OMG, Palin

[grEnAlEins]

ehhhh dont get me started on general education....the assumption that all students are equal is destroying the education system. Colleges are just extending highschool because of the average-ness that is accepted throughout the general education system....and colleges are glad to do this as it increases attendees, dropouts and profits.

teaching to an individual students ability has all but disappeared, replaced by teaching to the majority....which teaching toward mediocrity at best.

LOL, I just ranted about this on another forum last week. Grade inflation is ridiculous these days. It has become too much touchy-feely and not enough about advancing understanding of material.

My undergraduate experience was a big disappointment in that respect.

[edweird]

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww dag nabbit.

I did not intend on this tangent to blow up.

If we want to debate this I suggest elsewhere; as we are straying off topic on this.

/also I'm moving right now and don't have the time to dedicate to this discussion in its current tangented form.


ok I got 30 mins...

The entire human learning process was refined(I say nearly perfected) by the scientific method. It allows any conceivable idea to be tested and held to the checksum of experimentation and invites further analysis and inquiry to further understanding. This system works for the width of human understanding, except for items we are unable/unwilling to subject to the light of skeptical inquiry; foremost on this list is the notion of supernatural beliefs. So in order to be part of the science lesson plan it must be based on a tenable theory, otherwise you are just educating kids on how to bog down the scientific process by flooding the process with untestable hypothesis.

errand brb...

Creationism/Intelligent Design lacks testable or for that matter tangible evidence, so therefore it is non-tenable. Until I can measure a creators violation of the second law of thermodynamics I will not stand for it to be taught to neophyte student scientists.

[WUNDERWAFFEN]

Where did this thread go to? Back onto the point, I am thinking of a Sarah Palin and Tina Fey sandwich. How do you feel about that? Hmmm, twin sisters that only have appearances in common.

[snoopay700]

Where did this thread go to? Back onto the point, I am thinking of a Sarah Palin and Tina Fey sandwich. How do you feel about that? Hmmm, twin sisters that only have appearances in common.

Oh my god, i think i could die an extremely happy man if i were in the middle of said sandwich. Hell, just give me Tina Fey.

[Hilltop Customs]

mmhmm tina fey, she has made some bad sketches on SNL bearable

for the record I think Palin looks like a chick you might date, then she goes psycho...."what your dumping ME?!?! you cant dump me if your DEAD can you!?!?! We will just see if you DUMP ME"

[snoopay700]

mmhmm tina fey, she has made some bad sketches on SNL bearable

for the record I think Palin looks like a chick you might date, then she goes psycho...."what your dumping ME?!?! you cant dump me if your DEAD can you!?!?! We will just see if you DUMP ME"

Yeah she has, she's also made them sexy.

I always thought she was hot, i know people who thought she was nerdy, but the glasses just added to it for me.

[bornl33t]

Few things

Chuck Darwin introduced to us a MODEL not a theory that even he said was highly un likely. If I need to explain the difference they it's already beyond your comprehension.

Also, leaving out faith as a basis for creation we are left with a model that is from a science point of view also faith because it's un provable.

Lastly I STILL can't believe this thread is alive.

But I will agree with Ed that when it comes to government: Smaller is better.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan

Ok, now you guys can go back to slapping each other on the back.

[dre1919]

[snoopay700]

Few things

Chuck Darwin introduced to us a MODEL not a theory that even he said was highly un likely. If I need to explain the difference they it's already beyond your comprehension.

Also, leaving out faith as a basis for creation we are left with a model that is from a science point of view also faith because it's un provable.

Lastly I STILL can't believe this thread is alive.

But I will agree with Ed that when it comes to government: Smaller is better.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan

Ok, now you guys can go back to slapping each other on the back.

The difference is that you can actually test science, you can't test things based off of faith. Faith in theories comes from evidence showing those theories are highly probable, where as faith in creation comes from "well i dunno how we got here, i'll say it was god"

And quoting Ronald Reagan? Seriously? Sigh......

And dre, pics or shens.

[Hilltop Customs]

bornl33t the science point of view my not be absolutely provable, but it is a much more relevant since we are talking about a science class...

Flip it around the other way and you will see how idiotic bringing creationism into a science class is...for example: pretend you are in church and the preacher is talking about Adam and Eve, how would you feel if someone stood up and explained evolution and said we came from monkeys?

its easy to see how illogical integrating science and faith is if you look at both perspectives....science and faith are almost completely mutually exclusive when it comes to explaining the world we live in.

[grEnAlEins]

Flip it around the other way and you will see how idiotic bringing creationism into a science class is...for example: pretend you are in church and the preacher is talking about Adam and Eve, how would you feel if someone stood up and explained evolution and said we came from monkeys?

That is what we do in my church. We teach evolution as fact. There is nothing saying that Adam was not a figurative concept representing all Man. Nothing says that God could not have had a hand in how we evolved or that we evolved. That is what is preached. Granted that is not traditionally true of most religions.

Anybody who takes everything in the Good Book literally is not going believe in evolution or any other scientific explanation for anything. Everybody who does not take it literally, but figuratively already believes in evolution and agrees that the big bang is possible. People who disregard it believe in evolution and that the big bang is possible. This is never ever going to change.

[Hilltop Customs]

thats interesting grEnAlEins, I dont recall ever talking about evolution in church, but then I was too young to really understand or remember at that point

[grEnAlEins]

thats interesting grEnAlEins, I dont recall ever talking about evolution in church, but then I was too young to really understand or remember at that point

Most religions do not and will not. We have traditionally taken the Bible to be more figurative than literal. I am willing to bet that my experience is somewhat unique.

I should say that some "sects" do still think that the image of God and a rib-woman lived in a magical garden after appearing out of nowhere and a pile of sand respectively.

[snoopay700]

Most religions do not and will not. We have traditionally taken the Bible to be more figurative than literal. I am willing to bet that my experience is somewhat unique.

My parents treated it the way you did, my church did not. Either way i don't think that matter now, i'm an atheist now so i don't know if things have changed in the 4 or 5 years or not.

[grEnAlEins]

My parents treated it the way you did, my church did not. Either way i don't think that matter now, i'm an atheist now so i don't know if things have changed in the 4 or 5 years or not.

Well, things are changing in some religions. The Catholics are now cool with evolution as of a week or two ago, but they are behind the ball.