Barack Obama on Science

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kFsB1Jk1OQ0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kFsB1Jk1OQ0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

It's about time.

I can only hope he follows through with it.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
Wait, I'm confused; what is he proposing?
 
Active Member
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
6,873
Best answers
0
So far so good.

I'm really glad that Obama became president.
 
The Brain Freezer
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,374
Best answers
0
Yep, you guys got lucky, Obama is a guy with good ideals as he seemed to be.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Wait, I'm confused; what is he proposing?
That he's pro-science.

Which many hope will result in:

1. Intelligent Design no longer being taught in public schools.
2. The teaching of evolution no longer being suppressed or hindered by religious fundamentalists and right-wing politics.
3. No more bending over for religious fundamentalists and right-wingers.
4. Much needed funding for various programs (NASA, stem cell research, renewable energy, etcetera).
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
I'm indifferent about Obama. I want to like him, but the entire thing about him appointing people who didn't pay taxes to important positions in government had be disturbed (yes, he apologized, but we still have a secretary of tresuary who cheated on his taxes.)

Also, there'sthis, which I'm pretty upset about.
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
Personally, I don't care about the tax thing. I think most americans would cheat on their taxes if the IRS checked it over and still missed it. And tax breaks are generally never the answer. Tends towards creating more immediate benefits but it's usually bubble style. Besides, no point in giving a tax cut to someone who doesn't have a job and doesn't pay taxes anyway.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
If the tax codes are so confusing that our new secretary of the treasury / most americans can't understand them, then perhaps its time for reform.

That's assuming he didn't know. Of course he knew, he owed 30,000 dollars.
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
oh yeah, no doubt though, the US tax code is really ****ed up. There's plenty of things that a lot of CPAs (Certified Public Accountants) don't understand. The tax code deperately needs and overhaul.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
That he's pro-science.

Which many hope will result in:

1. Intelligent Design no longer being taught in public schools.
2. The teaching of evolution no longer being suppressed or hindered by religious fundamentalists and right-wing politics.
3. No more bending over for religious fundamentalists and right-wingers.
4. Much needed funding for various programs (NASA, stem cell research, renewable energy, etcetera).
Oh, I get it, so Obama is exactly the kind of liberal scum I've anticipated, working overtime to destroy religion and turn the world against anyone who might question the unfeeling machine that is science, further enforcing evolution as being the ONLY unimpeachable answer there is. Not even allowing alternate theories to exist in a system and educational system that SUPPOSEDLY promotes free inquiry. In short, being no less closed-minded to alternate ideals today than the Catholics were to the ideas of Galileo half a millennium ago.

And so we trade one sort of tyrant for another sort of tyrant. I knew I could see a dark purpose lurking behind the popularity that is Obama's regime...
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
That he's pro-science.

Which many hope will result in:

1. Intelligent Design no longer being taught in public schools.
2. The teaching of evolution no longer being suppressed or hindered by religious fundamentalists and right-wing politics.
3. No more bending over for religious fundamentalists and right-wingers.
4. Much needed funding for various programs (NASA, stem cell research, renewable energy, etcetera).
Oh, I get it, so Obama is exactly the kind of liberal scum I've anticipated, working overtime to destroy religion and turn the world against anyone who might question the unfeeling machine that is science, further enforcing evolution as being the ONLY unimpeachable answer there is. Not even allowing alternate theories to exist in a system and educational system that SUPPOSEDLY promotes free inquiry. In short, being no less closed-minded to alternate ideals today than the Catholics were to the ideas of Galileo half a millennium ago.

And so we trade one sort of tyrant for another sort of tyrant. I knew I could see a dark purpose lurking behind the popularity that is Obama's regime...
You're overreacting. And wrong.

First of all, that list is merely what MC hopes Obama will do.

Second of all, I don't understand how you can label anyone as being a tyrant for wanting to teach evolution instead of intelligent design. Wanting to teach evolution instead of ID is not "working overtime to destroy religion", it's taking religion out of the classroom where it has no place. You can have your religion outside of the schools, but i'll be damned if you'll have it taught inside.

I'm all for viable alternate theories being taught, provided there are any. In this case, intelligent design is not a viable alternate theory simply because it's not science, it's religion pretending to be science in an attempt to be taught in the public school system. It it any coincidence that everyone who wants ID to be taught is a diehard christian, yourself included?

And yes, evolution is only a theory, but a theory is simply an explanation to a set of observations. The theory of gravity is only a theory, yet no one has a problem with it being taught in school. You don't see people clamoring to teach the idea that the earth is flat and that is why we don't fall off it. No one has a problem with theories being taught in the case of gravity, no, the only reason you have a problem with evolution is because you would rather have what your religion teaches be taught in school.

I can't believe you would claim Obama to be a tyrant over this.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
You're overreacting. And wrong.

First of all, that list is merely what MC hopes Obama will do.

Second of all, I don't understand how you can label anyone as being a tyrant for wanting to teach evolution instead of intelligent design. Wanting to teach evolution instead of ID is not "working overtime to destroy religion", it's taking religion out of the classroom where it has no place. You can have your religion outside of the schools, but i'll be damned if you'll have it taught inside.

I'm all for viable alternate theories being taught, provided there are any. In this case, intelligent design is not a viable alternate theory simply because it's not science, it's religion pretending to be science in an attempt to be taught in the public school system. It it any coincidence that everyone who wants ID to be taught is a diehard christian, yourself included?

And yes, evolution is only a theory, but a theory is simply an explanation to a set of observations. The theory of gravity is only a theory, yet no one has a problem with it being taught in school. You don't see people clamoring to teach the idea that the earth is flat and that is why we don't fall off it. No one has a problem with theories being taught in the case of gravity, no, the only reason you have a problem with evolution is because you would rather have what your religion teaches be taught in school.

I can't believe you would claim Obama to be a tyrant over this.
Naturally, I'M wrong, which is typically the message this forum has done nothing but try to force on me.

1: Oh? Then I guess we'll see how much of a liberal Obama really is.

2&3: ID is not religion, you just want to say it is so that YOUR theory is right, because in the same sense that Einstein was repulsed by the big bang theory as a creation theory (and so faked an equation that supposedly disproved it), so are you repulsed by the notion of higher beings, (be they merely of alien, or biblical scale) not because it's scientifically impossible (which it is not, despite the common scientific viewpoint) but because accepting the possibility would put you one step closer to the gaggle of crazies you want to remove yourself from, and feel yourself superior to.

Gravity is an accepted theory, but even 100 years ago it was not set in stone despite it's acceptance. Einstein arrived on the scene and improved the theory, making further sense of why and what gravity was.

I don't want ID taught in schools because I want to teach all the children Christianity, I want to see it taught because higher beings have NOT been ruled out, and shouldn't be, no matter how much high figures and science try to say otherwise. The possibility necessitates an obligation to teach the generations of the world not to assume that any one thing is true or absolute. What are we harming by telling the youth what is possible, and in fact, that anything is possible? Much in the way that you condemn US as closed minded, so do you wish for the coming generations to be closed minded to US and the possibilities WE may offer. The question is of the existence of our Universe, and ourselves, and you would force but a single notion, and nothing else upon others, because you yourself are disgusted personally by the alternatives?

The reason I fear is because I find that there are so many possibilities, and science wants to force us onto only one. And that idea, that religion is archaic nonsense, is one that children are more and more being pressured and brainwashed into believing, leading into a downward spiral where religion itself is looked down upon, snuffed out, and one day, maybe even outlawed. That, is why I fear.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Oh, I get it, so Obama is exactly the kind of liberal scum I've anticipated, working overtime to destroy religion and turn the world against anyone who might question the unfeeling machine that is science, further enforcing evolution as being the ONLY unimpeachable answer there is. Not even allowing alternate theories to exist in a system and educational system that SUPPOSEDLY promotes free inquiry. In short, being no less closed-minded to alternate ideals today than the Catholics were to the ideas of Galileo half a millennium ago.

And so we trade one sort of tyrant for another sort of tyrant. I knew I could see a dark purpose lurking behind the popularity that is Obama's regime...
Erm, Obama's a devout Christian. Science does not equal "DIE RELIGION!". He' just saying he is going to be more open to scientific pursuits instead of letting religious ideals adding on unnecessary weight.

Keep in mind I said "religious ideals" and not "moral ideals". Big difference there.

Edit: Oh snap did not see that there. I love Evolution v.s Intelligent Design discussions!

@ J-Dude: Please calm down. I don not think Sub has under lying feelings like that. And when he said "wrong", he meant you were wrong on what Obama wants, not about your beliefs in general o_O

I respect your idea of wanting a looser restrictions of ideology, but you have to consider that school is meant to provide facts.

Evolution IS only a theory. But schools teach it because there are studies, evidence, and observations done. They do NOT tell the students "This is where the world came from and that's all". They are essentially showing how organisms form over time and how that could be a link to our world and billions of years ago.

Teaching Intelligent Design is basically saying "Hey man, there could always be a higher power. You don't know" which is honestly ridiculous to be taught in schools. Schools are supposed to tell us what we DO know, not make assumptions for stuff we DON'T know. Evolution attempts to put pieces together (keyword: attempts), while ID doesn't have any puzzle pieces :(

Honestly, if schools could say that since we do not know so much, there could be a higher power, there should be absolutely no reason that we could say the entire world is the Matrix.

What I just said was not being condescending or comparing religion to fiction. Please don't you dare think that. What I am saying is if such a broad and vague idea could be taught in schools, the Matrix should theoretically be a possibility.

You are right about not having to push thoughts as "absolute truths" when they are not that concrete. I agree with you that there is potentially just so much we do not know that not everything has an answer in these times. But it sounds like you are suggesting that instead of providing bits and pieces we do know and letting the student fill in the blanks to whatever he wishes, that the the lesson will assume that the things we do not know were by a higher being.

And do you not contradict yourself by saying you want Christianity to be taught in schools, while encouraging a broad range of possibilities? Basically, teaching Christianity would say "Jesus is your only savior and God made everything". Now that's an absolute truth. Would that mean Islam, among other religions, is the wrong answer?




About Obama.

Remember that he said expanding on the "known world", which means using what we already hold as fact and discovering more with it, which would avoid more distant subjects like "is there a God?"
 
Last edited:
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
Erm, Obama's a devout Christian. Science does not equal "DIE RELIGION!". He' just saying he is going to be more open to scientific pursuits instead of letting religious ideals adding on unnecessary weight.

Keep in mind I said "religious ideals" and not "moral ideals". Big difference there.
Let's hope you're correct.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
3,913
Best answers
0
children are more and more being pressured and brainwashed
the same can be said of religion if you want to get right down to it. How many kids go to church because they WANT to, as opposed to being FORCED by their parents.

When it comes to what should be taught in public schools however, I say this. Children go to school to learn things, not to listen to "potential" fairy tales. Teach what can be proven through hard facts and nothing else. Anything extra should be left off the curriculum or made an elective. (And that goes for either one of them)


Im "open" to the the idea of a "higher being" being involved in our creation, despite what i said above. I am not an atheist. Life as a whole is too complex to be the result of a random event. But until i can see proof one way or another, Im not gonna jump head first into any organized religion =/.

(im sorry for singling out Christianity J-dude, I live in Texas. There isnt alot on the menu XD)



Bill Hicks said:
"Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."

Well how ****ing scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

"Uh-huh."

Dinosaurs.

You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the ****ing Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big ****ing lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.

"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat ****ing families and their fat dollar bills.

"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord.""
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
Naturally, I'M wrong, which is typically the message this forum has done nothing but try to force on me.
I didn't mean it as an offense, but on the matter of whether or not ID should be taught in school, you couldn't be more wrong.

1: Oh? Then I guess we'll see how much of a liberal Obama really is.

2&3: ID is not religion, you just want to say it is so that YOUR theory is right, because in the same sense that Einstein was repulsed by the big bang theory as a creation theory (and so faked an equation that supposedly disproved it), so are you repulsed by the notion of higher beings, (be they merely of alien, or biblical scale) not because it's scientifically impossible (which it is not, despite the common scientific viewpoint) but because accepting the possibility would put you one step closer to the gaggle of crazies you want to remove yourself from, and feel yourself superior to.
I'm not repulsed by the notion of higher beings. I would absolutely love it if there was a god, it would be a huge relief. For the record, I'm an agnostic-atheist, or in other words, I don't believe that there is a god but I'm willing to admit that it's possible.

The reason that I advocate evolution (or as you put it, the reason evolution is "my theory") and outright dismiss ID is quite simple - There's cold hard facts supporting evolution. In fact, we have mountains upon mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. ID, on the other hand, has nothing but empty rhetoric. Sure, it's scientifically possible that a higher power (read: god) created us, but you can't prove or disprove this. You can't conduct experiments on whether or not god exists, you can't gather evidence on whether or not god exists. You believe god exists out of faith. ID requires that same faith which goes against the very tenants of science. A well founded theory does not require faith to be believed, it has evidence to back up it's claim.

I don't want ID taught in schools because I want to teach all the children Christianity, I want to see it taught because higher beings have NOT been ruled out, and shouldn't be, no matter how much high figures and science try to say otherwise. The possibility necessitates an obligation to teach the generations of the world not to assume that any one thing is true or absolute. What are we harming by telling the youth what is possible, and in fact, that anything is possible? Much in the way that you condemn US as closed minded, so do you wish for the coming generations to be closed minded to US and the possibilities WE may offer. The question is of the existence of our Universe, and ourselves, and you would force but a single notion, and nothing else upon others, because you yourself are disgusted personally by the alternatives?
There are many things that cannot, by their very nature, be ruled out because it's impossible to prove or disprove. Should we teach the children that there may or may not be a giant flying spaghetti monster who controls the verse? It can't be disproven and surely there's no harm in teaching them this?

The reason I fear is because I find that there are so many possibilities, and science wants to force us onto only one. And that idea, that religion is archaic nonsense, is one that children are more and more being pressured and brainwashed into believing, leading into a downward spiral where religion itself is looked down upon, snuffed out, and one day, maybe even outlawed. That, is why I fear.
You seem to have a vast misunderstanding of science. Science by definition means to gain an understanding of the universe through experimentation and observation. The notion that we're forcing only one scientific theory onto students is simply because that's all we have. If someone develops an alternate theory that is actually science (again, ID is not science) then great, we'll teach that. If we find evidence disproving evolution, then great, we'll stop teaching evolution. Until we do either of those things, we're going to continue teaching evolution because it's what the facts support.

Evolution is not an attack on religion, it's merely an attempt to explain the origin of species. And religion in this country is stronger than ever, some 90% of the people in the U.S. believe in a higher power. You shouldn't worry about religion being outlawed, that'd be ridiculous.

@Chakra: <3

edit: Just so we're on the same page, evolution makes no claims about how the universe was created. Evolution merely attempts to explain how life evolved from preexisting lifeforms.
 
Last edited:

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
J-Dude said:
2&3: ID is not religion, you just want to say it is so that YOUR theory is right,
Intelligent Design is the idea/belief that because of the complexity of life and the universe, that neither could have been created/formed by natural means/processes. In that there must be or had been an "intelligent designer/creator/cause".

It's an assumption that's backed by Creationists, promoted as a science and as an "alternative" to Evolution.

J-Dude said:
because in the same sense that Einstein was repulsed by the big bang theory as a creation theory (and so faked an equation that supposedly disproved it),
Albert Einstein, like many, believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. However, when Albert Einstein created the General Theory for Relativity, he found that it contradicted his idea of an eternal and unchanging universe. This lead him to formulate what is known as the "cosmological constant", which was an attempt to permit the existence of an eternal and unchanging universe.

However, in light of new evidence of a dynamic universe discovered by Hubble, he abandoned the "cosmological constant". And, he was to have said later that the "cosmological constant" was the biggest mistake of his life.

J-Dude said:
so are you repulsed by the notion of higher beings, (be they merely of alien, or biblical scale) not because it's scientifically impossible (which it is not, despite the common scientific viewpoint) but because accepting the possibility would put you one step closer to the gaggle of crazies you want to remove yourself from, and feel yourself superior to.
I simply never believed there to be a god or God.

As for aliens, that's a different story.

J-Dude said:
Gravity is an accepted theory, but even 100 years ago it was not set in stone despite it's acceptance. Einstein arrived on the scene and improved the theory, making further sense of why and what gravity was.
It should be noted that there had been many who came before Albert Einstein that helped improve the Theory of Gravitation. However, it was Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity that helped fill in many gaps and corrected many mistakes.

J-Dude said:
I don't want ID taught in schools because I want to teach all the children Christianity, I want to see it taught because higher beings have NOT been ruled out, and shouldn't be, no matter how much high figures and science try to say otherwise. The possibility necessitates an obligation to teach the generations of the world not to assume that any one thing is true or absolute. What are we harming by telling the youth what is possible, and in fact, that anything is possible? Much in the way that you condemn US as closed minded, so do you wish for the coming generations to be closed minded to US and the possibilities WE may offer.
I don't want children to be taught religion at all as far as school is concerned.

If you want to learn about religion, then go to church or take a religious studies course.

J-Dude said:
The question is of the existence of our Universe, and ourselves, and you would force but a single notion, and nothing else upon others, because you yourself are disgusted personally by the alternatives?
What alternatives?

J-Dude said:
The reason I fear is because I find that there are so many possibilities, and science wants to force us onto only one. And that idea, that religion is archaic nonsense, is one that children are more and more being pressured and brainwashed into believing, leading into a downward spiral where religion itself is looked down upon, snuffed out, and one day, maybe even outlawed. That, is why I fear.
You'd be surprised at how many people feel that way about religion.
 
The Brain Freezer
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,374
Best answers
0
Oh, I get it, so Obama is exactly the kind of liberal scum I've anticipated, working overtime to destroy religion and turn the world against anyone who might question the unfeeling machine that is science, further enforcing evolution as being the ONLY unimpeachable answer there is. Not even allowing alternate theories to exist in a system and educational system that SUPPOSEDLY promotes free inquiry. In short, being no less closed-minded to alternate ideals today than the Catholics were to the ideas of Galileo half a millennium ago.

And so we trade one sort of tyrant for another sort of tyrant. I knew I could see a dark purpose lurking behind the popularity that is Obama's regime...
I didnt read all of your post and I dont want to, what you say is a bit ridiculous (dont get mad, it really is). Do you know what makes a Country to have a good economy? I tell you, it's Science...taah-naah. F*** turism, f*** gastronomy, f*** art, science has and allways will be the big marker of a country in the world. Every countries that have lots of relligion and lacks science are the most miserable countries in the world, is that what you want? I would be very happy if I were you man.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
My only problem with ID is that the biggest evidence I ever hear FOR it is that evolution is not proven. If they had any actual evidence behind then it could be taught in schools.

I don't want ID taught in schools because I want to teach all the children Christianity,
So you want Christianity taught, what make YOUR religion so special. Why not teach Atheism then too, or Voodoo, or Buddhism. Those are all perfectly valid religions as well, what makes Christianity any more important to teach in schools. I'm sure Muslim parents don't want their learning verses from the bible any more than you would want your kids reading from the Koran. Remember just like Christianity there's no proof AGAINST any of these religions right? So why shouldn't they be taught in schools?

The reason I fear is because I find that there are so many possibilities, and science wants to force us onto only one.
What do you mean there are many possibilities? everything has a cause, and everything has an affect. there is only one CORRECT possibility, and science's goal is to find that correct one. It's not like the scientific community just picks one possibility at random and says 'guys this is the way it is' and its done. They go through years, sometimes lifetimes of research constantly changing, and sometimes completely dropping their theories.

Just like in olden times, sure it was a possibility that the world was flat, it was completely wrong but it was still a possibility. Once people saw that the world was indeed round(or at least roundish) that's what everyone believed. If you truly have faith in your religion science shouldn't scare you, science's goal is to find the truth, so if your religion is true why should you fear it? Like you said there's no proof God DOESN'T exist, and until there is no science in the world will ever invalidate his existence. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, just because we know how something works doesn't mean God wasn't involved, maybe he wrote the rules. But, we also cannot teach that philosophy in schools, church is always there for those who want their kids to learn about religion.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
The theory of evolution is just as "proven" as the existence of God.

All we can do is suspect and choose our preference for either choice, but the truth is none of us know and chances are none of us will ever know.

I'd say take an objective stance on it and teach both, but enforce neither. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top