New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[peat moss]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.


The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know I was brought up with the lords prayer over the intercom every morning I turned out ok . I'm not religious in any way but would n't mind my little ones hearing it . Can't they hear both sides then make up their own minds ?



Oops : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092300927.html

[3RA1N1AC]

uh... why is this "intelligent design belongs in science classes" noise still on? regardless of whether there's any metaphysical truth to it, metaphysics is not a scientific discipline by any stretch.

teach it in a philosophy or religious studies class? fine. but it's got basically nothing in common with scientific theory as scientists & educators define it, 'cause you can't empirically observe or test the invisible world, the beyond, the afterlife, alternate dimensions, etc and can't offer an explanation in theory form. at best it's a mere hypothesis which some eager folks have prematurely promoted to the rank of "theory," and they really should be told to go home and learn the difference between hypothesis & theory (which is completely different from how a layman might say "my theory is..." when he really means "i suspect, perhaps..." or "i have faith in the idea...").

[peat moss]

Wow brainiac is right ! :lol: At what grade tho 7 ?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Nothing new here at all, been going on for years, and will continue for years. Nothing to see here citizens, move along.

[j2k4]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:

[Rat Faced]

I think thats your perception only J2..

They have designated 2 sides to the case, which is normal practice... your the one that has said "good" and "bad" to those sides, not reuters.

If its which one is 1st, then you must also allow that in:

"the People/State" vs "whoever"

The State/People must be bad and the "whoever" good... weird thing for a conservative to think...

[j2k4]

I think thats your perception only J2..

They have designated 2 sides to the case, which is normal practice... your the one that has said "good" and "bad" to those sides, not reuters.

If its which one is 1st, then you must also allow that in:

"the People/State" vs "whoever"

The State/People must be bad and the "whoever" good... weird thing for a conservative to think...

You fail to acknowledge the demonization of Christians and Conservatives is an on-going and pervasive process, Rat.

They could have been described as something innocuous, like...an "advocacy group", you see?

It is much like saying "A Fundamentalist Christian Group Bombed a Family-Planning Clinic", rather than, "A Religious Group Bombed an Abortion Clinic".

Maybe you don't see any difference, given the high ground you watch from. :P

[JPaul]

I've asked this before, why does intelligent design have to involve God.

I personally think it does, but I don't think it's a must. The entity who created our universe, who set all the rules, could have subsequently died.

[Rat Faced]

I think thats your perception only J2..

They have designated 2 sides to the case, which is normal practice... your the one that has said "good" and "bad" to those sides, not reuters.

If its which one is 1st, then you must also allow that in:

"the People/State" vs "whoever"

The State/People must be bad and the "whoever" good... weird thing for a conservative to think...

You fail to acknowledge the demonization of Christians and Conservatives is an on-going and pervasive process, Rat.

They could have been described as something innocuous, like...an "advocacy group", you see?

It is much like saying "A Fundamentalist Christian Group Bombed a Family-Planning Clinic", rather than, "A Religious Group Bombed an Abortion Clinic".

Maybe you don't see any difference, given the high ground you watch from. :P

In the same way as say...

"A Fundamentalist Islamic Group bombed an Israeli Military Checkpoint" as opposed to "A Religious Group bombed Armed Israeli Soldiers"..

Seems you only wish this way of communicating when it suits you :P

[j2k4]

I've asked this before, why does intelligent design have to involve God.

I personally think it does, but I don't think it's a must. The entity who created our universe, who set all the rules, could have subsequently died.

Just so; your post (as an example) seems to have been 'intelligently designed'.

As an adjunct thought:

Many here have, in other threads and over other subjects, said things like, "How can any intelligent person discount the possiblity of life elswhere in the universe?" ;)

Methinks if you've ever professed a belief in, or even expressed a willingness to countenance the chance of, extra-terrestrial life, you are de facto an advocate for intelligent design.

[j2k4]

You fail to acknowledge the demonization of Christians and Conservatives is an on-going and pervasive process, Rat.

They could have been described as something innocuous, like...an "advocacy group", you see?

It is much like saying "A Fundamentalist Christian Group Bombed a Family-Planning Clinic", rather than, "A Religious Group Bombed an Abortion Clinic".

Maybe you don't see any difference, given the high ground you watch from. :P

In the same way as say...

"A Fundamentalist Islamic Group bombed an Israeli Military Checkpoint" as opposed to "A Religious Group bombed Armed Israeli Soldiers"..

Seems you only wish this way of communicating when it suits you :P

Is this the tactic you use to avoid accepting that your argument has been summarily dispatched? :D

[Rat Faced]

Crap.

As ive said before, we are badly designed.

A design this bad can only come from starting from an orginal and then adding on other things for which the orginal design was not suited in the 1st place..

ie: Either evolved this way, or God was a totally lazy bastard that you wouldnt give a job to.

[Rat Faced]

In the same way as say...

"A Fundamentalist Islamic Group bombed an Israeli Military Checkpoint" as opposed to "A Religious Group bombed Armed Israeli Soldiers"..

Seems you only wish this way of communicating when it suits you :P

Is this the tactic you use to avoid accepting that your argument has been summarily dispatched? :D

Sorry, didnt realise that "summarily dispatched" meant the same as "Havent really got an answer to that"..

[j2k4]

Sorry, didnt realise that "summarily dispatched" meant the same as "Havent really got an answer to that"..

Answers require questions before them.

Have you a plain question, or just more rhetorical ones? :huh:

[Rat Faced]

I have no questions... just pointing out that you have put "Good" and "Bad" in the article, not Reuters.

They have merely reported exactly the same way as they do for everything else.

[j2k4]

I have no questions... just pointing out that you have put "Good" and "Bad" in the article, not Reuters.

They have merely reported exactly the same way as they do for everything else.

In this case, "the same way as they do for everything else..." is predjudicial, Rat, and that was my point.

If you, as a consumer of Reuters' output, have been conditioned to believe "Christian" and/or "Conservative" to have a negative connotation, then, hey...double-trouble.

I'm not aware of any media outlet characterizing teachers or scientists as inherently negative, are you?

[JPaul]

http://www.badscienceprojects.com/html/modules/news/

[Rat Faced]

Worthy News and just about every other Right Christian Agency? :P

However, im gobsmacked by your admission that the News is biased Re: Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East and elswhere. ;)

[vidcc]

@ J2.

Who is it then that is pushing for I.D. in schools?. Who was it pushing for creationism in schools (seeing as they are obviously two completely different things :rolleyes: )




@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.

[spinningfreemanny]

@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.


A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.

You don't have to look hard to see such, but it is now common practice for evolutionists to turn a blind eye to this arguement.

Maybe this lawsuit will come to an actual debate about the validity of such things.

[spinningfreemanny]

As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

[ilw]

What predictions can be made on the assumption of intelligent design?

[j2k4]

I think this qualifies as a manny-sighting.

Good to see you, sir. ;)

[vidcc]

@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.


A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.

You don't have to look hard to see such, but it is now common practice for evolutionists to turn a blind eye to such things.

Maybe this lawsuit will come to an actual debate about the validity of such things.
Please point to this scientific evidence.

WB by the way

[3RA1N1AC]

A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.
what is the evidence, precisely? or what is the evidence, roughly. as far as i've been able to dig up, intelligent design's scientific evidence consists of missing links. "here's something that evolutionary theory hasn't explained... therefore, intelligent design." that's not evidence, that's a lack of evidence.

a lot of controvery is made of things like the "missing link" of human evolution, or various other gaps... but science is not based on the gaps, it's based on everything besides the gaps.

[spinningfreemanny]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.

[spinningfreemanny]

Oh, nice to see you all around bytheway...

I'll try to poke my head in from time to time ;-)

[peat moss]

I started this thread thinking as a parent does from time to time , what are the schools doing right or wrong . I don't have a problem with religion or science , my guys are taught tolerance at home ( is that a religion ?) and I expect the same thing at school . Give them the facts real or imagined and let them ask their own questions . Kids are pretty smart they'll tune out the bull shit .

[JPaul]

The beauty of science is that it repeatedly and predictably proves itself to be incorrect. Only to go on and prove the new "fact" is also incorrect.

FFS we still teach Newtonian physics in schools, even the bits we now know to be incorrect.

Two scientists have opposing views on a subject, each of them has their proof. Each is convinced that they are correct, each has their followers. Which one do we allow to be taught, coz one must be wrong, no matter how much proof they have.

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.

[j2k4]

The beauty of science is that it repeatedly and predictably proves itself to be incorrect. Only to go on and prove the new "fact" is also incorrect.

FFS we still teach Newtonian physics in schools, even the bits we now know to be incorrect.

Two scientists have opposing views on a subject, each of them has their proof. Each is convinced that they are correct, each has their followers. Which one do we allow to be taught, coz one must be wrong, no matter how much proof they have.

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.

Quite clearly and succinctly put, my good man.

Will it matter?

Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic, and history are there to be ignored, I guess. ;)

[ilw]

In science classes we teach our kids the currently accepted scientific paradigm, we don't teach them all the random hypotheses that exist because that would literally take forever. And a scientific paradigm isn't something you challenge in court, if the evidence is compelling then all that is required is patience, science will eventually come round.

Btw they reckon they have seen places where stars are being born http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3227221.stm but from the little i know, the birth of a star isn't really something you're going to easily see. Its not like a supernova which is much more obvious (ie it goes bang and gets stupidly bright)

[3RA1N1AC]

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.

okay, here's william a. dembski. he's considered an authority on the topic, right? writing in a letter on february 1st, 2005:

ID is part of God's general revelation. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the Bible. That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies nature. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialism.

Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

"dismantling materialism is a good thing." what does dembski mean by that? of course he doesn't mean it in the same sense that madonna does when she sings "i'm a material girl." he means materialism in the sense that "the only thing that can be known to have existed or occurred is physical"... and a sort-of relative of that, empiricism, is the philosophical principle from which modern science derives. not coincidentally, science has made its quickest progress and greatest achievements through empirical methods... they may not be 100% foolproof, but they've been pretty effective to say the least. so, dembski wants to throw away modern science's reliance on physical evidence that can be sensed (and theories that can be disproven, if necessary), and go with pure deductive reasoning instead because it opens the door for things like gods, aliens, etc to be considered serious science despite the fact that we cannot test the existence of gods or aliens. he is really asking for the scientific method to be turned upside down.

the gist of intelligent design:
*many living organisms are complex
*certain levels of complexity cannot happen by accident or by evolution, which indicates that the too-complex-for-evolution feature is the product of an intelligent designer
*therefore complex organisms are the product of an intelligent designer

much of that is presumption about what can and cannot occur through causes other than mental/spiritual "design." how does one determine what level of complexity requires the manipulation of this unidentified designer? numerology? where's the evidence, organized research, or the chance to disprove the hypothesis? it's a whole lot of jumping through logical hoops in order to arrive at the answer that they've already chosen. which is fine for philosophers, theologians, sherlock holmes, etc. pure deductive reasoning can be a worthwhile mental exercise, and it makes for great detective stories, but without a test it basically amounts to zilch in the laboratory.

as for evolution, off the top off my head, okay, organic evolution. the evolution of organisms. "micro-evolution" of subspecies is observable. you can observe a pack of domestic dogs evolve into a pack of wild dogs, coyotes into wolves, farm pigs into wild boars, etc. you can observe the development of subspecies of bacteria in a petrie dish. macro-evolution, the evolution of a totally new species, would happen way too slowly to observe in a human lifetime.

yet you CAN observe a type of evolution, it's just not the evolution of species. but at least it shows that evolution of distinct physical characteristics within a species due to factors like climate & such is not only possible but real and observable, and evolution of new species is very highly probable. the theory of species evolution is supported by things like: the existence of this or that type of animal fossil in certain levels of the earth crust indicates who precedes who. unless tyrannosaurus rex for example was just really good at digging with those tiny arms and then covering himself up with layer after layer of dirt & rock, it's prolly safe to say he was not preceded by the kangaroo. and there are quite obvious trends as far as "what are the common 'big animals' in this period, the next period, and so forth?" the earth's crust is a mural of new animals rising up to overtake & replace old animals.

[clocker]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:

Turnabout is fair play...

ID is part of God's general revelationWhich any right thinking person accepts. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the BibleAlthough the Bible should be enough.... That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies natureAt least "anyone" whose opinion I would care to cite. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialismAnd it's so easy! No proof required!.

Dismantling materialism is a good thingJust take MY word for it. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to ChristWhich is the whole point...DUH!.
Excellent!
From this point forward, my "perception" of Mr. Demski's writing shall be substituted for what was actually written and accepted as correct.

[j2k4]

Turnabout is fair play...

ID is part of God's general revelationWhich any right thinking person accepts. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the BibleAlthough the Bible should be enough.... That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies natureAt least "anyone" whose opinion I would care to cite. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialismAnd it's so easy! No proof required!.

Dismantling materialism is a good thingJust take MY word for it. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to ChristWhich is the whole point...DUH!.
Excellent!
From this point forward, my "perception" of Mr. Demski's writing shall be substituted for what was actually written and accepted as correct.


Ah, but Mr. Demski is an advocate; the former is presented as Journalism.

An important difference, I'm sure you can agree.

So-

It is turnabout, yes indeed.

Fairplay?

Uh-uh.

My apple and your orange.

Thank you for furnishing such a splendid example of tactical oversight-liberal specie.

:P

[Busyman]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.
Hmmm...some people are backward indeed....

I happen to believe in intelligent design.....even apart from religion. However, how does number 1 and 2 make for scientific study...in relation to intelligent design?

Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

This is why folks pushing this are backwards. You are so pressed to force religion in schools (amazing too it's only Christianity) that you have done it illogically (from a scientific standpoint).

Even looking at some of this rhetoric from intelligent design pushers, it's just chock full of simple religious teaching and only a passing reference to science.

To sum it up, intelligent design pushers, or simply the parents nodding their heads in agreement for it to be in schools, are fucking stupid and don't know the difference between philosophy and science.

[crucial62]

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

[GepperRankins]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:


maybe opposing parties should be refered to as just reds and blues in future then :unsure: or would that insinuate one party were evil comunists.

go home. J2. you n00b




i was bought up in roman catholic schools and had 3-4 hours a week RE (and church in primary school). i turned out to be a good god-fearing athiest. maybe that was because i had science lessons that weren't corrupted by bullshit though so i could work out the distinction my self.

[Busyman]

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?
Whether an intelligent design exists or not is moot.

ID shouldn't be in science class.

[clocker]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:
So let me make sure I have this right..."Christian conservatives", "educators" and "scientists" are all codewords we've been indoctrinated with by Reuters?

K then.
Removing the "bias" you imply leaves us with....
"Some people are suing some other people over some stuff. Could be important."

Oh yeah, much better.
No information, but no bias either.


Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.
That same 55% believe that NASCAR racers are just like their Fords/Chevys and that Jerry Springer's guests are real human beings.
We base science on public opinion polls now?*


Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.
As long as you ignore Darwin that is.

*All bias, emotional connotations, and implications supplied by me...Reuters had no input here....

[Barbarossa]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.

1. So are there any? What does this mean?
2. What's your point?



As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

I guess they'll show us their evidence when the other lot shows them theirs... :P


what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

Hi! Good question, which seems to get glossed over all too readily...


Oh by the way, here is a picture of the universe...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/sky_wmap.jpg

Intelligently Designed???? :blink: Rubbish! A 3-year-old could do better.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Read the blurb. The universe will continue to expand forever.

What sort of a design is that? :huh: Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!! :lol:

[j2k4]

So let me make sure I have this right..."Christian conservatives", "educators" and "scientists" are all codewords we've been indoctrinated with by Reuters?

K then.
Removing the "bias" you imply leaves us with....
"Some people are suing some other people over some stuff. Could be important."

Oh yeah, much better.
No information, but no bias either.


Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.
That same 55% believe that NASCAR racers are just like their Fords/Chevys and that Jerry Springer's guests are real human beings.
We base science on public opinion polls now?*


Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.
As long as you ignore Darwin that is.

*All bias, emotional connotations, and implications supplied by me...Reuters had no input here....

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.

[Busyman]

1. So are there any? What does this mean?
2. What's your point?



As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

I guess they'll show us their evidence when the other lot shows them theirs... :P


what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

Hi! Good question, which seems to get glossed over all too readily...


Oh by the way, here is a picture of the universe...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/sky_wmap.jpg

Intelligently Designed???? :blink: Rubbish! A 3-year-old could do better.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Read the blurb. The universe will continue to expand forever.

What sort of a design is that? :huh: Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!! :lol:
You don't know that. You missed the point as well. :dry:

manny is a Christian conservative in college btw. He will develop independent thought when he gets older.

Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

If people don't see this country being turned into one where religious zealots hold the power then you just as much sheep as Christian neocons. (I mean ffs, people laying down in the street 'cause The 10 Commandments were being removed from a courthouse :huh: )

This is coming from Christian (albeit a potty-mouthed one).

[clocker]

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?
Where did I say that?
We have been discussing a very specific news bit which you apparently consider the paragon of Reuteran bias.
I don't see it, that's all.

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.
If I considered Fox News as journalism at all I might be bothered.
Since I think they are merely a very effective advertising delivery vessel, applying journalistic standards to their performance would be unfair.

[j2k4]

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?
Where did I say that?
We have been discussing a very specific news bit which you apparently consider the paragon of Reuteran bias.
I don't see it, that's all.

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.
If I considered Fox News as journalism at all I might be bothered.
Since I think they are merely a very effective advertising delivery vessel, applying journalistic standards to their performance would be unfair.


Perhaps then you would (as a favor to an old pal) give forth with a quick one-sentence summation of your opinion(s) anent media bias, specifically:

Do you see it, and, if so, where?

[3RA1N1AC]

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.
Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic...
i meant to comment on this earlier, but neglected to.

asking a decent physicist whether newton is correct on every single point... is very different from telling that decent physicist: "empirical methods have worked wonderfully and done a lot of good for humanity, but we've decided we're going to throw empiricism away so that we can change science's focus from the physical to the metaphysical and teach children about god and aliens in gov't funded science classes. in essence we're redefining your field of work & study." which is what this current controversy is about. uh. there already are academic disciplines which deal with metaphysics, they're just not the same as the one that deals with darwin's theory of evolution.

if the next project is to have geometry taught in poetry classes, poetry taught in geometry classes, or business management strategies taught in gym classes... then i disagree with all of that, in advance. :P

[Rat Faced]

@ JPaul,

I meant to answer your post on Newtonian Physics being taught in schools earlier and forgot.

Newtonian Physics is taught in schools because it does match what happens in our day to day lives... which is all you need to know at basic school level.

ie: If you throw something up, it will come down at such and such a speed (in other words, dont jump off a building)

Its also taught that Newtonian Physics is not universal, (at least in the school I went to, and I assume, all other UK Schools) and includes experiments with electricity and magnets that shows this (energy/matter interaction was not covered by Newtonian Theory as electricity had not been discovered as such at the time :P ) in Practical Physics classes.

When you get to higher level qualifications then you learn the other stuff depending upon your speciality as the field is vast; ie stuff that the normal person will never have to know about such as Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics etc etc


As to Intelligent Design... when they explain the appendix, tonsils and other crap left over from when we needed them at an earlier stage of evolution, i may be prepared to take them a little more seriously. :lol:

[j2k4]

Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic...
i meant to comment on this earlier, but neglected to.

asking a decent physicist whether newton is correct on every single point... is very different from telling that decent physicist: "empirical methods have worked wonderfully and done a lot of good for humanity, but we've decided we're going to throw empiricism away so that we can change science's focus from the physical to the metaphysical and teach children about god and aliens in gov't funded science classes. in essence we're redefining your field of work & study." which is what this current controversy is about. uh. there already are academic disciplines which deal with metaphysics, they're just not the same as the one that deals with darwin's theory of evolution.

if the next project is to have geometry taught in poetry classes, poetry taught in geometry classes, or business management strategies taught in gym classes... then i disagree with all of that, in advance. :P

A point:

While I'm sure many of us has a bit of physics study under his/her belt, I don't know that any of us hold a Doctorate in the field, and hence aren't truly qualified to hold forth in that arena, but...

I know that for any of us to assign the quality of "good" or "bad" to physicists is an over-step, or a malaprop.

I don't think we can question whether one or another physicist is more-or-less capable or educated than another, but surely we cannot be precluded from questioning, given that each of them must have at least a roughly equivalent fund of learning to draw from, how they might disagree, and on what basis they arrive at so drastically differing conclusions vis a vis something like global warming, or industrial policy and it's impact on the latest rash of hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones or tornadoes.

Since none of us can adequately parse their calculations (nor even properly determine the quality of same), we are left, ultimately, to co-opt whichever set of opinions we find convincing or supportive of our preconceptions.

All this is to say that we would do well to realize we are mostly whistling in the dark.

[vidcc]

If public schools are going to be compelled to teach Intelligent design (not creationism and is not religious... honest ;) ) then these private religious schools should be compelled to state that there is a debate that God might not exist and that there is a theory called evolution.

[spinningfreemanny]

Posted by 3ra1n1ac

okay, here's william a. dembski. he's considered an authority on the topic, right? writing in a letter on february 1st, 2005:

Wrong audience, wrong topic, wrong format.

He is writing to designists, obviously, and is not discussing the persuasiveness of the theory. If fact, this is exactly what I am pointing to. Where can you find the evidence of the designist theory? Hopefully in a court case looming...


Originally Posted by crucial62
what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

See, I believe in the beginning, God. You believe in the beginning, Dirt. Where did mass come from? now the notion that mass has the capacity to create the universe is sprung from a vivid imagination indeed.



Originally posted by Busyman
Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?


Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?


Busyman:
Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

heh, read my words, interpretation is not needed. An "argument" being "authenticated" does not mean a tyrannical majority will say whats right and wrong...in fact its quite opposite: if it is that way, how can there be an argument?

The problem is that there's not even an argument! the evolutionists have strong-armed confrontation for a long time; maybe sooner or later it will happen.

Finally; my aim is not to convert everyone to the intelligent design theory. the aim is to have an official discussion on it.

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one. See, the religion of some hang on the evolution theory as the religion of others hang on the intelligent design theory. Both have religious elements. so, if intelligent design is to ethereal for science, someone better check the evolution theory as well, especially considering that it is bad science that violates quite a few laws (yes, laws, not holes or gaps). According to the scientific method, it would be thrown out, if not for the religious sect behind it.

[vidcc]

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?



How is this evidence or proof of ID?

There are many factors involved in erosion. Just because a river flows lower than the entrance doesn't point to a "creator". rain falls from altitude and water gets into cracks. If this water freezes the cracks open and structural integrity is compromised. Rockfalls and wind erode.

Are you saying that the well known ice age is proof of ID?

[Rat Faced]

Too late anyway now :(


A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

[Busyman]

Wrong audience, wrong topic, wrong format.

He is writing to designists, obviously, and is not discussing the persuasiveness of the theory. If fact, this is exactly what I am pointing to. Where can you find the evidence of the designist theory? Hopefully in a court case looming...


Originally Posted by crucial62
what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

See, I believe in the beginning, God. You believe in the beginning, Dirt. Where did mass come from? now the notion that mass has the capacity to create the universe is sprung from a vivid imagination indeed.



Originally posted by Busyman
Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?


Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?


Busyman:
Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

heh, read my words, interpretation is not needed. An "argument" being "authenticated" does not mean a tyrannical majority will say whats right and wrong...in fact its quite opposite: if it is that way, how can there be an argument?

The problem is that there's not even an argument! the evolutionists have strong-armed confrontation for a long time; maybe sooner or later it will happen.

Finally; my aim is not to convert everyone to the intelligent design theory. the aim is to have an official discussion on it.

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one. See, the religion of some hang on the evolution theory as the religion of others hang on the intelligent design theory. Both have religious elements. so, if intelligent design is to ethereal for science, someone better check the evolution theory as well, especially considering that it is bad science that violates quite a few laws (yes, laws, not holes or gaps). According to the scientific method, it would be thrown out, if not for the religious sect behind it.
See this is where me and you part ways and I step up with a brain.

I believe in ID. However, ID can exist with evolution (I'm not saying evolution is proven).

You can even have a Big Bang with ID, manny. :dry:

The fact is you lot are not trying to promote ID. You are trying to promote Christianity. Real ID can be independent of religion. However, it is not science in the least.

Wrap your head around it. You've been hanging around like minded folks on and off campus and have been herded to long. Stop being a sheep.

If you are so devout in your belief then you must believe in the AntiChrist too, right?

You also then believe there will be a leader that the many will believe in so strongly that they will be blind. (not saying that leader is here yet)

[3RA1N1AC]

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one.
if this is meant to imply that science is a religion because it says there is no god... i'd respond: science doesn't deny god, it just doesn't (and shouldn't) address that topic.

[j2k4]

Too late anyway now :(


A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

My point remains, Rat.

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Period.

I'd like someone to square what most of you now take as gospel with the scientific surety of a few decades ago that we were all supposed to freeze to death in the then-imminent Ice Age.

Any takers? :naughty:

[Barbarossa]

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?


I can't do better, but that's because I just see myself as a peculiar side-effect of a randomly natural universe...

You're the one saying the universe was designed like this, with billions of years of darkness and void ahead of it; I'm saying this is just the way it happened to be.

Other universes will work out differently. Maybe one of them contains intelligence... :dry:

Are you saying God didn't know how this universe was going to turn out? Like some celestial potter with a potters wheel, experimenting?

Is God the ultimate scientist? :huh:

[GepperRankins]

Too late anyway now :(



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

My point remains, Rat.

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Period.

I'd like someone to square what most of you now take as gospel with the scientific surety of a few decades ago that we were all supposed to freeze to death in the then-imminent Ice Age.

Any takers? :naughty:


i suppose you could say fox was biased because they bring on oil company reps to talk about global warming :wacko:

[ilw]

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

This is the entire argument summed up in a nutshell here,this isn't proof in any way shape or form of ID, it is evidence which supports the bible. This court case is about getting what kids are taught in science class to match up with what they learn in sunday school.

[GepperRankins]

SFM. if the grand canyons entrance was lower than the river it might be a miracle. the river is lower because the water eroded the rock. jeesh don't they teach simple geography where you grew up?

[Rat Faced]

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Consensus does exist.

It exists in that there is Global Warming.

Both the UN and the US scientific communities agree that it exists.

The UN and US Scientific Communities also agree that most of the increase is due to what humans are doing... and both refuse to say how much "most" is.

Research in 1987 forcast that a 1F increase in the Caribean would result in many more and much larger Hurricanes in that region. It also forcast more Tornado's on the mainland US. Both of these have happened.

Where the consensus stops, is what the results of Global Warming are.. there are so many variables that it is impossible to make a definitive model.

However, im sure that you fit a smoke alarm in case your house catches fire.

[ilw]

Is there really an increase in the number of severe hurricanes? I saw an article on BBC news and it had this chart
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40843000/gif/_40843284_hurricane3_history_gra416.gif (NB the bottom one is only the last 4 years)
It doesn't seem to show any obvious trend to me??

[GepperRankins]

Is there really an increase in the number of severe hurricanes? I saw an article on BBC news and it had this chart
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40843000/gif/_40843284_hurricane3_history_gra416.gif (NB the bottom one is only the last 4 years)
It doesn't seem to show any obvious trend to me??
:o

interesting.

[Rat Faced]

1F is well within the natural cycle, as im sure everyone would agree.

What would be concerning is an increase that doesnt go away, which is what is being predicted now...and the shear size of the hurricanes, as opposed to the category which only measures windspeed.

At current trends, we'll be at one of those peaks at the end of the decade (and think about the stuff that was happening in the world during the last peaks)..


Those figures are only for hurricanes striking the US mainland btw... not all of them do, and doesn't include this year.

For your info:

The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Median in the Carribean last year (2004) was 226... this is only the 2nd time since 1950 that its topped 200 (the other time was 1995 @ 228)

The 50 year average was 98.

The 10 year average was 140.

To put this into perspective:

Only 13 times has the hurricane season been classified as "Hyperactive"... 6 of these were within in the last 10 years.

The average number of named storms since 1995 has been 13, compared to 8.6 during the preceding 25 years.

Heres the PDI chart for the last 75 years in the Atlantic..

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/3600/pdicarribean6vv.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pdicarribean6vv.jpg)

The thick line @ 1949 is where monitoring by aircraft became accurate enough to include.

[j2k4]

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Consensus does exist.

It exists in that there is Global Warming.

Both the UN and the US scientific communities agree that it exists.

The UN and US Scientific Communities also agree that most of the increase is due to what humans are doing... and both refuse to say how much "most" is.

Research in 1987 forcast that a 1F increase in the Caribean would result in many more and much larger Hurricanes in that region. It also forcast more Tornado's on the mainland US. Both of these have happened.

Where the consensus stops, is what the results of Global Warming are.. there are so many variables that it is impossible to make a definitive model.

However, im sure that you fit a smoke alarm in case your house catches fire.

If I grant you your consensus, you must grant me that there is no consensus regarding the current trend's cause...is it cyclical or man-made?

You (and your scientists) prefer to entertain the notion that Mother Nature is not capable of ramping up global temps without the sinful complicity of man, personnified as George Bush.

How do you and your scientists differentiate between this new up-tick in temps and the great number of similar events throughout (pre-Industrial Age) time?

Please answer this before you further cloud the issue with another google?

You haven't explained the now-defunct idea of a new Ice Age yet, either.

Oh, and BTW-

A big, fat NO on the consensus thingie; it most certainly does NOT exist.

[Rat Faced]

J2, no one disagrees that there is a natural cycle of temperature variance.

The planet varies between Iceages and Tropical temperatures at the extreme and has much milder cycles between the two.

However we are now outside of what can be predicted in a natural cycle.


As to no Consensus..

Tell that to the inuits that have their sledges going through the ice for the 1st time ever. :P

I fail to see how that is so when every Scientific Study, including your own, (exc those financed by Industry/Energy) lead to the same conclusions.

The Whitehouse has also admitted that its happening now.


I dont ask a Chemist a Biology question as you appear to btw. :P

[j2k4]

J2, no one disagrees that there is a natural cycle of temperature variance.

The planet varies between Iceages and Tropical temperatures at the extreme and has much milder cycles between the two.

However we are now outside of what can be predicted in a natural cycle.

Says who?

Certainly not a consensus, not of physicists or any other scientific discipline; hell-even among environmental wackos there is no such consensus.

As to no Consensus..

Tell that to the inuits that have their sledges going through the ice for the 1st time ever. :P

What has consensus got to do with Inuits?

What precisely are the Inuits prepared to do if they are denied a consensus?

On that same note, I have heard studies that state a diet high in whale blubber causes extraordinary flatulence, which in turn aggravates the level of green-house gases.

Perhaps the Inuits ought to sign onto Kyoto...

I fail to see how that is so when every Scientific Study, including your own, (exc those financed by Industry/Energy) lead to the same conclusions.

The Whitehouse has also admitted that its happening now.

I believe Bush has acknowledged that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists; I do not recall him attributing it solely to the activities of man, specifically American man.

I dont ask a Chemist a Biology question as you appear to btw. :P

I appear to...what? :huh:

BTW-

Please be advised that you are not winning this debate.

[Rat Faced]

I believe Bush has acknowledged that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists; I do not recall him attributing it solely to the activities of man, specifically American man.

No one has said that its due "solely to the activities of man".

Both the UN and US Scientific academies have said that its "mostly" the activities of man.

And its only your opinion that im losing this debate.. just like its your opinion that there is no such thing as Global Warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[j2k4]

I believe Bush has acknowledged that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists; I do not recall him attributing it solely to the activities of man, specifically American man.

No one has said that its due "solely to the activities of man".

Both the UN and US Scientific academies have said that its "mostly" the activities of man.

And its only your opinion that im losing this debate.. just like its your opinion that there is no such thing as Global Warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

When did I disavow global warming?

I have questioned it's provenance, certainly.

I didn't say you were losing the debate, Rat; I merely stated you weren't winning it.

If you want to claim a stand-off, that's fine, and I suppose your stubbornness entitles you...but you are not winning. :P

Tell you what:

Put it to a poll-I'm sure you could win that. :D

[whypikonme]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.

[Busyman]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.
I tire of some of j2's posts 'cause they're cryptic until it's a bore (a hole in my head :wacko: ). However, I still welcome him..as a fellow American and still a good contributer to this board. I mean, at least he belongs here, Billy and his attitude is 10 times better than mine. (I never wanted you banned but the mods could at least follow through with their bans if they are going to institute them in the first place)
I would think only actual members of the board (like myself) should be able to light into him and those benefits should not extend to illegal aliens such as yourself. :ermm:

Fuck off btw.

[Biggles]

One would have more sympathy for ID as a possible cause for the universe kicking off if one did not suspect that it was simply camouflage for a specific creation myth from one specific religion.

One also suspects that it would be none too popular in some circles if the main proponents were suggesting that say the Hindu creation myths were the inspiration for ID.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that it is being treated like an unexploded landmine by those who teach in the scientific community.

I would agree with JP, ID as an analytical concept is fine but it should remain a tool devoid of any specific religious baggage.

[JPaul]

One would have more sympathy for ID as a possible cause for the universe kicking off if one did not suspect that it was simply camouflage for a specific creation myth from one specific religion.

One also suspects that it would be none too popular in some circles if the main proponents were suggesting that say the Hindu creation myths were the inspiration for ID.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that it is being treated like an unexploded landmine by those who teach in the scientific community.

I would agree with JP, ID as an analytical concept is fine but it should remain a tool devoid of any specific religious baggage.
Thank you for helping me to crystalize.

ID in and of itself is not religious. It is just a way to explain the nature of the universe.

However, if those teaching it say that the Intelligent Designer is this, or that, they describe her nature and they suggest that people should worship her, then that is religion.

[Biggles]

One would have more sympathy for ID as a possible cause for the universe kicking off if one did not suspect that it was simply camouflage for a specific creation myth from one specific religion.

One also suspects that it would be none too popular in some circles if the main proponents were suggesting that say the Hindu creation myths were the inspiration for ID.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that it is being treated like an unexploded landmine by those who teach in the scientific community.

I would agree with JP, ID as an analytical concept is fine but it should remain a tool devoid of any specific religious baggage.
Thank you for helping me to crystalize.

ID in and of itself is not religious. It is just a way to explain the nature of the universe.

However, if those teaching it say that the Intelligent Designer is this, or that, they describe her nature and they suggest that people should worship her, then that is religion.


:lol:

Absolutely, and I for one would not be for insisting that she be worshipped simply for the sake of it.

[JPaul]

Indeed, Gaia boy.

[j2k4]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.

Oh, gee-

Whatever shall I do? :(

BTW-

In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?

Why is it chippies like you feel the need to change I.D.s all the time?

Afraid you'll get pegged?

Too late; that's a done deal. :D

[Busyman]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.

Oh, gee-

Whatever shall I do? :(

BTW-

In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?

Why is it chippies like you feel the need to change I.D.s all the time?

Afraid you'll get pegged?

Too late; that's a done deal. :D
Exactly.

Somebody ban him already. He'll be back. Ban UKResident/RioDeLeo/whypikonme/Billy Dean and that I think of it...he was leftism. The mods always mentioned lefty used a proxy and 1234 didn't.

This is fun. Ban him and let's see what interesting moniker he comes up with next time. He's the board's reluctant Hare Krishna (sorry for teh spelllingg).

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!

1. Mods you go ahead and do that. Mmk?
2. j2 you can bury him in teh Pet Sematary.
3. I'll give him the new name upon check-in. I promise it will be unflattering.

:thumbsup: We'll All Do Our Part For FST!!! :thumbsup:

[j2k4]

Oh, gee-

Whatever shall I do? :(

BTW-

In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?

Why is it chippies like you feel the need to change I.D.s all the time?

Afraid you'll get pegged?

Too late; that's a done deal. :D
Exactly.

Somebody ban him already. He'll be back. Ban UKResident/RioDeLeo/whypikonme/Billy Dean and that I think of it...he was leftism. The mods always mentioned lefty used a proxy and 1234 didn't.

This is fun. Ban him and let's see what interesting moniker he comes up with next time. He's the board's reluctant Hare Krishna (sorry for teh spelllingg).

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!

1. Mods you go ahead and do that. Mmk?
2. j2 you can bury him in teh Pet Sematary.
3. I'll give him the new name upon check-in. I promise it will be unflattering.

:thumbsup: We'll All Do Our Part For FST!!! :thumbsup:

Well, I wouldn't have banned Laurel and Hardy because they weren't funny, and if such a fate were to befall Why...me, well....then we'd have to assign the bottom position on the totem to someone who might occasion our sympathy, and then we'd feel really guilty for sanctioning someone else.

I think we ought to keep him/her/it, out of respect for others who might attempt to sink lower, but fail.

In sum, it must be granted he makes a superb forum-idiot, and saves young Dave from being bottom duck, eh? ;)

[Busyman]

Exactly.

Somebody ban him already. He'll be back. Ban UKResident/RioDeLeo/whypikonme/Billy Dean and that I think of it...he was leftism. The mods always mentioned lefty used a proxy and 1234 didn't.

This is fun. Ban him and let's see what interesting moniker he comes up with next time. He's the board's reluctant Hare Krishna (sorry for teh spelllingg).

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!

1. Mods you go ahead and do that. Mmk?
2. j2 you can bury him in teh Pet Sematary.
3. I'll give him the new name upon check-in. I promise it will be unflattering.

:thumbsup: We'll All Do Our Part For FST!!! :thumbsup:

Well, I wouldn't have banned Laurel and Hardy because they weren't funny, and if such a fate were to befall Why...me, well....then we'd have to assign the bottom position on the totem to someone who might occasion our sympathy, and then we'd feel really guilty for sanctioning someone else.

I think we ought to keep him/her/it, out of respect for others who might attempt to sink lower, but fail.

In sum, it must be granted he makes a superb forum-idiot, and saves young Dave from being bottom duck, eh? ;)
You don't understand. That's the beauty of it. why Billy Dean left UKResident in Rio can be the forum punch dummy that we can shoot (even UKers), stab, mame, bludgeon, mangle, and mankle (!) to death....and he'd come back brand new.

No harm, No foul. ;)

[j2k4]

Well, I wouldn't have banned Laurel and Hardy because they weren't funny, and if such a fate were to befall Why...me, well....then we'd have to assign the bottom position on the totem to someone who might occasion our sympathy, and then we'd feel really guilty for sanctioning someone else.

I think we ought to keep him/her/it, out of respect for others who might attempt to sink lower, but fail.

In sum, it must be granted he makes a superb forum-idiot, and saves young Dave from being bottom duck, eh? ;)
You don't understand. That's the beauty of it. why Billy Dean left UKResident in Rio can be the forum punch dummy that we can shoot (even UKers), stab, mame, bludgeon, mangle, and mankle (!) to death....and he'd come back brand new.

No harm, No foul. ;)

Yes, yes, but the one thing we haven't really allowed him/her/it is the opportunity to "grow" into his/her/it's role here, as we've shunned him/her/it upon his/her/it's past appearances-we haven't had a Zardoz since, well, ZARDOZ.

I miss those days... :huh:

[peat moss]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:

[JPaul]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:
The disrespect of their peers.

Or perhaps the sky falling on their head.

[j2k4]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:

Oooooh-not this correspondent.

The "court case" will be on-going.

For quite a while.

This thread, though not premature, needs an intermission-perhaps we could rod manker for nine days?

We will need even more side-lighting to finish this, but that would be a good start, I think.

[Busyman]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:
I leave that to my board colleegluez. vid used to be good at starting topics.

You gotta leave work for someone else sometimes, petey mossberg weestro.

It gives them a sense of purpose.

[peat moss]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:
The disrespect of their peers.

Or perhaps the sky falling on their head.



Well JP , that makes sence because sometimes my spelling is atrocious but so what . Have a opinion , some thing to add all 's good . Better than sitting on a fence no ?

[JPaul]

The disrespect of their peers.

Or perhaps the sky falling on their head.



Well JP , that makes sence because sometimes my spelling is atrocious but so what . Have a opinion , some thing to add all 's good . Better than sitting on a fence no ?
What in the name of gepulon does that mean.

Lounge please, modulaters.

[peat moss]

Well JP , that makes sence because sometimes my spelling is atrocious but so what . Have a opinion , some thing to add all 's good . Better than sitting on a fence no ?
What in the name of gepulon does that mean.

Lounge please, modulaters.




No I started this thread as a parent and put up with BS to get an understanding what a child must go thru , who are you to move my thread ?


Like fuck they'll will move it !

[Rat Faced]

Can manny, or anyone else explain Flavobacterium strain K172?

Or do they claim that the ability to digest Nylon has been with us forever and a day, even though the genum is well known and the mutation that caused the evolution is well documented...

[JPaul]

What in the name of gepulon does that mean.

Lounge please, modulaters.




No I started this thread as a parent and put up with BS to get an understanding what a child must go thru , who are you to move my thread ?


Like fuck they'll will move it !
I had though my use of the word "gepulon" would have indicated the jocular nature of my post.

Language only works well when one considers not only the words used, but also the order and context in which they are placed.

My apologies for any offence re "your" thread. I realize it must be precious to you. So as to avoid confusion, the previous sentence had an element of sarcasm attached to it.

[j2k4]

Can manny, or anyone else explain Flavobacterium strain K172?

Or do they claim that the ability to digest Nylon has been with us forever and a day, even though the genum is well known and the mutation that caused the evolution is well documented...

Context and relevance, please? :snooty:

[JPaul]

The nucleotide sequence of repeated sequence I, which appears in five regions on nylon oligomer-degrading plasmid pOAD2, harbored in Flavobacterium sp. strain K172, was determined. The five regions of repeated sequence I had 880 bp of identical sequence, and the sequence was identical to that of IS6100, an insertion sequence classified in the IS6 family, initially found in Mycobacterium fortuitum. Sequences homologous to that of IS6100 were found for another nylon oligomer- degrading plasmid, pNAD2, harbored in Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87, by Southern hybridization experiments.

[j2k4]

The nucleotide sequence of repeated sequence I, which appears in five regions on nylon oligomer-degrading plasmid pOAD2, harbored in Flavobacterium sp. strain K172, was determined. The five regions of repeated sequence I had 880 bp of identical sequence, and the sequence was identical to that of IS6100, an insertion sequence classified in the IS6 family, initially found in Mycobacterium fortuitum. Sequences homologous to that of IS6100 were found for another nylon oligomer- degrading plasmid, pNAD2, harbored in Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87, by Southern hybridization experiments.

Oh, that. :huh:

[JPaul]

It must have slipped your mind.

[peat moss]

No I started this thread as a parent and put up with BS to get an understanding what a child must go thru , who are you to move my thread ?


Like fuck they'll will move it !
I had though my use of the word "gepulon" would have indicated the jocular nature of my post.

Language only works well when one considers not only the words used, but also the order and context in which they are placed.

My apologies for any offence re "your" thread. I realize it must be precious to you. So as to avoid confusion, the previous sentence had an element of sarcasm attached to it.



Please accept my apology JP , I did n't mean to sound like such an asshole or claim a thread as mine. Just tired I guess , I read it wrong and should learn to spell better . :blushing:


I think when you have three little ones in school , topics like these hit a little harder mabye ?

[JPaul]

No old bean, please accept my apologies, my retort was uncalled for and harsh.

I do know how you feel tho'. I have four, aged 20, 17, 12 and 7. Three still at school and one working but staying at home.

I have had at least one child in school for the last 15 years, two for the last 12 years, three for the last 7 years.

It is highly likely that it will be another 10 years before I am a school free zone. Not counting tertiary education.

Loike I said, I know how you feel.

[Barbarossa]

The nucleotide sequence of repeated sequence I, which appears in five regions on nylon oligomer-degrading plasmid pOAD2, harbored in Flavobacterium sp. strain K172, was determined. The five regions of repeated sequence I had 880 bp of identical sequence, and the sequence was identical to that of IS6100, an insertion sequence classified in the IS6 family, initially found in Mycobacterium fortuitum. Sequences homologous to that of IS6100 were found for another nylon oligomer- degrading plasmid, pNAD2, harbored in Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87, by Southern hybridization experiments.

This is simply the greatest paragraph ever! :cool:



What does it mean? :unsure:

[JPaul]

Some bactria can eat cheap clothes.

[j2k4]

Some bactria can eat cheap clothes.

Like moths, only smaller and more tenacious. :)

[JPaul]

Some bactria can eat cheap clothes.

Like moths, only smaller and more tenacious. :)
And with an "e" in bacteria. :blushing:

[j2k4]

Like moths, only smaller and more tenacious. :)
And with an "e" in bacteria. :blushing:

I had, perhaps prematurely, ceded spelling discipline on the board to manker.

He is not doing himself credit on this point.

I am seriously re-considering his tenure thus, even though I myself commited a particularly egregious error this past weekend.

[clocker]

even though I myself commited a particularly egregious error this past weekend.
You mean that "Delay in '08" tattoo you just got?

Pshaw...nobody will notice that.

[whypikonme]

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!
l've always thought of you as rather childish and immature, after reading your viewing habits in another thread, l now know l was right. All this big man, gun-toting rhetoric of yours is just a front. l don't know much about the US education system, but l'm guessing 9th grade? 10th?



In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?
Quite easy really, l looked here. (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2941&page=1&pp=10)


Here's a part of your very first post, telling us how dangerous Saddam was with his WMDs.


WE NEED TO REMOVE SADDAM NOW, BEFORE THE POTENTIAL FOR DESTRUCTION BECOMES EVEN GREATER. THOSE WHO DOUBT THAT THE POTENTIAL IS ESCALATING AS WE DEBATE THIS ARE KIDDING THEMSELVES.
Who's kidding who now? :lol:

[Busyman]

l've always thought of you as rather childish and immature, after reading your viewing habits in another thread, l now know l was right. All this big man, gun-toting rhetoric of yours is just a front. l don't know much about the US education system, but l'm guessing 9th grade? 10th?

Wtf big man? :lol: :lol: I'm 5'9".

What gun-toting rhetoric?

I simply own guns dipshit. I don't walk around with them. I don't carry it in the car.
How the fuck is it immature to watch Nip/Tuck? :lol: :lol: :lol: (I haven't watched one episode this season though :unsure: )

I'll keep being Busyman and you'll keep being whateverthefuckyournameistoday.

I get to mark Some College on my resume. My high-school education probably equaled most of your college education anyway. Really. :snooty:

I take that back, whypikasmallboogerwhenyoucouldfindgold. You can't put "I use Google!!!" on your resume. Back to your hovel. :ermm:

[vidcc]

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/intelligentdesign.gif

[j2k4]

l've always thought of you as rather childish and immature, after reading your viewing habits in another thread, l now know l was right. All this big man, gun-toting rhetoric of yours is just a front. l don't know much about the US education system, but l'm guessing 9th grade? 10th?



In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?
Quite easy really, l looked here. (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2941&page=1&pp=10)

I would think any reader of this thread would have properly assumed my query was with regard to your identity(s) over "the past couple of years".

One cannot know, however, whether your oversight in this instance is intentional or deceitful, given your dubious presence here.

Here's a part of your very first post, telling us how dangerous Saddam was with his WMDs.


WE NEED TO REMOVE SADDAM NOW, BEFORE THE POTENTIAL FOR DESTRUCTION BECOMES EVEN GREATER. THOSE WHO DOUBT THAT THE POTENTIAL IS ESCALATING AS WE DEBATE THIS ARE KIDDING THEMSELVES.
Who's kidding who now? :lol:

That is not my "very first post".

In any case, we all know you weren't on the scene here until much later on, most likely because you hadn't/haven't the fortitude to comment going in, but are cursed merely with the nit-picker's imperative to try to cause trouble when- and wherever you can.

You follow the debate with a mop and bucket, nothing more. ;)

[whypikonme]

Wtf big man? :lol: :lol: I'm 5'9".

What gun-toting rhetoric?

I simply own guns dipshit. I don't walk around with them. I don't carry it in the car.
How the fuck is it immature to watch Nip/Tuck? :lol: :lol: :lol: (I haven't watched one episode this season though :unsure: )

I'll keep being Busyman and you'll keep being whateverthefuckyournameistoday.

I get to mark Some College on my resume. My high-school education probably equaled most of your college education anyway. Really. :snooty:

I take that back, whypikasmallboogerwhenyoucouldfindgold. You can't put "I use Google!!!" on your resume. Back to your hovel. :ermm:

l'm sorry but you're just making it worse ... you're a shortarse, and you didn't even go to uni! Besides which, l can't take someone seriously who watches the Cosby Show.

[whypikonme]

In any case, we all know you weren't on the scene here until much later on, most likely because you hadn't/haven't the fortitude to comment going in, but are cursed merely with the nit-picker's imperative to try to cause trouble when- and wherever you can.

You follow the debate with a mop and bucket, nothing more. [/COLOR][/I] ;)

Now, now, Kev, don't get your knickers in a twist, it's not good for the heart. :naughty:

[Busyman]

Wtf big man? :lol: :lol: I'm 5'9".

What gun-toting rhetoric?

I simply own guns dipshit. I don't walk around with them. I don't carry it in the car.
How the fuck is it immature to watch Nip/Tuck? :lol: :lol: :lol: (I haven't watched one episode this season though :unsure: )

I'll keep being Busyman and you'll keep being whateverthefuckyournameistoday.

I get to mark Some College on my resume. My high-school education probably equaled most of your college education anyway. Really. :snooty:

I take that back, whypikasmallboogerwhenyoucouldfindgold. You can't put "I use Google!!!" on your resume. Back to your hovel. :ermm:

l'm sorry but you're just making it worse ... you're a shortarse, and you didn't even go to uni! Besides which, l can't take someone seriously who watches the Cosby Show.
Wtf is uni? Is that the white horse with the horn you like to ride the arse of?

and shortarse? Shouldn't you be trying to hurt my feelings instead of making me laugh from an insult? :lol: :lol: Record that shit in your Australian accent and post it. It would make my minute.

Btw the Cosby Show has been off the air for over ten years now. :blink: ....but it was quite good. :)

[3RA1N1AC]

l'm sorry but you're just making it worse ... you're a shortarse, and you didn't even go to uni!
Wtf is uni? Is that the white horse with the horn you like to ride the arse of?

and shortarse?
maybe he is confused about some american colloquialisms. and about imperial measurements?... he might be on the metric system.

5 foot 9 inches. 1.75 meter. that's as average as average can be, right now, for american males.

busyman didn't say whether or not he attended "uni." in the united states we formally refer to secondary education as "high school," and a variety of tertiary educations (university, junior/community college [equivalent to the first two years of university], and some vocational schools) are more informally referred to as "college." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College#British_and_American_usage_contrasted) college never means secondary education in american parlance, unlike the definition of college in some other countries (such as australia?).

so... busy, i'm guessing that maybe whypikonme mistakenly thought you were using "college" to refer to some other form of high school. :lol:

[peat moss]

Does four years of high school count ? You know two years of grade 8 , two years of grade 9 ........... Just wondering .

[whypikonme]

No confusion 3RAINIAC, to me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me, and especially funny considering he talks like he was 7 feet 6.

As to uni, l was, of course, talking about unicorns, well done shorty.

[manker]

To me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me.Righty-o, Billy.

I seem to remember a thread dedicated to your diminuitive stature. The thread was titled "Is Billy Really Malcolm Glazer?" -- It was a poll, as I recall.

Pics of Glazer:
http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/Rikk.gif http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/BillyDean.gif http://img79.exs.cx/img79/9720/BillyDean2.gif

Pics of Billy:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2003-01/6386086.jpg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/2004/02/17/sfnman170204.jpg http://sportserver.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/935-manu.jpg

It's hard to tell the two apart, imo.

Are you quite sure that you didn't get the numbers mixed up. You infer that you're 6'3" but I think 3'6" is probably nearer the mark.

:)

[Barbarossa]

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/4673bf3b03147bb3ef398a3293a4cd8e/image/computer.jpe

[j2k4]

In any case, we all know you weren't on the scene here until much later on, most likely because you hadn't/haven't the fortitude to comment going in, but are cursed merely with the nit-picker's imperative to try to cause trouble when- and wherever you can.

You follow the debate with a mop and bucket, nothing more. [/COLOR][/I] ;)

Now, now, Kev, don't get your knickers in a twist, it's not good for the heart. :naughty:

Ah, these short workouts are good for me.

No muss, and very little fuss...:P

[Busyman]

As to uni, l was, of course, talking about unicorns, well done shorty.
Cool I was right then. It was that....
white horse with the horn you like to ride the arse of


No confusion 3RAINIAC, to me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me, and especially funny considering he talks like he was 7 feet 6.
It doesn't matter how tall you are.

One hit and you'll go down like a 5 dollar and 75 cent prostitute.

Your height means shit to me. I might develop a Napoleon complex up in here. :lol: :lol:

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?

[JPaul]

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?
BIGLY

[j2k4]

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?
BIGLY

Perhaps we should consult Les? :)

[Busyman]

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?
BIGLY
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[JPaul]

BIGLY

Perhaps we should consult Les? :)
:lol:

Funny, I thought something the same whilst posting. :ph34r:

[fkdup74]

No confusion 3RAINIAC, to me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me, and especially funny considering he talks like he was 7 feet 6.

funny, because your attitude is more of that which we call 'Little Man's Syndrome',
or, if you prefer, as Busy put it, the 'Napolean Complex'
many names for it really, but all the same symptoms ;)

anyhoo.......

[whypikonme]

funny, because your attitude is more of that which we call 'Little Man's Syndrome',
or, if you prefer, as Busy put it, the 'Napolean Complex'
many names for it really, but all the same symptoms ;)

anyhoo.......

Really? Should l care? Do you ever bother to read posts before you comment?

Nice username, by the way, suits you.

[fkdup74]

Do you ever bother to read posts before you comment?

I read the entire thread dick :dry:
and I dont remember seeing you until you decided to pipe in with a shot at j2k
hmmmm......yep, I just re-browsed the entire thread
don't see you doing anything but taking shots at ppl
so.....you came here looking for trouble it seems
well you got it at the expense of decent forum members' time
bet that made your day ya fuckin wanker


Nice username, by the way, suits you.

glad you noticed
now gtfo, nobody likes you
just.....I don't know, die or somethin ffs


anyway.......on topic..........

the ACLU can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned
I really wonder if they'd defend a Christian in court if they tried to remove the teachings of evolution because they found it offensive?
I seriously doubt it, because they don't give a shit about civil liberties
they're anti-Christians with too much time and money, period.

am I saying that ID belongs in school? no
am I saying it should be thrown out? no
look at other ways to institute it maybe
braniac made a good point, throw it in with philosophy or somethin, make it an elective, etc

but no, according to the ACLU it has to go
even if it was somehow proven that it has valid educational value,
if it has to do with Christianity in any respect it doesn't belong

and the fucking courts keep letting them get away with this shit
I just don't get it :huh:

[whypikonme]

I just don't get it :huh:

Me neither, do you talk the way you write? No wonder you picked that name.

[Busyman]

anyway.......on topic..........

the ACLU can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned
I really wonder if they'd defend a Christian in court if they tried to remove the teachings of evolution because they found it offensive?
I seriously doubt it, because they don't give a shit about civil liberties
they're anti-Christians with too much time and money, period.

am I saying that ID belongs in school? no
am I saying it should be thrown out? no
look at other ways to institute it maybe
braniac made a good point, throw it in with philosophy or somethin, make it an elective, etc

but no, according to the ACLU it has to go
even if it was somehow proven that it has valid educational value,
if it has to do with Christianity in any respect it doesn't belong

and the fucking courts keep letting them get away with this shit
I just don't get it :huh:
The problem is that the folks pushing for ID in classroom are

1. Pushing for their own brand of ID, the Christian brand.

2. Pushing for it to be in science class.

In those cases it should be thrown out.

If they were smart they'd push for it in philosophy class or something similar.

ID in itself is independent of religion.

[clocker]

ID in itself is independent of religion.
How do you figure that?

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.
How many athiests subscribe to the theory of intelligent design?

[JPaul]

From the Urban Dictionary



The Intelligent Design Theory suggests that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

Contrary to popular belief, this theory is based on modern science, not religious beliefs.

The latest theory to explain the complexity of the biological world is intellegent design.

Source: George, Feb 26, 2005

[lynx]

From the Urban Dictionary



The Intelligent Design Theory suggests that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

Contrary to popular belief, this theory is based on modern science, not religious beliefs.

The latest theory to explain the complexity of the biological world is intellegent design.

Source: George, Feb 26, 2005That's fine, until you take the obvious viewpoint that Intelligent Design must have an Intelligent Designer.

Choose what definition you like, it must be the product of faith based ideology, ie religion.

[JPaul]

I keep asking this, why does the inteligent designer of our Universe have to be God.

God (certainly from a Christian viewpoint) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. All knowing, all powerful and all present. The being who created our Universe could just as easily have come from another one, set our's in motion and have subsequently died.

Given that ID, as I understand it, concerns itself with how things work in our Universe, then the "non-God" designer must surely be acceptable to it. It doesn't matter where the designer came from, just what she did.

That being the case, ID is not religious. What is religious / philosophical is seeking the nature of the designer, as opposed to understanding the design itself.

[GepperRankins]

there's still no science to support it

[3RA1N1AC]

What is religious / philosophical is seeking the nature of the designer
apparently they've already found the nature of the designer, since it's in the name of the hypothesis: "intelligent."

[JPaul]

What is religious / philosophical is seeking the nature of the designer
apparently they've already found the nature of the designer, since it's in the name of the hypothesis: "intelligent."
Indeed, however being intelligent does not make her God.

[3RA1N1AC]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

if one must first assume that there's a distant intelligence without testing the existence of the distant intelligence, assume that there's a design without testing the existence of the design, and then assume that there's a connection between the distant intelligence and the design without testing the connection... that's quite a lot of assumption from which to begin one's scientific study of this design-created-by-a-distant-intelligence.

i reckon it falls into the domain of philosophy because it's (seemingly) all deduction and no test.

[Busyman]

How do you figure that?

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.
How many athiests subscribe to the theory of intelligent design?
Sorry clocker. I meant particular religion.

[GepperRankins]

i don't understand what you're getting at JP

[Busyman]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

if one must first assume that there's a distant intelligence without testing the existence of the distant intelligence, assume that there's a design without testing the existence of the design, and then assume that there's a connection between the distant intelligence and the design without testing the connection... that's quite a lot of assumption from which to begin one's scientific study of this design-created-by-a-distant-intelligence.

i reckon it falls into the domain of philosophy because it's (seemingly) all deduction and no test.
I think the basic laws of physics and chemistry were designed and set in motion. Everything else fell in place.

[3RA1N1AC]

right, and there's nothing wrong with making such a deduction, it's just that we can't really test it.

my next bit of navel-gazing. going by jpaul's implication that it's not philosophical (and therefore scientifically relevant?) if it's completely about the design and completely not-about the designer: what's the significance, then? suppose one person studies the physical nature of a thing under the assumption that it is the result of design, yet has no intention of bringing the nature of the designer into the equation; and another studies the same thing under no assumption of design. why should there be any essential difference at all between the conclusions that these two people reach? if there were no difference, wouldn't it suggest that the assumption of design is unnecessary to the study? (just as much as an assumption that there is no design would also be unnecessary)

[GepperRankins]

what's intelligent design without an intelligent designer?

[Busyman]

right, and there's nothing wrong with making such a deduction, it's just that we can't really test it.

my next bit of navel-gazing. going by jpaul's implication that it's not philosophical (and therefore scientifically relevant?) if it's completely about the design and completely not-about the designer: what's the significance, then? suppose one person studies the physical nature of a thing under the assumption that it is the result of design, yet has no intention of bringing the nature of the designer into the equation; and another studies the same thing under no assumption of design. why should there be any essential difference at all between the conclusions that these two people reach? if there were no difference, wouldn't it suggest that the assumption of design is unnecessary to the study? (just as much as an assumption that there is no design would also be unnecessary)
That's why it's idiotic to have it in science class. I believe in ID but don't think it's cool to put it in schools any way I see fit.

[j2k4]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

[GepperRankins]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.
miracle?

[j2k4]

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.
miracle?

And the first Encarta (safely secular source, no?) definition of miracle is:

1. act of God: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[GepperRankins]

so a snowflake is a miracle?

[j2k4]

I thought that's what you said; I saw the definition of "miracle" had bearing here.

For the record, (insofar as anyone actully cares) I would say the crystaline structure of a snowflake is indeed a miracle, as well as a prime example of intelligent design.

[clocker]

I keep asking this, why does the inteligent designer of our Universe have to be God.

Because, by definition, any being capable of such a feat would have to be God.

Why is it that backers of this theory are unwilling to admit the obvious- they want religion taught in school AND they want it elevated to the level of science.
Furthermore, not just any religion will do...it is Christianity they are advancing.
Highly unlikely that any evidence whatsoever that Shiva (for example) constructed the Universe will ever be presented in Indiana schools,eh?

[JPaul]

I keep asking this, why does the inteligent designer of our Universe have to be God.

Because, by definition, any being capable of such a feat would have to be God.

No they wouldn't.

[vidcc]

one can only assume that any "judeo-Christian" that believes I.D. and the "designer" is not god is renouncing their faith. :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

one can only assume that any "judeo-Christian" that believes I.D. and the "designer" is not god is renouncing their faith. :rolleyes:
Are you 12 years old, that would certainly explain your inability to take part in adult conversation.

[clocker]

Because, by definition, any being capable of such a feat would have to be God.

No they wouldn't.
Fine then.
If your God did not create all this then why is He/She/It worthy of your faith?

[vidcc]

one can only assume that any "judeo-Christian" that believes I.D. and the "designer" is not god is renouncing their faith. :rolleyes:
Are you 12 years old, that would certainly explain your inability to take part in adult conversation.
So you don't have an argument in response then.. I am not surprised. :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

No they wouldn't.
Fine then.
If your God did not create all this then why is He/She/It worthy of your faith?
Why would the being who designed this Universe have to be God, any more than you designing and making a clock would make you God.

[JPaul]

Are you 12 years old, that would certainly explain your inability to take part in adult conversation.
So you don't have an argument in response then.. I am not surprised. :rolleyes:
I have put it forward oft time, you just don't understand it.

[vidcc]

So you don't have an argument in response then.. I am not surprised. :rolleyes:
I have put it forward oft time, you just don't understand it.

show me

[JPaul]

I have put it forward oft time, you just don't understand it.

show me

Don't be ridiculous.



:blushing: Sorry, you don't have an option. My bad.

[vidcc]

You either believe what the faith teaches that God made the earth or you don't. It's that simple.

[GepperRankins]

JP trying to dig out of a hole... haven't seen this in a while :lol:


dictionary.com says....

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

so if it wasn't the judeo-christian God it was a god.

anyway all this is irrelevent. even if we ignore the fact that 'intelligent design' stems from christian literature, there is no science to support it so it should not be in science classrooms

[JPaul]

You either believe what the faith teaches that God made the earth or you don't. It's that simple.
No it isn't, but that's the sort of childish simplicity that I would have expected from you.

[clocker]

Why would the being who designed this Universe have to be God
So you are no longer a religious man, JP?

I suspect you are arguing simply for sport here.

From the Nicene Creed...
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
Doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for intelligent design sans God, does it?

[vidcc]

Yet again you are unable to make a valid counter so you rely on trying to make insults

[JPaul]

Who here thinks that the Universe we live in is the whole of creation.

I don't.

[JPaul]

So you are no longer a religious man, JP?

I suspect you are arguing simply for sport here.

From the Nicene Creed...
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
Doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for intelligent design sans God, does it?

I trust that this is a wind-up and that you are not so narrow of thinking.

[clocker]

Who here thinks that the Universe we live in is the whole of creation.

I don't.
I do.

[JPaul]

Who here thinks that the Universe we live in is the whole of creation.

I don't.
I do.
The physics I believe suggests that the Universe we live in is but one of many. Part of a multiverse if you will.

This explains how you cannot accept my argument that the (alleged) designer of this Universe would not also have to be God.

[GepperRankins]

so we're lab rats in another race's experiment?

[lynx]

For JP.

http://www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/images/products/955/images/spade.jpg

Note the extra long handle for those very deep holes.

[Busyman]

For JP.

http://www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/images/products/955/images/spade.jpg

Note the extra long handle for those very deep holes.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[clocker]

The physics I believe suggests that the Universe we live in is but one of many. Part of a multiverse if you will.

This explains how you cannot accept my argument that the (alleged) designer of this Universe would not also have to be God.
Uh uh.
I cannot accept your argument because it is illogical and semantically impossible.

[whypikonme]

The physics I believe suggests that the Universe we live in is but one of many. Part of a multiverse if you will.

Which physics would that be? l'm not aware of any mainstream claim to that effect.

[JPaul]

The physics I believe suggests that the Universe we live in is but one of many. Part of a multiverse if you will.

This explains how you cannot accept my argument that the (alleged) designer of this Universe would not also have to be God.
Uh uh.
I cannot accept your argument because it is illogical and semantically impossible.
Please explain how it is semantically impossible.

[clocker]

From Dictionary.com...
u·ni·verse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)
n.
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
"All matter and energy" would include your hypothetical "meta-universe" too, would it not?
Just because we have yet to detect another layer of existence/matter/being does not exclude it from the universe as already defined.
"Universe" is, well...universal...the definition logically expandable to include new aspects as they are discovered.

What's next JP?
A debate over the number of angels on a pinhead?

In essence, you want your cake and mine as well.
Either your God created everything or not.
If so, the Intelligent Designer=God.
If not, then indeed, maybe one day as I was building clocks I created the universe.

You still owe me for Scotland, BTW.
Everyone else has paid up but you guys.

[JPaul]

Fair enough, points well made. If we take the universe as meaning everything, everywhere and not just a finite "universe" in which we live then you are indeed correct.

I agree that the Intelligent Designer must logically be God.

I had more taken the view that there was more than one "universe", meaning that a being from another, older one may have designed ours.

I had also taken the view that ultimately it was God who had created this "multiverse".

[j2k4]

Fair enough, points well made. If we take the universe as meaning everything, everywhere and not just a finite "universe" in which we live then you are indeed correct.

I agree that the Intelligent Designer must logically be God.

I had more taken the view that there was more than one "universe", meaning that a being from another, older one may have designed ours.

I had also taken the view that ultimately it was God who had created this "multiverse".

I think you fellows are missing the point.

I.D. is being offered anew as a "third" way, so to speak; the strict view of evolutionists presents I.D. as an allusion to Religion (even worse, Christian religion!) and Godly oversight.

For (most) Christians-the choir, in this case-the very idea of I.D. represents an idea they've never needed to be sold.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility (nor could any truly open-minded person deny) that there might be a third way.

I mean, such a being would only have to be vested with slightly more power than man currently is as viewed by the "Global-Warming is Man's Fault" theorists, and they pretty much get a free ride when other more easily-credible (read: obviously non-religious) ideas get the full-on skeptic treatment from the media and other know-nothings like us.

Funny what this all-pervading and undifferentiated fear can make people do and say.

As to whether or not such should be part of school curricula, wither those who feel youngsters should be trusted in matters of life-and-death (abortion/soldiering, etc.), but would also keep them from the perilous decisions anent Intelligent Design, Evolution and/or Religion.

Smacks of inconsistancy.

[clocker]

I think you fellows are missing the point.

I.D. is being offered anew as a "third" way, so to speak;
No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"

[Busyman]

I think you fellows are missing the point.

I.D. is being offered anew as a "third" way, so to speak;
No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"
Exactly. I don't see where one can further with ID in science class. :ermm:

[j2k4]

I think you fellows are missing the point.

I.D. is being offered anew as a "third" way, so to speak;
No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"

Nonsense?

Awfully dismissive, that.

Aside from not having addressed your patronizing attitude toward students, the objection should not be so great, if, as you seem to suggest, the class could be taught start-to-finish in a few days.

Frankly your stance is not open-minded in the least; I must ask again:

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...

[vidcc]

Frankly your stance is not open-minded in the least; I must ask again:

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?It's not an irrational fear of ID it is the rational desire to not teach the irrational as being rational and call it science.


If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

.

Good. We should teach any theory no matter how little proof we have.

Teach that babies are delivered by storks. why not allow students to determine it themselves?...lets put this one in Math class.

Or if it is just that we must teach both sides "if there is a debate"

Teach homosexual lifestyles. why not allow students to determine it themselves? This can go in either history or any religious education classes

Teach devil worship, why not allow students to determine it themselves? Physics.

[j2k4]

It's not an irrational fear of ID it is the rational desire to not teach the irrational as being rational and call it science.


If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

.

Good. We should teach any theory no matter how little proof we have.

Teach that babies are delivered by storks. why not allow students to determine it themselves?...lets put this one in Math class.

Or if it is just that we must teach both sides "if there is a debate"

Teach homosexual lifestyles. why not allow students to determine it themselves? This can go in either history or any religious education classes

Teach devil worship, why not allow students to determine it themselves? Physics.

See how neatly the presumptuous (and misplaced) tone of your first sentence makes room for the rest?

You liberal lot do fear it, the same way you fear public referendums on all the little issues contained in your post-you need the courts to "decide" such issues for the rest of us because you know full well the majority of the American voters wouldn't pass those things.

You worship at the altar of "expertise", and, if you wish to continue to do so, you'd better rush an amendment through to enforce that caveat, because the Constitution doesn't mention them anywhere... :lol:

[vidcc]

See how neatly the presumptuous (and misplaced) tone of your first sentence makes room for the rest? how is it presumptuous or misplaced? ID is creationism with a few edits....in other words a fairy tale. There is no scientific basis at all. I don't object to it being taught in a religious education class so how can you say I fear it?


You liberal lot do fear it, the same way you fear public referendums on all the little issues contained in your post-you need the courts to "decide" such issues for the rest of us because you know full well the majority of the American voters wouldn't pass those things.

You worship at the altar of "expertise", and, if you wish to continue to do so, you'd better rush an amendment through to enforce that caveat, because the Constitution doesn't mention them anywhere... :lol:
On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives? Why do you try to legislate peoples private choices while using the other side of your mouths to preach "freedom".
Why is it that conservatives are constantly saying that the constitution doesn't mention abortion yet ignore totally the separation of church and state part which is mentioned? ( i appreciate not that exact phrase but in the "making NO law part")

[GepperRankins]

No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"

Nonsense?

Awfully dismissive, that.

Aside from not having addressed your patronizing attitude toward students, the objection should not be so great, if, as you seem to suggest, the class could be taught start-to-finish in a few days.

Frankly your stance is not open-minded in the least; I must ask again:

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...
evolutionists aren't open-minded but creationists are :blink:


i'm all for letting people choose what they want to believe, but I.D is not science.

[clocker]

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...
Oh no j2, please allow me.

I'm all for letting students "determine" things for themselves.
Right after the ID "science" class (presumably rotated with phrenology and astrology) they can toddle into Sex Ed and "Introduction to Alcohol", OK?

I didn't realize Conservatives were so...well, liberal. :P

[Biggles]

At the end of the day what exactly is ID and what value does it add to scientific debate?

Manny had a few points with regards a particular interpretation of the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics but other than to suggest that the whole show may or may not have had some intelligence behind it, what can one say. It still does not preclude a big bang or evolution but merely attempts to fill in a couple of gaps. What is wrong with simply saying we do not know yet?

It is one hell of a jump from ID to a young universe and Noah and his Ark. Ultimately, any attempt to try to promote religion through the science class is going to end in confusion and dismay.

Faith is not science.

[fkdup74]

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives?

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech

in the Bill Of Rights, yet have been restricted by liberal legislation
you can probably get sued just for saying "God" in public by now
(maybe not, but it's soon to come no doubt) :dry:
you can get sued for saying something someone finds "offensive",
even if the words aren't aimed at that particular person

now, what about letting people live their own lives? :P

[clocker]

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives?

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech


When did "liberals" manage to pull this off?
Why was I not informed?

For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.


At the end of the day what exactly is ID and what value does it add to scientific debate?
An excellent question sir.
We do know that ID has nothing to do with religion...mainly because the Christian conservatives who are attempting to foist it off on us say so.

[vidcc]

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives?

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech

in the Bill Of Rights, yet have been restricted by liberal legislation
you can probably get sued just for saying "God" in public by now
(maybe not, but it's soon to come no doubt) :dry:

Is religion illegal now? I was unaware of that. I guess that would explain the cops arresting all those "religious criminals" as they leave church. :rolleyes:
perhaps you are confusing freedom of religion with freedom to force your religion on others.
I am an athiest and an accused liberal (I don't mind) and I am not trying to do away with your religion. I don't understand what you are talking about, give me an example.
When was freedom of speech removed? There are laws where you cannot incite a riot. for example you can meet in a private venue and hold a KKK meeting but you cannot do it in the street in the middle of Harlem as you would cause a riot.
Give me an example of what you are talking about.


you can get sued for saying something someone finds "offensive",
even if the words aren't aimed at that particular person

Perhaps you should aim your words at that well known liberal Jerry Falwell.

[j2k4]

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...
Oh no j2, please allow me.

I'm all for letting students "determine" things for themselves.
Right after the ID "science" class (presumably rotated with phrenology and astrology) they can toddle into Sex Ed and "Introduction to Alcohol", OK?

I didn't realize Conservatives were so...well, liberal. :P

If you believe I.D. to be on the same plane as phrenology and astrology, fine; if you feel the need to "even things out" by incorporating them into school curricula as well, then advocate for them.

We already suffer the bastardized educational structure foisted upon us by the NEA...

Trendy liberal curriculum fads are enthusiastically endorsed by the NEA, including multicultural ed, global ed, AIDS ed, environmental ed, bilingual ed, self-esteem ed, and suicide ed. NEA resolutions do not mention phonics education or teaching children to read. In recognition of the fact that semi-literate public school graduates must take high school courses all over again in college, the NEA went on record against denying taxpayer funds to college students enrolled in "remedial" courses.

The NEA is all for sex education so long as it includes "diversity of sexual orientation, incest, and sexual harassment." The NEA resolution follows the SIECUS-Planned Parenthood dogma that "it is the right of every individual [i.e., every child, without parental consent] to live in an environment [i.e., the school] of freely available information, knowledge, and wisdom [i.e., as defined by the school] about sexuality."

The NEA wants every child to have "direct and confidential [i.e., without parental knowledge or consent] access to comprehensive [i.e., K-12] health, social, and psychological programs and services [i.e., contraceptives]." The NEA wants guidance and counseling programs to be "integrated into the entire education system [i.e., so parents can't opt out their children] beginning at the prekindergarten level."

The NEA's answer to the problem of teen pregnancy is not to teach abstinence or self-discipline, but to teach self-esteem, making sure that it is "anti-biased, culturally sensitive." The NEA also demands that schools set up school-based health clinics (to distribute contraceptives) and "on-site child care services."

...so why cry about one more off-the-wall idea being taught in our schools?

Liberals have controlled the educational agenda in the U.S. for the past 50 years; I don't see anything more outrageous about the idea of teaching I.D. than that contained in the paragraph above-did any of you argue against crap like that?

I'll bet you didn't, and if the interweb existed when these ideas were borne into our educational system, you couldn't have been fussed to raise an eyebrow over it, and if you didn't care then, why do you care now?

BTW-the first person who brings up separation of Church and State should show us all how much he or she knows about the Constitution by reproducing the section of that document that spells out this separation.

Come now, it's only a google away, right?

vid-

Your opinion that I.D. is Creationism in disguise is your entitlement; that doesn't make it any truer than mine, and to call I.D. a fairy tale is...presumptive.

As to what you would be willing to live with as to how I.D. were ensconced in our children's learning, I think you'll find that you have no say whatsoever over those particulars if I.D. actually makes it into the edu-system, because parents' opinions don't count when teachers are running the show.

If you think differently, go to your child's school right now and try to effect any sort of change-they'll likely call the authorities and have you bounced out on your ear.

[j2k4]

For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all, unless it is whatever type might be authored by one of those supremely competent liberals like...oh, let's see...Jamie Gorelick?

Never mind the Patriot Act for a moment; do you think we should have done nothing?

Don't give me the song-and-dance about library records, either; if Abdul-Rahman-Leaping Lizard is signing out books about making bombs (the kind that really don't belong in libraries, but are there on account of liberally-sponsored free speech), I want to know it.

[vidcc]

BTW-the first person who brings up separation of Church and State should show us all how much he or she knows about the Constitution by reproducing the section of that document that spells out this separation.



Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

[Busyman]

For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all, unless it is whatever type might be authored by one of those supremely competent liberals like...oh, let's see...Jamie Gorelick?

Never mind the Patriot Act for a moment; do you think we should have done nothing?

Don't give me the song-and-dance about library records, either; if Abdul-Rahman-Leaping Lizard is signing out books about making bombs (the kind that really don't belong in libraries, but are there on account of liberally-sponsored free speech), I want to know it.
You tail him then. You don't grab him and hold him indefinitely.

I must agree with you about bomb-making books though.

[3RA1N1AC]

We already suffer the bastardized educational structure foisted upon us by the NEA...

Trendy liberal curriculum fads are enthusiastically endorsed by the NEA, including multicultural ed, global ed....
the NEA does not control the public school curriculum in the U.S. any more than the UN, the GOP, the LDS, the ATF, or the RIAA controls it. local school boards control curriculum. more or less.

personally, i never had none of that foisted on me by anyone. perhaps i was just lucky enough to attend public schools that weren't under the control of rainbow-flavored, baby seal hugging, pot-smoking diverse-o-crats. most of my experience with social issues was thankfully in the schoolyard (away from the teachers and their NEA), where my schoolmates regularly made it a point to prove how well-versed they were in homespun values like racism, picking on the fat kid, picking on the sissy, picking on the kid with hand-me-down clothes, etc etc. how glad i am that the NEA didn't have their way and the schools i attended weren't in the business of socially adjusting children... and parents could be confident that when they sent their hateful little monsters to school, they'd get 'em back at the end of the day with their prejudices intact.

[j2k4]

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.


A few things, then:

As your google notes, the document has nothing in it about "separation".

This part-

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...doesn't set the table for what is currently taking place anent Christianity, and that part I've highlighted is a freedom, not a restriction.

The entire reason for the inclusion of any statement inclusive of both religion and government was to short-circuit any attempt by the government to establish a church on it's own behalf, AS HAD BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND.

The further intent of the language was to forestall any attempt by the government to infringe upon the religious practices of it's citizens, END OF STORY.

Jefferson's remarks were perfectly in line with this intent, as they meant that government was to be prevented by this "wall" from interfering in the free practice of religion, not the other way around, and the sum total of these wordings were an effort to avoid the religious persecution and strictures suffered under the Church of England; the source and progenitor of your wall.

There is an inherent recognition that government policy may be informed by religion, but is not beholden to it.

That is the sum total of original intent, and nothing more has ever been required, to this day.

[Busyman]

Oh no j2, please allow me.

I'm all for letting students "determine" things for themselves.
Right after the ID "science" class (presumably rotated with phrenology and astrology) they can toddle into Sex Ed and "Introduction to Alcohol", OK?

I didn't realize Conservatives were so...well, liberal. :P

If you believe I.D. to be on the same plane as phrenology and astrology, fine; if you feel the need to "even things out" by incorporating them into school curricula as well, then advocate for them.

We already suffer the bastardized educational structure foisted upon us by the NEA...

Trendy liberal curriculum fads are enthusiastically endorsed by the NEA, including multicultural ed, global ed, AIDS ed, environmental ed, bilingual ed, self-esteem ed, and suicide ed. NEA resolutions do not mention phonics education or teaching children to read. In recognition of the fact that semi-literate public school graduates must take high school courses all over again in college, the NEA went on record against denying taxpayer funds to college students enrolled in "remedial" courses.

The NEA is all for sex education so long as it includes "diversity of sexual orientation, incest, and sexual harassment." The NEA resolution follows the SIECUS-Planned Parenthood dogma that "it is the right of every individual [i.e., every child, without parental consent] to live in an environment [i.e., the school] of freely available information, knowledge, and wisdom [i.e., as defined by the school] about sexuality."

The NEA wants every child to have "direct and confidential [i.e., without parental knowledge or consent] access to comprehensive [i.e., K-12] health, social, and psychological programs and services [i.e., contraceptives]." The NEA wants guidance and counseling programs to be "integrated into the entire education system [i.e., so parents can't opt out their children] beginning at the prekindergarten level."

The NEA's answer to the problem of teen pregnancy is not to teach abstinence or self-discipline, but to teach self-esteem, making sure that it is "anti-biased, culturally sensitive." The NEA also demands that schools set up school-based health clinics (to distribute contraceptives) and "on-site child care services."

...so why cry about one more off-the-wall idea being taught in our schools?

...'cause this off-the-wall idea has no scientific educational value. At least "multicultural ed, global ed, AIDS ed, environmental ed, bilingual ed, self-esteem ed, and suicide ed" are real world things that affect people. There are many things like distributing contraceptives in school that are crazy to me. Also not teaching abstinence is stupid.

Liberals have controlled the educational agenda in the U.S. for the past 50 years; I don't see anything more outrageous about the idea of teaching I.D. than that contained in the paragraph above-did any of you argue against crap like that?

That's mad talk. You equate ID with learning a foreign language? :lol: :lol:

I'll bet you didn't, and if the interweb existed when these ideas were borne into our educational system, you couldn't have been fussed to raise an eyebrow over it, and if you didn't care then, why do you care now?

Uhh that's 'cause things like "learning a foreign language" don't warrant raising an eyebrow.

Your opinion that I.D. is Creationism in disguise is your entitlement; that doesn't make it any truer than mine, and to call I.D. a fairy tale is...presumptive.

It has shit to do with science.

As to what you would be willing to live with as to how I.D. were ensconced in our children's learning, I think you'll find that you have no say whatsoever over those particulars if I.D. actually makes it into the edu-system, because parents' opinions don't count when teachers are running the show.

It has shit to do with science.

If you think differently, go to your child's school right now and try to effect any sort of change-they'll likely call the authorities and have you bounced out on your ear.

I'm with you to an extent. Many parents want things taught at home like homosexuality. The curriculum is not made known ahead of time in most cases so then the child comes home asking questions about a subject the parent considers "touchy".

[j2k4]

the NEA does not control the public school curriculum in the U.S. any more than the UN, the GOP, the LDS, the ATF, or the RIAA controls it. local school boards control curriculum. more or less.


I can see you believing that, even if it's not true. :D

[3RA1N1AC]

I can see you believing that, even if it's not true. :D
i must confess, i am a sunshiney optimist at heart. :P

[clocker]

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all,
Oh yeah, that's right, our government's heightened response to catastrophe.

Can you say Katrina?

Probably not, sorry, you are the victim of 50 years of the liberally warped US education system, right?

How many of our Gitmo detainees have been tried and convicted?
Um right...that would be zero.

Oh yeah, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security...raving successes.

[vidcc]

A few things, then:

As your google notes, the document has nothing in it about "separation".

This part-

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...doesn't set the table for what is currently taking place anent Christianity, and that part I've highlighted is a freedom, not a restriction.

The entire reason for the inclusion of any statement inclusive of both religion and government was to short-circuit any attempt by the government to establish a church on it's own behalf, AS HAD BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND.

The further intent of the language was to forestall any attempt by the government to infringe upon the religious practices of it's citizens, END OF STORY.

Jefferson's remarks were perfectly in line with this intent, as they meant that government was to be prevented by this "wall" from interfering in the free practice of religion, not the other way around, and the sum total of these wordings were an effort to avoid the religious persecution and strictures suffered under the Church of England; the source and progenitor of your wall.

There is an inherent recognition that government policy may be informed by religion, but is not beholden to it.

That is the sum total of original intent, and nothing more has ever been required, to this day.
I view it differently. you ignore the "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion" which is separation.

But just what is taking place anent Christianity? Are churches being closed? Are christians being fed to the lions? What has placing the ten commandments in a court got to do with worship? is a court a place of worship? is it a christian temple?
The constitution is a secular document. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof allows you to practice your religion, it doesn't say force others to study or follow your religion.

[fkdup74]

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech

in the Bill Of Rights, yet have been restricted by liberal legislation
you can probably get sued just for saying "God" in public by now
(maybe not, but it's soon to come no doubt) :dry:

Is religion illegal now? I was unaware of that. I guess that would explain the cops arresting all those "religious criminals" as they leave church. :rolleyes:
perhaps you are confusing freedom of religion with freedom to force your religion on others.
I am an athiest and an accused liberal (I don't mind) and I am not trying to do away with your religion. I don't understand what you are talking about, give me an example.
When was freedom of speech removed? There are laws where you cannot incite a riot. for example you can meet in a private venue and hold a KKK meeting but you cannot do it in the street in the middle of Harlem as you would cause a riot.
Give me an example of what you are talking about.


you can get sued for saying something someone finds "offensive",
even if the words aren't aimed at that particular person

Perhaps you should aim your words at that well known liberal Jerry Falwell.


may as well be, that is if you're of the Christian beliefs
the fuckin ACLU has constantly attacked anything related to it for years now
-Christmas
-the Ten Commandments
-etc etc etc, I probably would spend all fucking night quoting ACLU attacks on Christianity
dont tell me you're gonna try and deny that, because it won't wash, sorry
facts are facts, read the news, etc

me myself, I'm not Christian, I just see what I see,
and what I see is the secualrists fucking with anything and everything related to Christ
wtf is that all about?
wtf about letting people live their own lives?
you still haven't answered that

you accuse Conservatives of runnig poeples' lives,
when it's clear that the damned Liberals are guilty of that
or are you saying that the ACLU is not a liberal organization?

now you want my honest opinion on the whole fuckin enchilada?
it's all a bunch of political bullshit
Democrats, Republicans, all of em
but it really eats my ass to see you liberals try to make it sound like you're so fucking righteous,
when all the liberals have been doing is attacking ONE religion
I don't see em saying a GODdamned thing about Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, etc
they are trying to cancel fuckin Christmas pretty much,
take God (the Christian likeness of God anyway) out of the equation,
which is bullshit
if a fuckin turban "offends" me......
do you think I would have a prayer in court?
no. period.
because it has nothing to do with civil rights, freedoms, anything
it all has to do with fuckin secular fags at the ACLU,
who are agenda driven, make no mistake about it,
and thier agenda is to rid our country of Christian beliefs,
which, by the way, are the very beliefs that our country was founded on

all this may sound a bit praranoid
hell it even sounds paranoid to me
but just watch the news
every day it seems you see another law suit against something Christian related,
but nothing about any other religion
are you denying that?
if so, please quote.........

-edit-
oh yeah.....
and the very fact that Congress is denied the ability to make any law regarding religion in The Constitution,
should nullify half the fucking laws they've passed regarding anything the last few years it seems,
(but they still get passed)
should just further prove my point about a secular agenda
because, even though it's forbidden in the Constitution, they still find a way to.....
remove the Ten Commandments from buildings,
remove the saying of the word "God" in our very own fucking National Anthem.....
where does it stop?
or do you even give a fuck?
what happens when they attack somethig YOU believe in?
are you gonna jump the fence?
I wonder.......

[3RA1N1AC]

and what I see is the secualrists fucking with anything and everything related to Christ
wtf is that all about?
maybe you need to visit an optometrist. get a new pair of prescription lenses, so you can also see the evangelists fucking with everything in the u.s. that weren't already related to christ. like editing the pledge of allegiance, adding "in god we trust" as a newer national motto 'cause "e pluribus unum" was too much about democracy & too little about religion, subverting rock 'n' roll (a medium designed to celebrate cars, chicks, drugs, and satan) with their ridiculous "christian rock," and trying to banish empiricism & agnosticism from science.


when all the liberals have been doing is attacking ONE religion
I don't see em saying a GODdamned thing about Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, etc
yeah well the hindu guys work down at my nearest gas station ain't the ones trying to cover the courthouse in religious graffiti.

[Barbarossa]

What's all the nonsense about the "March of The Penguins" being "evidence" of Intelligent Design? :frusty:


More like the other way round... ;)

[clocker]

do you think I would have a prayer in court?
no. period.
because it has nothing to do with civil rights, freedoms, anything
it all has to do with fuckin secular fags at the ACLU,
who are agenda driven, make no mistake about it,
and thier agenda is to rid our country of Christian beliefs,
which, by the way, are the very beliefs that our country was founded on



Oh, I agree.
Those poor persecuted Christians, forced to worship in secret, unable to get jobs because of their religion, herded into ghettos, singled out for ridicule because of their strange ways...

...wait a minute.
Sorry, that was an alternate universe I sometimes visit.

So you think Christians have it bad here?
Since 1776 white Protestant males have had a stranglehold on the political and financial reins of America (well, somehow, in 1960 a Catholic managed to sneak in...but that was an anomoly, and Kennedy was rich, white and male so he kinda looked Methodist...) and you want us to feel their pain?

Oh brother.

[fkdup74]

damn.
selective quoting, I love it
you guys forgot or chose to ignore one thing I said:

me myself, I'm not Christian, I just see what I see,
and what I see is the secualrists fucking with anything and everything related to Christ

so I'll repeat it.....I'm not a Christian
don't go to church (organized religion is a bunch of bullshit IMO)
can't even swear that I believe in God, or a god, or Buddha, or who/whatever,
although I like to think I didn't evolve from the monkeys :ph34r:
so, if given a choice between Darwin and God, I am more partial to the latter

[vidcc]

@fup.

Are you suggesting that Christians are persecuted because they can't put the ten commandments in a courthouse? newsflash.. One can't put a Buddha there or writings from the Koran either. The reason that we don't see court cases about this is BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO PUT THOSE THINGS THERE!!!!. They can put the ten commandments on display in their church or any private ground....but that's not enough for these extremists
The original pledge never said "under god". The original was more in keeping with the whole USA. (apart from the fact that it didn't use the word equality) "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

why are they asking for schools to set "moments for reflection". If a child wishes to pray he or she already has time during school hours to do it....it's called recess or break time.


The fact that Christians have opposition to their attempts to shove their religion down our throats on government property doesn't mean they are being discriminated against.

[vidcc]

Jefferson's remarks were perfectly in line with this intent, as they meant that government was to be prevented by this "wall" from interfering in the free practice of religion, not the other way around, and the sum total of these wordings were an effort to avoid the religious persecution and strictures suffered under the Church of England; the source and progenitor of your wall.


Please explain how a wall only blocks one way, unless this wall is made of tryvak which wasn't invented back then.

It's a wall, not a one way valve.

[3RA1N1AC]

selective quoting, I love it
you guys forgot or chose to ignore one thing I said:

me myself, I'm not Christian, I just see what I see
your rant was about secularity versus christianity, christmas good, secular bad. i can't imagine what other part you expected people to respond to. WAS there another part? "quit being mean to jesus! fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. quit being mean to jesus! fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck."

nobody said you were a christian. going by the repetitive tourettes-afflicted tone of that post, i'd have pegged you as someone with a drug or alcohol problem who's prolly on the verge of joining some fundie "promise keepers" type thing, though. :P

[Busyman]

why are they asking for schools to set "moments for reflection". If a child wishes to pray he or she already has time during school hours to do it....it's called recess or break time.
WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?

If you don't want to reflect then STFU.

[vidcc]

why are they asking for schools to set "moments for reflection". If a child wishes to pray he or she already has time during school hours to do it....it's called recess or break time.
WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?

If you don't want to reflect then STFU.

They already have it :rolleyes:
It would take time out of the school day that should be used for teaching and learning. Do you think American students need less study time?

[j2k4]

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all,
Oh yeah, that's right, our government's heightened response to catastrophe.

Can you say Katrina?

Probably not, sorry, you are the victim of 50 years of the liberally warped US education system, right?

How many of our Gitmo detainees have been tried and convicted?
Um right...that would be zero.

Oh yeah, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security...raving successes.


Katrina was not a terrorist act, last I heard, but leaving that for a moment, if not the (admittedly flawed) Patriot Act, what, alternatively?

[j2k4]

A few things, then:

As your google notes, the document has nothing in it about "separation".

This part-

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...doesn't set the table for what is currently taking place anent Christianity, and that part I've highlighted is a freedom, not a restriction.

The entire reason for the inclusion of any statement inclusive of both religion and government was to short-circuit any attempt by the government to establish a church on it's own behalf, AS HAD BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND.

The further intent of the language was to forestall any attempt by the government to infringe upon the religious practices of it's citizens, END OF STORY.

Jefferson's remarks were perfectly in line with this intent, as they meant that government was to be prevented by this "wall" from interfering in the free practice of religion, not the other way around, and the sum total of these wordings were an effort to avoid the religious persecution and strictures suffered under the Church of England; the source and progenitor of your wall.

There is an inherent recognition that government policy may be informed by religion, but is not beholden to it.

That is the sum total of original intent, and nothing more has ever been required, to this day.

I view it differently. you ignore the "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion" which is separation.

That phrase means precisely this:

"Congress (acting as the agent of the government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (by, or on behalf of, the government).

Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.

[JPaul]

Does " ... an establishment of religion ..." mean Church, or Temple that sort of thing.

Or does it mean a religion being formed.

If not, what does the phrase actually mean.

[j2k4]

Does " ... an establishment of religion ..." mean Church, or Temple that sort of thing.

Or does it mean a religion being formed.

If not, what does the phrase actually mean.

To avoid the Church of England thing happening here.

Is was viewed as slightly oppressive, enough to warrant this mention in the Constitution, at any rate.

[vidcc]

Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.
On the contrary I find your view of the words to be elastic

[JPaul]

So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.

I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.

I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).

Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.

It seems only sensible.

[j2k4]

Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.
On the contrary I find your view of the words to be elastic

Then our debate is over.

[j2k4]

So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.

I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.

I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).

Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.

It seems only sensible.

Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.

That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.

I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.

Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.

[Rat Faced]

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

Tell that to the Mormons in Missouri and Catholics through most of your history :snooty:



If this statement was true, then polygamy would be perfectly legal in the USA.

What you mean is that any Religion that will fit with the Christian majorities prejudice. :P

[Busyman]

WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?

If you don't want to reflect then STFU.

They already have it :rolleyes:
It would take time out of the school day that should be used for teaching and learning. Do you think American students need less study time?
That's full of shit. It's a minute in the morning. :dry:

Both sides need to pick their battles. This nitpicking over a moment of silence that spouts no religion is why the other side may want to push harder 'cause you want to take even that tidbit away.

[Rat Faced]

There are 1440 minutes in a day, why chose one of the 360 or so that school has the use of? (and thats including lunch and breaks, which no one objects to using as a time of reflection)

Surely the bus trip home is longer than a minute :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

There are 1440 minutes in a day, why chose one of the 360 or so that school has the use of? (and thats including lunch and breaks, which no one objects to using as a time of reflection)

Surely the bus trip home is longer than a minute :rolleyes:

That's full of shit. It's a minute in the morning.

Both sides need to pick their battles. This nitpicking over a moment of silence that spouts no religion is why the other side may want to push harder 'cause you want to take even that tidbit away.
:dry:

Because it's throwing a bone to the other side. It doesn't spout religion so again atheists should fuck off. It's usually one kid's atheist parents that have a problem 'cause he might wonder why everyone's silent. The atheist parents need to STFU 'cause their ain't getting religion.

I saw the same thing coming up and used to just look around while everyone else bowed their heads. I STFU out of respect back then. The teacher said quiet. I never got the Holy Ghost while reflection was going on. :dry:

It did a good job of simmering folks down in the morning for study. Before the "moment" it was tons a noise. However, admittedly as the day went on, the level rose back up.

[JPaul]

So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.

I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.

I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).

Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.

It seems only sensible.

Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.

That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.

I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.

Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.


Let me think out loud here. I assume that the majority of your founding Fathers would themselves have been Christian (of one flavour or another). They would therefore almost certainly be founding your new country on Christian values.

They then look at places like England, where the state is inextricably linked to one branch of Christianity, Anglicanism (the name's a giveaway) and decide that is wrong, that one branch should not have influence over governing everyone.

Could they, when speaking of religion, not actually be referring to Christianity, but to specific "branches" of it. In effect saying that the State would not adopt one particular religion (subset of Christianity) but instead would allow freedom of religion to all it's people. They would not allow one group to form part of the Government (Anglican Bishops in the Lords), but would seperate the State from it.

Thus making any reference to God OK, as it would be one area where all of the Christian religions agreed.

A lot of chaps, particularly at that time, would not define their religion as Christian, but as the particular form of Christianity that was their own faith. It would then make sense, when they were using the word "religion" that it was actually specific types of religion they were referring to.

Sorry if that's a bit rambled, but do you understand what I'm talking about.

[vidcc]

many if not most of the influential founding fathers followed deistic philosophy or Freemasonry

founding fathers (http://dim.com/~randl/founders.htm)

[JPaul]

Mr Morris doesn't appear to have an agenda

"The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments."

EDIT - Sorry Professor Morris


Steven Morris received his Bachelor's Degree in astronomy from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D from the University of Calgary. He held a research position at UCLA for two years working on a seismology project, which included spending one year at the South Pole running a seismometer. He has taught at the University of Puerto Rico and now teaches physics and physical science at Los Angeles Harbor College. He has published several astronomy research papers and is an active member of the Los Angeles-based Atheists United.

His qualifications in astronomy and membership of "Atheists United" would obviously make him an expert on the subject of your constitution..

[3RA1N1AC]

it's worth noting that the first federal congress considered & voted against quite a few variations of the establishment clause. very much worth noting, i think. they struck particular words out of proposals for the clause, too. at various points, the words "particular denomination," "national religion," and "articles of faith" were proposed... yet they were debated, rejected, and what the congress ultimately approved was relatively generic wording. it isn't uncommon to hear someone (since i don't have a specific who/where/when anecdote at hand, let's just call it a hypothetical straw man) profess to favor a strict reading of the u.s. constitution, who'll then go on to claim that the establishment clause means merely to prohibit the gov't from establishing a national denomination. does "strict" mean to revise history and to claim the official clause is synonymous with proposed clauses that were rejected? well, no. if the establishment clause were meant to say those words, then it would say those words, 'cause there were plenty of opportunities to approve those words instead of the more generic "respecting an establishment of religion."

going off on a tangent:
the use of the word "congress" in the establishment clause may lead one to believe that this allows the individual state gov'ts to establish official churches, and this concern was voiced in the first congress. but the proposal referring to states was rejected, in favor of a reference to congress. so, does this mean that each of the 50 states is free to establish an official church? that point might've been debatable early on but, if nothing else managed to settle it, the u.s. civil war settled the question. outcome: states have no more right to abuse their residents than the federal gov't has.

[j2k4]

Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.

That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.

I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.

Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.


Let me think out loud here. I assume that the majority of your founding Fathers would themselves have been Christian (of one flavour or another). They would therefore almost certainly be founding your new country on Christian values.

They then look at places like England, where the state is inextricably linked to one branch of Christianity, Anglicanism (the name's a giveaway) and decide that is wrong, that one branch should not have influence over governing everyone.

Could they, when speaking of religion, not actually be referring to Christianity, but to specific "branches" of it. In effect saying that the State would not adopt one particular religion (subset of Christianity) but instead would allow freedom of religion to all it's people. They would not allow one group to form part of the Government (Anglican Bishops in the Lords), but would seperate the State from it.

Thus making any reference to God OK, as it would be one area where all of the Christian religions agreed.

A lot of chaps, particularly at that time, would not define their religion as Christian, but as the particular form of Christianity that was their own faith. It would then make sense, when they were using the word "religion" that it was actually specific types of religion they were referring to.

Sorry if that's a bit rambled, but do you understand what I'm talking about.

Granting the surety that the Founders could not have imagined that the U.S. would become the magnet for immigrants that it is, and the inescapable following conclusion they wouldn't have an idea of the sheer numbers of religious leanings, Christian or otherwise, accompanying them?

Yes... I'd say you've delivered a servicable summary, but would add a clarification:

If the Founders' imaginations were circumstantially truncated, their language still leaves us on the hook as tolerant of other religions, but subjects those religions to limited intrusions on the order of disallowing bigamy and human sacrifice, and no, I don't mean that last facetiously.

[j2k4]

it
going off on a tangent:
the use of the word "congress" in the establishment clause may lead one to believe that this allows the individual state gov'ts to establish official churches, and this concern was voiced in the first congress. but the proposal referring to states was rejected, in favor of a reference to congress. so, does this mean that each of the 50 states is free to establish an official church? that point might've been debatable early on but, if nothing else managed to settle it, the u.s. civil war settled the question. outcome: states have no more right to abuse their residents than the federal gov't has.

Yes, and yes.

The language does not preclude individual states establishing official religions, but, as you note, if the impetus ever existed, government machinations coincident with the Civil War pointed up the impracticality of this.

Such leeway for individual states to tailor what these days would be termed "quality-of-life issues" was inherent and intended by the Founders.

Well spotted, 3RA1N1AC.

[vidcc]

Mr Morris doesn't appear to have an agenda


His qualifications in astronomy and membership of "Atheists United" would obviously make him an expert on the subject of your constitution..

I wasn't pointing to his expertise in the constitution, I was pointing to the religious beliefs of some of the founding fathers. :rolleyes: He being a non believer doesn't alter the beliefs of the founders does it ? Some were christians some were not.

[JPaul]

No, but it affects which particular evidence he uses, when he uses ellipsis and how he interprets what the evidence means.

The mere fact that you said some of them were not Freemasons is itself mentalist. Freemasons are normally Christian and at the very least must believe in God.

[whypikonme]

. Freemasons are normally Christian and at the very least must believe in God.

Not true, there is no such stipulation, in fact, many Christians have left Masonry when they have found out what it is really about.

[3RA1N1AC]

right. there's some controversy, prolly even among the various masonic organizations, regarding what it actually IS about. is it a christian belief? is it in fact a different religious belief that takes up the public appearance of christianity for discretion's sake? is it a serious social/political movement, or a frivolous social club, which is so layered in complicated symbolism and formalities that the religious component is essentially garbled and useless? one of the above? all of the above?

[JPaul]

right. there's some controversy, prolly even among the various masonic organizations, regarding what it actually IS about. is it a christian belief? is it in fact a different religious belief that takes up the public appearance of christianity for discretion's sake? is it a serious social/political movement, or a frivolous social club, which is so layered in complicated symbolism and formalities that the religious component is essentially garbled and useless? one of the above? all of the above?

Whichever it is, the one thing they do insist on is a belief in God (or at least the person joining must profess to having such a belief). It is also, because of the demographics, predominantly Christians who join, at least in my experience.

I would certainly have thought that it would have been mostly Christians (or at least people who believed in God) who formed it's membership at the relevant time.

[j2k4]

right. there's some controversy, prolly even among the various masonic organizations, regarding what it actually IS about. is it a christian belief? is it in fact a different religious belief that takes up the public appearance of christianity for discretion's sake? is it a serious social/political movement, or a frivolous social club, which is so layered in complicated symbolism and formalities that the religious component is essentially garbled and useless? one of the above? all of the above?

Whichever it is, the one thing they do insist on is a belief in God (or at least the person joining must profess to having such a belief). It is also, because of the demographics, predominantly Christians who join, at least in my experience.

I would certainly have thought that it would have been mostly Christians (or at least people who believed in God) who formed it's membership at the relevant time.

It would be correct to imagine the soul of Masonry was, at that point in time, a bit more prevalent than it is now, given the infernal pull of modernity; that is to say, it's strictures would have been stricter.

[vidcc]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)



but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

Big stars are born near Milky Way's black hole (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/sc_nm/space_hole_dc;_ylt=AtoJGItvl11WbdBFDt2dBgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-)

[Rat Faced]

No, but it affects which particular evidence he uses, when he uses ellipsis and how he interprets what the evidence means.

The mere fact that you said some of them were not Freemasons is itself mentalist. Freemasons are normally Christian and at the very least must believe in God.

You cannot rise above 33rd Degree in Freemasonry if you are a practising Christian or admit to a belief in "One God".

The Oaths refer to the "Old Religion" and the Maunday service states:

"We meet this day to commemorate the death of our 'Most Wise and Perfect Master,' not as inspired or divine, for this is not for us to decide, but as at least the greatest of the apostles of mankind."

ie: He is not the son of God but an Apostle until proven otherwise.

None of the prayers in the Masons ever refer to Jesus Christ as the son of God or "Lord", indeed most avoid mentoning the name at all...

The Grand Temple in Washington is decorated with Ancient Egyption sybols, not Christian.. the closest to anything Christian in the Temple is the Anke symbol.

So tell me JP... are the real players in the Lodges real Christians?

Im sure that that some are, and dont realise what they're doing.. I mean, its such an honour to be in a Lodge for most, that they dont look and listen...

Besides, like in society most people arent really "Christian"; they merely describe themselves as such because they were baptised into the religion. They dont actually actively practise it.. :P

[3RA1N1AC]

has it been mentioned that the so-called "boffins" have found some more of those "hobbits"? not that it conclusively proves evolution. but. you know. the bones are startin' to pile up in favor of possibly adding another species to the human genus. a species that seems to have been intelligently designed to go extinct, possibly due to having rather small craniums.

[vidcc]

Update

All Eight Intelligent Design Proponents On Dover, Pa. School Board Swept Out Of Office


All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.

"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."

The vote counts were close, but of the 16 candidates the one with the fewest votes was Mr. Bonsell, the driving force behind the intelligent design policy. Testimony at the trial revealed that Mr. Bonsell had initially insisted that creationism get equal time in the classroom with evolution.

One incumbent, James Cashman, said he would contest the vote because a voting machine in one precinct recorded no votes for him, while others recorded hundreds.

He said that school spending and a new teacher contract, not intelligent design, were the determining issues. "We ran a very conservative school board, and obviously there are people who want to see more money spent," he said.

One board member, Heather Geesey, was not up for re-election.

The school board voted in October 2004 to require ninth grade biology students to hear a brief statement at the start of the semester saying that there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading a textbook "Of Pandas and People," available in the high school library.

The board was sued by 11 Dover parents who contended that intelligent design was religious creationism in new packaging, and that the board was trying to impose its religion on students. The parents were represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP.source (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html?ex=1289192400&en=08fa2b68193c8aa5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Just need to get some competent minded people to run for the school boards in Kansas now ;)

[Cheese]

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/textbookdisclaimers.jpg

[Everose]

Update



Just need to get some competent minded people to run for the school boards in Kansas now ;)



That is no shit.

http://pitch.com/issues/2004-10-21/news/janovy.html

[Busyman]

Update



Just need to get some competent minded people to run for the school boards in Kansas now ;)



That is no shit.

http://pitch.com/issues/2004-10-21/news/janovy.html
Thanks for that link Evey.;)

I share some illegal immigrant sentiment but she's a bitch.

[vidcc]

Update



Just need to get some competent minded people to run for the school boards in Kansas now ;)



That is no shit.

http://pitch.com/issues/2004-10-21/news/janovy.html

"It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution"

“In short, Darwin’s theory of evolution is biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically, metaphysically and etc. ‘wildly’ and ‘utterly impossible.’”

“I absolutely am getting more than enough information to be armed, to respond when I get the question, ‘Are you getting evidence to refute Darwinian evolution?’”

“I’ve read stacks of stuff . . . which refutes evolution.”

"Primarily, I sought this office because I felt it was required of me by God."

Connie Morris

And evolutionist are accused of not having an "open mind"

[GepperRankins]

she reminds me of jesus2004 :dabs:

[Everose]

Former mayor to challenge Morris

By KURSTEN PHELPS
[email protected]
Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 9:05:00 AM

Former Garden City Mayor Tim Cruz announced Friday his plans to run for the 5th District seat on the Kansas State Board of Education in 2006, a seat currently held by Connie Morris, R-St. Francis.

"I don't think our voice is being heard very well on the state board. My intention is to get around to the schools in the district, especially in Garden City, in our own community, and be able to represent our community, southwest Kansas. I just don't feel like we're being represented that well at this point," Cruz, a Democrat, said.

Cruz isn't an official candidate for next November's election yet, but Friday he mailed off a form declaring his intent to file as a candidate.

That would set up a potential face-off between Cruz and Morris, who said she plans to run for re-election in 2006.

Morris' campaign issues when she was elected in 2002 included criticizing using tax dollars to finance public education for the children of illegal immigrants. In 2003, she falsely accused Cruz, then Garden City's mayor, of being an illegal immigrant.

Morris subsequently apologized to Cruz, who is a third-generation Garden Citian.

"Unfortunately, that's the seat she's representing. I'm going to focus on what's best for kids in the community, for teachers in the community and for schools in the community," Cruz, an assistant manager at Sears said. "... Hopefully that incident won't be played on. I would really hate to get back into that. It was a tough time for me, and I tried to put that incident behind me, and hopefully we can keep it behind us."

Morris said she has "nothing more to say" about her comments about Cruz, who said her opponent will make for a good race.

"The apology has been made, and Mr. Cruz and I have visited, and I'm sure he's accepted my apology, and that's the end of that, as far as I'm considered," Morris said.

Cruz said he's not running "against" Morris. Rather, he's running for the school board and he and Morris share the same district.

Still, Morris has been no stranger to controversy since her first run for the state board in 2002. Beside her arguments that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be entitled to public education in the United States, she's played a key role in the heated debate over whether criticism of evolution should be included in the state's science curriculum standards.

The most recent controversy surrounds her $4,000 taxpayer-funded trip to Miami for a conference in April, where she stayed at a luxury resort hotel. Morris has since repaid $2,890 to the state.

But Cruz said he's focused on what he can bring to the board.

"... I run into people all the time in my business and on the different boards I'm on. I'll be able to ask those types of questions and get feedback from the community," he said. "I definitely will need to do my homework. ... I think just being a voice for the community is a big thing, and the way you do that is by asking questions and listening to people. I have the willingness to listen and bring those issues forward to the board."

Cruz and his wife, Penny, a first-grade teacher at Alta Brown Elementary School, have two children, Zach, a Garden City High School senior, and Jocelyn, a GCHS sophomore.

George Hopkins, a former city commissioner and current USD 457 Board of Education member, said he's known Cruz since being classmates in the third grade at Jones Elementary, now Buffalo Jones Elementary School.

"In working with Tim on numerous projects and numerous committees and on the City Commission, I've found Tim to be one of the most selfless community servants I've met," Hopkins said. "He volunteers himself almost to a fault. He rarely says no to anyone and he works harder at community projects than anyone I've met. ... I consider myself a pretty good volunteer, and he puts me to shame."

The state school board's massive fifth district covers the western half of the state. Getting to know people and schools in such a huge area is a tough task, said Republican Sonny Rundell, who held the 5th District seat for 13 years until Morris defeated him in the 2002 state school board primary election.

But covering western Kansas won't be Cruz's only difficulty, Rundell said.

"The biggest thing he'll have to overcome is that he is a Democrat. It can be done,es running against Morris.

"We certainly need something more than what we've got," he said. but it's going to be really tough. The only way to do that is to do it so everybody can understand what kind of person he is," Rundell said. "We don't need a politician on the the board, we need someone's who is interested in what's best for all kids."

Rundell said he's pleased Cruz will run, but is not officially endorsing any candidates or possible candidate






Interesting, and more regarding the first link I posted. Cruz would have my vote. (Note that he is a Democratic, just like the Governor of Kansas.) I am registered Republican, remember. ;-)

[vidcc]

Now refresh my memory....intelligent design has NOTHING to do with religion?


Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.


"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Not creationism huh :dry:


source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

[Busyman]

Now refresh my memory....intelligent design has NOTHING to do with religion?


Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.


"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Not creationism huh :dry:


source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
Not any organized religion. However, the folks pushing for it to be in school have made it so.

I have no problem with it as long as it's in a theology or philosophy class.

Otherwise it's like putting math in English class. It's fucking stupid.

[JPaul]

Yeah but vidcc can take the opinion of one person, from one religion and then make that the position for all religious people, of every religion.

Didn't you know that.

He really is a devout atheist, almost missionary in his zeal. I think some holy book must have fallen on his head when he was younger. A koran to the cranium as it were.

[vidcc]

Yeah but vidcc can take the opinion of one person, from one religion and then make that the position for all religious people, of every religion.

Didn't you know that.

I'm not the one that denied ID is a religious theory. All along I have said it is creationism in disguise and not science.
Please show me where I suggested all religions spout ID or even all religious people support it.


He really is a devout atheist, almost missionary in his zeal. I think some holy book must have fallen on his head when he was younger. A koran to the cranium as it were.
Devout and proud. I state my view as you can see in my sig.

I point out the silliness of religion when RELIGIOUS people make their views public. I counter their views when they make them public. I don't care what religion they are.

[Busyman]

I'm not the one that denied ID is a religious theory. All along I have said it is creationism in disguise and not science.
Please show me where I suggested all religions spout ID or even all religious people support it.


He really is a devout atheist, almost missionary in his zeal. I think some holy book must have fallen on his head when he was younger. A koran to the cranium as it were.
Devout and proud. I state my view as you can see in my sig.

I point out the silliness of religion when RELIGIOUS people make their views public. I counter their views when they make them public. I don't care what religion they are.
Hell you spout your religion more than probably anyone one here even sans the sig.

ID is not religious theory. It is a basic belief that an intelligent being started the universe and not that it just happpened.:dry:

I've always maintained that even if it is a guise by the religious right, it matters not one jot. It's fucking stupid for it to be science class. It could be that ID is true and so is evolution but only one of those has a basis in science.

It's quite simple.

Oh and vid, I only posted in your other thread when it was at the top....meaning right after you posted. That thread was a jab a religion Captain Obviously.

[j2k4]

I point out the silliness of religion when RELIGIOUS people make their views public. I counter their views when they make them public. I don't care what religion they are.

Would you care to parse your own post with an eye toward sharpening it's focus a wee tiny bit?

If I demonstrate graphically what I mean, you might feel bad, and I don't wish to give offense.:P

[vidcc]

ID is not religious theory.

Point me to one atheist that supports it and as you pointed out it's the religious (christian) right that are trying to get it into schools ( coincidence? :rolleyes: )

[Busyman]

ID is not religious theory.

Point me to one atheist that supports it and as you pointed out it's the religious (christian) right that are trying to get it into schools ( coincidence? :rolleyes: )
What does that hafta do with anything? I am religious and don't support it being in school. So what?

ID is not religion. Religious folk couple it with their own religion.

Not to hard to figure out.:1eye:

[vidcc]

Point me to one atheist that supports it and as you pointed out it's the religious (christian) right that are trying to get it into schools ( coincidence? :rolleyes: )
What does that hafta do with anything? I am religious and don't support it being in school. So what?

And...what's your point? Just because you are religious and don't follow it doesn't mean it is not a religious theory. Religious theory is any theory that is associated with any religion or religious belief. It doesn't need the support of every person that follows that religion


ID is not religion. Who said it was? I said it is a religious theory Religious folk couple it with their own religion.


Not to hard to figure out.:1eye:..

[Busyman]

Religious theory is any theory that is associated with any religion or religious belief.
Ahhh so because the Christian right associated ID with their own beliefs, ID is inherently religious.

I don't understand how simply believing that the universe was designed by a being instead of it just happening is religious theory.

Read what religion is. It isn't just simply a belief in a higher power. Religious theory has the word religion in it.

A particular group's beliefs are not the beliefs of all. The basis of intelligent design belief is not tied to a particular religion no matter if it's followers believe in it or not.

I know plenty of folk who believe God started it all but that's the end of it.

[JPaul]

vidcc,

The thing is, you are a bigot, by any reasonable definition of the word. You have made that obvious by your persistent posting of anti-religious bile. The fact that it is not targeted at a specific religion makes not one jot of difference.

You are just as much a bigot as a Christian who attacks Islam. Or a Muslim who attacks Judaism. Or any person who arbitrarlly attacks the views of a group of people and who makes sweeping generalizations with regard to the members of the group they are attacking.

Please feel free to deny this, your posts are all there for chaps to read and make their own decision about. As are everyone else's, other than when they are deleted by half-wits.

[Busyman]

vidcc,

The thing is, you are a bigot, by any reasonable definition of the word. You have made that obvious by your persistent posting of anti-religious bile. The fact that it is not targeted at a specific religion makes not one jot of difference.

You are just as much a bigot as a Christian who attacks Islam. Or a Muslim who attacks Judaism. Or any person who arbitrarlly attacks the views of a group of people and who makes sweeping generalizations with regard to the members of the group they are attacking.

Please feel free to deny this, your posts are all there for chaps to read and make their own decision about. As are everyone else's, other than when they are deleted by half-wits.
:O

On point.;)

[vidcc]

vidcc,

The thing is, you are a bigot, by any reasonable definition of the word. You have made that obvious by your persistent posting of anti-religious bile. The fact that it is not targeted at a specific religion makes not one jot of difference.

You are just as much a bigot as a Christian who attacks Islam. Or a Muslim who attacks Judaism. Or any person who arbitrarlly attacks the views of a group of people and who makes sweeping generalizations with regard to the members of the group they are attacking.

Please feel free to deny this, your posts are all there for chaps to read and make their own decision about. As are everyone else's, other than when they are deleted by half-wits.
It's well known that you don't debate the points but instead name call. Pots and kettles spring to mind :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

Like I said, they can read yours and read mine. I have no problem with that.