Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
42 online now:
frako, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 287 of 331 (606885)
02-28-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Theodoric
10-26-2010 2:09 PM


Re: Amazing
Theodoric writes:

You have provided nothing to see. Repeatedly you have been asked to provide evidence of Christianity in the Constitution and to date you have not provided one scrap of evidence.

I have given ‘Evidence’; however, you seem to be torn between acknowledging it or rebutting it.

Even though people use it as such today; ‘Christianity’ is not just a catch phrase that is attached to a religious doctrine; or group of religious doctrines.

The evidence for Christianity being in the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is vested in the people who framed the Constitution; what they lived for, what they fought for; what they stood for, and who they were.

This is why I bring up the Declaration of Independence. A document is not ‘Christian’ because it mentions ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Heaven’, Etc. It is Christian if it is written by ‘Christians’, for ‘Christians’, to the edification of God All Mighty.

I have offered the ‘Decoration of Independence’ as evidence of Americas Christian roots; saying that it has no barring because “It is not a US government document. It is a document prior to the formation of the United States.” is like saying that the concrete foundation is not part of the house because it was poured before the building went up.

Once again, great to hear from you,
JRTjr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2010 2:09 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 8:02 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 289 by Omnivorous, posted 02-28-2011 8:10 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2011 9:07 PM JRTjr has responded
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 9:11 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 290 of 331 (606895)
02-28-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 2:32 PM


'Establishment' Forbidden??
Dear Dr Adequate,

I would love to address every point you made; however, our posts would only get longer and longer. So I will only address two of your points.

Sorry.

Dr Adequate writes:


JRTjr writes:

If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a “Bible sitting in a display case

No, you're not following this.

It's not "free exercise", so it's not protected. It is "establishment", so it's forbidden.

Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is “establishment” Forbidden?

Dr Adequate writes:


JRTjr writes:

Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell “the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”. Not only that, but the end of that oath was “So help me God.”

They still do. One can take the oath on the Bible, or on the Koran, or one can "affirm" --- it's a personal choice.

That's free exercise.

Where, in an American Court, has any book (other than the Bible) ever been used to affirm the Oath to tell the truth?

Great Fun,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 2:32 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2011 9:02 PM JRTjr has responded
 Message 293 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 9:08 PM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 294 of 331 (606902)
02-28-2011 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by New Cat's Eye
10-26-2010 2:44 PM


“Religion shall not be established”!?!?
Dear Catholic Scientist,

Great to hear from you.

I Hope you’re not going to be too disappointed, however, I will only be able to respond to one or two points in each post.

Sorry.

Catholic Scientist writes:

The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised.

Where is the law that “religion shall not be established”?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2010 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 296 of 331 (606905)
02-28-2011 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
10-27-2010 1:55 PM


Deistic god?
Dear Catholic Scientist,

Great hearing from you again.

Catholic Scientist writes:

…everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god.

Everybody knows Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to; that does not make it so. ;-}

Your “Deistic god” theory would hold water if most or all of the signers were modern day Deists; However, as I pointed out in post #231 at least 75% of the signers were Christians. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary I stand on the evidence that says it is the Christian God being spoken of.

Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-01-2011 10:10 AM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 298 of 331 (606907)
02-28-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
11-02-2010 8:09 PM


‘No Creation story/myth’ / ‘several Creation stories/myths?
Dear Jar,

Great to hear from you again.

Jar writes:

If you read carefully you will see that I do not "say two mutually exclusive things."
I say that there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths, the newer myth found in Genesis 1 and the much earlier primitive story found in Genesis 2&3. Two Creation myths. And they are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the other is false. Of course we know that neither one is factually correct, and both are refuted by the evidence of the universe itself.

Jar, please, listen to your self; first you say “there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact.

So, according to you, there is no “Christian Creation story”

Then you say “Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths (Stories)”

So which is it: ‘No Creation story/myth’ or ‘several Creation stories/myths’?

Lastly, can you give me an example where Geneses Chapter 1 directly contradicts Chapters 2 or 3?

Great fun sparring with you,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 8:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 10:35 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 314 by jar, posted 03-01-2011 9:33 AM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 300 of 331 (606909)
02-28-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by jar
11-02-2010 9:53 PM


comparative religion class?
Dear Jar,

In a “comparative religion class” it would be up to the teachers/school board with religions would be represented in there creation myths.

Since the original question did not mention a class of study I simply assume the question was aimed at science since that is where the controversy lays.

Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 9:53 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2011 11:30 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 301 of 331 (606913)
02-28-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Rrhain
11-03-2010 3:22 AM


Really?!?!?!?!
Dear Rrhain,

Great to hear from you.

I am sorry, however, I will only be able to respond to one or two of your comments.

Rrhain writes:

…you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild.

Really, so you can demonstrate this hu? Some one has actually seen a cow deliver a bat, or a cat bear a dog, or something like that? As far as I know, cats have always delivered cats; cows have always borne cows, etc, etc, etc.

Rrhain writes:

DNA is not an "information rich system."

Really, so, something like the equivalent of every letter, in every book, in the entire Library of Congress is not “information rich”?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2010 3:22 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2011 11:36 PM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 304 of 331 (606916)
02-28-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by jar
11-03-2010 10:32 AM


No Evidence provided????
Dear Jar,

Jar writes:

You have not provided any evidence to support any other hypothesis; there is no Creation model to teach.

Of course not, because any evidence I give is ignored, and then you claim it’s been refuted, even though you haven’t.

Classic Evolutionists tactic.

JRTjr

Edited by JRTjr, : Corrected quotation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by jar, posted 11-03-2010 10:32 AM jar has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 305 of 331 (606922)
03-01-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by bluescat48
11-07-2010 5:09 PM


Atheism a ‘religion’!?!?!?
Dear bluescat48,

For the sake of getting back to the topic at hand; I promise to refrain from calling Atheism a ‘religion’.

JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by bluescat48, posted 11-07-2010 5:09 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 306 of 331 (606923)
03-01-2011 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Coyote
02-28-2011 9:02 PM


Re: 'Establishment' Forbidden??
Dear Coyote,

I was unaware of this ruling.

So after 230 years of using the Bible exclusively they decided they should use other ‘religious’ texts.

Did you notice the last paragraph?

“Before that time, the law was called "Administration of oath upon the Gospels" and stated that someone to be sworn was to lay a hand on "the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God." Legislators took out "the Gospels" in the title and changed the language to simply read "Holy Scriptures" in 1985.”

Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2011 9:02 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 307 of 331 (606924)
03-01-2011 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by RAZD
02-28-2011 9:07 PM


Respecting/Prohibiting v favor/disfavor
Dear Razd,

Razd writes:

Simply stated the congress cannot pass any laws that favor or disfavor any of all the world's religions.

The words “respecting” and “prohibiting” do not mean “favor” or “disfavor”.

Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2011 9:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 8:43 AM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 308 of 331 (606925)
03-01-2011 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Theodoric
02-28-2011 9:08 PM


Re: 'Establishment' Forbidden????
Dear Theodoric,

Ya, I’ve quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart.

The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an ‘establishment’ of anything.

It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off.

So, I repeat my question –

“Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is “establishment” Forbidden?”

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 9:08 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2011 9:37 AM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 309 of 331 (606928)
03-01-2011 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by arachnophilia
02-28-2011 11:36 PM


Show Me!
Dear Arachnophilia,

Arachnophilia writes:

yes.

Well don’t leave us in suspense, demonstrate away.

Arachnophilia writes:

no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists.

You’re absolutely correct. In fact the point I bring out with this is that Dogs have always produced dogs, cat cats, and so on and so forth. The idea that man came from great apes, from lesser apes from some other life forms all the way back to sea creatures, and then to single celled life forms that somehow just popped on the seen is unproven.

Give me some evidence that your great, great, X x great ancestor was anything other that a human and I will consider it.

Or prove some direct link between fish and amphibians, or amphibians and land animals. Draw me a genealogy showing actual species from one major group to another.

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2011 11:36 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Huntard, posted 03-01-2011 4:09 AM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 318 of 331 (608771)
03-13-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Huntard
03-01-2011 4:09 AM


Re: Show Me!
Dear Huntard,

It’s great that you have decided to join our little discussion; I hope you enjoy it.

I am only going to respond to one or two of your points because our posts get longer and longer as each new point is made or rebutted.

Sorry!

Huntard writes:

Yes, exactly as evolution predicts. The offspring of something will never be radically different from its parents.

So, if I understand what you’re saying here {I have been accused of misrepresenting people} is that evolution predicts that once you have a fish it will always produce fish; never anything other than a fish? Correct?

Huntard writes:

No you won't, since this evidence has already been provided to you.

Actually, in fact, no one has given me any evidence that mankind has ever been less then mankind.

Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape?

Thank you for your interest,
JRTjr

P.S. Please, if I have over looked some piece of evidence that has been given to me e-mail me a copy of the post. You can do that through E v Cs own internal mail system.

Again, Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Huntard, posted 03-01-2011 4:09 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by DrJones*, posted 03-13-2011 3:36 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 324 by Huntard, posted 03-13-2011 5:39 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 326 by bluescat48, posted 03-13-2011 6:05 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 320 of 331 (608776)
03-13-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by RAZD
03-01-2011 8:43 AM


Re: reality vs fantasy
Dear Razd,

Razd writes:

Ergo the first phrase of the first Amendment to the constitution can be rendered as meaning:
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law in connection with an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law relating to an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law with reference to an establishment of religion, ...

Great; so why, IF Congress {The only branch of the Federal government charged will making law} may not make a law with reference to, relating to, referring to, in connection with, concerning, or regarding an establishment of religion is the Supreme court restricting the established Christian heritage of the United States of America?

Let’s not forget the second Half “… Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And, again I ask; “Where, in the Constitution of the United States of America is “establishment” Forbidden?”

What you just correctly quoted states implicitly that the Government is not allowed to restrict “an establishment of religion”.

There are no restrictions placed on an “establishment of religion” in the U.S. Constitution. This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion; There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government.

Thank you for your time and effort,
JRTjr

P.S. What you or I believe or like/dislike is irrelevant in this discussion. I.e. Whether or not I like something does not automatically make it true or faults. A statement is it true or faults based on the accuracy of its claims.

Whether you like it or not the Moon is not made of cheese. Telling me that ‘Just because I would like the Moon to not be made of cheese, do’ sent make it so. ’; and it does not make it ‘not so’ either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 8:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by arachnophilia, posted 03-13-2011 4:57 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 322 by jar, posted 03-13-2011 5:33 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 03-13-2011 7:05 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019