Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Clearly the voice of the people means nothing to you.
Thanks for proving my point.
If Christians did what you suggested they would be breaking the Commandment about stealing. They would be stealing **freedom of conscience** from the liberal/Marxists.
Government schools from the very beginning stole freedom of conscience. The majority Protestant Christians of the 19th century hated Catholics and were fearful the nation would become a Catholic nation. It was **this** motivation that was a major motivation for getting compulsory schools started. Protestant Christians hoped they could **force** little Catholic children into their schools. The Catholics surprised them and started their own parochial schools.
The solution is not to break a Commandment about stealing. The solution is **freedom**: Begin the process of privatizing universal education.
Christians are in this mess because they broke the Commandment about **stealing** 100 to 150 years ago. They did not consider that any government powerful enough to force Protestantism on Catholics is powerful enough to force atheism on Christians in th 21st century.
If we retaliate with stealing the freedom of conscience from the liberal/Marxists today it will only worsen the problem both in schooling and in other areas of government.
the normal English speaking Christian people are in the majority here...I’ve heard anywhere from 80% on up are Christians.
The majority of citizens in this nation claim to be Christian but when quizzed about their beliefs they are not. They are really an amorphous mass of New Age "Feel-Goodism".
IT could work quite well if people would snap out of their comas, stop being mentally and morally lazy and realize our culture is gong to hell in a handbasket and they actually DO HAVE RIGHTS yes, even if they are Christians!!
Yep! I hear the snoring!
"They are just..." is not neutral. Either answer promotes a viewpoint.
There can be no neutral ground when there's only two sides to an issue.
The voice of the people is democracy. Sometimes mob rule and sometimes socialism.
I'd like to think of this country as a constitutional republic, governed by representatives. Messy, and everyone's unhappy most of the time.
Where is it that science requires discussion of supernatural intervention, except in a discussion of the historical beginnings of science?
Someone recently pointed out to me that Newton believed God micro-intervenes in the orbits of planets. That was consistent with the observational data available to Newton, but has become unnecessary with better data and better models of gravity.
I often reuse code when DESIGNING software. It’s efficient and makes sense.
And, I use “nested heirarchies” - it’s called Object Oriented programming.
There can be no rational discussion with someone who thinks there's only two possible explanations to the problem of physical constants.
Yes, but I'm willing to bet your programs use libraries that are not merely tiny, incremental changes to previous versions of the particular program you are working on. You probably borrow code from other programs.
This is the way human engineers work, and it's the way human genetic engineers work. It's why genetically engineered things can be distinguished from naturally evolved things.
By nested hierarchy, I mean there are no parts to the genome that do not look like they were directly inherited from a previous generation with tiny variations. Variations on the order of three point mutations per generation.
That is why common decent is more likely thatn intervention. Even if the point mutations are in fact the result of intervention, they are indistinguishable from random.
I simply cannot believe that everything in the known universe is an accident. (evolved from nothing)
Your assertion of “tiny incremental variations” really hasn’t been observed in proven direct descendents that resulted in a different kind of organism.
There have only been a couple of genomes mapped, so your claim is just so much fluff, conjecture, extrapolation and assumption.
Just what did thes 3 point mutations add to the organism that would be of survival value? It HAS to have survival value in order for natural selection to work.
You’re forcing a model onto historical observation,
and that model is ASSUMED. When you assume the very conclusion that you come to, that’s circular logic, and doesn’t prove a thing.
As someone else pointed out, both the evos and creationists have base, (scientifically) unproven assumptions. The creationists admit theirs.
There are lots of thing that people haven't wanted to believe. The history of Quantum physics from 1900 or so to 1928 is full of things people didn't want to believe -- electrons moving from one orbital shell to another without traversing the intervening space, particles taking two distinctive paths simultaneously.
Well there's a research project for creationists. Find the disconfirming data.
But you exaggerate. There are quite a few complete genomes mapped, and thousands of partial genomes. Mapping genomes is an accelerating areal of research.
js: There are lots of thing that people haven't wanted to believe.
So I take it, js, that you do believe that everything in the universe is just an accident?
Tell me then, does that include you? If that's the case, then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?
then the elitist liberal faction will trot out the ACLU and file a lawsuit to force their viewpoint only on everyone else, so fast your head will spin.
It happens every time.
and without exception it happens everytime, like I said to the point the Georgia ACLU snuck into our school board and threatened a lawsuit to strike Christmas, a Federal Holiday from our school calendar.
I once had a godless liberal tell me that Christians don’t have a right to participate whatsoever, couldn’t vote, etc.
The godless liberals think the constitution only protects them. They don’t understand that the protection wasn’t merely to prevent a theorcracy, it also prevents a godless secular society for all citizens as well.
It’s protections apply to all of us or none of us.
We had a bloody civil war to confirm this truth in fact.
The godless liberals think the constitution only protects them.
They don't realize the extent to which it protects them. At this point, it seems that it protects them more than any one of any faith.
Don't you just love the way they go on about the establishment clause but totally ignore the the free exercise part.
They are arrived at through observation. Yes, there's more to it than that, but high school science class is not the place for epistemology.
The teacher needn’t talk about it at all, but the student needn’t cower in silence either. Afraid that if God is mentioned, he’ll be told “SILENCE, it’s not science”, is awfully fascist.
Acknowledgement of God in any setting is not proslytizing and not an infringement on an unbelievers rights!
Back to Under God in the pledge...
that Michael Newdow is angry with God is his right, he and his ilk need not respond to that portion of the pledge, but he has no right to strike it from the pledge, he can simply ignore it and move on...
mangers in town squares at Christmastime, and on and on and on. It’s CLEARLY not just about science, this off the rails litigation liberal lunacy imposes itself into every facet of our culture.
“I’m glad the Constitution blocks people who think they have a monopoly on “reality and truth” from making the rules for the rest of us”.
It seems to me, as long as your worldview is the one that isn’t banned, or sued into silence, all is well. The constitution protects your ideology but no one else’s, my how convenient!
What is the "issue" on which there are supposedly only two sides?
Then there is no need to write Him into the curriculum.
These questions are a good example of the problem. The first group of questions--not the "why" part, but the 2+2=4, constant speed of light, etc. parts--can be answered the same way by anyone, no matter what their religious (or non-) belief. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Arapahos, Eskimos can all add 2+2 or measure the speed of light and get the same answer.
But their answers to "Who made these rules" would be different, no matter how much counting or measurement they do. That's why those answers don't get taught in the same classes as the other ones in public schools. No one says you're not entitled to your own answer to the "who" questions; but you're not entitled to demand that everyone else be taught your answer as the right one, either.
Like it or not, evolution is in the first category. Scientists from all over the world, for 150 years now, have been counting and measuring the evidence for evolution, and the vast majority of them have come up with the same answer, even though they may all have different answers for the "who" question. That's why evolution is taught in public school science classes and answers to the "who" question are not. So put your kids in a school that teaches the "who" answer you like, or teach it yourself when they get home. Or join wintertime in the quest to abolish the public school system entirely. But you don't get to demand that your answer be taught to everyone else as the right one.
You mean like the drivel you shovel out here on a daily basis? I have an idea. Why don't you shove your "righteous indignation" up where the sun doesn't shine?
For your information, militant Islam is the biggest promoter of Intelligent Design, aside from the Second Coming of Christ, the Reverend Moon.
Guess what? Hitler was an evolutionist, so what's yer point?
Be careful who your allies are and who funds things like the Discovery Institute, and who the Kansas school board calls on for their science expertize.
Letting Charles Johnson do your arguing these days?
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.