Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Inconvenient Truth, Inconvenient in Seattle school

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure what either of you are trying to accomplish.


I'm trying to get you to admit that we could both be wrong - there might be a god (i'd be wrong in that i don't think there is one), and he might be a god other than the one that you believe in.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have read your thing, and while the God that that church worships may be the real thing, whose to say that they interpreted everything right? The bible was written a long time ago.

100% faith is dangerous.
Back to top
Mike
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 143
Location: Roanoke, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:

You mean, like, by teaching abstinence-only sex ed? Or putting the ten commandments in a US courthouse? Or forcing students to recite the Lord's Prayer in public schools? Or calling anyone opposed to aggrassive, preemptive war a terrorist sympathizer who hates America? Hmm, can't seem to remember which party does all that stuff. Is it those damned closeminded Democrats who can't deal with someone else having a different view than they do? Not to say liberals are innocent of this, it certainly happens on both sides, but I think any effort to establish Christianity as the state religion is a much better example of "not understanding that not everyone shares the same view" than, say, teaching students the findings of BIOLOGISTS inf a class on BIOLOGY. If you think evolution should wait, so should the entire field of bio.


Don't group me in with the insane "Republicans". I don't force religion on others, I just protect it and try to keep it equal with other religions in the eyes of the state. I don't call anti-war left "terrorist sympathizers" unless they actually are, like Michael Moore. There are many Conservatives who aren't too pleased about this war either. Actually, I'm one of them, but I feel that the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. administrations led us down the road into this mess while Bush Jr. is trying to clean it up. Frankly, I would have liked to see us just bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran and avoid any unneccesary American losses throush invasion. I realize that there are ridiculously delusional Republicans, but they are not nearly as bad as Democrats who never hesitate to play the race card, or the gender card, or just sue whenever they need money for Starbucks. The ones that piss me off are the ones who are so delusional as to believe that by issuing dozens of government regulations that everyone will all of a sudden follow the rules and the world will somehow transform into a modern Eden. We better not make a national religion or I will be pissed off, for it would cheapen the title of "Christian".
Back to top
Mike
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 143
Location: Roanoke, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Mike wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure what either of you are trying to accomplish.


I'm trying to get you to admit that we could both be wrong - there might be a god (i'd be wrong in that i don't think there is one), and he might be a god other than the one that you believe in.


Well, call me stubborn, but I will never acknowledge the possibility of the existance of another God.
Back to top
Mike
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 143
Location: Roanoke, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Mike wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure what either of you are trying to accomplish.


I'm trying to get you to admit that we could both be wrong - there might be a god (i'd be wrong in that i don't think there is one), and he might be a god other than the one that you believe in.


Well, call me stubborn, but I will never acknowledge the possibility of the existance of another God.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What if he chose to show himself to you? What if the local Mosque sent you all these flyers and e-mails, and then you lost a twenty dollar bill out of your coat pocket, and chased it, all the way to the ste[ps of the Mosque and inside? What if once there you felt a closer connection to Allah then you ever did to God?

I know this may not mean much coming from a terrorist sympathizer, but not acknowledging other points of view is incredibly close-minded, thats not stubborn, I know stubborn, stubborn means sticking to your guns, but it doesn't mean not accepting that your guns are figments of your imagination when you shoot someone in the face and they live.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:

You mean, like, by teaching abstinence-only sex ed? Or putting the ten commandments in a US courthouse? Or forcing students to recite the Lord's Prayer in public schools? Or calling anyone opposed to aggrassive, preemptive war a terrorist sympathizer who hates America? Hmm, can't seem to remember which party does all that stuff. Is it those damned closeminded Democrats who can't deal with someone else having a different view than they do? Not to say liberals are innocent of this, it certainly happens on both sides, but I think any effort to establish Christianity as the state religion is a much better example of "not understanding that not everyone shares the same view" than, say, teaching students the findings of BIOLOGISTS inf a class on BIOLOGY. If you think evolution should wait, so should the entire field of bio.


Don't group me in with the insane "Republicans". I don't force religion on others, I just protect it and try to keep it equal with other religions in the eyes of the state. I don't call anti-war left "terrorist sympathizers" unless they actually are, like Michael Moore. There are many Conservatives who aren't too pleased about this war either. Actually, I'm one of them, but I feel that the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. administrations led us down the road into this mess while Bush Jr. is trying to clean it up. Frankly, I would have liked to see us just bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran and avoid any unneccesary American losses throush invasion. I realize that there are ridiculously delusional Republicans, but they are not nearly as bad as Democrats who never hesitate to play the race card, or the gender card, or just sue whenever they need money for Starbucks. The ones that piss me off are the ones who are so delusional as to believe that by issuing dozens of government regulations that everyone will all of a sudden follow the rules and the world will somehow transform into a modern Eden. We better not make a national religion or I will be pissed off, for it would cheapen the title of "Christian".


But you believe in limiting the teaching of science on the account of your personal religion, don't you? That it isn't completely proven due to other things you see happening in the world? The issue I see here is that within its own precepts, biology is empirically proven. Since we've agreed to that we should teach biology to high schoolers, there's absolutely no justification for not teaching it as it is. And since the "alternative viewpoints" that so many people espouse teaching alongside are almost invariably based in religion, there's no justification for presenting them in public schools, and the scientific ones are widely discredited.

As to the rest of my post, I didn't mean to imply that you necessarily held any of those opinions, you seem more reasonable than that. What I was doing was pointing out that the Democratic Party doesn't engage in any more reflection of its values upon the rest of the nation and the world than any other American political party. There are certainly times people attribute race, class and gender to issues to which they do not apply, and it's terrible because it gives the rest of us a bad name and increases skepticism of legitimate equality issues. Our overly litigious society is a product of no particular political party, but comes from a set of bad legal precedents in which money is the opposite of human suffering and therefore makes up for it, and the values just keep increasing. The Starbucks comment is a deliberately inflammatory and stereotypical statement, and is inappropriate in any civilized argument. If you can't make an argument without pulling stereotypes of liberals straight from Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter, don't argue at all. I haven't called you a bible thumping, gun toting redneck or a blind cog in the evil corporate machine or anything childish and stupid like that, and I don't believe anybody else has either. Degenerating to that level of discourse completely precludes real debate or, in fact, anyone bothering to read and consider your posts.
Back to top
Mike
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 143
Location: Roanoke, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:

But you believe in limiting the teaching of science on the account of your personal religion, don't you? That it isn't completely proven due to other things you see happening in the world? The issue I see here is that within its own precepts, biology is empirically proven. Since we've agreed to that we should teach biology to high schoolers, there's absolutely no justification for not teaching it as it is. And since the "alternative viewpoints" that so many people espouse teaching alongside are almost invariably based in religion, there's no justification for presenting them in public schools, and the scientific ones are widely discredited.

All I want is for kids to be raised by their parents rather than the state, that's what it boils down to. If a kid is told his whole life that man came from ape, then that kid will most likely believe it. However, if he is raised by his parents, he will most likely become a far less corrupt person than he would if left up to the state's ever-decreasing standards. Because the subject of evolution is so inflammatory to many religious people (I personally don't care, I was agnostic through much of high school and wasn't influenced by religion much at all), then why cause so much controversy and just let the parents teach it? I realize that some parents are crappy parents let alone teachers, so we need to up our moral standards to counteract this. No more promiscuity encouraged on TV, no more "free n' easy" abortion to justify irresponsibility. Don't make laws against it, just work hard to up the standard of life.You don't need laws to change the country.
Quote:

As to the rest of my post, I didn't mean to imply that you necessarily held any of those opinions, you seem more reasonable than that. What I was doing was pointing out that the Democratic Party doesn't engage in any more reflection of its values upon the rest of the nation and the world than any other American political party. There are certainly times people attribute race, class and gender to issues to which they do not apply, and it's terrible because it gives the rest of us a bad name and increases skepticism of legitimate equality issues. Our overly litigious society is a product of no particular political party, but comes from a set of bad legal precedents in which money is the opposite of human suffering and therefore makes up for it, and the values just keep increasing. The Starbucks comment is a deliberately inflammatory and stereotypical statement, and is inappropriate in any civilized argument. If you can't make an argument without pulling stereotypes of liberals straight from Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter, don't argue at all. I haven't called you a bible thumping, gun toting redneck or a blind cog in the evil corporate machine or anything childish and stupid like that, and I don't believe anybody else has either. Degenerating to that level of discourse completely precludes real debate or, in fact, anyone bothering to read and consider your posts.


First, I do apologize for the Starbucks remark, it's no excuse, but I was pretty pissed about something not on here, but on Myspace, so I was feeling particularly pissy. I actually go to Starbucks from time to time as well (when I can actually afford it, lol). Also, I do realize that Republicans abuse the system as well, but prominant organizations which encourage this, like the ACLU, are decidedly Liberal organizations. Above all in this country, I want our age of greivance to end. That would end many problems. People like Cynthia McKinney, Rosie O'Donnell, and even Republicans like Foley need to stop blaming their problems on exterior things. Whenever I hear about some foolish law suit or something, my mind flashes to that song, "Get Over It" by The Eagles (excellent song).
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike, nothing right now, within the context of teaching evolution and evolutionary theory, means that the state is raising children in the place of their parents. What we do trust the state to do, however, is to teach science, not your crap. If you want to teach our children crap, then parents can go ahead and do that. But as long as you're in a public high school, there are certain standards that have to be applied, standards of basic decency and intellectual honesty, which are not covered by anti-evolutionary rhetoric and propositions.

That aside, you are forcing your religion upon other people, despite your statements to the contrary. You have a distinct wish to ban evolution and evolutionary theory from public schools because it "offends" some people of religious stock. I cannot begin to tell you how many things there are wrong with that argument, but just use your imagination. If you do feel offended, the best I can tell you is to get over it. People are offended by this and that all the time, but society doesn't make earth-shattering moves because of those people.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike wrote:
exton wrote:

I'm trying to get you to admit that we could both be wrong - there might be a god (i'd be wrong in that i don't think there is one), and he might be a god other than the one that you believe in.


Well, call me stubborn, but I will never acknowledge the possibility of the existance of another God.


Eh, that's not stubborn, so much as it is delusional.
Back to top
Amin
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
global warming "the causes are debatable" is being used as an excuse for global tax

al gore is one of the last people ill listen too
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:

But you believe in limiting the teaching of science on the account of your personal religion, don't you? That it isn't completely proven due to other things you see happening in the world? The issue I see here is that within its own precepts, biology is empirically proven. Since we've agreed to that we should teach biology to high schoolers, there's absolutely no justification for not teaching it as it is. And since the "alternative viewpoints" that so many people espouse teaching alongside are almost invariably based in religion, there's no justification for presenting them in public schools, and the scientific ones are widely discredited.

All I want is for kids to be raised by their parents rather than the state, that's what it boils down to. If a kid is told his whole life that man came from ape, then that kid will most likely believe it. However, if he is raised by his parents, he will most likely become a far less corrupt person than he would if left up to the state's ever-decreasing standards. Because the subject of evolution is so inflammatory to many religious people (I personally don't care, I was agnostic through much of high school and wasn't influenced by religion much at all), then why cause so much controversy and just let the parents teach it? I realize that some parents are crappy parents let alone teachers, so we need to up our moral standards to counteract this. No more promiscuity encouraged on TV, no more "free n' easy" abortion to justify irresponsibility. Don't make laws against it, just work hard to up the standard of life.You don't need laws to change the country.
Quote:

As to the rest of my post, I didn't mean to imply that you necessarily held any of those opinions, you seem more reasonable than that. What I was doing was pointing out that the Democratic Party doesn't engage in any more reflection of its values upon the rest of the nation and the world than any other American political party. There are certainly times people attribute race, class and gender to issues to which they do not apply, and it's terrible because it gives the rest of us a bad name and increases skepticism of legitimate equality issues. Our overly litigious society is a product of no particular political party, but comes from a set of bad legal precedents in which money is the opposite of human suffering and therefore makes up for it, and the values just keep increasing. The Starbucks comment is a deliberately inflammatory and stereotypical statement, and is inappropriate in any civilized argument. If you can't make an argument without pulling stereotypes of liberals straight from Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter, don't argue at all. I haven't called you a bible thumping, gun toting redneck or a blind cog in the evil corporate machine or anything childish and stupid like that, and I don't believe anybody else has either. Degenerating to that level of discourse completely precludes real debate or, in fact, anyone bothering to read and consider your posts.


First, I do apologize for the Starbucks remark, it's no excuse, but I was pretty pissed about something not on here, but on Myspace, so I was feeling particularly pissy. I actually go to Starbucks from time to time as well (when I can actually afford it, lol). Also, I do realize that Republicans abuse the system as well, but prominant organizations which encourage this, like the ACLU, are decidedly Liberal organizations. Above all in this country, I want our age of greivance to end. That would end many problems. People like Cynthia McKinney, Rosie O'Donnell, and even Republicans like Foley need to stop blaming their problems on exterior things. Whenever I hear about some foolish law suit or something, my mind flashes to that song, "Get Over It" by The Eagles (excellent song).


1. Alright, I have no problem with raising the moral standard in the ways you've mentioned- I fully believe abortion should be legal, but that our objective as a nation should be to need as few of them as possible. and teaching of values needs to come from parents, the media can show what it wants, but it's what the parents teach in terms of interpretation that really shapes children. I was exposed to as much violence as any other little boy growing up in the 90's, but my parents always taught me that real violence was wrong, and didn't buy me toy soldiers, and I came out a pacifist.

2. Rosie O'Donnel is pretty much full of shit, she uses her semi-celebrity status as an excuse to always be the center of attention and act like she has some license to pass judgement on everyone. The ACLU is an organization dedicated to absolute preservation of the First Amendment. Why is that a partisan issue? And if it is one, it's a matter of constitutional non-constructivism, shouldn't that be something conservatives are in favor of? Nothing's more central to traditional American values than the first amendment and our protections under it.
Back to top
Amin
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Mike, nothing right now, within the context of teaching evolution and evolutionary theory, means that the state is raising children in the place of their parents. What we do trust the state to do, however, is to teach science, not your crap. If you want to teach our children crap, then parents can go ahead and do that. But as long as you're in a public high school, there are certain standards that have to be applied, standards of basic decency and intellectual honesty, which are not covered by anti-evolutionary rhetoric and propositions.

That aside, you are forcing your religion upon other people, despite your statements to the contrary. You have a distinct wish to ban evolution and evolutionary theory from public schools because it "offends" some people of religious stock. I cannot begin to tell you how many things there are wrong with that argument, but just use your imagination. If you do feel offended, the best I can tell you is to get over it. People are offended by this and that all the time, but society doesn't make earth-shattering moves because of those people."

science itself can be considered a religion and it is forced upon other people

i dont think religion should be presented in the science classes but it should be presented in someway

though i do not think evolutionary theory should be banned from schools

i personally do not see why evolutionary theory denies the existence of god etc but that is just me

"not your crap"

seems you have a very negative attitude on religion
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amin wrote:
global warming "the causes are debatable" is being used as an excuse for global tax


No kidding. Subterrainian reptilian humanoids control the world governments, too.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amin wrote:
"Mike, nothing right now, within the context of teaching evolution and evolutionary theory, means that the state is raising children in the place of their parents. What we do trust the state to do, however, is to teach science, not your crap. If you want to teach our children crap, then parents can go ahead and do that. But as long as you're in a public high school, there are certain standards that have to be applied, standards of basic decency and intellectual honesty, which are not covered by anti-evolutionary rhetoric and propositions.

That aside, you are forcing your religion upon other people, despite your statements to the contrary. You have a distinct wish to ban evolution and evolutionary theory from public schools because it "offends" some people of religious stock. I cannot begin to tell you how many things there are wrong with that argument, but just use your imagination. If you do feel offended, the best I can tell you is to get over it. People are offended by this and that all the time, but society doesn't make earth-shattering moves because of those people."

science itself can be considered a religion and it is forced upon other people

i dont think religion should be presented in the science classes but it should be presented in someway

though i do not think evolutionary theory should be banned from schools

i personally do not see why evolutionary theory denies the existence of god etc but that is just me

"not your crap"

seems you have a very negative attitude on religion


according to dictionary.reference.com, religion is:
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

So... okay, I suppose you could ALMOST characterize science as a religion, since SOME ASPECTS of it deal with the cause and nature if not the purpose of the universe, but it doesn't fit the especially part at all. Science is a body of empirical knowledge, not a matter of faith in superhuman agencies.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites