The only fact in the entire picture of evolution and evolutionism is the fact that 90% of the people pushing it (evolution) are queer:
Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
Yeah, me too. Just figured how the DU do math
Regardless of the details of incorporation, we're talking about the 1st Amendment here, which even the courts agree were applied to the states by the 14th Amendemnt. So unless you want to contradict both the courts and the man who actually wrote the thing, it is clear the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment applies to the states.
Finally, regarding the sticker, it denies all the available empirical data by claiming evolution is not fact. The only reason anyone denies the fact of evolution is because of religious dogma, not science. Therefore, the sticker constitutes the tax-payer funded promotion of religious dogma. If that's not establishing religion, I do not know what is.
Funny that you should call me a statist. It is you, not me, who wants to use taxpayer money to deny a scientific fact.
The only fact in the entire picture of evolution and evolutionism is the fact that 90% of the people pushing it (evolution) are queer:
Do you believe in a Creator Being?
And how do you prove that? Simple denial of a fact is no justification for concluding religious beliefs. O.J. Simpson murdered his wife. The jury denied that fact. Are they establishing a religion? It is a fact that something cannot come from nothing. Yet current cosmologies theorize this "possibility" for the creation of the universe. Therefore that cannot be taught in state-run schools.
Wait a sec. Who pays the school board? Who pays the teachers? Who pays for the school property? Who pays for the light, water, and other utilities used by the schools. Yes, you are right, the people of the state pay for those things. In spite of the ill-advised intrusion by the federal government into the school systems of the states, it is the people who use the schools that pay for the schools, free lunch programs notwithstanding. These are the people who want a say on what is taught in the schools. Even if it means putting a sticker in a book.
In this case, it is a judge, who you seem to agree with, that has denied the right of taxpayers to use their money as they see fit, due to some imagined establishment of religion. What law requires that biology even be taught in a state-run school?
If true, which it isn't, it makes evolution no less a fact.
Evolution has been overwhelmingly disproven. It's junk science and it's the sort of junk science which only a homosexual would have any use for.
"Evolution has been overwhelmingly disproven. It's junk science and it's the sort of junk science which only a homosexual would have any use for."
Sorry, that is just wrong.
Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms underlying that fact.
You are free to post any scientific papers that have "disproven" evolution. I think you will find your search "fruitless" (heehee).
I have always wondered how or why someone would make statements such as this. Perhaps you could explain why you have taken this position?
Wrong. Individuals have no say as to what gets put into a book in a public school. The school board does. Yes, the school board gets elected, but if I'm in the minority I have no redress against a school board that uses my taxdollars to put that stupid sticker in biology textbooks. The majority has just trampled on my rights, and has just confiscated my hard-earned money to push a religious belief I do not share. The whole point of the establishment clause fo the First Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendement, is to stop majorities (or, more frequently, activist minorities) from forcing their religious beliefs on the minority.
In this case, it is a judge, who you seem to agree with, that has denied the right of taxpayers to use their money as they see fit, due to some imagined establishment of religion.
The judge has just stopped a majority of taxpayers (more likely an activist minority) from using other taxpayers' money to push a religious belief they do not share. This is exactly what the 14th Amendment was designed to do.
What law requires that biology even be taught in a state-run school?
And your point is...
Denial of fact based on a religious text constitutes a religious belief.
O.J. Simpson murdered his wife. The jury denied that fact. Are they establishing a religion?
I know of no religious text that affirms OJ's innocence.
It is a fact that something cannot come from nothing. Yet current cosmologies theorize this "possibility" for the creation of the universe.
They theorize no such thing. The big bang theory postulates that all matter and energy was concentrated into one small place in the Universe, and that it was all suddenly dispersed (bang!) in a cosmic explosion. Science cannot say anything about the ultimate origin of matter and energy. That is the province of religion.
There have been other disproofs, but this one alone suffices.
"A New Species Is Never Produced - The fruit flies always remain fruit flies "
The above is from the link you gave. This shows a complete misunderstanding of biology. New species of fruit flies have been observed. Different species of fruit flies are fruit flies, but it is a different species.
I really don't want to continue this anymore, it is just too frustrating.
Macroevolution means producing new "kinds" of animals, i.e. animals with new organs and new basic modes of survival. The fruit fly experiments pretty much proved that to be impossible. Everything which turned up were fruit flies. No dogs, cats, spiders, ants, butterflies, wasps, or any other kind of animal except fruit flies ever turned up.
Micro and macro are the same process. Species jumps are macro evolution by definition. Science defines the words, so science knows what they mean.
No one expects jumps from Genus to Genus or above. The forensic evidence in the fossil record is used to see what has happened over millions of years.
I don't understand why you seem so gleeful that you have not seen some entirely new kind. If God creates new "kinds" in a big poof, we should have seen some new kind by now.
Wrong, and the entire literature of the subject refutes that. Any number of competent scientists have noted that the two are different and that there is no evidence that the one can lead to the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.