WHAT THE FUCK.. ARE YOU BITCHES BABBLIN' ABOUT.

MAYBE YOUR GODDAMNED RELIGION IS WRONG.

AT NO POINT IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NOR THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES IT SAY THAT THERE IS NO GOD. BOTH HAVE LOTS OF SUPPORT.

GOD IS JUST AN IDEA. THE BIG BANG IS A THEORY.

I TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE MYSELF LOOK BIG AND TO BE CONDESCENDING.

now that i've calmed down.

ok, if ID is taught in schools, it should be after the "real" science. "Here's widely held scientific belief and it's evidence" followed by 2 seconds of "some people think an intelligent being created all this bullshit." This gives the topics the theory and the idea the amount of time they deserve based on their scientific merit.

8/8/2005 10:35:57 PM

Quote :

"Thats why I said "if.""

No if neccesary, it's NOT logically possible. YOU CANNOT PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE OF SOMETHING.

Quote :

"The accepted timeline of the Bible does not lend anyone to think it is saying the earth is billions of years old. Furthermore, it is rational to think that this passage could be taken literally by "rationally thinking religious people.""

While evolution isn't under a great deal of debate in the scientific community, THIS IS under a great deal of debate in the religious community. If you can prove the bible puts forth a concrete timeline be my guest, but I know you can't.

Quote :

"Yes it could. Its a number system with no three."

Unfortunately in your number system there is still a value for three which you have ignored.
But the point is your logic is utter shit.

Quote :

"So you deny that science says the earth is not 6000 years old?"

Nope, I deny that religion says that the earth is 6000 years old.

8/8/2005 11:05:18 PM

Quote :

"If you can prove the bible puts forth a concrete timeline be my guest, but I know you can't."

its starts with

adam and eve begat joe, who begat muhamad ... blah blah

it goes on and on till jesus.

so you take the whole string at multiply by 20 years or so... then add 7 days for creation

its a literal "interpretation"

which is an interesting topic to be discussed in religion class, not science class

8/9/2005 12:25:38 AM

If adam and eve begat the entire human race

Then how did we not die out because of incest?

Or better yet, why does incest cause so much genetic damage now?

.....

Maybe scientists could tell us

OH WAIT

8/9/2005 2:10:37 AM

Your my sister!!!

---Joe Dirt

8/9/2005 9:27:03 AM

^^lollercaust

8/9/2005 9:39:31 AM

I figured you guys might get a kick out of this...

I went to a baseball game the other day at which the Piedmont Baptist association was holding its family whatever day. There were people at the gates handing out bags of information about Jesus and some coupons and stuff. Among the items in the bag, other than the obligatory tracts and such, were expired bowling coupons (which had the expiration date marked out. I guess they got it OKed with the bowling alley, or so I hope!) and coupons to the NATURAL SCIENCE CENTER. that was one hell of a laugh I had this morning when I finally looked through the bag.

8/9/2005 9:48:50 AM

Not getting a kick and you are an Evil Doer.

8/9/2005 9:53:20 AM

Something struck me as odd. The thumpers here want evolution taught in school as a theory and not as fact, yet I guarentee that churches won't teach Creation as a theory. More over, why should public schools teach the Christian view of origin? If that is the biased account you want then go to your church and don't listen to anyone else. Let me make my own decision on what I believe. Maybe I want to believe that God created the universe and set back and let evolution do its thing. It's sad how the foundamentalists limit God's creativity to the scope of their own short-sightedness.

8/9/2005 12:28:37 PM

8/9/2005 1:10:58 PM

Quote :

"No. Everything that is a theory should be taught as theory, especially when it's controversial. I'm not saying you have to cover every alternative. If the teacher says, "Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory about the development of life on earth," and then proceeds to solely describe evolution, that's fine. They don't have to mention ID or any religious text or anything. They just have to describe the material accurately and move on."

The thread shoulda stopped here, thanks GrumpyGOP


Let me summarize:

Evolution does not advocate atheism. Any rational person can tell you the two can coexist, and have coexisted despite extremists on BOTH sides. I resent the notion that evolution is an atheist theory, and NO, teaching evolution in classrooms does NOT advocate atheism over religion.

That's just ridiculous, so give it a rest.

Furthermore, not teaching ID is NOT a violation of constitutional rights. ID is not a scientific theory, and no aaronburro you have not demonstrated how it is. Why is it not science? Keep reading...

Quote :

"Well, evolution is in science. thus, not everything in science is a proven fact."

Thank you Captain obvious. Not everything in science is 100% fact. Science presents phenomena and offers explanations based on observed study. If science is presenting macroevolution as fact, THAT is wrong. Currently no 100% natural explanation of the origin of life has even a remote consensus.

However, evidence exists that indicates macroevolution could be true. Do we have all the answers yet? No, but that doesn't make evolution a reasonable theory. We have some evidence that links life together, and it will take time to determine if life really did branch out like a tree.

ID however has no scientific basis. We don't have any evidence that directly references a higher being. What we do have is a lot of unexplained phenomena. Making the assertion that these phenomena were designed, however, is a leap of faith. It's an assumption, an unscientific one.

Science doesn't work like this. Like the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty," the origin of life is not "ID until proven evolutionist." If we start thinking of the natural world as "supernatural until proven natural," we basically erode the principles upon which science is founded.

However much people want it to be, ID is not scientific. We have no scientific evidence that a supreme being exists, thus how can we assume that unexplained phenomena is His doing?

....

We can't.

8/9/2005 4:55:42 PM

Erios is an evil doer

8/9/2005 4:59:35 PM

^^ so you deny that science says the earth is older than 6000 years?

8/9/2005 5:05:41 PM

what the FUCK are you trying to prove by repeating that line over and over, ad nauseam?

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2005 5:09:48 PM

lol. the fact that you don't get it makes it even better... if ignorance were bliss, you'd be orgasming

8/9/2005 5:19:36 PM

"The depressing thing about tennis is that no matter how much I play, I'll never be as good as a wall. I played a wall once. They're fucking relentless."

8/9/2005 5:26:25 PM

The Earth is not 6000 years old.

The fact that so many Baptists believe this steers intelligent people away from that particular system of belief.

8/9/2005 5:51:39 PM

Quote :

"You seem to be claiming that religion says the Earth is not more than 6000 years old (which it doesn't explicitly say, btw, at least not according to all denominations of Christianity), but we know stars to be thousands, millions, and billions of light years away. Considering this, and knowing the same logic that YECs use to determine the earth to only be a few thousand years old, it's impossible for both to be right. Either the earth is old, and the Bible isn't literal on the issue, or the earth is young, and most of our fields of sciences are just completely wrong."

I know what you are trying to imply, namely that the light from distant stars would not have reached earth in 6000 years. But again, is it not impossible that a creator being could have gone ahead and placed the light from those stars in its "correct" place in the universe in order to make the universe appear older than it actually is?

Quote :

"Teachers and text books don't explicitly say this"

So you deny that textbooks claim that the earth is older than 6000 years?

Quote :

"The religion (again, of the few fundamentalist) is against reality, and it's not the school's job to compensate for that."

But its also not the school's job to force reality onto the believers of a religion.

Quote :

"If REALITY isnt going to stop saying your religion is wrong, why should public education?"

Ummm, maybe its that damn thing we have called the 1st Ammendment.

Quote :

"I mean I've never seen a kid get so thoroughly destroyed in a debate yet still try and hold a pseudo-skeptical defense."

If by "destroyed" you mean "everyone just railing on this guy about religion being stupid and not actually addressing his argument," then sure.

Quote :

"ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? HAVE YOU FUCKING LOST ALL CAPACITY FOR INTELLIGENT THOUGHT?"

Nope, not retarded. I'm not the one screaming about how stupid someone is without actually supporting my argument. Atheism is a religion. Its not an actual organized religion, as that would be quite pointless, but its a religion, nonetheless. Its a religion that says "there is no god. we're(all living things in the universe) it in all of existence."

Quote :

""Not teaching my religion in gov't schools is infringing my religous liberties." similarly, "Not letting me force my religion on homosexuals is infringing my religous liberties.""

Strawman much? I'd never say teach someone's religion in school.

Quote :

"AT NO POINT IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NOR THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES IT SAY THAT THERE IS NO GOD. BOTH HAVE LOTS OF SUPPORT. "

strawman much?

Quote :

"ok, if ID is taught in schools, it should be after the "real" science. "Here's widely held scientific belief and it's evidence" followed by 2 seconds of "some people think an intelligent being created all this bullshit." This gives the topics the theory and the idea the amount of time they deserve based on their scientific merit."

Yeah, that sounds like a "fair" representation of both topics. "Here's whats right. Now, here's some bullshit. You'd have to be stupid to believe this crap..."

Quote :

"Unfortunately in your number system there is still a value for three which you have ignored."

No, there isn't. Thats the entire point. The system goes "1,2,4,5,6..." There is no 3. You are beating an analogy to death here, Kris, while missing the whole fucking point of the analogy...

Quote :

"Nope, I deny that religion says that the earth is 6000 years old."

Good, at least you admit to being a moron.

Quote :

"If adam and eve begat the entire human race Then how did we not die out because of incest? Or better yet, why does incest cause so much genetic damage now?"

Strawman much?

Quote :

"yet I guarentee that churches won't teach Creation as a theory."

Seems to me that that is the right of an individual church to do so. After all, a church is not a part of the gov't.

Quote :

"More over, why should public schools teach the Christian view of origin?"

Who said they should? I sure as hell didn't.

Quote :

"Evolution does not advocate atheism"

If I said that evolution advocated atheism, I'll retract that, cause that is not what I meant. Rather, I meant to say that evolution would perfectly represent an atheist's view while leaving most other religions out. Seems like a conflict to me...

Quote :

"Furthermore, not teaching ID is NOT a violation of constitutional rights."

Care to actually support that statement with anything?

Quote :

"ID is not a scientific theory, and no aaronburro you have not demonstrated how it is."

Strawman much? I never claimed ID was scientific. Rather, I claimed that it deserved mentioning in a gov't run science class. Get the argument straight, fella.

Quote :

"The Earth is not 6000 years old. The fact that so many Baptists believe this steers intelligent people away from that particular system of belief."

Care to back up that assertion based on the Bible, or the exactly the same interpretation of all of the myriad interpretations of it?

8/9/2005 5:56:46 PM

Quote :

"But again, is it not impossible that a creator being could have gone ahead and placed the light from those stars in its "correct" place in the universe in order to make the universe appear older than it actually is?"

OH NOES STRAWMAN

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ed]

8/9/2005 6:04:59 PM

god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile. god damned imbecile.

8/9/2005 6:06:22 PM

ugh....just ugh. I get the feeling you don't acctually believe what you're saying, but keep saying it just to be a dick.

8/9/2005 6:07:48 PM

Sorry, but in public school we learn about reality. Thats the whole damn point. If you're not learning about reality, then your diploma is essentially useless.

And also, under the first ammendment its perfectly fine for public education to teach scientific theories that contradict your religious beliefs.

8/9/2005 6:39:14 PM

your only argument is a constitutional one...

so here you go:

The "Lemon test"

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

now STFU and GTFO

you lose

8/9/2005 6:48:25 PM

Quote :

"No, there isn't. Thats the entire point. The system goes "1,2,4,5,6..." There is no 3. You are beating an analogy to death here, Kris, while missing the whole fucking point of the analogy..."

The real point is that you said you could logically prove that 2+2=5, which obviously you can't. Then you argued that you had a waterproof arguement about the establishment clause, which you don't, since you didn't address a single arguement on that subject.

8/9/2005 7:06:19 PM

Quote :

"The thumpers here want evolution taught in school as a theory and not as fact, yet I guarentee that churches won't teach Creation as a theory."

Churches aren't funded by taxpayers, and are not government institutions of any sort. Nobody said that religious institutions couldn't promote religions, they said the government couldn't.

Quote :

"What if historians found evidence that the world wasn't flooded for 40 days and 40 nights (which they probably have)?"

Well, for one thing, it would be completely unnecessary to teach that in a public school. The only purpose for doing so would be to explicity single out Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (doesn't it include the flood, too?) and say, "Ha ha, you're wrong," which doesn't really seem like much of a scientific endeavor.

Quote :

"what do teachers say currently?"

All I can personally speak for is my biology teachers, of whom I had two in public high school, and both of whom prefaced the evolution unit with, "We are going to study evolution as fact."

Quote :

"Public schools shouldnt be asked to reduce the plausibility of evolution for the sake of creationism, RELIGION."

So acknowledging that evolution is a theory (which it is) reduced the plausibility of it?

Quote :

"How about gravity?"

I don't see why not, although it wouldn't be necessary to explicitly say, "Gravity is a theory." It would simply be unecessary and, strictly speaking, untrue to say, "Everything we know about gravity is absolutely a fact and will never be disproven."

Quote :

"If you look hard enough you can find a controversy about any subject."

I don't think you understand what "controversy" means. If one guy disagrees with something, it is not "controversial." If one obscure religion with a very limited membership disagrees, same deal.

Quote :

"WHy do you people need to get in science's business all of the sudden?"

No science teacher I've ever run into has said, "No man has ever walked on water because it's impossible." We (the more reasonable among "we," anyway) got into science's business because it tried to get into ours.

Quote :

"Why interpret the bible literally? You dont need to believe in genesis to believe in Jesus."

Believing in the parts that are convenient and outright rejecting the rest is inconsistent and self-serving, more or less violating many of the central points of the whole religion.

Which is not to say that I think the Bible has to be interpreted literally, but all of it does have to be believed (from a Christian standpoint). It is entirely possible to believe in Genesis while simultaneously understanding that the language used therein make some of the details obvious figures of speech.

Quote :

"So public school curricula should be modified to conform to religious beliefs."

"Conforming to religious beliefs" and "not attacking religious beliefs" are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to teach evolution and only evolution (no ID) while neither conforming to nor outright disclaiming religion.

Quote :

"If adam and eve begat the entire human race Then how did we not die out because of incest?"

Scripture clearly indicates that other humans were brought into the picture as mates for their children. What, now God has to chronicle everything that He does in detail?

Quote :

"Evolution does not advocate atheism."

No, but it does outright fly in the face of the beliefs of a large number in this country. I don't tend to think that they're right, but they believe that Genesis must be taken literally and it's not the school's place to tell them that such cannot be the case.

Quote :

"If you want a religion-friendly curriculum, send your kid to catholic school. "

If you're going to force every taxpaying member of certain religious groups in this country to go to private school to avoid having their religion trampled, you're going to have to give them their tax money back to pay for it.

8/9/2005 8:32:38 PM

Quote :

"Well, for one thing, it would be completely unnecessary to teach that in a public school."

Suppose a student asks if history indicates that the world was ever completely flooded and some nutcase rode out the storm on an ark with two of every single animal in the world. Should the history teacher say the truth "no, we have absolutely no reason to believe that a flood wiped out all animal and human life in the world" or should he say, I can't answer that question because some ignorant close-minded people do not want to hear anything that denies their worldview?

Quote :

"I don't see why not, although it wouldn't be necessary to explicitly say, "Gravity is a theory." It would simply be unecessary and, strictly speaking, untrue to say, "Everything we know about gravity is absolutely a fact and will never be disproven.""

Should they put a disclaimer in and say now there are alternate non-scientific explainations that don't even try to address the subject?

Quote :

"No, but it does outright fly in the face of the beliefs of a large number in this country."

So does the accepted fact that people never come back to life. Why aren't christians up in arms about that one?

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2005 10:16:34 PM

Quote :

" 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion"

Evolution being taught as fact or in an environment where it is understood as fact violates that very principle. nice try...

8/9/2005 10:19:16 PM

Quote :

"Evolution being taught as fact or in an environment where it is understood as fact violates that very principle."

That's not it's primary effect. It's primary effect is to help students understand the world around them.

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 10:21 PM. Reason : Or do you even know what "primary effect" means?]

8/9/2005 10:20:48 PM

and yet another effect is to teach children that a religion is wrong. that fact can't be ignored. Ostensibly, the ID people just want to teach their shit too, but you don't seem to think that isn't a violation of that part of the lemon test...

8/9/2005 10:24:06 PM

Does it say anything about the other effect?

No.

It says you can't put something that goes agianst a religion for the SPECIFIC PRIMARY purpose of going agianst that religion.

you lose.

8/9/2005 10:35:20 PM

well, then in that case, ID should be put in too. It doesn't violate any of those 3 principles. And you can't argue against it from the "it doesn't belong there" point of view, because neither does bowling trips or other stupid wastes of time like that. Kill one trip and put in ID and erreyone is happy

8/9/2005 10:38:12 PM

What would be the primary purpose of teaching ID? To help our kids learn about the world around them? Hell no, ID doesn't tell you anything about the world around you. ID isn't sceince, ID isn't even educational. ID does not belong in a school.

8/9/2005 10:40:16 PM

Ahhh, yes, but I already detailed how ID could be beneficial, namely teaching us to ensure that we are doin shit right Also, whats the harm in a theory unless., of course, you want to keep up the de facto discrimination and attack on religion via evolution...

your argument boils down to "ITS NOT SCIENCE!! OMFG!!!" but you haven';t addressed what the harm is in giving it one fucking hour to shut up the religious nuts and completely avoid conflicting w/ the establishment clause. Seems to me the benefits outweigh the bowling trip that gets missed...

8/9/2005 10:43:42 PM

Quote :

"Ahhh, yes, but I already detailed how ID could be beneficial, namely teaching us to ensure that we are doin shit right"

What purpose does that serve students? Students go to school to learn and to prepare them for their life as an american citizen. What does ID have to do with those goals?

In fact IDs primary effect is to teach students about god. This fails the lemon test.

Quote :

"but you haven';t addressed what the harm is in giving it one fucking hour to shut up the religious nuts and completely avoid conflicting w/ the establishment clause"

Because there isn't any conflict with the establishment cause I've already proved that. I don't see any reason to teach students something that will only hinder their understanding of the way the world works. It will put our students behind those of other nations, further decreasing the value of american labor.

At least you are begining to see how stupid your arguement is. You are obviously on your last leg if your only arguement is that we should teach ID simply to appease religious fanatics.

8/9/2005 10:53:08 PM

ID and creationism is mostly about making students feel good about their religious beliefs, as if they were valid and not in conflict with science at all. I wonder how ID advocates feel about the educrats who want to teach afrocentric and other minority biased versions of history in order to boost the self-esteem of certain ethnic groups.

8/10/2005 1:56:43 AM

Every time I look at this thread, the conversation has turned for the dumber. I'm not sure why I'm surprised....

First off, where the hell did this "Earth = 6000 years old" BS come from, and what the hell does it have to do with this conversation? We have plenty of scientific evidence indicating the Earth is billions of years old. We have a BOOK that says it's 6000 years old, literally translated. It may have been divinely inspired, but that doesn't qualify for science discussions.

Secondly, since when does science advocate any sort of religion??? Science uses evidence from the natural world and theorizes based on it. If you don't like that the evidence supports atheist claims.... well...

TOUGH

FUCKING

BANANAS


Science isn't advocating atheism. It's advocating what is RIGHT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. The fact that the results conflict with the Bible is of no consequence. If science in the next 50 years finds evidence that strongly links the creation of earth to 1) God, 2) Evolution, or 3) the purple poka-dotted molemen from Venus, so be it. You can't hold evolution responsible for people turning away from Christianity.

CLARIFIER: If science classrooms teach controversial aspects of evolution as fact, THEN you have an argument. So far however none of you have cited one example of this... and NO, I will NOT take your word for it. "Evolution," what your teachers said would be described as fact, constitutes many things. What exactly was taught that is controversial? Unless you have some specific examples...

SHUT

THE FUCK

UP


... because its simply your word against mine, since I don't recall being taught anything VAGUELY approaching controversial in this department.

So quit bitching about the 1st amendment, because science has a right to assert what it has determined to be true. Since evolution is not a religious doctrine, you have no right to either A) censor it, or B) demand equal time for other religous theories.

Quit thumping this Establishment Clause bullcrap, because numerous people have demonstrated that you can't. I myself have explained several times in this very thread why ID isn't scientifically viable, and I've yet to see anyone quote it and counter it.

Quit complaining that teaching evolution will get kids to question or even deny the Bible.


Finally

Quote :

"Strawman much? I never claimed ID was scientific. Rather, I claimed that it deserved mentioning in a gov't run science class. Get the argument straight, fella."

I went through painstaking detail to outline my argument, unlike your one-line rambles. People misinterpret your work for good reason. You can do this punch-counter punch crap until the cows come home, but no one will understand your words, that is until you do what I'm doing. Namely, explaining yourself fully instead of instigating a war of words.

I agree a science teacher may want to caution students, clarifying that parts of evolution are in fact controversial. ID is a favored belief by many prominent scientists that see the inadequacies in evolutionist theory. It is, however, just a belief, and should be presented as such by the teacher. This would serve as an interesting class discussion, but would be inappropriate in say a textbook...


...and just for kicks...

Quote :

"Believing in the parts that are convenient and outright rejecting the rest is inconsistent and self-serving, more or less violating many of the central points of the whole religion."

I believed that too, except the Bible says some pretty weird things that most people seem to ignore unwittingly. Did you know a woman is unclean 14 days after she gives birth to a daughter, and 66 days more due to the loss of blood? (Lev. 12:5) Have you ever sacrificed an animal for your sins? Do you seek out a priest when you have a skin sore? DO you believe women should be subservient to their husbands? Do you do no work on the Sabbath? The Bible says all this, yet its pretty much ignored universally. Strange...

8/10/2005 2:51:11 AM

Erios Flip Flops. Before he supported the war and now he says something else. Who is gonna listen to this evil doer?

8/10/2005 6:50:44 AM

Even if science did advocate atheism, it doesn't matter, because the primary purpose of science is to understand the natural world, not promote atheism.

8/10/2005 10:21:29 AM

Quote :

"Suppose a student asks if history indicates that the world was ever completely flooded and some nutcase rode out the storm on an ark with two of every single animal in the world. Should the history teacher say the truth "no, we have absolutely no reason to believe that a flood wiped out all animal and human life in the world""

Pretty much, yeah. But that's different from straight saying, "No flood ever wiped out all animal and human life in the world," just like saying, "We have reason to believe that evolution is true" is different from "evolution is true and everything else is false."

Quote :

"I can't answer that question because some ignorant close-minded people do not want to hear anything that denies their worldview?"

Do you even know what we're arguing about? Nobody has said that science teachers shouldn't ignore/avoid talking about evolution for any reason.

Quote :

"Should they put a disclaimer in and say now there are alternate non-scientific explainations that don't even try to address the subject?"

Kris, I can't argue with you if you're not gonna read what I write.

I specifically said that teachers did not have to list or refer to any "alternate non-scientific explanations" to evolution and I obviously say the same thing about gravity.

Quote :

"So does the accepted fact that people never come back to life. Why aren't christians up in arms about that one?"

People do come back to life from time to time, albeit after periods much shorter than three days and through medical technology as opposed to exclusive divine intervention.

Even disregarding that, the fact that people don't come back to life nowadays doesn't necessarily conflict with the idea that Christ or Lazarus did. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that those people came back from the dead, and that's fine, you can say as much, but you can't say, "Nobody has ever come back from the dead."

Quote :

"Science isn't advocating atheism."

No, it doesn't, but teaching it in a certain way is telling a large group of religious people in this country that they are wrong without question.

Quote :

"If science classrooms teach controversial aspects of evolution as fact, THEN you have an argument. So far however none of you have cited one example of this... and NO, I will NOT take your word for it"

Well that's mature.

I've never said that my experiences represent the norm, I'm just saying that they happened. That means that at least two teachers in the state of North Carolina are teaching evolution as fact when that should not be permitted.

Quote :

""Evolution," what your teachers said would be described as fact, constitutes many things. What exactly was taught that is controversial?"

Any and all things that mean that the world was definitely not created in seven days is controversial on the national scene. Yes, I know it's not controversial among scientists, but these teachers don't have a room full of scientists, they have a room full of kids who are forced to take science classes.

Quote :

"Since evolution is not a religious doctrine, you have no right to either A) censor it, or B) demand equal time for other religous theories."

I have done neither of those things.

Quote :

"I believed that too, except the Bible says some pretty weird things that most people seem to ignore unwittingly. Did you know a woman is unclean 14 days after she gives birth to a daughter, and 66 days more due to the loss of blood? (Lev. 12:5) Have you ever sacrificed an animal for your sins?"

There are a half-dozen threads where you can read in detail about how a large number of the "sillier" rules in Leviticus were revoked by Jesus during His lifetime. For example, those pertaining to uncleanliness and animal sacrifices.

Quote :

"DO you believe women should be subservient to their husbands?"

Yes, and I believe, just as the Bible says, that men should be subservient to their wives, too.

Quote :

"Do you do no work on the Sabbath?"

Nope. Anything I do on Sunday that might seem like work to somebody else is in fact quite enjoyable to me, like mowing the lawn.

8/10/2005 12:59:11 PM

Quote :

"No, it doesn't, but teaching it in a certain way is telling a large group of religious people in this country that they are wrong without question."

what is they are wrong?

im serious. what would you have us scientists do when everybody believes something thats wrong.

not teach it?



most people think many parts of science must be wrong, who would believe time slows down for people traveling in a car vs. people sitting at their desk. NOBODY.

WE STILL TEACH IT THOUGH

8/10/2005 1:03:39 PM

Quote :

"Nope. Anything I do on Sunday that might seem like work to somebody else is in fact quite enjoyable to me, like mowing the lawn. "

so you are saying that work can not be enjoyable? give me a break. work is work...it doesnt matter if you enjoy it or not. mowing the grass is most certainly "working on Sunday", no matter how much you enjoy it.

8/10/2005 1:10:43 PM

I will not repeat myself many more times after this:

I have NOT ONCE said that evolution or other theories should not be taught. In fact I have said THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT on more than one occasion.

All I ask -- and what several of my opponents here have deemed reasonable -- is that it be taught as the prevailing scientific theory, that it be explained fairly (possible inconsistencies or shortcomings not swept under the rug), and that it NOT be displayed as uncontestable fact.

^It's a day of rest. I rest, and I do it in a fashion that is clearly in line with the spirit of the Commandments based on anything but the most superficial interpretation.

Even if I'm wrong and you're right, you've got me pegged as a sinner. Well there's a fucking newsflash for you.
[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2005 1:13:52 PM

Quote :

" is that it be taught as the prevailing scientific theory, that it be explained fairly (possible inconsistencies or shortcomings not swept under the rug), and that it NOT be displayed as uncontestable fact. "

maybe it varies from school to school, but where i went to school, evolution was taught as a theory, and not fact. are there really schools (and textbooks) that straight out call it a fact?

8/10/2005 1:15:45 PM

I will not repeat myself again here, either.

FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY TEACHERS WHO BEGIN THEIR EVOLUTION LESSONS WITH, "I AM GOING TO TEACH EVOLUTION AS FACT." MINE MAY BE THE ONLY TWO TEACHERS IN THE WORLD THAT DO THIS, BUT IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

8/10/2005 1:16:52 PM

Quote :

""We have reason to believe that evolution is true" is different from "evolution is true and everything else is false.""

Everything in science comes with that disclaimer. Discoveries are made that radically change even our most concrete scientific theories. For example, we had pretty much believed gravity to be a completely concrete theory pretty much since newton, but later, discoveries in relativity caused us to rethink whether gravitaional pulls are an immediate force. But the point is, nothing in science is ever asserted to be completely, without a doubt, true. We can only believe it to be true through our observations, but many times our observations don't tell the whole truth.

Quote :

"Nobody has said that science teachers shouldn't ignore/avoid talking about evolution for any reason."

You are purposing something similar by forcing science teachers to give two answers, when science believes one to be true and one to be untrue.

Quote :

"People do come back to life from time to time"

Can you name one person that came back to life after being dead?

Quote :

"Even disregarding that, the fact that people don't come back to life nowadays doesn't necessarily conflict with the idea that Christ or Lazarus did."

Okay, and evolution doesn't neccesarily conflict with the idea that god made the world.

Quote :

"but you can't say, "Nobody has ever come back from the dead.""

Why not? nobody ever has come back from the dead.

Quote :

"No, it doesn't, but teaching it in a certain way is telling a large group of religious people in this country that they are wrong without question."

Well that hasn't stopped you from believing that a person can walk on water or that a lake can be split in half or that it can rain frogs and such nonsense.

It isn't science's fault that your religion goes agianst the way the world has proved itself to work. You've always believed that your religion trancends the laws of nature, why the huge fuss now?

8/10/2005 1:19:02 PM

Quote :

"FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY TEACHERS WHO BEGIN THEIR EVOLUTION LESSONS WITH, "I AM GOING TO TEACH EVOLUTION AS FACT." MINE MAY BE THE ONLY TWO TEACHERS IN THE WORLD THAT DO THIS, BUT IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. "

well, either:

a. youre full of shit

or

b. youre teachers were idiots, and shouldnt be teaching in the first place.

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 1:19 PM. Reason : df]

8/10/2005 1:19:04 PM

I think what needs to be clarified is what aspects of evolution are being taught as fact. It is fact that evolution occurs to adapt to changing climates, etc etc. What's being debated here is the origin of species. ID versus the Big Bang versus the ape evolution theory. So if none of the creation theories were discussed in biology, that's probably the only way to make it unbiased. Teachers don't need to be pushing the ape theory, or the big bang theory on students just as they shouldn't push creationism or ID.

8/10/2005 1:26:43 PM

Quote :

"But the point is, nothing in science is ever asserted to be completely, without a doubt, true. We can only believe it to be true through our observations, but many times our observations don't tell the whole truth."

I agree wholeheartedly, and only request that science teachers be made to do the same.

Quote :

"You are purposing something similar by forcing science teachers to give two answers, when science believes one to be true and one to be untrue."

I have explicitly stated here SEVERAL times that science teachers should not have to teach ID or any other alternative to evolution.

Just admit that you're arguing against someone who apparently doesn't exist and GTFO.

Quote :

"Can you name one person that came back to life after being dead?"

Incidents of people being declared dead for a very short period of time before recussitation efforts are successful are not unheard of, I believe. It's really not the central part of my argument, it was a minor aside, but I stand by it.

Quote :

"Okay, and evolution doesn't neccesarily conflict with the idea that god made the world."

I agree, but a large number of people in this country have a religion that does not permit them to agree, and it's not the government's place to force them to. I'm not arguing this on my behalf -- Orthodoxy as it was taught to me allows plenty of room for evolution to be true -- I'm arguing it on the behalf of Southern Baptists and the like who, as much as I disagree with them, have their rights but often not the ability to lucidly defend their arguments.

Quote :

"Well that hasn't stopped you from believing that a person can walk on water or that a lake can be split in half or that it can rain frogs and such nonsense."

No, but it doesn't have to stop someone from believing in their religion for it to be discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Quote :

"well, either: a. youre full of shit"

I like how everyone here thinks I'm lying about this, as though I have any motivation to do so. I'm not wanting to really do anything to change all the teachers out there who are teaching evolution properly. Not a damn thing. So if the teachers I'm talking about don't exist, what the fuck are you worried about? If they do exist, don't you want them to have to teach correctly?

8/10/2005 1:28:09 PM

Quote :

"I agree wholeheartedly, and only request that science teachers be made to do the same."

That disclaimer is implied. It doesn't even need to be said, much like in a literature class it doesn't even need to be said that Beowulf is fiction.

Quote :

"I have explicitly stated here SEVERAL times that science teachers should not have to teach ID or any other alternative to evolution."

Then I have mistake your arguement. But don't attempt to deny that it is not an arguement that is used quite often.

Quote :

"Incidents of people being declared dead for a very short period of time before recussitation efforts are successful are not unheard of, I believe."

Negative, a dead person cannot come back to life. Your heart stopping for a moment is not the same thing as dying.

Quote :

"I agree, but a large number of people in this country have a religion that does not permit them to agree, and it's not the government's place to force them to."

The government isn't forcing them to abandon their religion, they can still believe whatever they want, but this doesn't remove our educational system's obligation to teach students how the physical world functions.

Quote :

"No, but it doesn't have to stop someone from believing in their religion for it to be discriminatory and unconstitutional."

So if a student were to ask a science teacher, "Can a man walk on water?" or "Can it ever rain frogs?", should the science teacher refuse to answer with the correct answer simply because it goes agianst what some of the students might believe?

And I believe we've already shown how evolution passes the lemon test, thus teaching it is not unconstitutional.

8/10/2005 1:56:42 PM

Quote :

"I have explicitly stated here SEVERAL times that science teachers should not have to teach ID or any other alternative to evolution. Just admit that you're arguing against someone who apparently doesn't exist and GTFO. "

Those people exist, and show their ugly faces in the media all the time, they are just not you, and you're the primary person representing the conservatives (even though you don't explicitly do this, considering your name, it's how people see you) that is arguing in this thread.

8/10/2005 2:03:28 PM