Quebec community cool to Darwin

Montreal Gazette via Canada.com ^ | May 20 2006 | Alison Lampert

[Elsie]

Thus our Constitution. is trumped by our rulers....

[Elsie]

There is nothing in the Bible to support women having a right to vote.

Or men; either.

[Elsie]

Yep, you survived without a safety seat. So did I. But thousands of other children did not.

They are NOT trying to 'protect childrens lives'; but to control us further.

If they were TRULY concerned about 'dead children' - ABORTION would be gone from this country!

[2nsdammit]

"The ol' "God is bad for killing 'innocent' babies" tangent."

Tangent!?

You don't think that any God who would kill innocent babies, commit genocide, etc is bad?

[microgood]

Of all the objections you could have to government intrusion on our lives, you choose one that makes more sense than many? What's that about?

Well, my first example was spanking, but if you look at Washington's laws, it starts out with one seat, now there are three, tripling the cost to the parent, and enriching the manufacturers. If they are going to mandate it, they should deliver it UPS to your home, free.

Sorry if I don't have the confidence that you have in parents' judgement when it comes to keeping their kids safe. Without regulation, more children would die. According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, children are still dying while unrestrained. Imagine how much worse it would be if there weren't laws enforcing the use of restraints.

Whether I have confidence in them is not the point. The point is where does government end and freedom begin, since they are mutually exclusive. When we were children, we could ride down the dirt county roads around our public lake with our feet dangling off the tailgate. Those days are gone. So sad. Some things are more important than personal safety, and freedom is one of those things.

Bottom line is that now we live in a world where everyone thinks they know whats best for everyone else. And this slow boil will eventually kill the frog.

[Almagest]

<< If they were TRULY concerned about 'dead children' - ABORTION would be gone from this country! >>


Ahhhh, the old "they are bad for killing innocent babies" tangent.

[Almagest]

Just noticed something that got past me before, Elsie. Why did you put the word 'innocent' in quotation marks?

[2nsdammit]

The better question is "where does 'freedom' end, and child abuse begin"?

And this is only one example.

[microgood]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

CS Lewis.

[editor-surveyor]

"And yet people keep holding up the bible as some sort of science book"

No, not as a 'science' book, a fact book. Science is sometimes right, but also often wrong, and is constantly changing. The Bible is always right, and will never change. The difference between the two seems to evade your limited cognition.

[editor-surveyor]

" So it must be true that there are talking snakes."

I don't know about talking, but I'll vouch for typing; most of them are dweepers, and hang out here on the evo threads spouting nonsense, and calling it science, while they taunt the creationists :o)

[WKB]

Nothing like someone else deciding for me what's best for my kids and having the ACLU to back them up in having it forced on us through the judiciary


You are SO right. There IS nothing like it.

[Revolting cat!]

Nicely stated (#290.) That's one thing that gets me. The evolutionists' standard insult on these threads is that ID is not "science". OK, I'm willing to accept that. But what is science? Here they'll provide the most up-to-date definition of science, top of the charts, hippest, with it, dude. 100 years ago that definiton was different, 500 years ago it would contradict how they preach it today, in September, it may be adjusted again. That's fine, that is how human matters work, but see it, acknowledge it, step back and get some perspective on it. This is the best we humans can do with it today, as it was the best 100, 500 years ago. The Bible, as you said, never changes. Everything else passes...

[LiteKeeper]

mega-dittoes

[Coyoteman]

The Bible is always right, and will never change. The difference between the two [science and the bible] seems to evade your limited cognition.

You still haven't answered my detailed post on the global flood on another thread.

The evidence for a global flood simply is not there. The global flood is belief, trying to overrule science.

That the bible cannot change shows that it is not a science book. Science has learned a lot, and changed significantly, in the past several thousand years. The bible is religion, and, as you point out, has not changed.

[Coyoteman]

Here they'll provide the most up-to-date definition of science, top of the charts, hippest, with it, dude. 100 years ago that definiton was different, 500 years ago it would contradict how they preach it today, in September, it may be adjusted again. That's fine, that is how human matters work, but see it, acknowledge it, step back and get some perspective on it. This is the best we humans can do with it today, as it was the best 100, 500 years ago. The Bible, as you said, never changes. Everything else passes...

Science progresses.

Would you like to have the medicines of 500 years ago? The chemistry? The electonics? (Whoops, there was no electronics 500 years ago!)

If you like the distant past that much, let me know. I'll teach you how to chip a nice arrowhead. Whoops, a spearhead. Arrowheads were more recent.

[DennisR]

"Creationism is connected only to a 2000-year-old text written at a time when almost all humans believed in superstitions."

Huh? You might want to get your facts straight before making assertions like this.

[metmom]

Eph 5:28-29 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The concept of women being equal in value to men is Biblical, it did not originate with Darwin. If people get the idea that Eve is inferior to man because of her being a secondary creation, that is the misunderstanding of men, not what Scripture teaches.

Darwin did not foresee that his idea would contribute to equal political status for women, ...

What is there to back this up?

[metmom]

Hey, they're trying to force their ideology on the kids. It started out during the Scopes trial as *teach the contorversy* (where have we heard THAT one before?) and slowly but surely creation got inexorably edged out; which I wouldn't doubt for a minute was the whole idea from the ACLU.

The ACLU just found a bunch of useful idiots in the evos in their drive to get religion of any kind removed from education. To some of the evos it MIGHT be a matter of *keeping science pure* but to the ACLU, who is behind them, it sure isn't. I don't have a doubt, either, that the ACLU gives a rip about *keeping science pure*; just so long as it suits their purposes. When they are done with that, they'll turn on the evos next.

For all the comparisons between creationists and the Taliban that keep getting presented here, the only difference I see between the Taliban and ACLU is the method to their madness. Their ends are the same; destruction of western civilzation and Christianity.

[Coyoteman]

Hey, they're trying to force their ideology on the kids.

I think the current battle is ID is being falsely promoted into the schools as science, when it is actually creation lite.

Who is it that is trying to force their ideology on the kids?

What is intelligent design?

It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.

Bruce Bower, Science News, vol. 168 (Nos 26 & 27), 2006, p. 414: