so we're lab rats in another race's experiment?
Printable View
so we're lab rats in another race's experiment?
For JP.
http://www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/image...ages/spade.jpg
Note the extra long handle for those very deep holes.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Uh uh.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I cannot accept your argument because it is illogical and semantically impossible.
Which physics would that be? l'm not aware of any mainstream claim to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Please explain how it is semantically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
"All matter and energy" would include your hypothetical "meta-universe" too, would it not?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.
No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Good. We should teach any theory no matter how little proof we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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")
evolutionists aren't open-minded but creationists are :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
i'm all for letting people choose what they want to believe, but I.D is not science.
Oh no j2, please allow me.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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
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.
ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing thatQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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
When did "liberals" manage to pull this off?Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
Why was I not informed?
For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.
An excellent question sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
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.
Perhaps you should aim your words at that well known liberal Jerry Falwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
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.
You tail him then. You don't grab him and hold him indefinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I must agree with you about bomb-making books though.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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'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".Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I can see you believing that, even if it's not true. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
i must confess, i am a sunshiney optimist at heart. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Oh yeah, that's right, our government's heightened response to catastrophe.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
I view it differently. you ignore the "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion" which is separation.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.......
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
yeah well the hindu guys work down at my nearest gas station ain't the ones trying to cover the courthouse in religious graffiti.Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
What's all the nonsense about the "March of The Penguins" being "evidence" of Intelligent Design? :frusty:
More like the other way round... ;)
Oh, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
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.
damn.
selective quoting, I love it
you guys forgot or chose to ignore one thing I said:
so I'll repeat it.....I'm not a ChristianQuote:
Originally Posted by me
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
@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.
Please explain how a wall only blocks one way, unless this wall is made of tryvak which wasn't invented back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It's a wall, not a one way valve.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by fkdup74
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