nation has a monopoly on stupidity.

Examples from UK TV Quiz shows are:
PRESENTER: Name a film starring Bob Hoskins that is also the name of a famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci.
CONTESTANT: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
(Rock FM, Preston)

ANNE ROBINSON: If a woman is known as Rubenesque, meaning she has a voluptuous figure, which 17th-century artist is she named after?
CONTESTANT: Aretha Franklin.
The Weakest Link


DALE WINTON: Which bird lays its eggs in other birds' nests? Is it (a) Jackdaw (b) Cuckoo or (c) Magpie?
CONTESTANT: Well, it's not a cuckoo because that lives in a clock.
(National Lottery: In It To Win It)

STEVE WRIGHT: What is a female sheep called?
CONTESTANT: Er... er... a goat.
(Radio 2)

PRESENTER: What black and white animals are some police vehicles named after?
CONTESTANT: Zebras.
(Kiss FM)

STEVE WRIGHT: A sapling is a young what?
CONTESTANT: Pig.
(Radio 2)

ANNE ROBINSON: "Bolster" is an anagram of which marine crustacean?
CONTESTANT: Crab.

ANNE ROBINSON: Watling Street, which now forms part of the A5, was built by which ancient civilisation?
CONTESTANT: Apes.
(The Weakest Link)

STEVE WRIGHT: The mythical minotaur had the body of a man and the head of a what?
CONTESTANT: Millipede.

BOB HOLNESS: What is the meat that goes into shepherd's pie?
CONTESTANT: Luncheon.
(Blockbusters)

PRESENTER: Cambridge, Atkins and Cabbage Soup are all types of what?
CONTESTANT: Universities?
(Radio Clyde)

LES DENNIS: Name a TV chef.
CONTESTANT: Rolf Harris.
SECOND CONTESTANT: Mrs Beeton.
THIRD CONTESTANT: My mum.
(Family Fortunes)


EAMONN HOLMES: What travels at 300 million metres a second?
CONTESTANT: A cheetah.
(Sudo-Q)

GRAHAM LIVER: Which piece of essential household equipment was invented by Thomas Crapper?
CONTESTANT: Er...
LIVER: The clue's in the question. Thomas Crapper.
CONTESTANT: The tin opener?
(BBC Radio Leeds)


DOM (or possibly Dick): In which city were the recent Winter Olympics held?
CONTESTANT: Taunton.
(Dick & Dom In Da Bungalow, BBC1)

DANNY KELLY: Which country do the rugby team the All Blacks represent?
CONTESTANT: Is it Africa?
KELLY: No, no, keep going...
CONTESTANT: Jamaica?
(BBC WM)

MICHAEL BARRYMORE: What did Roger Bannister do in under four minutes in 1954?
CONTESTANT: Orbit the earth?

PRESENTER: How many toes would three people have in total?
CONTESTANT: 23.
(Early morning show, Radio 1)

PHIL WOOD: What's 11 squared?
CONTESTANT: I don't know.
PHIL: I'll give you a clue. It's two ones with a two in the middle.
CONTESTANT: Is it 5?


ANNE ROBINSON: In Alexander Pope's poem, what 'springs eternal in the human breast'?
CONTESTANT: Milk.
(The Weakest Link)

ANNE ROBINSON: Which part of the human body consists of 33 vertebrae?
CONTESTANT: The heart.
(The Weakest Link)

GRAEME GARDEN: What is the highest mountain in England?
CONTESTANT (after long pause): Everest.
(Beat The Nation, C4)

LES DENNIS: Name someone associated with Liverpool.
CONTESTANT: My uncle Peter.
(Family Fortunes)

ANNE ROBINSON: In government organisations, what does the letter M stand for in MI5 and MI6?
CONTESTANT: Murder.
(The Weakest Link)

ANNE ROBINSON: Which British Prime Minister famously said: "We have become a grandmother"?
CONTESTANT: John Major.
(The Weakest Link)

ALAN BRAZIL: What was the name of the first man on Earth?
CONTESTANT: Tony.
(talkSPORT)

ANNE ROBINSON: The spiritual leader of Tibet is known by what two-word name?
CONTESTANT: The Rabbi.
(The Weakest Link)

GARY KING: Name the funny men who once entertained kings and queens at court.
CONTESTANT: Lepers.
(LBC 97.3)

ANNE ROBINSON: In catering, a famous chain of tea shops and so-called "corner houses" was opened in London in 1894 by Joseph who?
CONTESTANT: Goebbels.
The Weakest Link)

JOHN HUMPHRYS: What was the name of the peer who disappeared in 1974 after allegedly murdering his children's nanny, having mistaken her for his wife?
CONTESTANT: Lord Snowdon.
(Mastermind)

ANNE ROBINSON: What is the official language of Israel?
CONTESTANT: Latin.
The Weakest Link


ANNE ROBINSON: What name rhyming with "tapper" was given to girls in the 1920s who wore fringed dresses and danced the Charleston?
CONTESTANT: Slapper.
(The Weakest Link)

SARA COX: Complete this well-known saying: "Beauty is in the eye of the..."
CONTESTANT: Tiger.

ANNE ROBINSON: Which 'D' normally refers to the male parent?
CONTESTANT: Mum.
(The Weakest Link)

ANNE ROBINSON: Which word links an operation on the heart with a detour around a town or village?
CONTESTANT: Ring road.
(The Weakest Link)

Taken from Private Eye's Dumb Britain, edited by Marcus Berkmann Click me (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dumb-Britain-Private-Marcus-Berkmann/dp/1901784479)


Enjoy DM

[jschild]

It's not a matter of every nation having stupid people, its the ratio of them that matters :)

[Dark Matter]

I have a friend who worked, for one year only, for a well known UK examination board, marking Biology GCSE (for 16 year olds).

They were not allowed to decide the pass marks until the papers had been marked. This was in order to ensure that a given % of the kids achieved an A grade. This meant that pupils gaining a 95% pass rate are grouped with those gaining (for example) a 78% pass rate in the A bracket.

In the year he marked C grade only needed a 42% pass rate....

British kids are in the process of being dumbed down because the lily-livered bleeding heart liberals think it's wrong for them to 'fail'.

Kids in the UK can barely string a sentence together, and can't spell. More and more universities are insisting on entrance examinations.

Tough new tests for Oxbridge entrants
By Victoria Neumark and Graeme Paton
Last Updated: 1:36am BST 15/10/2007

Pupils trying to get into Oxford and Cambridge will face a battery of entrance tests amid persistent fears that A-levels are failing to identify the brightest candidates.

For the first time, students applying to study English and philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) at Oxford will sit an entrance exam. It recently introduced aptitude tests in physics, history, mathematics and computer science. Source and full article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/15/nexams115.xml)

DM

[jschild]

Lets not have kids who fail.

Lets not challenge our kids.

Lets not have anything that makes people uncomfortable.

Lets cave into religious groups demanding books to be taken out, burned, or subjects disallowed.

Lets allow things that have no bearing in science, taught as science.

Lets teach whitewashed history.

Lets not teach why events happened. The date that it happened is far more important anyway.

Lets not encourage understanding of those who are different than us.

Let's focus more on athletes that do nothing overall for our nation, pass them without them doing the work, and give them all the money and rewards and not people who excel in academics.

Pretty much a good basic list of everything wrong in american schools.

[odinsnephew]

Let's focus more on athletes that do nothing overall for our nation, pass them without them doing the work, and give them all the money and rewards and not people who excel in academics.

Theres more money in sport.

A shame, but true ;)

[jschild]

Never said there were no reasons, but they are the wrong reasons. It's a shame that stupidity is celebrated in America. You are generally punished for being smart here. All you get for it is abuse and ridicule. And yet people wonder why we are no longer a world leader in technology. We will continue to fall back and back until we understand the stupidity hurts us.

[Kugan]

I’m sure it’s not that bad, jschild.

Sure, we believe that all Americans are stupid (no offence, all the Americans I’ve met were pretty smart… on the other hand, they were the Americans who were brave enough to travel), but there are pretty of stupid people all over the world (look at South Africa. The minister of Health & Safety told people that eating garlic cures AIDS… and the President must still admit that it does actually exist).

The grading thing happens everywhere. I always giggle when I read news articles saying that the pass rate has gone up – mostly because the pass rate was decided before the time.

On the other hand, religion and politics should not mix, and if the government decides that it’s time to mix religion and science, it is pretty scary.

[odinsnephew]

I agree js. There are football players here in the UK on as much as 100k a week! Thats about 4 years(ish) pay for someone with a decent enough job here. And a lot earn a hell of a lot less than that and really struggle with debts and all the hassle that comes with that situation. So someone with good sporty skills gets more in a week than someone who has spent years training for can in.....again, years.

Its sick.

Edit: Sorry for slight derail.

Edit 2: Yes I am aware that other countries are a whole lot worse off too. We should apparently count our lucky stars.

[jschild]

It didn't use to be that bad, but now something close to 50% of all hs seniors cannot pick out iraq on a map. Many can't point to their own state. Basic understanding of math and science is on the decline. It's not getting better, its getting worse.

But you can dunk a basketball, you deserve millions, free scholarships, all for doing essentially nothing for society in any shape or form.

Meanwhile police are underpaid, teachers are underpaid. Its just moronic.

[Shellar]

Until humans find a common enemy to battle against we will mercilessly battle each other.
"Gul'dan, order your warlocks to double their efforts!"

[xDarkDrifterx]

Saw this on fark.com today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/ncarta113.xml

[jschild]

Lol, I can tell you the USA version would be even worse. Of course, we didn't do it so it doesnt matter.

[rgirty]

"Gul'dan, order your warlocks to double their efforts!"

Why do you think warcraft is such a hit?

If there was only 1 faction it wouldn't go over like it has.

[Valas Azuviir]

Right, I just mentioned them as two of the major religions here, I guess the "/" made it seem like I was saying they are the same. I'm aware of all the differences.
:

Reason why I highlighted it, was because this was actually something that came up in the presidential candidacy race and I recalled reading it.

Stuff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-korzen/mccain-embraces-pastor-wh_b_89249.html).

Same with the Mormonism = Satanism stuff. Came across that in an article dealing with Romney's campaign and why it faltered.

Well, you may be aware of the differences. Looks like a lot of other folks are not.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Mormonism = Satanism

:laughing: :laugh:

Still laughing at that one . . . lol

[Valas Azuviir]

:laughing: :laugh:

Still laughing at that one . . . lol

Can't find the exact article anymore, however this article (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695252755,00.html) has several links to other articles which mention roughly similar claims like how Mormonism isn't part of the Christian faith etc etc.. yada yada. You get the idea.