NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=29&u=/ap/20041214/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yeah, but thankfully the ACLU is here to make sure they don't get too big for their britches, as the saying goes.

Yeah, but thankfully the ACLU is here to make sure they don't get too big for their britches, as the saying goes.
Methinks you missed the point entirely. unless that was very very slick sarcasm on your part, in which case I commend you.

ach... the ACLU are nothing but idiots that infringe on religion.

Big whoop if they want to teach stuff other then evolution, it's not like they can prove evolution any more then we can over Creationism.

stupid bastards -.-

ach... the ACLU are nothing but idiots that infringe on religion.

Big whoop if they want to teach stuff other then evolution, it's not like they can prove evolution any more then we can over Creationism.

stupid bastards -.-

Agreed.

ach... the ACLU are nothing but idiots that infringe on religion.

Big whoop if they want to teach stuff other then evolution, it's not like they can prove evolution any more then we can over Creationism.

stupid bastards -.-

disagreed

Why disagree?

You think public schools should only contain secular minded theories... not all religious people can afford to send them to religious schools or might not even live near one.

I think they should teach both Evolution and Creationism... and as the issue in Nationstates go. "Let's also teach them that we evovled from @NationalAnimal@ Then Everyone can go home happy"

But isn't that what Schools are for? To teach acedemics which are proven? If that's the case, then neither should be taught.

Schools should be for learning, there is enough of a load on students without Politics, Religion and Social issues getting in the way. How can a student learn when they are protesting? How can one learn when they are getting slapped on the wrists with rulers by Nuns?

We're talking about Public Schools not religious schools.

If the ACLU wants to force the school to teach them some BS about evolution and monkeys and that, then they should also teach our BS that a great Deity created the entire universe.

I disagree, because this would open a door allowing teachers to teach opinions instead of facts.

Yeah... and none of the facts are proven....

They can't force the school to teach one opinion/theory and not the other.

Discrimanation....

I disagree, because this would open a door allowing teachers to teach opinions instead of facts.
Because they don't already? Teachers are human, they will put their beliefs into their teachings just simply because it is hard not too. I don't know what the big deal is, teach both let the children decide. That is how my high school bio teacher did it just a couple years ago and noone complained.

They do already, certainly. But this would go beyond it. Evolution is an intersting and probable explanation for life on the planet, and to not teach it in a public high school would be doing a disservice to everybody. I do believe blindly following religion makes a slave of you. So many religions are so complex that when something comes up against their teachings, it's shunned for many years.

Do you also advocate the teaching of reincarnation and karma in biology class? How about the beliefs native americans have on how life started? If you want to endorse one religion you have to endorse every single one.

Not true that we should be taught everything... It depends on the class, since most of the class are probably monotheists/agnostics.

We should stick with just those 2.

If the class is let's say a big mix if religious hindus...and christians and atheists.

Well this would prove to be a fun year for them as they could get lots of debates done.

So basically it depends on the religiousness of the class on what should be taught.

Evolution is an intersting and probable explanation for life on the planet, and to not teach it in a public high school would be doing a disservice to everybody.
I thought they were going to continue to teach evolution and just add teaching creationism along with it.

The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power.

no... evolution only for them.

Baby eaters -.-

I thought they were going to continue to teach evolution and just add teaching creationism along with it.
Which is just as bad. They're teaching something that isn't science as science. And people wonder why we produce so few scientists.

New to this subject my question is; what group is writing the text on creationism? Is it based on one religion?

If the creationism they are teaching just states that something created the universe and life, but not particularly one specific god did this, then it is as plausible as anything else out there.

The problem comes in when we start getting religion specific, then every religion will require that they recieve equal representation in the schools.

If you're going to endorse creationism, and teach it alongside evolution, then you might as well abandon teaching any science at all. Bibical creationism doesn't just contradict Darwinism, it is quite clearly contrary to prevailant (and experimentally verifiable) theory in physics, chemistry, geology, and goodness knows what else.

If you really have to appease the creationists, then just preface the beginning of ay science course with a lesson on the philosophy therof. Explain that Science is an approach to establishing the nature of the universe based on observation of the universe, hypothesis based on that evidence, drawing predictions based on those hypotheses, and verifying the theory by experimentally confirming the validity of these predictions.

Then go on to explain that this is only one of many approaches that one can take to establishing the nature of the Universe, and that another popular approach is to assume scripture to be literally true, regardless of evidence, and indeed even if empirical data flatly contradict it.

Once this has been estabished, teach only actual science in science classes, and leave creationism and other unscientific dogma to Religious Studies lessons.

If you're going to endorse creationism, and teach it alongside evolution, then you might as well abandon all science. Bibical creationism doesn't just contradict Darwinism, it is quite clearly contradicted by prevailant (and experimentally verifiable) theory in physics, chemistry, geology, and goodness knows what else.

If you really have to appease the creationists, then just preface the beginning of ay science course with a lesson on the philosophy therof. Explain that Science is an approach to establishing the nature of the universe based on observation of the universe, hypothesis based on that evidence, drawing predictions based on those hypotheses, and verifying the theory by experimentally confirming the validity of these predictions.

Then go on to explain that this is only one approach that one can take to establishing the nature, and that another popular approach is to assume scripture to be literally true, regardless of evidence, and even if empirical data flatly contradict it.

Once this has been estabished, teach only actual science in science classes, and leave creationism and other unscientific dogma to Religious Studies lessons.

I second this, can we have a vote please

This is really much simpler than religion versus secularism.

It is a simple question of whether non-science should be taught in science class.

And the answer is equally simple.

The answer is indeed simple- only Creation as recorded in Genesis must be taught in all schools. Darwinism must be crushed for the evil that it is, even in "intelligent design" versions. The ACLU will fall with its empire.

The answer is indeed simple- only Creation as recorded in Genesis must be taught in all schools. Darwinism must be crushed for the evil that it is, even in "intelligent design" versions. The ACLU will fall with its empire.

I know I started off with sarcasm, but this is really good. It IS sarcasm, right?

I know I started off with sarcasm, but this is really good. It IS sarcasm, right?
Sarcasm? Hmm.....No...

The difference between evolution and creationism isn't about being proved. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious one. The only mention of creationism in a lesson should be when studying religions (like comparative religion) and which religions are creationist, monotheist, etc. And evolution doesnt neccessarily mean there's no god. now, say the teacher was teaching a lesson and said something about there being no god because of evolution, then that would technically be a breech of church and state because religion is being incorporated into the lesson - whether it be from an atheist's or theist's point of view.

It's really simple. Public schools should have a religion class. It should be a requirement. Students today are woefully uneducated about almost all religions, and they could use a good dose of knowledge on the subject. But to insist that creationism be taught in a science class when it clearly does not have any grounding in commonly accepted scientific methodology, and to further insist that only Christian creationism should be included in such a fashion, is in my opinion sheer stupidity. Christian creationism has as much business in a biology class as biology has at Sunday Mass.

We're talking about Public Schools not religious schools.

If the ACLU wants to force the school to teach them some BS about evolution and monkeys and that, then they should also teach our BS that a great Deity created the entire universe.

The ACLU isn't forcing the teaching of evolution. It's keeping Christianity out of the science classroom.

Creationism belongs in a comparative relgions class.

I don't think you should've entitled it with "the fascists". I get your meaning, but it is inaccurate. Unless you're referring to the propaganda practices by fascist governments, which many other forms of government also partake in.

Sarcasm? Hmm.....No...
That scares me more than I care to say...assuming you're not being sarcastic again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=29&u=/ap/20041214/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Damn those facists!

How dare they defend the Constitution! Bastards!

:rolleyes:

Sarcasm? Hmm.....No...

You DO know that the US is (supposed to be, at least) a secular nation, right?

Yeah... and none of the facts are proven....

They can't force the school to teach one opinion/theory and not the other.

Discrimanation....

No a science theory vs a relgious theory.

Do you also advocate the teaching of reincarnation and karma in biology class? How about the beliefs native americans have on how life started? If you want to endorse one religion you have to endorse every single one.

Bingo! You get a gold star! ;)

Creationism belongs in a comparative relgions class.
Or anthropology, or some english classes, 'specially scripture. History as well.

Damn those facists!

How dare they defend the Constitution! Bastards!

:rolleyes:
I think he means the creationists when he says "fascists"...

If you're going to endorse creationism, and teach it alongside evolution, then you might as well abandon teaching any science at all. Bibical creationism doesn't just contradict Darwinism, it is quite clearly contrary to prevailant (and experimentally verifiable) theory in physics, chemistry, geology, and goodness knows what else.


The people that usually push for creationism and it's forms would LOVE to see evolutution stopped.

You DO know that the US is (supposed to be, at least) a secular nation, right?
All nations are part of His Infinite Domain. There is no such thing as a "secular nation. "
...Simply the Jewish ACLU at its usual antics.

I think he means the creationists when he says "fascists"...

Well.....some of his comments kind of makes me think he means the ACLU......

If the ACLU wants to force the school to teach them some BS about evolution and monkeys and that, then they should also teach our BS that a great Deity created the entire universe.

Erm... they're suing so that the school isn't forced to teach ID, not that it can't teach religious theories, or that it's forced to teach evolution.

All nations are part of His Infinite Domain. There is no such thing as a "secular nation. "
...Simply the Jewish ACLU at its usual antics.
Wow. Just wow. Do you get enough air with your head that far up your ass?

Wow. Just wow. Do you get enough air with your head that far up your ass?
Huh? Is this some sort of unwarranted insult from a God-hating judaizer?

All nations are part of His Infinite Domain. There is no such thing as a "secular nation. "
...Simply the Jewish ACLU at its usual antics.

Wait, jewish?

So you're THAT kinda poster...

Wait, jewish?

So you're THAT kinda poster...

I think we have our first Nazinoob of the new season.

Huh? Is this some sort of unwarranted insult from a God-hating judaizer?
Holy crap, a fundie! Hey, everyone, look! A Christian fundie!

Huh? Is this some sort of unwarranted insult from a God-hating judaizer?
You can't hate what doesn't exist.

You can't hate what doesn't exist.
And that means what?

And that means what?
God doesn't exist.

Ergo, I cannot hate it.

And that means what?

He's saying there is no God, nazinoob.

I absolutly love that term Sdaeriji. Mind if I use it?

God doesn't exist.

So you do hate God afterall. Are you a Jew?

He's saying there is no God, nazinoob.

Nazinoob?

So you do hate God afterall. Are you a Jew?
I can't hate what doesn't exist.

I also can't be a Jew, because I'm an atheist.

Nazinoob?

Yeah, we get a few of you every so often. YOu usually travel in packs. You know, the the guys who eat and shit "god" and hate jews because...well, nobody's every really been able to find out why. Something about them being better then you.

But yeah, you're nothing new.

So you do hate God afterall. Are you a Jew?
What about me? I'm not jewish, and I don't believe in your god. However, I also don't hate him :p

So you do hate God afterall. Are you a Jew?
Wait...are just fooling around with everyone? This is just too stereotypical of fundamentalists...you've gotta be kidding us.

I can't hate what doesn't exist.
And your opinion has what to do with teaching Genesis in the classroom?
I also can't be a Jew, because I'm an atheist.
Jews are atheists. (Michael Newdow come to mind?)

He's saying there is no God, nazinoob.

I absolutly love that term Sdaeriji. Mind if I use it?

Go for it. I would like nothing better than if it entered into the common NSer's lexicon.

And your opinion has what to do with teaching Genesis in the classroom?

Fine, I'll play by your rules.

Genesis should not be taught in the classroom because the entire world is being controlled by jews and they hate your god and want to eat little white christian babies.

Happy now?

Yeah, we get a few of you every so often. YOu usually travel in packs. You know, the the guys who eat and shit "god" and hate jews because...well, nobody's every really been able to find out why. Something about them being better then you.

But yeah, you're nothing new.
Jews killed Christ. They bear the curse for their deicide. The rest of your statements make no sense. Perhaps "nazinoob" has Yiddish roots I am unaware of.


What about me? I'm not jewish, and I don't believe in your god. However, I also don't hate him :p
Judaizer... Jorge Boosh is not Jewish, yet...
http://************/5k5z2

And your opinion has what to do with teaching Genesis in the classroom?

Jews are atheists. (Michael Newdow come to mind?)
It infringes upon my right to freedom of religion.

Yeha, because we all know that being an atheist means worshipping a god. :rolleyes:

Fine, I'll play by your rules.

Genesis should not be taught in the classroom because the entire world is being controlled by jews and they hate your god and want to eat little white christian babies.

Happy now?
And the solution is?

It infringes upon my right to freedom of religion.

There is no such "right."

Jews killed Christ. They bear the curse for their deicide. The rest of your statements make no sense. Perhaps "nazinoob" has Yiddish roots I am unaware of.

Yeshua had to die for you to be saved. You should be thanking the Jews.

(I'm ignoring the fact that it was the Romans who killed Yeshua, because he was crucified, not stoned. I'm also ignoring the fact that Yeshua likely never existed.)

There is no such "right."
The First Amendment. Do I have to quote it for you?

There is no such "right."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Huh? Is this some sort of unwarranted insult from a God-hating judaizer?

Judaizer?

What is that? Some kind of smoothie maker?

Yeshua had to die for you to be saved. You should be thanking the Jews.

(I'm ignoring the fact that it was the Romans who killed Yeshua, because he was crucified, not stoned. I'm also ignoring the fact that Yeshua likely never existed.)
The Jews corporately murdered Iesus Christ.

The First Amendment. Do I have to quote it for you?
Hmm... Where does God grant this "first amendment?" I can't seem to find this "quote."

The Jews corporately murdered Iesus Christ.
What the fuck are you talking about? And once again, you have to thank them for that. If they didn't kill him, you'd be going to Hell.

Hmm... Where does God grant this "first amendment?" I can't seem to find this "quote."

Who said "God" had to grant it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your "God" has no authority over me.

ach... the ACLU are nothing but idiots that infringe on religion.

Big whoop if they want to teach stuff other then evolution, it's not like they can prove evolution any more then we can over Creationism.

stupid bastards -.-
yeah the aclu hate religion, thats why they have taken a number of cases defending people who were being discrimianted against because of religion

dipshit

What the fuck are you talking about. And once again, you have to thank them for that. If they didn't kill him, you'd be going to Hell.
The Jews brought upon themselves the curse for murdering Iesus.

Who said "God" had to grant it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your "God" has no authority over me.
All on earth His scepter claim...

The Jews brought upon themselves the curse for murdering Iesus.
You just keep repeating the same thing over and over again, even though, I've shown you how ridiculous it is.

Jews are atheists. (Michael Newdow come to mind?)
Umm...Newdow was and is a self-proclaimed atheist. He isn't a Jew.

You just keep repeating the same over and over again, even though, I've shown you how ridiculous it is.
You're denying that the Jews are responsible for His death on the Cross?

Why disagree?You think public schools should only contain secular minded theories... not all religious people can afford to send them to religious schools or might not even live near one.
Whoaaa... You're ignorance isn't even thinly veiled, even making most of your Christian peers look far more *evolved* than yourself.
Not as much evidence? Oh lord. I think they must've cut back on the time they should've spent on science to teach pseudoscience at the school you attended.
If you can't afford to send your children to private schools, shut up and put your *scientifically proven* faith to use: PRAY FOR THE MONEY!

Or perhaps you should be doing your job as a parent and teach them these things at home and at church.
I learned all about the bible this way, and learned about science in it's appropriate place, school.

Don't argue that you're too poor to teach your children your beliefs at home and at church. This argument is rediculously hollow.
Where's your parenting skills at? Does your church suck so bad that they can't teach your children God's word on Sunday over 18 years?

Of course they'll learn it at church. This is just a way to turn the classroom into a church, namely to WITNESS TO UNBELIEVER'S CHILDREN!

And what if the teacher is Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist? Can they teach intelligent design as they believe it, or would you find it offensive that someone would slip their faith into your child's science class?
C'mon, even Christians see right through this bullshit.

You're denying that the Jews are responsible for His death on the Cross?
Does the word "Roman" come to mind?

Goodness, this is going to be fun!

Umm...Newdow was and is a self-proclaimed atheist. He isn't a Jew.
No, Newdow is both a racial and according to his mother, a "practicing" Jew.
Like most Jews, he believes in no god but the Jewish race.

You're denying that the Jews are responsible for His death on the Cross?
Sigh. What I'm saying is that if the Jews killed Yeshua, then you should be thanking them, because Yeshua had to die for your sins. Is it that hard to understand?

You're denying that the Jews are responsible for His death on the Cross?
OMG. I think you should sleep less on Sundays because your on the internet Saturday night.
:rolleyes:

Does the word "Roman" come to mind?

Goodness, this is going to be fun!

Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans? Or what?

No, Newdow is both a racial and according to his mother, a "practicing" Jew.
Like most Jews, he believes in no god but the Jewish race.
Well, it's interesting how his mother can say what religion he practises better than he himself can! And the Jews also read the Old Testament, too, you know. They aren't auto-deists. (just amde that up...)

Most hillarious lines:

Two of the three dissenting board members have resigned in protest. Angie Yingling, a board member who originally supported the policy, said she later reconsidered her vote.

"Anyone with half a brain should have known we were going to be sued," she said. "You can't do this."

Well, no shit.
:p

Well, it's interesting how his mother can say what religion he practises better than he himself can! And the Jews also read the Old Testament, too, you know. They aren't auto-deists. (just amde that up...)
Jews use only the Talmud and worship their race. They are atheistic by nature, as they have been for millenia.

Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans? Or what?
The Roman method of execution was crucifiction. The Jewish method of execution was stoning. Quick, how did Yeshua die? Therefore, who killed him?

The Roman method of execution was crucifiction. The Jewish method of execution was stoning. Quick, how did Yeshua die? Therefore, who killed him?
The Jews.

Jews use only the Talmud and worship their race. They are atheistic by nature, as they have been for millenia.
Wow. You don't what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

Wow. You don't what the fuck you're talking about, do you?
Yes, I do. I am not an indoctrinated fool like some people here apparently prefer dwell as.

The Jews.
You need a course in logic.

Yes, I do. I am not an indoctrinated fool like some people here apparently prefer dwell as.
So all those Jews are lying when they say that they worship YHWH? And when they read the Torah (That's the Old Testament, in case you didn't know) out loud in their synagogues they're not really reading it?

You need a course in logic.
And the whole people answering, cried out: His blood be upon us and on our children. --St. Matthew xxviiXXV

Hmm... Where does God grant this "first amendment?" I can't seem to find this "quote."

This says it all. I'm using this quote in my sig, becuase you are an exemplary example of your peers.
Sums it up rather nicely, all in one short quip!

So all those Jews are lying when they say that they worship YHWH? And when they read the Torah (That's the Old Testament, in case you didn't know) out loud in their synagogues they're not really reading it?
The Talmud, which worships the Jews, is their holy book and their race is above all.

This says it all. I'm using this quote in my sig, becuase you are an exemplary example of your peers.
Sums it up rather nicely, all in one short quip!
Sums what up?

And the whole people answering, cried out: His blood be upon us and on our children. --St. Matthew xxviiXXV
Yeah, we all know that an account written over 40 fucking years after the death of Yeshua is obviously perfectly accurate. :rolleyes:

What the fuck are you talking about? And once again, you have to thank them for that. If they didn't kill him, you'd be going to Hell.

He missed the verse that talked about Jesus' evil twin Iesus Christ! ;)

Sums what up?
That you're a fucking idiot.

The Talmud, which worships the Jews, is their holy book and their race is above all.
You are not making any sense.


Which is a step up from your previous posts.

The Talmud, which worships the Jews, is their holy book and their race is above all.
And now the Talmud worships the Jews, not the other way around?
You are so amusing.... go on....

Yeah, we all know that an account written over 40 fucking years after the death of Yeshua is obviously perfectly accurate. :rolleyes:
The Gospel of St. Matthew is inerrant.

He missed the verse that talked about Jesus' evil twin Iesus Christ! ;)
Iesus Christus is the Son of God...

Sums what up?
Dude, everything is over your head. I believe even the Christians are wishing you'd shut up.
You're emnbarrasing them.

The Gospel of St. Matthew is inerrant.
So St. Matthew is inerrant. Only God is inerrant. Ergo, St. Matthew is God. Who'd have thunk it?

Defensor Fidei, you should change your name since your doing a really bad job of it.

Dude, everything is over your head. I believe even the Christians are wishing you'd shut up.
You're emnbarrasing them.
The stupidity and ignorance of the infidel is amazing...

So St. Matthew is inerrant. Only God is inerrant. Ergo, St. Matthew is God. Who'd have thunk it?
St. Matthew is inspired by the Ghost, Who is God.

Iesus Christus is the Son of God...
God does not exist. One cannot be the child of a mythological entity.

St. Matthew is inspired by the Ghost, Who is God.
So 1 + 1 = 1? That's some fucked-up shit right there.

God does not exist. One cannot be the child of a mythological entity.
Perhaps your god, but the True God does and He has a Son...

Perhaps your god, but the True God does and He has a Son...
I don't have a God. Your god does not exist.

St. Matthew is inspired by the Ghost, Who is God.
So was Mary Shelley, but I would hardly consider here infallible.

Perhaps your god, but the True God does and He has a Son...
Funny you bring that up. The Jews and Muslims believe in the same God that you do.
Did you evven know that?

So was Mary Shelley, but I would hardly consider here infallible.
She was not inspired by God...

So was Mary Shelley, but I would hardly consider here infallible.
fRankinstin rilly HAopn! it wuz COveRd uP by teh j00s!!!!!1!!1!111!11!

Funny you bring that up. The Jews and Muslims believe in the same God that you do.
Did you evven know that?
The Jew worships itself. The Mahometan worships devils.
Did you even know that?!

She was not inspired by God...
How?

She was not inspired by God...
"Yo, God."
"YES?"
"Did you inspire Mary Shelly?"
"YES."

Well, there you have it.


"DEFENSOR FIDEI IS A NAZINOOB."

Looks like even God is using that phrase now.

This thread seems to have sunken even deeper into heathen stupidity.

The Jew worships itself. The Mahometan worships devils.
Did you even know that?!
Alright. You are no longer fun. This statement just shows that you are ignorant of your own religion, and I'll do the other Christians a favor and ignore you.
Eventually, you'll just shut up.
Most Christians are not this stupid... Even I know that.
You are the reason abortion remains legal, and probably should.

The Jew worships itself. The Mahometan worships devils.
Did you even know that?!
Holy shit! God is both a Jew and a devil!

Both religions worship YHWH, as any idiot could tell you. However, you've gone beyond idiot.

Alright. You are no longer fun. This statement just shows that you are ignorant of your own religion, and I'll do the other Christians a favor and ignore you.
Eventually, you'll just shut up.
Most Christians are not this stupid... Even I know that.
You are the reason abortion remains legal, and probably should.
I stand for true Christianity, not your heathen foolishness.

Holy shit! God is both a Jew and a devil!

Both religions worship YHWH, as any idiot could tell you. However, you've gone beyond idiot.
NO, they dont. Jews worship themselves (the Jewish race). Mahometans worship the devil through the pedophile Mahomet.

This thread seems to have sunken even deeper into heathen stupidity.
You're a heathen?! You really fooled us.

My phrase is catching on. How delightful!

This thread seems to have sunken even deeper into heathen stupidity.
Care to entertain my question about why Shelley wasn't inspired in any way by God?

Surely you are so intelligent that you could easily answer this question from a lesser mortal ;)

And how do you know I'm a heathen?

NO, they dont. Jews worship themselves (the Jewish race). Mahometans worship the devil through the pedophile Mahomet.
Lucky them. At least they aren't worshipping the sick, twisted, sadistic, perverted, vile, despicable fucker that you do. After all, God created man in his own image.

Care to entertain my question about why Shelley wasn't inspired in any way by God?

Surely you are so intelligent that you could easily answer this question from a lesser mortal ;)

The Christian Church declares inspiration through the Holy Ghost.

The Christian Church declares inspiration through the Holy Ghost.
So why can't Shelly? Oh, wait. She isn't a pedophile.


(Yes, I'm reaching here. He didn't give it to me like he did the last several times.)

So why can't Shelly? Oh, wait. She isn't a pedophile.


(Yes, I'm reaching here. He didn't give it to me like he did the last several times.)
Mahomet is the pedophile and is of the Mahometan religion.

Mahomet is the pedophile and is of the Mahometan religion.
Ya missed the whole scandal in the Catholic Church, didn't ya.

The Christian Church declares inspiration through the Holy Ghost.
When you say Christian Church, do you refer to the worldwide Christian Church (as in body of believer) or the Catholic Church? Either way, you have to provide proof.

Ya missed the whole scandal in the Catholic Church, didn't ya.
There was no such scandal in the Catholic Church.

My phrase is catching on. How delightful!
Well, it would be a shame to waste it.

NO, they dont. Jews worship themselves (the Jewish race). Mahometans worship the devil through the pedophile Mahomet.
I'd usually have to pay big money for this kind of entertainment!

Hey, did you know that Rastafarians also worship the same god you do?

He missed the verse that talked about Jesus' evil twin Iesus Christ!
Now, now, don't beat on him for that. I personally like it when people who use the more correct "i" in place of the more common "j" in Latin-derived words.

There was no such scandal in the Catholic Church.
No homoerotic paedophilia? My bad, must've been a Jewish plot!

No homoerotic paedophilia? My bad, must've been a Jewish plot!
Indeed.

There was no such scandal in the Catholic Church.
It's TT!

There was no such scandal in the Catholic Church.
It is people like you that nearly made me loose my faith. Yes there was.

Hold on one second. You've never gone by the name Traditionalist Catholics have you? You don't bear all the hallmarks of him, but it worth a shot.

It is people like you that nearly made me loose my faith. Yes there was. No, there wasn't.

Hold on one second. You've never gone by the name Traditionalist Catholics have you? You don't bear all the hallmarks of him, but it worth a shot.
No, I haven't.

It's TT!
Ahh, I knew there was something familiar about him.

Indeed.
You didn't write a full sentence! It's a Jewish plot!

No, there wasn't.

There was a large hulabaloo about it in the media (inc. the Catholic Media which I occassionally read). And I even know a priest who was implicated in the scandal.

Care to explain that?

Indeed.
And what do you think of communists, socialists, and capitalists?

There was a large hulabaloo about it in the media (inc. the Catholic Media which I occassionally read). And I even know a priest who was implicated in the scandal.

Care to explain that?
Then those sources are not Catholic.

Evolution is provable. It's called DNA. Creationism is just the result of schizophrenia...

You didn't write a full sentence! It's a Jewish plot!
Indeed.

This is fun

Evolution is provable. It's called DNA. Creationism is just the result of schizophrenia...
"Evolution" has no "proof."

"Evolution" has no "proof."
Do genetic mutations?

Then those sources are not Catholic.
Off the top of my head I read articles in The Tablet and The Universal, as well as a few others but mainly those two. Both of them well respected Catholic papers.

Care to explain the priest I knew? Or was he a MI5 mole?

Then those sources are not Catholic.
Well I'll be damned. The Catholic media isn't Catholic. Never would have suspected that.

Well I'll be damned. The Catholic media isn't Catholic. Never would have suspected that.
It's a Jewish plot.

"Evolution" has no "proof."

Bad Catholic! The Vatican teaches that evolution happen (under the guidence of God). Surely that would be as much proof as you need?

Off the top of my head I read articles in The Tablet and The Universal, as well as a few others but mainly those two. Both of them well respected Catholic papers.

Care to explain the priest I knew? Or was he a MI5 mole?
Those are not Catholic sources.

Bad Catholic! The Vatican teaches that evolution happen (under the guidence of God). Surely that would be as much proof as you need?
It's a Jewish Plot.

Those are not Catholic sources.
Damn those non-Catholic Catholic papers!

Those are not Catholic sources.
Care to explain why?

Bad Catholic! The Vatican teaches that evolution happen (under the guidence of God). Surely that would be as much proof as you need?
Funny I have a Catholic Bible in front of me and according to the commentary:
All Catholics must treat the biblical story of Creation as a historical document and not as a myth or fable to be interpreted.

Just one immediate source against your proposed heresy.

Evolution is taught in schools because it's apart of science. You may as well ask that schools stop teaching the theory of gravity, or that the Earth is round.

Evolution is taught in schools because it's apart of science. You may as well ask that schools stop teaching the theory of gravity, or that the Earth is round.
The Earth is actually flat. The round-earth hypothesis is a Jewish plot.

Evolution is taught in schools because it's apart of science. You may as well ask that schools stop teaching the theory of gravity, or that the Earth is round.
Not true

Funny I have a Catholic Bible in front of me and according to the commentary:
All Catholics must treat the biblical story of Creation as a historical document and not as a myth or fable to be interpreted.

Just one immediate source against your proposed heresy.
Good Catholics aren't meant to read the Bible but have it explained to them by a priest.

Out of interest what version do you have ( a Catholic Bible can be anything from the Vulgate to the Good News Bible)

The Earth is actually flat. The round-earth hypothesis is a Jewish plot.
Is it really?

Not true
I think you've confirmed my suspicions that you are taking us for a ride. I'll continue. I like rides :D

Good Catholics aren't meant to read the Bible but have it explained to them by a priest.
The commentary was written by a bishop, however ignorant your statement was. Perhaps you are a Protestant propagandist?

Out of interest what version do you have ( a Catholic Bible can be anything from the Vulgate to the Good News Bible)
The Latin Vulgate is the only inerrant Bible translation from the original manuscripts. The "Good News" bible is not truly a Catholic Bible.
The version I used was the Douay-Confraternity, for whatever reason you must know. I prefer the DRC typically though.

Is it really?
It is. Keep up with the times, man!

I think you've confirmed my suspicions that you are taking us for a ride. I'll continue. I like rides :D
I do too!

Is it really?
Yes. I'm actually the Pope. I was testing your faith. You succeeded.

Not true

Are you suggesting that Evolution is not a highly regarded scientific theory? Because it is.

Are you suggesting that Evolution is not a highly regarded scientific theory? Because it is.
No, it is communist propaganda.

Are you suggesting that Evolution is not a highly regarded scientific theory? Because it is.
Heathen! Evolution is a myth made up by the Jewish atheists!

No, it is communist propaganda.
Communist, not Jewish? My bad, sorry.

Communist, not Jewish? My bad, sorry.
They're Commie Jews. Duh.

Communist, not Jewish? My bad, sorry.
The Jews are at the root of Communism.

I beleive Darwin was agnostic, and defenitely not a damned commie. :p

I beleive Darwin was agnostic, and defenitely not a damned commie. :p
Haha... No:rolleyes:

The commentary was written by a bishop, however ignorant your statement was. Perhaps you are a Protestant propagandist?

I highly doubt it. Try speaking to any Anglicans I know

The Latin Vulgate is the only inerrant Bible translation from the original manuscripts. The "Good News" bible is not truly a Catholic Bible.

Hence my reason for putting it at the other end of the spectrum.

The version I used was the Douay-Confraternity, for whatever reason you must know. I prefer the DRC typically though.
Interesting.

The Jews are at the root of Communism.
My God! It all seems so clear now! Thank you for pulling the wool from my eyes!

I highly doubt it. Try speaking to any Anglicans I know



Hence my reason for putting it at the other end of the spectrum.


Interesting.
How is that interesting?
There is only one Catholic Bible translation into English...

Haha... No:rolleyes:

You know, backing up your statements with actual arguments would go a long way towards convincing us of the validity of your position.

You know, backing up your statements with actual arguments would go a long way towards convincing us of the validity of your position.
Don't ask him to do that. This is already a lot of fun. (Maybe it has something to do with it be 3:40 AM here)

I blame this this person:
Troll troll troll troll troll troll Something about the ACLU troll troll troll

For the creation of this thing:
God did not create the the first amendment so it must be heathen blasphemy

"Be saved, filthy as thou art." - Inscription on ordnance 412-06K

You know, backing up your statements with actual arguments would go a long way towards convincing us of the validity of your position.
Evolution is HERETICAL.

And yet we go to school for an education...

Creationism is a part of a proper education because of its relevence to history. Taking even a basic bio class will bring forward religious questions that some scientist will agree with. Creationism, although a myth, cannot be denied simply because the neo-commie ACLU deems any religious to be Nazism. The fact is, ACLU wants to secularize a nation that was never meant to be that way. Sorry guys, Europe can do what they like, but that mindset does not have to follow here. Natural Selection and Creationism both have their relevence through history and through scientific knowledge. Science does not disregard religion as the liberals would like you to do, although religion tends to wrongly disregard science.

And yet we go to school for an education...

Creationism is a part of a proper education because of its relevence to history. Taking even a basic bio class will bring forward religious questions that some scientist will agree with. Creationism, although a myth, cannot be denied simply because the neo-commie ACLU deems any religious to be Nazism. The fact is, ACLU wants to secularize a nation that was never meant to be that way. Sorry guys, Europe can do what they like, but that mindset does not have to follow here. Natural Selection and Creationism both have their relevence through history and through scientific knowledge. Science does not disregard religion as the liberals would like you to do, although religion tends to wrongly disregard science.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess that many people would like their science-burger with a large order of logic and hold the religion.

And yet we go to school for an education...

Creationism is a part of a proper education because of its relevence to history. Taking even a basic bio class will bring forward religious questions that some scientist will agree with. Creationism, although a myth, cannot be denied simply because the neo-commie ACLU deems any religious to be Nazism. The fact is, ACLU wants to secularize a nation that was never meant to be that way. Sorry guys, Europe can do what they like, but that mindset does not have to follow here. Natural Selection and Creationism both have their relevence through history and through scientific knowledge. Science does not disregard religion as the liberals would like you to do, although religion tends to wrongly disregard science.

I think Christianity should be taught in a historical context alongside other religions, not to convince people of a specific point of view, but to give everyone a good understanding of the different cultures and beleifs in the world.

This thread cannot die. We still haven't finished fucking with TT.

Creationism is a part of a proper education because of its relevence to history. Taking even a basic bio class will bring forward religious questions that some scientist will agree with. Creationism, although a myth, cannot be denied simply because the neo-commie ACLU deems any religious to be Nazism. The fact is, ACLU wants to secularize a nation that was never meant to be that way. Sorry guys, Europe can do what they like, but that mindset does not have to follow here. Natural Selection and Creationism both have their relevence through history and through scientific knowledge. Science does not disregard religion as the liberals would like you to do, although religion tends to wrongly disregard science.
God no. Science must necessarily disregard religion from the fact that religion is based off of faith and science off of skepticism. Please do not scare me like you are now... Only Christian Scientists bring faith into science, and they're seriously f**ked up.

Because they don't already? Teachers are human, they will put their beliefs into their teachings just simply because it is hard not too. I don't know what the big deal is, teach both let the children decide. That is how my high school bio teacher did it just a couple years ago and noone complained.

the problem with that is there is not just "both" there are so many ideals of how people came to be that the teacher would have to teach all of them and be perfect about each one there isn't much room for totally blundering the info with religion. i hardly think there is enough funding in american schools for a whole discussion class on how we came to be
that's what places or groups of religion are for and if people want to believe evolution they should go to groups and read books just like the people of divine ideals

There was no such scandal in the Catholic Church.


Wow this proves it

Ignorance is Bliss.

I know I posted this but a friends husband is Irish.

He went home for a visit and came back a black moody son of a bitch!

After a day or so she finally said "OK WTF is going on?!?"

He said he just leaned that his childhood best friend was kidnapped by the village priest(they were both alterboys), taken out in the middle of nowhere, tortured and sexually assaulted. :eek:

The Churches response. "Don't talk about it, we will deal with it"

They sent the Priest to Canada!

This was 30 years ago.

Stories like that kind of justify my becoming a Blue Moon Catholic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=29&u=/ap/20041214/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sorry I got in on this late....

http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/11/21/04025541

In what appears to be one small step backward for mankind, the Dover, PA Board of Education has decided, in a 6-3 vote, to also teach "intelligent design" as part of the curriculum, and to caution students that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, not a fact.

This is not a new discussion; entire websites are devoted to teaching evolution vs. creationism. The interesting thing about intelligent design is that it doesn't specify exactly who is influencing the design.

The School Board asserts that the inclusion of intelligent design in the curriculum is simply to promote balance and allow the student access to all aspects of the debate and to satisfy the requirements of government testing.

The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life up to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses on the standards and preparing students to be successful on standards-based assessments."


and
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_worldandI0301.htm

Where a biologist challenges parts of the theory of evolution by pointing out the inconsitancies with the theory. i.e. "Most biology textbooks ignore the Cambrian explosion, in which the fossil record shows the major types of animals (technically called phyla) appearing together, fully formed, rather than diverging gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory requires"

But thats just about Evolution...

The Intellegent Design theory goes well beyond evolution in is search for a consistant theory about the Universe. There are 26 basic physical parameters to the Universe that must be exactly what they are to have the universe the way it is...Such as the speed of light...a basic pricipal of the universe, light travels at 186,282 miles per second in a vaccum.

Change this by a small fraction, say light travels at 186,280 in a vacuum, this changes the equation E=mc2 lowering the released energy, meaning stars have to be larger to ignite nuclear fusion. this fewer stars and since the energy released is smaller the really large stars dont even get a chance, they collapse directly info black holes since the energy put out by the core of the star can not support the upper layers against the gravity of the star...

Or the relitive strenghts of the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Electromagnetic, and Gravity. Change any of these relative strenghts and the universe you see about you would change beyond recognition. Or rather you wouldnt because you wouldnt be here....

Say strenghten Electromagnetic which in effect rules chemistry, if the bonds between molocules are stronger it takes more energy to break them and thus life as we know it probubly wouldnt exist, weaken it fractionally and the molocules break too easily and the chances for life to ever have formed is all but eliminated.

Water, name another material that when it freezes floats in its liquid state. If Ice sank in water the way solid iron sinks in liquid iron the seas would be at best a couple hundred feet deep, so saline as to sterilize the water and life wouldnt have had a chance to arise....

Stenghten gravity a fraction say instead of 1 make it 1.0000000000001 the pressures inside stars are greater, fusion happens faster, stars evolve through the main sequence quicker, our own star would probably already be into its old age if not already dead by this time and even though it is too small to become a supernova under current conditions under the increased pressures/heat it might just well be able to burn through the Hydrogen / helium / Nitrogen / carbon / oxygen sequence all the way up to Iron and once enough iron had formed the interior would collapse, the inward rushing layers of the sun would be compressed/heated to tempratures exceeding the core of the Sun, fussion would be happening furiously as the layers fell in on the core and once all that energy struck the core it would rebound outward, the shockwave raising pressures in the infalling matter even higher. Millions of years of hydrogen burned into Helium or lithium or any of the other elements in seconds....supernova,...the sun s outer layers expand as a large percentage of the speed of light,,,,tearing most of the atmosphere off of Jupiter....Earth wouldnt even be a dust cloud...

You get the idea, if the universe is not EXACTLY the way it is now we would not exist to be here......so you have three choices

1.) Its utter chance that the universe is the way it is and we are here to observe it...a change on the order of 1 in 10 to the 1000th power...and if this is so we will never be able to prove it

2.) there are an infinity of universes each with its own set of physical laws that mandate how things are, we just happen to live in one seemingly suited for life. This is a possibility with some support from string theory, however, it mandates at least 7 extra dimensions of space that we have yet to observe and posstulates new particles and energy forms that we have yet to observe. and no not dark matter or dark energy fit the bill, these new forms of energy would be observable. In a few years the large accelorator in CERA (spelling? ) should be operational and may be able to provide some small clues as to weather these string theories are correct but will not be able to absolutely prove or disprove them

3.) Something interfeered with the universe in the first instants of its creation setting the physical parameters of the universe to be favorable to life. Again this can not be proven but is as valid at this time as either of the other two theories.


So how does this corelate to the existance of any religion, it simply states that this universe is so uniquely and exquisitly perfect for the formation of life that the odds of it happening by chance are so large as to make astronomical a small term or it needs must involve an infinity of universes..and even more outragious proposistion....or there was a design for this universe, all three of these theories are valid and all three have their supporters and detractors...

So why teach only Darwinism a theory that states it is all utter chance?

Respectfully

AAhhzz :confused:

In what appears to be one small step backward for mankind, the Dover, PA Board of Education has decided, in a 6-3 vote, to also teach "intelligent design" as part of the curriculum, and to caution students that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, not a fact.
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

--The Red Queen, in Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

--The Red Queen, in Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

The interesting thing about intelligent design is that it doesn't specify exactly who is influencing the design.

It doesnt even have to be God, some aspects of quantum physics seem to suggest that OBSERVATION of the universe can alter the physical properties of the universe at the quantum level. All it would take for intellegent design would be to have an observer at the instant of the big bang or creation, whichever you prefer....

I give a snyopsys of high level physics and receive Alice in Wonderland in return?...I suppose its fair...Quantum physics has been compared to looking through the looking glass...

Cheers

AAhhzz :)

Wow. This is some pretty funny stuff. Nice work, Defensor Fidei! You had everyone going there for a while. Very funny.

It doesnt even have to be God, some aspects of quantum physics seem to suggest that OBSERVATION of the universe can alter the physical properties of the universe at the quantum level. All it would take for intellegent design would be to have an observer at the instant of the big bang or creation, whichever you prefer....
Which is exactly the problem I have. I am fully aware that it is theorised that thought processes alone may actually influence reality, but this is through the electrons passing along the neurons in the brain. This is completely biological, and saying that something influenced the singularity, then at least bothered to stay around and become a ubiquitous presence to influence the development of life on Sol III, seems kind of farfetched.

I give a snyopsys of high level physics and receive Alice in Wonderland in return?...I suppose its fair...Quantum physics has been compared to looking through the looking glass...
Quotes like that are very nice and succinct, and give over immense amounts of meaning if used properly. The explanation of evolution is that when DNA (or RNA for retroviruses) is being copied for the next generation, there is a mistake made. If it is beneficial, it most likely stays in the gene pool. If not, it has no effect. If it is disadvantageous, then the organism (or virus) will not live to reproduce. To belittle that and say that it's all by intelligent design seems offensive to me.

ach... the ACLU are nothing but idiots that infringe on religion.

Big whoop if they want to teach stuff other then evolution, it's not like they can prove evolution any more then we can over Creationism.

stupid bastards -.-
Alright, schools now teach Creationism. What kind of Creationism? Christian Creationism? You infringe on everyone else's rights to religion. If you want to teach creationism you need to teach all forms of creationism. Basically, you would spend all year learning how 5 000 different cultures thought the world was created. It is inefficient to teach Creationism. Evolution is an observation, so it is a point of view.

Evolution is an idea based on an observation that different birds have different beak size and shape to fit the food of the island they evolved on. This just an observation, someone's point of view. It is school, people need to realize this. I disagree with a lot of things I'm taught, I learn them anyways so I can pass the course but I hold my own views. People need to learn that their kids can do the same. They can learn about it, whether or not they believe it, that's their choice. A teacher can teach their kids, the kids learn but whether they accept or not is up to them, so you aren't infringing on their rights, you are simply offering a new perspective. This perspective is not offensive, because it is not a belief or a theory, it is an observation.

You get the idea, if the universe is not EXACTLY the way it is now we would not exist to be here......so you have three choices

1.) Its utter chance that the universe is the way it is and we are here to observe it...a change on the order of 1 in 10 to the 1000th power...and if this is so we will never be able to prove it

2.) there are an infinity of universes each with its own set of physical laws that mandate how things are, we just happen to live in one seemingly suited for life. This is a possibility with some support from string theory, however, it mandates at least 7 extra dimensions of space that we have yet to observe and posstulates new particles and energy forms that we have yet to observe. and no not dark matter or dark energy fit the bill, these new forms of energy would be observable. In a few years the large accelorator in CERA (spelling? ) should be operational and may be able to provide some small clues as to weather these string theories are correct but will not be able to absolutely prove or disprove them

3.) Something interfeered with the universe in the first instants of its creation setting the physical parameters of the universe to be favorable to life. Again this can not be proven but is as valid at this time as either of the other two theories.


So how does this corelate to the existance of any religion, it simply states that this universe is so uniquely and exquisitly perfect for the formation of life that the odds of it happening by chance are so large as to make astronomical a small term or it needs must involve an infinity of universes..and even more outragious proposistion....or there was a design for this universe, all three of these theories are valid and all three have their supporters and detractors...

So why teach only Darwinism a theory that states it is all utter chance?

This is a decently stated point (although you fail to see the difference between something backed up by formula and laboratory observation, and blind clockmaker backtracking).
Even more importantly, the children and teens don't spend enough time on the basics already. Sadly, they'd have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever what you were talking about. They should be spending less time on the beginning of the universe, and instead focus on those things that get you to these concusions that you mentioned like superstring, quantum and astronomic basics.
If they had a good understanding of these things, they'd be better able to draw their own logical conclusions.
Try talking to one of these seniors taught to focus on two theories (Darwinism/Creationism) about Superstring theories, M-theory, and the like.
They'll look at you as if you're talking in another language.
This is the reason we're so far behind all of the industrialized nation in science and math. We're too busy arguing over the rediculous that we forget there are more important things to discuss. They have their whole lives to make a decision on the issue, we should better equipt them with the basics to make a rational decision.

Evolution is an idea based on an observation that different birds have different beak size and shape to fit the food of the island they evolved on. This just an observation, someone's point of view. It is school, people need to realize this.
Same thing goes for all science. It's just theory based on observation.

Like I said, begin with a philosophy of science class, which explains that science is only one way of examining the world, that dogmatism is another, and then go on to teach proper science without having to stop every five minutes to say "as ever, this is not absolute truth, this is just the best working model for the workings of the universe that we have available at the moment".

Even more importantly, the children and teens don't spend enough time on the basics already. Sadly, they'd have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever what you were talking about. They should be spending less time on the beginning of the universe, and instead focus on those things that get you to these concusions that you mentioned like superstring, quantum and astronomic basics.
I understoof perfectly well what he was saying, and I'm 15. And neither superstring nor quantum theory are "basics". Astronomy could be put in there too, but what you're trying to get at is the more advanced levels. Physics should not be the focus of our education system. Forming religious opinions should not be our priority in science education. Things like biology and ecology must be stressed more, so that people know just what is happening when they throw their mercury thermometers away, and driving their cars, and use electricity. I think this is knowledge most everyone should know, since it would heavily impact things like political views. Superstring theory seems less important to inform the public about than ecological impact of their actions.

Bump.

I had no idea this thread died.

*BUMP x 2*

Wow this proves it

Ignorance is Bliss.

I know I posted this but a friends husband is Irish.

He went home for a visit and came back a black moody son of a bitch!

After a day or so she finally said "OK WTF is going on?!?"

He said he just leaned that his childhood best friend was kidnapped by the village priest(they were both alterboys), taken out in the middle of nowhere, tortured and sexually assaulted. :eek:

The Churches response. "Don't talk about it, we will deal with it"

They sent the Priest to Canada!

This was 30 years ago.

Stories like that kind of justify my becoming a Blue Moon Catholic.

Whatever occurred in your situation had no connection with the Roman Catholic Church.

You DO know that the US is (supposed to be, at least) a secular nation, right?

America isn't supposed to be secular or religious, but it happens to be (mostly) Christian.

Now, the government of America, however, is supposed to be seperate from religion (and is).

America =/= America's government

You can love America and dislike Bush just as I strongly disliked Clinton and loved America.

America isn't supposed to be secular or religious, but it happens to be (mostly) Christian.

Now, the government of America, however, is supposed to be seperate from religion (and is).

America =/= America's government
Well spoken! However, I beg to differ that the government of the U.S. is secular. It is certainly far from theocracy, but there's still plenty of religion in there. All of it Christianity.

...Cambrian explosion...

Your points, while they might make a decent arguement on their own, fail when taken in context. Pointedly, there.

You state that "the universe has to be just so for life to exist as it does." Thus, this is proof that the world was made just for us. However, you also admit that the world/universe are really goddamn frickin old. You even bring into your argument a point in time, while not far off on a geologic scale, which was long enough ago for the planet's temperature and atmosphere to have changed since. This occured by a massive, unlikely accident where a great many species did not survive, but the adaptable ones did.

Thus, it is proven that the species are built to exist in this environment, not the other way around. If the sea were a handful ppm saltier, a few degrees colder, or (were the fundamental physics of the universe altered somehow) a bit less able to hold dissolved oxygen, 99% of the aquatic species would die, but there would still be life in the seas. Given a few billion years, they'd have refilled every niche involved.

Do whatever you like to the world right now, and Archae bacteria and the cockroach'll still be here. Give them an eternity, and peek back in on Earth. If the sun hasn't engulfed the planet by then, you'll find some fascinating new masters of the world (and there will be SOMETHING living here well after the seas boil away).

I, for one, welcome our forthcoming insect overlords.

Whatever occurred in your situation had no connection with the Roman Catholic Church.
Yay! Nazinoob is back!

Yay! Nazinoob is back!
Have you anything to actually contribute?

Oi, anyone who takes Genesis as a fact must be a fool.

1) Where did Cain's wife come from?

2) If she was descended from Adam and Eve, isn't that incest? And I'm pretty sure that's forbidden according to God.

Ergo, Genesis is not fact. And as far as I know that's only one loophole

The Jews bear the curse of Cain...

But isn't that what Schools are for? To teach acedemics which are proven? If that's the case, then neither should be taught.

Schools should be for learning, there is enough of a load on students without Politics, Religion and Social issues getting in the way. How can a student learn when they are protesting? How can one learn when they are getting slapped on the wrists with rulers by Nuns?

If that was true, we wouldn't have Science classes. Scientifically, there is nothing "proven." Gravity is only a theory. Since it cannot be disproven, it is considered true.

Therefore, schools should teach kids how to think for themselves, not what to think about others.

The Jews bear the curse of Cain...

*What* does that have to do with the question? If Adam and Eve were the only people created by God, everyone on the planet is tainted with the sin of their children who committed incest.

Please answer me.

*What* does that have to do with the question? If Adam and Eve were the only people created by God, everyone on the planet is tainted with the sin of their children who committed incest.

Please answer me.
Although Adam and Eve did bring about the original sin of the world, it was not due to committing incest.

The Jews bear the curse of Cain...

...

You do realize that Christ was Jewish by race, correct?

im jewish and christian, and do you guys know that: YOU"RE ALL BLOODY FAGGOTS!

...

You do realize that Christ was Jewish by race, correct?
....:rolleyes:....
http://img120.exs.cx/img120/2748/oyvoldnewspaper.jpg

....:rolleyes:....
http://img120.exs.cx/img120/2748/oyvoldnewspaper.jpg

Obviously I'm a bit slow off the mark today, but explain to me what this is meant to mean, would you?

Obviously I'm a bit slow off the mark today, but explain to me what this is meant to mean, would you?
Have you no knowledge of Jewish expressions? Consult one of them if you must.

Have you no knowledge of Jewish expressions? Consult one of them if you must.

I am aware of the meaning of the words, what I was wondering about was why you chose to use such an illustration instead of merely writing them yourself.

Your points, while they might make a decent arguement on their own, fail when taken in context. Pointedly, there.

You state that "the universe has to be just so for life to exist as it does." Thus, this is proof that the world was made just for us. .

Actually I was trying to show how this universe is exquisitly suited for life, not just us. I tend more to the physics than the biological and while I have no bone to pick with evolution the phsyical conditions of the universe are so finely tuned as to make life ( much less evolution ) probable rather than just possible.

Think of the elctomagnetic forces that govern chemistry, if they were even a tiny fraction off no chemical or biological process we re familure with would happen in the manner that we suspect. carbon might not be the elemental slut it is willing to combine with practically anything. Without carbons ability to form complex molicule there would be no Ammino Acids...no RNA...No DNA...No Life..

The list of the physical properties that make life possible are so many and so profound and so interlinking that when you truely consider them all it becomes more and more inprobable that this universe is just chance.

It might be that this is just one of an infinate series of universes and this one just happens to have the properties it does so that we could evolve here. ( Physicist Hate infinities, its kind of like saying We are here, because we are here, because we are here, because we are here, type of thing)

Or it might be that something guilded or influanced the universe in the first few nanoseconds that made the universe so suited for life. Such as, in High energy physics you always end up with matter /antimater pairs being formed and subsequently destroying themselves ( unless you make a great deal of effort to seperate them )
If this is so where is the Anti-matter in this universe? If you want to say off somewhere at a great distance fine....but where reagions of matter and anti-matter touch there would be an endless torrent of gamma rays coming from the mutual analation of the particales as they meet. We dont see that happening anywhere within 12 billion light years....so what changed the process so that matter was created preferentially?

But by not teaching just how increadibly ODD this universe is we are slighting the children by not teaching all the facts. No matter what you think of chillia>

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Which is exactly the problem I have. I am fully aware that it is theorised that thought processes alone may actually influence reality, but this is through the electrons passing along the neurons in the brain..

Actually observe the spin of an electron and its axis of spin is always pointed toward the observer, have two observers at different angles and they both will say the axis is pointing toward them. By the way these observers are amchines so no brains involved. But something happens on the quantum scale when an event or a particle is observed

This is completely biological, and saying that something influenced the singularity, then at least bothered to stay around and become a ubiquitous presence to influence the development of life on Sol III, seems kind of farfetched..

Actually I dont advocate teaching Creationism as taught in the bible or any other holy book. I do advocate when teaching Darwinism it should be pointed out that this universe is extreemly benevolent to life, so much so that it is hard to credit that it is entirely chance. Give the kids a bit of info on that. Teach then the principals of critical thinking and let them make up their own minds



Quotes like that are very nice and succinct, and give over immense amounts of meaning if used properly. The explanation of evolution is that when DNA (or RNA for retroviruses) is being copied for the next generation, there is a mistake made. If it is beneficial, it most likely stays in the gene pool. If not, it has no effect. If it is disadvantageous, then the organism (or virus) will not live to reproduce. To belittle that and say that it's all by intelligent design seems offensive to me.


I hope that what I said above clarifies that I am not advocating for Creationism but for a bit of information to be pased on to the children on how the universe is so finely tuned to grow life in the first place. Weaken or strenghten electromagnetic forces even a fraction and ammino acids either are unstable or so tightly bound together as to be useless as a building block to create life

Respectfully

AAhhzz

This is a decently stated point (although you fail to see the difference between something backed up by formula and laboratory observation, and blind clockmaker backtracking).

Truthfully at this point none of these three theories can be proven or disproven by observation.....more the pity....But CERA may give some clues.....I would love to be able to eliminate one of the theories, the Utter chance one being the one I feel is least likely due odds against it....but it is still a viable theory




Even more importantly, the children and teens don't spend enough time on the basics already. Sadly, they'd have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever what you were talking about. They should be spending less time on the beginning of the universe, and instead focus on those things that get you to these concusions that you mentioned like superstring, quantum and astronomic basics.
If they had a good understanding of these things, they'd be better able to draw their own logical conclusions.
Try talking to one of these seniors taught to focus on two theories (Darwinism/Creationism) about Superstring theories, M-theory, and the like.
They'll look at you as if you're talking in another language.

I'm afraid your right......but in this forum I figured ther was a good chance for someone that would be aware of the issues involved.



This is the reason we're so far behind all of the industrialized nation in science and math. We're too busy arguing over the rediculous that we forget there are more important things to discuss. They have their whole lives to make a decision on the issue, we should better equipt them with the basics to make a rational decision.

Good point,....maybe less basket weaving and more of the hard sciences?

Thanks

AAhhzz

I understoof perfectly well what he was saying, and I'm 15. And neither superstring nor quantum theory are "basics". Astronomy could be put in there too, but what you're trying to get at is the more advanced levels. Physics should not be the focus of our education system. Forming religious opinions should not be our priority in science education.

Niether should teaching half a truth...if they are going to teach Evolution at least mention how fantastically addapted this universe is to the formation of life...thats all I am saying...give them a sense of wonder and that will lead then to reach for more knowledge on thier own

Things like biology and ecology must be stressed more, so that people know just what is happening when they throw their mercury thermometers away, and driving their cars, and use electricity. I think this is knowledge most everyone should know, since it would heavily impact things like political views. Superstring theory seems less important to inform the public about than ecological impact of their actions.

*chuckles* As someone who's job it is ( at least in part ) is to ensure that my organization adhears to and exceeds the EPA rules I have to give this one too you. I have leactured countless times on environmental impacts and almost inevitbly someone asks "If the power plant is so far away why should I worry about it" Or " But I have always used the oil out of my car to kill the weds along my fence...are you telling me this is a bad thing?....makes me want to :headbang:

And thanks

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Niether should teaching half a truth...if they are going to teach Evolution at least mention how fantastically addapted this universe is to the formation of life...thats all I am saying...give them a sense of wonder and that will lead then to reach for more knowledge on thier own

Life adapts to the Universe... the Universe does not adapt to life.

I've said it before and I'll say it agian, evolution is fact supported by theories.
There is no "theory" of evolution. There are only theories that attempt to explain evolution.
Besides that, I have nothing but secular slant to add to the arguement, though it's hardly worth mentioning the ~2/3 of the world and ~1/5 of the US that aren't monotheists.

You americans really like to sue each other dont u :confused: i dont see why?? in New Zealand it would be looked into and changed if people thought the curriculum was wrong but no, instead you sue people.

Life adapts to the Universe... the Universe does not adapt to life.

What about a universe that only lasted for an instant of time?

One where Inflation didnt last for a few instants but for thousands of years?

Or a universe without time? Or gravity? Or Light? Or Matter?

Or one where the force of gravity was equal to the Stong Nuclear force?

Or all four forces Strong/Weak/Electomagnetic and Gravity equal??

Or one where the speed of light was 1 m/s

Do you think life could addapt to these conditions?

My point isnt that life does not adapt or evolve. It is that this universe is, on so many points, perfect for the formation of life that this should at least be mentioned when teaching evolution.

I wouldnt think it would take long to show how the above changes in the physical forces of the universe would make the universe inhospitale to life.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

I've said it before and I'll say it agian, evolution is fact supported by theories.
There is no "theory" of evolution. There are only theories that attempt to explain evolution.
Besides that, I have nothing but secular slant to add to the arguement, though it's hardly worth mentioning the ~2/3 of the world and ~1/5 of the US that aren't monotheists.I personally can't fanthom why there is even a debate about creationism vs evolution.

Creationism is an explanation of how the world came to be based upon folklore and faith. It is past tense and has no conclusive hard evidence to back it.

Evolution is the adaptation of living things to their environment to better succeed. It is present tense and provable within just the recorded period of mankind's history and supported by archeological evidence. The only theoretical part is that it alone is responsible for what occupies our planet. Not provable inconclusively, but a logical extention of what is provable.

It should be the parents choice what gets taught to their children with regards to religion, keep all the religous shit seperate from science in school. As for science, evolution may not have been 'proven' in some peoples minds, but it's pretty concinving stuff if you've got half a brain in your head. Also, at least the people who are working on the theory are following the scientific method instead of making up a load of old crap, shoving it in the book and then declaring it 'The Truth'. Teach evolution as a science, which it is, without declaring it the 'The Truth' which it never claimed to be. The evidence of some kind of evolutionary process is pretty overwelming, especially since it can be seen in action NOW on Earth. This doesn't mean that the universe, or the rules, weren't 'designed' because the two issues are totally seperate. Let parents decide if they want to pollute their childrens minds with religous 'truth' or not, then at least there's a hope that some of them will grow up to become rational logically thinking adults instead of a load of brainwashed sheep.

*SNIP*

My point isnt that life does not adapt or evolve. It is that this universe is, on so many points, perfect for the formation of life that this should at least be mentioned when teaching evolution.

I wouldnt think it would take long to show how the above changes in the physical forces of the universe would make the universe inhospitale to life.

Respectfully

AAhhzz


What a ridiculous point. *Our* universe is prefect for *our* kind of life, and by the looks of things not much of our universe is perfect for that, at least over extended periods. I mean, no life on Mars even at this point in time FFS! What's to say that a different universe wouldn't be able to support a different kind of life?!

Jews killed Christ. They bear the curse for their deicide. The rest of your statements make no sense. Perhaps "nazinoob" has Yiddish roots I am unaware of.



Judaizer... Jorge Boosh is not Jewish, yet...
http://************/5k5z2

First off, it's obvious you are not religious like you claim... You're an athiest posting like you're a stereotypical Christian Fundamentalist. (which BTW only exists in that form in an athiest's head) If you weren't you certainly would not be Christian in any way shape or form... The Jews are in no way cursed. They never have been and to say so shows your absolute ignorance of Christianity. The Jews are God's chosen people and they most certainly do believe in God and are in no way athiests if they are infact real Jews and not by heritage.

Actually I was trying to show how this universe is exquisitly suited for life, not just us. I tend more to the physics than the biological and while I have no bone to pick with evolution the phsyical conditions of the universe are so finely tuned as to make life ( much less evolution ) probable rather than just possible.

Think of the elctomagnetic forces that govern chemistry, if they were even a tiny fraction off no chemical or biological process we re familure with would happen in the manner that we suspect. carbon might not be the elemental slut it is willing to combine with practically anything. Without carbons ability to form complex molicule there would be no Ammino Acids...no RNA...No DNA...No Life..

The list of the physical properties that make life possible are so many and so profound and so interlinking that when you truely consider them all it becomes more and more inprobable that this universe is just chance.

It might be that this is just one of an infinate series of universes and this one just happens to have the properties it does so that we could evolve here. ( Physicist Hate infinities, its kind of like saying We are here, because we are here, because we are here, because we are here, type of thing)

Or it might be that something guilded or influanced the universe in the first few nanoseconds that made the universe so suited for life. Such as, in High energy physics you always end up with matter /antimater pairs being formed and subsequently destroying themselves ( unless you make a great deal of effort to seperate them )
If this is so where is the Anti-matter in this universe? If you want to say off somewhere at a great distance fine....but where reagions of matter and anti-matter touch there would be an endless torrent of gamma rays coming from the mutual analation of the particales as they meet. We dont see that happening anywhere within 12 billion light years....so what changed the process so that matter was created preferentially?

But by not teaching just how increadibly ODD this universe is we are slighting the children by not teaching all the facts. No matter what you think of chillia>

Respectfully

AAhhzz

It is possible that the violation of time and charge-parity symmetries could account for the dominance of matter. Just this past August SLAC announced results of an experiment counting the number of B and anti-B mesons to the same final state and found CP violation to be at 13% which still wouldn't explain the lack of anti-matter fully, but when compared to the earliest experiments of this nature involving kaons (CP violation of 4 parts in a million) and considering the short amount of time this has been studied, while it may be to early to fully embrace CP violation as the answer to the lack of anti-matter there is way to much information to fully dismiss it as an explanation.

A lot of the work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics is showing that it is possible that the universe is less random than previously thought _all on its own and playing by its own rules, and that thermodynamics may have actually *required* something as complex as life to arise.

Sure if one little thing may have been different then the laws of physics may have been different blah, blah, blah...

Are we *really* so damned special - we highly organized forms of energy which differ from everything else only in our level of complexity- that we need to posit some grand creator outside of everything?

Of course this could be turned around and one could argue that a Creator in all its genius set in motion laws that would be more efficient than sheer random chance would predict (while at the same time by not dismissing the physics of self-organization keep one of the best scientific arguements for free will).

Believe whatever your observations lead you to believe but if ID is taught in a science classroom, you may as well be say that studying science is useless. However, whyever it all happened it is always possible to say that is how a creator meant it to be. That is philosophy. But as it can not be proven or disproven with means other than "i think it to be" it is *NOT SCIENCE*

Science cannot show a creator exists. Science cannot show that a creator does not exits. ID does not belong in a science classroom.

I, for one, welcome our forthcoming insect overlords.
Insects are incredible. Their rapid evolution allows them to adapt insanely quickly. Not to mention their significant environmental importance.

"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos."
--Edward O. Wilson

Have you no knowledge of Jewish expressions? Consult one of them if you must.
Actually, it's Yiddish. Jewish is too broad a term.