But, creation is based on religious belief.  Are you saying that the schools should be teaching religion as well as the basics (and we all know what a bang-up job they're doing on that)?  I say leave the religious teachings where they belong:  in a religious setting (i.e. church, family, etc.).


There are many theories within science that are not taught among our science programs within the United States.  Why make special acception for some and unconsiderable consideration for others?  I go to church when I feel like it, I go to school everyday cause the government makes me until I reach 16 years of age.  Perhaps Evolution should not be taught until the Eleventh Grade 2nd semester, most kids would be 16 years of age by then, having the option to not learn it by force.

You forgot to make sure there is security present to break up the fights that will occur ;)


I was once told that if I didn't like getting burned, I shouldn't play with the matches.

That is exactly what I was talking about. But, like I said before, this does not belong in science class but I think it should be taught.



Cat


You make a stand to keep Religion out of the science class then you put you're foot where your mouth is and make a stand to put mythology class in each and every single public school within the Red white and blue of this country.

You make a stand to keep Religion out of the science class then you put you're foot where your mouth is and make a stand to put mythology class in each and every single public school within the Red white and blue of this country.

Where is the contradiction here?  Religion *should* be kept out of science class, for the simple reason that it isn't science; having a mythology class as part of a syllabus is not exactly going against this.

You make a stand to keep Religion out of the science class then you put you're foot where your mouth is and make a stand to put mythology class in each and every single public school within the Red white and blue of this country.


So where is the contradiction?  Science in science classes and mythology, or comparative religion, or philosophy in those classes.  These are different ways of knowing, as I said above, and are equally valid.

The only scientific theories not taught in high schools, that I know of, are either those that have been rejected, like the ones that underpin eugenics etc, or those too advanced for high school students, like quantum mechanics. 

Are you people really that niave to the fact that not everyone goes to college? Not everyone can afford college. Not everyone has the smarts or the luck to get into college.

The fact of the matter is you all want religion wiped out, and you won't admit it.  Nothing much more to say than that.

I have a simple solution to this:

Simply have a 1 year course in High School about the various creation beliefs.  Present them all as equally valid, and let the students believe what they want.


I believe they call that a comparative religion course, or a mythology course... and they already do teach such courses in high school. I took both.

At first I was thinking that maybe my high school never had a mythology course because I went to a small high school.  Sorta like my high school didn't have a soccer team because no small high schools in my state have a soccer team with exception to the private ones.  Now I took a look at the Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Souix City schools. None of the public schools have a mythology class offered, although a few  of them did have a philosophy class which I do not know whether or whether not it taught the theory of creation.  When I did run across classes that involve mythology it was within private schools.  Now granted I didn't look at every single public high school because some of them don't have sites and some of them don't list curriculum requirements and electives. Out of the ones I did though, the information is valid.  None of the cities I mentioned, were small. 

The fact of the matter is you all want religion wiped out, and you won't admit it.  Nothing much more to say than that.


Would it break my heart to see religion "wiped out?" Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's something I particularly want, or something I base my political beliefs upon. What you're failing to  understand is that an education is paid for with public funds, which are collected from a diverse group of people (i.e. the American people). Its fuction is to prepare youth for college and or the work force. Either way, science is necessary, and religion is useless. You can learn religion anywhere (there's a church anywhere you look, and even these places called libraries which everyone does have access to, not to mention the internet). There is no reason to teach creationism in the schools except to satisfy the insecurities of a particular religious sect. There are already comparative religion and mythology courses in high schools, and they are entirely OPTIONAL electives, just as they should be.

You want your kid to have a religious education, be my guest; pay for one.

Creationism offers absolutely NO answers as to the origin of man in the first place. It basically says "well, we don't know how this happened, so it must have been god," and that attitude is entirely contrary to the goal of academic education (i.e. learning to think for yourself).

And that has to do with this discussion how? None of us are saying that.  All we are saying is that it does NOT belong in the PUBLIC school system.  If for no other reason than the fact that if you're going to teach one, you should teach them all, and that is just not possible.  Think of the future when you have kids.....would you rather teach them about your faith yourself (or let a church leader or someone you honor and respect) or have someone you hardly know teach them about what YOU believe?  For example, under the name of "Christianity", there are over a thousand denominations:  Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Mormon, Mennonites, Greek Orthodox, and that's just a very short list of the "major" ones.  Then, you have to teach Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, etc.  Would you want a Buddhist trying to teach your child about Christianity?  Or a Catholic?  How about an atheist?  Or, do you think someone who belongs to YOUR "church" would do a MUCH better job? Some schools do, ours doesn't.  I took my first classes on these subjects in college.  Then again, I went to a VERY small high school (67 people in my graduating class) where our subjects were horribly limited.


It is relevant to the discussion because a lot have brought up the solution of "well you can take mythology in college"  well yeah, you "can" but you don't "have too".   They think because some colleges around the United States offer mythology that, that is the answer to the solution, when it's not.  

I don't the option of teaching kids creationism and I don't the option of unteaching them evolution.  Not that I'd want to unteach them evolution.   I believe the only clear cut way to make correct decisions is to know all of your surroundings inside and out.  There are those among us who make correct decisions based on upon the fact that they are ignorant and niave to the other side of the issues. I don't consider these people to be strong decisive decision makers, I consider them to be closed minded.  However the people, me among who looks at the issue very closely on boths sides, not only weighs the pros and cons but puts him/herself in the situation mentally as far as possible, I consider to be strong decisive decision makers.  
Therefore, those who want to believe in Evolution, great as long as they're aware of the other option.  Those who want to believe in Creation, great, as long as they are aware of the other option.  By aware I don't mean biased people on one side saying, "This is the right answer, the wrong answer which a lot of idiots believe in is this".  

I don't know who would do the best job at teaching these things.  I do know however that atheism is moving right along and it is getting less and less "strong decisive decisions" and more and more "close mindedness."

Really?  For mythology, look at Des Moines' Central Academy.....yes, it's for gifted students, but it's still part of the public school system:  http://www.dmps.k12.ia.us/schools/3CentralCampus/caprogs/summread.htm

Notice it's listed under English....it was the 2nd result that came up when I googled "iowa public schools mythology class"


One of my friends at College went to Des Moines Central Academy and although it is part of the public school system they don't allow admitness of anyone and it's financial acceptance is more than the $85 I paid to get into high school per year.  Quite a bit more.

Now take a look at Lincoln, North, East, Southeast Polk, Dowling, and Ankeny.  See what you find there. One of them did have something along the lines of mythology, I think it was Dowling.

Would it break my heart to see religion "wiped out?" Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's something I particularly want, or something I base my political beliefs upon. What you're failing to  understand is that an education is paid for with public funds, which are collected from a diverse group of people (i.e. the American people). Its fuction is to prepare youth for college and or the work force. Either way, science is necessary, and religion is useless. You can learn religion anywhere (there's a church anywhere you look, and even these places called libraries which everyone does have access to, not to mention the internet). There is no reason to teach creationism in the schools except to satisfy the insecurities of a particular religious sect. There are already comparative religion and mythology courses in high schools, and they are entirely OPTIONAL electives, just as they should be.

You want your kid to have a religious education, be my guest; pay for one.

Creationism offers absolutely NO answers as to the origin of man in the first place. It basically says "well, we don't know how this happened, so it must have been god," and that attitude is entirely contrary to the goal of academic education (i.e. learning to think for yourself).



You're still not seeing my point.  Evolution is forced.  No way around it.  You have to  learn it, and without the other options being there, you're practically being forced only to accept it as the answer, but believe in it as the only answer.  You want me to honestly believe that Evolution will stay a theory?  No way, if the liberals get there way it won't be taught, "The theory of evolution" it will be taught, "The fact is Evolution".  I won't stand for that.  Won't vote for it either.

Why should I have to go out of my way to pay extra money, and you should not?  It's awful easy to say fair fight when you're team has machine guns and my team has brass knuckles.

Would it break my heart to see religion "wiped out?" Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's something I particularly want, or something I base my political beliefs upon. What you're failing to  understand is that an education is paid for with public funds, which are collected from a diverse group of people (i.e. the American people). Its fuction is to prepare youth for college and or the work force. Either way, science is necessary, and religion is useless. You can learn religion anywhere (there's a church anywhere you look, and even these places called libraries which everyone does have access to, not to mention the internet). There is no reason to teach creationism in the schools except to satisfy the insecurities of a particular religious sect. There are already comparative religion and mythology courses in high schools, and they are entirely OPTIONAL electives, just as they should be.

You want your kid to have a religious education, be my guest; pay for one.

Creationism offers absolutely NO answers as to the origin of man in the first place. It basically says "well, we don't know how this happened, so it must have been god," and that attitude is entirely contrary to the goal of academic education (i.e. learning to think for yourself).


I would hate to see religion wiped out.  I would love to see state exploitation of religion for coercive and divisive purposes wiped out!  That would give me a great woody!
:)

Mythology is included in many "general" English courses.  I took a class in high school that touched on it that was called "Literature and Composition". 


I took mythology in high school. There was a whole semester devoted to it, great stuff.  We read Greek and Roman Mythology, a bit of Norse.  Actually it was reading about the Greeks and Romans that a lot of what I found incongruous in Cristianity began to clear up.  I was reading about the lesser Gods and Goddesses, hmmm... I thought, isn't that kinda like our Saints in Christianity?  More questions, more practices equated, next thing you know I am a full blown heathen. 
The biggest value in education is making you think on your own, and the ability continue your education after the classroom.

I took mythology in high school. There was a whole semester devoted to it, great stuff.  We read Greek and Roman Mythology, a bit of Norse.  Actually it was reading about the Greeks and Romans that a lot of what I found incongruous in Cristianity began to clear up.  I was reading about the lesser Gods and Goddesses, hmmm... I thought, isn't that kinda like our Saints in Christianity?  More questions, more practices equated, next thing you know I am a full blown heathen. 
The biggest value in education is making you think on your own, and the ability continue your education after the classroom.



I agree. I am extremely interested in different religions and mythologies. I have TONS of books on the subject-but never enough.




Cat

Mythology is included in many "general" English courses.  I took a class in high school that touched on it that was called "Literature and Composition". 


Sounds like a good class, my school has science. We don't have Literature and Composition.

And, as I and McDonald have pointed out, mythology is also offered in some high schools in the country.  It's just like any other elective class, some schools offer it...some don't. HUH?  So, EVERY side of everything should be taught?  Looks like we're going to have to extend the number of years kids are in school.  There is NO WAY that EVERY side of EVERY argument can be taught.  If you're learning the history of a war, you have to learn it from EVERY side.  Let's be realistic here....if a kid makes it to the age where evolution is taught (my oldest is in 5th grade and they haven't even touched it) and is not aware of creation, then chances are they are not being brought up in a religious household and are highly unlikely to believe the creation theory.

I don't know who would do the best job at teaching these things.  I do know however that atheism is moving right along and it is getting less and less "strong decisive decisions" and more and more "close mindedness."
If you want your child to have a religious education, then you should send them to a religious school.  Creation is NOT "science" therefore it should not be REQUIRED to be included in a science course.  Creationism is as much a "theory" as evolution....what's next?  The "loaves and fishes" story in a cooking class?

The thing you seem to be overlooking is that basically the only thing this ruling changed was the REQUIREMENT to teach about "Intelligent Design".  Many teachers have mentioned creationism with the evolution discussion and will continue to do so.


Some isn't good enough, all is. 

I forgot the word "have". 

Yes every side of everything should be taught, especially when you look at the infulences of liberal and conservative ideas.  I myself am strongly conservative, but I'm well aware of the liberal standings on the issues.  I no more support a young person inline with conservative ideals based on infulence alone and ignorance to the liberal ideals than I do the many in this country who are inline with Liberal standings because they are unaware of what those among them biasly consider, "the wrong" ideas. 

If there is no way every side of every argument can be taught, then what you're telling me is that what you believe to the right answer should be shown as the factual right answer.  Don't contradict the "it's YOUR opinion" stance you stand so dignifying behind.

No way would I send my kids to a private school.  Didn't I already explain that I'm not a fan of closemindedness?  I want my kids to be well aware of EVERYTHING.  Then make their decisions.  Be it good or bad, I want them to make their decisions with all the options and the rewards and consequences of those options clearly infront of them.  You dont' get that at a private school.  You do now at a public school, things are changing so you won't. I'm fighting that change.

As far as teachers continuing to do so when it comes to mentioning creationism, I don't see that at all. Teacher's won't say what they're told, "NOT to say" and that is the arguement that so many are fighting for.  The evolution ONLY battle is in favor so that therefore a teacher mentioning creationism while teaching evolution would be unconstitutional and probably against the law in the near future. 

I don't mind it if someone doesn't believe in something. I do mind it when the SCHOOL system is telling young christians that what they believe in is nonsense.  I was kid once, I know how easily it is to believe what people tell you when you're young.

I took mythology in high school. There was a whole semester devoted to it, great stuff.  We read Greek and Roman Mythology, a bit of Norse.  Actually it was reading about the Greeks and Romans that a lot of what I found incongruous in Cristianity began to clear up.  I was reading about the lesser Gods and Goddesses, hmmm... I thought, isn't that kinda like our Saints in Christianity?  More questions, more practices equated, next thing you know I am a full blown heathen. 


Not trying to take this off-topic...

What you see about the Saints (and other Iconic references) is much more observed in the Roman Catholic Church (and the Greek Orthadox and other Orthadox Churches).  This is because they have a lot of holdovers from the older Roman (and Greek) religions.

You will find that most Protestant religions pay them little if any heed, other then in respect and rememberance of the person themselves.

Myself, I would be happy if in a science class they simply stated something like "This is the most commonly accepted scientific belief.  If somebody has a religious or other belief, it may be equally as valid but has no place in a secular course."

Of course, I left off of the list my father's belief.  He believes that humans (and all other life) came about because of seeding from aliens.  8)

So, what about other "elective" courses?  German, Latin, philosophy, et.al?  Are they also included in the "some isn't good enough, all is" argument?  I sure hope you have a plan to triple or quadruple the funding to schools across the country (especially the small ones) so everyone has access to the EXACT same classes.

Based on what I believe, I doubt God is going to question me on judgement day if I happen to know how to speak German or not.  He will however, put before me whether or whether not I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. 


That's why evolution is called the "THEORY of Evolution".  I never said that what I believe is the factual right answer.  On the creation/evolution argument, I'm about in the middle, with a slight lean towards evolution.  The part that has never been able to be explained to me, though, is where did the very FIRST speck or being or even Creator come from.  And, despite what you seem to believe, I highly doubt it will EVER be known as the "Fact of Evolution", though you seem to believe that Creation is a FACT.

Yes I do happen to believe creation is fact, however I don't do so closemindedly. I'll also point out that when trying to convince others of what I believe I don't blind them from the other side.  I don't keep them in the shadows. I make evolution a very clear and decisive option. Unlike my opposers. Who make it the ONLY option.


You're not a fan of closedmindedness?  Don't I remember you saying once that you would disown a child for going against what you believe?  That you would NEVER allow your child to believe that Jesus was NOT the Savior or that certain things are/are not sins?  If that's your concept of "openmindedness", I'll gladly stay in your definition of "closedmindedness".

What they believe in that circumstance isn't the issue of why I'd disown them. I'd disown them as far as helping them out financially as I stated before because they killed my grandchild.  I believe in punishment, espeically for evil things.  If I wasn't to tell them the consequences for that choice they make, then I'd be at fault. But they would be well aware of where I stand and the results that go along with the decision they happen to make.

Secondly I think I've learned a lot from you and other members on the board.  I can't fully know what I'm doing is right or wrong until I really get a feel for the other side.  Even then I don't know, for nothing is truly known,  but it makes for better grounds.


 I've taught my children about Jesus being thought by some to be the Savior and by others that he was just an ordinary man as well as the basics behind Islam and Buddhism.  I'm leaving it up to THEM to make the choice on what seems more "true" to them, I'm not telling them what is/isn't "true".  Guess you haven't looked into any private schools lately.  You'd be amazed at how much MORE is offered there than at public schools.  I've researched a few in my area for my kids and let me tell you, their curriculum blows our public school's out of the water.

With the vast difference of what they charge to get in, it ought to have 800 times the amount fo curriculum.  That's like saying, United States military blows afganistan's military out of the water.  Well no s-h-i-t, they got 90 million times(exageration) the amount of money to spend. 

Secondly on this, I have looked into private schools.  Many of them are closedminded institutions ran by closeminded individuals.  I know so cause I go to school with some private school products and don't kid yourself, my parents are divorced, and I get discriminated for it.


I highly doubt that it will EVER be against the law.  And, my biology teacher in high school was told NOT to talk about creation, but she did anyway.  Knowing many current teachers as I do, I can see them doing the same. I don't see teachers telling young Christians anything of the sort.  What this "discussion" is about is what should/shouldn't be taught in schools.  If you're "a young Christian", then you should KNOW about creation already and your choice should be easy.  If you don't believe in God, then you're certainly not going to believe in the "creation theory".  Face it, the "creation theory" is based on religious beliefs and teaching it promotes "christianity" (unless you're also going to teach the hundreds *thousands?* of other theories as well) and unless the first amendment has been repealed lately, that's in direct violation.


I fail to see your point with this statement.  If you're goal is like the other liberals on this board it's to eliminate creation ideals from the classroom, undeniably  the Science classroom.  Biology the last time I checked was a science class, therefore without question you're teacher was teaching creation is science class.  Doing the exact opposite of what you're arguing for. 

I would love to see state exploitation of religion for coercive and divisive purposes wiped out!
:)


You're right, and I should have been more clear on that. I personally enjoy religion when I can experience it in what I believe to be its proper context (non-coercive, non-fundamentalist approach, or in a mythological context). I enjoy reading about Norse and Celtic mythology, and I have actually begun to learn the Alef-Bet (the Hebrew alphabet) simply because I think that it's a beautiful script, and someday I wouldn't mind reading the Torah in its original language.

Of course, I left off of the list my father's belief.  He believes that humans (and all other life) came about because of seeding from aliens.   8)


My dad believes the same thing. I'm not joking.

We weren't speaking of accepting Jesus, we were speaking of the equality of offering certain classes at some schools and not others. 

 My point is that it is not a part of the "required" curriculum, yet some teachers teach it anyway.  I've "learned" subjects taught by teachers that were part of the "required" curriculum and let me tell you, if they don't believe or agree with it, you're not going to get the "true" story....


Then you used the comparison of whether you know all the foreign languages or not.  So in relevance, I wasn't off topic with my statement.

Well I don't sit by and say ok.  I fight for what's right, based on the foundations of good material I've been taught.

My dad believes the same thing. I'm not joking.




My dad is an alien!
:o

My dad believes the same thing. I'm not joking.


*falls against the wal clutching chest*

OMG, McDOnald and I actually have something in common?

Maybe we are brothers!!!  I always wondered why my father laughed when I would comment how it sucked being an only child.  I guess he knew something that I did not.  :D

Yes I do happen to believe creation is fact, however I don't do so closemindedly. I'll also point out that when trying to convince others of what I believe I don't blind them from the other side.  I don't keep them in the shadows. I make evolution a very clear and decisive option. Unlike my opposers. Who make it the ONLY option.

Will you kindly stop misquoting me and pretty much every other evolutionist who has commented: NOBODY HERE HAS SAID THAT EVOLUTION IS THE *ONLY* OPTION.  Just because you, the "open-minded" one keep repeating this misrepresentation of what has been said, still does not make it true. READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, don't just think "oh, this person's a Liberal, therefore they think evolution is the only option"

Will you kindly stop misquoting me and pretty much every other evolutionist who has commented: NOBODY HERE HAS SAID THAT EVOLUTION IS THE *ONLY* OPTION.  Just because you, the "open-minded" one keep repeating this misrepresentation of what has been said, still does not make it true. READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, don't just think "oh, this person's a Liberal, therefore they think evolution is the only option"


Don't take it personally, Philbo, he's made it plain he's gonna believe what he's gonna believe, and all the king's horses and all the king's men ain't gonna change his mind!
;)

My statement had nothing to do with knowing all the languages, it was referring to "elective" classes that are offered at some schools and not others (in response to you essentially saying classes should be the same) so yes, you WERE off topic.

I'm not sure what your last 2 statements mean ::)


Most of the time nobody has any idea what anybody else is talking about.  They just act like they do.

Will you kindly stop misquoting me and pretty much every other evolutionist who has commented: NOBODY HERE HAS SAID THAT EVOLUTION IS THE *ONLY* OPTION.  Just because you, the "open-minded" one keep repeating this misrepresentation of what has been said, still does not make it true. READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, don't just think "oh, this person's a Liberal, therefore they think evolution is the only option"



Rather funny to me how if you get you're way that is what will happen. You can say whatever you like, you're intentions stand clear.

Don't take it personally, Philbo, he's made it plain he's gonna believe what he's gonna believe, and all the king's horses and all the king's men ain't gonna change his mind!
;)


AKA The Truth.

AKA The Truth.

'Zactly!  The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!  Why bother with all this science stuff when you've got a three thousand year old text to tell you all the facts you need?
:-\\

'Zactly!  The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!  Why bother with all this science stuff when you've got a three thousand year old text to tell you all the facts you need?
:-\\


I never said that settles it.  I've said countless number of times that I believe evolution should remain stable and strong.  You don't see me saying, "oh uh, I believe Evolution is equally valid to creation, but Evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools, it should only be taught to the Mararishians.  I never said anything about eliminating evolution, read what I wrote. "   

Thirdly, the truth I meant wasn't that creation happens to be the answer over evolution.  The truth I meant, was that there are people on this message board trying to eliminate creationism as an option to ALL people and don't have enough decensy to admit it.

Rather funny to me how if you get you're way that is what will happen. You can say whatever you like, you're intentions stand clear.

OK, so yet again you didn't read what I posted.  This is my last post on this, or any, of your opinions: you obviously don't take even the teeniest, tiniest iota of an interest in what people are actually saying; there's no point in responding to somebody who can't take the trouble to respond to what's been written rather than his own preconceptions of what he thinks someone else is going to write.  I'm afraid your posts simply aren't worth the time it takes to read them: I realize, of course, that you're going to assume that this is an "I disagree with you, therefore your opinion has no merit" sort of action, but it's not your opinion that riles me, it's your complete inability to think about what other posters have actually said.  You have repeatedly misrepresented my and other people's posts, and have completely ignored this when it's been pointed out to you.

I never said that settles it.  I've said countless number of times that I believe evolution should remain stable and strong.  You don't see me saying, "oh uh, I believe Evolution is equally valid to creation, but Evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools, it should only be taught to the Mararishians.  I never said anything about eliminating evolution, read what I wrote. "   

Thirdly, the truth I meant wasn't that creation happens to be the answer over evolution.  The truth I meant, was that there are people on this message board trying to eliminate creationism as an option to ALL people and don't have enough decensy to admit it.


I join Philbo on this one, this will be my last response.

As I have said, and you have ignored, at least twice, creationism (ID) and evolution are two DIFFERENT WAYS OF KNOWING, one spiritual/religious, the other scientific.  THey are EQUALLY VALID on their own terms and are NOT incompatable.  One is based on imperical evidence, ie observations of the real world, the other is based on faith in revealed religion.  Evolution is what health officials fear as they confront the possibility of a bird flu pandemic (should the virus mutate, or evolve so that it could be passed directly from person to person).

No one has suggested eliminating creationism or ID from anything but SCIENCE CLASSES.  Accept it if it conforms to your religious beliefs, and let the preachers of the world present it for what it is and as they understand it, but keep it out of SCIENCE classes.

I join Philbo on this one, this will be my last response.

As I have said, and you have ignored, at least twice, creationism (ID) and evolution are two DIFFERENT WAYS OF KNOWING, one spiritual/religious, the other scientific.  THey are EQUALLY VALID on their own terms and are NOT incompatable.  One is based on imperical evidence, ie observations of the real world, the other is based on faith in revealed religion.  Evolution is what health officials fear as they confront the possibility of a bird flu pandemic (should the virus mutate, or evolve so that it could be passed directly from person to person).

No one has suggested eliminating creationism or ID from anything but SCIENCE CLASSES.  Accept it if it conforms to your religious beliefs, and let the preachers of the world present it for what it is and as they understand it, but keep it out of SCIENCE classes.


That pretty much sums it up. Besides if they start teaching intelligent design in science classes, then they should also start teaching that the universe is in a neverending cycle of creation, destruction, and re-birth(the Hindu belief), or the new age theory of all reality being the byproduct of a single, univeral conciousness. Or any other countless number of unprovable(scientifically) theories that involve metaphysics.

OK, so yet again you didn't read what I posted.  This is my last post on this, or any, of your opinions: you obviously don't take even the teeniest, tiniest iota of an interest in what people are actually saying; there's no point in responding to somebody who can't take the trouble to respond to what's been written rather than his own preconceptions of what he thinks someone else is going to write.  I'm afraid your posts simply aren't worth the time it takes to read them: I realize, of course, that you're going to assume that this is an "I disagree with you, therefore your opinion has no merit" sort of action, but it's not your opinion that riles me, it's your complete inability to think about what other posters have actually said.  You have repeatedly misrepresented my and other people's posts, and have completely ignored this when it's been pointed out to you.




I don't have time to be conned into anything. 

I join Philbo on this one, this will be my last response.

As I have said, and you have ignored, at least twice, creationism (ID) and evolution are two DIFFERENT WAYS OF KNOWING, one spiritual/religious, the other scientific.  THey are EQUALLY VALID on their own terms and are NOT incompatable.  One is based on imperical evidence, ie observations of the real world, the other is based on faith in revealed religion.  Evolution is what health officials fear as they confront the possibility of a bird flu pandemic (should the virus mutate, or evolve so that it could be passed directly from person to person).

No one has suggested eliminating creationism or ID from anything but SCIENCE CLASSES.  Accept it if it conforms to your religious beliefs, and let the preachers of the world present it for what it is and as they understand it, but keep it out of SCIENCE classes.


Which in other words is saying keep Creationism out of the only place where people are going to "Have" to learn it. 

I don't have time to be conned into anything. 

You did at one point, sir.  What changed?


OK, so yet again you didn't read what I posted.  This is my last post on this, or any, of your opinions: you obviously don't take even the teeniest, tiniest iota of an interest in what people are actually saying; there's no point in responding to somebody who can't take the trouble to respond to what's been written rather than his own preconceptions of what he thinks someone else is going to write.  I'm afraid your posts simply aren't worth the time it takes to read them: I realize, of course, that you're going to assume that this is an "I disagree with you, therefore your opinion has no merit" sort of action, but it's not your opinion that riles me, it's your complete inability to think about what other posters have actually said.  You have repeatedly misrepresented my and other people's posts, and have completely ignored this when it's been pointed out to you.



Mr. Philbo, are you familiar with the simile "it's like flogging a dead horse"?
:D

Yes.  I don't expect my kids to learn about science or math in Church, they shouldn't HAVE to learn about religion in a PUBLIC school.

No math in church?  Didn't you learn about the Holy Trinity--you know, 3 = 1?
:D

Yes.  I don't expect my kids to learn about science or math in Church, they shouldn't HAVE to learn about religion in a PUBLIC school.


Actually, my church is playing these dumb Creationist videos by a self proclaimed scientist named Kent Hovind...complete with a sneering, immature delivery, logical shortcomings, and distortion of facts.

Of course, it's popular with my church...not because they're so well educated in science and, honestly discerning the facts, see that the evidence favors him, but rather that they had already concluded what he is teaching and they need him to comfort any securities about being scientifically unrational.

Which in other words is saying keep Creationism out of the only place where people are going to "Have" to learn it. 


In the UK everyone has to study Religious Education from the age of 11 until 16.  It is not optional, though you can choose whether to take exams in the subject or not.  Plus many of the main points of the major religions are covered at Primary School.  My daughter is 7, she knows all about the story of the creation because she was taught it at school.  However she won't cover the theory of evolution for another 5 years or so at school.

In the UK everyone has to study Religious Education from the age of 11 until 16.  It is not optional, though you can choose whether to take exams in the subject or not.  Plus many of the main points of the major religions are covered at Primary School.  My daughter is 7, she knows all about the story of the creation because she was taught it at school.  However she won't cover the theory of evolution for another 5 years or so at school.


Thats surprising for such a secular country.

Thats surprising for such a secular country.

It was the link between church and state here which the founding fathers over there wanted to avoid (over here there's even a word for the people who don't want the state/church split- 'antidisestablishmentarians' ;)), and with good reason, ISTM.

My daughter had her RS exam today... teaching comparative religion is a good thing, IMO: what it does is remove the claim to absolute truth by numbers, 'cause however many people believe one of them, there's many times as many who believe something else.


Actually, my church is playing these dumb Creationist videos by a self proclaimed scientist named Kent Hovind...complete with a sneering, immature delivery, logical shortcomings, and distortion of facts.

I guess you mean this Kent Hovind... somebody who has to pretend he has a degree in order to gain spurious legitimacy with the (unchecking) credulous..
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill



Of course, it's popular with my church...not because they're so well educated in science and, honestly discerning the facts, see that the evidence favors him, but rather that they had already concluded what he is teaching and they need him to comfort any securities about being scientifically unrational.

Nicely put.  Sad, but very probably true :(

I'm not sure that Patriot Bible University is a degree mill...I've researched both Hovind and the university, and even some anti-Hovind sites concede that Patriot Bible isn't a degree mill. 

One of them said that although isn't a degree mill, the only degrees they offer are religious.

I'm not sure that Patriot Bible University is a degree mill...I've researched both Hovind and the university, and even some anti-Hovind sites concede that Patriot Bible isn't a degree mill. 

One of them said that although isn't a degree mill, the only degrees they offer are religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University
The article on wikipedia supports the claims it's a diploma mill, but maybe that's just the liberal secularist educational establishment trying to tear down God and country once again!

Patriot Bible University --- Even Al Franken couldn't write this sh+t!  Whatd'ya do when the satirists can't possibly keep up with the satirized?

Apparently, it used to be "Patriot University," but you know you can't really be an American patriot if you don't haul the Bible into everything nowadays, so in 2004 they changed the name to "Patriot Bible University."
How would YOU feel if you were sitting there in doctor's examination room, and you looked over on the wall and saw his credentials from "Patriot Bible University"?
:o :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University
The article on wikipedia supports the claims it's a diploma mill, but maybe that's just the liberal secularist educational establishment trying to tear down God and country once again!


I've read that article, and it had said that some people call it a degree mill; it did not support the claims.

It isn't a degree mill, but it is still questionable.  It's one of those correspondence schools; they send you a textbook and a workbook, and you have to complete a certain number of "courses" and send them in. 

I saw a picture of Patriot Bible Univeresity, and it looked like a suburban house made for a family of
six or so. 

I've read that article, and it had said that some people call it a degree mill; it did not support the claims.

It isn't a degree mill, but it is still questionable.  It's one of those correspondence schools; they send you a textbook and a workbook, and you have to complete a certain number of "courses" and send them in. 

I saw a picture of Patriot Bible Univeresity, and it looked like a suburban house made for a family of
six or so. 

If you want your kid to get a good Christian education and stay out of trouble send him or her to Bob Jones!

If you want your kid to get a good Christian education and stay out of trouble send him or her to Bob Jones!


Ah, Bob Jones...they had a policy against interracial dating up until 2000 when it became known to the public because Bush had given a speech there, I imagine because the people who didn't like Bush felt they had to dig something up about it.

Jesus...are there any decent Christian colleges out there!?

Jesus...are there any decent Christian colleges out there!?




Notre Dame.  Of course this is a mixed marriage of two religions,  Christianity and Football.

You did at one point, sir.  What changed?
Mr. Philbo, are you familiar with the simile "it's like flogging a dead horse"?
:D


What point was that?  You nor anyone else on here hasn't conned me into anything.

Are you familiar with the saying, "Shoot me again, cause I ain't dead yet".

Yes.  I don't expect my kids to learn about science or math in Church, they shouldn't HAVE to learn about religion in a PUBLIC school.


The government makes sure I went to school until age of 16, forcefully.  No one cared one way or the other whether I was in church or not, forcefully.

In the UK everyone has to study Religious Education from the age of 11 until 16.  It is not optional, though you can choose whether to take exams in the subject or not.  Plus many of the main points of the major religions are covered at Primary School.  My daughter is 7, she knows all about the story of the creation because she was taught it at school.  However she won't cover the theory of evolution for another 5 years or so at school.


Very interesting, glad you informed me of that.  However, the rules and inclanations I was referring to are that in the United States which are directly changed.

The government makes sure I went to school until age of 16, forcefully.  No one cared one way or the other whether I was in church or not, forcefully.


I don't think I catch your drift.  Would you prefer children be forced by the government to go to church?

That's right because we have a separation of church and state in this country.


Therefore my statements stands in relevance, yours does not.

I don't think I catch your drift.  Would you prefer children be forced by the government to go to church?


No I wouldn't.  What I would pefer is for the liberals on this board to admit that children will be forced to learn evolution and only have the option of learning creationism.

Notre Dame.  Of course this is a mixed marriage of two religions,  Christianity and Football.

She means Jesus Christianity, not that Papist heresy, and don't even think about that BYU LDS nonsense!


What point was that?  You nor anyone else on here hasn't conned me into anything.

Are you familiar with the saying, "Shoot me again, cause I ain't dead yet".

I can't shoot you, I'm a liberal from Massachusetts!
;D

Creation is based on RELIGIOUS facts. 


Isn't that an oxymoron?

She means Jesus Christianity, not that Papist heresy, and don't even think about that BYU LDS nonsense!


Wait...did you just refer to me as "she"?  ???

She means Jesus Christianity, not that Papist heresy, and don't even think about that BYU LDS nonsense!



I was hoping someone would pick up on the Catholic thing.  You don't tend to hear the Papists ranting and
raving over this question.  They learned their lesson about fighting science with that world really is round thing. 
Welcome to Evangelicism, set your clocks back 200 years(and counting)

She means Jesus Christianity, not that Papist heresy, and don't even think about that BYU LDS nonsense!
I can't shoot you, I'm a liberal from Massachusetts!
;D


Brigham Young University.  The Cougers!

It's an expression, that deals with no use beating a dead horse, if the horse is dead of course, which he is not.

Wait...did you just refer to me as "she"?  ???

Who, we?
???

Who, we?
???


Oh, you have multiple personality disorder now?  :D

Oh, you have multiple personality disorder now?   :D

I don't, he does.

You do too!

Hey shut up in there!

Both of you shut up!

Who asked you?

YEAH!!

We HAVE.  What more do you want?  All we are saying is that the government should not FORCE teachers to teach creation in a science class.  Evolution is based on SCIENTIFIC facts, Creation is based on RELIGIOUS facts.  The government, based on that nasty little first amendment, cannot FORCE a government-supported (well, they're supposed to be) school to teach a RELIGIOUS concept.  That would be supporting a particular RELIGION, which directly violates that little old thing called the first amendment.  You say that you don't think the government should FORCE us to go to church?  What do you think FORCING us to learn a religious concept is?  It's basically FORCING us to go to "church". 


No you haven't.  Infact just the opposite has been being done.  Cat keeps on saying time and time again how thoughtful and considerate she's being of Creationism. When infact she's not.  Eliminating it completely would be only a slight step above what she and other members on this board stand for.   

Well it's not "basically" forcing us to learn and accept evolution as the only means, it IS forcing us to learn evolution and accept it as the only answer to a very pondering question.

I think you need to re-read several posts here.  Most (all?) people are saying that ID or creationism doesn't have any place in a Science class but it should be taught either as part of the Religious Education class or Social Education (or whatever you call it) where you look at the main points of all the major religions.

Really?  She said that?  Then you must've missed this one:   

Also, others on here have also advocated it being taught in a class OTHER than a science class.

I was "forced" to learn a lot of things in school, but they were all at least based on fact....what you want is for the government to "force" kids to learn something based on faith, which they legally cannot due.  Some teachers will continue to teach it, some won't, others never have and never will....it's a matter of that little word that you seem to hate:  choice.

You are seeing what you want to see in previous posts.  Take the blinders off and go back and reread them.  I did and NOWHERE did I see anyone saying that they wanted to eliminate creationism from the planet, they just don't want it as a required part of a science class.



In other words be taught in a class that does not exist, which pretty much equals out to be don't teach it at all. 

You can believe whatever you want on a teacher still being able to teach creationism in class, but if this law gets passed and a student points that teacher out, you'll have a serious court case on your hands, which will favor in your position. Then any teacher even thinking about mentioning creationism, wouldn't do so cause they'd be in fear of losing their job.


Evolution is a theory, not a fact.  However, I can see without proof and justification that is trying to changed.

I see perfectly what I always see. You put something down thinking you've eliminated any flaws within it but once again you haven't.  At first I wasn't the smartest cookie in the world when I wanted to try and persuade people on this board to change their mind.  The Art of Persuasion towards  a liberal on this board is a lot like the art of teaching a Great White shark to play with 5 year olds.  Now I say alright, have a different opinion that's fine, but be honest and open about where you stand, regardless of how it may make you look.  No can do, in this case admitting something might make you appear to be unperfect, so once again the weasle makes his appearance.

In other words be taught in a class that does not exist, which pretty much equals out to be don't teach it at all. 




So high schools in America do not teach R.E. or Social Education at all?  Is that what you are saying?

Again, you're "reading" what you want.  A few people have pointed out that these classes DO exist in some school districts.  Just because it didn't in the schools you looked at, you assume that it doesn't exist ANYWHERE. What law?  The court ruling this thread is referring to dealt with a school district FORCING the teachers to teach "Intelligent Design" (which, is based on, but different than creationism).  The ruling basically said that they cannot be FORCED to do it.  You're assuming that the "next logical step" is banning it altogether, which may or may not be the case. Noone has said it's a "fact", we've all said it's based on facts.  Again, you're assuming that it's trying to be changed because that's the whole crux of your argument and without that assumption, your argument has no validity.   You've blatantly disregarded MULTIPLE statements that have been made, just as you usually do.  MULTIPLE people have stated that they took a class in public schools where they were taught creation, but you seem to have overlooked all of them.  I also went back and counted no less than 4 times that DC stated that he's ONLY saying that creationism should be kept out of science classes, not that it shouldn't be taught at all, but all you see is "creationism should be kept out".  Philbo said that "creationism isn't the answer" and you automatically assume that he's saying "evolution IS the answer" when he has not stated that in ANY of his posts.  5 other people said the same thing, but you don't seem to "see" that.  You see exactly what you WANT to see, not what's actually there.  Who isn't being "honest and open"?  Just because our "opinion" differs from you, we're "weasels"?  ::)


No I do not assume that creationism does not exist in schools , period, end of story.  I go to a Christian College, that teaches creationism.  What I assume or more or less know is that Evolution won't be taught in "some" schools it will be taught in EVERY school.

I haven't disregarded anything.  I've only made more obvious than what you wanted. 

I'm certainly not perfect, but by the attitudes and self proclamation, I appear to be one of the only members who is not impeccable.

Noone here has EVER claimed to be perfect, nor have they accused you of thinking you are perfect, yet you keep making it a point that you're NOT perfect.  why do you keep bringing it up?  Do you realize that you're doing the EXACT things that you keep accusing everyone else of?



Have to back mom up on this.  You seem to think that we are all against you.  When anyone counters
your arguments you get very defensive, and then accuse them of having attitudes. 

Have to back mom up on this.  You seem to think that we are all against you.  When anyone counters
your arguments you get very defensive, and then accuse them of having attitudes. 


Ditto.  Harmonica, it seems you aren't paying careful attention to what people are telling you.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here....made WHAT more obvious?  You have spent this entire thread complaining that evolution is being "forced down our throats", yet you want creationism "forced down our throats".  You made our point....you go to a Christian college that teaches creationism, EXACTLY where it should be taught.  If you want to learn about religious beliefs, go to a religious school.  I'm sure your college, being a Christian college doesn't teach about Satanism or atheism (and if you say they do, I want PROOF because I also went to a religious school that offered classes ONLY in the affiliated religion).  Why?  Because they have NO PLACE in a Christian college.  If you had an atheist enroll, then sue the school because they didn't offer classes on atheism, what do you think your board would tell them?  "What did you expect, it's a Christian school.  If you want to learn about atheism, go do an atheist school."  I'm sure they wouldn't jump and start offering classes on atheism.

Noone here has EVER claimed to be perfect, nor have they accused you of thinking you are perfect, yet you keep making it a point that you're NOT perfect.  why do you keep bringing it up?  Do you realize that you're doing the EXACT things that you keep accusing everyone else of?


  We have two atheist on campus that I am aware of.  All of the facualty members not only pretend to respect both gentleman's views they accept them as well.  I'd like to say the same about the student body as well, but I'm not a liar.  A good number of the student body accepts and respects them, me being one of those members.  The other percentage does not respect them and looks down upon them.  I'm sure that if someone came right out and told a christian in your "what" public schools should be that he/she was an idiot that believed in make believe things that you would have a problem with it. However, they stick up their nose and laugh politely, you'd see nothing wrong with it. When in fact it's not respecting, it's faking. More than clear that the methods have changed, but the end result, has not.  I'm not happy about how certain  people treat the two gentleman on my campus who happen to be atheist. Treat them like they're not good enough, treat them like outsiders.  I won't stand for it.  I believe in Jesus Christ with all my heart and soul, but I don't think treating people who don't believe in him like s-h-i-t is part of his game plan. Just the opposite with moves like what is being addressed on this particular topic, is happening in public schools.  Christians are being forced out of public schools because they're "idiots", "Not good enough", "the outsiders". 

To me, Kim  respect is a two way street where mutual agreement is found. Not you treat me like s-h-i-t for a while, then I'll treat you like s-h-i-t for a while.  Public schools certainly have no affiliation to christianity, which you point out clearly and clarifiably.  Let me remind you that they have no affiliation to aethism either, yet you have no problem with them bending over backwards for it.

Ditto.  Harmonica, it seems you aren't paying careful attention to what people are telling you.


Yes I should agree that no one is trying to do what I say they are. Then in 15 years watch my nephew get treated like a weirdo and a piece of S-h-i-t at school while they sit back and have a few laughs and a beer.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. 


Dear Student:
The theory of evolution is a theory.  That's why it is called the theory of evolution.
:D




  However, I can see without proof and justification that is trying to changed.




Now that sentence is one of your best make-no-sensers yet!  I read it again and again in awe of just how little sense it makes!

It's rather ironic how this thread doesn't "evolve."  Our "Intelligent Design" thread is a good example of the second law of thermodynamics:  Entropy!

Yes I should agree that no one is trying to do what I say they are. Then in 15 years watch my nephew get treated like a weirdo and a piece of S-h-i-t at school while they sit back and have a few laughs and a beer.


I read this post several times and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Could we get a translator here?

I read this post several times and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Could we get a translator here?


I don't want my nephew, a christian to be ridiculed and shot down because he's a christian.

I don't want my nephew, a christian to be ridiculed and shot down because he's a christian.


What does this has to do with what I said, or what this thread is about in general?  Are you saying we should put religion into a science class so some kids won't be made fun of?

What does this has to do with what I said, or what this thread is about in general?  Are you saying we should put religion into a science class so some kids won't be made fun of?


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't take religion  out of schools altogether, then not think of it as a factor to why the atheist movement is up and coming as well as a crippling effect on christianity.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't take religion  out of schools altogether, then not think of it as a factor to why the atheist movement is up and coming as well as a crippling effect on christianity.


These people have said repeatedly that they have no problem with religion being taught in a class about religion, but you continue to demonize them as anti-Christian atheists with a sinister agenda.

If we're going to teach religion in a science class, why not in a math class for that matter?

These people have said repeatedly that they have no problem with religion being taught in a class about religion, but you continue to demonize them as anti-Christian atheists with a sinister agenda.

If we're going to teach religion in a science class, why not in a math class for that matter?


because the idea of liberal is to be open minded but their is no openmindedness among the liberals on this board at all. They want want when the question, "how did we get here? Why are we here?" pops up, the answer to be, "evolution".  The explanation to be evolution, period, no room for questionable doubt among the majority of citizens.  They want to accuse me of being closed minded, but I'm not for God created the Earth, you have to believe that, end of story.  I believe God created the Earth, but not every else does.  I had the option of believing God created the Earth, evolution or another belief.  I wasn't just given the option that God did.  I chose that option out of the other ones put in front of me.  Whether anyone on this board wants to believe it or not, at one time  I had more influence and reason to choose Evolution than I did God, but I didn't.  Even to this day sometimes I still have more reason to choose evolution over God, but I still don't.  I'm tired of the liberals on this board going about their business like a public relations admistrator for Nike,  put on a little happy show and hopefully get the other side to shut up.  If they felt any serious threat from the mythology class, they wouldn't want it around either.  Yet, since it is so small and practically has no grounds they allow it to be around because they think it somehow makes them look orderly and fair.  They couldn't convince me that what they were doing was right, that hit a raw nerve. Now they can't convince me that what they are doing, they aren't doing and that plain ticked them off.

because the idea of liberal is to be open minded but their is no openmindedness among the liberals on this board at all. They want want when the question, "how did we get here? Why are we here?" pops up, the answer to be, "evolution".  The explanation to be evolution, period, no room for questionable doubt among the majority of citizens.  They want to accuse me of being closed minded, but I'm not for God created the Earth, you have to believe that, end of story.  I believe God created the Earth, but not every else does.  I had the option of believing God created the Earth, evolution or another belief.  I wasn't just given the option that God did.  I chose that option out of the other ones put in front of me.  Whether anyone on this board wants to believe it or not, at one time  I had more influence and reason to choose Evolution than I did God, but I didn't.  Even to this day sometimes I still have more reason to choose evolution over God, but I still don't.  I'm tired of the liberals on this board going about their business like a public relations admistrator for Nike,  put on a little happy show and hopefully get the other side to shut up.  If they felt any serious threat from the mythology class, they wouldn't want it around either.  Yet, since it is so small and practically has no grounds they allow it to be around because they think it somehow makes them look orderly and fair.  They couldn't convince me that what they were doing was right, that hit a raw nerve. Now they can't convince me that what they are doing, they aren't doing and that plain ticked them off.


Alright...here's the problem with teaching creation in a science class.

1. Science is based on observations.

2. Creationism is based on faith.

It's not as if the teachers say that the theory of evolution is absolutely true and infallible and that there is no God.  This is just what scienctific observations have brought us, and we can't restrain it from being taught just because it is controversial...and we can't teach creation because it is based on faith.

Alright...here's the problem with teaching creation in a science class.

1. Science is based on observations.

2. Creationism is based on faith.

It's not as if the teachers say that the theory of evolution is absolutely true and infallible and that there is no God.  This is just what scienctific observations have brought us, and we can't restrain it from being taught just because it is controversial...and we can't teach creation because it is based on faith.


I'll just have to wait then.

I don't want my nephew, a christian to be ridiculed and shot down because he's a christian.




Who would do such a thing?
???

because the idea of liberal is to be open minded but their is no openmindedness among the liberals on this board at all. They want want when the question, "how did we get here? Why are we here?" pops up, the answer to be, "evolution".  The explanation to be evolution, period, no room for questionable doubt among the majority of citizens.  They want to accuse me of being closed minded, but I'm not for God created the Earth, you have to believe that, end of story.




The theory of evolution is not the province of liberals.  Conservatives also believe in evolution, and both go to chuch together and sit in the same pews with other conservatives and liberals who believe in creationism without demonizing each other which for some reason you seem to want to do.

The theory of evolution is not the province of liberals.  Conservatives also believe in evolution, and both go to chuch together and sit in the same pews with other conservatives and liberals who believe in creationism without demonizing each other which for some reason you seem to want to do.


Asking for creationism to be left as an option is demonizing who?

You didn't answer the question.  What do you think "the powers that be" at your school would say if these 2 gentlemen started a stink about the fact that there were no "atheist" classes at the school?  I'm not talking about respecting their beliefs, I'm talking about offering a class that promoted THEIR "belief" (or lack, thereof in the case of atheists).  Do you think they would?

If atheists were fighting to get one of their "beliefs" (which had NO SCIENTIFIC basis) forcably included in the public science curriculum, I'd have just as much of a problem with it.  Now, if teachers opted to include it in their lectures, that's fine, because it's their CHOICE.  You say I "have no problem bending over backwards for them"....I'd like to know how?  I have just as much disdain for the "atheist movement" that wants to remove the word "God" from everything.  IMO, that's how it was written, that's how it should stay.

BTW, Evolution cannot be considered an "atheist" belief because it has nothing to do with religion.  It is based on scientific evidence, nothing more, nothing less.  It is no more an "atheist" belief than E=MC2, which is also based on scientific evidence.


I wasn't aware that it was an actual question you were asking.  I thought you made a rethorical question to furthen your statment.  My mistake.

No I don't think the school would do so. However the school also makes it very apparent from the agenda that this is a christian school that will follow christian guidelines. Now their maybe public schools that make it very apparent and clear that they are an atheist public school, but from my experience  I have yet to see one.  All Christian Schools I know of are private schools that cost a lot more money than public schools, be it high school or college.  If someone wants an  all atheist school, it too should be a private school which cost more money to get into than a public school.  Until that happens, public high schools should have no affiliation.

For the second time, I have no problem with Evolution and I do not look at Evolution as an atheist belief nor an atheist movement.  I look at wanting to eliminate Christianity as an atheist movement.  My biff is not with Evolution as a possibility, nor is it with Evolution itself eliminating believers in creationism.  My problem is with atheist wanting Evolution to be the only option among public elementary and high school students to have as an answer to how and why we came about.

I wasn't aware that it was an actual question you were asking.  I thought you made a rethorical question to furthen your statment.  My mistake.

No I don't think the school would do so. However the school also makes it very apparent from the agenda that this is a christian school that will follow christian guidelines. Now their maybe public schools that make it very apparent and clear that they are an atheist public school, but from my experience  I have yet to see one.  All Christian Schools I know of are private schools that cost a lot more money than public schools, be it high school or college.  If someone wants an  all atheist school, it too should be a private school which cost more money to get into than a public school.  Until that happens, public high schools should have no affiliation.

For the second time, I have no problem with Evolution and I do not look at Evolution as an atheist belief nor an atheist movement.  I look at wanting to eliminate Christianity as an atheist movement.  My biff is not with Evolution as a possibility, nor is it with Evolution itself eliminating believers in creationism.  My problem is with atheist wanting Evolution to be the only option among public elementary and high school students to have as an answer to how and why we came about.


Who wants to eliminate Christianity?

No one here has stated this particular agenda, but you continue to bring it up.  The thing is that we can only teach science in science classes, not faith-based ideas.  No one is saying here that the theory of evolution is infallible; that's why everyone calls it a theory.  But it is based on observations, unlike creationism, which is based on faith, plus there are so many different versions of the Creation story.

Who wants to eliminate Christianity?

No one here has stated this particular agenda, but you continue to bring it up.  The thing is that we can only teach science in science classes, not faith-based ideas.  No one is saying here that the theory of evolution is infallible; that's why everyone calls it a theory.  But it is based on observations, unlike creationism, which is based on faith, plus there are so many different versions of the Creation story.


The tactic of the Christian Right is to portray themselves as victims and to declare there are enemy forces within our culture whose agenda it is to eliminate Christianity.  Under such a concocted threat, the Christian Right can thereby pursue it's own persecutory agenda while making it appear they are in the act of self-preservation.

This attitude filters down to all conforming adherents of the evangelical movement, and the adherents often find themselves unable to distinguish between disagreement and threat.

I'm afraid that's the way it is.

Who wants to eliminate Christianity?

No one here has stated this particular agenda, but you continue to bring it up.  The thing is that we can only teach science in science classes, not faith-based ideas.  No one is saying here that the theory of evolution is infallible; that's why everyone calls it a theory.  But it is based on observations, unlike creationism, which is based on faith, plus there are so many different versions of the Creation story.


Certain aethiest, members of the taliban, among other people.

Theory for now, fact for later, I know the way the pendelem swings. 

Genesis itself has two accounts.

The tactic of the Christian Right is to portray themselves as victims and to declare there are enemy forces within our culture whose agenda it is to eliminate Christianity.  Under such a concocted threat, the Christian Right can thereby pursue it's own persecutory agenda while making it appear they are in the act of self-preservation.

This attitude filters down to all conforming adherents of the evangelical movement, and the adherents often find themselves unable to distinguish between disagreement and threat.

I'm afraid that's the way it is.


When the gun's pointed in my direction, with the hammer back and the finger on the trigger...sorry but yes, I have a feeling I'm gonna get shot.

When the gun's pointed in my direction, with the hammer back and the finger on the trigger...sorry but yes, I have a feeling I'm gonna get shot.

Listen, pal, nobody's doin' that here in America.  It ain't happening!  And anyway, even if the liberal atheists wanted to get aggressive about it, they'd be toast.  Who is better armed, atheist milquetoasts from Berkeley, or God-fearin' Bible-thumpers from Mississippi?
;D

Listen, pal, nobody's doin' that here in America.  It ain't happening!  And anyway, even if the liberal atheists wanted to get aggressive about it, they'd be toast.  Who is better armed, atheist milquetoasts from Berkeley, or God-fearin' Bible-thumpers from Mississippi?
;D


The atheist milquestoast from Berkeley because nothign they'd do would be considered unmoral or wrong.

The God Fearin Bible thumpers wouldn't stand much chance because of a  thing called values and morals.  You see they don't ask themselves do I think this is wrong or right.  They ask themselves, is this wrong or right, period.

The atheist milquestoast from Berkeley because nothign they'd do would be considered unmoral or wrong.

The God Fearin Bible thumpers wouldn't stand much chance because of a  thing called values and morals.  You see they don't ask themselves do I think this is wrong or right.  They ask themselves, is this wrong or right, period.


Just because people are atheists it doesn't mean that they don't have morals or values.  In some cases they may not be the same as a Christians (for example no sex before marriage)  but it doesn't mean that they consider themselves above the law.

Just because people are atheists it doesn't mean that they don't have morals or values.  In some cases they may not be the same as a Christians (for example no sex before marriage)  but it doesn't mean that they consider themselves above the law.


But it is soooo much easier to base an argument on baseless assumptions.

But it is soooo much easier to base an argument on baseless assumptions.


Baseless assumptions? or Assumptions you want left in the dark?

Look at any controversial issue out their on the plate as of right now or even in the past.  Why do some people consider it to be wrong? Morals and values. Who are these people? Christians and other higher spiritual power believers.  Why do some people consider it to be a matter of choice or opinion?  They got their own morals, their own values they made up inside their head that change always in the benefit of themselves.  They do not believe in a higher spiritual power that already had a set of guidelines and rules. They have guidelines and rules, but they change them to see that they always remain in the winning position.

Note how the subject has changed from whether "intelligent design" should be taught in schools, to whether agnostics and atheists have any morals or values...

Look at what you wrote that I emphasized.  Public schools should have no affiliation, yet you want them to teach something that is undeniably religious?  You can't have it both ways.

Also, are you aware that MOST of the people who are against creationism being forcably taught in the public schools are Christian?  It has nothing to do with atheism.....it has everything to do with science.

You also seem to believe that atheists want to eliminate christianity.  I'd like to know where you get your basis for that?  If it's because they want to eliminate the word "God" from things like the Pledge of Allegiance and the currency, I'd like you to know that there are Muslims and Buddhists that want the same.  Does that mean that they also want to "eliminate Christianity"?


"that's the way it was written, that's they way it should remain"....what's your basis for this?

All I know is that right now Evolution is not a fact, 10 years from now it still won't be a fact, but if you get your way it will be a quote unquote fact.  

Writer(s) of the pledge of alligience and those who put the Under God on currency did so as God fearing people.  So if anything, it should be protected as written.  

Note how the subject has changed from whether "intelligent design" should be taught in schools, to whether agnostics and atheists have any morals or values...


Aethiest have morals and values but they base them on their own gain and society in itself.  Now there are exceptions, and I know of some.  I have aethiest friends and I know that they have values and morals.  I also know that they base right and wrong off of how it will effect them.  They won't go beat somone up they don't like, not because they are worried about the hurt of the other person but because of the fear they have of getting in trouble.  If they can get away with something and not get into trouble they will.  Their are also the acceptions to they don't want other people screwing them over, therefore they won't screw someone else over. Regardless it still comes down to "ME" always the top priority.

This is so ludicrous.  Do you honestly believe if the government said "It's okay to murder someone", atheists will go out and go on killing sprees?  People have morals and values based on what they LEARN, how they are raised, not on how they can "win".  I know quite a few atheists and agnostics who live MUCH more "moral" lives than some of the "Christians" I know.  They don't change just because things aren't turning out in their favor.  You can't honestly believe they "make them up as they go".  That is the most ignorant statement I've heard in a long time.


Yes I believe that and it is not ludicrous to do so.  Look at the other things in the world, and if comparisson means anything, you better put your bottom dollar down on it as well.  People would be killing people left and right and the same way the liberals protect the abortion laws of today they'd be protecting the "it's okay to muder someone" laws as well.  You don't want to beileve nor admit, which is fine. You don't have to.  Fortunately we live in a society that is intune enough to never make such laws and we have enough conservatives and truly open minded liberals to make sure that it won't.   

You go out on a cracked limb by saying, "what they learn" as well. You put yourself in a compromising position with that statement.  If you learn it's ok to do something regardless of whether it really is or not, that in itself is telling you that it's ok. 

What you know is someone who refers to themselves as a christian.  There is a difference between the real thing and a disguise.  Just ask the three little pigs and the wolf.

You can deny and deny and deny with words all you want, I see with actions and actions and actions all I want.

Yes I believe that and it is not ludicrous to do so.
...
You can deny and deny and deny with words all you want, I see with actions and actions and actions all I want.

So who do we see killing around the world?  Is it atheists, or religious idiots? Is it atheists who flew a couple of planes into the WTC?  Is it atheists who invaded Iraq, killing thousands upon thousands of innocents?  Was it atheists who killed millions during the partition of India/Pakistan?

You say you see actions - all I see is you not seeing a single fudgeing thing through your own blinkered preconceptions.

I get seriously pissed off when somebody says I can't be moral because I don't believe in a god who (if the bible actually were true) has perpetrated some of the most immoral acts the world has ever seen.  When in the world I see around me, the vast, overwhelming majority of the nastiness, hate and immorality stems from those who would call themselves religious.  So no more hypocrisy, please.

So who do we see killing around the world?  Is it atheists, or religious idiots? Is it atheists who flew a couple of planes into the WTC?  Is it atheists who invaded Iraq, killing thousands upon thousands of innocents?  Was it atheists who killed millions during the partition of India/Pakistan?




Christian complicity during the holocaust, during the civil rights era advocating segregation in the pulpit, those most popular ministers Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Father Coughlin, Bernard Law.  These could be used as examples of how religion is bad, if that is all that was looked at.  But there are examples of looking at religion just as there are other examples of looking at non-Christians.  It is all on what you focus on and Harmonica seems to work very hard at ignoring anything that doesn't fit his agenda.

Yes I believe that and it is not ludicrous to do so.  Look at the other things in the world, and if comparisson means anything, you better put your bottom dollar down on it as well.  People would be killing people left and right and the same way the liberals protect the abortion laws of today they'd be protecting the "it's okay to muder someone" laws as well.  You don't want to beileve nor admit, which is fine. You don't have to.  Fortunately we live in a society that is intune enough to never make such laws and we have enough conservatives and truly open minded liberals to make sure that it won't.   

You go out on a cracked limb by saying, "what they learn" as well. You put yourself in a compromising position with that statement.  If you learn it's ok to do something regardless of whether it really is or not, that in itself is telling you that it's ok. 

What you know is someone who refers to themselves as a christian.  There is a difference between the real thing and a disguise.  Just ask the three little pigs and the wolf.

You can deny and deny and deny with words all you want, I see with actions and actions and actions all I want.


First of all, I wouldn't recommend equating abortion with murder...even if that is your belief, you're doing your arguement no good by backing up one controversial viewpoint with another.

Secondly, you can't seriously believe that atheists have no morals.  That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  Just because atheists don't believe in turning their lives over to a supreme being doesn't mean that they are greedy and self-centered.

Now, as for the original topic, I feel that intelligent design should not be taught in compulsory schools.  And neither should evolution.  (Actually, I'm against ALL forced schooling...but that's not the point.)  Neither theory is going to matter much in life after high school.  If one wishes to learn about such things, more power to them.  But don't force either belief on them.  'Cause that's what it's become:  a matter of belief.

So who do we see killing around the world?  Is it atheists, or religious idiots? Is it atheists who flew a couple of planes into the WTC?  Is it atheists who invaded Iraq, killing thousands upon thousands of innocents?  Was it atheists who killed millions during the partition of India/Pakistan?

You say you see actions - all I see is you not seeing a single fudgeing thing through your own blinkered preconceptions.

I get seriously pissed off when somebody says I can't be moral because I don't believe in a god who (if the bible actually were true) has perpetrated some of the most immoral acts the world has ever seen.  When in the world I see around me, the vast, overwhelming majority of the nastiness, hate and immorality stems from those who would call themselves religious.  So no more hypocrisy, please.


you can be moral. One of my best friends who is an aethiest is very moral.  Can and Are....still two different words.

Christian complicity during the holocaust, during the civil rights era advocating segregation in the pulpit, those most popular ministers Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Father Coughlin, Bernard Law.  These could be used as examples of how religion is bad, if that is all that was looked at.  But there are examples of looking at religion just as there are other examples of looking at non-Christians.  It is all on what you focus on and Harmonica seems to work very hard at ignoring anything that doesn't fit his agenda.



I'm very well aware of pukes like Pat Robertson who claim to be Christian and yet pray for evil things to happen to people and own slave mines in Africa.

Believe me, I'm a man of reason.  I believe in a reason behind everything and I know very well that one of the main reasons why evil is beating good in the overall battle it seems is very much because of those who claim to be christian and those who really are christian getting the wrong message and making mistakes.

First of all, I wouldn't recommend equating abortion with murder...even if that is your belief, you're doing your arguement no good by backing up one controversial viewpoint with another.

Secondly, you can't seriously believe that atheists have no morals.  That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  Just because atheists don't believe in turning their lives over to a supreme being doesn't mean that they are greedy and self-centered.

Now, as for the original topic, I feel that intelligent design should not be taught in compulsory schools.  And neither should evolution.  (Actually, I'm against ALL forced schooling...but that's not the point.)  Neither theory is going to matter much in life after high school.  If one wishes to learn about such things, more power to them.  But don't force either belief on them.  'Cause that's what it's become:  a matter of belief.


My arguement was not on whether abortion is right or wrong, although everyone here knows exactly where I stand on abortion. My argument is that if abortion did not exist up to this date and today someone invented it. Would that person be successful in this day in age right now 2006 with putting abortion on the market? I think not. I think we've came a long way since 1964(?) and the foundations for legalizing abortion back in 1964 are no longer an issue. The reasoning behind it today, I doubt would get it into the large circulation that it is.  With all the advances we have in enducing labor and the health of the mother, good luck with the "but I'm a whore and condoms dont' feel as good" or the "well my daughter wanted to have sex, guess I wasn't smart enough to know she could get pregnant doing that."

You sure are making aethiest out to be good, I'd like to meet these people I see. I know they exist, cause I know a few.  However, I know a lot more than a few that are my description.

You have a very intriguing view on the debate of creationism Vs Evolution, one that finally institues fair and equalness.

//

Now, as for the original topic, I feel that intelligent design should not be taught in compulsory schools.  And neither should evolution.  *(Actually, I'm against ALL forced schooling...but that's not the point.)* Neither theory is going to matter much in life after high school.  If one wishes to learn about such things, more power to them.  But don't force either belief on them.  'Cause that's what it's become:  a matter of belief.


Thank you for this comment, it's what I wanted to say, save the asterisked sentence.

My arguement was not on whether abortion is right or wrong, although everyone here knows exactly where I stand on abortion. My argument is that if abortion did not exist up to this date and today someone invented it. Would that person be successful in this day in age right now 2006 with putting abortion on the market? I think not. I think we've came a long way since 1964(?) and the foundations for legalizing abortion back in 1964 are no longer an issue. The reasoning behind it today, I doubt would get it into the large circulation that it is.  With all the advances we have in enducing labor and the health of the mother, good luck with the "but I'm a whore and condoms dont' feel as good" or the "well my daughter wanted to have sex, guess I wasn't smart enough to know she could get pregnant doing that."

You sure are making aethiest out to be good, I'd like to meet these people I see. I know they exist, cause I know a few.  However, I know a lot more than a few that are my description.

You have a very intriguing view on the debate of creationism Vs Evolution, one that finally institues fair and equalness.



The fact remains that there has always been birth control and abortion.  In the United States it was legal
up until the end of the Civil War when it was made illegal more on to replenish the labor force than for religious reasons.  There are reasons for abortion beyond the telescopic ones that you use, and I notice that you tend to fault the female for having a laissez-faire attitude about becoming pregnant. 

The fact remains that there has always been birth control and abortion.  In the United States it was legal
up until the end of the Civil War when it was made illegal more on to replenish the labor force than for religious reasons.  There are reasons for abortion beyond the telescopic ones that you use, and I notice that you tend to fault the female for having a laissez-faire attitude about becoming pregnant. 


I'm not getting into the abortion agrument seeing that 10% of people on this board are against it and 90% of the people on this board are ful boar for it.

Look at what Philbo wrote.  What has been the reason for many wars in the history of the world?  Religion.  Who have been the warriors?  Religious people.  What are (probably) a majority of our military now?  Christians.  Yet the ATHEISTS are the immoral ones going around killing everyone? 

People not obeying God has and still is a problem, I dont' deny that. Of course the atheist wouldn't take part in a war over in Iraq. Atheist dont' give a flyin "F" about anyone but themselves. Why would they fight a war over in Iraq? It makes no sense.  They could care less about how an olympic athelete was put in a meat grinder feet first because he under performed. Or how a woman was raped by 5 other men because the leader has no care for her so she has no rights. It's not there problem, it doesn't hurt them, why care?



 Oh, puhleeze.  The "die-hard" liberals would never support a "it's okay to murder someone" law and you know it.  By making delusional statements like this, you're only hurting your argument.

Like I said, it won't ever become a law so I have no way to prove it, and this is one of those cases where I'm glad I can't prove it because knowing I was right which I believe I would be would be very disappointing.



 
 And Christianity is different how?  Don't Christians also learn what is okay or not okay to do?  Or, are you all born with an innate sense of morality? So, someone who believes in God, Jesus, the Holy Trinity, goes to church every Sunday, lives a somewhat "Christian" life is NOT a "Christian"?  What the heck are they then?  Hate to burst your bubble, but NOONE is perfect, not even you.  I guess you aren't a "true Christian" either since you seem to have the belief that a "Christian" lives a perfectly moral, just life and even some of the things you've said on here would disqualify you.  Guess what, I have never known ANY "Christian" (and I grew up going to a religious school, church every sunday, bible school, etc.) who would fit your description of a "true" Christian.  However, the couple of TRUE atheists I've known have lived better lives than ANY of the Christians....and that's 3 compared to hundreds/thousands.


A true Christian is written on the heart of a man/woman.  I know I'm not perfect. I'm not one of the liberals on the board that cares only for myself, nor one of the corrupt conservatives that care only for myself. I know my faults better than the majority of members on this board.  You don't like the way I point out the wrongs in life and think I should let them be or worse yet support them just because I myself have my own cons.  I know people that have never gone to church that are true christians and I know people who have never missed a single service who are not Christians.  Christianity isn't gained by the acceptance of people, it's gained and defined not only by one's actions, but one's purpose and motivation behind those actions.

So now, atheists don't care about anyone except themselves?  I'm sure your atheist friends would like to know that.  And, also, I didn't say there were NO atheists in Iraq, I just said that a majority of our military are Christians, who seem to have no problem with killing when done under the guise of war.  A little hypocritical, don't you think?  Or, is there "justified" murder?

Dylan and I have come to many understandings. I'm the type of guy that if I saw a man hurt and trying to make it across the highway, I'd stop my car, get out and help the man.  Dylan on the other hand would make sure he avoided hitting the man and be on his way.  He cares about other people, but not nearly to the extent that I believe we as human beings should care about one another.  He cares about me, because I'm his friend. So If I was the man on the road, he would most likely stop and help me.  However the man being a  stranger, he most likely wouldn't.  Said so himself.

I for one don't ever wanna be in a situation where I'd have to kill someone.  However if I saw someone about to be killed I'd go and try to help them.  There are two kinds of people during a war, those who go  back for Harry and those who don't.  I'd go back for Harry.





   So, what makes you think the "liberals" on this board care for noone but themselves?  What have they EVER said that even infers that?  I can think of more than a few things that show they care for others MORE than themselves....I'd like you to show me 1 to the contrary.  And, once again, you are assuming to know what I think or believe.  And, once again, you are dead wrong.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has their own reasons for what they do or don't believe, I have no problem with that.  You, however, seem to have a MAJOR problem with it.  There is no "middle ground" with you, everything is black and white.  You have consistently said that certain people are NOT Christians, when you don't know jack squat about them.....that YOUR point of view regarding who is or isn't a Christian is "right".  You seem to think YOU are the only one entitled to an opinion, that YOU are the only one who's "right", yet you accuse everyone else of thinking the same.  Almost every accusation can be directed right back at you.   You claim that everyone is attacking you, when YOU are the one throwing the insults. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?


Benefits is what it's all about.  They care about themselves as in THEIR friends, THEIR family.  I had no reason to go broader because the obvious is quite that, the obvious. 

No middle ground with me?  You are obviously not with the program. Who tried to find middle ground on abortion? Me.  Who tried to find middle ground on medicare? Me.  Who tried to find middle ground on education? Me.  Who tried to find middle ground on taking out/leaving creation in schools? Me.

It's not my viewpoint, it's in the Bible.  I got it from the David and Goliath story where God talks to Samuel.  God knows who you are by looking upon what's written on your heart.  As much as you want to think I pulled that outta my rump, I did not.

All you have is numbers, that's all you have.

Of course the atheist wouldn't take part in a war over in Iraq. Atheist dont' give a flyin "F" about anyone but themselves. Why would they fight a war over in Iraq? It makes no sense.  They could care less about how an olympic athelete was put in a meat grinder feet first because he under performed. Or how a woman was raped by 5 other men because the leader has no care for her so she has no rights. It's not there problem, it doesn't hurt them, why care?

Face it, you don't know jack sheesh about atheists or atheism: you've proved it over and over again with your ignorant ramblings.  So why should we take you seriously on ANYTHING you say whatsoever?

Dylan and I have come to many understandings. I'm the type of guy that if I saw a man hurt and trying to make it across the highway, I'd stop my car, get out and help the man.  Dylan on the other hand would make sure he avoided hitting the man and be on his way.  He cares about other people, but not nearly to the extent that I believe we as human beings should care about one another.  He cares about me, because I'm his friend. So If I was the man on the road, he would most likely stop and help me.  However the man being a  stranger, he most likely wouldn't.  Said so himself.

I for one don't ever wanna be in a situation where I'd have to kill someone.  However if I saw someone about to be killed I'd go and try to help them.  There are two kinds of people during a war, those who go  back for Harry and those who don't.  I'd go back for Harry.





   So, what makes you think the "liberals" on this board care for noone but themselves?  What have they EVER said that even infers that?  I can think of more than a few things that show they care for others MORE than themselves....I'd like you to show me 1 to the contrary.  And, once again, you are assuming to know what I think or believe.  And, once again, you are dead wrong.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has their own reasons for what they do or don't believe, I have no problem with that.  You, however, seem to have a MAJOR problem with it.  There is no "middle ground" with you, everything is black and white.  You have consistently said that certain people are NOT Christians, when you don't know jack squat about them.....that YOUR point of view regarding who is or isn't a Christian is "right".  You seem to think YOU are the only one entitled to an opinion, that YOU are the only one who's "right", yet you accuse everyone else of thinking the same.  Almost every accusation can be directed right back at you.   You claim that everyone is attacking you, when YOU are the one throwing the insults. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?


Benefits is what it's all about.  They care about themselves as in THEIR friends, THEIR family.  I had no reason to go broader because the obvious is quite that, the obvious. 

No middle ground with me?  You are obviously not with the program. Who tried to find middle ground on abortion? Me.  Who tried to find middle ground on medicare? Me.  Who tried to find middle ground on education? Me.  Who tried to find middle ground on taking out/leaving creation in schools? Me.

It's not my viewpoint, it's in the Bible.  I got it from the David and Goliath story where God talks to Samuel.  God knows who you are by looking upon what's written on your heart.  As much as you want to think I pulled that outta my rump, I did not.

All you have is numbers, that's all you have.


I had to respond to Harmonicas bashing of the people on this board. And it is a personal issue involving him, but he was the one that brought it up on the board, so I don't think it's a personal attack. Check in the archives and you'll find it.

I remember in the past that you came on this board with a personal problem with a girl that you wanted to date. But she ended up ignoring you. You felt hurt, and you asked the people of this borad for help. And From what I remember. EVERYONE had kind words for you, and wished you well. People supported you when you needed it. And all you can do now is talk s**t about them and tell that that they care only for themselves.

YOU are the one who should be ashamed of himself.

Face it, you don't know jack sheesh about atheists or atheism: you've proved it over and over again with your ignorant ramblings.  So why should we take you seriously on ANYTHING you say whatsoever?


By making these false anologies your hoping to do what?

So you base your opinion on atheists on what 1 of them said.  The atheists I know would have stopped no matter WHOM it was lying on the side of the road.....how do I know this?  Because I was in the car when we stopped to help someone we witnessed drive their car into a tree.  I was also there with them when we called 911 and drove to the police station to give our statements about the accident.

Sorta like that majority of white people who cared for and about the blacks down in the southern part of the states during a time of slavery.  The majority that wanted to end slavery and give them the treatment as human beings that they deserved.  Some majority, some MOST or ALL.





quote author=crazymom link=topic=15393.msg767016#msg767016 date=1137530824]
And, if you talk to ANYONE who has ever been in (or is still in) the military, you'd find that almost 100% of them would go back, no matter WHAT their religious/political affiliation is.  It's part of the "brotherhood" of the military.

Is that right?  I guess the non-fiction Vietnam books I've read with the lines of "leave him, there's not enough room" or "Forget about him John, he's probably dead anyway."  Aren't really true autobiographies but lies.




 quote author=crazymom link=topic=15393.msg767016#msg767016 date=1137530824]
I beg to differ.  Your "middle ground" is exactly what YOU believe.  Your "middle ground" on abortion is "it should be allowed when I say it should" instead of "I think it's wrong, but it should be THEIR choice".  YOUR "middle ground" on creation is "it's either teach both or teach neither" instead of "leave it up to the teacher".  You leave no room for choice in ANY of your "middle grounds".  It's your way or the highway.

Beg to differ all you want to. You have no middle ground on abortion, a girl wants to kill her baby regardless of the reasons your ok with it and say more power to you, enjoy.  You have no middle ground on creation either.  You say let creation be a choice to be taught by teachers because you dont' like the idea of it being taught in class. Evolution on the other hand, is not a choice, it must be taught.  That, is not middle ground.  My way is fairness and equalness. Your idea for fairness is things I want done will be done. I have middle ground on all of these issues.  I could be one sided on abortion and say no to it all. But I don't I look at life endangerment to the mother, rape and those other issues that are a TRUE must have.  Then I look at the other issues where a life and opportunity are being shot down the drain for nothing more than irresponsibility and selfishness and I say no.  Creation is the same grounds.  You don't want it to be taught in schools, fine. Don't go teaching evolution then either.  Middle ground is where both sides get fair and equal opportunity.

If I were a basketball coach and I had more players on my team than positions, and I told my players that I was going to have middle ground for playing time, here's what I'd do.  Jimmy and Johnny are both forwards and there are 12 games.  Fair would be Jimmy gets to play six games,  Johnny gets to play six games.  Not Jimmy is the popular kid and my star player so to be fair I'll make Johnny sit on the bench all 12 games.



No, it's your viewpoint.  You make a choice on whether or not to believe the bible.....just as everyone does.  EVERYONE makes the choice on whether they want to live a "good" life or a "bad" life, no matter what their affiliation is.  It's only when that particular person's "choice" mirrors yours is that person a "good" person.


I know a lot of people far better than I'll ever be and I'm sure your more than happy about that.  I know other people who treat other people like crap, dont' care about anyone, go out of there way to make other people miserable and would not only run you over but back up after they were done to hear an extra thud.  I owe you nothing for thinking of myself above those kind of people. You want to think of a girl in Chicago who has sex with any guy who will give her the money to supply her cocaine habit who's had 4 abortions  as a good person you be my guest.  My "opinion" is she ain't a good person.

I had to respond to Harmonicas bashing of the people on this board. And it is a personal issue involving him, but he was the one that brought it up on the board, so I don't think it's a personal attack. Check in the archives and you'll find it.

I remember in the past that you came on this board with a personal problem with a girl that you wanted to date. But she ended up ignoring you. You felt hurt, and you asked the people of this borad for help. And From what I remember. EVERYONE had kind words for you, and wished you well. People supported you when you needed it. And all you can do now is talk s**t about them and tell that that they care only for themselves.

YOU are the one who should be ashamed of himself.




I'm not ashmed of anything. 

I'm sick of all the lies being told on here though. I don't get it. I just don't get it man.  Why not just admit they want creationism out of schools. Why not admit it? I just dont' get why they won't come out and say what they truly want. Be rid of creationism, get rid of the idea of God altogether in anything and everything but the church. Admit it.

If only I was a baby hating, Non God believing, anti-earned freedom, kinda guy. Then we'd all get along.

I'm not ashmed of anything. 

I'm sick of all the lies being told on here though. I don't get it. I just don't get it man.  Why not just admit they want creationism out of schools. Why not admit it? I just dont' get why they won't come out and say what they truly want. Be rid of creationism, get rid of the idea of God altogether in anything and everything but the church. Admit it.

If only I was a baby hating, Non God believing, anti-earned freedom, kinda guy. Then we'd all get along.


I got more to say to that.

I'm an easy guy to get along with, until you throw salt in my eyes then I get a little angry, when you deny that you threw salt in my eyes I get a little more angry, when you tell me there's absolutely no reason why my eyes should burn, I'm very angry.

This is what I don't get.  Someone post something on this board.  YOu all come in unison to celebrate or bash. Do you honestly think that all 4-10 of use conservatives are going to keep out mouths shut and not speak up for the other side which you'd give about anything to not exist?

You aren't going to see me post that a young man was converted a week ago and not expect someone or a lot of someones  to be pissed off about it going on and on about how we sucker people in and feed them this and feed them that. I'd expect it.

You won't see me post how a lower class girl gave birth to a baby girl and all of the good things that came out of it without expecting to hear all of the liberal trash about having to pay for that kid with tax dollars and how that girl threw away her life or so of the other ideas that get thrown about.

It won't be anytime soon where you see me post a message about an individual that got thrown out of camp for telling another camper to "F off" and not expect Freedom of speech thrown right back into my direction.

I'm not ashmed of anything. 

I'm sick of all the lies being told on here though. I don't get it. I just don't get it man.  Why not just admit they want creationism out of schools. Why not admit it? I just dont' get why they won't come out and say what they truly want. Be rid of creationism, get rid of the idea of God altogether in anything and everything but the church. Admit it.

If only I was a baby hating, Non God believing, anti-earned freedom, kinda guy. Then we'd all get along.


There you go again, putting words into other people's mouths.  No one can take you seriously when you constantly spout this narrow minded filth, telling other people how they feel about issues.

Also, once again, the subject has strayed.  These are just ad hominem attacks.

There you go again, putting words into other people's mouths.  No one can take you seriously when you constantly spout this narrow minded filth, telling other people how they feel about issues.

Also, once again, the subject has strayed.  These are just ad hominem attacks.

Mr. Harmonica is very passionate about his views even when his views are patently erroneous.  If you take it too personally, you'll only get yourself in hot water.  I remember one board member who got banned because she started spouting a string of insults at him.  If he frustrates you, just ignore him!
::)

There you go again, putting words into other people's mouths.  No one can take you seriously when you constantly spout this narrow minded filth, telling other people how they feel about issues.

Also, once again, the subject has strayed.  These are just ad hominem attacks.


Attacks? I'm asking for the truth not demanding it.

Then how do they feel about it? They say take it out of Science class and put it in mythology class. Who does that help on the side of creationism? Who? 2% of the people IF and that's a HUGE if that? Mythology classes in comparisson to every single high school in the United States of America do not exist.  By putting it in a mythology class, they're taking it out of way over half of the schools in the United States of America.  

The wording in which they use doesn't make it seem like they want creation out of schools, but it clearly shows that they do.  The wording the use doesn't make it seem like they want evolution as the only option but the statistics don't lie. How many high schools in the United States have a science class? I'd be willing to bet you'd be hard pressed to find any public high school in the United States of America without one

Mr. Harmonica is very passionate about his views even when his views are patently erroneous.  If you take it too personally, you'll only get yourself in hot water.  I remember one board member who got banned because she started spouting a string of insults at him.  If he frustrates you, just ignore him!
::)


Is erroneous the new word for non-liberal? 

Is erroneous the new word for non-liberal? 


I can think of a few words that are a little more accurate than erroneous ;)

Attacks? I'm asking for the truth not demanding it.

Then how do they feel about it? They say take it out of Science class and put it in mythology class. Who does that help on the side of creationism? Who? 2% of the people IF and that's a HUGE if that? Mythology classes in comparisson to every single high school in the United States of America do not exist.   By putting it in a mythology class, they're taking it out of way over half of the schools in the United States of America. 

The wording in which they use doesn't make it seem like they want creation out of schools, but it clearly shows that they do.  The wording the use doesn't make it seem like they want evolution as the only option but the statistics don't lie. How many high schools in the United States have a science class? I'd be willing to bet you'd be hard pressed to find any public high school in the United States of America without one


You victimize yourself here, making the issue whether students will know about creation rather than whether creation qualifies as science.  Why should it be taught in a science class any more than, say, an Algebra class?

I can think of a few words that are a little more accurate than erroneous ;)




It's like you put a knife in the back of a man and don't expect him to to even change his facial expression to one of pain.  The "Ouch!" will be the least of your reactions.

You victimize yourself here, making the issue whether students will know about creation rather than whether creation qualifies as science.  Why should it be taught in a science class any more than, say, an Algebra class?


I'm not the one in danger of obilivion, I'm defending creation who is in danger of extinction in being taught to new generations.  I'm making the victim, creation, out to be the victim. 

It's like you put a knife in the back of a man and don't expect him to to even change his facial expression to one of pain.  The "Ouch!" will be the least of your reactions.


I agree, it would be the least of my reactions, considering i'm the one putting the knife into someone elses back. :D


I'm not the one in danger of obilivion, I'm defending creation who is in danger of extinction in being taught to new generations.  I'm making the victim, creation, out to be the victim. 


But no one is denying people the right to learn about creation. People still have the right to learn in church, religion classes, and parents still have the right to teach their children what they were taught.

I agree, it would be the least of my reactions, considering i'm the one putting the knife into someone elses back. :D

But no one is denying people the right to learn about creation. People still have the right to learn in church, religion classes, and parents still have the right to teach their children what they were taught.




Only the people that go to church now will learn of these things. How in the world will new generations without parents who went to church learn of these things? How? It needs to be an option it needs to be out there in the open. I have never once in my life been to a Jewish sanction but I know what they do in one. Why because I learned about it during a Hannaka project I had to do in elementary school.  Spent a month on learning nothing but Jewish history, in my history class.

You want the relgion to stay with relgious people only, that's cool. However it's not fair to those who want to get in.  Conversions happen all the time now. The way things are going with all of the get religion out of there movements, conversions won't be happening in 100 years from now.  Born Christian or never Christian is what It'll be.  A chance to accept Jesus christ as a savior will not be an option to those in the future because it won't be long before weren't not even able to talk about it in public at all.

Only the people that go to church now will learn of these things. How in the world will new generations without parents who went to church learn of these things? How? It needs to be an option it needs to be out there in the open. I have never once in my life been to a Jewish sanction but I know what they do in one. Why because I learned about it during a Hannaka project I had to do in elementary school.  Spent a month on learning nothing but Jewish history, in my history class.



BINGO! You nailed it with your last statement. In your history class, NOT your science class. Isn't that exactly what Cat was talking about earlier?

BINGO! You nailed it with your last statement. In your history class, NOT your science class. Isn't that exactly what Cat was talking about earlier?


American History - Civics - Economics - Government - World History - Historical figures - History of the Midwest - Western Civilization - .....nope no mythology.

Attacks? I'm asking for the truth not demanding it.

Rubbish.  You're misquoting everyone who disagrees with you; you're insulting atheists in general based on an inaccurate and just plain idiotic view of what an atheist is; you're ignoring every post which points out the inconsistencies in the twaddle you've been spouting.  Your hypocrisy and arrogance appears to know no bounds.


By making these false anologies your hoping to do what?

er... what false analogy would that be?  There is only one person on this thread who has consistently used false analogies: did I mention hypocrisy already?

American History - Civics - Economics - Government - World History - Historical figures - History of the Midwest - Western Civilization - .....nope no mythology.

But my point still stands, no? You learned it in history class, not science.

Only the people that go to church now will learn of these things. How in the world will new generations without parents who went to church learn of these things? How? It needs to be an option it needs to be out there in the open. I have never once in my life been to a Jewish sanction but I know what they do in one. Why because I learned about it during a Hannaka project I had to do in elementary school.  Spent a month on learning nothing but Jewish history, in my history class.

You want the relgion to stay with relgious people only, that's cool. However it's not fair to those who want to get in.  Conversions happen all the time now. The way things are going with all of the get religion out of there movements, conversions won't be happening in 100 years from now.  Born Christian or never Christian is what It'll be.  A chance to accept Jesus christ as a savior will not be an option to those in the future because it won't be long before weren't not even able to talk about it in public at all.




You ask how people whose parents don't drag them to church are supposed to find out about Creationism...well, first of all, that's not what Christianity is about.  Call me crazy here, but I thought Christianity was about the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins--and, if that truly is the case, teaching Creationism isn't gonna do squat in converting anybody.  So what, you maybe convince them of a different theory about something that happened eons before their time...that doesn't make them a Christian.

Believe me, if the Christian faith is the ultimate truth, it will stick around.  Also, I wouldn't worry about not being able to discuss Christianity in public.  Any true, red-blooded American will make sure that right doesn't get taken away--even if that "true, red-blooded American" isn't a Christian.  Thing is though, they're allowed to discuss their beliefs in public too...even if they go against the very core of Christianity, and/or the very core of your beliefs.

With all due respect, you're overreacting.  Instead of constantly complaining that the government is stealing your god, how 'bout going out and doing what Christians are supposed to do in the first place--make new disciples!  The Great Commission hasn't changed any in the 2000 years since Jesus put it out there on the table.  Don't try to change it now.

But my point still stands, no? You learned it in history class, not science.




yes your point does still stand and it is a good one. My point still stands too, history class, is a class that EXIST.

You ask how people whose parents don't drag them to church are supposed to find out about Creationism...well, first of all, that's not what Christianity is about.  Call me crazy here, but I thought Christianity was about the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins--and, if that truly is the case, teaching Creationism isn't gonna do squat in converting anybody.  So what, you maybe convince them of a different theory about something that happened eons before their time...that doesn't make them a Christian.

Believe me, if the Christian faith is the ultimate truth, it will stick around.  Also, I wouldn't worry about not being able to discuss Christianity in public.  Any true, red-blooded American will make sure that right doesn't get taken away--even if that "true, red-blooded American" isn't a Christian.  Thing is though, they're allowed to discuss their beliefs in public too...even if they go against the very core of Christianity, and/or the very core of your beliefs.

With all due respect, you're overreacting.  Instead of constantly complaining that the government is stealing your god, how 'bout going out and doing what Christians are supposed to do in the first place--make new disciples!  The Great Commission hasn't changed any in the 2000 years since Jesus put it out there on the table.  Don't try to change it now.


Life has taught me to never be too optomistic and have realization that pesimestic outcomes are very possible.  Only one thing will tell whether your assumption is right or whether my assumption is right and that is our friend Time.  I hope your right, fear that I am.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I'd think she was a "good person"?



He makes this stuff up as he goes along.  It is a lazy way to advance ones arguments.

Are you trying to say that there is scientific evidence of the creationism theory?  Scientific evidence of God?  You learned about Jewish history in History class.  See the correlation? 


No, I'm saying in most high schools across the United States of American, mythology class does not exist.

See, once again, this is what you WANT to see.  If a girl wanted to get an abortion, I'd try to talk her out of it, but if she was dead set that she was going to do it, I'd support her.  If I was so "okay with it", I would've had one when I found myself pregnant with my oldest son.

I suppose I believe on that , but You can't say you can't see how I would not.  There are many people in this world that would never have an abortion themselves because they think of themselves a higher class of people, better than others.  They support abortion among minorities and the poor because they look at them below themsleves. If you dont' believe me, that's fine.  Seeing that most abortion clinics are set up around African American communities is enough proof to tell me that someone is using a dirty plan to be rid of a race he/she doesn't care for.  
 Not excusing you of being one of these people but I also know a lot of Planned Parent hood specialist that claim they'd "try and talk her out of it" but do no such thing.  They talk for 30 seconds about the pros of adoption and raising a child, then they go on and on for ours about all of the struggles and hardships of adoption and rasing a child. Then they do nothing but talk about the advantages of getting an abortion, and sadly in many of cases they dont' stress the guilt one may feel after recieving one. So these girls go in, get told a bunch of bull from these planned parent hood specialist, have an abortion, then either have no heart about the deal and move on, or wake up every morning from then on out sick with regret.


  I also NEVER said that evolution MUST be taught.  I DID say that it's the best scientific explanation for how the world came into being, therefore, it belongs in science class.  Creationism has NO scientific basis and does NOT belong in science class any more than the study of a piece of Shakespeare belongs in science class or the study of Newton's Law belongs in English class.  I'll stretch the definition of "history" and say if you want it taught in a history class ( like you learned about Jewish history in history class) go right ahead, as long as you give equal time to the history of Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Atheism, Gnosticism, and all other religions.

Agreed on the rest of the stuff should be taught as well, although I will put my foot down and say the violence in Islam should be left out.  As well as the evil curse spells of Wicca.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I'd think she was a "good person"?  One of the "liberals" you've demonized on here has given their time and money for YEARS to help those less fortunate.  Would give you the shirt off their back if you were cold....the food from their plate if you were hungry.....money from their pocket if you were broke.....a shoulder to cry when you needed it, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the reason you were crying.  IMO, that's a "good person", but you automatically place them in the "bad person" group because they don't have the same political/religious beliefs that you do.  I judge each person SEPARATELY, regardless of their political/religious beliefs.


Would I give the shirt off my back if I was cold to someone else? I have.   Would I give the food off my plate if I was hungry to someone else?  Yes, I was a wrestler in high school. Hungry was something I was often, giving food off my plate was something I did on a regular basis.  Would I give money in the pocket if I were broke? I'm a college student, I'm broke. Yet I still donate the money I can to church every sunday.   Would I let someone cry on my shoulder regardless of the reasons?  Done it more than once.

One of my best friends, one of the greatest friends I'll ever have is a liberal. Hardcore liberal.  I too judge each person seperately, but I am also a reactor to my environment. According to you guys ever conservative is an idiot that knows jack squat, well you want to start a fire, be my guest just don't act surprised when it starts to get overheated.

Once again, you failed to answer the question ::)


He asked me a question.  No was my answer.

See, that's the difference between you and me....I see them being put there because that's where most of the people who are using them are.
 You don't have to tell me what Planned Parenthood does or doesn't do.  I've been to quite a few of them with friends and I've NEVER seen what you're describing.

Why?  You want all of Christianity taught, why should elements of other religions be left out?  You should also study up on other religions if you're going to make statements like the above ::)
I know MANY conservatives who are not idiots.  My husband is one, and one of the most intelligent people I know.  I have NEVER made such blatantly ignorant statements about conservatives as you have about liberals.  The fact that you HAVE shows that you're no better than the people you chastize.


I've seen a crap load of planned parenthood's that do exactly what I describe. I once heard of one of the many that do what you claim they do.  Up close and personal has more of an effect on me than far in the distance.

Anything that teaches hatred and violence should be left out of the curriculum. Many people on this board have made those comments before.  Many people on this board dont' hate Pat Robertson because of the idiot he is, they hate him because of his politcal views, and that's enough full sized proof for me to make m claim.

No worse, either.

HE didn't ask you a question, I did....in fact I asked 3 of them.  Which one were you answering?  No scientific evidence of the creation theory?  God? or you don't see the correlation between the "history" of something and "History" class 


He did too ask me a question.  It has one of these - - - -> ?  it's a question. 

It wasn't a HE that asked you the question....the last time I checked, I was a SHE (and still am).

Besides which, you STILL haven't answered it ::)


I'm talking about what a male wrote, what someone else, not you wrote.

I'd answer your question, no problem, but I don't know what it is.

And, if you knew what Islam or Wicca actually WAS, you'd know that neither of them teach hatred, violence or evil any more than Christianity.

And, btw, I hate Pat Robertson because he's an idiot and a hypocrite.


Osama Bin Ladin ring a bell?