|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in Schools | ||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7905 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
anymore religious strife is definetly not necessary. however most of the amendments past the bill of rights are pure bull plop. thats just my opinion but you should read a few of em, they're just tryin to take more and more rights away from citizens and trying to gain more money and power themselves.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I think we do but we don`t make such a deal out of it... (I think you have to have one to be a country).....
|
||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7905 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: you guys dont have guns either, i think your government is about to make you all into slaves. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TC: Stop with the "model" business already. The only creationists on this board who've presented anything even remotely resembling a scientific model of creationism are wmscott (who was only dealing with the Flood), and Cobra_snake. Your random utterings don't even come close. Maybe you could take a look at what Cobra produced and enunciate yours in the same fashion, or look at the way wmscott presented his arguments and try the same. Otherwise, you have nothing to quibble about wrt "models" - at least nothing coherent." --Why? Is my model too good for this? There is a model for everything, as it explains that science and religion and faith are different concepts, but one in the same in creationism, I am not 'quibbling' over my own ignorance on the subject, but logic and a realization that theres a difference from why the earth works the way it works and why it started working the way it works. I have seen no attempts at seeing fallacy in this model as of yet. Almost seeming as the way some people go overboard with Kent Hovind, which would be easilly seen in the way people respond when the see the name. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"How can you explain the many different strains of bacteria, evolving from previous strains. Something that CAN be observed."
--Speciation as in contrast with Bacterial life-spans in variation. "Furthermore, why doesn't the bible make any mention of bacteria or even reference to microorganisms? You must know how important bacteria is in everyday life. We could not live without it, yet there is no mention of this in the Bible."--What would people think of it if they were to read in a book anything resembling bacteria? A couple hundred years ago people saw mold growth as proof that nothing can become somthing, and abiogenesis, untill someone came along and shown its fallacy. In the bible there is, however, an inquiry on the subject of sanitation, which is greatly contrasting with the effects of disease by micro-organisms. quote: ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Fair enough. But wouldn't it have to be such, in order to make the claim of 'Creation Science'."
--Creation science is different, not in contrast with scripture. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
TC- I would like to remind that you have admitted or even endorsed evolution when you said that fish could have evolved to tolerate fresh or salt water.
From here on out, I think you now have to argue that evolution is possible, but didn't happen because the Bible doesn't say so, or something like that. I's also like to remind you that you distinctly told me that you do not take the bible literally (all of it literally). So may I ask you who determines what should be taken literally and what not. Things with evidence? Maybe you recall that in the Bible it says the doors in the sky opened and the rain came through. Should this be taken literally?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"TC- I would like to remind that you have admitted or even endorsed evolution when you said that fish could have evolved to tolerate fresh or salt water."
--And as I have stated numerous times, you are aware of speciation are you not, or even macro vs. micro evolution, or the process by which specialization and variation are a product? --If this is 'E'volution, toleration of various salinities in water, then most species of salmon Evolve every season! "From here on out, I think you now have to argue that evolution is possible, but didn't happen because the Bible doesn't say so, or something like that."--See above. "I's also like to remind you that you distinctly told me that you do not take the bible literally (all of it literally). So may I ask you who determines what should be taken literally and what not."--What I mean by this is that the bible is not meant to be taken as direct literalism, ie, as if a robot decifering meanings of words were to to the reading, and opinionate meaning by sentance. An example would be something along the lines of 'have a heart' or 'love comes from the heart', we know in this reference by using common knowledge and logic, that it does not infer the bodily organ, but is a bit analogetic. "Maybe you recall that in the Bible it says the doors in the sky opened and the rain came through. Should this be taken literally?"--As I explained above, it should not be taken literally in the context of a door, as if it were the doorway to a building complex, and that these 'doors' were literally opened. But what you will find interesting is that in the literal 'translation' you find this: Genesis 7:11 - 'and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened'--As we know the clouds act as if it were a 'net-work' and that it would be analogetic to say that they 'open' for the relativally ill-knowledgable mind to understand. Clouds when they get dense they drop their rain. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: You can have shotguns (not pump action though) and rifles (for stag in the highlands I think). Up untill the mid 90`s (95 or 96) it was possible to own handguns (legaly) in Britain, Then a psycho walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and shot several small children to death.... Our government decided to ban handguns completely, they are now illegal, there were few objections (from sports shooters not the general public) this is because we place a higher value on the lives of small children than the ability to revolt against HM`s government... By the way who are you lot trying to fool anyway, back in the 18th century everyone having guns did provide a check on government now it all depends on the military`s loyalty, your average 9mm handgun doesn`t have much effect against a tank or a helicopter gunship...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
This thread is featured under Picture of the Week on the site's Home Page, check it out.
--Percy, EvC Forum Administrator
|
||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There have been several mass conversions to Christianity partially because people had to convert or be killed. Christians have a long history of oppressing and purposefully destroying other religions. Considering that you admit to not knowing anything about science, the Theory of Evolution, or Biology, how can you say with confidence that evolution doesn't happen. Read my sig file: ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, it IS "pure bull plop" that: slavery is illegalwomen are allowed to vote black people are allowed to vote black people enjoy full citizenship 18 year olds are allowed to vote Senators are elected by direct popular vote a poll tax may not be levied the District of Columbia gets a presidential vote in the electoral college we have plans for what to do if the president/VP dies Let's see, other than that, we limited term length for presidents,changed the timing of presidential and congressional terms, we installed then repealed prohibition (they cancel each other out), and income taxes were authorized. Only the last one seems to be at all interpretable as having to do with government getting more power, and that's highly debatable. You were saying? Since you say that "most" of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were bull-plop, could you identify which of the above you were talking about? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2786 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
"evolution was never a part of whether or not creationism was to be taught in schools." You may wish to witness what has been called, "The Trial of the Century", a documentary film entitled, "The Monkey Trial", airing on PBS tonight.Alternatively you may want to rent and watch the movie, "Inherit the Wind", starring George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon. It's only history, but no one in this debate should be unaware of it. American Experience[/b], and the title of the episode is Monkey Trials. Many thanks to DoctrBill for calling this to our attention. --Percy ---------------------------db [This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6261 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
Originally posted by Peter:
I don't know about constitutions ... we don't have one in the UK. King George III said that he had never seen the British Constitution, but then he had never seen God, either,and he believed in both.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Was that before or after he went mad? But he was right to believe - Britain (as a Scot, I shudder to write that word) does not have a single constitutional document. The constitution is the net effect of a range of laws including the Act of Settlement, the 1689 Bill of Rights, etc. As we so often discuss standards of proof and evidence in this forum, the following quote from the 18th century Scottish Judge, Braxfield, may be entertaining: "Now, before this can be answered, two things must be attended to that require no proof: FIRST, that the British constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better." I can't find his quote on the second thing online, I seem to remember it was that anyone who proposed to change the perfect constitution was prima facie an enemy of the state.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024