Posted on 11/12/2005 8:19:25 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Here it starts again. Everyone but the lilywhite scientists are liars.
And teach the Koran in Dearborn?
Complexity seems to be a problem. It should be well-known that a few lines of computer code can produce astonishingly complex results. The mind doesn't seem to be able to know every atom in the universe by name, but the mind can create categories and classifications for the few hundred possible kinds of atoms. Every star is different, yet the mind can create categories that reduce the infinite variety to a few types. The individual instances of living things are uncountable, but families and species bring order out of chaos. Cell processes can be singled out and the balance between them understood. Nature is infinite, but we produce order and pattern from nature. Complexity is an illusion to incomplete vision.
Here it starts again.
No, it *started* when Stingy Dog made a series of bizarre, disgusting, and false accusations. I find it quite significant that you didn't have a problem with *that*, but only with my objection to it.
Everyone but the lilywhite scientists are liars.
Nonsense, and that is yet *another* transparently false and disgusting accusation, like several others that have been made here. You guys are really covering yourselves with glory on this thread, aren't you?
But when someone does post blatant lies, I will feel no shame in pointing it out. I'm serving truth -- what are you serving?
Please explain why you folks are so fond of overblown broadside ad hominems, and so short on the willingness or ability to rationally discuss the actual topic in an informed manner.
Never mind, the reason is obvious.
The monkey wrench in the machine is the appearance of the creature in the universe. The fact that he is self-aware, and somehow or another is aware that he is self-aware is the stickler. He gives the universe firsthand knowledge of being, and not just existing. The creature gives it soul.
The Supreme Court has upheld that the first and fourteenth amendment are one of the liberties protected by the due-process clause in the fourteenth (and fifth) amendments. It meant that not only could Congress not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion, but neither could the State or local govt.
You might as well say that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy and therefore abortion has to be legal. I'll bet that's exactly what you believe. Are you sure you're in the right forum?
Good question I am beginning to wonder myself. I am against abortion, I am against tyranny, I am against anyone who wishes to impose their will on me or my children.
Having said that, I am against the state or local govt allowing religion to be taught in public schools. Why? Simple. I live in an area that has all sorts of religious backgrounds. If you allow the school board to teach a religion in school... it will probably NOT be the bible that is taught. I know you all mean well... but you really are going to make a mess of things if you try and turn this around.
Please let the thread progress, and stop trying to send it to the smokey backroom.
It was progressing into the "relentlessly bash the evolutionists as a group in the most vicious possible ways" direction. I was trying to stop that, in case you hadn't noticed. You were the one trying to help it continue in that direction. If you want to stop now, that would be greatly appreciated.
and stop trying to send it to the smokey backroom.
Oh look, another false and insulting accusation. Hard to break your habit, is it?
I have the menu du jour. No roast zeeber for you. thank you for your comments, have a nice day.
Let me ask you a question. If you lived in an area that had many, many Hindus would you be happy that Hunduism was being taught in your local school? "Good morning class, let's all do our AUM chant to Vishnu and Shiva...". Would it also be acceptable to teach the bible in that same school? Koran? No? You get my point? The reality is that within the last 45 years demographics has changed and unlike our European friends, it has not been a bad change either.
If Batrachian wants to go back 45 years or more that is his belief. I do not. I do not want anyone to teach any religion to my children in school. It isn't fair to my children and it is is not fair to the children of other faiths.
I have been asked by Batrachian if I really belong on this board. He accused me of being pro-abortion simply because I disagree with his argument. How he made that jump in logic is beyond me but it infuriates me. I never attacked him and I never made such claims about him.
Is it possible to believe 99% of what everyone else here says and yet be ostracized for one percent? What makes me so angry is that is Conservatism not inclusive to all faiths? Am I wrong? Has not Rush Limbaugh said on several occasions that it is? Do I need to go through all my MP3 downloads I get from Rush to find the exact quote(s)?
Again
The theory is not only useful, but essential to categorize life. A biology student could not make sense out of all the different species of plants and animals without this "tree".
Biologists take significant genetic and fossil evidence and look backwards--but when they try to take that same evidence and move forewards they start making claims that simply cannot be drawn necessarily or absolutely from that same evidence. They can make a plausible explanation--but that it all.
If I may make up a term (biologists do it, too)--I'd like to point at a notion about speciciation I'll call "fortuitous coherence"--rather like the coherent layers of light piled up to create lazer light. Fortuitous coherence is necessary to accomodate your theory of speciation--on top of fortuious accidents happening in fortuitous order. This is why duplicating speciation is so difficult in the laboratory. And when I worked in a lab many years ago, I was taught that "reproducibility" was a very high value when testing scientific theory.
In short, get that monkey chart outta my face!!
As far as the spiritual dimension, it bothers me not at all that things in the Bible stretch the credulity of scientists. They seem to think that a "fish" swallowing a man presents some unconquerable challenge to faith. They ought try dealing with the heroic little children in an oncology ward. Talk about something to test your faith--the Garden of Eden is child's play after that.
The fact of the demographic shift of the past 45 years is IMO an argument against compulsory tax-supported schools. In an attempt to respect everyone's values, they end up respecting nobody's values.
So... why would I bring up the clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in my argument? I also left out free speech, press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the gov't because they had nothing to do with my "separation of church and state" argument.
I am sorry I don't understand you, can you clarify?
Your post was in response to Batrachian, who advocated teaching the bible in school, if the locals choose. You pointed to the first amendment, but reading it proves that "separation of church and state" are not in the amendment.
Constitutionalist Conservative proved that your interpretation of the portion you favor is erroneous in his subsequent post:
"You do know, don't you, that some of the states that ratified the Constitution had established churches at the time of ratification, and that disestablishment was not expected of them (although they all eventually did)?"
Batrachian challenged your assertion directly. Since I realize that you will find words in the first amendment that simply aren't there, I accepted your premise and challenged you with the other half of the religious freedom protection in the first amendment.
Well if you are against compulsory tax-supported schools then why would you be for teaching the bible in them(or am I making a presumption?).
I now see your point so let me clarify. The Supreme Court ruled 1947 (er.. I think) that the 14th amendment applies the 1st amendment to the state and local governments in addition to Congress. Thus states and local governments also could not enact legislation that establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It in essense it secularized the schools among other things.
As for prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I do not see the connection.
Does this clarify it?
check back to see what evolves
In the same vein, I oppose English as a second language, and anything else that weakens the basic institutions of our nation and society. Call me a Western chauvinist if you want. I admit it.
I've said it before: If people where descended from cats, which are clean and pretty, we wouldn't oppose evolution so bitterly, but because we're descended from ugly, smelly apes that scratch themselves and masturbate in public, we resent the connection. I think many people's objection to evolution is neither religious or scientific. It's aesthetic.
I would ban Islam but the 1st Amendment forbids that. No, only our Bible would be taught, not the seditious works of fanatics and murderers.
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.