• New Mexico Bill Seeks to Protect Anti-Science Education
    156 replies, posted
Holy shit, I go to private school and they don't teach anti-science.
New Mexico, Worst Mexico
[QUOTE=Taishu;27901845]Climate change isn't a controversial scientific topic. Most, if not all, scientists agree that global warming is man-made. The only "debate" there is, is between scientists and conservative nut-jobs.[/QUOTE] it is controversial in the scientific community, there is no consensus on how much of an effect we have and how to reverse that effect or if it is possible. basically they are in consensus about people causing it, but not much else.
[QUOTE=The golden;27906393]I see the USA takes pride in it's standing as having one of the worst education system.[/QUOTE] one of the worst? :crossarms: we are in the top 15 in most areas and top 10 for adult literacy
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27905862]it is controversial in the scientific community, there is no consensus on how much of an effect we have and how to reverse that effect or if it is possible. basically they are in consensus about people causing it, but not much else.[/QUOTE] "We're causing it for sure, but are we causing it enough to care? Nah, let's just pollute more"
[QUOTE=The golden;27906686]Most areas? USA is still teaching creationism in *[B]public[/B]* schools while the rest of the civilized world has moved far away from that.[/QUOTE] I've gone to multiple public schools and I was never taught anything about creationism other than what it stood for and the time period it started to show up.
[QUOTE=TwinkieHouse;27901686]Area 51 is in Nevada.[/QUOTE] That's what they want you to think.
That'll teach them nerds to act like "science" has a monopoly on truth! Take that, nerds!
[QUOTE=The golden;27907983]You =/= everyone. And they're obviously still teaching creationism in public schools. You cannot deny this, it's what the bloody thread is about. Also if you frequent this section, you'll probably have seen all the other similar threads as well in the past.[/QUOTE] I was taught evolution too. The only mention of creationism was my teacher saying "now, there are some people who don't believe in evolution, but believe in creationism. It's fine to have your beliefs, but we're going to be talking about evolution"
[QUOTE=The golden;27907983]You =/= everyone. And they're obviously still teaching creationism in public schools. You cannot deny this, it's what the bloody thread is about. Also if you frequent this section, you'll probably have seen all the other similar threads as well in the past.[/QUOTE] Actually, I was taught evolution too. Only thing on creationism is what it was and that was it. [editline]6th February 2011[/editline] You live in Canada anyways, you wouldn't know first hand.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;27901794]Teachers should be able to teach whatever they want to as long as they also teach what the school requires. The schools should [B]NOT[/B] prevent what the teachers can teach, at least when it comes to science.[/QUOTE] Creationism etc. is not science. It should not be taught in a science class (it's not true either, so it shouldn't be taught anywhere).
[QUOTE=TwinkieHouse;27901686]Area 51 is in Nevada.[/QUOTE] [i]Black Mesa[/i], man! :tinfoil:
I'm amazed that they included human cloning alongside the other two.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27910736]I'm amazed that they included human cloning alongside the other two.[/QUOTE] Hedging their bets against the future? Combating the wave of atheism sweeping the country after man creates man, eliminating the need for God? Hell, I don't know, I'm not insane!
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;27901197]From Wired [img_thumb]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/02/anti-evolution-bumper-sticker-flickr-jun.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Creationists calling evolution fairy tales... [img]http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9198/superirony.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=The golden;27906686]Most areas? USA is still teaching creationism in *[B]public[/B]* schools while the rest of the civilized world has moved far away from that.[/QUOTE] not really, i never learned creationism in biology, my course didnt even mention it or intelligent design this is protecting teachers to allow them to teach it, but it isnt really taught that much, only a few teachers do it. [QUOTE=Zeke129;27906671]"We're causing it for sure, but are we causing it enough to care? Nah, let's just pollute more"[/QUOTE] well theres a problem, lets say that we remove co2 and replace it with hydrogen power for cars. water vapor(the by product of hydrogen power) is also a greenhouse gas, and more potent than co2. by moving to a green energy source we would be going out of the fire and into the frying pan electric cars have to use fossil fuels to gain their power. so unless everything is either hydroelectric, solar, or nuclear(hint hint, perfect green energy), it won't make much of a difference. there is also the fact we dont know exactly how much our co2 affects the atmosphere as far as greenhouse gases goes. we are realizing that methane is also a major player and we have tons of cow farms around, what is the point of getting rid of fossil fuels when our agriculture is putting out a ton? [QUOTE=sp00ks;27910553]Creationism etc. is not science. It should not be taught in a science class (it's not true either, so it shouldn't be taught anywhere).[/QUOTE] religious studies?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27912072]well theres a problem, lets say that we remove co2 and replace it with hydrogen power for cars. water vapor(the by product of hydrogen power) is also a greenhouse gas, and more potent than co2. by moving to a green energy source we would be going out of the fire and into the frying pan[/QUOTE] Water vapour in the earth's atmosphere isn't more "potent" than CO2. Secondly, water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. For example, when large amounts of water vapour is released, such as a volcanic eruption, water vapour quickly disappears, unless there is a change in temperature. [QUOTE=yawmwen;27912072]electric cars have to use fossil fuels to gain their power. so unless everything is either hydroelectric, solar, or nuclear(hint hint, perfect green energy), it won't make much of a difference.[/QUOTE] A study from 2008 showed that UK could cut down emissions by 40 % at least by using electric cars, even when taking the power source in account. [URL]http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file48653.pdf[/URL] [QUOTE=yawmwen;27912072]there is also the fact we dont know exactly how much our co2 affects the atmosphere as far as greenhouse gases goes. we are realizing that methane is also a major player and we have tons of cow farms around, what is the point of getting rid of fossil fuels when our agriculture is putting out a ton?[/QUOTE] Oh, we know pretty much for certain what kind of effect CO2 has on our environment, also "cow" farms and other forms of agriculture hardly contribute as much as the other sectors.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27912072]not really, i never learned creationism in biology, my course didnt even mention it or intelligent design this is protecting teachers to allow them to teach it, but it isnt really taught that much, only a few teachers do it.[/quote]It shouldn't be taught anywhere except in a religion class. I highly doubt this bill is meant to protect their right to teach that in a religious studies class only. [quote]well theres a problem, lets say that we remove co2 and replace it with hydrogen power for cars. water vapor(the by product of hydrogen power) is also a greenhouse gas, and more potent than co2. by moving to a green energy source we would be going out of the fire and into the frying pan[/quote]Water vapour isn't nearly as persistent in the atmosphere as CO2. [quote]electric cars have to use fossil fuels to gain their power. so unless everything is either hydroelectric, solar, or nuclear(hint hint, perfect green energy), it won't make much of a difference.[/quote]It's a start, isn't it? A greater demand for electric cars is going to increase the infrastructure available for them. [quote]there is also the fact we dont know exactly how much our co2 affects the atmosphere as far as greenhouse gases goes. we are realizing that methane is also a major player and we have tons of cow farms around, what is the point of getting rid of fossil fuels when our agriculture is putting out a ton?[/quote]Farms are starting to utilise that methane. Mainly in compost piles involving cow shit and whatnot, i'm not sure of the exact mechanical method for catching cow farts (tube up the arse?). That being said, nowhere near as much methane is being released compared to CO2, even taking into account potency differences.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27912583]It shouldn't be taught anywhere except in a religion class. I highly doubt this bill is meant to protect their right to teach that in a religious studies class only.[/quote] i know, im not saying that it should be taught, im saying that it hardly ever is, at least in the "civilized" united states. hell, if new mexico wants to fuck up their science education and put themselves lower than they already are they can be my guest. [quote]Water vapour isn't nearly as persistent in the atmosphere as CO2.[/quote] if we are putting a shit load of it in the air daily its bound to have an effect. [quote]It's a start, isn't it? A greater demand for electric cars is going to increase the infrastructure available for them.[/quote] im saying that electric cars arent a good option if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels. we need to set up nuclear, hydroelectric, solar(where possible), and wind power before we can switch to electric cars more effectively. [quote]Farms are starting to utilise that methane. Mainly in compost piles involving cow shit and whatnot, i'm not sure of the exact mechanical method for catching cow farts (tube up the arse?). That being said, nowhere near as much methane is being released compared to CO2, even taking into account potency differences.[/QUOTE] in the united states? [QUOTE=Taishu;27912550]Water vapour in the earth's atmosphere isn't more "potent" than CO2. Secondly, water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. For example, when large amounts of water vapour is released, such as a volcanic eruption, water vapour quickly disappears, unless there is a change in temperature. [/quote] really, can you source that? i thought water vapor had a greater effect on heat trapping than co2. [quote]A study from 2008 showed that UK could cut down emissions by 40 % at least by using electric cars, even when taking the power source in account. [URL]http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file48653.pdf[/URL][/quote] dont you guys have a lot of nuclear power? plus a lot of hydroelectric i presume. that makes a big difference since a lot of your energy isnt fossil fuel. the us has a lot more fossil fuel use. [quote]Oh, we know pretty much for certain what kind of effect CO2 has on our environment, also "cow" farms and other forms of agriculture hardly contribute as much as the other sectors.[/QUOTE] not really, the science behind climate change is hardly precise. we dont know how badly we effect it and there are different numbers from different scientists.
Suddenly this thread has nothing to do about the original topic.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27912698]i know, im not saying that it should be taught, im saying that it hardly ever is, at least in the "civilized" united states. hell, if new mexico wants to fuck up their science education and put themselves lower than they already are they can be my guest.[/quote]That's a pretty shit way of looking at things. They shouldn't simply be given free reign to fuck up the education of thousands upon thousands of children. One part of a country should not be allowed to voluntarily whither and die, even if it's the state's right to do so. [quote]if we are putting a shit load of it in the air daily its bound to have an effect.[/quote]Heard of the water cycle? It does not accumulate, it goes back to being normal water. It'll probably rain more, and that's it. It would have to be quite an extraordinary production effort to get anywhere close to the Earth's water vapour production and have that persist. [quote]im saying that electric cars arent a good option if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels. we need to set up nuclear, hydroelectric, solar(where possible), and wind power before we can switch to electric cars more effectively.[/quote]Indeed, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to electric cars until then. It would probably be cheaper to put e.g. filters on one power plant than it's equivalent in cars. [quote]in the united states?[/quote]Yes. iirc New York City uses sewage plant gases to power those facilities at least partially, for example.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;27901794]Teachers should be able to teach whatever they want to as long as they also teach what the school requires. The schools should [B]NOT[/B] prevent what the teachers can teach, at least when it comes to science.[/QUOTE] The hell are you talking about? You're saying that you think it's fine for a teacher to rail their own personalised rhetoric at the hundreds/thousands of students they teach, whatever that material might be, [I]just so long as[/I] they cover the [I]required[/I] material as well? Bull-freakin'-horse-shit [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27912965]That's a pretty shit way of looking at things. They shouldn't simply be given free reign to fuck up the education of thousands upon thousands of children. One part of a country should not be allowed to voluntarily whither and die, even if it's the state's right to do so.[/QUOTE] This, essentially.
ITT: Bash America furiously.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;27913461]ITT: Bash America furiously.[/QUOTE] I think when a country has problems believing in basic things like science it deserves some bashing.
[B]SCIENCE = TRUTH[/B] How can truth be controversial.
[QUOTE=Nerts;27901797]Oh, I'm thinking of Roswell then. I need to brush up on my conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE] Roswell isn't a conspiracy, fucking learn what one is. :colbert:
[QUOTE=The golden;27906393]I see the USA takes pride in it's standing as having one of the worst education system.[/QUOTE] I see how one group of idiots make a decision and suddenly everyone in the US is stupid. But nice attempt to start a flame war. :smug:
[QUOTE=Occlusion;27914491][B]SCIENCE = TRUTH[/B] How can truth be controversial.[/QUOTE] Because science isn't hard truth, it's theories and approximate models of the truth - some far more validated by evidence than others.
[QUOTE=HubmaN;27916164]Because science isn't hard truth, it's theories and approximate models of the truth - some far more validated by evidence than others.[/QUOTE] Indeed. Science is about researching and studying, whereas religion is about giving hope for the unfortunate people, which is wonderful. Maybe in some years religion will be rewritten all over, so that the bottom idea of religion, which is good, will stay untouched, but all the unnecessary bullshit about trying to disprove science would be gone for good because it's no good.
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;27901197]:smith:[/QUOTE] Honestly, I didn't really read the entire article, but it wasn't necessary. Here's my observation. We have a right to teach what we believe, and there's apparently no problem with letting anyone and everyone apply to be a teacher of anything in public school; why do we care if they have an opinion, since you're bound to get a mouthful of most teachers' philosophies anyway? You're not being forced to agree, and if you are, then the teacher should be fired. New Mexico's legislature is well within their right to support protecting this, or any other viewpoint for that matter--it's in the Constitution for our own protection, people. Don't like it? Move. Preferrably to China, where personal opinions are illegal. I also find the picture ironic, more because of how true it is despite it's context.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.