Posted on 01/18/2005 6:53:09 AM PST by mike182d
MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) - Members of a suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution ``a theory, not a fact.''
In a 5-2 vote, the Cobb County school board decided to appeal last week's ruling. Board members said U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper's order to remove the stickers immediately ``amounts to unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools,'' according to a statement.
Monday's decision came after board members met with lawyers for three hours in a closed session.
-- snip --
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Evos want one thing more than anything else: sexual freedom. They believe they are experiencing greater day to day sexual satisfaction b/c of that 'freedom'.
And so, they mistakenly believe that the bible thumpers, such as myself, not only have less satisfying sex, but that we want to make everyone else experience less satisfying sex too.
We Bible Thumpers, if we understood this single issue, that of sexual gratification and satisfaction, then this fight over evolution would be exposed for the trojan horse it really is.
I am speechless.
Similarly, the local school board has not specified any specific interpretation, religious or otherwise, of evolution. As such, the local school board has every right to place the sticker in the science texts.
That said, it's a really silly sticker to put in. Any parent who doesn't believe in evolution is likely to teach their children the basis of the disagreement.
In short, I would be opposed to the school district putting in the sticker. But given that they have, they should be allowed to. Court ruling should be based what the law says, not the intelligence with which it is applied.
Just to make this interesting, I would add, that I believe the Bible supports evolution. Genesis 2:7 reads" Then G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
The Hebrew word translated as "formed" refers to the task of making pottery. A potter does not throw down clay and have it instantly take the form he wants. He molds and shapes it, through intermediate forms, until it reaches the shape he desires.
Thus, the ancient Hebrews, familiar with the term, would have seen and gradual forming of man, not an instant creation. The exact mechanics by which God did this molding are not specified. The fact that he facilitated such an evolutionary molding has been lost in translation from the Hebrew.
Your science is corrupt because the facts have to fit within your ideology. When the facts point away from your original theory, you refuse to even consider that your original theory may be wrong.
"Doofus?"
Wow.
Fantastic. My first exposure to the idea was "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle. I'll be on the look out for yours...
> When the facts point away from your original theory
Ah, but in the case of evolution, they *don't* point away. They point towards. They demonstrate that the system is complex, but only an idiot would think that something the size of a planet would have a simple biosphere.
Find me a fossil of a dinosaur with a human in it's belly, THEN maybe you'll have some evidence. But right now, you don't.
What was the motive for the sticker disclaimer in the first place? Why did the sticker disclaimer contain a blatant factual error that no one with any understanding of evolution would have made?
My design is an evolution of the actual General Atomics designs from the early '60's. It'll be a realistic and resonable design... no sci-fi goo-gaws.
See? Relevance. Evolution.
And interestingly, they are not interested in evidence or reports, such as this one, to the contrary. Never have been.
I don't expect you'll start now, but we'll try.
So, please answer this question: Given that sex is a primary topic of research, why is it that evos ignore reports from Christians who are faithful to one another that the sex contentment 'quotient' is better?
My answer: it is that atheistic evos believe such reports are fabricated, and/or not validated by 'proper' experience outside marriage.
They think the Christians are lying. Thus, protection of the sexual rule book from ecclesiastical authorities is paramount - to prevent awful sex from returning to america. The priests of reason currently occupy the amoral high road, and will not give ground without a fight. Protecting 'reason' and 'logic' is a big fat lie and a red herring - it is not their primary motive.
The sexual standard of living is at stake, as well as the economic forces that protect the cash flow streams to scientists to a lesser extent (80 percent of all research dollars comes from the Feds).
Here's the truth: if evolution's proponents would somehow couple to their 'theory' how husband and wives being faithful to one another is a GREAT idea and good for offspring, then scientists would have some credibility.
Instead, it is the homo perverts, the free love porn stars, the all-highways-are-open sexual license grantors that use 'evolution' as a substrate for justifying their behavior - and worse, preaching it. Of course, even all THAT could potentially be acceptable. The public snapped, however, w/ evo proponents remained silent while the sexual perversion nonsense flooded the schools, and today it is that battleground that is fertilizing new armies of folks like me who are so fed up.
The evos remain silent on this today, and will remain so. For they agree with maximizing sexaul information of all varieties to kids as young as possible - except reports that the sex itself is reported to be BETTER in marriage. No, no, that must remain secret.
This is the bottom line reason folks you 'speak' for are so utterly not trusted by folks like myself.
My church doesn't believe in stickers - lol.
And interestingly, they are not interested in evidence or reports, such as this one, to the contrary. Never have been.
I don't expect you'll start now, but we'll try.
So, please answer this question: Given that sex is a primary topic of research, why is it that evos ignore reports from Christians who are faithful to one another that the sex contentment 'quotient' is better?
My answer: it is that atheistic evos believe such reports are fabricated, and/or not validated by 'proper' experience outside marriage.
They think the Christians are lying. Thus, protection of the sexual rule book from ecclesiastical authorities is paramount - to prevent awful sex from returning to america. The priests of reason currently occupy the amoral high road, and will not give ground without a fight. Protecting 'reason' and 'logic' is a big fat lie and a red herring - it is not their primary motive.
The sexual standard of living is at stake, as well as the economic forces that protect the cash flow streams to scientists to a lesser extent (80 percent of all research dollars comes from the Feds).
Here's the truth: if evolution's proponents would somehow couple to their 'theory' how husband and wives being faithful to one another is a GREAT idea and good for offspring, then scientists would have some credibility.
Instead, it is the homo perverts, the free love porn stars, the all-highways-are-open sexual license grantors that use 'evolution' as a substrate for justifying their behavior - and worse, preaching it. Of course, even all THAT could potentially be acceptable. The public snapped, however, w/ evo proponents remained silent while the sexual perversion nonsense flooded the schools, and today it is that battleground that is fertilizing new armies of folks like me who are so fed up.
The evos remain silent on this today, and will remain so. For they agree with maximizing sexaul information of all varieties to kids as young as possible - except reports that the sex itself is reported to be BETTER in marriage. No, no, that must remain secret.
This is the bottom line reason folks you 'speak' for are so utterly not trusted by folks like myself.
{CAUSE AND EFFECT? Gimme a break. You evos ignore the cause of the Origin of Life in the exact same way cosmologists ignore the first cause of the big bang ... hypocrit).
Yes, because biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and other scientists practicing in fields involving the TOE are known for their debauched hedonism.
And so, they mistakenly believe that the bible thumpers, such as myself, not only have less satisfying sex, but that we want to make everyone else experience less satisfying sex too.
I cannot recall a single instance where any evolution-supporter on these threads has made this assertion.
Heh,neither does mine, but how does this wacko Clintonista judge reject the stickers as unconstitutional unless the stickers are in some fashion 'state-imposed religion'?
Around the turn of the previous century, atheists argued for tolerance, and now that they ahve taken over most university faculties by subtefuge, betrayal and fraud, they use their power to suppress as much Christian thought as possible.
That should show us the error of ever trusting the ungodly.
Probably because the sex contentnment level of Christians has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Here's the truth: if evolution's proponents would somehow couple to their 'theory' how husband and wives being faithful to one another is a GREAT idea and good for offspring, then scientists would have some credibility.
The offspring of a committed couple are more likely to survive. Not too difficult to see how this could be an evolutionary advantage.
Instead, it is the homo perverts, the free love porn stars, the all-highways-are-open sexual license grantors that use 'evolution' as a substrate for justifying their behavior - and worse, preaching it
To quote Homer Simpson: "What the hell are you talking about?"
"I cannot recall"
"on these threads"
How Clintonian...
So, what are really saying mm? That this fear of evos regarding 'sexual freedom' doesn't exist and has nothing to do with the intensity of this fight?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Creationists are the ones who bring up this whole sexual freedom tangent.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: The theory of evolution is not a moral or ethical guide. It simply describes a certain natural phenomenon. It is, in the truest sense of the word, amoral.
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.