ICR Sues Texas

This is a common thread among you religious nutters, isn't it? Your idea of compromise or open mindendness is for everyone to see things YOUR way. I dealt with this personally, so I know first hand the ill-effects it has on personal relationships with people who do not share exactly the same beliefs.You should seek counseling. Maybe take a break from the internet and check out a library, or into a mental hospital.

---

archaeologist responds to Percy:

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's this great website called Google, I don't know if youve heard of it.

---

​

i avoid using it if possible

---

If you aren't going to do your homework, what makes you think you have anything useful to contribute?

quote:

---

but if someone is going to quote an article, it is up to them to post the link.

---

To a point. If you are going to engage in a conversation while displaying a profound lack of foundational information, it is your job to get yourself up to speed. We are not here to do your homework for you.

quote:

---

i am not going to do their work for them.

---

Nor are we to do your work for you. You need to start getting your nose out of web sites and into the library to read the actual journal articles. When was the last time you were in a science library reading journal articles? For that matter, when was the last time you were in a library, period?

quote:

---

quote:

---

fact that all of the evidence supports evolution while none of it supports creationism. You see, evolution is a conclusion based upon the evidence

---

​

no that is backwards and even many scientists have found this to be not true.

---

Incorrect. Methinks you may be referring to the supposed "list" that Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute claim to have regarding hundreds of "scientists" who "doubt evolution."There is, of course, a massive problem with the list: Many of the people on the list aren't biologists or even scientists. Too, the "dissent statement" that AiG asked people to sign was so vague that many of the people on the list, upon hearing that they were listed as "dissenters" demanded that they be removed from the list. The DI's statement was: Some people signed the statement on the idea that they while they were strong supporters of evolutionary theory, more work needed to be done since they were certain that "random mutation and natural selection" are not the sole actors in evolution. And indeed, you would be hard-pressed to find any evolutionary biologist who thought that those two things were the only things involved in evolution. There's neutral drift, founder effects, epigenetics, etc. This insistence upon only "random mutation and natural selection" is a caricature of evolutionary theory that no actual biologist adheres to.Thus, when they found out that they were being put forward as scientists who "dissent" from evolution, they were quite shocked and demanded to be deleted from the list. Of course, the DI took their sweet time in doing so. Given that some of the people on their list never signed it in the first place, we are not surprised to find their continued fraudulent actions in their attempt to prop up their false claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis."Then there's the flip side: In response to this "list," the National Center for Science Education decided, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, to compile a list of scientists named "Steve" (or variants such as Stefan, Stephanie, Esteban, etc.) that supported evolutionary theory.It turns out that there are many times more scientists simply named "Steve" that support evolution than there are all scientists who "dissent." Given that "Steve" represents only a fraction of all scientists, it is clear that this "theory in crisis" claim of yours simply isn't supported.There aren't that many scientists who deny the evidence. That's the entire point behind science: You go where the evidence takes you. Since all the evidence points toward evolution, that's where the scientists go.

quote:

---

read 'the slaughter of the dissidents' to get an idea of how many really do not accept this line of thinking or evolution.

---

That piece of fraud? Why would we accept a false description of events? For example, Richard Sternberg claims that he was fired from the Smithsonian but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, his wasn't fired from the NIH. Too, his position at the Smithsonian was extended. Far from the severity of his claim that his life was "nearly ruined" because of his paper, he didn't suffer any consequences at all.But Ben Stein and the rest of the Expelled crowd fell for his lies.So why should we expect this extension of the fraud to be of any use?

quote:

---

this is one thing that secularists need to understand about religion, they cannot go around lumping everyone into one category, to be part of the Bible one has to follow God's rules and instructions and if they deviate from and change them then they are not par tof God's kingdom nor christian.

---

Logical error: "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Once again, you seem to think that you have the lock on what it means to be "part of god's kingdom" or what it means to be a "Christian."Are you saying the Catholics don't believe in god or aren't Christian? Because the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have to explain the diversity of life.If you don't think so, what is your justification for saying that your interpretation is the only legitimate one? Remember, every other believer has just as much evidence as you. Why is your claim to be accepted over everybody else?

quote:

---

yes we still can investigate how solar systems work, how plants grow, , how earthquakes and thunder are produced and so on but we do not have to question origins.

---

Huh? You mean there are subjects that we aren't allowed to investigate? What sort of nonsense is that? No scientist would ever declare something off limits. Everything is subject to question and investigation. Anybody who says otherwise isn't actually interested in reality but wants to wallow in their fantasy.

quote:

---

i am in line with God's word and that is the only thing i have to be in line with.

---

Strange...I don't recall "god's word" saying anything about how life diversified. It simply states that it happened. If I told you that I put dinner on the table, would that mean that I cooked it or would it mean that somebody else did and I just served it?Once again, you need to consider the possibility that god does exist, but not in the way you think. That you do not get to tell god what he did or what he is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

actually i always got it from atheists and evolutionists, even on this forum. i think i explained this once before onhere but not sure. We believers do not have to do any more searching, we have found the truth thus we do not have to be 'open-minded', or 'consider alternatives' and so on, for we have already been where you are at and we have made a choice. Once that choice is made, we do not consider returning to the alternatives.there is no new evidence about origins, so that i snot even germane to the issue. the rest of your post is just worthless and will be ignored.

scientists, especially secular ones, need to learn that there are boundaries and morals they can't not violate. i have done my homework that is why i do not use google, there are better search engines out there that produce the exact same materials. nope. i only use AIG when i have to, usually i seek out other sources first. so? this doesn't mean a thing nor proves evolution true or that it actually exists. it jst means that these people decided to follow a different path than the Biblical one. links? i think you are confusing the facts but i saw that movie and thought it was great. one thing is the man they highlighted about the smithsonian or whoever that were upset by the publication, i knew about it long before Ben Stein and company turned it into part of a movie. i do not respond to these or logical fallacies as they are worthless and written by those who do not believe.

You seem to have overlooked Message 59.--Percy

even though i disagree with the lawsuit, there is one thing that is lost in the noise of batle between secular and christian. public schools, even universities, are for the public and christians make up a large proportion of that number.it is morally wrong for any government to ignore the educational needs of its public by slanting the education towards the secular ideology. it is not correct, it leads believers to sin and it does not serve the community.if the evolutionist or atheist want their special classes in their accepted topics, then they should fork over the money and build their own private schools, pay their own teachers and igh tuition.it is not right nor fair to force one segment of the public to bear high expenses while the atheist and evolutionist enjoy a free education.paid for in part by the educational tax dollars of the christian.since the believer pays their fare share of taxes, they have the right to demand a non-secular education from their public school officials and from the public school teachers. if they refuse then they need to be removed from their jobs for deriliction of duty.the public interest is not limited to the secular population. tus in one aspect, the texas school baord or university board and the judges have failed those they are to represent

The constitution says otherwise.Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong...again...

Sins are between an individual and that individuals God. Sins are nobody's business but the sinner.It is not morally wrong to provide a secular education. Not true and in fact in the US it is illegal. Our Constitution makes a public religious school illegal.While a Christian public school would certainly be illegal I believe I could make a case for a Taoist public school.Would that satisfy you?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Would you care to define secular for the rest of us, as it seems you have a far different idea of what the word means than the rest of the world?

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

And what classes are you referring to? Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History, Mathematics, Geography? Where are there any Atheistic classes? What's more is that even among theists, a large portion of this group accepts science including Evolution. All theists aren't fundies.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Everyone gets a free education --- or at least has it offered to them.If some people don't like being educated, they also have the option of being pig-ignorant at no direct financial cost to themselves. It didn't cost you one thin dime to be a creationist, did it? It's not like it's the result of expert tuition. Not knowing things comes extremely cheap. Indeed it is not --- the clergy also benefit from science.But perhaps you are misusing the word "secular". In which case I would add that you and your creationist pals benefit from science too, no matter how much you whine about it; and it is therefore in your interest that it be taught.The dissemination of ignorance, on the other hand, is not in the public interest. It would, on the whole, be a bad thing if students' information about (for example) electricity was limited to creationist teaching materials such as this: And when I say that it would be a bad thing, I mean that it would lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Would you be ok with a World Religions course where the tenets of the world's major religions are taught to students? Such a course would fit in just fine within the secular school curiculum. Most people think it is morally wrong for a government to take tax dollars and spend that money on religious indoctrination. Perhaps you should visit the Middle East to get a good dose of how a theocracy works. I think you would come running back to the good ol' secular US in about a week. What special classes? You mean all this time I could have skipped paying my state taxes? Damn it!! Why didn't you tell me this earlier? Actually, no they don't have that right. The US Constitution forbids it. Again, if you want to live in a country where this does occur I would suggest Saudi Arabia. Also, I think the UK is allowed to spend tax dollars on religious education if you are interested in living on the other side of the pond. But the government is limited to acting in a secular fashion. The government is not closing down churches or throwing people in jail for going to church. Everyone is free to practice their religion as they see fit. However, the government does not have this right.

Ah, yes, the UK. Home of the Church of England. oooops...they accept and endorse and teach Evolution and oppose Biblical Creationism.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

He might not like it. A poll in 2001 asked "Do you believe in God or a supreme being".The results:Yes: 38%
I don't know: 28%
No: 34%The same question in the U.S. gets 90% Yes.Two thirds of teenagers here do not believe in God, and 5% of the population are weekly churchgoers.The religious education national curriculum is a course on the world's religions (what you suggested above).Lots of religious schools are financed by the state, though, which would be impossible in the U.S., and is controversial here.Mostly, he'd find himself surrounded by apatheists who don't like preachy types.How many U.K creationists have you noticed on this board?So, you can keep him, thankyou very much. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

If I remember right, there is also a fair percentage who list their religion as "Jedi". I might have to move there myself. Is there any viable political movement to change this practice? Are any of the political parties campaigning on a platform that calls for the abolishment of government support for religious schools?