| Are you glad at this victory? |
| Yes. We must keep our traditions and our historical ideals from the beginning of the United States strong. |
|
37% |
[ 6 ] |
| Somewhat. |
|
18% |
[ 3 ] |
| No. Religion has NO place in government. |
|
43% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
 Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:36 pm |
|
permission slips would be needed first.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:38 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | permission slips would be needed first. |
BALONEY! For REFERENCE! Not even explaining! That's crap! Then I say, permission slips for evolution when it's a required class! Agree with that?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:47 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
BALONEY! For REFERENCE! Not even explaining! That's crap! Then I say, permission slips for evolution when it's a required class! Agree with that? |
the theory of evolution is science, agreed upon by groups of scientists and the national school board.
creationism is NOT a scientific theory therefore it is not recognized. permission slips are needed to teach things that are not sanctioned by the national school system
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:48 pm |
|
The Catholic church believes in evolution. Oh dear, church teaching...I guess we have to get rid of it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:48 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: |
BALONEY! For REFERENCE! Not even explaining! That's crap! Then I say, permission slips for evolution when it's a required class! Agree with that? |
the theory of evolution is science, agreed upon by groups of scientists and the national school board.
creationism is NOT a scientific theory therefore it is not recognized. permission slips are needed to teach things that are not sanctioned by the national school system |
That's why I'm not saying TEACH! I'm saying REFERENCE! Can't you see the difference, or are you to blind to?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:31 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
That's why I'm not saying TEACH! I'm saying REFERENCE! Can't you see the difference, or are you to blind to? |
You're not understanding me here. Let me slow down so you can understand.
Referencing something is the same as teaching it in the school boards eyes.
Still with me? Good.
If a teacher references something from, lets say the Bible, And a child/Teen, whatever, brings it home and their parents see it, their parents can then sue the school because a teacher was referencing, which is still the same as teaching it, Religious teachings in a school.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:32 am |
|
Well you can't just avoid religion completly...
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:36 am |
|
Besides, Creationism is a theory, and just like evolution, we cannot be 100% that either of them is how it was...they are both still theories, and both should be taught, not pushing one or the other naturally.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:13 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: |
| Exalya wrote: | | How about "Seperation of Atheism and State?" |
There is no such law therefor your argument is invalidated.
| Exalya wrote: | | Evolution is NOT near-fact. It is very vehemently disputed, and if they want to teach evolution, they should teach the counterargument. Teach WHY it's questioned, ask for critical thinking and discussion, not blind acceptance! You can teach discretion without teaching a particular side. |
Evolution is more near-fact then any form of creationism. The Theory of evolution tells how mutations occur to help organisms adapt to their environments. That is the Theory in its purest form.
Again, a school can be sued for teaching any form of religious belief, therefore they CANNOT teach it. |
Okay, a few things.
1. I was kidding about seperation of atheism and state. I am well aware there's no such law, heck, I'd be stupid if I thought so. My argument is not invalidated, it was sarcasm. You want to seperate Christianity? Fine. Don't teach children atheism either.
2. Thank you, but I know what evolution is. It's kind of hard to avoid working in a biology lab. I've tried to convince myself of it. Every time I start taking myself seriously, I have to laugh. It's fine to teach the theory. It's interesting. But they cannot get away with only teaching that evolution is fact. That's brainwashing, my friend. It's like teaching that the earth is flat, and there's no room for new ideas.
3. Did I ever say teach creationism and religion? No, I don't think I did. Critical thinking. There's not enough of it in any corner of the public education system. Is it against the law to dispute a theory? No! Can I give you scientific evidence as to why I don't like evolution? Can I present this in a report to the class, giving all the falsities I and others find in the idea of it? No, no, I can't. Because I might be insinuating religion...but wait! I'M NOT! I'm only questioning this perfect little theory created by a man who studied BARNACLES, and still I am invalidated. What kind of backwards system is that, where no one can question what is being taught? Nothing that I'm fond of.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:35 am |
|
I read through all the posts but obviously can't add my two cents because im posting too late.
My standpoint is this: Aiethiest who say we're pushing our beliefs on them are stupid. I love how the Left/Aithiest don't see their own hypocrisy when they open their mouths. This is an old joke but it really suits them. "How do you know when an Aithiest or Liberal is being hypocritcal?" "He opens his mouth." Don't they see what they are calling for is exactly what they say we do? If we purge Religion from society and Government then we give you all what you want. Funny how it works out for you and screws over people of Faith? I will never let anyone take my Faith from me. You have no right to dictate your stupidty on me. You all bitch and complain about the stupidest things. "Bush is going to pray on TV! NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!! Why God....er Asteroids that appeared out of no where and rammed each to spill out a Universe why!? Hes pushing his beliefs on me because hes practicing his faith!"
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:37 am |
|
Oh hell no. You cant just call all left side people atheists. Thats totally BS. John Kerry believed in god. And Joe Lieberman is a Jew. What the hell is your problem? Oh...wait...I do believe...YES! I HEAR IT!
THE HASTY GENERALIZATION ALARM!
It rings for you Andy.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:44 am |
|
*sigh* Defiant rushes in to miss the point as usual.
I wasn't calling Democrats Atheists. My point covered both types of people. Atheists are not part of one Political party. The only person that makes stupid generalizations is you. For example calling RM a racist. Dumbest thing I ever heard. In what way is he a racist? Hes friends with me and im not white. What is he racist against?
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:51 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | I love how the Left/Aithiest don't see their own hypocrisy when they open their mouths. |
Hasty generalization.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:55 am |
|
Don't want to answer my question about RM eh? Trying to dodge a question you can't answer. Yeah I didn't think you could. 
*Sigh* Wow it takes alot of patience to deal with you and your...posts. Everything has to be explained for you step by step.
That doesn't mean they are the same. Would you have prefered that I put "The Liberals and the Athiests, who are compeltely different,don't see their own hypocrisy when they open their mouths."
There ya go everyone. For anyone who is as slow as Defiant.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:07 am |
|
Thanks, I appreciate you calling me slow.
Anyways, when I see something *beep* up, I dont even bother to read the rest of your post. I just dont care past that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:16 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: |
That's why I'm not saying TEACH! I'm saying REFERENCE! Can't you see the difference, or are you to blind to? |
You're not understanding me here. Let me slow down so you can understand.
Referencing something is the same as teaching it in the school boards eyes.
Still with me? Good.
If a teacher references something from, lets say the Bible, And a child/Teen, whatever, brings it home and their parents see it, their parents can then sue the school because a teacher was referencing, which is still the same as teaching it, Religious teachings in a school. |
You can't just force one view upon the people, and that's what you're doing. There's always ways around it when you don't live in California.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Well you can't just avoid religion completly... |
EXACTLY.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Besides, Creationism is a theory, and just like evolution, we cannot be 100% that either of them is how it was...they are both still theories, and both should be taught, not pushing one or the other naturally. |
Good point.
| Exalya wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: |
| Exalya wrote: | | How about "Seperation of Atheism and State?" |
There is no such law therefor your argument is invalidated.
| Exalya wrote: | | Evolution is NOT near-fact. It is very vehemently disputed, and if they want to teach evolution, they should teach the counterargument. Teach WHY it's questioned, ask for critical thinking and discussion, not blind acceptance! You can teach discretion without teaching a particular side. |
Evolution is more near-fact then any form of creationism. The Theory of evolution tells how mutations occur to help organisms adapt to their environments. That is the Theory in its purest form.
Again, a school can be sued for teaching any form of religious belief, therefore they CANNOT teach it. |
Okay, a few things.
1. I was kidding about seperation of atheism and state. I am well aware there's no such law, heck, I'd be stupid if I thought so. My argument is not invalidated, it was sarcasm. You want to seperate Christianity? Fine. Don't teach children atheism either.
EXACTLY! Right on! If you teach them the religious religions, well athiesm IS a religion, and if you're forcing only that upon the students...This is why I support not forcing creationism only on students in Alabama, like they had in the past. But NOT for S of C&S
2. Thank you, but I know what evolution is. It's kind of hard to avoid working in a biology lab. I've tried to convince myself of it. Every time I start taking myself seriously, I have to laugh. It's fine to teach the theory. It's interesting. But they cannot get away with only teaching that evolution is fact. That's brainwashing, my friend. It's like teaching that the earth is flat, and there's no room for new ideas.
Hmmm...that's a good point.
3. Did I ever say teach creationism and religion? No, I don't think I did. Critical thinking. There's not enough of it in any corner of the public education system. Is it against the law to dispute a theory? No! Can I give you scientific evidence as to why I don't like evolution? Can I present this in a report to the class, giving all the falsities I and others find in the idea of it? No, no, I can't. Because I might be insinuating religion...but wait! I'M NOT! I'm only questioning this perfect little theory created by a man who studied BARNACLES, and still I am invalidated. What kind of backwards system is that, where no one can question what is being taught? Nothing that I'm fond of. |
Hmmm...GREAT point.
| Founder wrote: | I read through all the posts but obviously can't add my two cents because im posting too late.
My standpoint is this: Aiethiest who say we're pushing our beliefs on them are stupid. I love how the Left/Aithiest don't see their own hypocrisy when they open their mouths. This is an old joke but it really suits them. "How do you know when an Aithiest or Liberal is being hypocritcal?" "He opens his mouth." Don't they see what they are calling for is exactly what they say we do? If we purge Religion from society and Government then we give you all what you want. Funny how it works out for you and screws over people of Faith? I will never let anyone take my Faith from me. You have no right to dictate your stupidty on me. You all *beep* and complain about the stupidest things. "Bush is going to pray on TV! NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!! Why God....er Asteroids that appeared out of no where and rammed each to spill out a Universe why!? Hes pushing his beliefs on me because hes practicing his faith!" |
EXACTLY. And that is why we MUST WIN this Secular War to prevent a secular nation from reigning supreme. Secularism: The almost total absence of religion in public life, society, and government.
| Founder wrote: | *sigh* Defiant rushes in to miss the point as usual.
I wasn't calling Democrats Atheists. My point covered both types of people. Atheists are not part of one Political party. The only person that makes stupid generalizations is you. For example calling RM a racist. Dumbest thing I ever heard. In what way is he a racist? Hes friends with me and im not white. What is he racist against? |
Thanks, and right. Defiant, the generalizations are not hasty because WHICH side tends to be secular and athiest? The LEFT.
| Defiant wrote: | Thanks, I appreciate you calling me slow.
Anyways, when I see something *beep* up, I dont even bother to read the rest of your post. I just dont care past that. |
We are not calling your father Hitler or saying that it's funny. No need for such language
Anyways, Founder is right.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:38 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | EXACTLY. And that is why we MUST WIN this Secular War |
Hurry up and invade.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:52 pm |
|
But the point is that it shouldn't be a war. Thinking of it as a war just escalates hostilities. Perhaps trying to find common ground and seeking a solution rather than thinking of it as an all-or-nothing war would help further the development of a truly diverse society, which is secular and religious.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:58 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | But the point is that it shouldn't be a war. Thinking of it as a war just escalates hostilities. Perhaps trying to find common ground and seeking a solution rather than thinking of it as an all-or-nothing war would help further the development of a truly diverse society, which is secular and religious. |
I don't mean an all-out war, but a war like the War on Drugs, for instance. It's a WAR. But not a fighting war. And sure, diverse societies are fine and dandy, but a secular society? No. I don't want morals going down the drain.
Now, one question for all of you (Americans):
Who was the man who brought the first Chaplan to Congress?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:12 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Besides, Creationism is a theory, and just like evolution, we cannot be 100% that either of them is how it was...they are both still theories, and both should be taught, not pushing one or the other naturally. |
Uh, no. Creationism is not a theory. well, at least not a scientific theory. Though it is true that by definition it is a theory. In a science class only science is taught. Since Creationism isn't a scientific theory it cannot be taught.
| Republican_man wrote: | | You can't just force one view upon the people, and that's what you're doing. There's always ways around it when you don't live in California. |
You dont seem to be reading my posts.
Teachers are not forcing the theory of evolution on people, They are paid to teach the ciriculum, which is set by the board of education.
Since public schools are bound by "seperation of church and state" they cannot teach religious views such as creationism. They cannot even reference it without getting the school in trouble and themselves fired.
If you dont like it, go to a private school. Or a catholic school like I did. They will teach the other theories because they are not bound by the Law.
| Exalya wrote: | | 1. I was kidding about seperation of atheism and state. I am well aware there's no such law, heck, I'd be stupid if I thought so. My argument is not invalidated, it was sarcasm. You want to seperate Christianity? Fine. Don't teach children atheism either. |
I figured, but in a serious argument there is no place for sarcasm.
You do not teach children atheism. The are taught science as mandated by the Board of Education. And Science is not considered Atheism, at least not the last time I checked.
| Exalya wrote: | | 3. Did I ever say teach creationism and religion? No, I don't think I did. Critical thinking. There's not enough of it in any corner of the public education system. Is it against the law to dispute a theory? No! Can I give you scientific evidence as to why I don't like evolution? Can I present this in a report to the class, giving all the falsities I and others find in the idea of it? No, no, I can't. Because I might be insinuating religion...but wait! I'M NOT! I'm only questioning this perfect little theory created by a man who studied BARNACLES, and still I am invalidated. What kind of backwards system is that, where no one can question what is being taught? Nothing that I'm fond of. |
That's because schools have a limited amount of time to teach children a set ciriculum. Blame the department of Education. They set the standards for what schools teach children
I'm guessing that you also do not know much about Darwin. First, he did not just study Barnicles. He largely studied animals, He was a ship naturalist for 5 years stuyding both plant and animal, including a large study of Galapagos (sp?) Island. He also CO-FOUNDED the theory with another scientist.... Unfortunetly I dont remember his name.
If you want a few that doesn't involve religion I can tell you:
1) Explain the Eye. It is to complicated to just have evolved.
2) The Duck-Billed Platypus. There is not evolutionary backing for why it should exist.
And Founder, thank you for taking the time to sit there and flame about half of the country. But are they the idiots for believing in something other then religion, or are you for blindly following something that wasn't even translated properly? Yes, the Bible was not translated properly, There is a lot lost in translation.
If you dont like how schools are teaching things, Complain to the Department of Education or go to Private or Catholic School. Until then you have no right to complain about something that the schools have no control over.
By the way, there can be Scientists who are also religious. Me for one. I do believe in Creationism, but there are blank spots and sections that make no sense, That's where science comes into play. I also do the same with science, hence my elpanation about the Platypus. There is nothing that could have evolved into it, so some higher force must have made it for some reason. I continually tell my teachers when they ask about it "God made it to make fun of scienists and to basically say 'HA! I exist!'"
Last edited by Link, the Hero of Time on Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:21 pm |
|
| Quote: | Hasty Generalization
Definition:
The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion.
Examples:
1. Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians are thieves. (Of course, we shouldn't judge all Australians on the basis of one example.)
2. I asked six of my friends what they thought of the new spending restraints and they agreed it is a good idea. The new restraints are therefore generally popular.
Proof:
Identify the size of the sample and the size of the population, then show that the sample size is too small. Note: a formal proof would require a mathematical calculation. This is the subject of probability theory. For now, you must rely on common sense. |
You two do this like no other. Constantly saying the left wing/atheists all do something. That is by definition, a hasty generalization. Try to avoid it in the future, eh?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:35 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Besides, Creationism is a theory, and just like evolution, we cannot be 100% that either of them is how it was...they are both still theories, and both should be taught, not pushing one or the other naturally. |
Uh, no. Creationism is not a theory. well, at least not a scientific theory. Though it is true that by definition it is a theory. In a science class only science is taught. Since Creationism isn't a scientific theory it cannot be taught.
Good thought, good thought. But you should at least REFERENCE other ideas. You're forcing your belief upon students if you only teach them that.
| Republican_man wrote: | | You can't just force one view upon the people, and that's what you're doing. There's always ways around it when you don't live in California. |
You dont seem to be reading my posts.
Teachers are not forcing the theory of evolution on people, They are paid to teach the ciriculum, which is set by the board of education.
Since public schools are bound by "seperation of church and state" they cannot teach religious views such as creationism. They cannot even reference it without getting the school in trouble and themselves fired.
If you dont like it, go to a private school. Or a catholic school like I did. They will teach the other theories because they are not bound by the Law.
And teachers can still reference things if they want. REFERENCE! Separation of Church and State preventing REFERENCE is crap. And sorry, I can't afford Private School.
[quote"Exalya"]1. I was kidding about seperation of atheism and state. I am well aware there's no such law, heck, I'd be stupid if I thought so. My argument is not invalidated, it was sarcasm. You want to seperate Christianity? Fine. Don't teach children atheism either. |
I figured, but in a serious argument there is no place for sarcasm.
You do not teach children atheism. The are taught science as mandated by the Board of Education. And Science is not considered Atheism, at least not the last time I checked.
| Exalya wrote: | | 3. Did I ever say teach creationism and religion? No, I don't think I did. Critical thinking. There's not enough of it in any corner of the public education system. Is it against the law to dispute a theory? No! Can I give you scientific evidence as to why I don't like evolution? Can I present this in a report to the class, giving all the falsities I and others find in the idea of it? No, no, I can't. Because I might be insinuating religion...but wait! I'M NOT! I'm only questioning this perfect little theory created by a man who studied BARNACLES, and still I am invalidated. What kind of backwards system is that, where no one can question what is being taught? Nothing that I'm fond of. |
That's because schools have a limited amount of time to teach children a set ciriculum. Blame the department of Education. They set the standards for what schools teach children
I'm guessing that you also do not know much about Darwin. First, he did not just study Barnicles. He largely studied animals, He was a ship naturalist for 5 years stuyding both plant and animal, including a large study of Galapagos (sp?) Island. He also CO-FOUNDED the theory with another scientist.... Unfortunetly I dont remember his name.
If you want a few that doesn't involve religion I can tell you:
1) Explain the Eye. It is to complicated to just have evolved.
2) The Duck-Billed Platypus. There is not evolutionary backing for why it should exist.
Good points, good points, but simply disagree. Teachers should have the right to REFERENCE other points of view, and SHOULD tell students them.
And Founder, thank you for taking the time to sit there and flame about half of the country. But are they the idiots for believing in something other then religion, or are you for blindly following something that wasn't even translated properly? Yes, the Bible was not translated properly, There is a lot lost in translation.
It was translated properly, at least for the most part. But BLINDLY following it? BLINDLY! That is offensive. Highly.
If you dont like how schools are teaching things, Complain to the Department of Education or go to Private or Catholic School. Until then you have no right to complain about something that the schools have no control over.
Yes, you HAVE a right to complain! If someone didn't push forth their view, we'd be no where. And what if I can't afford Private school? Hmmmm?
By the way, there can be Scientists who are also religious. Me for one. I do believe in Creationism, but there are blank spots and sections that make no sense, That's where science comes into play. I also do the same with science, hence my elpanation about the Platypus. There is nothing that could have evolved into it, so some higher force must have made it for some reason. I continually tell my teachers when they ask about it "God made it to make fun of scienists and to basically say 'HA! I exist!'"[/quote]
And Defiant, we are not making "Hasty Generalizations." When the vast majority of Liberals are like that, it's fine to make such things.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:41 pm |
|
Or even if it's just the leaders or the major voices of your party and viewpoint, such as the stuff said by Kennedy, Kerry, Franken, Moore, and Daschle, can allow for generalizations.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:18 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: |
| Exalya wrote: | | 1. I was kidding about seperation of atheism and state. I am well aware there's no such law, heck, I'd be stupid if I thought so. My argument is not invalidated, it was sarcasm. You want to seperate Christianity? Fine. Don't teach children atheism either. |
I figured, but in a serious argument there is no place for sarcasm.
I'm sorry, but sarcasm and exaggeration is how I talk. Not changing it, don't care to.
You do not teach children atheism. The are taught science as mandated by the Board of Education. And Science is not considered Atheism, at least not the last time I checked.
Yes, yes. But not allowing for any other ideas is just as good.
| Exalya wrote: | | 3. Did I ever say teach creationism and religion? No, I don't think I did. Critical thinking. There's not enough of it in any corner of the public education system. Is it against the law to dispute a theory? No! Can I give you scientific evidence as to why I don't like evolution? Can I present this in a report to the class, giving all the falsities I and others find in the idea of it? No, no, I can't. Because I might be insinuating religion...but wait! I'M NOT! I'm only questioning this perfect little theory created by a man who studied BARNACLES, and still I am invalidated. What kind of backwards system is that, where no one can question what is being taught? Nothing that I'm fond of. |
That's because schools have a limited amount of time to teach children a set ciriculum. Blame the department of Education. They set the standards for what schools teach children
I don't like the public school system. I think it should be shot and re-vamped. I do blame the board of education. If they don't have time now, then they should make time. Explore new ideas, don't teach this narrow-minded junk. Of course, that's not how it works...
I'm guessing that you also do not know much about Darwin. First, he did not just study Barnicles. He largely studied animals, He was a ship naturalist for 5 years stuyding both plant and animal, including a large study of Galapagos (sp?) Island. He also CO-FOUNDED the theory with another scientist.... Unfortunetly I dont remember his name.
If you want a few that doesn't involve religion I can tell you:
1) Explain the Eye. It is to complicated to just have evolved.
2) The Duck-Billed Platypus. There is not evolutionary backing for why it should exist.
I don't think you want to hear what I've been saying. I've studied Darwin, yeah, I know he went together with another scientist. I know about his time on the ocean. Again, I used exaggeration. Sue me, please. Mmn...maybe I should tell you, but that was sarcasm. Wouldn't you know.
And Founder, thank you for taking the time to sit there and flame about half of the country. But are they the idiots for believing in something other then religion, or are you for blindly following something that wasn't even translated properly? Yes, the Bible was not translated properly, There is a lot lost in translation.
If you don't like how it's translated, then you can translate it yourself. Get a Strong's Concordance and do some work.
If you dont like how schools are teaching things, Complain to the Department of Education or go to Private or Catholic School. Until then you have no right to complain about something that the schools have no control over.
When it's unwarranted, one can complain. Not being allowed to raise questions is wrong and unnecessary, and I don't think there's anything that says one can't. Lots of people complain to the Department of Education about this. Some people even make documentaries to show them. Do they care? Heck no.
By the way, there can be Scientists who are also religious. Me for one.
*raises her hand* Count number 2, if you would.
|
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:42 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Or even if it's just the leaders or the major voices of your party and viewpoint, such as the stuff said by Kennedy, Kerry, Franken, Moore, and Daschle, can allow for generalizations. |
No, you cant. A few people do not speak for an entire group. You are wronger than youve ever been before.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
