NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems a zoo in Tulsa Oklahoma has decided to include a display on the religious doctrine of creationism. It's abandoned it's responsibility to teach the science of zoology in favor of being a religious institution. Hopefully they can be stripped of any public funds they recieve, because public funds shouldn't be used to establish religious beleif.

www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/062605dntexzoo.467e3fab.html

Public zoo? Absolutely not. Let the guy open his own creationism zoo.

... it's times like these that I really want to nuke the south-east and midwest. Better yet, let them secede again. Gives us an excuse to knock(or shoot) some sense into them.

No offense to people in that area who don't agree with this.

... it's times like these that I really want to nuke the south-east and midwest. Better yet, let them secede again. Gives us an excuse to knock(or shoot) some sense into them.

No offense to people in that area who don't agree with this.
I totally understand how you feel. There are alot of good people in the "red" states, but sometimes I feel the USA would have been alot better off if it had let the confederacy secede.

I am amazed that he compares a statue resembling Ganesha to a word by word reprint of Genesis.

I am amazed that he compares a statue resembling Ganesha to a word by word reprint of Genesis.
In all honesty the statue doesn't belong there either.

I totally understand how you feel. There are alot of good people in the "red" states, but sometimes I feel the USA would have been alot better off if it had let the confederacy secede.
Besides, the Confederates probably wouldn't have lasted long anyway, and would have begged to be let back in later. Not only does it save millions of lives, it's humiliating. :D

zoologist and Noe arch is an oxymoron

But since the decision came from the city leaders who probably found the zoo we can only blame the fact the bigot are administrating the money.

There are days suicide seems like a good idea

What? They're teaching religion to the monkeys?

If you give them enough bananas, they'll event repent their sins.

Ihatevacations']There are days suicide seems like a good idea


Isn't that the gods honest truth. :D opps I said God :headbang:

What? They're teaching religion to the monkeys?

If you give them enough bananas, they'll event repent their sins.
Yeah, but if they start evolving into humans they might become atheists and demand gay marriage rights.

Yeah, but if they start evolving into humans they might become atheists and demand gay marriage rights.
Now THAT'D be a sight to see. :D

Now THAT'D be a sight to see. :D
Especially if they don't lose the "throw feces at annoying people" trait.

Now, the purpose of a zoo is to educate people about animals throughout the earth's history. They are scientific and public institutions that are meant to reflect the theories and ideas behind the development of life.

What sense does it make to put an unsubstantiated and illogical explanation for the origin of life that flies in the face of scientific evidence and seeks to estabish a narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible (one subscribed to be a small number of people at that) as a legitimate scientific theory in to a zoo?

I remember one guy's statement.(Too lazy to get the details)

"There is a place for religion, and there's a place for science."

Intelligence, such a rare, priceless thing...

Now, the purpose of a zoo is to educate people about animals throughout the earth's history. They are scientific and public institutions that are meant to reflect the theories and ideas behind the development of life.

What sense does it make to put an unsubstantiated and illogical explanation for the origin of life that flies in the face of scientific evidence and seeks to estabish a narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible (one subscribed to be a small number of people at that) as a legitimate scientific theory in to a zoo?
It's not even a scientific theory. It relies on supernatural explanations. It's religious doctrine and shouldn't be funded by public money. This sort of thing isn't supposed to happen in America. We're supposed to be a secular nation. What the hell is going on?

I think it's great fun. If I lived there I'd demand that my pagan views were represented and I'd encourage my friends of other faiths to do the same.
it would cost them soooo much to fairly implement every view point they'd have to throw them all out (where they should be).
It's just another example of how christians feel threatened and get very silly when they do.
The whole zoo will be a joke amoungst it's peers.

hmm, perhaps i should get a job at this here zoo

"now some people say that all of the great diversity of life was specially created 6000 years ago. these people are either ignorant of the basic facts, too stupid or deluded to understand them, or just plain evil. anyways, back to the evolutionary stories of all of the life we see around us..."

I think it's great fun. If I lived there I'd demand that my pagan views were represented and I'd encourage my friends of other faiths to do the same.
it would cost them soooo much to fairly implement every view point they'd have to throw them all out (where they should be).
It's just another example of how christians feel threatened and get very silly when they do.
The whole zoo will be a joke amoungst it's peers.
That would be a great strategy. Get together a group of people from all different religions, particularly "scary" religions like satanism, wicca, islam, etc. and have them sue to get their views represented in every place that christians try to force their views on us.

That would be a great strategy. Get together a group of people from all different religions, particularly "scary" religions like satanism, wicca, islam, etc. and have them sue to get their views represented in every place that christians try to force their views on us.
Heh... that'd be quite interesting to see.

It's not even a scientific theory. It relies on supernatural explanations. It's religious doctrine and shouldn't be funded by public money. This sort of thing isn't supposed to happen in America. We're supposed to be a secular nation. What the hell is going on?

This is really big out in the Midwest, with Kansas being challenged again about ID in the classroom, and it was only a matter of time before it spread; of course, this is that spread. In my opinion, this seems more like a power play by the religious right (most Catholics excepted; the Pope supports "theistic" evolution, or that man evolved from lesser life but still has a unique soul) to get attention rather than a durable movement. Oddly enough, the Jews (for whom Genesis was written) support evolution as well.

If you're going to teach creation, you have to teach all of the creation theories from all religions.

In all honesty the statue doesn't belong there either.

That depends. Is it actually a statue of a Hindu god? Or is it a statue of an elephant?

Cuz I think an elephant statue fits in just fine in a zoo.

It's a zoo, so technically all they're supposed to do is to show living animals and explain how they live. Oh, and they can explain animal classifications and morphological features if they wish.

Why would they have to choose between evolution and creationism anyway?
It's not their job. They're not showing fossils or having religious celebrations.

That depends. Is it actually a statue of a Hindu god? Or is it a statue of an elephant?

Cuz I think an elephant statue fits in just fine in a zoo.
Looked alot like a hindu god to me.

I see it a desperate defiance of the "lib'ral city ay-leets" in the face of a growing groundswell of acremony toward the christian right. "Rattleing last breaths" as it were.

thats fair i mean there not shoving it down anyones throats there merely adding a wing that people can see the creationist views.

thats fair i mean there not shoving it down anyones throats there merely adding a wing that people can see the creationist views.
Then let them add a wing for each creation myth. The two in the bible, the various native American ones, the African tribal ones, etc. Just to be fair.

Also, just to be fair, let biologists build wings onto churches to teach the scientific version of how modern animals got here.

thats fair i mean there not shoving it down anyones throats there merely adding a wing that people can see the creationist views.
Zoos are not supposed to have religious qualities in them. They're supposed to explain what the animal is, where it lives, what it eats, what it's anatomy is and so forth. That's it.

EDIT: But if we had ALL sides of the story(evolution, Christianity, Hinduism, Native American, Islamic etc.) THEN it would be fair.

Zoos are not supposed to have religious qualities in them. They're supposed to explain what the animal is, where it lives, what it eats, what it's anatomy is and so forth. That's it.

EDIT: But if we had ALL sides of the story(evolution, Christianity, Hinduism, Native American, Islamic etc.) THEN it would be fair.First commie please do not refer to my beliefs as a "myth". Second seal did you read the article? The man says it has icons of other religions there.

It seems a zoo in Tulsa Oklahoma has decided to include a display on the religious doctrine of creationism. It's abandoned it's responsibility to teach the science of zoology in favor of being a religious institution. Hopefully they can be stripped of any public funds they recieve, because public funds shouldn't be used to establish religious beleif.

www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/062605dntexzoo.467e3fab.html

that's absolutely horrible. they should ban it, if the people continue to show signs of christianity then burn the building and hang the people. it's horrible. by the way, drunk commies, are you communist? you seem to support some things of that view. i know it has not much to do with this thread, i'm just wondering.

that's absolutely horrible. they should ban it, if the people continue to show signs of christianity then burn the building and hang the people. it's horrible. by the way, drunk commies, are you communist? you seem to support some things of that view. i know it has not much to do with this thread, i'm just wondering.
Nope, I'm not a communist. I'm registered as a republican, but I'm actually a liberal independant.


Oh, and I'm not trying to punish Christians. Only to keep tax money from being used to try to convert people to their religious beleif. Just trying to keep the Constitution from being treated like toilet paper.

Nope, I'm not a communist. I'm registered as a republican, but I'm actually a liberal independant.


Oh, and I'm not trying to punish Christians. Only to keep tax money from being used to try to convert people to their religious beleif. Just trying to keep the Constitution from being treated like toilet paper.Commie commie commie you fell for it again ese. Then why do they teach evolution in schools is that not a attempt to get people to believe that over religion? You can't have both.

First commie please do not refer to my beliefs as a "myth". Second seal did you read the article? The man says it has icons of other religions there.
Right. I don't think Icons of any religion belong in a public zoo. Really though, most of his examples were stupid. I mean marking the grave of a dead animal is not an endorsement of paganism. I'm sure they didn't mark it with a pentagram or something. He does have a point about the Ganesh statue. I'm against displaying that.

Secondly, it is a creation myth. Just like all the other creation myths. It's certainly not fact or theory because it's not supported by evidence.

Second seal did you read the article? The man says it has icons of other religions there.
How many other religions? What about Satanism? Islamic? Shintoism? They need ALL the religious view points to make it fair.

Commie commie commie you fell for it again ese. Then why do they teach evolution in schools is that not a attempt to get people to believe that over religion? You can't have both.
No, it's not an attempt to convert people to a religious beleif. It's an attempt to teach scientific fact and scientific theory.

Imagine for a second that a religion beleived that the earth stood still and the sun went around us. Imagine that they tried to get the schools to teach that foolishness. That's what creationism is like.

There's too much evidence in favor of evolution to reasonably doubt that it's taken place. There's too little evidence in favor of creationism to reasonably beleive that it's taken place.

Right. I don't think Icons of any religion belong in a public zoo. Really though, most of his examples were stupid. I mean marking the grave of a dead animal is not an endorsement of paganism. I'm sure they didn't mark it with a pentagram or something. He does have a point about the Ganesh statue. I'm against displaying that.

Secondly, it is a creation myth. Just like all the other creation myths. It's certainly not fact or theory because it's not supported by evidence.Why you ignore the last part? And btw thats what you call faith. Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Nope, I'm not a communist. I'm registered as a republican, but I'm actually a liberal independant.

ok. sorry about that then.

Why you ignore the last part? And btw thats what you call faith. Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Sorry, I didn't understand this post.

No, it's not an attempt to convert people to a religious beleif. It's an attempt to teach scientific fact and scientific theory.

Imagine for a second that a religion beleived that the earth stood still and the sun went around us. Imagine that they tried to get the schools to teach that foolishness. That's what creationism is like.

There's too much evidence in favor of evolution to reasonably doubt that it's taken place. There's too little evidence in favor of creationism to reasonably beleive that it's taken place.LOL a man who was known as louis pasteur once proved (and it hasnt been rivaled) that the evolution theory could not be true because if the big bang created life it goes against the laws of nature because before the big bang there was no life and hes proved that life cannot come from were this is no life again that has not been proved wrong since.

LOL a man who was known as louis pasteur once proved (and it hasnt been rivaled) that the evolution theory could not be true because if the big bang created life it goes against the laws of nature because before the big bang there was no life and hes proved that life cannot come from were this is no life again that has not been proved wrong since.
... um... english please? I did not understand that post...

LOL a man who was known as louis pasteur once proved (and it hasnt been rivaled) that the evolution theory could not be true because if the big bang created life it goes against the laws of nature because before the big bang there was no life and hes proved that life cannot come from were this is no life again that has not been proved wrong since.
No, that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't about where life originally came from. That's called abiogenesis. Evolution only talks about what happened to the first forms of life AFTER they came into being. Funny how you feel compelled to disagree with a well supported scientific theory that you obviously don't even understand.

No, that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't about where life originally came from. That's called abiogenesis. Evolution only talks about what happened to the first forms of life AFTER they came into being. Funny how you feel compelled to disagree with a well supported scientific theory that you obviously don't even understand.funny how you should argue with Christianity when you dont even know about it.

LOL a man who was known as louis pasteur once proved (and it hasnt been rivaled) that the evolution theory could not be true because if the big bang created life it goes against the laws of nature because before the big bang there was no life and hes proved that life cannot come from were this is no life again that has not been proved wrong since.
Trolling?
Lack of punctuation?
Anyway: references please!

I think that you all are over reacting by just a wee bit. Kill them all? Burn down the zoo? Sever its funding? Nukes? Exile?
It is a fucking display, if it offends, then don't look at it. Really, you're acting like they added a display called "The Evolution of the Negroid" and showed where the "Darkies" came from monkeys, as opposed to "decent white folk/trash" who evolved from angel/platypus crossbreeding programs.
I'm more annoyed at the fact that a zoo needs to be involved in evolution/creation debates anyway. The closest I've ever seen to that is notes on how Trait A was replaced by Trait B because of Changes in the Envrionment. Theories/Myths/Bazooka Joe comics on the ORIGINS OF LIFE(TM) can be saved for History museums.

Editor's note: Some/All of you may be utilising the fair art of hyperbole, in which case, I apologize. But then, people who aren't confined by such demands as capitilization or punctuation often aren't confined by common sense either.

funny how you should argue with Christianity when you dont even know about it.
Actually, I think he DOES know about Christianity.

Please do not spew out random retorts without thinking about it first.

funny how you should argue with Christianity when you dont even know about it.
Sorry pal, I was a Christian. I read the bible. I went to church. I prayed. I even had "religious" experiences. Then I figgured out it wasn't real and religious experiences are just a temporary chemical imbalance in the brain.

Actually, I think he DOES know about Christianity.

Please do not spew out random retorts without thinking about it first.Hey commie nice new name i didn't think that you would change it on me. Oh wait your not commie then sorry wasn't talking to you

LOL a man who was known as louis pasteur once proved (and it hasnt been rivaled) that the evolution theory could not be true because if the big bang created life it goes against the laws of nature because before the big bang there was no life and hes proved that life cannot come from were this is no life again that has not been proved wrong since.
but the big bang didn't create life! hahahahahahah! also, i'm pretty shure that louis pasteur wasn't the one that did the expiriment to prove that life cannot spontaniously be created, wasn't it franscesco redi? also, life is only a set of many many chemical reactons, so there's nothing really separating us from fire, in essence, except that we're more complex. life didn't have to spontaneously be created in order to have started either, it was most likely a very very long proscess.

Sorry pal, I was a Christian. I read the bible. I went to church. I prayed. I even had "religious" experiences. Then I figgured out it wasn't real and religious experiences are just a temporary chemical imbalance in the brain.Then you should know verses The one i said about faith were is that?

Trolling?
Lack of punctuation?
Anyway: references please!
You don't know about Louis Pasteur? He was the one who invented pasteurizing and disproved the idea that life could just appear from nothing. Before then it was thought that flies/mold/etc just kind of appeared on/in rotting food. Not that his experiment had anything to do with evolution, it was about whether life could just sort of happen, or if something else had to be involved.

You don't know about Louis Pasteur? He was the one who invented pasteurizing and disproved the idea that life could just appear from nothing. Before then it was thought that flies/mold/etc just kind of appeared on/in rotting food. Not that his experiment had anything to do with evolution, it was about whether life could just sort of happen, or if something else had to be involved.
I know of Louis Pasteur.
I'd just like to see his so-called criticism of the evolution theory.
Was he a Lamarckian?

funny how you should argue with Christianity when you dont even know about it.

Funny how most modern christians feel the need to defend their beliefs so tenaciously instead of just living by them and sometimes preaching. But, ultimately letting the rest of the world do its own thing, like Jesus did.

I think that you all are over reacting by just a wee bit. Kill them all? Burn down the zoo? Sever its funding? Nukes? Exile?
It is a fucking display, if it offends, then don't look at it. Really, you're acting like they added a display called "The Evolution of the Negroid" and showed where the "Darkies" came from monkeys, as opposed to "decent white folk/trash" who evolved from angel/platypus crossbreeding programs.
I'm more annoyed at the fact that a zoo needs to be involved in evolution/creation debates anyway. The closest I've ever seen to that is notes on how Trait A was replaced by Trait B because of Changes in the Envrionment. Theories/Myths/Bazooka Joe comics on the ORIGINS OF LIFE(TM) can be saved for History museums.

Editor's note: Some/All of you may be utilising the fair art of hyperbole, in which case, I apologize. But then, people who aren't confined by such demands as capitilization or punctuation often aren't confined by common sense either.
you have a point, but you're forgetting something, the don't look at it if you don't like it solution doesn't work, because other people would still be looking at it. the whole of society is what's important, not the individual.

Sever its funding?

That isn't overreacting in the least. If it receives public funding, it should not advocate a particular religious view. If they are determined to do so, then public funding should be cut off.

Meanwhile, Fc2, the article does not say that there are religious icons in the zoo currently. What it says is that one man who is pushing this agenda said he saw hints of religion in things that most likely weren't meant to be religious at all.

Then you should know verses The one i said about faith were is that?
Please excuse me for not memorizing the bible. It's been several years since I paid it any mind.

but the big bang didn't create life! hahahahahahah! also, i'm pretty shure that louis pasteur wasn't the one that did the expiriment to prove that life cannot spontaniously be created, wasn't it franscesco redi? also, life is only a set of many many chemical reactons, so there's nothing really separating us from fire, in essence, except that we're more complex. life didn't have to spontaneously be created in order to have started either, it was most likely a very very long proscess.

Here is an article that details Pasteurs experiment that disproved spontaneous generation and Millers expereiment that proved that organic compounds (and thus eventually life after many millions of years) could have been produced in the primative atmosphere of the early earth.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/falk/OriginOfLife/Origin.htm

Funny how most modern christians feel the need to defend their beliefs so tenaciously instead of just living by them and sometimes preaching. But, ultimately letting the rest of the world do its own thing, like Jesus did.


It's funny how a whole bunch of non-Christians like to go around telling Christians they aren't acting like Christians :rolleyes:

Here is an article that details Pasteurs experiment that disproved spontaneous generation and Millers expereiment that proved that organic compounds (and thus eventually life after many millions of years) could have been produced in the primative atmosphere of the early earth.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/falk/OriginOfLife/Origin.htm

i was just about to post a website about stanley miller's expiriment, but you beat me to it. i'll anyways, cause this one's more in depth.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

I know of Louis Pasteur.
I'd just like to see his so-called criticism of the evolution theory.
Was he a Lamarckian?
He wasn't critical of evolution, just the spontaneous generation of life. Personally, I think the Quaker Oats guy created all life as a temporary entertainment, but then got bored and left our primitive universe for ones with more than 3 dimensions.

I know of Louis Pasteur.
I'd just like to see his so-called criticism of the evolution theory.
Was he a Lamarckian?

what the creationists think they are doing is using pasteur's experiments against the spontaneous creation of flies and maggots from bread and rotting meat as proof that abiogenesis is impossible. they got this idea, of course, by being woefully misinformed by their lying false prophets - it's not like any of them actually read any non-creationist crap to find out what was actually being tested in those experiments.

The biologist-thumpers in here do realize that the "theory" of evolution..is a theory afterall, right? You speak of the theory of evolution as if it has been here since the beginning of time, when it is relatively new. Now before you go bashing about how the theory itself has been floating around incoherently throughout the ages. Do realize that it was only organized a few years ago and for many years was not accepted by the science community.Again I know that there will be more bashing about how the "Christian" science community section were the ones who wouldn't give a second look at this theory, which is in part true, but non-creationalist also disagreed with this theory. It amazes one to think that this new theory is treated as fact in schools and science; even more so how strong sponges will refuse to learn anything else other than what mommy and daddy tell them to. So many are confused and brainwashed by our dear government it is hard to find anyone of upmost thought and with little to no hypocrisy to follow his words and actions.

lying false
Do you enjoy being lustful in redundancy?

LOL a man who was known as louis pasteur once proved (and it hasnt been rivaled) that the evolution theory could not be true because if the big bang created life it goes against the laws of nature because before the big bang there was no life and hes proved that life cannot come from were this is no life again that has not been proved wrong since.
I pity you, have a stale cookie

The biologist-thumpers in here do realize that the "theory" of evolution..is a theory afterall, right?

of course we do. that's why we like it so much. it's the absolute best explanation for all of the data we have and keeps surviving serious tests of its predictive explanatory power. as far as science goes, it's just about the most awesome and useful explanation of anything. ever.

creationism, on the other hand, is a complete and utter failure. if we treat it like a scientific hypothesis, it fails every single test anyone has come up with. it can only survive by retreating to the position that all of our sense data about the universe is in some way a trick or an illusion. or just making shit up and saying "lalala, i can't hear you" when confronted with this fact.

you have a point, but you're forgetting something, the don't look at it if you don't like it solution doesn't work, because other people would still be looking at it. the whole of society is what's important, not the individual.
Oh, so the fact that one person may once cast their virgin gaze unexpectant upon those blasphemous markings and determine that their may yet still be truth lying deep in the heart of religion sends your fair heart into the very depths of terrible mourning? The thought that a young lad or lass may be corrupted by that vile tempter of religion is so horrible that so long as one young mind of a malleable and innocent age may confront this spectre of human histroy and achievements gone past, you will be there. As long as one remnant of this vile cult, this horrid Christiany, remains in the public view, threatening society and all we hold dear with its existence, you will be there.
Religion shall not strike again, for the great Saviour Yupaenu, knower of whats good for you and all those you care for, will prevent anyone else from confronting that wretched cadaver, that horrid demon, that, that, RELIGION!

Is that how it works, oh great and mighty Master of All that Isn't Religious?

Do you enjoy being lustful in redundancy?

lying false prophets
not
lying false prophets

creationism, on the other hand, is a complete and utter failure. if we treat it like a scientific hypothesis, it fails every single test anyone has come up with. it can only survive by retreating to the position that all of our sense data about the universe is in some way a trick or an illusion. or just making shit up and saying "lalala, i can't hear you" when confronted with this fact.
What are these tests? Examples perhaps? Not to say I don't agree with you that many ignorant Christians may run around saying "lalala, I can't hear you" if they were unsure about their beliefs and your words are going against their mommys and daddys. I agree with science in many ways..but I just argue that people should stop treating "theorys" as "facts", even if they are remarkable in their explanation.

lying false prophets
not
lying false prophets
It doesn't matter how you use it.."false prophets" is not a noun. You can not have two adjectives that are of similar meaning together when they can be mistaken to describe the preceding noun.

Let's donate the Okies to Mexico! :mp5:

Let's donate the Okies to Mexico! :mp5:
Okies running across the Texan borders to get back to their homeland. HA!Very well...I'll start loading up the Okies in my truck and smuggle them in to Mexico. In exchange for the estate of Oklahoma. I could use a place to make illegal isle cocunut stones.

Public zoo? Absolutely not. Let the guy open his own creationism zoo.

Public zoo? Absolutely not. Let them open their own evolutionism zoo.

The biologist-thumpers in here do realize that the "theory" of evolution..is a theory afterall, right?

You non-scientists in here do realize that theory is as good as it get in science, right? You did read the first chapter of your grade school science textbooks?\

You non-scientists in here do realize that theory is as good as it get in science, right? You did read the first chapter of your grade school science textbooks?\
Wait wait..so what are scientific facts? Are they of lower grade compared to scientific theory? I read it..got bored..slept, still made an A.

You non-scientists in here do realize that theory is as good as it get in science, right? You did read the first chapter of your grade school science textbooks?\

I don't know, I always thought that scientific law was as good as it gets.

But what do I know, I'm a dumbass Christian and a Catholic at that. :D

Creationism and Evolutionism are both scientific theories.

Either allow them both or allow neither. Being opposed to religion altogether isn't religious neutrality on the part of the government, sorry.

I thought you atheists were supposed to be open.

Oh, so the fact that one person may once cast their virgin gaze unexpectant upon those blasphemous markings and determine that their may yet still be truth lying deep in the heart of religion sends your fair heart into the very depths of terrible mourning? The thought that a young lad or lass may be corrupted by that vile tempter of religion is so horrible that so long as one young mind of a malleable and innocent age may confront this spectre of human histroy and achievements gone past, you will be there. As long as one remnant of this vile cult, this horrid Christiany, remains in the public view, threatening society and all we hold dear with its existence, you will be there.
Religion shall not strike again, for the great Saviour Yupaenu, knower of whats good for you and all those you care for, will prevent anyone else from confronting that wretched cadaver, that horrid demon, that, that, RELIGION!

Is that how it works, oh great and mighty Master of All that Isn't Religious?
first of all, not to be rude, but your misinterprenting what i said. by writting what you just said, you had implied that you wanted to force that view of yours open other people, making you, in actuallity more like the person you are describing in your post than i am, for as i specifically said, one person doesn't matter in the whole, and what am i but one person. i couldn't do anything about it, but as a whole the community could unite for the common good. yet you insist, by stating that post, that one person can affect everything, and, by trying to get other people to agree with you, you are saying that you are trying to affect everything, just as yourself then.

I don't know, I always thought that scientific law was as good as it gets.

But what do I know, I'm a dumbass Christian and a Catholic at that. :D


Phase 2: Petulance

It seems a zoo in Tulsa Oklahoma has decided to include a display on the religious doctrine of creationism. It's abandoned it's responsibility to teach the science of zoology in favor of being a religious institution. Hopefully they can be stripped of any public funds they recieve, because public funds shouldn't be used to establish religious beleif.

www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/062605dntexzoo.467e3fab.html

Perhaps they'll have better luck getting the monkeys to swallow it, eh?

Creationism and Evolutionism are both scientific theories.

Either allow them both or allow neither. Being opposed to religion altogether isn't religious neutrality on the part of the government, sorry.

I thought you atheists were supposed to be open.
You're wrong about creationism being a scientific theory. It's not scientific. It relies on supernatual agents to work. Science cannot take anything supernatural into account as it is the study of the natural world. Creationism is a religious doctrine. If government is going to fund the spread of religious doctrines then I demand that they immediately begin funding a program to educate the people on the benefits of Satanism.

first of all, not to be rude, but your misinterprenting what i said. by writting what you just said, you had implied that you wanted to force that view of yours open other people, making you, in actuallity more like the person you are describing in your post than i am, for as i specifically said, one person doesn't matter in the whole, and what am i but one person. i couldn't do anything about it, but as a whole the community could unite for the common good. yet you insist, by stating that post, that one person can affect everything, and, by trying to get other people to agree with you, you are saying that you are trying to affect everything, just as yourself then.
Now I'm thoroughly confused. You said that your problem isn't that you don't have to look at it, but that someone else might. Well, that means either:

You believe that other people are to stupid to look away
You believe that other people don't deserve the same free will to either look away or not that you have
All of the above

You have, ineffect, placed yourself at a higher authority than anyone else.

It seems a zoo in Tulsa Oklahoma has decided to include a display on the religious doctrine of creationism. It's abandoned it's responsibility to teach the science of zoology in favor of being a religious institution. Hopefully they can be stripped of any public funds they recieve, because public funds shouldn't be used to establish religious beleif.

www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/062605dntexzoo.467e3fab.html


Well heighdy-ho neighbour dude.

While this may appear to be a little cont-ront-ravertial, just remember what I always said. "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know. Important things. "


It's as true today as it ever was!








NOT!

Well heighdy-ho neighbour dude.

While this may appear to be a little cont-ront-ravertial, just remember what I always said. "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know. Important things. "


It's as true today as it ever was!








NOT! Your post doesnt go far enuff. Science isn't just a blabbermouth its a lier. It tells people that there just monkeys so theyll abandon Jesus and live in sin as satanistic gay homosexuals.


Jesussaves just couldn't resist joining in.

You're wrong about creationism being a scientific theory. It's not scientific. It relies on supernatual agents to work. Science cannot take anything supernatural into account as it is the study of the natural world. Creationism is a religious doctrine. If government is going to fund the spread of religious doctrines then I demand that they immediately begin funding a program to educate the people on the benefits of Satanism.

Creationism is religious doctrine, but besides that it is also a scientific theory. Maybe you have misconceptions about the theory of intelligent design, but it doesn't rely on the Bible as you might think.

Now I'm thoroughly confused. You said that your problem isn't that you don't have to look at it, but that someone else might. Well, that means either:

You believe that other people are to stupid to look away
You believe that other people don't deserve the same free will to either look away or not that you have
All of the above

You have, ineffect, placed yourself at a higher authority than anyone else.
closest to what you had listed to b. i don't think that anyone should have the right to look at it, including myself.

Creationism is religious doctrine, but besides that it is also a scientific theory. Maybe you have misconceptions about the theory of intelligent design, but it doesn't rely on the Bible as you might think.

There's nothing scientific about Creationism. You have to ignore so many things in our world to believe into Creationism, it's really not funny...

Creationism is religious doctrine, but besides that it is also a scientific theory. Maybe you have misconceptions about the theory of intelligent design, but it doesn't rely on the Bible as you might think.
Sorry dude, I've read about ID theory. It's short on science. Most books only try to poke holes in current evolutionary theory, and fail miserably I might add. Then they try to say if evolution isn't correct god must have done it, rather than looking for other explanations.

Jesussaves just couldn't resist joining in.


errr, gosh darn diddly doo! I hope you're not assuming that I'm JS. That would be darn sad.... and I hadn't noticed his rather unChristian missive in the thread when I pulled out a quotey-wote-wote from my television show.




(Or, did you just miss the ever so subltly-wubbly "NOT" at the end of my post?)

errr, gosh darn diddly doo! I hope you're not assuming that I'm JS. That would be darn sad.... and I hadn't noticed his rather unChristian missive in the thread when I pulled out a quotey-wote-wote from my television show.




(Or, did you just miss the ever so subltly-wubbly "NOT" at the end of my post?)
Nope. I am Jesussaves and I told Drunk Atheist scumbag satanic probably closet homo Commies to post for me. My posts are in red. like the blood of our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS

:confused:

Public zoo? Absolutely not. Let them open their own evolutionism zoo.

That's cute. How long did it take you to think that one up?

That's cute. How long did it take you to think that one up?

I thought of it as soon as I saw the original post.

I don't appreciate your condescending manner, either. It isn't cute.

:confused:

Good to see you're still around, DCd. :D

**Wisjersey also greets Jesussaves**

Sorry dude, I've read about ID theory. It's short on science. Most books only try to poke holes in current evolutionary theory, and fail miserably I might add. Then they try to say if evolution isn't correct god must have done it, rather than looking for other explanations.

Just as you disagree with ID, that doesn't mean it ceases to be a theory. Just like Baptists disagree with evolutionism, that doesn't invalidate evolutionism, either.

I thought of it as soon as I saw the original post.

I don't appreciate your condescending manner, either. It isn't cute.

I do not care what you do or do not appreciate.

The guy wants to add a creationism wing to a zoo, a facility that has nothing to do with religion or creation myths or even the origins of animals, because he perceived other religious figures in said zoo. What do you believe belongs in a zoo? Do you think Genesis is proper material to be displayed in a zoo?

Creationism and Evolutionism are both scientific theories.

NO THEY ARE NOT. Evolution* actually has *gasp* some form of proof. A scientific theory has to be able of being proven or disproven, both of which could be done to evolution, given enough effort. However, there is absolutely no scientific manner to prove or disprove creationism, hence, it is not at all scientific.

Just as you disagree with ID, that doesn't mean it ceases to be a theory. Just like Baptists disagree with evolutionism, that doesn't invalidate evolutionism, either.
Because it invokes a supernatural force it ceases to be a SCIENTIFIC theory and becomes religious doctrine. How many times does this have to be said?

Just as you disagree with ID, that doesn't mean it ceases to be a theory. Just like Baptists disagree with evolutionism, that doesn't invalidate evolutionism, either.

Say Paternia, have you ever dealt with concepts like taphonomy or paleo-ecology (stuff that is largely ignored by Creationists)? You will soon see how YEC and Deluge are entirely impossible...

Just as you disagree with ID, that doesn't mean it ceases to be a theory. Just like Baptists disagree with evolutionism, that doesn't invalidate evolutionism, either.

It's a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. There are criteria it must meet in order to be considered a theory in the scientific sense. Anyone can have a theory on anything, that does not make them scientific theories. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, because it does meet the criteria.

:confused:


Hmmm, well I can understandy your little confuserado given his previous quote (which, once again, I hadn't noticed).

And also your suspicion.


Would it help if I directed you here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/quotes) so you could check out the truthy-wuthy of my version of the statement?



Because I may be annoyingly square, but I'm NOT JS.

It's a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. There are criteria it must meet in order to be considered a theory in the scientific sense. Anyone can have a theory on anything, that does not make them scientific theories. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, because it does meet the criteria.

There are no criteria in order to be a scientific theory.

There are classifications among theories for those which have more evidence than others, but there is no precept in order to become a theory.

Hmmm, well I can understandy your little confuserado given his previous quote (which, once again, I hadn't noticed).

And also your suspicion.


Would it help if I directed you here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/quotes) so you could check out the truthy-wuthy of my version of the statement?



Because I may be annoyingly square, but I'm NOT JS.
Havent you been reading any of my posts? DC knows your not Jesussaves. He was talking about me. I'm Jesussaves!

Read the red quotes.

Silly-willy me.....

Wait wait..so what are scientific facts? Are they of lower grade compared to scientific theory? I read it..got bored..slept, still made an A.

There are observations which are facts. These are the basis of theories. They don't explain anything. They are simply observations.

I don't know, I always thought that scientific law was as good as it gets.

And you are wrong. A law is nothing more than a theory that has been around a long time and stood up to lots of experimentation.

However, after "laws" were disproven (as all theories are open to being disproven), scientists seem to have stopped using the term. It is obvious that, no matter how much testing has been done, even a law can fall.

But what do I know, I'm a dumbass Christian and a Catholic at that.

Why be a dumbass Christian? It is much more fun to be an intelligent one.

There are no criteria in order to be a scientific theory.

There are classifications among theories for those which have more evidence than others, but there is no precept in order to become a theory.
What makes you think that there are no criteria for a scietific theory? First of all, it must by definition be scientific. No room for appeals to supernatural forces there. Secondly it must be supported by the available evidence. Both of those rule out creationism.

EDIT: Nearly forgot. You have to be able to make predictions based on it. If those predictions are false you've then tested the theory and found it to be wrong.

There are no criteria in order to be a scientific theory.

There are classifications among theories for those which have more evidence than others, but there is no precept in order to become a theory.


Here's a sample theory: The world was created by...a frog named Joe!
According to you, that could be a very scientific theory, when in fact you can't prove that's true in a scientific manner.

Pathetic.

Incredibly pathetic, sad, and as many other negative descriptors as you care to mention, to boot.

Only in America, you say? Thank goodness.

(You're all going to feel so embarrased about this decades or centuries from now, going through the yearbooks -

X: "Hey look at this Zobo, they were using Zoos to propagandize religious frickin' orthodoxy back in the 21st century!"

Z: "No frickin' way, Xox! You're so full of fertilizer, I- hey, you're right! What a bunch of dumbassed hicks they all were..."

X: "Makes me glad we out-evolved them. The world's been a better place since we Benobos rose up and took over."

Z: "You know it, Xox."

X: "Hey Zobo - look, a shiny thing! Let's have sex to determine who has ownership rights."

Z: "Right on it. Err, you."

Here's a sample theory: The world was created by...a frog named Joe!
According to you, that could be a very scientific theory, when in fact you can't prove that's true in a scientific manner.

That's why it's a theory and not a law.

A theory doesn't have to be proven to be true.

I don't get the last part about the freaky alien sex... :confused:

There are no criteria in order to be a scientific theory.

There are classifications among theories for those which have more evidence than others, but there is no precept in order to become a theory.

You seem to be in need of a remedial science lesson.



There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

That's why it's a theory and not a law.

A theory doesn't have to be proven to be true.

Err, you know what 'scientific theory' means yes? It means that it sufficiently explains all existing evidence and that predictions can be made what about should be observed/should not be observed. This holds true for evolution, but it obviously does not hold true for creationism...

That's why it's a theory and not a law.

A theory doesn't have to be proven to be true.

But one other criteria for a SCIENTIFIC (notice the emphasis) theory is that it can be proven or disproven in a scientific manner. One can't prove that the world was created by a frog. Although, I think what I said might be considered as a theory, because we know (or have a very good idea) about how the earth was created.

Here's a sample theory: The world was created by...a frog named Joe!
According to you, that could be a very scientific theory, when in fact you can't prove that's true in a scientific manner.
I know a guy named Joe who's nickname is froggy. I seriously doubt that he created the world.

I don't know, I always thought that scientific law was as good as it gets.

But what do I know, I'm a dumbass Christian and a Catholic at that. :D
Which shows you have no idea what you are talking about

To quote:
"A law is an observation of what goes on around us, a theory is the explanation for it."


Evolution is a law, if biology had them (they don't, but that's another topic), as it is an observation of what goes on around us (the adaptation of creatures to their niches), however, evolution by means of natural selection is a theory, an explanation for the law.

... it's times like these that I really want to nuke the south-east and midwest. Better yet, let them secede again. Gives us an excuse to knock(or shoot) some sense into them.

No offense to people in that area who don't agree with this.

I'll draw some huge bullseyes in for you.

I know a guy named Joe who's nickname is froggy. I seriously doubt that he created the world.

Yeah, except "Froggy" is already a human. Unless we want to argue as to whether or not he's actually the infamous Joe (the frog).

I know a guy named Joe who's nickname is froggy. I seriously doubt that he created the world.

Well...

"In the beginning, there was inconsistency. And God was inconsistency. And inconsistency was with God. And God created something inconsistent. And he saw that it was not good at all, so he decided to leave things to Big Bang..."

:D

Yeah, except "Froggy" is already a human. Unless we want to argue as to whether or not he's actually the infamous Joe (the frog).
Maybe it's one of his descendants. They may have evolved into humans over time.

Creationism and Evolutionism are both scientific theories.

Incorrect.

Creationism cannot be a scientific theory because it is completely dependent upon an unfalsifiable claim (the existance of a God).

On top of that, Creationists don't follow the scientific method. They begin with a conclusion that will not change, no matter what evidence they receive.

Either allow them both or allow neither.

Creationism can be taught where it belongs - in a class on comparative relgion.

Only science can be taught in a science class.

Being opposed to religion altogether isn't religious neutrality on the part of the government, sorry.

Who ever argued that the government should be opposed to religion?

I don't get the last part about the freaky alien sex... :confused:

Benobos. As in Chimpanzees. Not aliens.

Chimapnzees are the branch of simians most closely related to us genetically. Of all chimpanzees, Benobos are the closest related to us genetically.

The biggest difference between us is the tendency amongst Benobos is to have sex, rather than fight, to solve conflicts.

Kinda doesn't sound nearly as funny if you gotta explain it.

Sheesh.

Maybe it's one of his descendants. They may have evolved into humans over time.

Well... the oldest frog i am aware of is Triadobatrachus from the Lower Triassic of Madagascar. Unfortunately, frogs are far away from the mammalian lineage. ;) :cool:

Have people like Paternia forgotten about 2 things?:
The separation of Church and State, and the abhorrently obvious difference between Science and Religion?

Creationism is religious doctrine, but besides that it is also a scientific theory.

Not according to science. *shrug*

Maybe you have misconceptions about the theory of intelligent design, but it doesn't rely on the Bible as you might think.

It doesn't have to. It relies on the unfalsifiable assumption that a god exists.

Benobos. As in Chimpanzees. Not aliens.

Chimapnzees are the branch of simians most closely related to us genetically. Of all chimpanzees, Benobos are the closest related to us genetically.

The biggest difference between us is the tendency amongst Benobos is to have sex, rather than fight, to solve conflicts.

Kinda doesn't sound nearly as funny if you gotta explain it.

Sheesh.
Bonobos. Like the singer of U2.

Benobos. As in Chimpanzees. Not aliens.

Chimapnzees are the branch of simians most closely related to us genetically. Of all chimpanzees, Benobos are the closest related to us genetically.

The biggest difference between us is the tendency amongst Benobos is to have sex, rather than fight, to solve conflicts.

Kinda doesn't sound nearly as funny if you gotta explain it.

Sheesh.

I understood what you were saying, Dobbs, for what it's worth.

I've just never heard of Bonobos...meh

I understood what you were saying, Dobbs, for what it's worth.

Sdaeriji, I'd've been quite honestly surprised if you didn't know what I was blathering on about.

You people ought to listen to Sdaeriji more often. And not just 'cause he knows his way around Benobos.

I've just never heard of Bonobos...meh
They're like skinnier, hornier chimps.

There are no criteria in order to be a scientific theory.

There are classifications among theories for those which have more evidence than others, but there is no precept in order to become a theory.

Why do people who have obviously never studied science beyond grade school (and must not have paid attention much even then) try and discuss science?

Why do people who have obviously never studied science beyond grade school (and must not have paid attention much even then) try and discuss science?

I don't know, but he seems to have fled rather than face the onslaught.

They're like skinnier, hornier chimps.

Yup. Not to mention they share 98.4% of their DNA with us hoo-muns. :D

I guess some of us are more part-Chimp than others...

That's why it's a theory and not a law.

A theory doesn't have to be proven to be true.

I hate to break it to you, but science cannot be used to prove anything. All it can do is disprove or support hypotheses. If those hypotheses are supported enough, they become theories.

However, to qualify as a scientific hypotheses, it must be something that can conceivably be disproven. The existence or non-existence of a God can be neither proven nor disproven. Thus, it does not qualify.

I totally understand how you feel. There are alot of good people in the "red" states, but sometimes I feel the USA would have been alot better off if it had let the confederacy secede.

Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War I don't even think it had any Americans in it during the civil war.

But, you are right about a public zoo teaching religious belief. that is up to the churches of faiths that teach those beliefs.

Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War I don't even think it had any Americans in it during the civil war.

But, you are right about a public zoo teaching religious belief. that is up to the churches of faiths that teach those beliefs.
Yeah, but without the southeastern US religious zealots couldn't win national political office and we wouldn't have so much scientific illiteracy in this country.

Despite how much sense our side of the argument makes, they still will refuse to listen. And that makes me sad inside... :(

Right. I don't think Icons of any religion belong in a public zoo. Really though, most of his examples were stupid. I mean marking the grave of a dead animal is not an endorsement of paganism. I'm sure they didn't mark it with a pentagram or something. He does have a point about the Ganesh statue. I'm against displaying that.

The Ganesh statue belongs there. It was an exhibit of elephants in various mythologies. The Genesis quote had nothing to do with elephants, and thus didn't belong there.

Imagine for a second that a religion beleived that the earth stood still and the sun went around us. Imagine that they tried to get the schools to teach that foolishness. That's what creationism is like.

I realize that heliocentrism is the way most people lean today, but you do need to come up with a better example of foolishness than this. Physics and mathematics are all relative, and it would (theoretically) be easy to describe such a earth-centered galaxy. The math is a bit beyond me, but it is certainly doable--all you need to do is redefine your reference points.

I remember one guy's statement.(Too lazy to get the details)

"There is a place for religion, and there's a place for science."

Intelligence, such a rare, priceless thing...

...it's true... are you so threatened by a Bible story? Cripes, whaa whaa whaa.

as for your wish for secession, go ahead... the northeast and west coast can become People's Republics.

I live in Oklahoma (mainly because I like having something to bitch about) and we have some really fun politicians here. In the town of Edmond, just north of OKC, they have an ordinance about signs or symbols over a certain size. They decided that the 30 ft high cross one of the churches wanted to build next to the highway should be exempt from this rule to promote "religious freedom." My brother and I are wondering about building a 30 ft high penis to honor Shintoism. Any advice? :D

I realize that heliocentrism is the way most people lean today, but you do need to come up with a better example of foolishness than this. Physics and mathematics are all relative, and it would (theoretically) be easy to describe such a earth-centered galaxy. The math is a bit beyond me, but it is certainly doable--all you need to do is redefine your reference points.

Well, to make another example people believed that all the fossils came from the Deluge. They had no ideas of plate tectonics, sedimentology etc.

EDIT: Creationists today still have no idea about it, so some things never change...

...it's true... are you so threatened by a Bible story? Cripes, whaa whaa whaa.

as for your wish for secession, go ahead... the northeast and west coast can become People's Republics.
I'm threatened by the use of the Constitution as toilet paper by certain Christians. Using public funds to teach their religious doctrine is a very clear violation of the establishment clause.

I live in Oklahoma (mainly because I like having something to bitch about) and we have some really fun politicians here. In the town of Edmond, just north of OKC, they have an ordinance about signs or symbols over a certain size. They decided that the 30 ft high cross one of the churches wanted to build next to the highway should be exempt from this rule to promote "religious freedom." My brother are wondering about building a 30 ft high penis to honor Shintoism. Any advice? :D
Build another one as a "Shiva Lingam" to honor Hinduism. While you're at it why not put up a huge Baphomet, a goat's head inside an inverted pentegram, to promote Satanism.

That's why it's a theory and not a law.

A theory doesn't have to be proven to be true.
A law is an archaic term for an observation. The current term used is fact.

A theory is an explanation for an observation, as anyone who ever read any book on science should know.

Well, to make another example people believed that all the fossils came from the Deluge. They had no ideas of plate tectonics, sedimentology etc.

EDIT: Creationists today still have no idea about it, so some things never change...
Actually I've had at least one creationist in this forum say that all fossils come from the flood. He never explained to me why you don't find cow fossils mixed with dinosaurs. Maybe the cows were able to outthink, outfight, and outrun packs of panicked velociraptors and take the high ground.

I'm threatened by the use of the Constitution as toilet paper by certain Christians. Using public funds to teach their religious doctrine is a very clear violation of the establishment clause.

and teaching atheism isn't offensive?

hmmm

let them vote on it

and eat cake.

hehe

(i was joking above and in the earlier post)

The biologist-thumpers in here do realize that the "theory" of evolution..is a theory afterall, right? You speak of the theory of evolution as if it has been here since the beginning of time, when it is relatively new. Now before you go bashing about how the theory itself has been floating around incoherently throughout the ages. Do realize that it was only organized a few years ago and for many years was not accepted by the science community.Again I know that there will be more bashing about how the "Christian" science community section were the ones who wouldn't give a second look at this theory, which is in part true, but non-creationalist also disagreed with this theory. It amazes one to think that this new theory is treated as fact in schools and science; even more so how strong sponges will refuse to learn anything else other than what mommy and daddy tell them to. So many are confused and brainwashed by our dear government it is hard to find anyone of upmost thought and with little to no hypocrisy to follow his words and actions.
Yes, it is a theory, and it is being taught as such. That's why the name "Theory of Evolution" is so well-known. Have you ever met anybody who said, "Wait a minute; it's just a theory?!"

The Theory of Evolution is supported by facts. The belief of Creationism is supported by a book written by man a long, long, time ago.

No, neither one is provable at this point in time, but logical people tend to lean towards fact when deciding which is more convincing. And what's more, even if the Theory of Evolution as it exists right now is wrong, that doesn't make Creationism correct by default. For all we know, what really happened hasn't even been dreamed up by humans yet.

Also, I like how you bring up the word "brainwashed." That's exactly how I feel about children who are brought up with religion, and given no other options as to what to believe. :)

At least the government doesn't forcefully limit our options in regard to religion.

and teaching atheism isn't offensive?

hmmm
Outside of your paranoid fantasies, no one is teaching atheism.

Actually I've had at least one creationist in this forum say that all fossils come from the flood. He never explained to me why you don't find cow fossils mixed with dinosaurs. Maybe the cows were able to outthink, outfight, and outrun packs of panicked velociraptors and take the high ground.

Oh yeah, it's really amusing. The Deluge would have required such a multiplicity of subtle and useless wonders to produce what we can see today... :D

Hang on, isn't teaching about every religion just as atheist as not teaching about any?

and teaching atheism isn't offensive?

hmmm

let them vote on it

and eat cake.

hehe

(i was joking above and in the earlier post)
Science doesn't equal atheism. Plenty of religions are fine with evolution. However, if a religion teaches something that's clearly false they don't have the right to prevent the government's schools, museums, and zoos from teaching the truth.

Build another one as a "Shiva Lingam" to honor Hinduism.

Don't forget to regularly pour heavy cream over the Lingham. We do it with ours, out in the garden.

Seems to help the gazalias.

But doesn't the goverment decide the truth?

Oh yeah, it's really amusing. The Deluge would have required such a multiplicity of subtle and useless wonders to produce what we can see today... :D
Such as grass outrunning dinosaurs.

Hang on, isn't teaching about every religion just as atheist as not teaching about any?
Well, teaching about certain religions may promote atheism because people may realize how dumb the statements made by those religions are.

But doesn't the goverment decide the truth?

Only if you are living in a dictatorship...

wot's a gazalia? :confused:

But doesn't the goverment decide the truth?
it should, but no! people are too concerned about their rights instead of unity.

I demand that they remove lions, rams, and jackals. They are clearly endorsements of the ancient Egyptian gods Sekhmet, Amun, and Anubis.

yes but who decides the rights?

I realize that heliocentrism is the way most people lean today, but you do need to come up with a better example of foolishness than this. Physics and mathematics are all relative, and it would (theoretically) be easy to describe such a earth-centered galaxy. The math is a bit beyond me, but it is certainly doable--all you need to do is redefine your reference points.

Actually, no, you'd have to do more than that, quite a lot more, really, and most of what you'd have to do would be extremely detrimental to a society, not to mention highly unethical and immoral.

Basically, you'd need a society comprised entirely of peasants. Ignorant, dull-witted knuckle-walkers with no more sense than to follow blindly.

so should they get rid of sheep because they represent the lamb?

Such as grass outrunning dinosaurs.

Yes, and grass did also outrun mammals like brontotheres and condylarths, but not mammoths and whooly rhinos. And miraculously, dinosaurs were better swimmers than all the Palaeozoic fish. :D

wot's a gazalia? :confused:
An evil cross between a gazelle and an azelia. It's a flower bearing shrub that can outrun most predators.

wot's a gazalia? :confused:

pretty flowers.

Actually, no, you'd have to do more than that, quite a lot more, really, and most of what you'd have to do would be extremely detrimental to a society, not to mention highly unethical and immoral.

Basically, you'd need a society comprised entirely of peasants. Ignorant, dull-witted knuckle-walkers with no more sense than to follow blindly.

but in a society composed of idiots wouldn't someone clever come in and take over?

I demand that they remove lions, rams, and jackals. They are clearly endorsements of the ancient Egyptian gods Sekhmet, Amun, and Anubis.

I think they ought to switch off the electricity until someone from the Mayor's office gets it right and starts kissing Thor's ass on a daily basis.

but in a society composed of idiots wouldn't someone clever come in and take over?
It hasn't happened so far.

It hasn't happened so far.

Damn you're fast.

by the way wot is it with things outrunning other things, can't we just take it slow? like a turtle!

by the way wot is it with things outrunning other things, can't we just take it slow? like a turtle!
But turtles weren't slow. They managed to outrun every single dinosaur!

by the way wot is it with things outrunning other things, can't we just take it slow? like a turtle!

Well, it's all about the stratigraphic order. Btw, regarding turtles, the oldest turtle known so far is Proganochelys quenstedti from the Late Triassic. :)

[QUOTe=it hasn't happened so far...[/QUOTE]

true, but it isn't hard to be smarter than tony blair or george bush, it's only a matter of time...

Damn you're fast.
That's what she said. :(

It seems a zoo in Tulsa Oklahoma has decided to include a display on the religious doctrine of creationism. It's abandoned it's responsibility to teach the science of zoology in favor of being a religious institution. Hopefully they can be stripped of any public funds they recieve, because public funds shouldn't be used to establish religious beleif.

www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/062605dntexzoo.467e3fab.html

you appearantly missed the part in the article where it already had displays of Native American, New Age and Hindi symbology and displays.

So anyone who is up in arms over this additional display. Is a rabid hypocrit of the highest order. You basically lost your argument, before you posted it.

But turtles weren't slow. They managed to outrun every single dinosaur!

Not all of them. The giant marine turtle Archelon for example, despite being a formidable swimmer, didn't manage to.

wot is it with dinosaurs as well?

Ah, Tekania. It's almost as good as having Cat-Tribe on.

you appearantly missed the part in the article where it already had displays of Native American, New Age and Hindi symbology and displays.

So anyone who is up in arms over this additional display. Is a rabid hypocrit of the highest order. You basically lost your argument, before you posted it.I see somebody hasn't read the whole thread yet. I did state that I thought the statue of Ganesh shouldn't be there. I also said that the "new age" and "native American" symbology was a figment of the christian's hyper-religious imagination.

Not all of them. The giant marine turtle Archelon for example, despite being a formidable swimmer, didn't manage to.

second, ha take thaat mr dinosaurs are slow! :D

Not all of them. The giant marine turtle Archelon for example, despite being a formidable swimmer, didn't manage to.
Too bad the mystical waters of the deluge prevented it from swimming.

wot is it with dinosaurs as well?
How about you read the thread. We don't have the time or inclination to repeat the whole thing for you.

:sniper: *bang bang*
that'll slow that t rex down!

How about you read the thread. We don't have the time or inclination to repeat the whole thing for you.

i have read the thread but no-one seems to be interested anymore

i have read the thread but no-one seems to be interested anymoreIn that case your reading comprehension needs work. You keep asking the same question, which reading the thread should have answered.

wot is it with dinosaurs as well?

Okay, for starters: Dinosaurs appeared near the end of the Triassic, were pretty successful during the Jurassic and the Cretaceous and then became extinct. Then the mammals, which previously were only shrew to dog-sized at max, became larger and radiated into a multiplicity of different forms, although some groups went extinct...

However, according to YECs all these animals happily lived contemporary before the Deluge (makes one wonder about population numbers!) and miracoulusly died in stratigraphic order. Also, all these multiple animals that are extinct today (some 99% of all species at least) were present aboard of Noah's arc, but they were uncapable of surviving in the post-deluge environment (or maybe Noah used them all to feed the animals we still have today during :D ). :p

I see somebody hasn't read the whole thread yet. I did state that I thought the statue of Ganesh shouldn't be there. I also said that the "new age" and "native American" symbology was a figment of the christian's hyper-religious imagination.

It's there. So they can add more.

The point is, it pisses me off when people raise this issue. And basically shows how ^%$% biased you assholes are. This SHOULD have been an issue when they added those other statues.

You raised the issue. And how you raised it proves you're a bigot. Because you did not waltz in angry over the "general religious" imagry of the Zoo; you came in railing about them ADDING ONE to the ones already there....

It shows where your mind is, and your heart on the issue...

Deep down, you're a [person who is biased to ones own religion, race, or views].

What do you mean? The statue of Genesha was clearly displayed.... Your problem is you're culturally ignorant of it to notice it. It's not a product of his imagination. In fact I've seen originals of that statue on display elsewhere.

This is the statue at the Tulsa Zoo:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/06-26-2005.NSW_26Zoo1.GPN1KJ21G.1.jpg

This is a statue of Genesha:
http://lotussculpture.com/images/ganesh9a1.jpg

It's a product of his imagination that there is a Hindi God on display?

I think it's a product of your relative ignorance of religions in general which produced your opinion of his remarks.
Dude, I said I agree that the Ganesh statue doesn't belong in a zoo. I said the new age and Native American stuff was a figment of his imagination. For fuck's sake the guy said that a memorial to a dead zoo animal was a pantheist symbol! How paranoid can you get?

Dude, I said I agree that the Ganesh statue doesn't belong in a zoo. I said the new age and Native American stuff was a figment of his imagination. For fuck's sake the guy said that a memorial to a dead zoo animal was a pantheist symbol! How paranoid can you get?

You're paranoid too, [person who is biased to ones own religion, race, or views]..

Ganesh's legends are interesting because they teach ecology, conservation and respect of every animals (because they need each other to survive). This why Ganesh the elephant is often represented with a mouse at his feet.

But I agree. This statue causes too much trouble in an American zoo. As we all know, a zoo is a place of Christian worship.

Ganesh's legends are interesting because they teach ecology, conservation and respect of every animals (because they need each other to survive). This why Ganesh the elephant is often represented with a mouse at his feet.

But I agree. This statue causes too much trouble in an American zoo. As we all know, a zoo is a place of Christian worship.
of course, christ looks alot more like a zoo animal

You're paranoid too, [person who is biased to ones own religion, race, or views]..
It figgueres you'd call me paranoid. You're one of the people who are out to get me.

BTW, I like how you don't admit that you interpreted my statement wrong, just come back with an attack.

What the hell? I can understand the possible interpretation of seeing Hinduism in the elephant statue, but as for the rest, that's a stretch, at best.

Someone's already created a creationism zoo, if I recall properly. This guy should take his little display, and send it over their way.

What are these tests? Examples perhaps?

well, young earth creationism explicitly predicts that the earth is about 6,000 years old. therefore, any method we use to date things should return dates lower than that, and the oldest datable material ought to converge on that number. but when we actually go check various dating methods, we find that this is not the case at all, and that multpile independent dating methods each give dates much older than that quite regularly. even worse, when these independent methods are seperately used to date some object, they give the same date, so it's not just us not understanding what is going on that makes them give dates older than the 6,000 year cut-off. even more worse, we have a set of overlapping tree rings that add up to 9,000 years. this is simple counting of annual rings and the results don't look so good for creationists.

also, yec-ism predicts that all forms of life were alive together before the flood. therefore, in any pre-flood layers of sediment (the oldest ones, on the bottom of the pile) we should see fossil examples of all kinds of life including all the animals that currently exist all jumbled up with dinosaurs and trilobites and the various ediacaran fauna, as well as fossils of plants current and extinct. we don't. in fact, we find a very specific order of fossil life as we move upwards through the layers of sediment. one that makes it look exactly as if life evolved.

and then we have the various predictions that are derivable from the starting hypothesis of a global flood occuring 4500 years ago; predictions that can be (and were) scientifically tested. firstly, there are a whole pile of geological features that we should see which we do not, and a whole pile that we do see which we shouldn't. geology ain't my thing, but i know (for example) that we have a good idea about the kind of sediment layers left by floods, and that we certainly do not see a globe spanning one at the right time. and on the human scale, noah's flood occured right in the middle of of the time when sumerians, egyptians, and chinese people were building all sorts of interesting things and generally running city-states and such. they seem to have neglected to die in the flood - they didn't even mention it in their piles of documentary records they kept on everything. one would predict that a flood that killed off everybody and covered the world would at least be noticed, right?

do i need to go on?
i can think of lots of empirical predictions that can be deduced from creationism, and i have yet to encounter one that stands up to empirical testing. the smartest creationists know this too. that's why they've retreated to 'intelligent design', with dembski and behe and crew admitting (when pressed) that by-and-large, evolution is correct about nearly everything, but holding out hope that in the few shrinking spaces where we don't have completely solid evolutionary explanations yet there is room for some unspecified bit of magic to do something.

It's there. So they can add more.

The point is, it pisses me off when people raise this issue. And basically shows how ^%$% biased you assholes are. This SHOULD have been an issue when they added those other statues.

You raised the issue. And how you raised it proves you're a bigot. Because you did not waltz in angry over the "general religious" imagry of the Zoo; you came in railing about them ADDING ONE to the ones already there....

It shows where your mind is, and your heart on the issue...

Deep down, you're a [person who is biased to ones own religion, race, or views].
Did you read my post on page 10? The statue of Ganesha belongs there because it was in an exhibit about elephants in various mythologies. The Genesis quote has nothing to do with elephants, and thus does not belong.

bump

This is still being discussed? Wow, I'm surprised...