Posted on 10/13/2009 8:10:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
O’Reilly told Dawkins”
you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.
Was he right? Is it constitutional/scientific to insist that only materialistic evolution can be taught?
See: O’Reilly vs. Atheist Author Richard Dawkins...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Oh, Creationism was disproved by Louis Pasteur in 1859? I hadn't heard that!
Seriously though...
1. Even if Creationism were crap, your statement would still be nonsense because it's like saying that there's no difference between my Sport Trac and an 18 wheeler because they're both trucks.
2. The former has been disproven, the latter has not and is looking better all the time.
3. As a guy whose theory depends on abiogenesis, you are definitely in a glass house!
“ignores the Constitution” which part exactly?
“to advance an ideology of secular humanism” this term always throws me. If it means anything that doesn't start with a god or doesn't mention a non-scientific belief in a science class then it would mean anything that doesn't fit into your specific argue-from-a-conclusion god & religion based on said trappings of said god. Then where's the tolerance for anything outside your view?
“the wishes of a majority of society” so are we a Constitutional Republic based on the rights of every individual to pursue their own happiness without the federal government, the state, or the public school sponsoring a particular god creation myth? or are those rights subject to democratic mob 51% rule? I thought those rights were supreme to any democratic whims? I thought we have those rights just by showing up to the societal table.
“founded in the first place on Judeo-Christian ideology” where in the Constitution is there any mention of J-C ideology that is not also mentioned in stable societies that pre-date J-C beginnings? These were religious men and these were also men of the Enlightenment. (side note-it always struck me as curious that one can claim that the founding of a government based on the supreme rights of the individual could be laid at the feet of a religion that is a dictatorship, supposedly benevolent, where all the rights belong to a god who doles them out as he/she/it sees fit to human individuals.)
“free exercise thereof” kids can pray in school. they are free to read their divinely inspired books. They can talk about their books. or not. Isn't it O.K. that some do and some don't, but all are free to choose? It seems that some are just not comfortable with the idea that others don't want to hear about their unscientific beliefs in a science class. Indifference is not persecution.
“you know the ultimate authority, THE law, God’s Word, biblical scripture” I would simply ask you for the provable facts upon which you make this statement. I really don't think you want to start in on the ‘this is a good bible quote, but that's an evil ( o yea Epicurus) bible quote-i sure do not’
“Christians understand we answer to a higher authority than a liberal judge.” are you comfortable that christians answer to a higher authority or does everyone have to recognize this higher authority? See, I don't care what higher authority you want to answer to, and it's none of your business what I do or don't answer to-Constitutionally speaking.
“Public schools don’t belong to liberals. Not anymore than science does.” and I'm a conservative stone-cold 10th amendment patriot that recognizes that evolution by means of natural selection is the best scientific explanation of how things evolved- what does that make me?
Again, why so much hate in your heart?
You should send him some flowers, Wacka. No, wait...deliver them personally, riding on your unicorn.
Thanks for the pings!
It makes you the kind of person who would find a book on the sidewalk and assume it was the result of an explosion in a printing plant.
and the descent into name calling and character assassination at the expense of a response to my questions and observations . . . O.K. here goes,
At least I wouldn’t think it was inspired by some invisible, unprovable iron-age sky daddy that . . . well, that doesn’t really advance the conversation, now does it?
Sorry, that’s the best I can do with the name calling-you win.
Name calling? Character assassination? From my comment? Are you kidding?
At least I wouldn’t think it was inspired by some invisible, unprovable iron-age sky daddy that . . . well, that doesn’t really advance the conversation, now does it?
No, you would conclude something far more ludicrous, just as you conclude the ludicrous idea that machines far more complicated than any of man's machines arose through random chance is true. The structure of any one cell in the human body (or a worm's body, for that matter) is more complex than any book humans have created, yet you conclude they came about via a random process. So why not figure the same for books? Like I said, an explosion in a printing plant.
Name calling? Character assassination? From my comment? Are you kidding?
At least I wouldn’t think it was inspired by some invisible, unprovable iron-age sky daddy that . . . well, that doesn’t really advance the conversation, now does it?
No, you would conclude something far more ludicrous, just as you conclude the ludicrous idea that machines far more complicated than any of man's machines arose through random chance is true. The structure of any one cell in the human body (or a worm's body, for that matter) is more complex than any book humans have created, yet you conclude they came about via a random process. So why not figure the same for books? Like I said, an explosion in a printing plant.
Sorry, that’s the best I can do with the name calling-you win.
I won a game I wasn't playing...dang, I'm good! Drinks all around!
“through random chance is true”
there I knew you could do it! A point to contend and discuss!
In my understanding of natural selection there is nothing random in the gene mutation that better suits the organism with a better chance at surviving and procreating. Well, the idea that the gene mutation may be random is possible ( or proteins playing Frankenstein), however the advantage or disadvantage that the mutation provides the organism in adapting to the environment is now no longer chance, but rather a direct probability factor in the organism surviving to reproduce. Pretty cool idea based on observable phenomena and reproducible tests huh?
your turn . . .
Ah...so my comment about the book on the sidewalk is "character assassination," but this little condescending bon mot is true intellectual engagement. Suuuurrrre.
Well, the idea that the gene mutation may be random is possible ( or proteins playing Frankenstein), however the advantage or disadvantage that the mutation provides the organism in adapting to the environment is now no longer chance, but rather a direct probability factor in the organism surviving to reproduce.
At some point a bat was presumably a small, flightless rodent with legs and paws that in no way resembled a wing. To get from something like a mouse to leathery wings, its forelimbs would have had to go through several stages of mutation somewhere between a leg and a wing, i.e., far less useful than a leg for ground travel and useless for flight.
Where is the increased probability that this creature will reproduce and pass on the first mutation, much less that its descendants will down the line?
What are the chances that these mutations will continue, and do so in a direction that's beneficial to the creature instead of just stopping at some point or going off in a direction that bears no fruit? Doesn't that quickly become an infinitesimal probability? And since this is just one sort of animal, what happens when that same probability problem is applied to every single one of the billions of species that exist today or existed in the recent past?
Pretty cool idea based on observable phenomena and reproducible tests huh?
What reproducible test has shown a string of mutations can lead to a new body plan? Can you even show me a reproducible lab example of a beneficial mutation?
Drug resistance in bacteria. It’s good for the bacteria, not for the organism infected.
The “foundation of my religion” rests on the scriptural truth, and Holy Spirit guided teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe that God led me to this/His truth. I believe God to be truthful.
Other Gods and other people do not concern me, other than I know that Christianity is open to ALL. It’s up to each person to find that spiritual truth, as I believe God allows a person free will to accept or reject His truth.
I am confident enough in Christianity that anything else is either misguided or outright misleading.
For instance, it’s reasonably easy for me to believe that most people understand that Marshall Applewhite insisting his followers snip their gonads off then kill themselves to prepare to go to heaven by catching a spaceship in the tail of a comet, is a cult called heaven’s gate...and not REALLY some other feel good liberal path to heaven.
I also understand that Satan will be more subtle in his lies in regards to other religious cults, and MANY will be misled....sadly for eternity.
My instruction is not to judge other people, etc. but to pray that they will find God, as I believe there’s only one God, thus I embrace monotheism.
As far as the rest of your comment in your first paragraph, I don’t respect liberalism or secualr humanism because it’s crystal clear their agenda is one of intolerance and disrespect, and is anti-Christian, anti-conservative and anti-constitutional. Thus my comments about liberal activist judges, etc. I simply made my position and that point clear.
And you are most certainly free to type your own opinions and words, I don’t know what gave you the impression you can’t!
>>>>>>”teaching about your specific god creation myth is establishment of religion, specifically one god creation myth among many. a public school is not allowed to back a specific god or specific religion, yes?”
Uhhh...no.
First things first, if you’re going to demand respect, I don’t accept your premise that God is lying or that His creation is a “myth”. I also reject the notion that there are many somehow viable “creation myths” including Marshall Applewhite’s version of comet tail to heaven creation myth...or whatever.
This country flourished for several hundred years to this point understanding God’s truth, so there’s no sense in muddying the waters with heaven’s gate nonsense. And sorry, but muslims, hindus...whatever did not found this country or write our constitution.
So no...NEA guided public schools were NOT allowed to take it upon themselves constitutionally to squash “free exercise thereof”, as was pointed out, when children opened the school day with prayer for HUNDREDS of years, and no, again recognizing the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible in public schools, for hundreds of years, was not “establishment of a religion”.
First of all, the religion was already established and quite dramatically so, with churches and Christians all across the country. IN FACT, many of the public schools at first were not only one room school houses but quite naturally took place IN CHURCH!
Second, I take offense if a muslim, hindu or anyone else is offended by Christianity and hijacks the constitution via liberals such as the NEA and ACLU to intimidate Christians into silence.
This simply would not go on in their home country, and anti-Christian liberals KNOW all this, but don’t care because they have an axe to grind.
“....ignores the Constitution” which part exactly?”
Congress shall make no laws to establish a religion (inapplicable to Christianity since it was already well established as the religion of the land prior to circa mid to late 1700’s) and or preclude the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
>>>>>“to advance an ideology of secular humanism” this term always throws me. If it means anything that doesn’t start with a god or doesn’t mention a non-scientific belief in a science class then it would mean anything that doesn’t fit into your specific argue-from-a-conclusion god & religion based on said trappings of said god. Then where’s the tolerance for anything outside your view?
It shouldn’t “throw you” because liberalism is clearly diseased. Secular humanism I don’t have as much a problem with but the simple fact of the matter is, they’re virtually inseparable (liberals and secualr humanism) Unless you’re prepared to show me a high profile liberal that supports creationism/ID???
Even taking your word for it that you’re conservative, you’re waaaaay out-gunned with too many moonbats with an axe to grind. Lack of Christian tolerance is a canard because if not for Christian tolerance in the first place, secular humanist NEA ACLU godless science simply would never have seen the light of day in this country if NOT for Christian tolerance! There were no crusades, there was no Inquisition and there was no slaughter like the American Indian in this country when it came to secular humanists teaching science.
The more valid observation would be why do secular humanists pretend as though someone appointed them the gate-keepers of all things science, or gave them the keys to science or education in general and when anyone or anything challenges their cult of evolution, the response is always “religious attacks on science”, all the way to the obligatory lawsuits if necessary.
Moreover, I’ve understood many a creationist to advocate teaching both evolution and creation, while many an evolutionist demands evolution only. It’s crystal clear who the tolerant ones are and which ones aren’t tolerant!
>>>>>“the wishes of a majority of society” so are we a Constitutional Republic based on the rights of every individual to pursue their own happiness without the federal government, the state, or the public school sponsoring a particular god creation myth? or are those rights subject to democratic mob 51% rule? I thought those rights were supreme to any democratic whims? I thought we have those rights just by showing up to the societal table.
51% mob rule? Uhhhh right now the taliban, shariah types are in England demanding sharia law IN ENGLAND...I read an article, some 5000 in some community. It’s clear who the MOB is...it’s clear who the mob is here too...as evidenced by the lawsuits and to hell with how parents want their child taught. You continue to dig deeper and deeper...you’re willfully confusing the facts to promote a liberal agenda, with “creation myth” comments (btw...still no language about what sheer happenstance, with no purpose, all by itself, without design, without intelligence is called, but myth most certainly comes to MY mind!)
I think the majority of normal people without multiple God hang-ups will rightly dtermine THAT is indeed the more accurate “myth” in this discussion!
And “rights by showing up to the table” don’t include hijacking the judicial system with multiple lawsuits, and shutting out people you don’t like from xo-called peer review, speaking of myths and forcing normal people wihthout multiple God hang ups to pay for their kids schools AND your kids school too!
What on earth makes you think:
1. That those are somehow your “rights”...
2. anytime a Christian exercises their rights in public it always and automatically means it infringes upon yours?
3. that the minority liberals think their religion is more important than the majority Christian religion and when Christians speak out about this, the Christians are “intolerant” for pointing this liberal intolerance out?
>>>>>founded in the first place on Judeo-Christian ideology” where in the Constitution is there any mention of J-C ideology that is not also mentioned in stable societies that pre-date J-C beginnings? These were religious men and these were also men of the Enlightenment. (side note-it always struck me as curious that one can claim that the founding of a government based on the supreme rights of the individual could be laid at the feet of a religion that is a dictatorship, supposedly benevolent, where all the rights belong to a god who doles them out as he/she/it sees fit to human individuals.)
Thats is such a misguided take that I don’t know how to address it or where to begin. Perhaps a good place for you to begin understanding is:
www.wallbuilders.com
>>>>>“free exercise thereof” kids can pray in school. they are free to read their divinely inspired books. They can talk about their books. or not. Isn’t it O.K. that some do and some don’t, but all are free to choose? It seems that some are just not comfortable with the idea that others don’t want to hear about their unscientific beliefs in a science class. Indifference is not persecution.
Not sure who taught you this, but there are WAAAAAY too many incidences/lawsuits, an overwhelming record of kids attacked from everything from bringing a Bible to school to a kid being threateneed with jail for dare mentioning Jesus getting him through 12 miserable years at his graduation...just dozens of episodes.
I know how it’s SUPPOSED to work, but all too often we hear about lawsuits about a kid trying to establish the rights Christian kids HAVE HAD in the not so distant past, as I said for hundreds of years in this country; but that’s what liberals do, paint the Christians as the complainers, while ignoring liberal lunacy like a Florida school forcing kids to sing ‘O’ Holiday Tree’, because ‘O’ Christmas Tree’ was just too offensive for tender liberal sensibilities.
Liberals are trying to get IGWT off of coins...
under God removed from the pledge...
crosses removed from cemeteries and chapels of all places!!!!!
crosses from town logos...
manger scenes from public squares...
You see liberal NEA, ACLU moonbats are busily ATTACKING and trying to remove and tear down Judeo-Christian heritage from the public square; while Christians primarily, via ThomasMore.org, ACLJ.org are either deflecting or are busy trying to PRESERVE what’s been in place for hundreds of years!
The town Los Cruces New Mexico (hundreds of years old btw), in Spansish means...’the crosses’...yet some liberal finds it offensive a town named the crosses has...yup...you guessed it...crosses in their city logo! TOO OFFENSIVE!
>>>>>you know the ultimate authority, THE law, God’s Word, biblical scripture” I would simply ask you for the provable facts upon which you make this statement. I really don’t think you want to start in on the ‘this is a good bible quote, but that’s an evil ( o yea Epicurus) bible quote-i sure do not’
I don’t even know what that means. If you want Biblical truth I would invite you to attend a Christ centered church! People that know Jesus Christ as their saviour, moved by the Holy Spirit will NOT steer you wrong. Of this I am certain and would bet my soul on it.
>>>>>>“Christians understand we answer to a higher authority than a liberal judge.” are you comfortable that christians answer to a higher authority or does everyone have to recognize this higher authority? See, I don’t care what higher authority you want to answer to, and it’s none of your business what I do or don’t answer to-Constitutionally speaking.
And I don’t care if you don’t care, but that’s hardly the point, because anytime Christians do ANYTHING in public they get sued...so SOMEBODY sure as hell cares!
When liberals like Michael Newdow demands God be removed from our coins, or from our pledge or from EVERYTHING...UNDERSTAND I will take issue with that! And understand I am not alone!
And the last time I looked, when gazing across Arlington National Cemetery, there are alot of Christian crosses, along with some Stars of David that pretty much ensured the Constitution applies and free exercise thereof means I have every bit as much a right to public funds, public access as you or anyone else does.
And when a kid says something about God’s creation in science class in a public school, he should not be lectured about what is or isn’t science, or told there’s no place for God in science class. Again, no one gave liberals the keys to science and liberals have more than illustrated they’ve run this country off into the ditch doing things their way, demanding no prayer in school...which worked just fine btw...for HUNDREDS of years prior to the 60’s and 70’s when the moonbats hijacked the judicial system and screwed the country up.
Now it’s science (global warming) and health care...
>>>>>“Public schools don’t belong to liberals. Not anymore than science does.” and I’m a conservative stone-cold 10th amendment patriot that recognizes that evolution by means of natural selection is the best scientific explanation of how things evolved- what does that make me?
Well confused, because it’s not science, rather sheer conjecture. But I’m actually fine with it. I have no problem keeping it in schools/science class. I’ve always been on record with that position.
The rest of my position is to allow the intelligent design/creation discussion take place in science class.
I’m also on record for giving the kids 5 minutes of the teacher explaining the theories and allowing kids to understand the controversy, supply the books in the library and leave it at that.
Now why that’s sooooooooo intolerant can only be answered in the liberal world, where up is down and down is up, I suppose.
Where did Mr. Silverback engage in name calling?
Please provide the link and specific name he called you.
Some of us are having trouble finding it in his posting history.
Why is my retread radar going off, do you suppose?
The world you prefer does not exist.....not even IF the government limited itself to ONLY specifically enumerated powers.
You will always pay for things you do not use.
I do not use the patent/copyright system one iota....yet, Constitutionally I have to pay for it.
Ever pay for a road in your town you do not drive on? A bridge you do not use? Fixing water mains that don’t lead to your neighborhood? Treating wastewater you didn’t generate?
......and if you think it would be cheaper if they only charged you for ONLY that which you use...well, just imagine having to pay on a per-flush basis...or on a per-pound-of-poo basis....the beaurocracy that would have to exist to cover the fee for each thing they could charge a fee on would be staggering.
Touché
(I asked the same question 6 months back - still no answer)
You’re full of nonsense in trying to defend your untrue blanket statement.
I do not IN ANY WAY support the FEDERAL control of schools......and go ahead and ask the rest of the Frevos.
There are CERTAIN mandatory vaccines I support....those that have nothing to do with highly virulent diseases, I do not. You do not have the right to endanger my child with known and preventable deadly diseases such as small pox. Was the mandatory vaccination against small pox “wrong”....absolutely not. Chicken pox, on the other hand is a ludicrous mandatory vaccine....as is the HPV vaccine. The key being highly contageous and high mortality rate.
The FEDERAL government should have nothing to do with homosexual marriage or defining what “marriage” is as it is a STATE issue under the 10th Amendment.....THAT is the “conservative” position. Federal benefits to control behaviors....including relationship behaviors, shouldn’t be handed out to.....ANYONE. THAT is the “conservative” position.
There is no “conservative” position on abortion. There is a CHRISTIAN conservative position on abortion. I am against abortion as it is simply a barbaric practice. Legally, any abortion after 20 weeks should be murder, as it is a viable child.
Takle your “morals” and shove ‘em. I’ve watched you dance with that line and the whole “you can’t have morals without religion” is ludicrous every time it’s used. Don’t confuse your christian morals with conservative ideology.
....but it’s fun to watch you machine gun every topic you can think of to defend a dishonest statement that “the only thing ‘you’ve seen’ that FRevos can agree on that is ‘conservative’ is gun rights”.....a BS STATEMENT used to demonize as “the opposite political ideology” an entire group of people who simply disagree with the notion that our kids should be taught in the science room that man walked the Earth with dinosaurs........while agreeing with damned near everything else.
You’d do better to simply toss around the “you’re a liberal” willy nilly like one of your partners does...and leave it at that.
Cut back on the late night coffee. dude.
So...Please let’s drop the NEA canard that all parents have the “choice” to use private schools or homeschools. The business practices of our religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camps have distorted that market.
<><><><><><><
A 30% increase in homeschooling over the last decade, with a better than 5% increase per year suggests your analysis might be a tad flawed.
The statistics come from this site, which is a pro-homeschooling site.
http://www.homeschool-living.com/homeschooling-statistics.html
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.