PDA

View Full Version : Texas wants scientific method out of schools


Bronx33
03-28-2009, 04:31 PM
And on a lighter note:
<object width="540" height="437"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/93mWjngq4oA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&showsearch=0&showsearch=0&showsearch=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/93mWjngq4oA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&showsearch=0&showsearch=0&showsearch=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="540" height="437"></embed></object><br />via <a href="http://www.videosift.com/video/Texas-wants-the-Scientific-Method-out-of-schools" title="Texas wants the Scientific Method out of schools">videosift.com</a>

Paladin
03-28-2009, 04:32 PM
They be listening to Dubya?

TheDave
03-28-2009, 04:33 PM
Well this should be fun... ;D

Bronx33
03-28-2009, 04:33 PM
Well this should be fun... ;D

exactly my thoughts...

JCMElway
03-28-2009, 04:46 PM
On behalf of the state I live in, I would like to apologize for this idiotic idea.

SportinOne
03-28-2009, 04:48 PM
Honestly, just let them secede already.. Put up a very large wall, wait 100 years, and then after everyone has knocked each other off and they have all fertilized the earth, make one giant garden out of what Texas used to be.

Atlas
03-28-2009, 04:51 PM
Honestly, just let them secede already.. Put up a very large wall, wait 100 years, and then after everyone has knocked each other off and they have all fertilized the earth, make one giant garden out of what Texas used to be.

That sounds fine, but let me get out first!!!

broncofan7
03-28-2009, 05:49 PM
On behalf of the state I live in, I would like to apologize for this idiotic idea.

Cosign.

Dagmar
03-28-2009, 05:54 PM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg

Florida_Bronco
03-28-2009, 06:01 PM
Why not teach both and lets the kids decide for themselves? ???

BroncoMan4ever
03-28-2009, 06:59 PM
Honestly, just let them secede already.. Put up a very large wall, wait 100 years, and then after everyone has knocked each other off and they have all fertilized the earth, make one giant garden out of what Texas used to be.

hell just give texas back to mexico and be done with it

Kid A
03-28-2009, 07:09 PM
Why not teach both and lets the kids decide for themselves? ???

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/equaltime.html

Superficially, these arguments may seem convincing. After all, tolerance is certainly a good thing, and what could be more fair than to let students make up their own minds? However, these reasons aside, there are several excellent reasons to consider such laws dangerously misguided. To teach creationism in public schools as science would confer upon it an air of legitimacy which it has not earned and does not merit.

When there is a genuine scientific controversy, students should absolutely hear both sides of the issue, and neither should be taught dogmatically. Academic fairness and intellectual honesty demand no less.

However, merely saying that a controversy exists does not make it so. The fact of the matter is that, among practicing, qualified scientists - the only group whose opinions are relevant when it comes to whether there is a scientific controversy - there is overwhelming support for the theory of evolution.

It is true that public schools should be in the business of creating independent thinkers, not in indoctrinating their students; but neither should they be centers of political correctness where every view is presented as if it were equally as valid as all the rest. To tell students that evolution and creationism are equally plausible, when the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects this, is to give a deceptive illusion of balance, and this is doing them a severe disservice. It is misrepresenting the views of the scientific community and telling students that we cannot decide between opposing views and that the opinions of experts are no more relevant than the opinions of any other group. This is precisely the wrong message to send if we want to create educated people who can tell the difference between truth and falsehood.

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2009, 07:21 PM
Why not teach both and lets the kids decide for themselves? ???

Because religious dogma has no place in a science class.

I have no problem with schools teaching creationism. In a religious studies class.

watermock
03-28-2009, 07:24 PM
I believe this planet was at least to some extent, genetically seeded.

razorwire77
03-28-2009, 07:33 PM
Because religious dogma has no place in a science class.

I have no problem with schools teaching creationism. In a religious studies class.

This. Definitely teach it in a religious studies class.

But in a science class lightning is a discharge of a large electrostatic charge that builds up on clouds near the surface of the earth during atmospheric disturbances. You shouldn't also teach students that lightning might be God bowling and let them decide for themselves.

Spider
03-28-2009, 07:35 PM
As if those ****ing texicans would know the difference in Evolution and creationism .....

TheDave
03-28-2009, 07:38 PM
I believe this planet was at least to some extent, genetically seeded.

by comets/asteroids or martians?

misturanderson
03-28-2009, 07:42 PM
Why not teach both and lets the kids decide for themselves? ???

Because one side has actual evidence to support it while one doesn't. Also, evolution doesn't explain the origin of life and it isn't taught that way. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has no scientific evidence to back it up and intends to explain the origin of life, making it a religious argument not fit for a science classroom.

Kid A
03-28-2009, 07:50 PM
by comets/asteroids or martians?

By a rag-tag fleet of humans from the 12 colonies and their cylon enemies.

Rock Chalk
03-28-2009, 07:58 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2009, 07:59 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

I find this very disturbing if you really believe this.

Rock Chalk
03-28-2009, 08:03 PM
I find this very disturbing if you really believe this.

Whats disturbing Atwater?

I love science. Im all for science. And I also know the history of science and how it has been wrong just as much as it has been right.

If you cant comprehend that science isnt perfect, I find that disturbing.

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2009, 08:07 PM
You are trying to draw a parallel between something that is based on actual observations, subject to a peer reviewed community, and yes facts, to religious beliefs based on what exactly?

I'm not here to pass judgement on anyone's religious beliefs, but to try to in any way shape or form draw any kind of similarity between science and religion is ridiculous.

Atlas
03-28-2009, 08:15 PM
Why not teach both and lets the kids decide for themselves? ???

Public schools don't teach religion. Church teaches religion. Keep them seperate.

watermock
03-28-2009, 08:40 PM
by comets/asteroids or martians?

Like how whales are mentioned specifically, or moreso, how certain animals like felines, seem to have no ancestors.

There alot of plants and animals which just seem to appear spontaneously.

Of couse, the Mayans insisted maize was brought to them from the gods.

TheDave
03-28-2009, 08:42 PM
Like how whales are mentioned specifically, or moreso, how certain animals like felines, seem to have no ancestors.

There alot of plants and animals which just seem to appear spontaneously.

Of couse, the Mayans insisted maize was brought to them from the gods.

Just trying to get a better feel for your brand of crazy... ;D

gyldenlove
03-28-2009, 08:55 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

Calling science a belief is fundamentally wrong. Science is an interpretation of observations and an attempt at providing descriptions of phenomena using general principals.

The essence of science is that you determine the domain of your theories through observations and predictions. Some times a theory may start life as having a very limited domain, and then through refinement it can be expanded to cover a wider spectrum, on the other hand a theory can start out with a large domain only to find it only accurately describes a small range of things.

The main difference between science and religion is that science is dynamic. In science a theory can be proven wrong, or can be changed or expanded based on its ability to accurately account for different observations. Religion is static and can only change through semantics. Science improves all the time, as we learn more we also update our theories. You could today formulate a new scientific theory, no problem at all. You couldn't write an appendix to the bible or the tora.

As you state yourself science is based on observations, to a large extend this can be described in terms of falsifiability as described by Sir Karl Popper, in science we are always able to determine if we are wrong, we are never able to determine if we are right though. In religion you are unable to determine anything.

If you drop an apple and it starts floating upwards you would have to conclude that either gravity is wrong or that something else is going on if you think of it scientifically. If you drop an apple and it starts floating upwards, it is either the work of the devil or god, and you can't determine which one it is.

While science can be perverted or misinterpetreted, it can always be determined wether that was the case. It has certainly happened and we now consider people fools for thinking the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that stars were little tiny dots. Religion can on the other hand not be misinterpreted, there is no correct interpretation of religion since there is no way to determine in a religious sense what is right or wrong.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching creation, I was learned about how creation is described in a number of religions in basic school. Creation just shouldn't be taught as a science, it should be taught as a religion. We can test if evolution is wrong, and it has been done and it has been proven that evolution certainly happens, creation can't be tested wether it is right or wrong and can therefore only be believed and should be taught as such.

gyldenlove
03-28-2009, 08:58 PM
Like how whales are mentioned specifically, or moreso, how certain animals like felines, seem to have no ancestors.

There alot of plants and animals which just seem to appear spontaneously.

Of couse, the Mayans insisted maize was brought to them from the gods.

Give it another 100 years or so, by then we will sequenced almost every known species and figured out what species are related and how closely, that should clear up a lot of things.

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 09:23 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

Actually I am a creationist and appreciate your commentary. Let me also say if Texas leaves the union and starts a land of what America is supposed to be there will be a huge migration there. Our country is lead by a wishy-washy Congress that is corrupt and is more concerned with political dogma than doing what is right. It sure would be nice to see some real men stand against these tyrants in a peaceful manner and show the rest of the world what made us the greatest country in the world. States should vote on such issues as what is taught in the classroom and not have it legislated from a meaningless bench from some person who leans one way or the other.

Inkana7
03-28-2009, 09:43 PM
Actually I am a creationist and appreciate your commentary. Let me also say if Texas leaves the union and starts a land of what America is supposed to be there will be a huge migration there. Our country is lead by a wishy-washy Congress that is corrupt and is more concerned with political dogma than doing what is right. It sure would be nice to see some real men stand against these tyrants in a peaceful manner and show the rest of the world what made us the greatest country in the world. States should vote on such issues as what is taught in the classroom and not have it legislated from a meaningless bench from some person who leans one way or the other.

Wow.

TheDave
03-28-2009, 09:51 PM
Actually I am a creationist and appreciate your commentary. Let me also say if Texas leaves the union and starts a land of what America is supposed to be there will be a huge migration there. Our country is lead by a wishy-washy Congress that is corrupt and is more concerned with political dogma than doing what is right. It sure would be nice to see some real men stand against these tyrants in a peaceful manner and show the rest of the world what made us the greatest country in the world. States should vote on such issues as what is taught in the classroom and not have it legislated from a meaningless bench from some person who leans one way or the other.

secession is so 1860's...

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 09:55 PM
secession is so 1860's...

Just wait as this administration and this Congress continues to ignore our Constitution cessation will rear its head...history always repeats itself right?

TheDave
03-28-2009, 09:59 PM
Just wait as this administration and this Congress continues to ignore our Constitution cessation will rear its head...history always repeats itself right?

I doubt it... but who am I to doubt the wisdom of a "Creationist" ROFL!

Inkana7
03-28-2009, 10:00 PM
Just wait as this administration and this Congress continues to ignore our Constitution cessation will rear its head...history always repeats itself right?

Yeah. Because that really worked out the first time, right?

Centella Cajon
03-28-2009, 10:03 PM
hell just give texas back to mexico and be done with it

Why don't we use the true name of Texas - Baja Oklahoma!! LOL

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:09 PM
Actually I am an idiot and appreciate your commentary.

FYP

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:12 PM
It saddens me that Americans are this stupid

Like Spider said, none of these douches even know what the theory of evolution says

Hell we might as well teach alchemy and astrology

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:20 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

Do you understand how science works?
It is ok if you dont, but I dont see why people like to argue subjects they are not sure of

When you say a "theory is just that, theory", it shows you have a severe lack of understanding in the definition of a scientific theory.
Evolution is an observable fact.
The theory is a working model for the facts and evidence.

Theories can never ever turn into facts as theories are comprised of facts.

NUB
03-28-2009, 10:21 PM
I remember in (a Texan) highschool a substitute broke one of the cardinal rules and started jabbering about religion/politics etc. When asked who believed in evolution I was the only person in the entire class to raise my hand.

People will see and hear what they want to hear, that's a basic fact of life. So if evolution screws with people's beliefs, then dammit, it isn't real. The same was for inoculation before it, the place of Earth in the solar system and universe, the shape and age of the Earth, etc.

Cito Pelon
03-28-2009, 10:25 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

That was pretty good.

I'm kind of a show me the empirical data guy, but I've also seen some things that defy empirical data. I saw a snake that looked exactly like a rattlesnake, coiled like a rattlesnake, had a tail like a rattlesnake, rattled like a rattlesnake.

But it wasn't a rattler. It shook it's tail and it's tail was colored like a rattlers, but the rattle didn't come from the tail, the rattle sound came from it's mouth. I backed off a step hearing the sound, but as soon as I saw the head, it was obvious the snake wasn't dangerous. The snake had a small head, not the triangular head of a ratttlesnake, but it sounded exactly like a rattler. The sound wasn't coming from the tail, though, it was making the sound with it's mouth. I took a close look, it was shaking it's tail, but the rattling sound was coming from it's mouth.

Now, how do you explain that? How does that happen? That just doesn't seem possible that one snake would imitate another that precisely like that through purely evolutionary means.

I'm an evolution guy, but there's a little more to it. There's a force out there. We can control it I think, but there's a force out there. It's an impersonal force, it has to be controlled.

How to control it is the problem.

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 10:27 PM
It saddens me that Americans are this stupid

Like Spider said, none of these douches even know what the theory of evolution says

Hell we might as well teach alchemy and astrology

Maybe you should look up the definition of the word theory or better yet study up on the religious convictions of the men who founded this country before you start calling others who don't have your world view stupid. I studied evolution and the thought of order from chaos or disorder just never rang true with everything I saw in the world...things tend to deteriorate or decay over time not form higher more meaningful patterns of life. Believe whatever you want, everyone has their own world views its nice you are so understanding that others may have views different than your own. Spider is a hard working good guy I didn't know he had studied the meaning of life so in-depth or made such an impression upon your belief system.

NUB
03-28-2009, 10:29 PM
That was pretty good.

I'm kind of a show me the empirical data guy, but I've also seen some things that defy empirical data. I saw a snake that looked exactly like a rattlesnake, coiled like a rattlesnake, had a tail like a rattlesnake, rattled like a rattlesnake.

But it wasn't a rattler. It shook it's tail and it's tail was colored like a rattlers, but the rattle didn't come from the tail, the rattle sound came from it's mouth. I backed off a step hearing the sound, but as soon as I saw the head, it was obvious the snake wasn't dangerous. The snake had a small head, not the triangular head of a ratttlesnake, but it sounded exactly like a rattler. The sound wasn't coming from the tail, though, it was making the sound with it's mouth. I took a close look, it was shaking it's tail, but the rattling sound was coming from it's mouth.

Now, how do you explain that? How does that happen? That just doesn't seem possible that one snake would imitate another that precisely like that through purely evolutionary means.

I'm an evolution guy, but there's a little more to it. There's a force out there. We can control it I think, but there's a force out there. It's an impersonal force, it has to be controlled.

How to control it is the problem.

LOL.

Yeesh.

When I was driving through a parking garage I can swear on some dead family member's grave that I saw a person standing outside an SUV with their keys in the door. Except that person wasn't there. I simply saw it at a weird angle while I turned and that's what my EYES saw. In the same way, I can tell you without a doubt I have seen "people" in adjacent rooms out of my periphery only to see a clotheshanger or vacuum.

I believe it was Locke, maybe... That argued I can see the stick in the water, but the stick in the water is not the same stick that's above water. Am I to believe they are two broken sticks? Or that it is one stick, that the water has broken?

Of course not.

NUB
03-28-2009, 10:31 PM
Maybe you should look up the definition of the word theory or better yet study up on the religious convictions of the men who founded this country before you start calling others who don't have your world view stupid. I studied evolution and the thought of order from chaos or disorder just never rang true with everything I saw in the world...things tend to deteriorate or decay over time not form higher more meaningful patterns of life. Believe whatever you want, everyone has their own world views its nice you are so understanding that others may have views different than your own. Spider is a hard working good guy I didn't know he had studied the meaning of life so in-depth or made such an impression upon your belief system.

You can find life underneath the sands and soils of deserts.

Billions of years worth of time can get you that.

Finding out why some creator had a purpose for fungi out in the middle of nowhere, however, puts all your work ahead of you.

That he does it for a specific reason for humanity? Well, good luck.

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:37 PM
Maybe you should look up the definition of the word theory or better yet study up on the religious convictions of the men who founded this country before you start calling others who don't have your world view stupid. I studied evolution and the thought of order from chaos or disorder just never rang true with everything I saw in the world...things tend to deteriorate or decay over time not form higher more meaningful patterns of life. Believe whatever you want, everyone has their own world views its nice you are so understanding that others may have views different than your own. Spider is a hard working good guy I didn't know he had studied the meaning of life so in-depth or made such an impression upon your belief system.

unlike creationists, I actually do know what a scientific theory is.
I know its not just a guess, that in order for something to reach "theory" status in science, it must survive peer reviewed criticism and must contain an overwhelming amount of evidence.

The theory of evolution does not suggest chaos
Natural selection is the opposite of chaos.

I dont believe in evolution, I accept it because I am not a moron.

Im sorry if this offends you, but I have dealt with quite a few creationists, all of them being the most igonorant people in the field of biology I have ever known.

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 10:41 PM
Do you understand how science works?
It is ok if you dont, but I dont see why people like to argue subjects they are not sure of

When you say a "theory is just that, theory", it shows you have a severe lack of understanding in the definition of a scientific theory.
Evolution is an observable fact.
The theory is a working model for the facts and evidence.

Theories can never ever turn into facts as theories are comprised of facts.

A theory is a conceptual framework of facts that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. A hypothesis is a working assumption. If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory. That theory should then be tested over time to ensure it holds true in all circumstances. My issue is too often people and scientists ignore or twist facts so their theory rings true. Evolution is not a fact its a theory based on some observable facts that was put forward in a very short timeframe relative to the age of this planet. I have no issue with all opinions or thoughts on the subject being brought forward in a classroom but to teach it and only it as the undying truth in all books leads to people like you who call others stupid for having differing opinions.

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 10:47 PM
unlike creationists, I actually do know what a scientific theory is.
I know its not just a guess, that in order for something to reach "theory" status in science, it must survive peer reviewed criticism and must contain an overwhelming amount of evidence.

The theory of evolution does not suggest chaos
Natural selection is the opposite of chaos.

I dont believe in evolution, I accept it because I am not a moron.

Im sorry if this offends you, but I have dealt with quite a few creationists, all of them being the most igonorant people in the field of biology I have ever known.

Dude I'm not offended in the least, enjoy the conversation. I am a believer in creationism simply because I can't see a Summer day with all its perfection or witness the birth of my daughter without thinking there is a greater force at play. I'm sure some of the facts evolution talks about are spot on, things do evolve to survive but they don't become different species IMO. The thought that over time, whether it be a day, week, year or a billion that a snake or a frog will somehow become something its not just seems silly to me, guess I just don't get that.

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:48 PM
[QUOTE=Cito Pelon;2356589]

Now, how do you explain that? How does that happen? That just doesn't seem possible that one snake would imitate another that precisely like that through purely evolutionary means.


[QUOTE]

Actually that stuff happens a lot in nature.
Cookoo birds for example.
The lay eggs in other birds nests so they babies will be raised by a different species.
The cookoo babies when born kill the other babies in the nest to get the food for themselves
This is just one example of immitation.

I dont know about this specific snake, but I could see how it would make perfect sense for a different species to take on characteristics of a more dangerous animal. To scare off potential predators.

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:53 PM
A theory is a conceptual framework of facts that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. A hypothesis is a working assumption. If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory. That theory should then be tested over time to ensure it holds true in all circumstances. My issue is too often people and scientists ignore or twist facts so their theory rings true. Evolution is not a fact its a theory based on some observable facts that was put forward in a very short timeframe relative to the age of this planet. I have no issue with all opinions or thoughts on the subject being brought forward in a classroom but to teach it and only it as the undying truth in all books leads to people like you who call others stupid for having differing opinions.

Evolution is a fact
Changes in inherited genetic traits through generations is a 100% observable fact.
You could literally watch it happen among flies and viruses.

The theory of evolution discusses things like common descent, and morphology, natural selection,etc..

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2009, 10:55 PM
Actually I am a creationist and appreciate your commentary. Let me also say if Texas leaves the union and starts a land of what America is supposed to be there will be a huge migration there.

Hilarious!

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 10:58 PM
Dude I'm not offended in the least, enjoy the conversation. I am a believer in creationism simply because I can't see a Summer day with all its perfection or witness the birth of my daughter without thinking there is a greater force at play. I'm sure some of the facts evolution talks about are spot on, things do evolve to survive but they don't become different species IMO. The thought that over time, whether it be a day, week, year or a billion that a snake or a frog will somehow become something its not just seems silly to me, guess I just don't get that.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= 10

small gradual changes over time, hundreds of millions of years, can lead to huge changes in retrospect.

Again it doesnt matter if it seems "silly", the evidence is there.
The fossil records, and then you bring in genetics.

A species is simply just a group of similar animals that can easily breed.
If a species gets isolated from lets say a flood, then over time the groups would slowly change to their environment.

Fast forward 100 million years and these groups of the same ancestor can no longer breed.
That isnt silly, it is very possible.

And all the evidence we have not only suggests its possible, but it has happened thousands upon thousands of times

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 11:00 PM
Evolution is a fact
Changes in inherited genetic traits through generations is a 100% observable fact.
You could literally watch it happen among flies and viruses.

The theory of evolution discusses things like common descent, and morphology, natural selection,etc..

Well maybe you've discovered something new that completely baffled all the creationists you've ever met, thus rendering them stupid morons. You should document it all and change the scientific findings in all texts around the globe on the THEORY of Evolution and have it taught as the FACT of Evolution. I'm sure not even your texts/books made that jump. Theres a reason its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Fact of Evolution.

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:02 PM
Spider is a hard working good guy I didn't know he had studied the meaning of life so in-depth or made such an impression upon your belief system.

I know the meaning of life ................ full tanks of fuel high paying loads , 90% virgin rubber , Clear lanes , nice weather and no DOT man around for hundreds of miles , and 1,000 mile coffee from the local t/A ...... :wiggle:

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 11:03 PM
Well maybe you've discovered something new that completely baffled all the creationists you've ever met, thus rendering them stupid morons. You should document it all and change the scientific findings in all texts around the globe on the THEORY of Evolution and have it taught as the FACT of Evolution. I'm sure not even your texts/books made that jump. Theres a reason its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Fact of Evolution.

Same reason there are atoms and then there is atomic theory right?

I told you, the theory of evolution is not the same things as just evolution

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 11:08 PM
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= 10

small gradual changes over time, hundreds of millions of years, can lead to huge changes in retrospect.

Again it doesnt matter if it seems "silly", the evidence is there.
The fossil records, and then you bring in genetics.

A species is simply just a group of similar animals that can easily breed.
If a species gets isolated from lets say a flood, then over time the groups would slowly change to their environment.

Fast forward 100 million years and these groups of the same ancestor can no longer breed.
That isnt silly, it is very possible.

And all the evidence we have not only suggests its possible, but it has happened thousands upon thousands of times

In your example I agree in part that there would be changes I get that bigger ears, different noses, higher foreheads etc.... I mean groups of people separated over time do change but thats where you see Chinese human beings and Africans and Anglos...Not Alligator people, people sprouting wings etc...to evolutionists all you need is time and different species are created and I don't buy that...if that were true it also seems animals of different types could procreate and produce crazy offspring. Our DNA and genetics would be so closely interrelated that it would be possible and I don't see that either.

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2009, 11:08 PM
Same reason there are atoms and then there is atomic theory right?

I told you, the theory of evolution is not the same things as just evolution

I wouldn't waste anymore of your time. People like this allow their religious and "gut feelings" (see above post where he just makes up off the wall **** to help him sleep at night) to blind them of factual observations and deductions. They make up justifications as to why it "just doesn't make sense" so they can sleep at night.

People just become stupid when you add religion to the mix, no matter how rational they may be outside of it.

But hey, it's a message board, so whatever.

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 11:10 PM
I know the meaning of life ................ full tanks of fuel high paying loads , 90% virgin rubber , Clear lanes , nice weather and no DOT man around for hundreds of miles , and 1,000 mile coffee from the local t/A ...... :wiggle:

Nice to see someone has the answers.:thumbsup: My apologies Spider, seems you once again are more in "the know" than what I gave you credit for. :notworthy

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:11 PM
Meh , Creation , Evolution ....... we all find out in the end who is right ...... well except for me , I am always right :wiggle:

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:12 PM
Nice to see someone has the answers.:thumbsup: My apologies Spider, seems you once again are more in "the know" than what I gave you credit for. :notworthy

Yeah it isnt easy being a genius . but I do my best ;D

Cito Pelon
03-28-2009, 11:13 PM
LOL.

Yeesh.

When I was driving through a parking garage I can swear on some dead family member's grave that I saw a person standing outside an SUV with their keys in the door. Except that person wasn't there. I simply saw it at a weird angle while I turned and that's what my EYES saw. In the same way, I can tell you without a doubt I have seen "people" in adjacent rooms out of my periphery only to see a clotheshanger or vacuum.

I believe it was Locke, maybe... That argued I can see the stick in the water, but the stick in the water is not the same stick that's above water. Am I to believe they are two broken sticks? Or that it is one stick, that the water has broken?

Of course not.

What? You make no sense.

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:15 PM
What? You make no sense.

One part made sense ......... One time trucking up 287 , I was tired ,to the point I hallucinated,seeing a small child in the road ......... I locked em up , swerved , scared the **** out of everyone ..... to this day I never drive that tired again ......

Br0nc0Buster
03-28-2009, 11:16 PM
In your example I agree in part that there would be changes I get that bigger ears, different noses, higher foreheads etc.... I mean groups of people separated over time do change but thats where you see Chinese human beings and Africans and Anglos...Not Alligator people, people sprouting wings etc...to evolutionists all you need is time and different species are created and I don't buy that...if that were true it also seems animals of different types could procreate and produce crazy offspring. Our DNA and genetics would be so closely interrelated that it would be possible and I don't see that either.

humans have only been around 250,000 years.
Speciation in most cases takes much longer than that.

Our DNA is closely related to other species
We share 97% of the same DNA with chimps

We are apes, chimps and gorillas are our cousins.

Different species cant procreate, and if they do, the offspring usually dies.
Which is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.

This isnt a matter of opinion, all evidence supports this

"I dont buy it" isnt a valid reason for rejecting accepted scientific theories.
People who know a lot more than you and me about this subject almost unanimously agree it has no flaws.

Broncojef
03-28-2009, 11:22 PM
I wouldn't waste anymore of your time. People like this allow their religious and "gut feelings" (see above post where he just makes up off the wall **** to help him sleep at night) to blind them of factual observations and deductions. They make up justifications as to why it "just doesn't make sense" so they can sleep at night.

People just become stupid when you add religion to the mix, no matter how rational they may be outside of it.

But hey, it's a message board, so whatever.

The flat earth theory was around for how long? People were ridiculed, tortured etc for having different beliefs...what do you think was taught in the schools then? Everyone is so up tight even listening to another person's point of view different than their own, I didn't mention religion once or call any of you names for believing how you do. Typically when things don't make sense I question it, thats me, I'm not a party line kinda guy. I sleep well no matter what, nice talking to you all. I'm off to bed.

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:24 PM
The flat earth theory was around for how long? People were ridiculed, tortured etc for having different beliefs...what do you think was taught in the schools then? Everyone is so up tight even listening to another person's point of view different than their own, I didn't mention religion once or call any of you names for believing how you do. Typically when things don't make sense I question it, thats me, I'm not a party line kinda guy. I sleep well no matter what, nice talking to you all. I'm off to bed.

but I havent told you about my first hunting trip .. ok fine good night ;D

Hotwheelz
03-28-2009, 11:27 PM
Same reason there are atoms and then there is atomic theory right?

I told you, the theory of evolution is not the same things as just evolution

To make it clear:

Evolution is the fact.

Evolution through natural selection is the theory which explains how it works.

Just like gravity (the fact) and General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity), the theory which explains how it works.

Kid A
03-28-2009, 11:28 PM
Dude I'm not offended in the least, enjoy the conversation. I am a believer in creationism simply because I can't see a Summer day with all its perfection or witness the birth of my daughter without thinking there is a greater force at play. I'm sure some of the facts evolution talks about are spot on, things do evolve to survive but they don't become different species IMO. The thought that over time, whether it be a day, week, year or a billion that a snake or a frog will somehow become something its not just seems silly to me, guess I just don't get that.

Just because you personally have trouble accepting a concept does not invalidate it. There are lots of scientific truths that everyone accepts that go against common experience/understanding. Just look at the field of physics:

Quantum mechanics- electrons can't actually be found in a physical location, so we have to assume they exist in every possible position simultaneously?

Nuclear power- by cutting an infinitesimally small object in half we can unleash as incredible amount of power?

Gravity- the fabric of time-space folds around objects, causing smaller objects to fall into their gravitational field?

None of these are self evident ideas. Indeed, they go against common sense. Yet they explain what we see around us, and evidence only grows for them.

Evolution of species is much the same. The idea that all animals have common ancestors is a little hard to grasp at first. But current iterations of the theory do have great explaining power. And there is an incredible amount of evidence (geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, genetics) to support it.

This also has nothing to do with ruling out a higher power or purpose. Evolution is about explaining how life diversified, not how if came into being or why. Evolution doesn't take meaning away from that sunset or the love you have for your children. It just explains some basic material truths about how nature operates.

tsiguy96
03-29-2009, 12:29 AM
Just because you personally have trouble accepting a concept does not invalidate it. There are lots of scientific truths that everyone accepts that go against common experience/understanding. Just look at the field of physics:

Quantum mechanics- electrons can't actually be found in a physical location, so we have to assume they exist in every possible position simultaneously?

Nuclear power- by cutting an infinitesimally small object in half we can unleash as incredible amount of power?

Gravity- the fabric of time-space folds around objects, causing smaller objects to fall into their gravitational field?

None of these are self evident ideas. Indeed, they go against common sense. Yet they explain what we see around us, and evidence only grows for them.

Evolution of species is much the same. The idea that all animals have common ancestors is a little hard to grasp at first. But current iterations of the theory do have great explaining power. And there is an incredible amount of evidence (geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, genetics) to support it.

This also has nothing to do with ruling out a higher power or purpose. Evolution is about explaining how life diversified, not how if came into being or why. Evolution doesn't take meaning away from that sunset or the love you have for your children. It just explains some basic material truths about how nature operates.

someone gets it....

atomicbloke
03-29-2009, 12:46 AM
The flat earth theory was around for how long? People were ridiculed, tortured etc for having different beliefs...what do you think was taught in the schools then? Everyone is so up tight even listening to another person's point of view different than their own, I didn't mention religion once or call any of you names for believing how you do. Typically when things don't make sense I question it, thats me, I'm not a party line kinda guy. I sleep well no matter what, nice talking to you all. I'm off to bed.

I am sure a lot a advanced calculus and combinatorics equations might not make any sense to you..

Do you buy it? Do you question mathematics? Do you think mathematics is all wrong?

Or do you take the word of generations of mathematical society who have worked on the equations such that they have been critically peer-reviewed and survived rigorous dissection and analysis for decades?

NUB
03-29-2009, 12:48 AM
What? You make no sense.

You can't trust your senses.

For someone to go, "I prefer empiricism, but this one time my senses weren't right..." means they don't really understand the dynamics and fundamentals of empiricism.

atomicbloke
03-29-2009, 12:51 AM
And if in fact you don't believe in evolution, then you must reject most of modern science, all of modern biology, microbiology and molecular biology that result in new technologies for treatment and antibiotic production that yield all your medicines and prescription drugs that you use, and tons of other industrial applications, most of modern medicine, most of modern genetics, proteomics, bioinformics, pharmacology and taxonomy, and large amounts of technology that are used to produce the foods you eat every day, because all these were developed from research that is grounded on the scientific pillar that evolution is a proven fact.

Really in contemporary times, I am completely amazed any evolution doubters are even taken seriously. If flat-earthers aren't taken seriously in any sane faction society, why should evolution doubters be?

elsid13
03-29-2009, 04:32 AM
I am waiting for Tom Cruise take on the debate.

Bronco Bob
03-29-2009, 05:24 AM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.


Not true, Plate tectonics. The Big Bang theory. Heliocentric solar system.
All examples of scientists changing their beliefs when evidence to the
contrary was presented. Hell, even evolution. When someone can
provide evidence that evolution didn't happen, the theory will be
changed or abandoned.


If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.


Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

If you are looking for ultimate proof of anything, you are never going to
find it. There is no absolute proof that the sun gives off heat and
light because it converts hydrogen into helium by nuclear fusion.
That's just a theory too. But few people dispute that theory
because for most people it doesn't interfere with their religious dogma.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.


I'll agree with that.


In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

But that's the whole point, science is based on fact and observation.
And as new facts are presented, science adapts to deal with these
facts. You might say religion started out as science, God created
the earth and all the plants and animal on it was a theory proposed
at the time. But when new facts were presented, the God theorists
never accepted these facts, where-as most other scientists modified
their theories to account for these new facts.

Bronco Bob
03-29-2009, 05:32 AM
Like how whales are mentioned specifically, or moreso, how certain animals like felines, seem to have no ancestors.

You need to read up on it more. There is a definite line of evolution from
land animals to whales. There are even fossil remains of whales that
still had legs. And why do you think there is no line of evolution of
other carnivores to felines?

There alot of plants and animals which just seem to appear spontaneously.

DNA evidence can still show a relationship to other types of plants
and animals. Just because and ancestor hasn't been found yet doesn't
mean there isn't an ancestor. The fact that there have been ancestors
found for lots of species would indicate that these too have ancestors.


But how does this relate to panspermia? Surely you don't thinks cats
and whales fell from the sky.

Bronco Bob
03-29-2009, 05:50 AM
The flat earth theory was around for how long?


By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical began to take hold in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and that the Earth's surface therefore could not be flat. He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below. Writing around 10 BC, the Greek geographer Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those which were less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. He also remarked that observers can see further when their eyes are elevated, and cited a line from the Odysseyas indicating that the poet Homer was already aware of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC.
The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that angle formed by a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades). Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual circumference, 40,008 kilometres.

tesnyde
03-29-2009, 05:52 AM
Why don't we use the true name of Texas - Baja Oklahoma!! LOL

LOL...as a transplanted Coloradoan in Texas, I plan to repeat that to bug some Texan's overzealous Texas pride. They'll hate it. Coloradoans make fun of Texans who make fun of people from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. This reminds me when in about 1980, Colorado was looking into changing its motto Colorful Colorado. Wyoming submited an entry..Colorado, just south of paradise.

Here is something that is also unique to Texas...it has its own pledge that is recited after the US pledge in schools....state law since 2003.

Here it is, since House Bill No. 1034 was filed on February 1, 2007 and changed the wording of the pledge to read

Honor the Texas flag;
I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.

Before 2008, the "one state under God" was left out.

Most Texans I know thinks its stupid and don't like having to do it.

Jesterhole
03-29-2009, 07:46 AM
Evolution really isn't up for debate in the scientific community. In fact, it is pretty much the bedrock in all of biology.

These people never bring any science to the debate, not in the sense of trying to prove their own ideas. All they do is attack what they think are weak points in public knowledge.

They were shamed into restoring sciene in Kansas a few years back, and the same will happen in Texas soon enough.

Arkie
03-29-2009, 07:50 AM
A bigger myth than creationism is the idea that people used to believe the earth was flat. Nobody really believed that, but schools still teach us they did.

coachmastermind
03-29-2009, 08:00 AM
So intelligent design has no scientific proof is that what I'm hearing? It's intersting who may just by into dogma and not look at all the facts... what about....

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics?- All things have a certain ammount of engery (your car only has so much gas-that's the first law) and as long as your car is running it's using the gas (the 2nd law) so it can't run for an infinite ammount of time... it had to have a beginning.

Think of a flashlight being our universe... if you leave it on overnight, what's the intensity in the morning? It's dim, because the batteries used up most of the engergy. Things wind down.

2. The Universe is Expanding?- If you could rewind history you would see that universe collapse back to a point, not to size of a basketball, or a golfball, or even a pin head... but to the point of mathematically and logically it was a point of nothing. This ofcourse point back to the "Big Bang"... but it's not just expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding... before the Big Bang there was no time, space or matter... the universe had a beginning.

3. Radiation Afterglow?- It's the cosmic background radiation , this afterglow is actually light and headt from an intitial explosion. The light is no longer visible but the heat can still be detected... after this discovery agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow said-

"No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radition discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperatly to find an altervative explantion, but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors."

The universe had a beginning.

4. Great Galaxy Seed?- After finding the radiation afterglow, scientists had another prediciton that would confirm the Big Bang, they believed they could see slight temperature ripples that would enable matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies.

They found it in 1992 when NASA sent up the sattelite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer). http://Lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across one-third the known universe. That's 10 billion light years or 60 billion trillion (60 followed by 21 zeros) miles.

The universe had a beginning.

5. Einstiens Theory of General Relativity?- The theory demands an absolute beginning for time, space and matter... they are corelative, they are interdependent- you can't have one without the others.

From Gereral Relativity, scientists predicted and then found the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and the great galaxy seeds that were precisely tweaked to allow the univere to form into its present state.

It's scary that people who believe in intelligent design are thought of as unreasonable, and morons... all the people in Texas want to do is lay both claims side by side and let the students decide.

coachmastermind
03-29-2009, 08:02 AM
A bigger myth than creationism is the idea that people used to believe the earth was flat. Nobody really believed that, but schools still teach us they did.

You mean science has gotten it wrong in some if it's claims of the past? Add that with science used to teach the tabaco was benefitial, we'd be using nuclear powered vaccuums, among others things through the years...

Rohirrim
03-29-2009, 08:09 AM
I watched Bill Maher's Religulous last night. Pretty damn funny. The goal of society should be simple: Keep the nutjobs out of government. It's getting more and more difficult as the nutjob population expands and the world becomes stupider and more superstitious. In fact, it looks like they may be winning and just might be able to create the armageddon they long for. Here's my advice for the nutjobs: Sit down and listen to John Lennon's Imagine over and and over until the meaning begins to sink in and your stupidity oozes out. The amazing thing about religious insanity is how unvaried it is. The Muslim fundamentalists are no different from the Christian whack jobs, or the Jewish loonies. They just long to kill different targets, is all. All are wrapped up in a mythological fairy tale that replaces reason with retardation. I found one interesting detail in the film I hadn't considered before: There are one billion muslims in the world and only 14 million jews. No wonder the jews are a little testy. The koran says the one billion muslims are supposed to kill all the jews. :rofl:

Paladin
03-29-2009, 08:48 AM
People think that evolution is "finished" and they are wrong. Think for a moment: How tall do you think Moses was? David? Goliath? Jesus? Don't think of how Hollywood would portray them, think of the fossil records.

If Jesus was 4'5" tall he'd have been a large man for the times. If Moses hit 4' he might have been about average. Goliath would have been a giant at 6' or so.

Today, the average height of an American male is between 5'10 and 6'. The average German male today is between 5'6" and 5'9". William Wallace was a giant at about 6'3" and 240 pounds. dwarfing the English soldiers who were about 4'6" or so. The difference is often thought to be due to better nutrition. But that is what evolution is: physical, structural responses to the availability of the environmental conditions to exist and develop.

The fact and growth of life is a subject for evolution. The "reason" for life may be a religious or an existential question. Intelligent design is a reactive description of evolution, not a predictive hypothesis. That is better suited to a Sunday School, not a public school. Bob Jones University can teach what ever it wants, but only nutjobs would go to school there to learn about biology, I would think......

It isn't Intelligent design. It is harmonious convergence......

BroncoInferno
03-29-2009, 12:38 PM
So intelligent design has no scientific proof is that what I'm hearing? It's intersting who may just by into dogma and not look at all the facts... what about....

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics?- All things have a certain ammount of engery (your car only has so much gas-that's the first law) and as long as your car is running it's using the gas (the 2nd law) so it can't run for an infinite ammount of time... it had to have a beginning.

Think of a flashlight being our universe... if you leave it on overnight, what's the intensity in the morning? It's dim, because the batteries used up most of the engergy. Things wind down.

2. The Universe is Expanding?- If you could rewind history you would see that universe collapse back to a point, not to size of a basketball, or a golfball, or even a pin head... but to the point of mathematically and logically it was a point of nothing. This ofcourse point back to the "Big Bang"... but it's not just expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding... before the Big Bang there was no time, space or matter... the universe had a beginning.

3. Radiation Afterglow?- It's the cosmic background radiation , this afterglow is actually light and headt from an intitial explosion. The light is no longer visible but the heat can still be detected... after this discovery agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow said-

"No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radition discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperatly to find an altervative explantion, but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors."

The universe had a beginning.

4. Great Galaxy Seed?- After finding the radiation afterglow, scientists had another prediciton that would confirm the Big Bang, they believed they could see slight temperature ripples that would enable matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies.

They found it in 1992 when NASA sent up the sattelite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer). http://Lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across one-third the known universe. That's 10 billion light years or 60 billion trillion (60 followed by 21 zeros) miles.

The universe had a beginning.

5. Einstiens Theory of General Relativity?- The theory demands an absolute beginning for time, space and matter... they are corelative, they are interdependent- you can't have one without the others.

From Gereral Relativity, scientists predicted and then found the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and the great galaxy seeds that were precisely tweaked to allow the univere to form into its present state.

It's scary that people who believe in intelligent design are thought of as unreasonable, and morons... all the people in Texas want to do is lay both claims side by side and let the students decide.


None of what you present above is in any way, shape, or form a "proof" or "fact" in favor of intelligent design. First of all, you have a poor understanding of many of the subjects above. But nevermind that: let's say for the sake of argument your presentations are corrrect. What evidence have you presented for intelligent design? All you've done is presented questions that has not been answered YET, and said, "let's stop the investigation, it had to have been an intelligent designer." That is not how science operates.

DenverBrit
03-29-2009, 01:02 PM
It's Texas! Who's surprised? Ha!

tsiguy96
03-29-2009, 01:11 PM
I watched Bill Maher's Religulous last night. Pretty damn funny. The goal of society should be simple: Keep the nutjobs out of government. It's getting more and more difficult as the nutjob population expands and the world becomes stupider and more superstitious. In fact, it looks like they may be winning and just might be able to create the armageddon they long for. Here's my advice for the nutjobs: Sit down and listen to John Lennon's Imagine over and and over until the meaning begins to sink in and your stupidity oozes out. The amazing thing about religious insanity is how unvaried it is. The Muslim fundamentalists are no different from the Christian whack jobs, or the Jewish loonies. They just long to kill different targets, is all. All are wrapped up in a mythological fairy tale that replaces reason with retardation. I found one interesting detail in the film I hadn't considered before: There are one billion muslims in the world and only 14 million jews. No wonder the jews are a little testy. The koran says the one billion muslims are supposed to kill all the jews. :rofl:

jews have never tried to convert people, never tried to kill people who didnt believe in what they wanted them to, and dont hold lethal grudges. say what you want about current state of middle east, but as far as judaism is concerned, put them in with hindus and buddhists in that they do their own thing, not try to make other people do it too.

tsiguy96
03-29-2009, 01:14 PM
None of what you present above is in any way, shape, or form a "proof" or "fact" in favor of intelligent design. First of all, you have a poor understanding of many of the subjects above. But nevermind that: let's say for the sake of argument your presentations are corrrect. What evidence have you presented for intelligent design? All you've done is presented questions that has not been answered YET, and said, "let's stop the investigation, it had to have been an intelligent designer." That is not how science operates.

that is how all religion operates when trying to go against science. when religious loonies try to present their facts, the ONLY way they can do it is by trying to DISPROVE science. they go by their own theory that "if we can disprove science, it will prove what we are trying to say"

go look at any religious debate ever, this is exactly what it boils down too. they do not provide supporting evidence as to why religion/creationism/whatever IS correct, they have to state why science is wrong.

Fedaykin
03-29-2009, 01:18 PM
Why not teach both and lets the kids decide for themselves? ???

Great Idea! Next we can move to math! Teach them that 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 and then let them decide for themselves!

maher_tyler
03-29-2009, 01:28 PM
Dude I'm not offended in the least, enjoy the conversation. I am a believer in creationism simply because I can't see a Summer day with all its perfection or witness the birth of my daughter without thinking there is a greater force at play. I'm sure some of the facts evolution talks about are spot on, things do evolve to survive but they don't become different species IMO. The thought that over time, whether it be a day, week, year or a billion that a snake or a frog will somehow become something its not just seems silly to me, guess I just don't get that.

A tadepole has no legs at first but becomes a frog...a catipiller has no wings but becomes a butterfly

maher_tyler
03-29-2009, 01:30 PM
[QUOTE=Cito Pelon;2356589]

Now, how do you explain that? How does that happen? That just doesn't seem possible that one snake would imitate another that precisely like that through purely evolutionary means.


[QUOTE]

Actually that stuff happens a lot in nature.
Cookoo birds for example.
The lay eggs in other birds nests so they babies will be raised by a different species.
The cookoo babies when born kill the other babies in the nest to get the food for themselves
This is just one example of immitation.

I dont know about this specific snake, but I could see how it would make perfect sense for a different species to take on characteristics of a more dangerous animal. To scare off potential predators.

Its a Bull Snake!!

Broncojef
03-29-2009, 01:41 PM
A tadepole has no legs at first but becomes a frog...a catipiller has no wings but becomes a butterfly

Well the next time that tadpole morphs into a bird or something different let the world know. fairly certain that given one, ten, a thousand or ten billion tadpoles, every single one will turn into a frog and nothing else. The thought that given enough time something magically changes is ridiculous. What science really needs is some unmeasureable amount of time where no one is watching or accounting for the change to take place.

Broncojef
03-29-2009, 01:42 PM
Great Idea! Next we can move to math! Teach them that 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 and then let them decide for themselves!

Of course because anyone who believes something different than your world view is a moron...got it.

Br0nc0Buster
03-29-2009, 02:09 PM
Well the next time that tadpole morphs into a bird or something different let the world know.

No one with even a basic understanding of biology would ever suggest this is how evolution works.

You are hanging yourself with your own rope

Fedaykin
03-29-2009, 02:14 PM
Well maybe you've discovered something new that completely baffled all the creationists you've ever met, thus rendering them stupid morons. You should document it all and change the scientific findings in all texts around the globe on the THEORY of Evolution and have it taught as the FACT of Evolution. I'm sure not even your texts/books made that jump. Theres a reason its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Fact of Evolution.

There is a good reason it's called the Theory of Evolution, but it's not because it's not factual.

Look of the definition of Scientific Theory. It is not the same thing as the common usage of the word (i.e. an unproven assertion).

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2009, 02:17 PM
Honestly, just let them secede already.. Put up a very large wall, wait 100 years, and then after everyone has knocked each other off and they have all fertilized the earth, make one giant garden out of what Texas used to be.

I actually think Texas would be better off than the rest of the United States if it did secede. Hell, I'd probably move there (already am thinking about it). They are consistently over budget and have fostered a ton of economic growth, especially in Austin (which is known as Silicon Hills as opposed to Silicon Valley). The idea of refusing to teach evolution may be stupid (I'm the type of person that says present something and let others decide), but as a whole Texas is a top notch State as opposed to say... California or Michigan.

Spider
03-29-2009, 02:19 PM
I actually think Texas would be better off than the rest of the United States if it did secede. They are consistently over budget and have fostered a ton of economic growth, especially in Austin (which is known as Silicon Hills as opposed to Silicon Valley). The idea of refusing to teach evolution may be stupid, but as a whole Texas is a top notch State as opposed to say... California or Michigan.

good thing you are not paid to think ........No way in hell could Texas stand on its own and out do the rest of America ............thats just Idiotic

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2009, 02:29 PM
good thing you are not paid to think ........No way in hell could Texas stand on its own and out do the rest of America ............thats just Idiotic

Never said outdo America. I said it would do great without it (better off does not imply outdo). You forget the oil fields they have and how vastly smaller nations (far smaller than the State of Texas) in the Middle East can thrive with even less. Go look at the UAE. Texas does an amazing job of staying in budget, as opposed to say California and their IOU tax returns. Michigan and the auto-unions are a disaster. Texas is what the rest of the nation should be emulating, except for some reason many states including most of our leaders in Washington seem to think copying California is the way to go.

Without the insane regulations of D.C. and all the corrupt politicians attempting to control the states (such as Texas), the state would undoubtedly have an economic boom. Lets not forget, federal income tax would go out the window, and while they might have to add a small state income tax, it would be FAR cheaper to live in Texas than even right now.

Also, I am paid to think/write/create and I do quite well. You on the other hand clearly aren't. Learn history, economics, and read case studies on nations that could compare to Texas (if it did secede) before opening your trap.

Spider
03-29-2009, 02:36 PM
Never said outdo America. I said it would do great without it (better off does not imply outdo). You forget the oil fields they have and how smaller nations in the Middle East can thrive with even less. Texas does an amazing job of staying in budget, as opposed to say California and their IOU tax returns. Michigan and the auto-unions are a disaster.better then the rest of the US =out doing ........But it is still idiotic

Without the insane regulations of D.C. and all the corrupt politicians attempting to control the states (such as Texas), the state would undoubtedly have an economic boom. Lets not forget, federal income tax would go out the window, and while they might have to add a small state income tax, it would be FAR cheaper to live in Texas than even right now. LOL did you say insane regulations ? Look up Texas DOT and their regulations at to shipping of goods :rofl:

Also, I am paid to think/write/create and I do quite well. You on the other hand clearly aren't. Learn history, economics, and read case studies on nations that could compare to Texas (if it did secede) before opening your trap.

well with the thinking you displayed in this thread ...... You are ripping someone off

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2009, 02:38 PM
better then the rest of the US =out doing ........But it is still idiotic

LOL did you say insane regulations ? Look up Texas DOT and their regulations at to shipping of goods :rofl:



well with the thinking you displayed in this thread ...... You are ripping someone off

Laugh and derail all you want. I know I'm right and I have the facts and knowledge to back it up.

Spider
03-29-2009, 02:40 PM
No I havent forgot the oilfields , but it is a complete joke if you think Texas Oil could Match the Shale oil out put of Colorado or the Bakken field ,so you would have very little to export.........Hell even New Mexico has everything Texas has ..you would only survive because of the mercy of true Americans ....... Succeeding traitorous trash

Spider
03-29-2009, 02:41 PM
Laugh and derail all you want. I know I'm right and I have the facts and knowledge to back it up.

you dont have **** ...... you might think you do but you dont ....... We could still trade with Mexico an by pass texas all together ......... New Mex ,Ari .....

Fedaykin
03-29-2009, 02:53 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact.


No, Evolution is both fact and Scientific Theory. Common Descent is the fact part; Natural Selection is the Theory part.

For a more detailed explanation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The whole rest of your post is complete malarkey (something I've come to expect from you, TBH). Scientific knowledge is constantly refined (and thrown out if proven incorrect). Every discipline adapts it's Theories to the evidence. Nothing is held sacred in Science. Proving something wrong is just as respected as proving something right, because both actions improve the body of knowledge.

Now it is true that individual scientists may hold on to their conclusions incorrectly, but that's just human nature. This is why the scientific community relies on a consensus view and not on the conclusions of one individual

El Minion
03-29-2009, 03:08 PM
So intelligent design has no scientific proof is that what I'm hearing? It's intersting who may just by into dogma and not look at all the facts... what about....

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics?- All things have a certain ammount of engery (your car only has so much gas-that's the first law) and as long as your car is running it's using the gas (the 2nd law) so it can't run for an infinite ammount of time... it had to have a beginning.

Think of a flashlight being our universe... if you leave it on overnight, what's the intensity in the morning? It's dim, because the batteries used up most of the engergy. Things wind down.

2. The Universe is Expanding?- If you could rewind history you would see that universe collapse back to a point, not to size of a basketball, or a golfball, or even a pin head... but to the point of mathematically and logically it was a point of nothing. This ofcourse point back to the "Big Bang"... but it's not just expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding... before the Big Bang there was no time, space or matter... the universe had a beginning.

3. Radiation Afterglow?- It's the cosmic background radiation , this afterglow is actually light and headt from an intitial explosion. The light is no longer visible but the heat can still be detected... after this discovery agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow said-

"No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radition discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperatly to find an altervative explantion, but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors."

The universe had a beginning.

4. Great Galaxy Seed?- After finding the radiation afterglow, scientists had another prediciton that would confirm the Big Bang, they believed they could see slight temperature ripples that would enable matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies.

They found it in 1992 when NASA sent up the sattelite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer). http://Lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across one-third the known universe. That's 10 billion light years or 60 billion trillion (60 followed by 21 zeros) miles.

The universe had a beginning.

5. Einstiens Theory of General Relativity?- The theory demands an absolute beginning for time, space and matter... they are corelative, they are interdependent- you can't have one without the others.

From Gereral Relativity, scientists predicted and then found the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and the great galaxy seeds that were precisely tweaked to allow the univere to form into its present state.

It's scary that people who believe in intelligent design are thought of as unreasonable, and morons... all the people in Texas want to do is lay both claims side by side and let the students decide.

Wrong the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) is the answer:


http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Spaghetti_Monster.jpg


I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

Inkana7
03-29-2009, 03:16 PM
Never said outdo America. I said it would do great without it (better off does not imply outdo). You forget the oil fields they have and how vastly smaller nations (far smaller than the State of Texas) in the Middle East can thrive with even less. Go look at the UAE. Texas does an amazing job of staying in budget, as opposed to say California and their IOU tax returns. Michigan and the auto-unions are a disaster. Texas is what the rest of the nation should be emulating, except for some reason many states including most of our leaders in Washington seem to think copying California is the way to go.

Without the insane regulations of D.C. and all the corrupt politicians attempting to control the states (such as Texas), the state would undoubtedly have an economic boom. Lets not forget, federal income tax would go out the window, and while they might have to add a small state income tax, it would be FAR cheaper to live in Texas than even right now.

Also, I am paid to think/write/create and I do quite well. You on the other hand clearly aren't. Learn history, economics, and read case studies on nations that could compare to Texas (if it did secede) before opening your trap.
No one state or even country can survive today by itself. This is especially true for Texas. The taxes of an independent Texas would go up dramatically.

As per your comparison to Texas and the UAE, size has nothing to do with it. The Middle East is one giant heap of crude oil. Texas still has wells, but most of them dried up in the 70s.

AbileneBroncoFan
03-29-2009, 03:43 PM
First of all, let me apologize on behalf of many of the residents of the state of Texas for this absurdity. We are not all this foolish.

Now, as for the issue, it should not even be an issue. I will be ok with allowing science classes to teach kids about creation as soon as the churches accross the country are ok with a mandate forcing their sunday school classes to teach evolution and science side by side with their Bible stories. Since I now good and well that this will never happen, let's be ok with leaving science in science class and religion in church. Period. Something that is not based on any scientific principles or scientific theory has no place in science class. What's next? Are we going to teach kids how to count in math class by using the 10 commandments?

As for the validity of creationism, I think we have successfully proven that the world is significantly older than 6000 years. We also have substantial evidence that man and dinosaurs did not coexist. Sorry Kent Hovind. Also, let's think about this logically. The creation story would have been told in a time before writing. Therefore it was told orally by each generation. This leads to variations and inaccuracies as we all know. Also, how could someone know what happened in the "5 days" prior to man's "creation?" There was no one around. How could we know people lived 800 years? These people did not have calendars. They didn't know how many days or weeks was in a year. Obviously, this information was interpreted by someone who did have an interpretation of years, but they either had faulty information or made a faulty interpretation. But I digress. If God created the world, and God is infinitely good and wise, then why is there evil? Does anyone really believe that this is the best of all possible worlds? A world where natural disasters have killed millions, if not billions of people over the centuries? A world in which disease is prevalent? A world in which people and animals must actively compete for resources that will enable them to survive? These things scream evolution. Also, if you maintain that the world was created in 7 days and that man and woman started out in a utopian garden, then who's fault is it that we are no longer there? Man? Woman? Satan? Why not God? If he didn't want us to eat the fruit, then why put the tree in the garden in the first place? I think God would be a little smarter than this. Also, if we are here only to believe in Jesus, pray, praise God, and wait to die and go to heaven, then why were we not created in heaven instead of here, skipping the "middleman?"

As for what I believe, I do believe in God. However, I do not profess to "know" the nature of God as most religions do. We can only guess as to who or what God is, and your guess is as good as mine. I have to believe there is more to life than what religion tells you. In a sense, it's holding us back. It professes to have all of the answers with none of the proof, and when something with some proof comes along, it tries to destroy it. Religion has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. Only a fool will take the tenets of any religion as absolute, unchallengable truth. As Immanuel Kant said, we must, "dare to know." Even if that means challenging the comfort zones of our respective religions.

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2009, 04:12 PM
you dont have **** ...... you might think you do but you dont ....... We could still trade with Mexico an by pass texas all together ......... New Mex ,Ari .....

*cry cry cry* you don't have **** wha wha wha *cry cry cry* Seriously Spider. Stop getting all emotional when facts smash your face in.

You really are clueless aren't you. Who says Texas needs to trade with the United States? Also who says the United States wouldn't trade with Texas. England trades with us. Also, Texas is actually... get this... in better shape than Mexico... get out of town?! You're overemotional already (you get that way so so quick), and again completely clueless as to how the real world would work if Texas was to secede.

Did you know Texas has more fortune 500 companies than any other state? They have the second largest civilian workforce in the USA too. I believe they have also lead the nation in export revenues for 8 years running.

Oh and Texas's GDP is 989,444 while Mexico's is 1,052,443. Pretty damn close... and lets not forget Mexico is a ****ing mess right now. I would know since I have family there.

Texas would thrive outside of the Union more so than it does already. It's a statistical certainty unless the USA decided to declare war (economical or physical) on Texas, and it's clear you can't understand this stuff.

You're inept when it comes to this type of stuff Spider. So it's best you go off ranting about something else.

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2009, 04:14 PM
No one state or even country can survive today by itself. This is especially true for Texas. The taxes of an independent Texas would go up dramatically.

As per your comparison to Texas and the UAE, size has nothing to do with it. The Middle East is one giant heap of crude oil. Texas still has wells, but most of them dried up in the 70s.

Nah they still have a ton, but environmental restrictions in this era are preventing a ton of exploration. I stated taxes would go up, but based on the industry already within the State, and due to how well they have handled their own economy. Outside of the union they would thrive just as well. Hell on industry alone they're golden. The oil is just going to propel them.

Inkana7
03-29-2009, 04:19 PM
Hey UBF, did you know that Russia has more millionaires than any other country? I guess they're the pinnacle of economical power.

Inkana7
03-29-2009, 04:23 PM
Nah they still have a ton, but environmental restrictions in this era are preventing a ton of exploration. I stated taxes would go up, but based on the industry already within the State, and due to how well they have handled their own economy. Outside of the union they would thrive just as well. Hell on industry alone they're golden. The oil is just going to propel them.

There isn't as much oil as you think, and if there is, it will dry up rather quickly. As I stated above, Russia currently has the most millionaires of any other country, but this is only because of the current oil boom in their country. I doubt that lasts another 20 years. Experts say that at current usage levels, crude oil levels will go below the half-way mark at 2032. That's when it gets scares, and expensive. Oil cannot propel a country, state, county, township, anymore. At least not for a very long amount of time.

Spider
03-29-2009, 04:25 PM
*cry cry cry* you don't have **** wha wha wha *cry cry cry* Seriously Spider. Stop getting all emotional when facts smash your face in.

You really are clueless aren't you. Who says Texas needs to trade with the United States? Also who says the United States wouldn't trade with Texas. England trades with us. Also, Texas is actually... get this... in better shape than Mexico... get out of town?! You're overemotional already (you get that way so so quick), and again completely clueless as to how the real world would work if Texas was to secede.

Did you know Texas has more fortune 500 companies than any other state? They have the second largest civilian workforce in the USA too. I believe they have also lead the nation in export revenues for 8 years running.

Oh and Texas's GDP is 989,444 while Mexico's is 1,052,443. Pretty damn close... and lets not forget Mexico is a ****ing mess right now. I would know since I have family there.

Texas would thrive outside of the Union more so than it does already. It's a statistical certainty unless the USA decided to declare war (economical or physical) on Texas, and it's clear you can't understand this stuff.

You're inept when it comes to this type of stuff Spider. So it's best you go off ranting about something else.

LOL telling you are full of **** equals crying hey ........ you guys in Texas suck just as much in fed resources as everyone else ....... Small state tax ? :rofl: you understand 810 miles of border , and how does Texas have that GPD ? you retard .........No it is you that is inept ..........

Spider
03-29-2009, 04:25 PM
Nah they still have a ton, but environmental restrictions in this era are preventing a ton of exploration. I stated taxes would go up, but based on the industry already within the State, and due to how well they have handled their own economy. Outside of the union they would thrive just as well. Hell on industry alone they're golden. The oil is just going to propel them.

LOL you are full of **** ......... :rofl:

Spider
03-29-2009, 04:27 PM
LOL Uber , just to show you how stupid your argument is about GPD . how much of that GPD is supported outside of Texas through trade with other states ? Class dismissed

TheDave
03-29-2009, 04:28 PM
In all honesty, none of this matters. Kansas tries to replace science with this crap every couple of years... Dies a quick death every time.

Spider
03-29-2009, 04:30 PM
In all honesty, none of this matters. Kansas tries to replace science with this crap every couple of years... Dies a quick death every time.

LOL I wish it would in Kansas DOT and snow removal .. Right now Kansas uses the God method when it comes to snow removal ........... God put snow there , he will remove it when he is ready

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2009, 05:00 PM
LOL Uber , just to show you how stupid your argument is about GPD . how much of that GPD is supported outside of Texas through trade with other states ? Class dismissed

You still can't grasp how the Texas economy would run outside of the union. Trade would still take place. You're too thickheaded and arrogant to understand this. I'll leave you be to your dreamland now.

Spider
03-29-2009, 05:11 PM
You still can't grasp how the Texas economy would run outside of the union. Trade would still take place. You're too thickheaded and arrogant to understand this. I'll leave you be to your dreamland now.

LOL no it is you that doesnt understand , cost of Military , boarder protection , infrastructure , you goof . Every economy needs to expand , and guess what Genius , there is nothing Texas has that we couldnt get from any other state ..... Now California on the other hand ,Could stand the best chance of all states at succeeding

DivineLegion
03-29-2009, 10:15 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

tsiguy96
03-29-2009, 10:23 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

evolution is a fact. things change over time, as someone said earlier you can visually watch it in flies, even bacteria (i guess germs are a theory too, but whatever) change over the course of a day. everytime you wash your hands with antibacterial soap, its 99% effective right? guess what, that 1% that its not effective too will replicate, and a larger percentage of those will be immune to that bacteria killing liquid, until eventually they ALL are immune.

Br0nc0Buster
03-29-2009, 10:34 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

I dont know how many times this has to be explained to people

Just because you dont understand something doesnt mean it is flawed.
The theory of evolution is not wrong because you dont understand it

How bout instead of asking people to explain everything to you, you actually learn it yourself....you know like me and others on here who understand biology have done.

Outside of the mitochandrian eve, I am not sure what "eve theory" you are referring to.

As far as the eyeball, here is a brief explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw

Merlin
03-29-2009, 10:37 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact
A little reading comprehension would help. The theory of evolution is a theory, nothing more. Evolution is a fact. What creationist would like to dispute is the theory of evolution, and what they would like to ignore is the observed evolution (i.e. its manifestation as observable fact). Again, learn the difference between fact and theory, otherwise any discussion about science would be a little confusion for you and any other person who understands science.

PS Theories are the conceptual frameworks used to explain phenomena (a collection of facts if you will), and a hypothesis is used to test the validity of a theory.

PPS Rock had a point that got lost in his statements. Science can sometimes function as a belief system (see Khun and Paradigm Shifts), but what ROck missed is that the belief systems is eventually overruled by facts that can no longer be explained by the underlying theory. Religion on the other hand...

Hotwheelz
03-29-2009, 10:40 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/duBW9QabXfw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/duBW9QabXfw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Spider
03-29-2009, 10:44 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

LOL this is not going to end well for you

DivineLegion
03-29-2009, 10:51 PM
evolution is a fact. things change over time, as someone said earlier you can visually watch it in flies, even bacteria (i guess germs are a theory too, but whatever) change over the course of a day. everytime you wash your hands with antibacterial soap, its 99% effective right? guess what, that 1% that its not effective too will replicate, and a larger percentage of those will be immune to that bacteria killing liquid, until eventually they ALL are immune.

Are you talking about the four winged fly mutations that have been proven to be the equivalent of a fatal birth defect. You should do some research on this one its almost as backwards as the spotted moth theory.

Bacteria are a great point I'm glad you brought that up, if life is so effective and manageable a single celled state why did'nt we stop there, why keep going?

How did the Atmosphere first develop to sustain growth of microorganisms? How did they replicate? Or develop such complex mitochondria that are necessary to sustain life at a single celled state...Where did the "ancient RNA" come from and how can a theory based on divergence's hold its origin in the conversion of RNA and DNA?

Or what about the phylogenetic tree, which is full of speculative research...or the before mentioned Eve hypothesis in regards to the origin of man (I understand its not the only one, however it is the most commonly accepted among anthropologists). You know what I find really humorous no matter what you morons try and come up with the only common bond between you is disagreement.

DivineLegion
03-29-2009, 10:52 PM
LOL this is not going to end well for you

Oh trust me Im looking forward to it.

Los Broncos
03-29-2009, 10:54 PM
I read an article about Darwin in Nat Geo mag, fascinating to read really.

OABB
03-29-2009, 10:54 PM
Are you talking about the four winged fly mutations that have been proven to be the equivalent of a fatal birth defect. You should do some research on this one its almost as backwards as the spotted moth theory.

Bacteria are a great point I'm glad you brought that up, if life is so effective and manageable a single celled state why did'nt we stop there, why keep going?

How did the Atmosphere first develop to sustain growth of microorganisms? How did they replicate? Or develop such complex mitochondria that are necessary to sustain life at a single celled state...Where did the "ancient RNA" come from and how can a theory based on diverging hold its origin in the conversion of RNA and DNA?

Or what about the phylogenetic tree, which is full of speculative research...or the before mentioned Eve hypothesis in regards to the origin of man (I understand its not the only one, however it is the most commonly accepted among anthropologists). You know what I find really humorous no matter what you morons try and come up with the only common bond between you is disagreement.



well......?????? are you going to answer these?

Archer81
03-29-2009, 10:55 PM
Evolution is a theory. We are pretty sure thats how it works, we just arent sure EXACTLY how. So thats why it remains a theory. Just my .02.


:Broncos:

DivineLegion
03-29-2009, 10:56 PM
well......?????? are you going to answer these?

That's the point they cant be answered. All thing of these questions are held as fact by anthropologist and evolutionary theorists, and they cant even begin explain them.

OABB
03-29-2009, 11:03 PM
That's the point they cant be answered. All thing of these questions are held as fact by anthropologist and evolutionary theorists, and they cant even begin explain them.

so, why do people get their panties in a twist about this if it can't be explained?

why do people get into this debate at all? there is no way to win when there is no answer.

to argue this is simply to push an agenda for both sides.

This is becoming a religious argument and it really has nothing to do with religion either.

science is a belief system as well....

that's my .02

DivineLegion
03-29-2009, 11:07 PM
I completely agree, and that's the point. That's why it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact.

OABB
03-29-2009, 11:09 PM
I completely agree, and that's the point. That's why it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact.

however, by that same token, it shouldn't be removed either.

Archer81
03-29-2009, 11:13 PM
however, by that same token, it shouldn't be removed either.



Nope it shouldnt. But if they are going to teach evolution as theory, why not intelligent design as well? Its all theoretical.


:Broncos:

Bronco Bob
03-29-2009, 11:14 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know,

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 120,000 years ago at the latest. The theoretical MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is the most recent person whom all of humanity can count as one of their ancestors. Because each person's number of ancestors double (ignoring overlaps) with each generation backwards, the MRCA of all humanity overlaps relatively recently in history, even when we take into account ancestor overlap. The MRCA answers the question, "Do any of my four grandparents overlap with any of your four grandparents? If not, then do any of my 8 great grandparents overlap with any of your 8 great grandparents?" Between one-hundred and two-hundred generations back, a single person will appear in every living person's family tree. However, each person has only one mitochondrial ancestor with each generation backwards because each person inherits their mitochondria from their mother. The question of "when did Mitochondrial Eve live?" is answering the question of "When does my mother's mother's mother ... overlap with everyone else's mother's mother's mother ... (all the way up the female lineage)?"

Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation account has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck.[citation needed]

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women is gone, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.

Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years.

Humans are still evolving. What, you thought humans came into being 1 million years ago and have been exactly the same ever since?

It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating.

Why, no one but you has a problem with carbon dating.



if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

Animals such as jellyfish have areas on their skin sensitive to light. As higher animals evolved these areas became localized into spots.
For protection, these spots became located into pits, forming a sort of pinhole camera. Clear skin formed over the pit to provide added protection.
By thickening this skin in the middle, a lens was formed. There you have it, a compound eye. Which not only evolved in fish, but in completely
unrelated animal such as mollusks and arthropods.

OABB
03-29-2009, 11:16 PM
Nope it shouldnt. But if they are going to teach evolution as theory, why not intelligent design as well? Its all theoretical.


:Broncos:

If they could approach intelligent design in a logical, scientific manner I don't think it would be an issue. It's the religious undertones that scare people.

Archer81
03-29-2009, 11:17 PM
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 120,000 years ago at the latest. The theoretical MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is the most recent person whom all of humanity can count as one of their ancestors. Because each person's number of ancestors double (ignoring overlaps) with each generation backwards, the MRCA of all humanity overlaps relatively recently in history, even when we take into account ancestor overlap. The MRCA answers the question, "Do any of my four grandparents overlap with any of your four grandparents? If not, then do any of my 8 great grandparents overlap with any of your 8 great grandparents?" Between one-hundred and two-hundred generations back, a single person will appear in every living person's family tree. However, each person has only one mitochondrial ancestor with each generation backwards because each person inherits their mitochondria from their mother. The question of "when did Mitochondrial Eve live?" is answering the question of "When does my mother's mother's mother ... overlap with everyone else's mother's mother's mother ... (all the way up the female lineage)?"

Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation account has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck.[citation needed]

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women is gone, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.



Humans are still evolving. What, you thought humans came into being 1 million years ago and have been exactly the same ever since?



Why, no one but you has a problem with carbon dating.



Animals such as jellyfish have areas on their skin sensitive to light. As higher animals evolved these areas became localized into spots.
For protection, these spots became located into pits, forming a sort of pinhole camera. Clear skin formed over the pit to provide added protection.
By thickening this skin in the middle, a lens was formed. There you have it, a compound eye. Which not only evolved in fish, but in completely
unrelated animal such as mollusks and arthropods.



He asked about evolutionary fact, and you stated THEORETICAL thinking.


:Broncos:

Bronco Bob
03-29-2009, 11:24 PM
He asked about evolutionary fact, and you stated THEORETICAL thinking.


:Broncos:

The fact is in the DNA.

OABB
03-30-2009, 12:04 AM
23892

AbileneBroncoFan
03-30-2009, 01:00 AM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.

Ok, since you do not believe science holds the answer to these questions (even though as others have shown you, it does), then please answer my previous post and explain all of the unanswered questions offered by the Bible. After all, if it is sooo much better than science, I am certain that you will be able to easily answer these questions that I have posed without much problem or ambiguity. I will even recopy my post here for your convenience:

First of all, let me apologize on behalf of many of the residents of the state of Texas for this absurdity. We are not all this foolish.

Now, as for the issue, it should not even be an issue. I will be ok with allowing science classes to teach kids about creation as soon as the churches accross the country are ok with a mandate forcing their sunday school classes to teach evolution and science side by side with their Bible stories. Since I now good and well that this will never happen, let's be ok with leaving science in science class and religion in church. Period. Something that is not based on any scientific principles or scientific theory has no place in science class. What's next? Are we going to teach kids how to count in math class by using the 10 commandments?

As for the validity of creationism, I think we have successfully proven that the world is significantly older than 6000 years. We also have substantial evidence that man and dinosaurs did not coexist. Sorry Kent Hovind. Also, let's think about this logically. The creation story would have been told in a time before writing. Therefore it was told orally by each generation. This leads to variations and inaccuracies as we all know. Also, how could someone know what happened in the "5 days" prior to man's "creation?" There was no one around. How could we know people lived 800 years? These people did not have calendars. They didn't know how many days or weeks was in a year. Obviously, this information was interpreted by someone who did have an interpretation of years, but they either had faulty information or made a faulty interpretation. But I digress. If God created the world, and God is infinitely good and wise, then why is there evil? Does anyone really believe that this is the best of all possible worlds? A world where natural disasters have killed millions, if not billions of people over the centuries? A world in which disease is prevalent? A world in which people and animals must actively compete for resources that will enable them to survive? These things scream evolution. Also, if you maintain that the world was created in 7 days and that man and woman started out in a utopian garden, then who's fault is it that we are no longer there? Man? Woman? Satan? Why not God? If he didn't want us to eat the fruit, then why put the tree in the garden in the first place? I think God would be a little smarter than this. Also, if we are here only to believe in Jesus, pray, praise God, and wait to die and go to heaven, then why were we not created in heaven instead of here, skipping the "middleman?"

As for what I believe, I do believe in God. However, I do not profess to "know" the nature of God as most religions do. We can only guess as to who or what God is, and your guess is as good as mine. I have to believe there is more to life than what religion tells you. In a sense, it's holding us back. It professes to have all of the answers with none of the proof, and when something with some proof comes along, it tries to destroy it. Religion has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. Only a fool will take the tenets of any religion as absolute, unchallengable truth. As Immanuel Kant said, we must, "dare to know." Even if that means challenging the comfort zones of our respective religions.

broncogary
03-30-2009, 04:56 AM
So you're saying that the same topic that is being debated in the Texas legislature is being debated on the Orange Mane? Blasphemy!

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 05:58 AM
Are you talking about the four winged fly mutations that have been proven to be the equivalent of a fatal birth defect. You should do some research on this one its almost as backwards as the spotted moth theory.

Bacteria are a great point I'm glad you brought that up, if life is so effective and manageable a single celled state why did'nt we stop there, why keep going?

How did the Atmosphere first develop to sustain growth of microorganisms? How did they replicate? Or develop such complex mitochondria that are necessary to sustain life at a single celled state...Where did the "ancient RNA" come from and how can a theory based on divergence's hold its origin in the conversion of RNA and DNA?

Or what about the phylogenetic tree, which is full of speculative research...or the before mentioned Eve hypothesis in regards to the origin of man (I understand its not the only one, however it is the most commonly accepted among anthropologists). You know what I find really humorous no matter what you morons try and come up with the only common bond between you is disagreement.

awesome
Yeah you come in here and say "explain this, this, this, and this, and if you cant, then it must be wrong"
This might work on the dumbasses of the board, but you clearly dont know what you are talking about.

most mutations are lethal, but that doesnt mean that all are.
Flies do evolve, only an idiot would say all fly mutations are "four winged" ones.

Same with RNA, its called "abiogenesis", and it is what scientists are working on to explain the origins of life.

Again why dont you actually read what scientists have to say on the subject?
I guarantee you havent "figured out" what they dont know

If you dont know about abiogenesis, it is clear you havent done your homework, so why bother trying to explain it to you?

coachmastermind
03-30-2009, 06:47 AM
None of what you present above is in any way, shape, or form a "proof" or "fact" in favor of intelligent design. First of all, you have a poor understanding of many of the subjects above. But nevermind that: let's say for the sake of argument your presentations are corrrect. What evidence have you presented for intelligent design? All you've done is presented questions that has not been answered YET, and said, "let's stop the investigation, it had to have been an intelligent designer." That is not how science operates.


Actually I never made the case for an intelligent designer... I just made the case that life and our universe has a beginning. Which is one fatal flaw in many evolutionists theories.

BroncoInferno
03-30-2009, 06:56 AM
Actually I never made the case for an intelligent designer... I just made the case that life and our universe has a beginning. Which is one fatal flaw in many evolutionists theories.

You show a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution makes no claim that life and our universe has no beginning. In fact, evolution makes no claim whatsoever in terms of the origins of life or the universe. It only describes what happened to life once it already existed.

It's so frustrating when people like you think you've found "fatal flaws" in the theory of evolution when all you've actually done is demonstrated your own piss poor understanding of what evolution says about life. As theDave would say, your high school biology teacher should be slapped.

gyldenlove
03-30-2009, 06:57 AM
If they could approach intelligent design in a logical, scientific manner I don't think it would be an issue. It's the religious undertones that scare people.

There is nothing scientific about intelligent design.

Intelligent design states:

A creator of unknown origin but with superior intelligence created species on earth through means that we can not explain.

Here is a similar statement:

At some point in the time, somewhere in the universe a planet made entire of green cheese existed.

None of those statements tell us anything, we can't test if there ever was a creator and we can't test if there never was a creator. We don't know where the creator is from or how the creator came to be, maybe the creator was designed intelligently be someone else, who was designed intelligently by someone else who was designed intelligently by someone else who made the universe in 5 days or more, can you see how this is can only be god?

Intelligent design is like the turtle desription. Some natives say that the earth is flat and rests on the back of a huge turtle that stands on 4 turtles, who each stand on 4 turtles etc. There is no end point, you need an infinite amount of turtle standing on an infinite amount of turtles, the same way you need an intelligent creators who can transcend space and time and has existed in perpetuity. Each description invariably fails to deliver anything when asked how did it come to be, so all you do is change the question from how did earth species start to how did the creator start, so in fact you have answered nothing.

Let me ask you this then, the engine if often used as an example of intelligent design, but why?. People say the engine was designed because such a complex machine could not evolve since the valves are useless with the piston which is useless with the spark plug which is useless with gas, which is useless with the crank shaft and timing belts and carburators etc. But the engine did evolve, the pistons came about with the invention of the water pump, the valves came about with the steam engine, the crankshafts came about with the steam engine as did the timing belts. Spark plugs came about even later and carburators are even newer. While it is true that the engine in your Ford is designed, the origin of the engine was a very real evolution.

gyldenlove
03-30-2009, 06:58 AM
Actually I never made the case for an intelligent designer... I just made the case that life and our universe has a beginning. Which is one fatal flaw in many evolutionists theories.

If you want a good account of how life on earth could have started within the framework of evolution, read "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.

coachmastermind
03-30-2009, 07:02 AM
however, by that same token, it shouldn't be removed either.

Where is someone asking for it to be removed?- they are just asking for other ideas to be brought to the table.

Garcia Bronco
03-30-2009, 07:02 AM
The SM is important to validate research. While many take the SM on faith more than they should, it's still very, very important. Texas schools would be doing itself a disservice to "take" it out of their schools.

Sir Mawn
03-30-2009, 07:05 AM
hell just give texas back to mexico and be done with it

um... no thanks ;)

BroncoInferno
03-30-2009, 07:11 AM
Nope it shouldnt. But if they are going to teach evolution as theory, why not intelligent design as well? Its all theoretical.


:Broncos:

Have you not been paying attention? "Theory" does not mean "wild ass guess." It's already been explained but here goes again: Evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works via natural selection using the available facts. Those facts are collected together to paint a picture of the whole.

Intelligent design on the other hand has ZERO facts on its side. Literally, not one. What intelligent design does is try to poke holes in evolution and then conclude, "Evolution can't really explain this, therefore design is suggested." Even if the intelligent design folk have successfully poked holes in evolution (they haven't), that does NOT provide any evidence for Intelligent Design. Furthermore, any scientific model has to have a process by which it can be falsified. To date, there has been no model presented to falsify the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Therefore, it fails the scientific test. You don't teach Intelligent Design in a science class because it is not science. If you allow Intelligent Design in a science class, by all rights astrology should be allowed in too.

By the way, it might interest you to know (or maybe not) that there is more evidence supporting evolution than germ theory or the theory of gravity. Do you question those theories as well?

coachmastermind
03-30-2009, 07:27 AM
You show a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution makes no claim that life and our universe has no beginning. In fact, evolution makes no claim whatsoever in terms of the origins of life or the universe. It only describes what happened to life once it already existed.

It's so frustrating when people like you think you've found "fatal flaws" in the theory of evolution when all you've actually done is demonstrated your own piss poor understanding of what evolution says about life. As theDave would say, your high school biology teacher should be slapped.


I never said all evolulutionists believe that life didn't have a clear beginning. However, I can't believe you're actually going to say the some evolutionists believe that the world has been infanantly here... that's how much of evolution has to be explained... more time... and more time. And I appologize for saying "fatal flaw", I don't have all the answers...and I'm obviously not trying to crash the entire evolution theory... however there are some large questions that it can't answer, and I believe there are flaws, that was just one I was pointing out.

I'm not here to call names or call people dumb I'm just giving some food for thought.

My point was to just state that the world and our universe have a beginning...But if we're on the same page that life had a beginning, then I look at things on earth and life and it's hard to see chance...

-The centrifuge force of planitary movements- if not precisely balanced the gravitational forces nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

-If the universe had expanded at a rate of one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before the stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

- Any of the laws of physicds can be desicribed as a function of a velocity of light (299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light woud alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

- If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runway greenhouse effect would cause temperatrures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life.

- If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

- If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transfrerred to the crust to support life. It it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

- If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

-The 23-degree axil tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

- If th atmospheric discharge (lightning) rater were greater, there would be too much fire destruction, if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.

- If there were more seismic activity, much more life would lost; if less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. Even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life.

Those are just a few things, that make me doubt that everything happened just right over the course of millions and millions of years. It's like life has some sort of design to it. Too me, it just seems like you have to have more faith to believe it happened by chance than to believe otherwise.

Beantown Bronco
03-30-2009, 07:29 AM
I'm just trying to figure out what the scientific consensus will be on how many planets there are in our solar system when my kids are old enough to study astronomy.....

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 07:40 AM
Bozos think the word "theory", as it applies to everyday life, has the same meaning as the word used by scientists. It does not. The "theory" of the evolution of species (especially as it pertains to natural selection) has been hammered under scientific scrutiny by thousands of scientists for nearly two hundred years and still stands up. More evidence has been added to strengthen the theory over the years, and less and less has been removed.

Here's the Intelligent Design forum on scientific inquiry:
http://movieimage2.tripod.com/grail/grail07.jpg

coachmastermind
03-30-2009, 07:40 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/index.html?iref=newssearch

Unless I'm missing something... Didn't Texas just decide to put both things side by side... the title thread is a little misleading "Texas wants scientific method out of schools"... I guess that's not what I read.

What is everyone so scared of? If Evolution has all the facts, and Intelligent Design has Zero... won't that be clear to students who would then be have a more solidified view of Evolution?

gyldenlove
03-30-2009, 07:41 AM
I never said all evolulutionists believe that life didn't have a clear beginning. However, I can't believe you're actually going to say the some evolutionists believe that the world has been infanantly here... that's how much of evolution has to be explained... more time... and more time. And I appologize for saying "fatal flaw", I don't have all the answers...and I'm obviously not trying to crash the entire evolution theory... however there are some large questions that it can't answer, and I believe there are flaws, that was just one I was pointing out.

I'm not here to call names or call people dumb I'm just giving some food for thought.

My point was to just state that the world and our universe have a beginning...But if we're on the same page that life had a beginning, then I look at things on earth and life and it's hard to see chance...

-The centrifuge force of planitary movements- if not precisely balanced the gravitational forces nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

-If the universe had expanded at a rate of one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before the stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

- Any of the laws of physicds can be desicribed as a function of a velocity of light (299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light woud alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

- If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runway greenhouse effect would cause temperatrures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life.

- If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

- If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transfrerred to the crust to support life. It it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

- If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

-The 23-degree axil tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

- If th atmospheric discharge (lightning) rater were greater, there would be too much fire destruction, if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.

- If there were more seismic activity, much more life would lost; if less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. Even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life.

Those are just a few things, that make me doubt that everything happened just right over the course of millions and millions of years. It's like life has some sort of design to it. Too me, it just seems like you have to have more faith to believe it happened by chance than to believe otherwise.

That is a lot of wrong in one place.

If the earth rotated faster it would just move futher away from the sun, if it rotated slower it would just move a little closer, it would still end up in a stable orbit.

I don't know where you got that universal expansion stuff, but it is wrong, badly. You should stop relying on superman comics for your cosmology. If the expansion rate at time zero was different it would have changed the development of the universe but there is no evidence to suggest that a small reduction would cause a shortlived bubble universe. A short bubble universe may have existed before our universe.

99% of all physical laws are complete independent of the vacuum light speed. A change in vacuum light speed would have no significant effect on anything. Unless you change it by a billlion.

What would happen with a run away green house effect? reflection from the higher atmosphere would grow exponentially and significant global cooling would ensue.

If Jupiter wasn't in its current orbit we would just be somewhere else, there are so many star systems like this one, this one happens to be right, but if it wasn't we wouldn't be here, we would be somewhere else. Earth is in no way special.

Rotation used to take a LOT longer than 24 hours, earth days were more than 30 hours early in the development of the planet, but nice try.

There is nothing special about a 23 degree tilt, if it changed it would just change the biotropes.

You seem to think that earth is special, it isn't. This just happened to be a place where things are about right. Seismic activity, crust thickness, discharge rates are all bad arguments since it would take very large changes to have significant long term impact. If you look at Mars you see that it mirrors earth very closely in terms of living conditions except for temperatures. There is nothing to suggest that the earth is somehow incredibly well suited for life in the face of overwhelming odds, in fact there is reason to believe that earth is just a very typical planet.

Here is what I want you to do, imagine approx 10^10 earth-like planets. At random chose 1 where conditions happen to line up in favour of life. That is earth. That is all you need, conditions may be unsuitable on the other 10^10 planets, or they may be suitable on half those planets, we don't know yet, and for life on earth it doesn't matter. You are thinking that earth was prechosen BEFORE as a place where life HAD to be, you have to think that life is only here BECAUSE earth was suitable.

gyldenlove
03-30-2009, 07:44 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/index.html?iref=newssearch

Unless I'm missing something... Didn't Texas just decide to put both things side by side... the title thread is a little misleading "Texas wants scientific method out of schools"... I guess that's not what I read.

What is everyone so scared of? If Evolution has all the facts, and Intelligent Design has Zero... won't that be clear to students who would then be have a more solidified view of Evolution?

You would think that it would have been clear to people that gassing jews, burning witches, keeping black people as salves would clearly be bad ideas. Indoctrination is a very powerful tool, and if you underestimate the influence of authority on a young persons mind you just may find an angry mob with weapons and nooses outside your house one day, the jews, women and black people did.

rugbythug
03-30-2009, 08:03 AM
You would think that it would have been clear to people that gassing jews, burning witches, keeping black people as salves would clearly be bad ideas. Indoctrination is a very powerful tool, and if you underestimate the influence of authority on a young persons mind you just may find an angry mob with weapons and nooses outside your house one day, the jews, women and black people did.

Its indoctrination either way.

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 08:05 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/index.html?iref=newssearch

Unless I'm missing something... Didn't Texas just decide to put both things side by side... the title thread is a little misleading "Texas wants scientific method out of schools"... I guess that's not what I read.

What is everyone so scared of? If Evolution has all the facts, and Intelligent Design has Zero... won't that be clear to students who would then be have a more solidified view of Evolution?

Which creation myth should they choose? Personally, I like the Edda Sagas one with the Frost Giants and the Great Holy Ash Tree and Odin and Thor and Valhalla and Ragnarok. Now there is an entertaining origin myth. I guess the Adam and Eve one is okay, but it seems kind of boring. God makes the guy, puts him in the Garden of Eden, fills him with longing for things, then pulls out his rib to make Eve, then creates a tree they cannot eat from, so obviously they eat from it (anybody ever have kids?) then tosses them out of Eden and puts some angel with a flaming sword at the gate so they can't get back? So, God is the kind of guy who loves to **** with people's heads? The Greek story is more entertaining with all the Gods representing all the different psychological expressions of man. Far more depth there. In fact, it's so entertaining that a lot of it, like the virgin birth, snuck into the Christian stories. Another interesting point; In the Hindu conception we are now in the age of Kaliyuga, the Age of Darkness. One of the identifying traits of the Kaliyuga is that people are confused because (through lack of consciousness) they have lost all discretion and think that everything they perceive or can conceive of has equal value. It might be helpful to pass that one onto our students, eh? ;)

gyldenlove
03-30-2009, 08:06 AM
Its indoctrination either way.

Not really, if you so choose you can do an experiment to determine wether evolution is wrong, you can't with creationism.

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 08:16 AM
I want the intelligent design crowd supervising the education of American children just like I want them supervising the construction of the next nuclear power plant. Haven't we fallen behind enough in science without becoming a medieval ****ing laughing stock?

Perhaps the first thing we could teach our kids is the meaning of "metaphor?"
Ya think?

rugbythug
03-30-2009, 08:21 AM
Not really, if you so choose you can do an experiment to determine wether evolution is wrong, you can't with creationism.

Once they can Take inanimate objects and create life from it. That would shake any belief in God for me. However while studying plant Genetics in college I came away very disappointed by the actual knowledge vs the perceived knowledge.

rugbythug
03-30-2009, 08:22 AM
I want the intelligent design crowd supervising the education of American children just like I want them supervising the construction of the next nuclear power plant. Haven't we fallen behind enough in science without becoming a medieval ****ing laughing stock?

Perhaps the first thing we could teach our kids is the meaning of "metaphor?"
Ya think?

It must be nice to have all the answers. Knowing what you don't know is true wisdom.

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 08:26 AM
Once they can Take inanimate objects and create life from it. That would shake any belief in God for me. However while studying plant Genetics in college I came away very disappointed by the actual knowledge vs the perceived knowledge.

Ah the "god of the gaps" argument
What we dont know God mustadoneit.

That has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution

Oh and they have made life of nonlife

I dont know why I bother though, apparently basic science is just too difficult for Americans

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 08:31 AM
It must be nice to have all the answers. Knowing what you don't know is true wisdom.

What I know, I know. What I don't know, I don't make up. Or worse, let other people make up for me.

UberBroncoMan
03-30-2009, 08:41 AM
Which creation myth should they choose? Personally, I like the Edda Sagas one with the Frost Giants and the Great Holy Ash Tree and Odin and Thor and Valhalla and Ragnarok. Now there is an entertaining origin myth. I guess the Adam and Eve one is okay, but it seems kind of boring. God makes the guy, puts him in the Garden of Eden, fills him with longing for things, then pulls out his rib to make Eve, then creates a tree they cannot eat from, so obviously they eat from it (anybody ever have kids?) then tosses them out of Eden and puts some angel with a flaming sword at the gate so they can't get back? So, God is the kind of guy who loves to **** with people's heads? The Greek story is more entertaining with all the Gods representing all the different psychological expressions of man. Far more depth there. In fact, it's so entertaining that a lot of it, like the virgin birth, snuck into the Christian stories. Another interesting point; In the Hindu conception we are now in the age of Kaliyuga, the Age of Darkness. One of the identifying traits of the Kaliyuga is that people are confused because (through lack of consciousness) they have lost all discretion and think that everything they perceive or can conceive of has equal value. It might be helpful to pass that one onto our students, eh? ;)

I LOVE Norse, Greek, and Egyptian mythology.

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 08:49 AM
The acceptance of dogma is the end of inquiry. That's why religious cultures inevitably go backwards and fall behind. Is that where we want to go? If you are opposed to the concepts of evolution and natural selection, come up with a testable hypothesis that fits the facts even better, don't simply try to replace it with some ludicrous fairy tale. Do we want to turn our children into religious morons? Judging by some of those in our public and political spheres lately, the answer is yes. Perhaps the leader of the free world should be Sarah Palin; Someone who is adept at following dogma, and upset she couldn't find somebody to "pray with" in the McCain camp, but couldn't pass a high school civics exam. I can think of few things that would signal the end of the United States more clearly than its retrograde slide into a religious, dogmatic state. And that movement starts with the education of our children.

Edit: However, I do like the concept of saddles on triceratops. ;D

rugbythug
03-30-2009, 09:03 AM
The acceptance of dogma is the end of inquiry. That's why religious cultures inevitably go backwards and fall behind. Is that where we want to go? If you are opposed to the concepts of evolution and natural selection, come up with a testable hypothesis that fits the facts even better, don't simply try to replace it with some ludicrous fairy tale. Do we want to turn our children into religious morons? Judging by some of those in our public and political spheres lately, the answer is yes. Perhaps the leader of the free world should be Sarah Palin; Someone who is adept at following dogma, and upset she couldn't find somebody to "pray with" in the McCain camp, but couldn't pass a high school civics exam. I can think of few things that would signal the end of the United States more clearly than its retrograde slide into a religious, dogmatic state. And that movement starts with the education of our children.

Edit: However, I do like the concept of saddles on triceratops. ;D

Really. Since all cultures up to this point have been religious in one nature or another How do you expect to prove this?

The concept of a lack of an omniscient god is a deathblow for any civilization.

rugbythug
03-30-2009, 09:04 AM
Ah the "god of the gaps" argument
What we dont know God mustadoneit.

That has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution

Oh and they have made life of nonlife

I dont know why I bother though, apparently basic science is just too difficult for Americans

Link Please.

Irish Stout
03-30-2009, 09:05 AM
I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe in evolution. I personally believe God's hand got the evolutionary process into motion and I will continue to believe that until I am proven wrong or see another explanation. Like most who believe in a higher power, I look to it to explain the unexplainable... however, if something can be explained and proven (as the hypothesis of evolution has been proven over and over to make it a theory) then I will also accept that. I don't see how denying the theory of evolution creates a stronger bond with God or encourages others to follow your beliefs. I also don't see how evolution challenges basic Christian beliefs... unless you accept everything in the Bible (written by man) to be cold hard truth. I see evolution as a way to strengthen the belief of God's creation of the earth and its inhabitants.... if God started a process that had to take billions of years, isnt that more impressive than him snapping his fingers and and creating the sun and the earth in one sitting?

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 09:26 AM
Link Please.

Not that you havent already rejected evidence and facts, but:

"Scientists create a virus that reproduces"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

"Researchers creating life from scratch"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/

I am at work and dont have time to search extensively, this is just stuff I found right off the bat
Im sure there are more recent examples of life that was created from genes or strands of proteins.

Hulamau
03-30-2009, 09:32 AM
That sounds fine, but let me get out first!!!

That's fine Atlas, just make sure and bring Kyla with you !:kiss:

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 10:00 AM
Not that you havent already rejected evidence and facts, but:

"Scientists create a virus that reproduces"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

"Researchers creating life from scratch"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/

I am at work and dont have time to search extensively, this is just stuff I found right off the bat
Im sure there are more recent examples of life that was created from genes or strands of proteins.

and if perhaps you have a problem with viruses as being "alive", then there is this also:

"Synthetic life forms grow in Florida lab"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29430688/

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 10:17 AM
Really. Since all cultures up to this point have been religious in one nature or another How do you expect to prove this?



So you would argue that cultures dominated by their religious factions to the point of controlling the government are just as scientifically progressive as those cultures that may have religious elements but maintain separate, secular governments?

The concept of a lack of an omniscient god is a deathblow for any civilization.

That's pure tripe.

rugbythug
03-30-2009, 10:19 AM
Not that you havent already rejected evidence and facts, but:

"Scientists create a virus that reproduces"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

"Researchers creating life from scratch"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/

I am at work and dont have time to search extensively, this is just stuff I found right off the bat
Im sure there are more recent examples of life that was created from genes or strands of proteins.


This is not creating life. You can not chop something up. Then reorganize it into a different shape and say you created life.

But thanks for the condescension. Nice to know where I stand.

Rohirrim
03-30-2009, 10:21 AM
This is not creating life. You can not chop something up. Then reorganize it into a different shape and say you created life.

But thanks for the condescension. Nice to know where I stand.

Sounds like you know how life was created. Fill us all in.

gyldenlove
03-30-2009, 10:34 AM
Really. Since all cultures up to this point have been religious in one nature or another How do you expect to prove this?

The concept of a lack of an omniscient god is a deathblow for any civilization.

Not at all, many civilications have no omniscient god in their religion. An example is Buddhism.

AbileneBroncoFan
03-30-2009, 10:46 AM
It must be nice to have all the answers. Knowing what you don't know is true wisdom.

It's not the scientists that proclaim to know everything about the universe, good and evil, the afterlife, and the nature of God. That would be religion. The only "correct" view on the matter is to say that we are all agnostics. None of us "know" God, and none of us "knows" what will happen to us when we die. The Christian theory is just as good as the Muslim theory which is just as good as the Hindu theory and so on. I do not know how God works, nor if he even exists (I hope that he does, but I cannot prove it by any means) and since I do not believe you possess any mental capacities that I do not, I do not believe that you know either. What you believe is up to you, and I am perfectly fine with whatever it may be, so long as you do not demand that others conform to your unprovable belief.

As for whether or not creation should be taught in science, it should not even be a question. Creationism is not science, and thus has no more place in science class than Shakespeare. Period. And if you would like to legislate that it must be taught since we do not fully understand or have absolute proof for every aspect of the evolution of life, then I will listen to you once you are willing to teach evolution in your church/Sunday school. That is only fair. Since I know that churches would **** their pants if this were suggested, let's just leave the respective beliefs to their respective institutions and let people choose for themselves what to believe.

misturanderson
03-30-2009, 11:52 AM
I'm sure some of the facts evolution talks about are spot on, things do evolve to survive but they don't become different species IMO. The thought that over time, whether it be a day, week, year or a billion that a snake or a frog will somehow become something its not just seems silly to me, guess I just don't get that.

To visually see how much of an impact a small amount of selective pressure can have on a species, just look at domestic dogs. The range of body types, sizes, head shapes, etc. just within that one species as a result of selective breeding of the grey wolf in the past thousand or so years (much less in many cases) is visual evidence of the power of selective pressure.

Put a bull mastiff, an afghan hound and a chinese crested next to each other and realize that these dogs have a common ancestor. Then realize how miniscule an amount of time, compared to how long life has been on Earth, it took for these animals to descend from their common ancestor. It is impossible for the toy breed dogs to have the offspring of a giant breed dog if that further helps to illustrate the point.

I feel like people refuse to really think about how much time evolution has to work with. It isn't observable within one human lifetime, except on a very small scale.

Mountain Bronco
03-30-2009, 12:22 PM
Science is a belief system? I didn't realize how far in the dark ages we still are as a society. WTF?

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 04:03 PM
This is not creating life. You can not chop something up. Then reorganize it into a different shape and say you created life.

But thanks for the condescension. Nice to know where I stand.

All we are is just rearranged chemicals
Biology is applied chemistry.

So while what they made in Florida may not be "self sustaining", it is able to evolve.

Its not even close to "chopping up and reorganizing", it is building an organism

But go ahead and downplay it all you want, you can only learn so much if your scientific understanding is based off bronze age doctrines.

Punisher
03-30-2009, 04:06 PM
"Man Created the Bible for there would be no chaos"
-Punisher

Hulamau
03-31-2009, 12:13 AM
Really. Since all cultures up to this point have been religious in one nature or another How do you expect to prove this?

The concept of a lack of an omniscient god is a deathblow for any civilization.
"Up to this point" is the key point of your statement above, rugbythug.

The concept of an 'omniscient god' just happened to be the organizing principle around which a code of moral ethics solid enough to sustain most civilized behavior during the past 5 thousand + years of psychological and social evolution took place, during its long gestation towards a more rationale maturity.

With it has come a whole host of 'sins', largely hard-wired and built-in to such authoritarian, hand-holding and comforting mythologies that simply break down under deeper scrutiny.

Hopefully, societies at large, and the progress of inquiry and discovery in general, are at long last reaching a point now where people can begin to realize, en mass, that following such inherently life sustaining and supporting morals as the 'Golden Rule' and other core common sense ethical foundations of social life, stand perfectly well on their own inherent wisdom ... you know doing the 'right' thing, or at least trying to, simply because it's the right thing to do ...

And without requiring some grey-bearded fairy tale father (or mother) figure on a cloud shoving it all down your throat out of fear of being punished with lighting bolts of pain and suffering hurled at those who somehow see through the circus, or for whatever reason don't believe in a particular deities existence. All the while on the flip side, offering up the enticing 'signing bonus' of eternal continuation of the individual psychological 'me-sense' in some kind of childish 'Valhalla' as the carrot stuck permanently in front of the donkey's nose as the organizing rationale for ethical living.

Hopefully, as a species we are moving to a point where people can recognize and value each other because of how they live their lives, irrespective of which 'team' they are on, and recognize that, inherently, living a fulfilling life, 'spiritual' or 'secular', has really nothing whatsoever to do with being 'religious'. When that day comes society will have made real progress in 'evolution'.

Hulamau
03-31-2009, 01:50 AM
Dude I'm not offended in the least, enjoy the conversation. I am a believer in creationism simply because I can't see a Summer day with all its perfection or witness the birth of my daughter without thinking there is a greater force at play. I'm sure some of the facts evolution talks about are spot on, things do evolve to survive but they don't become different species IMO. The thought that over time, whether it be a day, week, year or a billion that a snake or a frog will somehow become something its not just seems silly to me, guess I just don't get that.

Your feeling of awe at the incredible subtle beauties and serendipity of life all around us is no doubt a powerful experience for you and an almost universal one for all of us. And it certainly doesn't require signing up to any given belief system as a proxy for simply 'not knowing'.

Making peace with the mystery, as it is, as much as possible without needing a handy, even if dubious, explanation of some kind to fill in the blanks while remaining fully open and engaged in inquiry and exploration, is the very heart of a real scientist and philosopher both.

Not the dry reductionist who is seeking his own kind of safety and security in the drone of facts as they presently appear, nor the pie in the sky immaturity and projection of the 'my god is better than your god' crowd who never graduated from Sunday school.

Awe, wonder and inspiration are the motivating emotions and feeling behind most of great science and philosophical depth. You could call it the 'spiritual' basis of life if you will, sans the religious fairy stories layered on top to try and make sense of it all.

This sense of wonder in the face of breath-taking beauty and mystery IS the 'higher power' motivating the march of history, religions, science and life itself.

And while everyone is perfectly entitled to their beliefs as they are today, however irrational and thin they might be upon deeper scrutiny, any appeal to one's experience of an essential wonder and mystery of life as being any more supportive of a single 'creator in the clouds' idea (particularly one that is fundamentalist in the particulars of its traditional historical beliefs) over the views derived from open observation both scientific and intuitive, is certainly presumptuous, at best.

In other words, having a sense of wonder about life lends no particular credence to a single creator view. And likewise, recognizing that evolution appears to be the core principle mechanism for the way life unfolds doesn't also mean that it isn't only part of the picture, and not yet the full enchilada.

Appeals to a 'higher power' is just another way to say, you don't have any idea whats going on, but just find this particular idea more comforting at the moment considering all the influences and experiences you've had to date. That's fair enough.

Mogulseeker
03-31-2009, 10:28 AM
Here's what I said to a friend, concerning the subject:

(Intelligent design is) a copout that had been fabricated over the years that serves as an example of charlatans in the church trying to hinder science for fear that an understanding of the cosmos will turn people away from god. It’s based on fear of reason, rejection of scientific method, and ultimately it turns people away from the church. Evangelicals tend to put themselves into a cocoon based on their certainty that rejects societal norms and practices. In doing so, they reject revelations that don’t jive with what they’ve been taught (again, fear of the unfamiliar) and they mold their reasoning, theory, and practice off of their understanding, rather than letting their understanding become molded by reason, theory, and practice. And THAT is why intelligent design isn’t intelligent. Yesterday’s flat earth society is today’s creationist movement.

Here is a good quote from Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson in Esquire:

"You are not a real scientist until you make a discovery. And if you make a great discovery, you're a great scientist. You can be a complete jerk and go the rest of your life just saying dumb things and never finding anything again, but you're still a great scientist.

If someone could actually prove scientifically that there is such a thing as a supernatural force, it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. So the notion that somehow scientists are resisting it is ludicrous.

The intelligent-design folks say, "You haven't explained everything." What they don't appreciate is that that's what biologists do for a living. And, one by one, the things that can't be explained are explained.

Between scientists, you can have high competitiveness and jealousy and petty nit-picking, because we are human. But once something is nailed, the person who did it usually gets the credit, and we move on."

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 10:55 AM
As a scientist I can say that I get more joy from understanding all the complexities of how a sunrise works and I get more joy at seeing the interplay of so many different effects. The same way I feel when I see Aurora Borealis or a total solar eclipse. The same way I feel when I see the sand dunes wander or the intricacies of a conch, the same way I feel when I see how the mathematic of quantum mechanics is so confusing at first glance but when you dig deeper you see that so many things that seem unrelated are actually just different aspects of the same thing.

When I see light refracting and reflecting in a water pool or a rainbow. I don't know how people can enjoy things like that without understanding or at least wanting to understand. I bet most of you would think football is some boring **** if you didn't know the rules and the aspects of the game. I don't enjoy watching things I don't understand.

I love watching how some bacteria form biofilms to protect colonies and how they have chemical signals so they can share nutrients with other bacteria of the same kind but not any other bacteria. That is by the way the link between single cell organisms and multi cell organisms.

I love how you can do MRI studies and watch what parts of the brain is active under different situations. How you can see what part of the liver has high blood flow and which parts are devoid of oxygen without having to open people up.

rugbythug
03-31-2009, 11:08 AM
While I find Discussions of Religion, Truth, and Earth Origins to be probably some of the most enjoyable talks one can have. I find Internet Message Board discussions of the same topic Disjointed, Time Consuming and overly Mean Spirited. Face to Face I have never had anyone try and pick a fight or get upset in this kind of discussion but on the internet this is the norm. I make it a habit to avoid this in Message Boards and yet I get sucked in and waste more time than I should. If anyone would like to drink a beer and discuss this I am all for it. But at this point I am going back to talk about the Football team in Denver.

Let me know if anyone is in Pueblo, CO.

Later
Rugbythug

Rohirrim
03-31-2009, 11:10 AM
As a scientist I can say that I get more joy from understanding all the complexities of how a sunrise works and I get more joy at seeing the interplay of so many different effects. The same way I feel when I see Aurora Borealis or a total solar eclipse. The same way I feel when I see the sand dunes wander or the intricacies of a conch, the same way I feel when I see how the mathematic of quantum mechanics is so confusing at first glance but when you dig deeper you see that so many things that seem unrelated are actually just different aspects of the same thing.

When I see light refracting and reflecting in a water pool or a rainbow. I don't know how people can enjoy things like that without understanding or at least wanting to understand. I bet most of you would think football is some boring **** if you didn't know the rules and the aspects of the game. I don't enjoy watching things I don't understand.

I love watching how some bacteria form biofilms to protect colonies and how they have chemical signals so they can share nutrients with other bacteria of the same kind but not any other bacteria. That is by the way the link between single cell organisms and multi cell organisms.

I love how you can do MRI studies and watch what parts of the brain is active under different situations. How you can see what part of the liver has high blood flow and which parts are devoid of oxygen without having to open people up.

Yeah, for a place (this world/this universe) that many of the religious nutjobs can't wait to get out of, God sure seems to have put a lot of work into making it miraculous and incredible. It's almost as if He expects us to really enjoy ourselves here, isn't it? But that couldn't be right.

Rock Chalk
03-31-2009, 12:10 PM
So you would argue that cultures dominated by their religious factions to the point of controlling the government are just as scientifically progressive as those cultures that may have religious elements but maintain separate, secular governments?



That's pure tripe.

You could make that argument Rohirrim.

The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese were all dominated by their religious beliefs and all of them advanced human technological understanding more in their time than any secular based civilization since then.

Secularists seem to believe that non-secularists are just backwards hicks that dont believe in science. Far from the truth. Many a great scientist has been religious. As have many an atheist or non-religious person. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Early Islamic societies had great advances in Science as well, as did many Christian societies in Europe. They built on what their forefathers before them did. Now that doesnt negate that religion has, at times, stiffled scientific progress because it interfered with their dogmatic beliefs but to say religion doesnt adapt and advance is retarded. The Christian/Catholic faith, over the years has (albeit slowly) adapted to the changing evidence of science, specifically about creation but also about social sciences as well.

I am in a sense, a scientist. I also believe in God and Jesus. I use the scientific method in every day life to provide answers to everyday problems but science cannot give me the spiritual answers I also require. AND it never will. Whatever we are, for whatever reason we were put here, there is something in our conscious minds that requires answers science will never give us.

That in and of itself is not proof of a higher power, im not saying that. I am merely suggesting that science is not the only aspect to humanity. Its just a means to explain reality.

And for anyone of you that do not believe in the dogma that exists in science. Read about the Clovis point and the debate on the first Americans and you will see dogmatic belief that no way Europeans could have come here across the ocean prior to the migration acrosss the Bering Straight. Yet Siberian/Asian technology in no way resembles the Clovis points found in New Mexico, but they are remarkably similar to European technology. Evidence suggests that it is possible that Europeans may have been here first, or nearly at the same time as Asians, yet science dogma refuses to accept it. They refuse to even listen to any contrary evidence.

Dogma. Period. Thor Huyerdahl(sp?) also proved that with primitive available technology, people COULD have sailed from Europe to the America's. Yet science refuses to even look at it.

This is just one of so many examples where this occurs in science.

Again Im not discounting or discrediting science in anyway. Most of those that have been here a long time understand I am a science nut. I just want people to understand that EVERYTHING needs to be looked at with the same skepticism as they tend to look at religion with.

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 12:34 PM
The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese were all dominated by their religious beliefs and all of them advanced human technological understanding more in their time than any secular based civilization since then.

Secularists seem to believe that non-secularists are just backwards hicks that dont believe in science. Far from the truth. Many a great scientist has been religious. As have many an atheist or non-religious person. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Early Islamic societies had great advances in Science as well, as did many Christian societies in Europe. They built on what their forefathers before them did. Now that doesnt negate that religion has, at times, stiffled scientific progress because it interfered with their dogmatic beliefs but to say religion doesnt adapt and advance is retarded. The Christian/Catholic faith, over the years has (albeit slowly) adapted to the changing evidence of science, specifically about creation but also about social sciences as well.

I am in a sense, a scientist. I also believe in God and Jesus. I use the scientific method in every day life to provide answers to everyday problems but science cannot give me the spiritual answers I also require. AND it never will. Whatever we are, for whatever reason we were put here, there is something in our conscious minds that requires answers science will never give us.

And for anyone of you that do not believe in the dogma that exists in science. Read about the Clovis point and the debate on the first Americans and you will see dogmatic belief that no way Europeans could have come here across the ocean prior to the migration acrosss the Bering Straight. Yet Siberian/Asian technology in no way resembles the Clovis points found in New Mexico, but they are remarkably similar to European technology. Evidence suggests that it is possible that Europeans may have been here first, or nearly at the same time as Asians, yet science dogma refuses to accept it. They refuse to even listen to any contrary evidence.

Dogma. Period. Thor Huyerdahl(sp?) also proved that with primitive available technology, people COULD have sailed from Europe to the America's. Yet science refuses to even look at it.

This is just one of so many examples where this occurs in science.



Interestingly if you look back at the greeks, egyptians and chinese who made a lot of these early discoveries, you will see that their work was entirely free of any religious influence. Aside from a few extremist atheists you are going to find very few people who will say that religion as a whole is bad. The main argument that most people will make is that religion should not be taught as science, and it should not be used as an explanation to impose morals.

I, and I am sure many others, have no problem with teaching religion, I think it is fundamental in terms of understanding history to know about the religious context things happened in. What I don't want is to see Genesis being taught as science, because it is not, and this goes for any creation story be it from the bible, norse mythology, greek mythology or any other religion.

The fact that many great scientists were religious and some even very devoutly so, is just a testament to the fact that religion and science are not enemies as long as you keep them seperate. The domain of religion is in creating a framework for people to believe in and to seek comfort in and to seek compassion and joy in. Science is for exploring and explaining the world around us as we see it and to develope tools and techniques for us to improve the lives of humans in a physical way.

I think it is very important to keep history seperate from more directly empirical sciences. In history we can not make actual experiments since we can not go back and change things to see how it would have turned out had things been different. We can only formulate largely ad hoc hypotheses and see if they correspond well with the evidence we have found and what we can conjecture from that evidence.

It is true that dogma exists in science, it takes time for any new theory to gain wide acceptance for many reasons, this has been proven over and over again with things like Quantom Mechanics, Plate tectonics, Relativity and many many other theories. I think a good description of how science works is the book Against Method by Paul Feyerabend, he essentially says that instead of using strict rules of how to advance science such as Popper's falsification or Kuhn's paradigms we should do anything we can and disregard the semantics, the upshot of which is that we should be quicker to accept new work that is promising.

With the increase in complexity in new theories and new work it becomes harder and harder to differentiate between things that are worth while and things that are just special cases of more general rules. This is going to increase the level of resistance that new theories will have to overcome to be accepted.

ghwk
03-31-2009, 12:41 PM
If evolutionary theory is fact I want someone to give me a full run down of the Eve hypothesis, including evidence of variation with archeological proof...since you know, Humans have grown an average of two feet over the last 1000 years. It would also be nice if someone could give me a better dating system than Carbon dating...oh and while were at if you could explain how the eye evolved that would be stellar too. Good luck.



LOL this is not going to end well for you

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 12:51 PM
Its amazing some of the in-depth takes you guys have from both sides of the discussion. While this thread started out a little rough I find myself wishing some of our schools all over this country had informative discussions on both sides of the aisle without the political and religious dogma like I've seen here with some of these posts.

anon
03-31-2009, 12:59 PM
The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. The founding fathers were wise to see how a powerful Church could disproportionately influence the political process and be an enemy of personal freedom.

Religion is not science. Religion is a personal choice and should remain a personal choice. It has no place in a science class, or in public schools. And if you want it to be covered in public schools in "religious studies" classes, for reasons of broadening a student's horizons -- which isn't a bad idea in itself, then you must also agree that major religious traditions other than Christianity should be covered as well.

It always surprises me how, for all the talk about the "dangers" of Muslim fundamentalism and all the railing on about the terrible Taliban and the Ayatollah in Iran, the Christian right is so eager to take little half-steps down the slippery slope of secular and religious (Christian) integration. But we're so much more civilized, right? Our beliefs are so much more benign and harmless, right? Unfortunately, based on human history and current events, there is nothing harmless about religion. The real issue is that it has a power over people and often times is accompanied by an evangelistic, moralistic, and self-righteous element that, when mixed with secular power, is simply not compatible with the personal liberty of ALL citizens, not just the indoctrinated.

Spider
03-31-2009, 01:02 PM
The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. The founding fathers were wise to see how a powerful Church could disproportionately influence the political process and be an enemy of personal freedom.

Religion is not science. Religion is a personal choice and should remain a personal choice. It has no place in a science class, or in public schools. And if you want it to be covered in public schools in "religious studies" classes, for reasons of broadening a student's horizons -- which isn't a bad idea in itself, then you must also agree that major religious traditions other than Christianity should be covered as well.

It always surprises me how, for all the talk about the "dangers" of Muslim fundamentalism and all the railing on about the terrible Taliban and the Ayatollah in Iran, the Christian right is so eager to take little half-steps down the slippery slope of secular and religious (Christian) integration. But we're so much more civilized, right? Our beliefs are so much more benign and harmless, right? Unfortunately, based on human history and current events, there is nothing harmless about religion; and the real issue is that it has a power over people and often times an evangelistic element that is simply not particularly compatible with the personal liberty of ALL citizens, not just the indoctrinated.

GASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never heard such a thing !!!!!!!!!!! this is just crazy talk ;D ..good post

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-31-2009, 01:12 PM
I don't enjoy watching things I don't understand.


I hate reality TV too, man.

colonelbeef
03-31-2009, 01:55 PM
The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. The founding fathers were wise to see how a powerful Church could disproportionately influence the political process and be an enemy of personal freedom.

Religion is not science. Religion is a personal choice and should remain a personal choice. It has no place in a science class, or in public schools. And if you want it to be covered in public schools in "religious studies" classes, for reasons of broadening a student's horizons -- which isn't a bad idea in itself, then you must also agree that major religious traditions other than Christianity should be covered as well.

It always surprises me how, for all the talk about the "dangers" of Muslim fundamentalism and all the railing on about the terrible Taliban and the Ayatollah in Iran, the Christian right is so eager to take little half-steps down the slippery slope of secular and religious (Christian) integration. But we're so much more civilized, right? Our beliefs are so much more benign and harmless, right? Unfortunately, based on human history and current events, there is nothing harmless about religion. The real issue is that it has a power over people and often times is accompanied by an evangelistic, moralistic, and self-righteous element that, when mixed with secular power, is simply not compatible with the personal liberty of ALL citizens, not just the indoctrinated.

Spectacular post. Thanks for saving me the time.

DenverBrit
03-31-2009, 02:41 PM
The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. The founding fathers were wise to see how a powerful Church could disproportionately influence the political process and be an enemy of personal freedom.

Religion is not science. Religion is a personal choice and should remain a personal choice. It has no place in a science class, or in public schools. And if you want it to be covered in public schools in "religious studies" classes, for reasons of broadening a student's horizons -- which isn't a bad idea in itself, then you must also agree that major religious traditions other than Christianity should be covered as well.

It always surprises me how, for all the talk about the "dangers" of Muslim fundamentalism and all the railing on about the terrible Taliban and the Ayatollah in Iran, the Christian right is so eager to take little half-steps down the slippery slope of secular and religious (Christian) integration. But we're so much more civilized, right? Our beliefs are so much more benign and harmless, right? Unfortunately, based on human history and current events, there is nothing harmless about religion. The real issue is that it has a power over people and often times is accompanied by an evangelistic, moralistic, and self-righteous element that, when mixed with secular power, is simply not compatible with the personal liberty of ALL citizens, not just the indoctrinated.

Oh, you're going to hell!! Ha! Rep!!

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 04:03 PM
The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. The founding fathers were wise to see how a powerful Church could disproportionately influence the political process and be an enemy of personal freedom.

Religion is not science. Religion is a personal choice and should remain a personal choice. It has no place in a science class, or in public schools. And if you want it to be covered in public schools in "religious studies" classes, for reasons of broadening a student's horizons -- which isn't a bad idea in itself, then you must also agree that major religious traditions other than Christianity should be covered as well.

It always surprises me how, for all the talk about the "dangers" of Muslim fundamentalism and all the railing on about the terrible Taliban and the Ayatollah in Iran, the Christian right is so eager to take little half-steps down the slippery slope of secular and religious (Christian) integration. But we're so much more civilized, right? Our beliefs are so much more benign and harmless, right? Unfortunately, based on human history and current events, there is nothing harmless about religion. The real issue is that it has a power over people and often times is accompanied by an evangelistic, moralistic, and self-righteous element that, when mixed with secular power, is simply not compatible with the personal liberty of ALL citizens, not just the indoctrinated.

Ever think of it the other way around? The separation maybe was intended more to keep government and perhaps the monarchy out of their religion. People wanted the ability to praise their own God however they saw fit without the government dictating what was taught. It might explain why our forefathers left England seeking freedom to worship without persecution...they did after all put "In GOD We Trust" on all money, started each session of their congressional meetings with a prayer and made reference to GOD in just about everything they did. I know thats not a popular belief/view these days but its why GOD has blessed this nation for so long IMO.

Br0nc0Buster
03-31-2009, 04:19 PM
Ever think of it the other way around? The separation maybe was intended more to keep government and perhaps the monarchy out of their religion. People wanted the ability to praise their own God however they saw fit without the government dictating what was taught. It might explain why our forefathers left England seeking freedom to worship without persecution...they did after all put "In GOD We Trust" on all money, started each session of their congressional meetings with a prayer and made reference to GOD in just about everything they did. I know thats not a popular belief/view these days but its why GOD has blessed this nation for so long IMO.

No the founding fathers did not put "in God we trust" on anything.
That was added in the 50s
Our country was not founded on Christian principles, the 1st amendment and Treaty of Tripoli confirm this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

God hasnt "blessed" anything
We have the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest murder rate, and some of the lowest test scores in the industrialized world.

misturanderson
03-31-2009, 04:23 PM
It might explain why our forefathers left England seeking freedom to worship without persecution...they did after all put "In GOD We Trust" on all money

Please don't make things up to support your argument. From http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml: "IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin."

Rohirrim
03-31-2009, 04:25 PM
You could make that argument Rohirrim.

The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese were all dominated by their religious beliefs and all of them advanced human technological understanding more in their time than any secular based civilization since then.

Dominated? Not hardly. I would say that all of them used religion as a political tool.

Secularists seem to believe that non-secularists are just backwards hicks that dont believe in science. Far from the truth. Many a great scientist has been religious. As have many an atheist or non-religious person. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Early Islamic societies had great advances in Science as well, as did many Christian societies in Europe. They built on what their forefathers before them did. Now that doesnt negate that religion has, at times, stiffled scientific progress because it interfered with their dogmatic beliefs but to say religion doesnt adapt and advance is retarded. The Christian/Catholic faith, over the years has (albeit slowly) adapted to the changing evidence of science, specifically about creation but also about social sciences as well.

They tried to burn Galileo at the stake while he was alive and then had the chutzpah to forgive him, four hundred years later.

I am in a sense, a scientist. I also believe in God and Jesus. I use the scientific method in every day life to provide answers to everyday problems but science cannot give me the spiritual answers I also require. AND it never will. Whatever we are, for whatever reason we were put here, there is something in our conscious minds that requires answers science will never give us.

That in and of itself is not proof of a higher power, im not saying that. I am merely suggesting that science is not the only aspect to humanity. Its just a means to explain reality.

And for anyone of you that do not believe in the dogma that exists in science. Read about the Clovis point and the debate on the first Americans and you will see dogmatic belief that no way Europeans could have come here across the ocean prior to the migration acrosss the Bering Straight. Yet Siberian/Asian technology in no way resembles the Clovis points found in New Mexico, but they are remarkably similar to European technology. Evidence suggests that it is possible that Europeans may have been here first, or nearly at the same time as Asians, yet science dogma refuses to accept it. They refuse to even listen to any contrary evidence.

Dogma. Period. Thor Huyerdahl(sp?) also proved that with primitive available technology, people COULD have sailed from Europe to the America's. Yet science refuses to even look at it.

This is just one of so many examples where this occurs in science.

Sure it does, until some later scientist comes along with a new theory and takes it apart, say the way Christy Turner brought cannibalism into the Anasazi equation or Kennewick Man blew up much of what we thought about migration to the new world, or Darwin posited natural and sexual selection. The old gets pushed out of the way (whether it likes it or not) and the new takes its place. That's the natural flow of science. Religion has played the part of the dam in that flow far more often in history than as the enabler of that flow. Sure, there have been flowerings under religious regimes, as in the astronomers under the early Muslims. But those flowerings were short lived and eventually crushed once the clerics take over.

The problem with religion is that no dialogue can take place. There are the tenets. There is the dogma. They are based on belief. On faith. They require no proof. BTW, I don't put religion and religious experience in the same boat. Too often, religion is the the number one suppressor of religious experience.


Again Im not discounting or discrediting science in anyway. Most of those that have been here a long time understand I am a science nut. I just want people to understand that EVERYTHING needs to be looked at with the same skepticism as they tend to look at religion with.

I have no problem with people pursuing spiritual answers through religion. I have no problem with scientists pursuing scientific answers through the scientific method. I do have a problem with the religious trying to impose their belief system on students in secular schools as if their beliefs had scientific validity. They don't. Not one shred. They come as wolves in sheep's clothing.

Br0nc0Buster
03-31-2009, 04:36 PM
I have no problem with people pursuing spiritual answers through religion. I have no problem with scientists pursuing scientific answers through the scientific method. I do have a problem with the religious trying to impose their belief system on students in secular schools as if their beliefs had scientific validity. They don't. Not one shred. They come as wolves in sheep's clothing.

Yes, there is a process ideas must go through to get published in scientific journals.
All scientists have had to go through this process that have wanted to submit their ideas.
Religious people dont do this.
They dont submit their ideas for peer reviewal, they are not playing by the rules
They keep going around the system without doing what all other scientists had to do
Introducing material in a science class that has no evidence to back it up is against the point of science.

I dont think religious people who want to see creationism taught, or evolution criticized understand this, that no one is against the idea of teaching an idea as long as it has sufficient evidence.

anon
03-31-2009, 05:03 PM
Regardless of the precise motivation, isn't the net effect the same? Church and State were separated to protect personal freedom, or at least religious freedom -- and that, given what this nation supposedly stands for, is a good thing.

I don't think the point I was trying to make is that religion has no place in the modern world, but that religious freedom is a fundamental right and stands on the continued separation of Church and State. I don't see how a government can continue to guarantee religious freedom if a specific tradition becomes the "official" religion through direct or indirect action -- like, for example, integration with classes taught in state-run schools.

There is no denying the fact that this nation was founded by persons who were Christians, or that it is overwhelmingly Christian today. But one has a choice: one can point to things like "In God We Trust" on the currency as artifacts of historical context, or stop with the grandiose and idealistic pretense of having democratic values and just admit that one really thinks the United States was intended to be a Christian theocracy.



Ever think of it the other way around? The separation maybe was intended more to keep government and perhaps the monarchy out of their religion. People wanted the ability to praise their own God however they saw fit without the government dictating what was taught. It might explain why our forefathers left England seeking freedom to worship without persecution...they did after all put "In GOD We Trust" on all money, started each session of their congressional meetings with a prayer and made reference to GOD in just about everything they did. I know thats not a popular belief/view these days but its why GOD has blessed this nation for so long IMO.

Kid A
03-31-2009, 05:12 PM
God hasnt "blessed" anything
We have the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest murder rate, and some of the lowest test scores in the industrialized world.

Agreed.

I do, however, feel very fortunate to live in this country given the rights, freedoms, and opportunities we do have. In many ways, if you grew up in good circumstances as many of us have, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking we earned a god's favor or some divine blessing.

But really those traits were achieved through lots of bloodshed, hard work, and some luck. It's a very convenient answer to say we're a "blessed" nation, but really why would we deserve more blessing in God's eyes than some of the destitute Central American countries (which are significantly more religious)?

In fact, it's a little disgusting/demeaning to suggest that God would give us lots of food and shelter because we put his name on money or say it during the Pledge. We've had just as many mistakes and shameful events (genocide of the American Indians, slavery, etc) as other countries. Ours just happened to emerge out of multiple circumstances that created a great (but far from perfect) place to live for the last century.

Sorry for the tangent, but I just wanted to point out that rejecting the idea that we have been specially "blessed by God" doesn't mean we don't appreciate how good most of us in the states (and Western society as a whole) have it.

anon
03-31-2009, 05:17 PM
I think one important difference between intelligent design and evolution, as others have pointed out, is that they operate in different frameworks of thought. Evolution exists within the scientific framework, where the questioning and re-evaluation of ideas is the norm and even encouraged. In science, it is possible to be wrong. In fact, the history of science is full of "mini-revolutions" where venerable theories or conjectures were proven incorrect or replaced/adjusted/augmented with new ideas.

As an aside, I was thinking a bit about the thinly disguised religious overtones of intelligent design and wondered to myself if many intelligent design followers were also environmentalists? For example, do you think this "intelligent designer" meant for his greatest creation (humans) to go around trashing the rest of his beautiful diorama, burning down the complex ecosystem that is the rain forest, creating giant cesspools of indestructible marine life killing plastic in the ocean, killing other beautiful and complex creations (animals) for mere sport and pleasure? Or does this great designer just have a higher sense of aesthetics which I cannot even begin to fathom?

rastaman
03-31-2009, 05:24 PM
Regardless of the precise motivation, isn't the net effect the same? Church and State were separated to protect personal freedom, or at least religious freedom -- and that, given what this nation supposedly stands for, is a good thing.

I don't think the point I was trying to make is that religion has no place in the modern world, but that religious freedom is a fundamental right and stands on the continued separation of Church and State. I don't see how a government can continue to guarantee religious freedom if a specific tradition becomes the "official" religion through direct or indirect action -- like, for example, integration with classes taught in state-run schools.

There is no denying the fact that this nation was founded by persons who were Christians, or that it is overwhelmingly Christian today. But one has a choice: one can point to things like "In God We Trust" on the currency as artifacts of historical context, or stop with the grandiose and idealistic pretense of having democratic values and just admit that one really thinks the United States was intended to be a Christian theocracy.

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. The founding fathers wanted "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom From Religion. The founders new all to well how dangerous religion could be due to the Puritans burning alleged witches at the cross.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

As for "In God We Trust" on the currency and "One Nation Under God", this was printed on our currency and added to the pledge of allegiance back in the 50's during the height of the "Cold War" to prove to Russians we were more godly and tolerant of religion than they were.

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many right wing religious fanatics are working overtime to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

rubaiyat
03-31-2009, 06:31 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.

However, that is my belief. It is not proven fact. Remember, science is in fact, dogma. It is based on observation that, if history tells us, can easily be perverted and misinterpreted. Science, like religion, is very dogmatic. When scientists believe in their theories, they, under no circumstances, will change that belief despite evidence to the contrary.

If you do not believe this, read some scientific arguments with different sides, where theory is discussed and you will see heated debate rivalling that of ANY religious debate. Theory is just that, theory. Evolution is a sound theory with a great deal of evidence that SUPPORTS it, but there is no evidence existing anywhere that PROVES it.

Science, like religion, should be taught separately. Science is just another belief system based on observation, not fact. Too many people believe that science is all fact. There is little fact anywhere in any aspect of intelligence. 1+1 is fact. Mathematics is fact. Outside of that, you are looking at a lot of theory based on what is believed correct observation. i.e. The Scientific Method. Which is just another paradigm, a way to look at things.

Science has its merits, and it should absolutely be taught and stressed in our public schools and be mandatory because while much of it is theory, application of that theory is beneficial to every single child in this country. What should ALSO be taught is that science is just merely one method of ATTEMPTING to understand the world around us but it is not by any means foolproof.

By doing this, we mold our children to have a scientific mind but not be stuck to the scientific principles which may have been true when they were in school but inevitably change over time. Right now, this concept is not taught and scientists get stuck on their beliefs. Right or wrong they will defend their BELIEFS until the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community stands against them.

In addition, a new class needs to be mandatory. Scientific History. The study of the history of science and its own evolution and the debates and differences of opinion within science using the same empirical data.

When you stop and look at science, it is really just another religious belief. What makes science different than all other religions is that it is based at its heart on observational evidence, but that evidence is open to interpretation like all other religious texts are.

*shrug* Just my opinion.

And you are entitled to expressing your opinion certainly. In fact I laud you on your stated interest here in creating independent thinkers free from dogma.

The problem here is that I suspect you are not a scientist. For one, no scientist would describe anything as JUST a theory. That is in fact the highest level of certitude a scientist can bestow on anything. That to the best of our knowledge and ability to DISPROVE, we find the current relationship to be true. It might still be wrong, but for a scientific supposition to be classified as a Theory it needs to be rigorously tested and found to be both Necessary and Sufficient.

Sufficient such that merely introducing the one variable causes a change in the second.

Necessary such that this change only occurs with the introduction of that variable.

This relationship needs to be tested under a wide range of conditions for it to be put forth as Theory.

The problem arises because everyday usage of Theory and the scientific meaning of the term have been muddled. When most people say "I have a theory", they mean "I have a hypothesis, that remains to be confirmed".

And in rebuttal to your argument, yes scientists are sold on their beliefs and rarely change their minds. And yet we advance. How is that, if these terribly closeminded and almost religiously dedicated and dogmatically blinded iscientists remain? Especially since they are likely older and more distinguished?

Heck, Einstein REFUSED to believe in quantum mechanics and yet that's the prevailing theory (maybe subtheory, we're getting there) of physics of the very small. Who had the absolute GALL to contradict Einstein? Other scientists, and by the weight of their "observations" and testable hypothesis confirmed, within the limits of our current understanding, which any conscientious scientist will cop to, that quantum mechanics is a valid theory.

You are right. It's likely why most physicists make their contributions when fairly young and hungry. But scientists aren't about protecting golden gooses and dogma. And this is where your hypothesis that science is like religion fails. Science and scientists WANT to contradict previous findings, because those previous findings obviously don't yet explain the universe. It's about better explaining things. If something has yet to seriously be challenged for 150 years of modern science, I think it fair to say it's pretty solid.

rubaiyat
03-31-2009, 06:48 PM
A theory is a conceptual framework of facts that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. A hypothesis is a working assumption. If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory. That theory should then be tested over time to ensure it holds true in all circumstances. My issue is too often people and scientists ignore or twist facts so their theory rings true. Evolution is not a fact its a theory based on some observable facts that was put forward in a very short timeframe relative to the age of this planet. I have no issue with all opinions or thoughts on the subject being brought forward in a classroom but to teach it and only it as the undying truth in all books leads to people like you who call others stupid for having differing opinions.

If there were a valid at least comparably testable and tested theory to teach in science class I'd be right there with you.

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 07:33 PM
No the founding fathers did not put "in God we trust" on anything.
That was added in the 50s
Our country was not founded on Christian principles, the 1st amendment and Treaty of Tripoli confirm this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

God hasnt "blessed" anything
We have the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest murder rate, and some of the lowest test scores in the industrialized world.

You all are some real haters aren't you? Are you debating the fact this country was founded with men of GOD who had an extreme love for the creator and were escaping persecution for worshiping how they felt. All our founding documents referenced GOD and thus why we have been the greatest nation on the history of this planet IMO. No one has realized a civilization or a lifestyle like ours ever. We have been blessed because the founding fathers weren't scared to worship their creator. You are fitting modern day dilemas of situations where men fell away from GOD and did their own thing...when this nation was founded our forefathers had it right. My point on the In God We Trust logo was try getting that on a coin today...I bet Obama and the left find a way to take it off eventually, everyone will be proud and this country will sink deeper into wherever it is we are going.

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 08:01 PM
You all are some real haters aren't you? Are you debating the fact this country was founded with men of GOD who had an extreme love for the creator and were escaping persecution for worshiping how they felt. All our founding documents referenced GOD and thus why we have been the greatest nation on the history of this planet IMO. No one has realized a civilization or a lifestyle like ours ever. We have been blessed because the founding fathers weren't scared to worship their creator. You are fitting modern day dilemas of situations where men fell away from GOD and did their own thing...when this nation was founded our forefathers had it right. My point on the In God We Trust logo was try getting that on a coin today...I bet Obama and the left find a way to take it off eventually, everyone will be proud and this country will sink deeper into wherever it is we are going.

You are pretty ignorant about our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the constiution, was not in any sense "a man of god." He loathed Christianity as many quotes will attest. Our founding documents were influenced by principles of the Enlightenment, NOT Christianity.

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 08:11 PM
You are pretty ignorant about our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the constiution, was not in any sense "a man of god." He loathed Christianity as many quotes will attest. Our founding documents were influenced by principles of the Enlightenment, NOT Christianity.

Hhmm don't recall even mentioning Thomas Jefferson...

Br0nc0Buster
03-31-2009, 08:19 PM
Hhmm don't recall even mentioning Thomas Jefferson...

Ok how bout Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, or John Adams?

Im sorry but you are both ignorant and delusional, a dangerous combination

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 08:26 PM
Ok how bout Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, or John Adams?

Im sorry but you are both ignorant and delusional, a dangerous combination


President George Washington wrote a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ" and ended it with this: "Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word. Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Bless O Lord all the people of this land."

President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

President James Madison: "Religion is the basis and foundation of government. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

President Andrew Jackson: "I nightly offer up my prayers to the throne of grace for the health and safety of you all, and that we ought all to rely with confidence on the promise of our dear Redeemer, and give Him our hearts. This is all He requires and all that we can do, and if we sincerely do this, we are sure of salvation through His atonement."

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, property, and freedom of worship here."

President Abraham Lincoln: "The ways of God are mysterious and profound beyond all comprehension. ‘Who by searching can find Him out?’ God only knows the issue of this business. He has destroyed nations from the map of history for their sins. Nevertheless, my hopes prevail generally above my fears for our Republic. The times are dark, the spirits of ruin are abroad in all their power, and the mercy of God alone can save us."

President Grover Cleveland: "All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purist patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship."

President Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scriptures."

President Dwight Eisenhower: "Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Begin is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus With God’s help, it will continue to be."

Br0nc0Buster
03-31-2009, 08:42 PM
President George Washington wrote a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ" and ended it with this: "Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word. Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Bless O Lord all the people of this land."

President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

President James Madison: "Religion is the basis and foundation of government. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

President Andrew Jackson: "I nightly offer up my prayers to the throne of grace for the health and safety of you all, and that we ought all to rely with confidence on the promise of our dear Redeemer, and give Him our hearts. This is all He requires and all that we can do, and if we sincerely do this, we are sure of salvation through His atonement."

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, property, and freedom of worship here."

President Abraham Lincoln: "The ways of God are mysterious and profound beyond all comprehension. ‘Who by searching can find Him out?’ God only knows the issue of this business. He has destroyed nations from the map of history for their sins. Nevertheless, my hopes prevail generally above my fears for our Republic. The times are dark, the spirits of ruin are abroad in all their power, and the mercy of God alone can save us."

President Grover Cleveland: "All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purist patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship."

President Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scriptures."

President Dwight Eisenhower: "Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Begin is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus With God’s help, it will continue to be."

Im sure just like today they many felt the need to pay lip service to appease the mob.
Lincoln, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and I think Madison all had some serious criticisms of Christianity.
We were not founded on Christian principles, anyone who says we were is wrong.

Im not sure what this proves other than some of our former presidents had no idea what they were talking about.

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 08:45 PM
President George Washington wrote a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ" and ended it with this: "Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word. Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Bless O Lord all the people of this land."

President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

President James Madison: "Religion is the basis and foundation of government. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

President Andrew Jackson: "I nightly offer up my prayers to the throne of grace for the health and safety of you all, and that we ought all to rely with confidence on the promise of our dear Redeemer, and give Him our hearts. This is all He requires and all that we can do, and if we sincerely do this, we are sure of salvation through His atonement."

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, property, and freedom of worship here."

President Abraham Lincoln: "The ways of God are mysterious and profound beyond all comprehension. ‘Who by searching can find Him out?’ God only knows the issue of this business. He has destroyed nations from the map of history for their sins. Nevertheless, my hopes prevail generally above my fears for our Republic. The times are dark, the spirits of ruin are abroad in all their power, and the mercy of God alone can save us."

President Grover Cleveland: "All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purist patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship."

President Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scriptures."

President Dwight Eisenhower: "Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Begin is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus With God’s help, it will continue to be."

OK now to be fair imagine Barrack Obama saying anything close to what one of our founders said....never, ever happen and if it somehow did come to pass CNN, CBS, NBC, all the papers around the world, Bill Maher and every other clueless left wing nut wouldn't report on it cause it wouldn't fit their agenda. Jefferson and others may have hated aspects of the church or religion at times but they all new this country was about our relationship to GOD. The real ignorance is formed when we don't teach our kids and people the true history of who we are.

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 08:50 PM
President George Washington wrote a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ" and ended it with this: "Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word. Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Bless O Lord all the people of this land."

President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

President James Madison: "Religion is the basis and foundation of government. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

President Andrew Jackson: "I nightly offer up my prayers to the throne of grace for the health and safety of you all, and that we ought all to rely with confidence on the promise of our dear Redeemer, and give Him our hearts. This is all He requires and all that we can do, and if we sincerely do this, we are sure of salvation through His atonement."

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, property, and freedom of worship here."

President Abraham Lincoln: "The ways of God are mysterious and profound beyond all comprehension. ‘Who by searching can find Him out?’ God only knows the issue of this business. He has destroyed nations from the map of history for their sins. Nevertheless, my hopes prevail generally above my fears for our Republic. The times are dark, the spirits of ruin are abroad in all their power, and the mercy of God alone can save us."

President Grover Cleveland: "All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purist patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship."

President Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scriptures."

President Dwight Eisenhower: "Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Begin is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus With God’s help, it will continue to be."

Please. Most of those guys were paying lip service to their constituency in public speeches. George Washington was a Freemason, not a Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a deist (here's one of his quotes: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782). Were there Christians among the founding fathers? Sure. But our primary documents were not constructed on the Christian faith, but rather based on Enlightenment thinking. Read up on Jefferson, who wrote the damn constitution, to learn more on this (separation of church and state, etc).

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 08:53 PM
Im sure just like today they many felt the need to pay lip service to appease the mob.
Lincoln, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and I think Madison all had some serious criticisms of Christianity.
We were not founded on Christian principles, anyone who says we were is wrong.

Im not sure what this proves other than some of our former presidents had no idea what they were talking about.

It proves to me that no matter what facts hit you in the face you'll have your world view, and thats OK, I have mine as well but I do find it irritating how quickly some of you who don't want to hear anything other than your world view are so fast to throw out derragatory statements about men who worship GOD and love this country. I guess in your mind I'll always be ignorant and delusional, thats OK it appears by that list I'm in good company. None of those statements I listed were lip service, thats turly how they felt.

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 08:56 PM
Jefferson and others may have hated aspects of the church or religion at times but they all new this country was about our relationship to GOD.

Jefferson thought nothing of kind. You are just talking out of your ass here.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

And so on...

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 08:57 PM
Please. Most of those guys were paying lip service to their constituency in public speeches. George Washington was a Freemason, not a Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a deist (here's one of his quotes: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782). Were there Christians among the founding fathers? Sure. But our primary documents were not constructed on the Christian faith, but rather based on Enlightenment thinking. Read up on Jefferson, who wrote the damn constitution, to learn more on this (separation of church and state, etc).

As I eluded to earlier most of the Christians of the time were the ones pushing for separation of church and state. When Madison ran for Congress in the first elections, against the charismatic war hero James Monroe, it was the Baptists who rallied to him because of his support for the separation of church and state. It was the evangelicals who prodded Madison into proposing a Bill of Rights that guaranteed religious freedom and limited the government role in religion.

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 08:58 PM
None of those statements I listed were lip service, thats turly how they felt.

In some cases, maybe. In the cases of Washington and Jefferson, absolutely not.

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 09:02 PM
As I eluded to earlier most of the Christians of the time were the ones pushing for separation of church and state. When Madison ran for Congress in the first elections, against the charismatic war hero James Monroe, it was the Baptists who rallied to him because of his support for the separation of church and state. It was the evangelicals who prodded Madison into proposing a Bill of Rights that guaranteed religious freedom and limited the government role in religion.

You are sort of proving my point. Our founding fathers were a mixture of Christians, Freemason and Deists. They largely had a consensus, based upon Enlightenment principles, that state gov't and religion ought to be separated, with religion having no say in matters of the state and the state not dictating to any individual what they must believe with regards to religion.

Br0nc0Buster
03-31-2009, 09:06 PM
It proves to me that no matter what facts hit you in the face you'll have your world view, and thats OK, I have mine as well but I do find it irritating how quickly some of you who don't want to hear anything other than your world view are so fast to throw out derragatory statements about men who worship GOD and love this country. I guess in your mind I'll always be ignorant and delusional, thats OK it appears by that list I'm in good company. None of those statements I listed were lip service, thats turly how they felt.

If this isnt an oxymoron, I dont know what is
I mean a Christian talking about "facts".....cmon

How the hell do you know if "that is how they felt", you cant read their minds
Hitler would say complimentary things for Christianity at times, then argue against it in other times.
Coming out and saying you dont believe in God, especially back then, was political suicide, and still is.
I could pull quotes from the founding fathers I listed that rail against Christianity. A lot of them being in letters written to one another.
Where they are able to express how they feel without fear of judgement.

You have already proven you have no problem arguing topics you dont understand(evolution), I strongly encourage you to read the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli and then get back to me if you still think our country was founded or influenced by Christianity

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 09:08 PM
Jefferson thought nothing of kind. You are just talking out of your ass here.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

And so on...

I am in no way saying America was founded to be a church or to be ruled by the clergy of Catholisism that was pervading Europe. Of course all our founders would be against the church ruling the state and I would too, thats not what I'm arguing dude. My argument is that all our founding fathers loved GOD and feared him. Picking out statements Jefferson made against the Pope and formal religion is totally different than people being free men and being allowed to worship their GOD. I'm done man, you have your views and I have mine..just do me favor and reread what some of our fathers said in the examples I provided these aren't guys that would fit in today in any way shape or form with most of our society...I imagine they would be sad if they saw where we are headed.

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 09:19 PM
I am in no way saying America was founded to be a church or to be ruled by the clergy of Catholisism that was pervading Europe. Of course all our founders would be against the church ruling the state and I would too, thats not what I'm arguing dude. My argument is that all our founding fathers loved GOD and feared him. Picking out statements Jefferson made against the Pope and formal religion is totally different than people being free men and being allowed to worship their GOD. I'm done man, you have your views and I have mine..just do me favor and reread what some of our fathers said in the examples I provided these aren't guys that would fit in today in any way shape or form with most of our society...I imagine they would be sad if they saw where we are headed.

I don't know what to tell you, man. It is a fact of history that Jefferson did not "love God" as you put it. He was deist. Deists believe in an ambivalent "clock-maker" god. And I am basing this off of Jefferson's own private writings. Same with Washington who is well known to have been a Freemason. Several other founding fathers fall into the same category. You can try and paint them all as "god lovers" if you want (some were, but not all), but their own private writings show otherwise.

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 09:20 PM
If this isnt an oxymoron, I dont know what is
I mean a Christian talking about "facts".....cmon

How the hell do you know if "that is how they felt", you cant read their minds
Hitler would say complimentary things for Christianity at times, then argue against it in other times.
Coming out and saying you dont believe in God, especially back then, was political suicide, and still is.
I could pull quotes from the founding fathers I listed that rail against Christianity. A lot of them being in letters written to one another.
Where they are able to express how they feel without fear of judgement.

You have already proven you have no problem arguing topics you dont understand(evolution), I strongly encourage you to read the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli and then get back to me if you still think our country was founded or influenced by Christianity

"By their actions you will know them" , anyone can give lip service. I doubt too many would argue that Hitler fooled people as a Christian. If you want to make that case go ahead, it will be as strong as some of your other arguments after I gave you direct quotes from the men you called me ignorant for thinking they had any relationship to God or Christianity.

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 09:28 PM
I don't know what to tell you, man. It is a fact of history that Jefferson did not "love God" as you put it. He was deist. Deists believe in an ambivalent "clock-maker" god. And I am basing this off of Jefferson's own private writings. Same with Washington who is well known to have been a Freemason. Several other founding fathers fall into the same category. You can try and paint them all as "god lovers" if you want (some were, but not all), but their own private writings show otherwise.

FreeMasonry isn't a religion and you are just so wrong about our founding fathers....

It has been the conventional wisdom in contemporary academia – dominated by now-aging 1960s Marxists and radicals who fled to the universities when their dreams of being the "vanguard of the revolution" turned out to be (literally) pipe dreams that went up in smoke (also literally) – that Washington, as claimed by historian Paul F. Boller in the leading tome, "Washington & Religion," was not a Christian but was, rather, merely a deist who mouthed Christianity for political purposes.

This has been the cant of liberals in academia, notwithstanding the many, many statements of Washington himself to the contrary, as well as his conduct as an Anglican vestryman in his church, his writing of a personal prayer book, his collection of sermons, his conduct of biblical studies with his family, his appointment of chaplains in the revolutionary army, his commands that his soldiers attend worship, his putting his hand on the Bible when taking the oath as president, his declarations of days of "Thanksgiving" as president, his crediting "Providence" for his own survival in war and for the success of the American republic, and, among other things, the fact that he was believed , by his contemporaries, to be a Christian and a man of profound religious conviction.

Perhaps the most moving image in the American iconography is George Washington kneeling in the bloodstained snow of Valley Forge, praying. He was to say to the soldiers, who were farmers, workers, ordinary Americans fighting, suffering and dying for freedom in the revolution – when never more than one-third of Americans supported the revolutionary war: "The fate of unborn millions now depends, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die."

BroncoInferno
03-31-2009, 09:33 PM
FreeMasonry isn't a religion and you are just so wrong about our founding fathers....

It has been the conventional wisdom in contemporary academia – dominated by now-aging 1960s Marxists and radicals who fled to the universities when their dreams of being the "vanguard of the revolution" turned out to be (literally) pipe dreams that went up in smoke (also literally) – that Washington, as claimed by historian Paul F. Boller in the leading tome, "Washington & Religion," was not a Christian but was, rather, merely a deist who mouthed Christianity for political purposes.

This has been the cant of liberals in academia, notwithstanding the many, many statements of Washington himself to the contrary, as well as his conduct as an Anglican vestryman in his church, his writing of a personal prayer book, his collection of sermons, his conduct of biblical studies with his family, his appointment of chaplains in the revolutionary army, his commands that his soldiers attend worship, his putting his hand on the Bible when taking the oath as president, his declarations of days of "Thanksgiving" as president, his crediting "Providence" for his own survival in war and for the success of the American republic, and, among other things, the fact that he was believed , by his contemporaries, to be a Christian and a man of profound religious conviction.

Perhaps the most moving image in the American iconography is George Washington kneeling in the bloodstained snow of Valley Forge, praying. He was to say to the soldiers, who were farmers, workers, ordinary Americans fighting, suffering and dying for freedom in the revolution – when never more than one-third of Americans supported the revolutionary war: "The fate of unborn millions now depends, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die."

Dude, I am basing this on THEIR OWN FREAKING WRITINGS!!! They say flat out what they believe in their private papers, and it doesn't say what you wish it did. I just quoted some for you. You are just impervious to facts, I guess.

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 09:44 PM
Dude, I am basing this on THEIR OWN FREAKING WRITINGS!!! They say flat out what they believe in their private papers, and it doesn't say what you wish it did. I just quoted some for you. You are just impervious to facts, I guess.

When Obama became president I had to find sanity and most of it came by studying our founders and reading what they had to say. I have no idea what writings you speak of as I could paste pages and pages of quotes nothing even close to what you'll ever hear uttered today. Sorry you have such a negative view of the special guys who founded such a great country. I realize none of the far left college proffessors of this age would ever find enough wisdom to speak of how our forefathers really thought.

if you get bored...

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Hotwheelz
03-31-2009, 10:19 PM
You all are some real haters aren't you? Are you debating the fact this country was founded with men of GOD who had an extreme love for the creator and were escaping persecution for worshiping how they felt. All our founding documents referenced GOD and thus why we have been the greatest nation on the history of this planet IMO. No one has realized a civilization or a lifestyle like ours ever. We have been blessed because the founding fathers weren't scared to worship their creator. You are fitting modern day dilemas of situations where men fell away from GOD and did their own thing...when this nation was founded our forefathers had it right. My point on the In God We Trust logo was try getting that on a coin today...I bet Obama and the left find a way to take it off eventually, everyone will be proud and this country will sink deeper into wherever it is we are going.

So secular societies should be worse off, right?

Broncojef
03-31-2009, 10:32 PM
So secular societies should be worse off, right?

I think theres a balance. Inferno tried to rationalize we aren't blessed as a nation period just look at all the bad things in the world happening in our great country. I tend to think we have brought the current pain and that which is to follow on ourselves by our own actions. You reap what you sow.

Hotwheelz
03-31-2009, 11:45 PM
I think theres a balance. Inferno tried to rationalize we aren't blessed as a nation period just look at all the bad things in the world happening in our great country. I tend to think we have brought the current pain and that which is to follow on ourselves by our own actions. You reap what you sow.

Adrian White, from the University of Leicester’s School of Psychology, analysed previously published data to create a global projection of subjective well-being: the first world map of happiness.

The research is based on the findings of over 100 different studies around the world, which questioned 80,000 people worldwide.

The top 10 "happiest" countries:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada

Denmark ended up at the top to "its wealth, natural beauty, small size, quality education, and good health care". At the bottom were the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Burundi.

The U.S. ended up on the 23rd place, the UK on 41, China is 82, Japan 90, and India an unhappy 125.


http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org/2009/01/worlds-most-happiest-countries-and.html


A one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries by Jane's Information Services resulted in a list of the most (and least) stable and prosperous countries. Times Online published an article which got commented upon quite a bit. Some said it took a ride with Jane's the original report.

Here is a summary of the Times Online article:

The scoring is based on the sort of threats existing in the country, the economic pressures, each nation’s political structures, social and economic trends, military and security risks and external relations. (Full)

Here is the Top 10 (in order): Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, UK, Netherlands, Ireland.

Rank 11-20: New Zealand, Denmark, Austria, Andorra, Germany, Iceland, Switzerland, Portugal, Australia, Norway.

Rank 21-30: Malta, France, Canada, USA, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Japan, Finland, Czech Rep.

Rank 31-40: Samoa, Falkland Islands, Singapore, Guam, Slovakia, Anguilla, Cyprus, Qatar, Montserrat, Costa Rica.

Rank 41-50: Greece, St Pierre and Miquelon, UAE, Cayman Islands, American Samoa, Virgin Islands (UK), Poland, St Lucia, Oman, Northern Mariana Islands.

At the bottom we find as the most unstable (score between brackets): Iraq (44), Central African Republic (39), Democratic Republic of Congo (38), Chad (38), Zimbabwe (38), Haiti (38), Ivory Coast (36), Afghanistan (36), Sudan (35), Somalia (29) and Palestinian Territories (27).

http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org/2008/03/news-top-50-most-stable-and-prosperous.html

Below is a list of the top fifty countries containing the largest measured percentage of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in God. These figures do not necessarily represent the number of people who are identify themselves as "atheists." For example, in Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists.

Country Total country
population (2004) % Atheist/
Agnostic/
Nonbeliever in God Number of Atheists/
Agnostics
Nonbelievers in God
(minimum - maximum)
Sweden 8,986,000 46 - 85% 4,133,560 - 7,638,100
Vietnam 82,690,000 81% 66,978,900
Denmark 5,413,000 43 - 80% 2,327,590 - 4,330,400
Norway 4,575,000 31 - 72% 1,418,250 - 3,294,000
Japan 127,333,000 64 - 65% 81,493,120 - 82,766,450
Czech Republic 10,246,100 54 - 61% 5,328,940 - 6,250,121
Finland 5,215,000 28 - 60% 1,460,200 - 3,129,000
France 60,424,000 43 - 54% 25,982,320 - 32,628,960
South Korea 48,598,000 30 - 52% 14,579,400 - 25,270,960
Estonia 1,342,000 49% 657,580
Germany 82,425,000 41 - 49% 33,794,250 - 40,388,250
Russia 143,782,000 24 - 48% 34,507,680 - 69,015,360
Hungary 10,032,000 32 - 46% 3,210,240 - 4,614,720
Netherlands 16,318,000 39 - 44% 6,364,020 - 7,179,920
Britain 60,271,000 31 - 44% 18,684,010 - 26,519,240
Belgium 10,348,000 42 - 43% 4,346,160 - 4,449,640
Bulgaria 7,518,000 34 - 40% 2,556,120 - 3,007,200
Slovenia 2,011,000 35 - 38% 703,850 - 764,180
Israel 6,199,000 15 - 37% 929,850 - 2,293,630
Canada 32,508,000 19 - 30% 6,176,520 - 9,752,400
Latvia 2,306,000 20 - 29% 461,200 - 668,740
Slovakia 5,424,000 10 - 28% 542,400 - 1,518,720
Switzerland 7,451,000 17 - 27% 1,266,670 - 2,011,770
Austria 8,175,000 18 - 26% 1,471,500 - 2,125,500
Australia 19,913,000 24 - 25% 4,779,120 - 4,978,250
Taiwan 22,750,000 24% 5,460,000
Spain 40,281,000 15 - 24% 6,042,150 - 9,667,440
Iceland 294,000 16 - 23% 47,040 - 67,620
New Zealand 3,994,000 20 - 22% 798,800 - 878,680
Ukraine 47,732,000 20% 9,546,400
Belarus 10,311,000 17% 1,752,870
Greece 10,648,000 16% 1,703,680
North Korea 22,698,000 15%* 3,404,700
Italy 58,057,000 6 - 15% 3,483,420 - 8,708,550
Armenia 2,991,000 14% 418,740
China 1,298,848,000 8 - 14%* 103,907,840 - 181,838,720
Lithuania 3,608,000 13% 469,040
Singapore 4,354,000 13% 566,020
Uruguay 3,399,000 12% 407,880
Kazakhstan 15,144,000 11 - 12% 1,665,840 - 1,817,280
Mongolia 2,751,000 9% 247,590
Portugal 10,524,000 4 - 9% 420,960 - 947,160
USA 293,028,000 3 - 9% 8,790,840 - 26,822,520
Albania 3,545,000 8% 283,600
Argentina 39,145,000 4 - 8% 1,565,800 - 3,131,600
Kyrgyzstan 5,081,000 7% 355,670
Dominican Republic 8,834,000 7% 618,380
Cuba 11,309,000 7%* 791,630
Croatia 4,497,000 7% 314,790



http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

No1BroncoFan
04-01-2009, 07:35 PM
Conversations like this are why I believe "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris should be required reading at least at the college level, but preferably in middle school.

Evolution answers hundreds of thousand of questions. Intelligent design answers none. It simply poses them and shouts "GODIDIT!" They're just afraid to put the name "God" to it. Intelligent design is a sham, not a viable alternative to evolution.

Any argument you can make for the supernatural can be debunked. The same can NOT be said for most of the major scientific discoveries. That's why faith (belief without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence) is needed in the religious community but not in the scientific community.

Seriously, read the book. After all, they're only words. What's it gonna hurt? If you don't want "some damned atheist" (Sam Harris is most certainly an atheist) to get any of your money, most libraries will have a copy. It'll probably have a long hold list though (unless you live in the bible belt where they do book-bannings and sometimes, book-burnings).

Ben

Hulamau
04-01-2009, 11:55 PM
When Obama became president I had to find sanity and most of it came by studying our founders and reading what they had to say. I have no idea what writings you speak of as I could paste pages and pages of quotes nothing even close to what you'll ever hear uttered today. Sorry you have such a negative view of the special guys who founded such a great country. I realize none of the far left college proffessors of this age would ever find enough wisdom to speak of how our forefathers really thought.

if you get bored...

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

How ironic and how revealing!
Your highly selective and filtered list of quotes from the 'founding fathers' is conveniently sourced from a born again fundamentalist web site!!! Do you see why your take in this debate lacks depth into what men like Jefferson and Washington really felt?

BJ, you seem like a very decent and well meaning guy, but you really have to expose yourself to genuine and honest inquiry and be open to the very real possibility that you are flat out wrong or you will only continue deluding yourself.

Learn to read your critics and opposing views with as open a mind as possible and not rely only on such obviously biased and self confirming filters as that web site for your source of information about what is reality!

Just a suggestion in any event, Its kind of like a Die-hard Raiders fan depending solely on 'Raiders Rock' and his message board to get a clear and unbiased view of what the Broncos are really all about ! :pimp: