October 20, 2010
-
Separation Between Church and State
I have been reading a few news sources today where people mocked Christine O’Donnell for questioning the idea of the Separation of Church and State being in the Constitution.
She asked her opponent, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” Chris Coons then made the remark that her question “reveals her fundamental understanding of what our Constitution is. . . The First Amendment establishes a separation.”
She responded by saying “The First Amendment does? Here is the link: Link
Does the First Amendment establish a separation of Church and State?
Comments (273)
A freedom, not a separation. Also: first?
Mmmhmm. “Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free practice thereof…” or something alone those lines.
From Wikipedia “The
First Amendment
(
Amendment I
) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion“, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”
“Prohibits the making of any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’” means separation of church and state. She’s an idiot.
Also, I used wikipedia because it was the easiest lol.
Dumb dumb politician. Stop making an ass of yourself. Sit down and be quiet, read your Bill of Rights. Maybe take a class or two.
She was right to ask, Coons mistaken in his answer to her. Separation does not appear in the First amendment, but the prohibition of Congress establishing a State Church. The First Amendment gives people the freeedom of worship: it does not bar someone from being able to talk about God (or in the Coons-O’Donnell debate) Creation.
Keeping the state out of the religion, or the religion out of the state?
That’s the interesting question.
The intent of the Founding Fathers in the First Amendment was to keep the government out of the church, not the church out of the government.
No. The separation of Church and state being in the Constitution is one of many liberal lies.
From what I’ve read, it seems more implicit in the Constitution as opposed to explicit. I don’t find this statement, “Prohibits the making of any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’” very convincing as to removal of religion from state.
You can’t blame her for not knowing. They probably don’t offer U.S. Constitution 101 at Oxford University where she claims to have gotten her education.
the quote says her fundamental MISunderstanding…
Actually, no, the Constitution does not explicitly create a separation of church and state. The phrase was coined by Jefferson, who opposed the Constitution in the first place, and represented his philosophy. The First Amendment limits the government’s power to interfere with the establishment and free practice of religious institutions; it does not, however, limit the powers of the church over the government. It guarantees the rights of all religions, but it doesn’t preclude the establishment of state churches nor moral legislation. It could easily be argued that it does in fact preclude the establishment of a federal church, but not at the state or local level, as it has come to be interpreted. At the time, in fact, state churches were common practice. Take a look at Massachusetts, for example. I’m all for the separation of powers, but it’s a modern precedent, not one inherent in the Constitution.
No. Seperation of Church and state is a common misrepresentation and poorly conceived interpretation of the first amendment. The amendment clearly states “Congress shall enact no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free execise thereof”. Personally I believe we are in violation of this amendment when we restrict the free exercise thereof with our prohibitation of religious practices and prayers and references to God in our public places.
Nowhere in the First Amendment is the phrase “separation of church and state” used. The opponent was arguing that that phrase (and the truth it holds) is expicit in the First Amendment, when it actually is derived from it, while O’Donnell was stating that the phrase itself does not exist in the amendment.
I’m embarrassed that she is trying to represent my home state.
@Aloysius_son - But to promote one religion over others in terms that it should be the only religion is a violation as well, from a standpoint that it restrict the freedom of practice of other religions. As how people would try to dub America as a Christian nation, to have people forced to say “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, or telling people that they will burn in hell for not being a Christian… you get my point.
semantics, clearly, the “prohibition” is a “”seperation” of church and state.. and should be. why does everyone forget why many people fled to America toe escape religious persecution. During that time no one was able to worship freely or question the church (the official state religion) because the state and church were intertwined. If conservatives are not careful, they could very well end the separation of church and state, only to find themselves in a democratic country where the state religion is not Christianity. Boy, would they feel stupid then! and I say this as a moderate Christian
I believe it does, yes.
Disclaimer: I am a Christian. I support the separation of Church and State on a personal level, but it is my understanding that it is also the official interpretation of the First Amendment.
@quodmenutriut - As if you could have one without the other!
While the literal language of “separation of church and state” may not be in the first amendment, the spirit of this principle is certainly there. Legal precedent has upheld it (the phrase appears in a judge’s decision a number of times), and the letter of the law isn’t always so clear cut to begin with; we have free-commerce laws based on the Roman tradition of not allowing Innkeeps from barring ANYONE from staying at their inn, after all. Let’s not pretend the law is a monolith of consistency and logical progression.
Even if it wasn’t in the original intention of the founding fathers to completely divorce church and state (and let’s face it, see how people talk on the floor of congress, it’s a pipe dream anyway), it’s not as though society can’t evolve beyond it’s original intent.
The amendment doesn’t use the exact words ‘separation of church and state,’ but I think the concept is clearly presented in the 1st.
@SexyGamerGirl - @Thatslifekid - @TheSutraDude - @NikBv - @laytexduckie - @SoapAndShampoo - @Doubledb -
it’s not in the constitution.
Please learn to read.
the word separation can be interpreted in different ways.
hence why the ORIGINAL WORDING is important
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, while nice, does not automatically make something in the constitution
So please stop inferring and calling other people idiots because YOU are uniformed
@splinter1591 - If you say that, then you might as well just interpret EVERYTHING however you please.
@Thatslifekid - interpreting an interpretation is pretty god damn pointless when your sitting next to the original and original is what binds you/ is the law
@TheSutraDude - Oh they do, it’s just that pretend classes fill up really quickly, so it’s not her fault she didn’t take it.
I think someone who has run for Senate 3 separate times ought to know just a tiny bit about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but what would I know, I don’t have pretend college under my belt.
@splinter1591 - What I find YOU uninformed about is modern plastic surgery techniques. At least, I’d assume somebody with your face to be tragically unaware of the capabilities of current medicine.
@splinter1591 - I didn’t call anyone an Idiot? what are you talking about? why are you so angry? I don’t see why anyone would be against Separation of Church and State in the first place, so I am confused??? I never said it was there in quotes but I think the idea behind it is similar, which is why I said I think it is semantics to say relating the two are 100% not related.
@splinter1591 -
The First Amendment lays the grounds for the separation of Church and State. What this means is that our government cannot grant a right to one religion that it subsequently denies to other. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
O’Donnel is a bimbo and doesn’t belong anywhere near a position of power. As a Democrat I love her because she assures that we’ll keep the Senate.
@splinter1591 - First of all, O’Donnell did claim and certify on resumes that she attended Oxford University and others, (I think Princeton might have been one) which she did not attend. Second, the 1st Amendment does separate the government from any possibility of adhering to or supporting any religion. It’s as clear as clear can be. One can of course take any phrase or sentence and twist it to mean something else. “The sky is blue” could mean the sky is sad but any reasonable person understands what the words “The sky is blue” means. The Constitution prohibits making any law supporting any religion and guarantees freedom of religion. I wonder why anyone would have a problem with that.
No it’s not in the Constitution, be we’ve seen what happens when someone tries to teach Creationism in schools. (Pastafarianism, anyone?) Considering the government is not allowed to establish a church, it should go well out of its way to avoid promoting one religion over another, lest it become the “state church.” Then the schools would have to teach the creation stories of all major religions. I can guarantee that some parent (probably in the south) is going to protest their baby being taught another religion without their consent. Besides, honestly? You don’t need to teach Creationism in school. That’s why you go to church every week. There’s no sense in teaching religion in my Biology class, when Evolution is the one that’s more scientific.
Well, “Separation of Church and State” doesn’t appear in the first amendment, so from a literal standpoint she is correct. Of course, the Constitution also doesn’t state word for word that money and free speech are the same, yet many Constitutional lieralist Conservatives seem to take that standpoint.
@radicalsounds - Haha. And she’s lived on campaign funds for all of those years. I guess that money has helped her pay off the pretend loans she needed for pretend college.
Establishment clause. It’s not that complicated.
@Thatslifekid - I know right, gosh…
@splinter1591 - I did no quote Thomas Jefferson. I put the actual saying. But what it comes down to is meant as separation of church and state. And I will continue to call her an idiot because it IS what she is. She. Is. An. Idiot.
it doesn’t work. It was an error the founding fathers made, and it could very well cost us our empire in schisms. See, people assign power to things, and during different times, different things are necessary. We cycle through yugas and have the fabric of culture. Without it, we get snake-eyes, our Satanic dictator of ignorance, and he rips everything apart with the focal point of one.
It’s not possible for humans to not be religious. You all are lying and worshipping something. I don’t, but I’m different.
@TooComplicated2Explain - I am a Pastafarian!
I still love that lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6P0SitRwy8&ob=av2e
It’s really Satan’s women witches, though
I’m a sedition. I’m not loyal to my state but my company. My company is in Australia. I should have my third eye open…
@laytexduckie - Exactly… as for one nation, under God… it should be every free man and woman’s right to choose whether or not they wish to profess this, forcing one way or the other would defy the amendment. I would choose to say it my self, personally. If you chose not to, that perogative should be your freedom.
@splinter1591 - I’m pretty sure that the First Amendment protects my right to practice whatever religion I so desire. And because of that right, there is no placing one religion over the other. Don’t tell me what to think. Just because I don’t interpret it your way doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Don’t call me uninformed when something so simple as an opinion doesn’t match yours. You’re not above everyone else.
The argument “the words ‘Separation of Church and State’ never appears in the Constitution” is a ridiculous B.S. Strawman argument. NOBODY EVER SAID THAT. Seriously. Point me to one legal scholar, liberal or otherwise who has ever stated that the words “separation of church and state” appear in the constitution. I highly doubt any such person exists.
Why do people keep repeating this nonsense? We all know that when we speak of “separation of church and state” we are talking about a CONCEPT not just a particular phrasing of words. That concept can be manifest in a lot of ways through a lot of different language. And in every legal discussion I’ve ever heard of when discussing “separation of church and state” in the United States legal system we are referring to, in part, the language in the First Amendment of the constitution and the huge body of legal decisions surrounding religion built upon that bedrock.
We can have a reasonable debate about to what extent the First Amendment language really does separate Church and State and what intent the Founding Fathers had with respect to that, but we cannot reasonably have a debate on whether or not ‘separation of church and state’ is even a part of the first amendment of the constitution. To say it isn’t in there at all is to suggest (as her opponent said) a profound lack of fundamental knowledge and understanding of the constitution.
If you watch the full video O’Donnell sounds like she doesn’t even know that there is ANY section of the constitution dealing with separation of church and state. Even if you don’t believe the first amendment really does require a separation of church and state surely you should know enough about legal theory and the very nature of the debate to know that the first amendment is what people are talking about when they talk about separation of church and state. But O’Donnell seems completely clueless.
During the same debate O’Donnell admits to not knowing much of anything about 3 other amendments (14th, 16th, and 17th) of the constitution as well. That itself wouldn’t be too big a deal except that those three amendments have been heavily in the news lately because prominent members of the Tea Party movement, her movement, and the Republican party, her party, have argued that they be altered or repealed. That’s why she was asked about it and she doesn’t know how to respond.
Now there’s no requirement to be a constitutional scholar to run for Senate and so O’Donnell doesn’t really need to know the ins and outs of all the nuances of the debates surrounding each amendment of the constitution. Few do. But her whole candidacy is based on adhering to the fundamental rights of the constitution. She repeats that over and over and over again. You’d think if that’s what you believe you’d have at least a passing familiarity with the major components of the constitution that have been up for debate.
And in the context of a debate about Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution to not know that the “separation of church and state” people are referring to is the rules established by the first amendment is to show a profound level of ignorance and/or lack of seriousness.
BTW, within the context of the discussion all of the arguments about whether States can establish their own religion or whether the founding fathers were more concerned with protecting religions from government influence or vice versa are completely irrelevant. In the case of creationism the First Amendment is crystal clear. Congress cannot pass laws that fund or establish public schools that teach religious doctrine. That would be “respecting an establishment of religion” precisely what the first amendment prohibits. The only way you might dispute that is to question whether Creationism or Intelligent Design are religious doctrine. I think it’s pretty clear that they are. But to make that argument is still to concede that the first amendment does indeed estalbish a kind of separation of church and state AT LEAST in that respect.
I really didn’t care much about O’Donnell. She, like Palin, gets a million times the publicity she deserves from both parties and the press. But in so far as she represents Tea Party views, she demonstrates in exchanges like this exactly why I find that particularly political movement to be increasingly disturbing by the day. I don’t mind populism and I’m all for anti-establishment politicians, but why must they go through such extreme measures to praise and advocate thoughtlessness ignorance and willful disregard for science and fact in their candidates? It’s like they want candidates who are all flash without any substance behind them just so long as they can claim an independence from Washington and a kind of religious devotion to doctrinaire conservatism. But you’d think they’d at least want candidates who are capable of making a good cogent argument for their case? It’s almost like these candidates are being put out htere specifically so they can be mocked and then conservatives can rally around them with the sympathetic “stop picking on me” vote.
And don’t even get me started on their messages of hate…
Honestly, at times I look at the modern Republican party with its insane Tea Party infestation… and I start to yearn for the days George W. Bush. And I NEVER thought I’d think that.
@DarklyLitWords - agreed.
@TheSutraDude - Oh heck yeah, pretend college is SO expensive! I think the loan interest rates go up when people start questioning the validity of your education
@radicalsounds - She should be paying through the nose for the rest of her life if that’s the case.
Someone still bitter about not being able to put through a law (or ten) forcing their religious beliefs down everyone else’s throats discovered that that exact phrasing isn’t in the constitution and there has been squawking ever since. *sigh* It is sad.
Does it say, word for word, “separation of church and state”? No. (And Coons never said that it did use that exact wording in the article that I read.) But it does make it pretty clear that the law is not to favor any one religion and therefore persecute anyone not of any certain religion. You know, like, the entire, like, basis on which the country was, like, founded on…or something…
However, it says nothing about not pointing and laughing douchebags that go into the salon and ask for the “Sarah Palin” cut and then try to act all “smart” by arguing techinicalities… *points* HaHA!
@SexyGamerGirl - <3 Well said! Thank you.
@nephyo - Thanks for taking the time to write that out. Excellent. As for religion and state, what religion? People are still not largely aware that many of the signers of the Constitution, many of the founders of this country, the man called Father of the Constitution, James Madison were Masons, not Christians. The present pope reiterated through canonic law in the 1980s when he was bishop that anyone who becomes a Freemason can not be members of the Church. ”… the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.” – Quaesitum est 1983.
To give just a taste, George Washington who was sworn into the office of the Presidency on a Masonic Bible, James Madison the father of the Constitution, Paul Revere, and get this…the people behind the Boston Tea Party who planned their attack at a Masonic lodge meeting place…and many others are considered to be people damned to hell by the church. The point is that calling this nation Christian in the first place is deeply flawed in concept, principal, and word at least if you believe what the pope has to say about our nation. One of the reasons this nation was formed in the first place was to escape from the abuses of the church-state that existed still in jolly old England. Get a grip people.
If you can some how weasel your self around the first amendment with out ending up with separation of church and state, I believe you’re a wizard. But that’s why the constitution is debatable, and why we have 9 extremely intelligent, capable, completely unbiased, honest, and altruistic Supreme Court Justices who swear to uphold the constitution as it’s interpreters.
Who cares? Where are the boobs, Dan?
@SexyGamerGirl - A person with the xanga name of SexyGamerGirl and uses wikipedia for her info calls a woman with sound ideas and getting people to be RESPONSIBLE, an idiot. Now thats funny right there I don’t care who ya are! Hahahahaha.
The Constitution guarantees that government will stay out of an establishment of religion and allowing people to worship. That’s all.
Read The Constitution for yourself. It’s in English. The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ language comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association, not the Constitution. Study a little American history and you’ll see that the signers had a variety of interpretations for the Constitutional language.
It dosn’t sound to me that there is any separation of church and state when the State (otherwise known as Congress) in the first ammendment or any other if it forbids public prayer when any of the people want it. If they don’t want to hear it they don’t have to listen. If a minister that I don’t agree with comes on television…I change the channel. For a while some of the schools were having “Flagpole Friday”; organized by the students that did not want to give up the right to pray together in a private group at the schools. Since the flagpoles are generally in the front of the building…if you didn’t want to listen go back to the basketball courts or the other side of the front lawn. Why is it that those who don’t want creationism, and prayer in schools get the support of separation of church and state and the other side is given no consideration. Sorry you pushed a hot button.
It establishes that Government shall not start nor govern a church of any kind.
Our founding fathers meant for Christian principles to be a foundation. Anyone can find the history & proof of this if one looks past current public school text.
Krisism Cookie – says when one looks under rocks literal or figuratively, One should not be shocked to find things that Live Under rocks. Nor shocked to find yourself easily falling in.
@YourOuterCritic -
The Courts have long held that the First Amendment is the foundation for the Separation of Church and State, since the Establishment Clause has been determined to mean prohibiting the establishment of a state church or the favoring of one religion over another, or religion over irreligion.
@mommachatter -
If you want prayer in school so much, send your kids to a private school or educate them yourself. The public schools belong to everyone and are funded by taxpayer money, and that money isn’t allowed to favor one religion over another OR religion in general over irreligion.
Read about the Establishment Clause if you don’t believe me.
@Inspectorgrampy5 -
Sound ideas? That she can somehow keep people from having sex outside of marriage, even adults?
The information GamerGirl posted was not incorrect, so why does it matter where she got it? Christine O’Donnel is a stupid bimbo who has no real chance of winning. She’s every Democrat’s dream opponent. In a year where the GOP should sweep every race she’s handing Obama a Democratic Senate.
You Teabaggers are probably too stupid to see it, but you’re shooting yourself in the foot with this.
@nephyo - Woo-hoo, comment blogging!
“In the case of creationism the First
Amendment is crystal clear. Congress cannot pass laws that fund or
establish public schools that teach religious doctrine. That would be ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ precisely what the first
amendment prohibits. The only way you might dispute that is to question
whether Creationism or Intelligent Design are religious doctrine. I
think it’s pretty clear that they are.”
Problem: There’s a certain amount of cheating in the ID movement. They’re trying to get religious concepts into the public school system while saying that they aren’t- because they aren’t trying to teach the literal “six days of creation” as outlined in the book of Genesis. They figure that as long as they don’t teach directly from the Bible, it doesn’t count as Christian doctrine. In fact, intelligentdesign.org specifically states that ID is neither based on the Bible nor a form of creationism. –> Link
At its naked core, I suppose it isn’t. But to claim that ID qualifies as a scientific theory requires more imagination than I possess. This is likely why ID can’t slip through the “it’s about a god, but not about a religion” loophole. Because when it comes down to it, ID is still about chasing spiritual things. It’s about untangling the intangible acts of a deity from those things that can be observed and tested. I do believe that a god is behind the existence of all things, both good and bad things. But to take that belief into a science class and teach it as a concrete theory would be a fool’s errand.
As for the separation of Church and State itself….
“We can have a reasonable debate about to what
extent the First Amendment language really does separate Church and
State and what intent the Founding Fathers had with respect to that,
but we cannot reasonably have a debate on whether or not ‘separation of
church and state’ is even a part of the first amendment of the
constitution.”
I agree with that. Between the lawsuits over manger scenes in schoolyards and clergy who want to remain tax exempt with no conditions, there is way too much selfish hysteria. There are New Atheists who act as if hearing the word “Jesus” will melt their faces, and Christian dominionists who can’t sleep nights for fear of Sharia law because that’s exactly the kind of control they’d like to have over America. End result: not much constructive is getting done, except the lawyers are in no danger of running out of work.
But details aside, the separation of Church and State is the official interpretation of the First Amendment’s statement on government and religion. As one who has had the most messed up spiritual journey ever- for years- I am grateful to live in a secular society. Every individual’s beliefs are their own problem here. The State shouldn’t intrude on the Church’s fundamental rights to be itself on its own time, and the Church shouldn’t inject itself into the State as if the State didn’t have its own rights and responsibilities. They’re both supposed to serve the people. Not look for ways to take power from one another.
I feel idealistic late at night sometimes. :/
if she wins, shes going to get congress to approve a bill to build a hogwarts. not such a bad thing imho…
Actually, I can’t give her credit for much, but this is something she’s right about. The Establishment clause prevents Congress from establishing a state religion, but says nothing of preventing religious morals and doctrines influencing legislation.
There is no seperation. It clearly states one is free to worship as they please. It also forbids the state from establishing religion.
So how does it go from that to banning teaching the theory of creationism in school? Yes, there’s a problem if ONLY creationism is taught. However, isn’t it just as problematic if ONLY evolution is taught?
True education is understanding all sides to a story.
You can be opinionated, I’ll stay informed.
@TheSutraDude - It was Coombs who proved he didn’t know anything about the 1st Amendment during the debate. Christine cleaned his clock. You’re just another hapless victim of the state run media. Get your mind back and start thinking for yourself.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - In your twisted sick mind LBL.
@grim_truth - Evolution is a scientific theory based on many observations, you can hardly characterize them as the same.
@Teufels_Hofnarr - You just keep living in your dreamworld bud.
@TheSutraDude - The reality is that aside from Coombs lying about the separation of church and state being in the Constitution, he couldn’t name the 5 protections afforded by the 1st Amendment.
Coombs is the real ignoramus in that race. Christine is awesome! She’s intelligent, honest and knows her stuff.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - And she learned it all at Oxford U.!
The PHRASE separation of church and state doesn’t appear, but the CONCEPT of the church-state separation, by disallowing Congress from making any law establishing a religion or impeding the free exercise of religion, is established by the first part of the First Amendment. “Separation of church and state” is only the general idea Jefferson was going for – the words in the constitution were as specific an execution of the concept as he could make them, as he explained in this letter:
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association,
give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous
pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are
persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more
and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not
opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should “make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even
those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of
another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious
exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective
sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in
behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the
progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural
rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social
duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the
common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your
religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
She’s even stupider than Sarah Palin. This broad is another joke. In fact, if it weren’t for Hillary Clinton, I’d say these dumb bitches were making women in politics look bad. Holyyy shit.
@TheSutraDude - @haloed - Elitist liberals using insults and character assassination as a primary tactic is getting old. It’s demonstrating in spades how liberalism is intolerant and intellectually dishonest and vapid.
The Tea Party understands that America just can’t afford those kind of people running our institutions anymore.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - I’m not the one who lied on resumes about my academic credentials. That was O’Donnell. And you should be one to criticize character assassination? That’s practically all you do moron. You’d be better received blogging at sociopath.com. and take all of your aliases with you.
@TheSutraDude - Again, instead of addressing the issues you are assassinating the character of a good person. If you want to see who is really lying about their past you have to look no further than Obama himself. You never say anything about his lies or Clintons’ lies.
That’s why you folks are dishonest. The Tea Party sends anyone, and I mean anyone, packing if they prove to be sell outs. Lying and selling out are resume enhancement if you are a liberal.
The issue in this campaign is that the liberals are killing America. Obama and Democrats are governing against the will of the people.
@Bushy_Tailed - Evolution also has a TON of missing links and is not conclusive. Without understanding the theory of inteeligent design or crationism, one cannot fully understand evolution.
Evolution is taught as if it is a scientific fact. It is far from fact. Refusing to encourage young minds from exploring other theories in anything is the pure definition of indoctrination.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - If this was your first or second attempt at commenting I would address issues seriously with you but your reputation proceeds you and you have long since fallen out of the category known as “worth my time”.
@TheSutraDude - Again with the ad hominem attack. Your comments here began as personal attacks on a good person, Christine O’Donnell. I
stepped in to defend her and you then began to do the same with me.
You not addressing the issues has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with your personal choice to employ tactics that are unacceptable in a tolerant, civilized society.
@grim_truth - And school provides us with that information or should. We are taught evolution because it is the currently the theory that is most widely accept and the one that has the most facts to back it up.
“Without understanding the theory of inteeligent design or crationism, one cannot fully understand evolution.”
Mind explaining that statement?
Separation of church and state is NOT set out in the Constitution. All it mentions is, “
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 aredressof grievances,”(Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion). That doesn’t look like it says there can not be a mixing of church and state to me! All they were trying to say when they set this up was that there would be no state-mandated religion; they were trying to get away from the religious persecution that many of their relatives has experienced in the past and wanted to make sure it wouldn’t happen again over here. Specifically forbidding that religious ideas or texts be presented in public areas is religious persecution as well! Their intent was never to stop religion from being in the classroom, otherwise the court systems would’ve jumped on the fact that the McGuffey readers used starting in 1836 had a very religious background. People need to slow down and just read the dang passage. It doesn’t matter what Jefferson wrote to someone in a letter – he was allowed to have opinions about the meanings of things just as much as we are; that doesn’t make every word that comes out of his mouth fact.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Well I seemed to be misinformed. What are the issues?
@Bushy_Tailed - Maybe that was a bad choice of words. Basically, one can never fully be informed of any view until they understand the opposing view. Beign opinionated is not being informed. Without having the facts from the other side to explore, one cannot rightfully embrace evolution.
No one has ever explained why intelligent design or creationism should not be taught in school. (Other than the witch hunt-style “it’s religion! EEK! get it away from me!)
Being the most accepted theory does not make it fact. By making it the “accepted theory” and suppressing any other views, the real answer will NEVER be found. Oh, suppressing other views is also called facism.
@Bushy_Tailed - If you along with every other liberal are busy hating on good people then it’s no wonder you are misinformed. Liberals prove every day that facts and issues mean nothing.
But here they are anyway: Liberals are trying to transform America into a European socialist state. Real Americans as characterized by good people like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell stand for free market capitalism, low taxes and constitutionally limited government.
Letters from Thomas Jefferson make it clear that is what the first amendment was in his interpretation. It was up held by the supreme court. Christine is a numskull!
@laytexduckie - ME TOO! Vote for COONS!
Even if people interpret the first amendment as not saying anything about separation of church and state, we should use it as a general policy anyway. Christians love to act like everyone in America is Christian and follows their ideals, so they start making Christian doctrine into law. How is that fair to many of the other religions living in America? When we start including things in the Bible into law, that’s when we start alienating others and turning the U.S. into a Christian nation instead of a nation to harbor all religions. But people know that the majority of people in this country are Christian, so of course they pander to them. It’s a damn shame…
@NikBv - lol
u think someone with YOUR face would have a body XP
@laytexduckie - @SexyGamerGirl - @TheSutraDude - @Teufels_Hofnarr - @Doubledb -
sigh.. The words “separation of church and state” CAN be interpreted in different ways, hence why the original wording is so important.
some people take it to mean that the government can not promote a religion, and some people take it to mean that the government can not even put things like “in god we trust” on our legal tender.
The intent of that amendment was NOT to prevent the government to paying homage to its roots on it’s tender, it was to protect its citizens from religious persecution.
The people who yell, “separation of church and state” over the money are not worked up over the references to the free masons on our tender.A homage to our nations past is NOT promoting religion, simply celebrating history.And since people seam to see fit to take advantage of the phrase and missconstue it the original wording and intent is so important.
And for the record I am not angry, I just get frustrated at most peoples lack of basic knowledge about our constitution and it’s amendments
@grim_truth - the problem though is in the deep south (where I grew up) if they (the teaches) weren’t banned from teaching creationism it became a 5 day thing about the wonders of creationism, and a 30 minute thing about the flaws of evolution
@JandJinJapan - Took the words right out of my mouth.
@splinter1591 - but by banning creationism, they accomplish even more because now, you get only one side to one story. At least in teaching the flaws of evolution, they must teach a little of it. That’s what mandated cirriculum is for. Equal time on both.
@grim_truth - no, once they banned creationism they refused to teach evolution.
So we all ended up learning nothing instead.
I don’t think that in the bible belt they (the uber christain teachers aka nearly all of them) will ever settle for teaching anything that wasn’t in the bible.
My sister is still in high-school and her history book will not talk about anything over 3000 years old, and if a culture is older, it changes the year.
The point of that last part was to show that pretty much its squash the creationalist (sp?) or let them take control of the system, since you give them an inch….
@splinter1591 - Not to mention that the Bill of Rights was written to ensure rights of the PEOPLE are not to be enfringed, not the other way around.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - So the issue is that there are people with different opinions on how to run a country that differ from your opinion?
@Bushy_Tailed - The issue is Liberal-Fascist tyranny vs American liberty, prosperity and justice.
@splinter1591 - The same can be applied to the Bible. The Bible is filled of interpretations of interpretation, but people take it as fact when there is no evidence to support creationism or Genesis. And how they want to teach creationism in school is the promotion of a religion (Christianity) in public schools, which will violate the First Amendment. In a sense, this does tie into separation of church and state.
In response to the Constitution, what makes it difficult is what you said, the original wording. The right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, people already take that it means that Americans have the right to own a firearm. The full context of the Second Amendment is that during a time when a militia is to be formed to overthrow a movement. But people still construe it as just a right to buy a firearm.
@splinter1591 - exactly. Now you learn nothing. Most evolutionists are set on ONLY evolution being taught. However, you cry foul when a handful on the other side act in the same manner. Typical liberalism: squash the opponent who wants disagrees instead of working on a compromise, and do it all in the name of being “progressive.”
Jefferson must be rolling in his grave! lol
@laytexduckie - construing one way verse another isn’t right.
@grim_truth - There is no opposing view, there is just facts. From these facts we derive theories and the one that seems to make the most sense thus far is evolution. The reason intelligent design isn’t taught in school because there really isn’t much to it, nor do I see any argument for it. What can you teach about it? All one can say is that an intelligent being created everything, but nothing created it or something. Everyone has different opinions on it, and that is the problem. There is nothing that leads to this conclusion, just opinions.
Edit: Okay I don’t know the reason intelligent design isn’t taught in school. I’m just putting my own opinion out there, and that’s certainly not my full opinion.
@TheSutraDude - Careful, I think that’s where Loborn went. Oops, I’m being a typical liberal! Hallucinating! Character assassination! Lions and tigers and bears! Haha.
@splinter1591 - You’re doing the same thing. Interpretation is always up to the person who is reading it. Everyone will have a different definition and connotation. As much as people can be direct, there will always be room for misconstrued meanings.
@grim_truth - i’m not “liberal” in the modern sense. Nor am I a “conservative” I just have seen in practice that allowing creationism to be taught is taken advantage of, and it has NO scientific basses, which mostly bothers me. If I had ever had it (creationism) taught to me in a way that did not promote the bible / in a way that even gave the illusion of scientific basses, I would be okay with it being taught
and personal attacks never help your argument. Or what you evidentially consider a personal attack.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - It’s called tyranny of the majority my dear, and it’s the system our government is basically founded upon. That issue isn’t really an issue.
@laytexduckie -but is it in the constitution, no it is not. Yes it MAY be the accepted interpretation, but it does not appear in the constitution.
Does it establish it? It depends on your definition.
but being unclear does not make you or me right.
She has boobs, she is forgiven.
I’m no fan of O’Donnell, but in the interest of intellectual honesty here, let’s point out that a) she was probably making a point that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution or its appendages and b) a limitation on the establishment of a national religion, or church (put it in context of what the early settlers were running FROM in England), is not quite or necessarily the same thing as a complete divorce of religion and government.
The term comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to reassure them that their religious freedoms would never be infringed upon by his administration. (source: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html) .
No, Christine O’Donnell is not an idiot. She was making a point that I doubt many people in your comments section know or understand.
@radicalsounds - haha. I don’t know why I even bothered answering her/him.
@grim_truth - I’ve gotta say, I agree with you.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - Yea she has perfectly sound ideas. Idk why you have to attack me, I didn’t attack you. I simply used Wikipedia because it’s the fastest. And for the record, the information that I posted is true, so why you making such a big stink?
The first amendment does not use the words “separation of Church and State” and that was her point.
@SecretNeverTold - you said it much better than I.
I’m a pretty moderate individual, but when it comes to the Constitution, I’m old school conservative. Separation of church and State is in there, as it should be. I want my church to be my church and my government to be my government.
Also, nowhere does it say that men and women are created equal, only men, but it’s derived from it.
@Teufels_Hofnarr - ‘The Courts have long held that the First Amendment is the foundation for the Separation of Church and State…’
Obviously.
@Bushy_Tailed - But that’s a lie. There is no “tyranny of the majority” going on. Obama and the Democrats have a created a tyranny of the minority by governing against the clear wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - I’m just going to go off with what you’ve said, because I see nothing to prove that.
I can say that the majority voted for them. I can certainly say that the wishes of the vast majority aren’t so clear and are rather ambiguous. The people have chosen to give the government the power to govern them. I’m not even sure what governing against the clear wishes of the vast majority means.
@mcmeister89@mancouch - Yeah, but is it in the constitution? I think not.
@Bushy_Tailed - with all respect to your opinion, ask this. why was it such a big deal that the kansas BOE decided that schools COULD teach ID ALONG SIDE evolution. if one were an uber-flawed fiction and the other a solid thesis, you would think that those who held to the solid thesis would LOVE the oportunity to have them examined side-by-side. instead you get people who want the state to infringe the rights of parents to instill in their children their own religion.
i anticipate an argument here so i will lay out the grounds of this accusation clearly. you have the state run, compulsory(ie mandatory) education which holds students 5 out of 7 days per week. this mechanism, which liberals say can not allow individual members of it to utter words of faith within it’s walls lest it be taken as a state mandated(or best case endorsed) religion, holds as its official curriculum with which it indoctrinates all who pass through that there is no God and that we all came to exist from the backs of crystals or some other such thing for no reason other than “it just happened”. one can not deny this, even looking to comments here we have seen that even generically suggesting that the material realm is the creation of some unknown or unnamed deity(to be investigated and discovered by the individual), is rejected more soundly than a vial of poison.
@ionekoa - Because for one, they are already examined side by side. Having both of them taught in school doesn’t do that, especially when teachers themselves will have there own biases. What a school is supposed to teach is facts about what we know of the world. We might as well also teach that some people think the holocaust was a huge conspiracy and never happened. We don’t teach that in schools because there is nothing to back that argument up. Creationism is more a philosophy if anything, sure teach it in philosophy. I don’t feel like going deep down into the subject unless of course you ask specific question.
What I don’t understand is how you can just believe that a god just is, but you can’t understand that the universe just is. I for one don’t believe either. Evolution is about how life evolved not how it was created. Least I’m pretty sure it doesn’t entail that. Don’t quote me on it. How life was created is a whole different subject which has much more depth than it just happened.
@ionekoa - And if you’re interested in how the universe came about there’s a fascinating theory out there. Here’s the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
@Bushy_Tailed - Neither is it stated that women were created equal with men. It’s derived. Perhaps we should start treating women like shit again? I mean, since the Constitution doesn’t say it…
Also, evolution doesn’t directly involve the story of how life began, but it is touched upon in almost all biology related course. The whole Primordial Soup idea is almost always present.
@mcmeister89@mancouch - Again? I never stopped.
@SecretNeverTold - thumbs up for saying it eloquently and with zero insult.
@Bushy_Tailed - you’ve hit a great point though. for years(not being in school now i do not know if they are still used) examples of “human anscestors” were used to “prove” evolution that turned out to be bunk. pigs teeth, arthritic old frenchmen and the like. i recently read an article online claiming that tyranasaurus rex is now thought to be a cannible, this theory was inspired by a “tooth mark” on a toe bone. the fact in this case is that a toe bone was found with what appeared to be(and i will assume it was as i am no expert nor have viewed the actual bone to credit or discredit the claim) a tooth mark from the same species. that this species was therefore canibalistic is far from a fact, but merely a wild supposition.
as for the implimentation of a “fair” teaching method, i would say that sticking to the facts would be a good start. “X fossil was found at Y location, at Z depth, some people believe it is A years old and got there because of B, others believe it is no more than C years old and got there some other way.” these would be pure facts, allowing the students to think crittically and draw their own conclusions as opposed to telling them which conclusions to draw.
as to your statement about the holocaust, by all means i would include in education that there are people out there who deny it ever happened. when you try to hide an idea from someone your motive always becomes suspect, even at times when you are right to do so(say it is a concept which they are not prepared to address). so if you go around saying that “everyone knows, and everyone believes…” then they encounter someone who does not, who in fact claims that the truth is being hidden from them, they become susceptable to lies. better to acknowledge an error before hand than to allow someone to fall into it.
@Aloysius_son - No. The answer is yes – by the laws of our own land. The judiciary is given the responsibility of interpreting the constitution as well as other laws. The specifics of how this “separation” is interpreted and implemented can be found in the various Supreme Court decisions re the issue. I think most agree that these decisions indicate that the court does see a separation of church and state in it’s interpretation of the constitution and subsequent rulings. Can the Supreme Court be “wrong”? Sure – but by law – its decisions stand until overturned.
So at least functionally, the constitution does specify a separation of church and state – if or until the Supreme Court rules it does not. Isn’t that the way it works?
@Bushy_Tailed - Ah. Trolling. Got it.
@mcmeister89@mancouch - Sarcasm, not trolling.
@Donkey_Guy_10 - Many consider the power of the judiciary branch to interpret the constitution unconstitutional.
it has been established and interpreted that way by the courts dozens of times.
@splinter1591 - And hence why it makes it that much more difficult to determine what is law and not law. But in terms of trying to teach something found only in one religion to a public school where there are practitioners of various religions would be against the First Amendment (unless the ones who are being taught voluntarily accept to be taught that subject). But again, it’s just my opinion.
@ionekoa - To teach that there are people out there who believe that the holocaust never happened and to teach that it never happened are two completely different things.
@laytexduckie - I am against creationism being taught in schools as well, since I am going to assume that is what you were talking about
I think “grammarboy” says it best!
It’s zealots like her that I hate.
@Bushy_Tailed - Again, theories. But it’s taught as if fact. Do a quick google search on “scientific evidence of ID” and you’ll see a lot of hits. Surely it’s worth exploring. And it’s definately worth encouraging future generations to critically think about where we came from.
@splinter1591 - You’re the one who called for the squashing of those who have opposing views.
There is plenty of evidence to back up ID and creationism if you only care to open your eyes. You cannot blame a handful of teachers.
However, let’s apply your “seperation of church and state” argument. By ONLY teaching that we evolved from some mystery goo, it is removing all aspects of religion, therefore violating that seperation, as it is state run education telling our children not to believe.
THAT is why it is important for both sides and theories to be taught.
@splinter1591 - The problem is that people who claim there is no separation between church and state in this country are crawling out of the woodwork and what they claim more often than not is that this is a Christian nation and they want to “take their nation back.” Many also take it a step further by claiming it’s a white Christian nation and they too want to ”take their nation back.” The battleground is not about how many Christians compared to how many Deist Masons compared to how many Atheists were involved in founding this country. It’s about people’s freedom to practice their beliefs and to be offered the same rights and protections under the law no matter what their ethnic background or the color of their skin. It is about keeping religion out of public schools other than where it is significant in a historical perspective. That is what is at stake here.
@grim_truth -
3) DNA found only in organisms. The DNA found in the cellular genome
contains more information than in all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia
Britannica. ID predicts that DNA, a major building block of complex
organisms, can only be created by an intelligent agent or by code
preprogrammed by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, some of the
building blocks for these nucleic acids are very unstable in nature.
For example, Miller found that ribose, which is essential for both DNA
and RNA, has a half life (t½) of only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and
0 °C. It’s even worse at high temperatures t½ = 73 minutes at pH 7.0
and 100 °C (the latter evidence is given for the benefit of heat-vent
enthusiasts). This is no time at all when we view life as having formed
over billions of years.
FACT: DNA must be designed.
2) The fossil record. Many IDists believe that species were designed
very similar to the way they are today. Some evolution may have
slightly affected their morphology of course, but when we look at the
fossil record we would predict to see species coming into it fully
formed, not evidence that species gradually evolved into their
macroscopic forms as Darwin proposed.
FACT: This is exactly what
we see in the fossil record. There is no gradual evolution of
bauplanes, but long periods of nothing interspersed with relatively
sudden explosions of fully formed organisms. These organisms then stay
this way until they go extinct in the record. This is direct evidence
for intelligent design.
….. Direct evidence indeed.
@TheSutraDude - Your picture reminds me way to much of Golliver’s Travels.
@Bushy_Tailed - So… out of AAAALLLL the information out there, you nitpick a few things you feel you can tear apart. Nice.
Evolution: We evolved from other species. DNA resembles each other.
… direct evidence indeed (especially with all of those missing links)
wow, picking and chosing which part of the opposition’s view you want to tear down is really easy!
Feh, who cares? Enough with the dirt digging and finger wagging.
no. that is why rightly conserves are concerned we will soon have sharia law here in the states. it is legal they say so….they is scared.
@grim_truth - I could have copied and pasted the whole list. You can’t prove a supernatural phenomenon.
@Bushy_Tailed - Well – yes… It was the Supreme Court that decided it had that power…based on it’s interpretation of the Constitution… But consider – unless someone does have that power – its all meaningless… Maybe we should give that power to Aloysius_son…
Reguardless of wording, I think intent was to allow people to express beliefs as long as not infringing on anyone else. It’s interesting though, how we have situations where religious phrases have to be taken down from eyes sight in various cases by law, but we allow in the schools to have children stand up in say the Pledge of Allegience “one country under God”. I believe in God but have always thought “but what if I didn’t? Why do I have to feel encouraged to say something llike that, if I didn’t believe it.” Not being able to deal with setting your eyes on something religious (first case)- seems intolerant. The second case, it’s making you do something. Plus I have a problem with getting people to think “country under God” anyhow, as if our country has Gods blessing over any other. That’s distrubing.
@grim_truth - How would you assume that there is an intelligent designer based on machines needing one. Wouldn’t an intelligent designer need an intelligent designer?
@Bushy_Tailed - Haha! That’s the first I’ve heard that. It’s actually a picture of me years ago while touring through Europe with the All_Nation Choir following my senior year in HS.
@splinter1591 - Yes.
@Donkey_Guy_10 - Do you know what I don’t like about you? When you are right you are right. The law says yes but common sense says no. Some lawyers have mastered ways of circumventing common sense, in my opinion. The courts have done a faily good job in preventing the government from interfereing in matters of the church so I am willing to conceded to a certain degree of misinterpretation. However when they impose restrictions on our freedoms, which they clearly have as in matters of public prayer, I see a problem. One misinterpretation leads to another and then another until the original intent becomes completely clouded and all but lost. That is why open forums such as these are an important element of our society. It does help keep ckecks and ballances, and hopefully protect the individual’s rights and freedoms.
If the president of the United States wishes to open his State of the Union Address with a prayer, as a citizen he should be able to do so. If he chooses not to, that is also his liberty. He is still after all a free citizen of this great nation. He should however consider the values and princilples of those who elected him in his decision making process. That is after all what he is elected to do. Congress shall enact no law restricting that freedom.
By the same token, we should not be forced to accept one religious doctrine over another, by the representatives of our government. I believe another widely accepted interpretation of the first amendment is, freedom of religion, and freedom from religious persecution.
The free man ought not turn a deaf ear to words of wisdom spoken through God’s people, and we can be God’s people if we so choose to be.
@Bushy_Tailed - Not as of now. We can’t. But let’s use your logic. Let’s use it back in the 1400′s. The “known and accepted” is all that shall be taught. Anything else shall be shunned. Exploring other theories, no matter how rediculous they sound are banned by law. Fast forward to today. Wouldn’t Europe be pretty damn crowded since Columbus and no one else was allowed to attempt to prove the Earth was round?
It’s also accepted that there is no cure for cancer. So, according to your logic, all cancer research must cease. This also goes for diabetes, alzheimers, AIDS, etc. There’s currently no cure. Technology does not currently exist, so we just better stop looking for one.
I’m not arguing one over the other as far as evolution/creation/ID. I’m simply saying that the basis of all should be taught. Until there is a definitive answer, it is the only reasonable thing to do. You, however, are attempting to supress critical thinking skills when it comes to views that differ from yours. God could come down to you, and show you how it all happened. You would simply write it off as a hallucination, because you make up your mind before you look at ALL the facts. I’m actually open to the possibility of evolution. You refuse to accept any information that may distort your view.
@Bushy_Tailed - But doens’t life need life to create life? Matter and energy cannot be created, only changed. So where did all the matter and energy come from?
An intelligent designer would not necessarily need an intelligent designer, as God is believed to have always been. With no beginning and no end. Much as the universe. I know they keep saying the universe is expanding, but think about this; If you had a ship, with no limit as to how fast it could go, what would happen when you hit the “end of the universe”? Does the ship just suddenly stop? Is there a wall? If so, what is on the other side of that wall?
The establishment clause of the first amendment is quite clear, but if you are completely stupid, look at the historical context of why the law was created. The founding fathers didn’t want the USA to be like England, a religious (Christian) state. If you’re still completely stupid, look at who argued throughout the colonies vigorously for the clause to be implemented, none other than Thomas Jefferson. One of his letters is where the phrase “separation of church and state” came from. I mean, come on, get a clue already!
@Bushy_Tailed - Eh, sarcasm is usually used for trolling.
@Aloysius_son - It’s interesting… My mother grew up in a small farm town in Illinois… She does not know what they are talking about when they say there used to be prayer in public schools – because they did not have prayers in public schools in her town… About half the population was protestant and half catholic – and the protestants were not going to have a catholic prayer and the catholics were not going to were not going to have a protestant prayer – so they just had their prayers in church instead…
I don’t know about you, but I prayed every time I took a test I had not studied for – although I did pray silently. Nobody could stop me – Supreme Court, teacher, whatever…
The year I was born, 1954, they added “Under God” to the Pledge, and it is still there. We said that in school.. right before we practiced “ducking and covering” – oh the fun times!
Strange… I do not feel abused that they won’t let me say my prayer in front of a whole bunch of people compelled by law to be in front of me…. They let me say my prayer on my own time, in front of people who agree to hear me…. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to hear any aqua-donkey prayers unless I feel like it. And let’s not even talk about mules!
I think they should put Christmas trees up all over the place. Madelyn Murray O’Hara loved Christmas trees…
There’s probably something in the constitution about that, too – but they spell it differently…. Maybe we should ask the supreme court.
I supposed Tude will find something else to chop off on me now…
@grim_truth - oi! i don’t think you understand what evolution is truly so our conversation, while fun for a while, is now over
@grim_truth - Columbus didn’t discover the world was round. Megelin did, before him some Greekmathematician who’s name escaped me, and even some ancient tribes who lived in the arctic circle new.
Columbus had not much at all to do with our world being round.
@grim_truth - u might be interested in the Miller Urey experiment
@radicalsounds - You would think that, yet progressives tend to think that the Constitution is a living document open to intertation and through that interpretation it is capable to evolve to fit their radical agendas. The Constitution is the law. It is a contract between the people and a entity that they created, and as such it is not living and evolving, it is ridged and exact. It serves as charter for the government, laying out what they can do, then via the 10th ammendment giving any powers not given in the consitution to the federal government to the states. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and countless others ignore the law of the consitution. Read the words of the founding fathers, you will learn the intent of the Consitution. I believe that 90% of the people in congress are ignorant to the orignial and binding intent of the consitution.
@splinter1591 - progressives beelieve that the consitution evolves, las don’t really mater, they just make a law, and bend the consitution to fit it.
@obamawatch - it DOES evolve, to think otherwise is ridiculous. Things happen in modern times that the founders could never have foreseen.
And even if you are against that, consider amendments, they change our constitution and keep it alive.
Shakin’ mah head.
Silly O’Donnell.
@SexyGamerGirl - LOL,didn’t realize I was making a big stink, simply an observation of someone with a silly Xanga name like refering to gaming as sexy and not stupid in itself calling someone else an idiot. It’s just a shame how people call other people they don’t know and have never even met idiots just by what news folks say about a person.The liberal news….as does Fox news,will find the worst thing a politician says or gaf the make and report it as what they say and do with every breath.It just makes me sad,thats all. As far as wikipedia,I’ve never used it but heard people can hack into it and change the wording.Don’t know if thats true or not but I’m leary of quite a bit of stuff on the internet. I have nothing against you,your comment was the first one I read and itjust hit me the wrong way.I didn’t really even look at much else.Sorry if I was rude,didn’t mean to be.
@laytexduckie - The god references were actually only added to the pledge of alleigence recently – circa 1954. The original author of the pledge was a christian priest, who intentionally left any reference to any god out of the text, in respect for the rights of the citizens. America has slowly migrated away from its non-denominational roots, and embraced Great Britain’s ideologies from 200 years ago. 1948, Louis Bowman added the words “under god” to the pledge during a meeting, referencing Lincoln’s use the words in the Gettysburg address. It was an effective motivator (Lincoln was popular), and started a movement within American Catohicism to add the words to the pledge in their ceremonies, beginning a remarriage of church and country (apparently they didn’t get the memo) and after several failed attempts to get the change offically accepted by the government, Eisenhower heard the modification in one of his own church services and decided to put the change in motion at the official level, generating a bill to have the official pledge changed. Since the pledge is not a law, the constitution does not explicitly stipulate that this can’t be done, but it was, in my opinion, poor judgement. However. The real violation of constitution occurred back in 1865, when a law allowing “In God We Trust” as a motto on coins was passed, since this law blatantly respects an establishment of religion. The constitution was further violated in 1908, when a law was passed requiring the motto on coins, and then further deviation from the established constitution occurred in 1955, when an Act of Congress required the motto on all forms of currency.
If this is a Christian nation, it’s not because of the constitution, but in spite of it.
@obamawatch - I F*CKING AGREE. (But I didn’t vote for you)
@splinter1591 - It still doesn’t detract from the argument. It was “generally accepted” yet later proven wrong that the earth was flat. @splinter1591 - simply because you REFUSE to view the other side. I’m not saying you have to accept it as fact, but you are trying to preach that evolution is fact, when it simply is not. There are other theories out there that you are trying to “squash.” What do you have against critical thinking? Is it just too hard for you to do? I mean, surely there must be a reason for you refusal to even allow it, let alone participate in it.
@Spectrophile - actually, YOU need to get a clue. Establishment clause is not clear cut, or there would be no debate. Secondly, England was not a “Christian State.” The Church was ran by the state. It is possible to have a state based on Christian values and beliefs without the State running the Church. If you actually read the letter instead of just assuming things about it, you would see that he was merely reiterating the 1st Amendment. His “wall of seperation” was the notion that the gov’t not interfere with the people’s right to worship.
@grim_truth - I find it amusing that you are accusing me of trying to squash free thought. Which is pretty much everything I am not. I relish and live for the challenge of authority.
What I am against is thought without merit or evidence.
The “science” behind intelligent design is not science as one traditionally views science.
And to be against evolution is to be against something we can directly observe ie: bacteria that is resistant to drugs
Promoting intelligent design is giving children ideas that are not conducive to what science and school are meant to be in America.
By all means teach IE, but don’t teach it to young children.
The same way you would not read “Bless me Ultima” is a 4th grade English class.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - gaming is sexy. Dude thelittleone is all I am saying. Id jump him fast.
nom!
@splinter1591 - That’s what amendments are for. Circumventing the process is for cowards who refuse to listen to the will of the people. If I’m lying, then why do they bypass, instead of amend the constitution?
@splinter1591 - From Duke University: “There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller’s experiment because it is now believed that the early earth’s atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.”
Also, were the chemicals in pure form, in a completely sterile envrionment created in a vacuum, in order to rule out that no microscopic organisms were present? PURE water vapor? Not to mention, the experiment still didn’t create actual life, just things that are needed for life to exist.
@splinter1591 - in other words, you’re against teaching children to think critically. You’re against teaching children to think outside the box and to question things that are not fully explainable. Just because it is not explainable in what YOU deem science does not take the merit out of discussion. Instead, you would rather preach to children to believe something is fact, when it still is merely a theory. Again, that’s not education. It’s indoctrination.
@JustAnotherNihilist - that is good that you didn’t vote for me because i didn’t run.
@grim_truth - Thomas Jefferson, the man some would say was the start of this debate, said “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear”.
@splinter1591 - Ah ammendments, that is different from evolution. To ammend the consitution requires both the parties involved in the contract to agree to the changes and there for change the contract. The evolution that I refrenced was the evolution through interpretation of the laws laid out in the Consitution. they are two different things. One is legal, and one is criminial.
@grim_truth - If an entity (such as a god) can be considered an infinite concept, beyond limits of relative physics (which is to say, physics as they exist in our universe) then it is also acceptable to assume that our universe could be merely part of something else, unintelligent, which is also infinite, that we do not have the ability to immediately study. To point at something we cannot explain and claim it as evidence for another theory is not science. Theories to support Intelligent Design do just that. They do not conform to proper scientific method, and as such are not viable theories. I’ve read several. These theories provide no valid cause to suggest a deity, only an absence of answers in current theory, which they conveniently fill with the assumptions their own theory makes without any rational reason for making those assumptions.
There is not sufficient evidence to support the idea that you are a law abiding citizen who has never broken the law. Therefore, you must be a serial killer, and you must have killed my cat, because my cat has a broken neck and the only way that could have happened is if you broke in and killed it. Do you see the gap in logic? Not only have I made an irrational argument based on “evidence”, but I have cemented to it a further non-sequitor argument, by rationalizing assumptions that have no generative logic behind them at all. Should we assume that faeries exist, simply because we haven’t ruled out that they do? Why, then, should we assume an all powerful deity exists? Because our history has documented interaction with this deity? But our history has also documented interaction with the dead, and with other deities – most of which have been revealed as superstitious nonsense. Why this one?
Suppose the universe is, as you put it, the product of some other event. We do not have the ability to study that event, so we cannot make assumptions about what that event is, or what exists beyond the boundaries of our universe. The flaw in your thinking is not that an external source of energy exists, but in your assumptions about what that external source must be. Volume, distance and matter itself are ideas we assume to be constant throughout existence, simply because they are constant within our universe. But it’s entirely possible that they are not constant outside our universe – and outside our universe may very well be beyond the limits of distance and time, which makes that concept beyond our immediate limits of understanding. Regardless of what that external influence is, with only 8% of the known universe even studyable from our vantagepoint, it is foolish to make assumptions about where it all came from, and doubly as foolish to assume that we knew more 4 millenia ago about our origins, than we do today.
@NikBv - Commie!
@JustAnotherNihilist - I’ll make it a bit easier in my rebuttal lol
Paragraph 1: evolution does the same thing. It just fills in the blanks of the missing links and folks try to pass it off as fact or scientific law. Creationism certainly does follow the scientific method: Ask a Question, Do Background Research, Construct a Hypothesis, Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment, Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion, Communicate Your Results. I will admit, the experiment step does seem to be the killer. However, in order for evolution and the “big bang” to hold water, the same must be accomplished, so any experiment that supports them would also support the ability of an entity to create life.
Paragraph 2: It’s not illogical. It’s just easily dismissed as I would be able to prove it wasn’t me. No one is saying that you MUST accept creationism/ID. Just that it should be explored. In your means of thinking, that would mean that all cancer research must stop as we cannot see the cure, nor does one seem likely. However, as much the possibility of no cure existing exists, we still search for that cure, and explore possibilities.
Paragraph 3: Now, you’re ASSUMING that things are not constant outside our universe. Interesting. It seems that you’re suggesting a theory that “conveniently fill with the assumptions their own theory makes without any rational reason for making those assumptions.”
Don’t ya hate it when ya do something you accuse others of doing?
@grim_truth - The truth is we don’t have the answer to that question. You can attribute it to a supernatural being if you wish, but I see no reason to believe that or jump to that conclusion. It’s ludicrous, for now the question remains unanswered, but we are searching. Quantum physics has proposed an interesting answer to that question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
A universe from nothing.
Also I’m no physicist, but I assume the universe is expanding into space or nothingness, which could easily be something.
@Donkey_Guy_10 - I think the way you like.
No. As several others have already said, separation was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. That seems to be a lie perpetrated by the atheists hellbent on forcing their views/beliefs/philosophy/whatever you want to call it on the rest of it. And that in and of itself would seem to be a violation of the “separation of church and state” theory, at least in spirit.
It does not.
And the TEA PARTY goes DOWN ,Down Down down down…..
omg I just looked at the huge argument on this site. Supreme court decisions based on the first ammendment have clarified over the years the intent of those few cryptic words! For a bunch of 20 year olds to debate it without context is kind of funny. Dan, left out the part that the two debaters were talking about Government mandating the teaching of creationism in schools. Yeah, just throw out all that scientific study that has proved we humans are the product of evolution that even the Catholic Pope has conceded to. ha ha. The tea party!
@Bushy_Tailed - Not having the answer is why all options, regardless of how silly you may think they are, need to be considered. If we only ever explore one answer, we will never have the true answer. Even then, when is the answer final? If scientists someday can simulate the way the earth was, then create life from “nothing,” some will say “see! Life can come from nothing!” While those like me will question that and say “actually, you just proved creationism is valid!” The only true way to prove it would be to observe a random non-controlled event that results in the creation of life. By simulating one, it merely validates creationism. The life created wouldn’t realize WHAT or WHO created it, just as we don’t. It’s really not that far fetched when you think about it.
I will reiterate that evolution should also be taught and explored. Suppressing one side of any argument is never a good thing.
This is why women should stay in the kitchen instead of running for office.
@JustAnotherNihilist - thank you
@grim_truth - obviously you did not look at the milluer-urey experiment
its really really cool! so do it ^^
@grim_truth - An experiment that successfully simulated the creation of life would take the human element out of it completely. It would only set up something that occurs in nature. It would be a simulation of the laws of nature. The life created wouldn’t realize what created it, because it would be simple life. Single Cell Organisms. You wouldn’t be able to say it was the Scientists who created the life because if set up correctly they wouldn’t be responsible. I understand what you are trying to say but it just doesn’t work. I’m trying to figure out a way to explain it to you with out coming of as patronizing.
@splinter1591 - They’re coming up with another experiment, I forget what it’s called, but I heard it on NPR awhile back. Not them personally, but it’s an experiment that seeks to find how life started. I think I’m going brain dead.
@grim_truth - you are right, our universe IS constant, hence we will all freeze to death.
@Bushy_Tailed - ^^
@quodmenutriut - It was actually originally written in the words chosen to keep the state out of religion. If it was unConstitutional for the federal government to establish a religion, then there was no risk that Christianity, namely protestantism, could ever be outlawed. On the flip side, however, it prevents the government from forcing said religion upon the masses, as well. ‘No law’ means just that, regardless of what the intent behind it may have been.
@my0nlyh0p3 - thank you for being smart lol
@grim_truth - Ridiculous prattle.
1. If you’re alluding to the idea that evolution is not a viable theory, or that it is somehow less or equal in viability to the idea of creationism, then you will be taken seriously when you present one shred of evidence to support the existence of a supreme being. The idea of intelligent design does not provide any evidence to suggest an intelligent designer. It suggests one out of hand, and provides as its evidence, an inability to explain the evidence that supports a competing theory. That is not science. Numerous experiments have been conducted within the confines of what is possible in support of evolution, to include carbon dating samples, examination of DNA, and studying the biology of species and their adaptations to the environments they live in. What sort of experimentation has been done to confirm the existence of an intelligent creator?
2. All avenues of discovery are being explored. Some have just shown more progress in the last 6000 years than others.
3. I did not assume anything. I poised a logical argument that destroys the premise of the entire Intelligent Design argument, because the “evidence” brought to support Intelligent Design builds on the assumption that existance as we know it can only exist in 4 dimensions – therefore anything entering those 4 dimensions must be caused by the supernatural. What lies beyond the boundaries of the universe and its 4 dimensions cannot be assumed without evidence to suggest it. Intelligent Design makes that assumption, and more. Conventional science doesn’t tolerate such amateur errata.
The First Amendment does not mention the “separation of church and state.” Also, it does not imply it, as so many have suggested. What it says is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” What this means is that the government isn’t allowed to make a law that disallows the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of it. It doesn’t mean that religion should stay out of the government, as the amendment only tells what the government is permitted to do, not religions (though, I personally believe religion needs to keep its fingers out of the government and politics).
I might also point out that most of the founding fathers were deists, who happen to have a thing about religion – you should go check it out. I wish people would stop saying that the U.S. is a Christian nation. It isn’t, and wasn’t started by a Christian majority either.
@NikBv - LMFAO.
@grim_truth - England endorses the Church of England as a state religion, and religious figures of that church have legislative power in the House of Lords because of it (take note that no other religion in England has that right). Even though they generally don’t use these powers, that is besides the point; it is in the law. The English head of state is the religious supreme governor, Queen Elizabeth II, who has constitutional powers to remove the government, ultimately by an unfounded divine justification. Popular belief may have it that England is a secular country, but by law it certainly isn’t. It is a Christian State. Last time the House of Commons tried to reduce the power of the House of Lords, guess what happened? Lords Spiritual blocked it! So to say England is not a religious state is ludicrous. One can expect that things were worse in England during the time of the USA’s independence. If I recall correctly, many people living in North America at the time were actually English refugees of religious persecution or descendents thereof.
Being completely ignorant of this history (only because I don’t think they are truly evil, just stupid), what the Tea Party and many Republicans want to do in the USA is endorse the Christian religion by introducing Christian laws with no foundation in reason, which instantly discriminates those who do not share that belief. This would have huge consequences, as you can pretty much argue anything if your justification is “Because god wants it”, which is incredibly dangerous. We see the consequences of such through out history. Yet some are eager to repeat the mistake.
What Jefferson was trying to get across in his letter was that worshippers of all religions (including those he was addressing) would be safe, because the government would not endorse a religion. The wall of seperation goes both ways! By endorsing a religion you are letting the church into the state. You have the Establishment Clause and the following Free Exercise Clause, which leaves no doubt that the intent was to keep both the state separate from religion and religion separate from the state. The topic may be ‘debateable’, but as I have seen you argued with others, even things that are clear cut are ‘debateable’, only because misinformed people exist (like the Tea Party movement and Republicans). This is one of those clear cut things.
@splinter1591 - obviously, I did, if you bothered to read my reply to it.
@Bushy_Tailed - The only true way to do it would be to merely observe it happening in nature on its own entirely. By even allowing humans to set it up, taints the resutls. I know it sounds rediculous, but the argument can be “well, if man can set it up to happen, what’s to say God didn’t?” Because it was supposed to have happened on a purely random event, even setting it up makes it not random. Because how do you prove something was random?
@JustAnotherNihilist - Then present one shred of evidence to support that life was a random event. That is also an impossibility. You’re talking about supporting evolution, not the creation of life. Those are two seperate issues.
But many of you are calling for the avenue of creation/intelligent design to stop being explored.
Let’s use your cat analogy in the way you look at teh beginning of life. I come home to find my cat dead from a broken neck. Must’ve just been a random cosmic event, since there are no signs or evidence of anyone else entering the home. The doors are still locked and nothing else is broken.
You did assume. You have no evidence of things not being constant outside our universe. You said, “But it’s entirely possible that they are not constant outside our universe – and outside our universe may very well be beyond the limits of distance and time, which makes that concept beyond our immediate limits of understanding.” That is making an assumption, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Basically, you’re saying, just because we don’t currently understand it, doesn’t make it so. Can’t the same be said of a divine entitity?
@Spectrophile - Again, the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people. I’m not saying anyone has to endorse a religion. And no, there is no seperation, otherwise public officials would not be sworn in. Maybe I’m having a brain fart, but name one law the Tea Party and Republicans are trying to implement that is a Christian only law, or a law that requires one to be Christian? Or a religious leader that has power in legislative manner? (Other than a minister who was ELECTED by the people?)
What is clear cut is that the Church cannot run the State and that the State cannot run the Church. However, what you seem to be implying is that members of the Church are not allowed to use their beliefs to guide them in how they make decisions pertaining to how the Nation should be run. If that is the case, then the State is running the Church, which is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
@grim_truth -
If I recall correctly, if public officials by law have to swear by
god (the US president certainly doesn’t have to by law, they just happen
to choose to do so), they aren’t endorsing any particular god,
just the idea of god in general. This is well within the realms of the
first amendment (as long as non-believers aren’t forced to do so, which I
recall is an issue in some states). You got to remember at the time
when these laws were written, it was a very rational position to hold
that some god(s) existed, due to how undeveloped scientific evidence was
concerning how things happen naturally (that is, without divine
influence). Even still, many deists of the time did not give their idea
of god any supernatural powers (if Thomas Jefferson is a good example to
go by), and very liberal deists thought that god was simply symbolic of
truth.
As for the brain fart, what occurred recently to bring out
people shouting ‘this is a Christian Nation’ from the woodwork again?
(it seems to come and go). The ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. If the US didn’t
allow the people to open the Mosque, it would be in direct violation of
the first amendment. A law against Islam is the state endorsing a
religious viewpoint. Who is one person against it being built? Let me
paraphrase our friend ‘I am not a witch’ Christine O’Donnell. She said
in relation to the Mosque “it is up to locals to decide what happens in
their community” clearly in support of the anti-Muslim protesters. This
goes against the idea of why federal laws exist in the first place. The
constitution prevents such tyranny of the majority (or at least is
supposed to). You got abortion, which many Republicans and Tea Party
people want to ban for religious reasons, and gay marriage, which is
currently illegal in the USA based on a extremely poor secular argument:
“Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman”. This is completely
ignorant of the fact the definition of what marriage has changed
throughout (and before) history, and obviously is a religious excuse for
an argument (as many European countries have no problem with legalising
it). Religious law makers want to force Intelligent Design into the
science class, when it is not even science, as has been repetitively
proven in the court of law. The support for Israel is no doubt fuelled
by religious lobbyists, considering Palestinian territories are
virtually prisons, and Jewish settlements go against international law
(as well as the actions against the recent flotilla being found
illegal). I could go on.
US law allows people to practice their
beliefs, but not to act on those that go against the law. An example of
this is that people can’t kill people because they think god told them
to. They’re free to believe god told them to kill people, but they
aren’t allowed to act on this belief! There was a famous court case in
the 19th century concerning this issue in the USA, forgot the name of it
unfortunately, but its often quoted in relation to the argument we’re
currently having. Anyway, legislators are not immune to it either. A
legislator may be guided by his beliefs, but they can’t make their
religious beliefs into law, as that would be acting on them. It goes
against the first amendment (endorsing a religion is a no-no). They have
to have an equivalent secular argument, even if its an extremely poor
one, as previously noted.
I’m detecting a pattern in the responses here. Those supporting O’Donnell tend to be rational, reasoned and articulate. Those opposing her tend to be immature, petty & sniping. The classic Conservative/Liberal dichotomy……
@grim_truth - look ur just being dumb now. Science is allowed to change. Theories are allowed to change. But you cannot argue that the miller urey experiment wasn’t significant.
I am 100% okay with theroies other then evilution being taught, but NOT if they have NO scientific value.
You can 100% teach IE in culture or history classes, but not in science, because it is not backed by science.
Palin lite.
@grim_truth - Now you’re being intentionally difficult. I’m going to write it really big, so you don’t miss it this time.
ARGUING THAT AN OPPOSING THEORY IS NOT POSSIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN.
Were that the case, I could argue that the theory of gravity can’t be possible, so it must be Darth Vader. It’s not science. It’s BS.
There are entire libraries of text on abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolution – a topic you’ve conveniently abandoned at this point) which provide all of the evidence that led scientists to their conclusions including experiments. Dismissal of this evidence STILL does not allow the theory of Intelligent Design to stand on its own. The abiogenic hypothesis does not mention an absence of a supreme being as evidence, it proposes an idea, and lines up experimental data to support it.
The probability of an improbable event occurring within a given volume rises exponentially with time and size. IE the birthday phenomenon. After 357 people are in a room, the chances that two people have the same birthday (which would be considered generally uncommon) are over 100%. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. For a universe of our size and age, if the generation of an amino acid is possible chemically (which all scientific evidence has proven that it is) then the probability over a given time that said event will happen at least once within a volume of this size, over hundreds of billions of years, is over 100%. Given this volume and timespan and the number of worlds we know to be able to support life, even within the 4% of the universe that we can see… the formation of said amino acid is probable enough to make abiogenic life a certainty.
You have spent the last 9 posts arguing semantics and skipping conveniently past the fact that you, as a proponent of a particular theory, cannot provide one shred of evidence for that theory that is not merely a tearing down of another theory. Even IF your ridiculous accusations of evolution AND abiogenesis AND conventional cosmology all being completely flawed were even remotely correct (which neither you, nor your alleged intelligent design ‘scientists’ have the authority to dispute, since you can’t possibly be an expert on all three areas) the idea still lends absolutely no credibility to the theory of intelligent design.
I assumed nothing when I said “we cannot assume all things are constant outside the confines of our universe”. Your manner of argument is inherently flawed, because it is based on the assumption that we know everything there is to know. Logic-non-grata. When you can provide a shred of evidence FOR intelligent design, that is not merely a dismissal of an opposing theory’s evidence, you will be taken seriously. But Intelligent Design has no evidence to stand on its own – it is merely a tearing down of opposing theory and a convenient substitution for its own ideas, which have no rational basis. And that’s why it isn’t being taught in schools.
Thee First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, but does not set up a separation of church and state in the sense that many people argue: that the State can not be at all involved in religion. That is an incorrect assumption.
The phrase comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to…uh, someone. Shit, I don’t know look it up. Anyway, in the letter he wrote that the constitution creates a “wall of separation between church and state.” Essentially, even if you are religious, you would want this. This assures that the government won’t establish Christianity OR…non-Christianity as its national belief, which seem to be the only group concerned about it. The government cannot tell you to not believe in your religion. Great, huh? But I guess that isn’t enough.
I’d like to offer THIS. As far as I’ve been able to discover, the constitution does not contain a specific mention regarding the relationship between the State (or states) and organized religion. Something to that effect does appear in the Declaration of Independence, and even though that is not a legal document, the “separation sentiment” has run strong through American culture almost since the nation’s conception. Had not the resistance to the establishment of a “state religion” not been so strong, we might now all be required to be Puritan, Protestant, Catholic, or adherents to the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I was raised in the Reformed Church of America, an of the Protestant church. I find these arguments that insist that the absence of specific language in the constitution makes the establishment of a national religion to be weak and odious. Should it ever happen that one faith or another should be sanctioned while others are excluded, I, for one, will strive against it in ever manner available to me. This repeated insistence could be seen as a push toward a second American Revolution, and the outcome of such an event would probably see the end of the United States of America.
@splinter1591 - I never said science and theories couldn’t change. Never said the experiment wasn’t significant. I just stated that there were some flaws with it.
ID is indeed backed by science. Just not in a way you care to see. The Miller-Urey experiment created building blocks for life. OK. Let’s accpet that. You argue that because of that, there is a case for spontaneous life. I argue that since it was done by a person, THAT would make it a case for creation. Think about what was said before, single-cell organisms wouldn’t realize they were made by us, because they lack that capacity. Isn’t it possible that we can’t realize we were made by something because we lack the capacity? Just because we can think, doesn’t mean we know all and can immediately solve all. If that were indeed the case, this discussion wouldn’t even be happening.
@JustAnotherNihilist - The bottom line is, no matter what I write, you read what you want to read. I never said that arguing that one theory is not possible makes the other theory plausible. Where you come up with that, damned if I know. However, you atheists seem to like to use that a LOT. Because it’s EXACTLY what YOU are doing. That and you simply make absurd connections. You also make false accusations. You say I abandoned evolution. This is absolute proof you don’t even read because on more than one occasion I have stated that evolution if FULLY PLAUSIBLE. Yet, you ignor those statements.
I never said amino acids wouldn’t form, but you are still ignoring the fact that it HASN’T BEEN PROVEN TO HAPPEN. Sure, if you put infinities in there, yeah, it’ll happen. If you put infinity monkeys in a room with infinity typewriters, one of them will eventually write the world’s greatest novel. But it doesn’t mean that it has happened.
Who said I’m a proponent of creationism/ID? I just said they are both theories, and since evolution is STILL A THEORY, they should be taught as well. THAT’S the argument here. But, in typical liberal fashion, instead of opening yourself to honest, open debate about anything, you would just rather see the opposing view squashed.
“”But it’s entirely possible that they are not constant outside our universe – and outside our universe may very well be beyond the limits of distance and time, which makes that concept beyond our immediate limits of understanding.”
Interesting… that sure as heck looks like you’re assuming something there.
You’re the one who is acting as if we know all there is to know, as you refuse to accept possibilities other than the theories you support.
Life spontaneously occuring also has no merit to stand on it’s own. Just because the building blocks of life have been shown to be possible to occur, does not mean life occurs. You have not shown where life can come from non-life. Yet, you still tout it as fact.
You seriously need to grow up and open your mind to views other than your own. I’m not saying accept them, but just open your mind and think instead of copy and pasting focal points of arguments.
@Spectrophile - This is where misguidedness comes in. No oen was saying there was any legal ground to stop the Mosque from being built. Many just felt it was in bad taste. They excercised another portion of the 1st Amendment in protest. To my knowledge, no legal procedings were set in place or filed to legally stop the Mosque. This then makes the argument invalid as they are protesting the Mosque, not petitioning the gov’t to stop the religious exercise of a group of people. They’re not saying “don’t worship in Islam!” They’re saying “hey, we think this is in bad taste, mind moving a bit over?” Of course, it is not being said in that polite manner. No different than those who attempt to stop the flag-pole circles of prayer. Christians stand against abortion for the same reason anyone stands against murder. It is merely a belief based on when life begins. Funny thing about that, even atheists agree that life began as cingle-cell organisms way back in the day. They just change the meaning to suit abortion. The definition of marriage has been around for ages. It is not something that Christians have suddenly jumped up and pushed. They only pushed back when pushed by gays who wanted to change it.
There are plenty of international law violations perpetrated by Palestine. Not to mention, the support of Israel is not only an intelligent strategic move, but a logistical one as well when looking at the turmoil in the entire middle east.
Then I guess we must begin to allow murder to, not? As it is against a Commandment. It is against the law because the consensus is that it is immoral. Yes, the consensus can change. The problem I have is that many out there (yes, on both sides) are pushing to change the consensus, instead of allowing the population to decide on it’s own. Atheists and such argue that murder is wrong, because as humans we have come to that agreement. However, if that were to change, we just allow it? Or do we really need something concrete to guide us?
No. The “separation of church and state” involves a different amendment, and even that is a gross misinterpretation. The Constitution says the government cannot pass laws in favor of any denomination. Essentially, it can’t form a state church like England has. It doesn’t mean religion cannot be part of government. If we really want to take that to its logical conclusion, we need to sandblast the Ten Commandments off the wall of the Capital and remove “In God We Trust” from our money.
@grim_truth - Let me repeat myself. Again. You have still failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support intelligent design that does not use a dismissal of another theory as its basis. Evolution, Abiogenesis, and Conventional Cosmology all have evidence, and thier theories are based on something of substance. You have just confirmed this by saying that it is entirely possible that these events could have occured, and then qualified them as equally probable with another theory simply because we have not proven that they DID occur – only that they could. JT has written an extensive post on why your brand of logic is fallacious – I recommend you read it.
The theory of intelligent design, has no substance. It is a straw man argument and nothing more. When you can provide a single shred of evidence that suggests the universe was created by a supreme being, you will be taken seriously. But there is no logical reason to think a supreme being created the universe, any more than there is to think faeries created the universe – neither can be disproven, and neither have any reason to suggest that they ever did occur, or could occur, given our observations. Perhaps the theory of faeries and faerydust should be taught in schools, since it cannot be disproven.
As purported, the reasons for viability of the theory of evoution are as follows. Transitional fossils suggest changes over time. The makeup of human DNA suggests mutations over time. The discovery of older and older humanoid remains, with skull cavities that appear with less and less volume the deeper we dig. Observation of adaptations in existing life, and new species that are found every day which are nearly perfectly adapted to their environment, despite the environment changing along with the better survival rate animals whose mutations give them any slight advantage, also suggest changes over time. Study of extinct species, whose age correlate perfectly with geographic and sudden climate changes, alongside evidence to suggest prosperity of species that were better suited for the new climate also suggest survival of the fittest. I am not here to educate you on the miriad of data availaable to back up the theory of evolution. Where is the miriad of data to back up Intelligent Design. Better still – where is the data to even remotely suggest intelligent design. You have failed to provide a single shred of data that suggests a supreme being – only torn down the arguments of three scientific theories that stand very well on their own, without providing any sort of substance that allows Intelligent Design to stand on its own.
That’s because there isn’t any. And that’s why your theory will not be taught in schools. I have now given you two full paragraphs of information on two scientific theories that do not lean on a perceived weakness of another theory to validate them. I have yet to see anything of substance about Intelligent Design that cannot be presented in support of faeries, dragons or smurfs. If your next response is not viable evidence to suggest, or support intelligent design that does not lean on the perceived weakness of another theory, we can assume you are nothing more than a blithering idiot who is emotionally upset about his/her religion being rightfully kept out of public eduction. Choose your next words wisely.
@JustAnotherNihilist - actually, I did present scientific evidence. However, yet again, you chose to ignore it, as it regarded creation, which is different than intelligent design. Go back, read my comments thoroughly, then we’ll talk. You claim that ID/creation is invalid becaue it realies on “faeries, dragons or smurfs” funny, because that’s exactly what big bang and evolution teach. That life magically came from nothing, and everything came from nothing, when scientifically, we know that to not be possible.
Again, read my comments for once, look at the evidence I presented then we’ll talk. Instead, you just prove you are nothing but a facist who is interested in nothing other than squashing those whose views differ from your own.
@grim_truth - Blithering idiot it is.
I asked no less than three times now, for you to provide a single shred of proof for intelligent design, that does not base itself on the inadequacy of another theory. I gave you two examples of what I was talking about – substance that does not prop itself on perceived weaknesses of other theories. I gave you two brief examples of theories that can stand on their own, and a synopsis of why. Instead of providing the missing substance for intelligent design (which should be grossly simple, if it is indeed the science you claim) you proceeded to provide AGAIN the same tired bullshit you’ve been spewing for the last two days. Leaning on the perceived weakness of competing theories, as if ANY inadequacy in those theories has ANYTHING to do with Intelligent Design. Using your logic, disproving abiogenesis would automatically mean that Darth Vader created the universe in his sleep. The dismissal of a competing theory has no bearing on your theory’s credibility. You, are exhibiting the the type of behavior expected of a moron who is told seventeen times “push the blue button”, but continues to push the orange one. All you had to do was provide a single shred of evidence to support Intelligent Design, the way I supported Evolution and Abiogenesis – without using competeing theories as a basis. If all Intelligent Design has lobbying for it are people like you, then it’s never going to be taken seriously.
@grim_truth - gravtiy is a theroy
@splinter1591 - Since gravity is just a theory, I think gravity should be taught in schools, along with Jedi theory – which is something I just made up. But it has science behind it, and gravity is stupid.
@quodmenutriut - You said it best.
@JustAnotherNihilist - A A A A A! ^^
Sorry, TheologiansCafe. I figure you get enough comments that you don’t even read these anyway.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. . . . Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?” . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington
Note the last line:
“ Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
@JustAnotherNihilist - ”there is no logical reason to think a supreme being created the universe, any more than there is to think faeries created the universe – neither can be disproven, and neither have any reason to suggest that they ever did occur, or could occur, given our observations. Perhaps the theory of faeries and faerydust should be taught in schools, since it cannot be disproven.”
Neither can abiogenesis be proven… also a “something out of nothing” theory. We can call it magic soup. The delicious irony is Evol. scientists (like Stanley Miller) exerting themselves in a laboratory trying to inject intelligence into a system under tightly controlled conditions in order to produce a materialistic First Cause. Somehow the idea of Intelligent design/ influence doesn’t seem to occur to them. Nevertheless no real success thus far. At least nothing beyond a few fragile amino acids which need to be removed from the hostile conditions they were “created” in order for them not to deteriorate instantaneously….
But this is good science
@grim_truth - How is it in bad taste unless you believe in guilt by association? Muslims and Extremist Muslims are entirely different things. Should we not allow a Christian Church to be built where Christian extremists have been active? Of course not. Sure, there was no lawsuit, but I again quote Christine O’Donnell concerning what she thinks local communities are allowed to do to minorities. She already thinks its law, that’s the disturbing part. It would be silly to disagree with the fact that many Republicans and Tea-Party people want a Christian Nation by law. If enough of them get in power, they’ll make it happen. Don’t be so naive to think they won’t. Stupid is, as stupid does. Once they learn the constitution is against their goals, they’ll replace it. They only need a super majority or something to do such, don’t they? ( Fortunately, I find such a scenario incredibly unlikely). You can’t say you haven’t heard murmurs of revolution. Its half the Tea Party’s catch cry. For a similar example, look at what a conservative absolute majority has done to the Texas Education Board. Nightmare.
Christian pro-life people are generally hypocrites. They could care less what happens to a human life after birth, except if someone mentions euthanasia. They’ll generally support war and capital punishment, which is very much anti-life. Jesus specifically said when dealing with the enemy that one turn the other cheek, remember. God is the one who judges, and we’re just supposed to unconditionally love each other until he does. Such cherry-picking of beliefs makes the religious abortion argument not worth my time. But anyway, my argument is that human life is no different from any other human life (human bone tissue, cancer tissue, sperm and ova etc) until we first perceive and by definition become human ‘beings’ at about the 23 week mark of pregnancy. Then abortion would be cruel because of the pain felt (and no, this doesn’t make murdering unconscious people all right, I’ve heard that one before). This is an argument founded in reason, as opposed to the ‘life begins at conception’ argument, which has no merit whatsoever. ‘Life’ began billions of years ago and ‘human life’ began about 200 thousand years ago, not in the mother’s womb this generation.
“The definition of marriage has been around for ages” Understand that this is a fallacious argument (just because something has been around for ages doesn’t make it right). Subordination of women, and the slavery of African people was around for ages too, for example. Anyway, laws against gay marriage were originally enforced in the western culture by Christian emperors in the 4th century. The law has stuck virtually unchanged since. So yes, it is a religious law because there is no good secular reason to stop gay marriage. Feel free to try.
Sure, violations go both ways in the Israel-Palestine conflict. My point is two wrongs don’t make a right. You help/punish both sides equally based on their actions. The US is loyal to Israel based solely on the historical divide between our cultures, the divide which has become mostly religious in nature. You won’t solve the conflict unless you bridge the gap, and treat everyone as equals. To solve the conflict, at least one party has got to be the standard bearer, not a hypocrite.
There is a secular foundation for laws against theft and unlawful killing/murder. I can guarantee you that punishment for murder and theft go back before human history. These laws do not originate from religion, as even other species of social animals punish those who commit crimes in their communities (by beatings and ostracism, etc). You need only look at wildlife documentaries to verify this. Hence you don’t need god at all, you need basic logic. Social animals have the basic cognitive function to realise in their own way of thinking “If this is done, that might happen”. In many cases, what they do may result in death, wiping their manner of thinking from the gene pool. Morality is therefore a survival mechanism, subjective to one’s environment. Any social animal culture that allows murder and theft probably wouldn’t survive for long, its that simple. Even nihilists understands that (they just don’t care). To argue that we need something as ‘objective’ as god(s) to enforce laws is not true. God is not objective. Not only has our idea of god(s) changed over time (and geographically with cultures all over the world), but people justify killing people by using the “god told me to” excuse all the time. God is a very subjective thing, hardly reliable to enforce laws. Rationality on the other hand is far more reliable. Any mention of ‘god’ in law could easily be replaced by the rational idea of truth. Unlike god, what is true in the natural world is supported by evidence.
I don’t know if you like these long-winded discussions, but it consumes a lot of my time. Feel free to have a last word in.
@bakersdozen2 - I HAVE JUST PROVIDED TWO ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS ON TWO OF THE THEORIES MENTIONED, WITH REGARD TO THE BASIS OF THESE THEORIES THAT ALLOWS THEM TO STAND ALONE – WHICH IS TO SAY, NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DISMISSAL, AND OR TEARING DOWN OF A COMPETING THEORY. NEITHER OF YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED IN PROVIDING A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT DOESN’T START WITH “WELL THIS OTHER THEORY CAN’T BE TRUE BECAUSE OF THIS”. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN FOR YOU FUCKING MORONS. DISMISSAL OF ANOTHER THEORY TO SUPPORT A COMPETING THEORY IS NOT SCIENCE. SO PROVIDE A FUCKING SENTENCE OR TWO ON WHAT EXACTLY IS THE SCIENCE BEHIND INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I swear, these fucking nimrods are about as thick between the ears as a fucking waterhead redneck hitting himself in the face with a hammer.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Again, read the comments, I gave evidence. By calling me an idiot, when I provided evidence proves you are either too ignorant, or too scared to engage in honest debate.
@Spectrophile - again, you’re making assumptions and placing things where I did not. Again, I will reiterate. No one is saying they CANNOT build one there. Many people are saying they shouldn’t. And yes, there’s been plenty of times where folks have said the same towards Christians. (For the record, I could care less where they build the Mosque, I was merely playing devil’s advocate).
But if enough atheists were to get into power, wouldn’t they want the banning of religion? There are plenty out there, and even here on Xanga, who have made that abundantly clear.
But using the reasoning of abortion being ok until pain is felt IS reasoning to kill anyone who is unconscious. You cannot place a condition on one thing, but not apply it to another. Again, it is merely defining a definition to suit a stance. There will never be an end to the debate on that issue. The only solution would have been to have had a solid definition on when life begins before abortion became an issue. Until time travel comes around, the debate will rage on.
There’s no good secular reason to stop animal cruelty, grave robbing, public nudity and lewdness, etc. Yet we do it. However, I was reading an article explaining WHY the state even gets involved in marriage. Basically, because the state has in interest in propagation. Which is why many other marriages are banned (cousins, some states bar those with syphilils or other VD). Then I came across these lines: “Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.” Wether you feel it’s valid or not, is another story, but it is a secular argument. (For the record, I believe, according to the 10th Amendment, that it should be up to the States individually)
The divide/loyalty isn’t based on religion at all, as far as the US is concerned. Islam actually believes Christ existed. Judaism does not. Not to mention, it was England, our greatest ally, who was backing Israel as early as the 1920s. (it wasn’t Isreal at that point, but the beginning stages. It was basically Jews buying land and refusing to sell it back to Arabs)
It’s irrelevant what happens in nature. They do what they do, including beatings and ostracism, to ensure survival of the species. Animals also kill each other over mates and territory, too. If I killed my competition when dating my wife, I’d still be in jail, however, in the animal kingdom, I may have been made leader.
Still, those arguments are irrelevant. As our constitution gurantees against prohibition of FREE EXERCISE of religion. Banning prayer on the loudspeakers before a football game is not constitutional, imo. Others aren’t forced to partake in the prayer. Yeah, they have to hear it. So? I have to hear the opposing team’s fight song. In both cases, I do not have to participate.
People forget how words have multiple meanings. It seems that when people read “respecting the establishment of religion” they’re taking it as “giving esteem to the entity that is religion” which is not what it means at all. It actually means “pass no law concerning the creation of mandated religion.” Banning abortion does not mandate religion. Neither does banning gay marriage, or the other myriad of things that folks think are part of the “Christian agenda.” And again, the argument that if enough Christians come into power, it would become a state religion, is as falliable as saying the same thing about atheists coming into power and banning religion.
Long winded discussions are fine with me. It gives me a chance to view the other side, which should always be done. They do become tiresome, but are educational if done in the right manner as you have.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Hey Brilliant! DNA IS evidence of intelligent design. The fact that NOT only have we NOT seen life emerging unaided by materialistic means; we can’t even create the simplest cell with the myriad of raw sources available to us under the most controlled conditions using the most intelligent and knowledgeable scientists at our disposal.
Of course living things adapt to their environment!!!!! They work within the frame work of the genome GOD created. Congratulations!!! you’re observing God’s creation in action. To suggest that life arose by random mutations ALONE takes quite a bit of faith given that the (genuine) beneficial mutations that DO occur are far outweighed by the deleterious ones. Fortunately for us, life was not guided by random chance. Which brings me to my next observation, we live in a world where we work with complex nonliving ordered systems (machines) that are designed and created. There is my observation of natural order for you; one of Intelligent Design and it’s repeated everyday in the most mundane ways. For example, the computer you’re using for the purpose of ”arguing” your point about unguided materialistic sources is anything BUT unguided, undesigned or random.
The fossil record, as abounding as it is, SUCKS as a support to Evolutionary theory. The Cambrian Explosion stands against the wealth of knowledge you provided in those
2 PARAGRAPHS!
Stephen C. Meyers explains the problem with your perspective on scientific theory; I.D theory and Evolutionary Theory. Watch it if you’d like… if not whatever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy0_Mn1s1xo
Finally, here’s my argument for I.D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTNnyZBegR8
Random unguided materialistic causes ~ Pffft!
There were no state run schools when the constitution was written and creationism was taught in all the colonies. Now we have state run schools where creationism is against the law to teach and congress is enforcing interpretations of the first amendment to enforce the prohibition of free speech based on the original intent for them to do otherwise. Hum??? And we buy it hook line and sinker. If congress can make no laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, how can they enforce laws against the free speech of established religions? . I’m sure someone out there can conjure up an answer to that one.
O’Donnell was correct and her opponents were wrong.
@grim_truth - BLITHERING. FUCKING. IDIOT. IT WAS A SIMPLE REQUEST. SUPPLY EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT DOES NOT LEAN ON PERCEIVED WEAKNESS OF ANOTHER THEORY OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
@bakersdozen2 - You have provided no evidence. You have said “we can’t explain this complexity, or reproduce it, therefore it HAS to be intelligent design”. Human beings cannot create gravity. Therefore it MUST be Darth Vader. Do you understand? Human beings cannot duplicate or reproduce something as complex and powerful as gravity. It has to be darth vader. There is no other explanation.
All you did was point out a GAP in human ability and claim it for Intelligent Design. You have NOT provided any evidence to suggest that an intelligent designer created anything – merely pointed at complexity and said, this complexity could not come from anything other than a supreme being. You, and grim_truth, are either complete idiots, or mentally disturbed. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER AS THE CAUSE OF COMPLEXITY.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Complexity in design does not have to rest on the weakness of evolutionary theory. Although, I will admit it beautifully highlights the silliness of a strictly materialistic First Cause. What it does do, as I pointed out earlier, is underscore one of the fundamental applications of the scientific method; observation ie. all complex systems that we observe to come into existence have a designer and do not arise apart from intelligent application. Your example of gravity is no different then that of DNA. It’s not something we have observed to come into existence. In fact, I think we’d both agree on this: * gravity predates life*. So both DNA and gravity would fall into the category of ”How did “pre-existing” physical laws, raw material and biological systems arise?”
Having said that here’s my assessment:
I.D. scores in the area of observation (at least in application, reproducibility) Abiogenesis scores nothing. (no application or reproducibility)
In regards to your demand for evidence….. If your looking for the type of proof that can only be provided through eye witness testimony or that which could be secured via surveillance camera, I think both Theories might be out of luck.
@grim_truth - He’s being mean to you!
@bakersdozen2 - All you’ve done is pointed at complexity, and said “this could not have occurred through any other means” with absolutely no means of backing such presumptuous nonsense up. The intelligent designer is an ASSUMPTION based on an inability to explain complexity – an inability that tells more of your lack of intelligence than any gap in scientific theory. Complexity can, and has already been, proven to occur through natural means over billions of years. It’s been observed, studied, documented, restudied, re-documented, re-observed, You are about 40 years behind science, and 20 years behind the intellectual maturity of people your age. What Intelligent Design DOESN’T have going for it, is the apparent RANDOMNESS and lack of ORDER in the universe, which is something you’d expect to see from something intelligently designed.
Furthermore, to assume something is intelligently designed, is to assume it has a purpose. You have no grounds to assume that the universe has a purpose. A soda can, is intelligently designed. It’s no more complex than it needs to be to serve its purpose, it’s perfectly suited for that purpose, it’s made of the perfect materials available, to serve that purpose, and we do not observe anything so elegantly simple to occur in nature. Any universe created by an intelligent designer with the laws of physics at his disposal would look far different. Human beings, for instance, would not have appendices, tail bones, they would not require 18 years to mature, they would have longer lifespans, they would be better suited for their environments, and there would be no unnecessary suffering. The universe would be 1% the size it is, there would be no black rock planets, no supernovas, no cancer, no radiation, no atomic weapons – at the very least, this “intelligent designer” is grossly incompetent. We see nothing intelligent about the universe. It appears, for all intents and purposes, to be unintelligently designed – or intelligently designed to appear unintelligently designed.
And there is still no reason to assume an intelligent designer. Shortcomings in your ability to understand how complexity can come about without intelligent design, do not support the theory. They only support my own theory, that you and grim_truth are blithering idiots with absolutely no data to backup your theory at all – simply a straw man argument, a stubborn disposition, and jackass-like tenacity that wears into your opponents patience until he realizes he has a real job and gives up.
@JustAnotherNihilist -
“It’s been observed, studied, documented, restudied, re-documented, re-observed, You are about 40 years behind science, and 20 years behind the intellectual maturity of people your age. What Intelligent Design DOESN’T have going for it, is the apparent RANDOMNESS and lack of ORDER in the universe, which is something you’d expect to see from something intelligently designed.”
REALLLLLY? How so? Is this going to be more circular reasoning from you? Like: *Complexity is observed via already existing material systems therefore it proves that systems arose from purely materialistic means.*
Sorry, but you can’t use your interpretation of existing systems to prove evolution. You need to start citing these ”observed, studied, documented, restudied, re-documented, re-observed findings you keep insisting on. Last I heard Evol. scientists were still trying to create life in the lab and still not being very successful at it. But I’m happy for you to link any of these studies…. so link away.
“Furthermore, to assume something is intelligently designed, is to assume it has a purpose. You have no grounds to assume that the universe has a purpose”
This is a philosophical question; not a scientific one. I’m not going to be diverted from your previously poor argument into another one of your poor arguments.
“Not only support my own theory, that you and grim_truth are blithering idiots with absolutely no data to backup your theory at all – simply a straw man argument, a stubborn disposition, and jackass-like tenacity that wears into your opponents patience until he realizes he has a real job and gives up.”
This highlights my advice to you on an ealier post. Strangers on the internet have little concern over the personal opinions of those who use temper tantrums as a method of argumentation. Why you would think that we would care about your assessment of anyone’s intelligence when you behave like a 2 year old deprived of his binky at nap time?You’re beginning to look like …… JustAnotherNarcissist.
Chill, Dude. :D
@bakersdozen2 - Yes. Frustration is a natural byproduct of dealing with people who can’t grasp the fallacious nature of their very broken internal logic. You’ve run through 7 opportunities to show otherwise, and all you’ve done is confirm my assessment by repeating yourself over, and over, and over again, with the same flawed logic. Here is what you’ve presented as evidence to support the idea that an intelligent designer created the entire universe.
1. It’s complex.
2. We can’t duplicate it.
3. You don’t understand how competing theories arrived at their conclusions.
Yes. Obviously, you have a bright future in science. The fact that you frequently interchange abiogenesis and evolution as if they’re the same thing is quite telling on exactly how little you know about either.
@JustAnotherNihilist - You do realize that there are many people far better educated then yourself who disagree with your own particular view of science, religion and philosophy. Given that, I’d hazard a guess that you’re frustrated quite often.
Actually, I don’t have any future in science but I have personally educated 3 scientists (2 Pre Med and one Med student) that have a very bright future in the field!! :D
@bakersdozen2 - You aren’t one of them. I know the difference between ‘then’ and ‘than’. I also know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. If you’re an educator, you’re a poor one. I don’t really care how “many” people better educated than myself disagree with my views. While I sympathize with the Discovery Institute’s epic failure in ramming Christianity down the throats of children through a failed attempt to redefine “Science”… A lab coat and microsope, do not a scientist make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
@JustAnotherNihilist - You can “sympathize with epic failure”? Well, that was a clever line! :D
You’re insults on intelligence and self congratulatory remarks are in direct proportion to your poor argumentation. Who doesn’t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Clearly you must have a PhD in the patently obvious. ;^❥
@bakersdozen2 - You, throughout this thread, have interchanged big bang, abiogenesis and evolution. You view them as a common enemy. Not uncommon for someone as uneducated and ass backwards to lump all your enemies into one bucket. I also know the difference between ‘empathize and sympathize’. As well as the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’. If you’re part of the public school system, I’d like to know which school, so I can have you fired. By all means, keep talking. It only proves my point.
@JustAnotherNihilist - You could have me fired? Hmmm, Now I’m almost certain you’re a narcissist.
Big Bang(?) abiogenesis, evolution, I’ve discussed those things within their (there they’re)* context. Nice try though
At any rate, this is a common ploy used by those losing an argument on…… a….. blog. (I think it’s about time things were put in perspective here)
I’m happy to know (no) you understand the difference between sympathize and empathize. Your (you’re) ability to differentiate between the two (2, to, too)* does not make the line any more clever Btw, I was being facetious. (ie. it wasn’t really clever)
And you’ll have to talk to my husband if you want me fired. (I’m a homeschooling Mom, Sherlock) But after all your flowery words towards me; my husband is more then (than)* willing to talk to you. In fact he’d just love to meet you in person. :D
”
By all means, keep talking. It only proves my point.”
I think I might do that. Watching you get so dialed is kind of entertaining. You’re head is dangerously close to exploding from either unbridled rage or raw egotism.
* meets Strunk and White standards for……. blogs
The separation between church and state is an interpretation of the first amendment that has grown into it’s own entity over the years. If those who wrote it, meant it the way that our current culture is reading it they wouldn’t have included God in the pledge of allegiance or on our money. The amendment really only says that the State won’t be run by a religion or that no religion will be outlawed. It’s grown into the outlawing of religion in many places. The writers of the constitution must be turning over in their graves…
@bakersdozen2 - It figures someone as stupid as you would be unemployed, and “home schooling” your children, so you can maintain a measure of control over how much reality they’re exposed to. When I stop laughing about your self-certification as a “home school” and your assertions that evolutionary scientists are attempting to recreate abiogenesis in a lab, I’ll be sure to continue to address you as the worthless stain you really are.
The fact that you are so grossly disconnected from reality speaks volumes about how viable your wild ideas about science really are.
“Homeschooling mom”. Genuine educational success. For sure. All the brightest scientists are home schooled. It’s how they share ideas with other people. Through family circle-jerks around a bible.
@JustAnotherNihilist - I can only imagine how thoroughly charming you must be in real life. Do you inflict yourself on other Xangans in this way? I’m certain someone would have decked you long ago if you treated a lady like this in person. The internet, unfortunately, is very “safe” for people like you. I do wonder if your behavior is an outcropping of your nihilistic philosophy or just a poor upbringing….. or perhaps both. But whatever, I think it’s time people stood up to bullies like you.
So, here I am.
But I wouldn’t worry your pretty little head over my children’s education. Their manners, civility and education far exceed your own (if the comments you’ve left and the behavior you’ve displayed are representative…. which I suspect they are). Apparently they’ve faired very nicely (by all secular standards) in spite of my teaching. Once again, strangers on the internet don’t define reality. This is solid advice and will keep you from continuing to over inflate your own perspective and opinion. Take it or leave it. :D
@bakersdozen2 - Finally, you admit something that resembles the truth. You CAN only imagine. Reality is too much for your fragile little mind. Just so you know, I don’t concern myself with what assumptions the clinically brain damaged make with regard to my character. People like you are an enemy of truth. And i could give a shit how offended you are. Ignorance deserves no compassion. And neither do its representatives.
@JustAnotherNihilist -
*camps out on Dan’s post*
”I don’t concern myself with what assumptions the clinically brain damaged make with regard to my character. People like you are an enemy of truth. And i could give a shit how offended you are. Ignorance deserves no compassion. And neither do its representatives.”
You don’t care what people think? NO. WAY. :D
Howeverrrrrrr…….. people like you deserve to have attention brought to them so I’m not going to go away. Sorry.You see, you don’t need me to make your life miserable; you seem to be doing that pretty well on your own.
I’ll just keep responding to your comments until you:
a) slink away b) dissolve in the puddle of acrimony you wallow in. c) implode from your self inflated sense of superiority d) apologize like a real man (I’m not holding my breath on this one)
I’ll chat with you later, Friend!!
@bakersdozen2 - Oh, thats right. You think you’re actually accomplishing something here. That you haven’t just been beaten to a pulp with fact and logic, and you didn’t just get your intellectually retarded ass handed to you about intelligent design (which you have still failed to support) and that I didn’t just tear your entire argument to shreds. That the more you talk, the more it brings to light your simpleton roots and ass backwards logic. I forgot, you pissants pride yourself in being delusional asshats with more tenacity than intelligence. Let me know how that works out for you.
@JustAnotherNihilist -
That you haven’t just been beaten to a pulp with fact and logic, and you didn’t just get your intellectually retarded ass handed to you about intelligent design (which you have still failed to support) and that I didn’t just tear your entire argument to shreds.
Yep! You’re right! I’m not under the same delusion that you are (that you kicked my butt etc etc). It is starting to occur to you that not everyone shares the same assessment of your own intellectual prowess and abilities. Congratulations!!
But unfortunately, realizing people don’t share in your wild self adoration seems to make you very angry; so I’m not sure there’s much hope for you. Also, have you noticed that I don’t mind sticking this out? Could it be your insults and your opinion might not matter??? hmmmm
Once again:
a) slink away
b) dissolve in the puddle of acrimony you wallow in.
c) implode from your self inflated sense of superiority
I’ve removed d) as an option……… It doesn’t appear your “equipped” for that one.
@JustAnotherNihilist - OOoopsey ”You’re” ;)
@bakersdozen2 - Yes. Continue to prove me right. People like you constantly treat reality as if it were a democracy. You have ignored facts for three days. No reason to assume you’d stop now. You failed at supporting ID. You’ve failed at defending your intelligence. You’ve failed at argument. You’ve failed at becoming a viable member of the professional workforce. You’ve very likely failed at parenting. And now you’re failing at knowing when to cut your losses and give up. Much like the rest of your silly religious cult. It should bother the hell out of you that despite your best efforts, success is still out of reach. But my guess is, its easier for you to bullshit yourself into changing the definition of success to meet your pathetic needs. Reality. Just a suggestion. I take solice in the fact that throughout your lifetime, your silly ideologies will continue to be forced to the ass end of society where they belong.
@JustAnotherNihilist -
Ooooo a god complex too….. nice. Well, I’ll get back to ya later, Buddy. I’ve got to continue my pathetic parenting skills! :D
Btw, is this a typo? ”to cut your losses an give up”
“an give up”??
Could this be a sign of mere mortality? Don’t think about it. It’s too disturbing…
@bakersdozen2 - Thus, completing the religious internet shitbag cycle your counterparts have been engaged in for years. Start an argument with no facts. Declare your belief as equal footing with reality. Ignore requests for proof to back up your arguments. Demand proof/evidence/support for the oponent’s case. Receive an intellectual ass-whipping. Dismiss the opposition’s case and shift focus to personal (as if disposition has anything to do with being right). Continue to fight over nothing relevant until 90% of the audience is bored and/or the opppsition realizes you’re batshit crazy. Declare victory.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Speaking of B.S. crazy. My husband’s official diagnosis of you is that you’re a paranoid schizophrenic on the verge of a psychotic break. If you were in his ER he’d give you 20mg of Haldol and 2mg of Ativan I.M. But if you were anywhere else, well………..
In other words, you. are. certifiably. nuts.
I personally think you live in your Mother’s basement because there’s just no way you’re a functional member of society. In fact, I’m wondering if they provide internet access in state penitentiaries these days? One thing’s for sure, you don’t have a job. You would have been fired your first day… or strangled by some (merciful) co worker. That is if you managed to make it through the day before doing your own strangling (you really are scary, you know?)
Btw, do you really think that there is an “audience”? (also, very scary)
A small sample of concerning quotes and evidence of your mental pathology:
“Thus, completing the religious internet shitbag cycle your counterparts have been engaged in for years.”
“People like you are an enemy of truth.”
“Ignorance deserves no compassion. And neither do its representatives.”
I won’t go into your invective that somehow you’ve confused with clever retort. And yes, I understand that you think you are the Xanga equivalent of Stone Cold Steve Austin having opened your can of rhetorical “whoop ass”. You’re a bigger fake than WW wrestling. And that’s really saying something.
@bakersdozen2 - You had to go get some support, then. Another sign of desperation. Did you make up all these imaginative things yourself, or did you ask for help? The delusions just don’t stop with you, do they. You believe a dead jewish zombie was sent on a suicide mission from a bearded invisible man to save humanity from itself, and I’m certifiably nuts. Whatever keeps you from hanging yourself.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Get support? Are you kidding? My husband’s been reading your rantings from the very start. (I’ve been restraining him from commenting) He’s awesome!!
Yes, I do believe in God, Jesus, and the Resurrection.
And you believe in magic soup, right?
@bakersdozen2 - Deferral. Another sign of desperation. ”Magic soup” is a straw man argument for… what, exactly… abiogenesis? Which of science’s theories are you attacking this hour, with the elegance and sophistication of a 9 year-old?
@JustAnotherNihilist - ummmm, the one that has no evidence. abiogenesis, of course.
Still waiting on those links you said you had, btw. remember the multitude of studies and restudies etc etc.
@bakersdozen2 - Still waiting on you to support intelligent design with a single shred of evidence that doesn’t lean on the perceived weakness of a competing theory. Until then, I’ll just assume you’re content with hucking monkey shit and making wild, unfounded assumptions about my lifestyle, professional success and mother. Since that’s what people like you do when they’ve been hit with the logic stick. This conversation has taken place at least 10000 times on Xanga with every other nut job creationist. You’re nothing new. Evidence won’t shut you up, and you don’t want it anyway – otherwise you’d visit a library.
@JustAnotherNihilist - You don’t have any, huh?
@bakersdozen2 - Visit a library. I’m not under any obligation to go fact-hunting for a fucking moron like you, who will dismiss it without reading it anyway.
EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You’re the one with the silly belief structure. For all I know, the universe was sneezed out of a giant bull mastiff. Regardless, abiogenesis is a viable scientific theory, and intelligent design is not.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Actually, I’m really not here to read what you, in all honesty, can not produce.
The only reason I’m camping at Dan’s is to stand up to a foul mouthed internet bully like you. I’m not into passively wearing purple ribbons. I believe that if Xangans stood up to folks like you, you might change your behavior or perhaps go away entirely, if you aren’t capable of self control.
You see, there are a lot of people in this community (Xanga community) who don’t agree with each other. Most of them don’t resort to the type of language and behavior you’ve displayed. Everyone loses their temper every once in awhile; but you’ve been consistently cranky… in fact, down right cholicy at times. And I’m not putting up with it.
So, no. I’m not going away until you start treating people with respect.
@bakersdozen2 - So you admit to being stupid on principle.
Perhaps you should learn how to read. I never offered “links” to “prove” abiogenesis. What I said was…
Complexity can, and has already been, proven to occur through natural means over billions of years. It’s been observed, studied, documented, restudied, re-documented, re-observed, You are about 40 years behind science, and 20 years behind the intellectual maturity of people your age.
COMPLEXITY. Do you know what that is? Here’s a few links you will ignore.
http://asweknowit.ca/evcult/Complexity.shtml
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.long
And a lovely write-up on why Intelligent Design is not science.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html
@JustAnotherNihilist - I’ve already addressed Stanley Miller’s fragile amino acids. Back to my last comment that you’ve ignored, you are being a rude person and while I may be made of teflon there are many others who are not. You need to be a human being and change your behavior.
@bakersdozen2 - Read them all already? You just keep on proving me right. Nasty habit.
I DONT CARE IF YOU THINK I’M BEING RUDE. FRAUDULENT SCIENCE, SPREAD OF IGNORANCE, AND THE PERPETUATION OF BAD IDEAS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE RESPECTED.
And as a proponent of these concepts… neither do you.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Actually, I do care which is why I’m here. I don’t know why you’re here. You’ve stated you don’t care yet; you continue to reply to someone you don’t care about being rude to. That’s fine. I do care about how rude you are to others though. Bullies are not selective with their hate. They are an equal opportunity distributer.
@bakersdozen2 - I’m here because it bothers you. And every moment you’re wasting your time here with me, is a moment you are NOT out spreading bad ideas and ridiculous rubbish about the farce that is Intelligent Design.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/02/02/intelligent-design-is-not-science-and-should-not-take-the-place-of-evolution-in-the-classroom.html?PageNr=1
@JustAnotherNihilist - Oh but you’re mistaken. I’m getting ready to go to bed soon. I have no problem continuing with my life. You’ll be here (I suspect) when I check back tomorrow. Lord willing!!!
Btw, that article you just linked (though you said you don’t link articles) looks like a perfect example of what’s wrong with the whole liberal interpretation of the non existent “Separation of Church and State” clause.
And don’t worry about me wasting my time with you. I don’t mind chatting with you because my God (Jesus Christ) doesn’t view people as worthless. You can think about that tonight. It’s a concept worth considering.
Good Night, JustAnother!
@bakersdozen2 - Right. All of the relevant scientists are wrong about what science is, and all of the non-scientists are right. You’re just another idiot. No education. No intelligence. No insight. And what’s most astounding is not your tenacity – most complete morons make up for their intelligence with tenacity – it’s that you fail so miserably to see that this has all taken place before, and your side lost. Tell me, do you fly a confederate flag too?
http://www.jewcy.com/post/intelligent_design_creationism_immoral_fraud
“If you can’t argue for your position on intellectual grounds, try politics. If you can’t succeed with legitimate political argument, resort to ad hominem attacks. ”
There’s a reason your brand of science was given the dry heave. Because it isn’t science. And what you’re doing… ignoring the links you asked for… is the reason I don’t give links. You chose to ignore them, in support of your own pathetic ideologies. All very predictable.
@bakersdozen2 - And yes, I understand that you think you are
the Xanga equivalent of Stone Cold Steve Austin having opened your can
of rhetorical “whoop ass”.
Not hardly. Steve Austin at least is entertaining. Plus I believe he could actually “whoop ass,” unlike the the fellow you’re debating.
in all honestly, there is nothing in the constitution specifically saying “separation” of “church and state”… at least not in those words, so ‘technically’, she’s right, though today’s interpretation of that law is summed up and commonly known as the ‘separation of church and state”…
as for the actual law, you gotta understand where/why it came into being.. our forefathers didn’t want a state that used religion for its own purpose as did past/current/future monarchs, theocracies, and governments to oppress its own people, using religion as a ‘justification’. think crusades, for an example.
so that clause was created to keep the state out of religion and its expression of said religion.
as for the actual candidate… i’ve still not made my mind up about her. It’s kinda like vice pres. Biden, he isn’t very smart when it comes to public speaking, yet, I honestly believe he’s a pretty smart, good guy, even if i don’t agree with some of his politics. in the same way, I’m not sure if she’s as idiotic as the press keeps making her seem or she’s just really bad at public speaking.
i’ll keep my reservations about that one.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that there is a “separation of church and state.” And it has done so on more than one occassion. It cited the 1st Ammendment as the source of its ruling. The framers of the Constitution created a document not to answer every question, but to guide the three branches of government in addressing issues as the country grew. A literal reading of the Constitution would ban firearms from all but white/ land owning/ men in a true organised militia. It would not allow women to vote. Every five negroes would count as 3 people for population count purposes only, and they could not vote. And so many other things we knopw would not exist constitutionally.
Perhaps MS O’Donnell should take a few history and civics courses about how our laws are made before trying to become a lawmaker.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Good afternoon, JAN!
“There’s a reason your brand of science was given the dry heave.”
Yes, you’re right there is a reason that I.D. is a bitter pill to swallow. Many scientists are deeply committed to a strictly materialistic First Cause. But it has nothing to do with the preponderance of the evidence because there isn’t any. Abiogenesis is really the only show in town for those married to the notion that man is the measure of all things. It certainly isn’t because abiogenesis enjoys any support whatever. Let me repeat once again; there is no evidence. Life springing spontaneously from non living material has never been observed. Stanley Miller’s attempts to recreate it in a lab were an utter failure. Those suggesting an “RNA world” theory have created an even bigger problem for themselves. Abiogenesis stands today because it’s the only trick in town (pardon the metaphor). Other than Francis Crick’s notion that life possibly came from another planet; there’s really no other place to go unless it’s to God. And some people are very resistant to the idea of being displaced by a higher form of intelligence. Just look at how worked up you’ve gotten over the matter. You’ve so spent you’re arsenal of insults you’re starting to repeat yourself. :D At any rate, these “relevant” scientists have cleverly skewered themselves with their own Demarcation Criteria.
On the matter of responding to your replies, should you choose to continue, I’ll be limiting my responses to one per day. This is not a reflection of your worth but a matter of my time and the worth of others… like my family. Tomorrow starts another school day and though this may surprise you; time and effort are required. I’ve found that internet bullying is a luxury enjoyed by those whose aversion to gainful employment is handsomely rewarded by federal subsidies; consequently time is not an issue for them.
“Tell me, do you fly a confederate flag too?”
I’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. Perhaps it’s a springboard for you to convince me that you’re a “Principled Nihilist”. This would be against all evidence to the contrary. I would sooner see you having supported the efforts in Andersonville then serving the cause of Abolitionism. But if you must know, my ancestors did not live in the U.S. during the Civil War……. and FYI, it’s over and the South lost. That’s about all I have to say about your little attempt at distraction.
Now, let the next round of unimaginative insults begin. I’ll be back tomorrow!
@Simian_Musings - lol! I know. He’s the reigning champ of internet Smack Down, isn’t he? *rolls eyes*
@bakersdozen2 - And again. You FAIL MISERABLY at supporting intelligent design. That entire three page diatribe was nothing more than hole-punching in everything NON-intelligent design. And that’s all it really is. NOT SCIENCE. Where is the substance? What part of all of this bullshit actually SUGGESTS a creator, rather than ASSUMES a creator, simply because there is no currently existing explanation? Does it exist? I can sit here all day and poke holes in the god theory. That’s not science either. You, a non-scientist, are nothing more than a blithering idiot challenging the work of people far more intelligent than you are.
@Simian_Musings - This isn’t a debate. It’s some fucking moron claiming to know better than the world’s brightest scientists about science, while failing basic reading comprehension.
@JustAnotherNihilist - Well, actually having read what these “brilliant scientists” have written in their little journals on the subject, they’re hardly united in their views on the subject and even they admit much of what they “know” on the subject is conjecture, not fact. Scientist on both sides of the argument (and there are brilliant ones on both sides, not just the one) openly admit there is vastly more they don’t know than what they do. So I hardly believe that a bunch of non-scientists on Xanga are going to succeed with insults, profanity, and put-downs what these scientists have failed to do in the laboratory.
Simple truth of the matter is both Creationism in all it’s forms and evolution in all it’s forms is simply theory. There is not a “Law” of Creationism any more than there is a “Law” of Evolution. Neither can do what is necessary to bridge that great final divide. They can’t take either theory into a laboratory and either create life via random chance nor get God to come in and create it again. So you’re left with the choice of either believing that a bunch of inert chemicals accidentally joined together to begin the process of becoming us or we are the result of supernatural intervention of some kind. Essentially it’s a matter of what one better fits your worldview, not one of either side being able to prove there position in a convincing manner.
Frankly, nothing is resolved in the situation by degenerating into name calling and insults. In my opinion, that’s the sign of a losing argument, not a superior one. And the use of profanity doesn’t make it any stronger, it makes one sound like a petulant child with no manners. I’d suggest a collective counting to ten and taking a deep breath before continuing.
@Simian_Musings - Wrong. There are no scientists on “both sides” of the argument because Creationism is not science, or theory. It is pseudoscience. It cannot be empirically disproven, therefore it is impossible to test. Any idiot can make up a theory that cannot be empirically tested, and point at perceived weaknesses in existing theories as “evidence” to suggest their own completely unfounded ideas. That is not science. It’s simply another creative means of ramming Christianity down the throats of children. There is no evidence to suggest an intelligent designer. There is no evidence to suggest a “god”. And history itself is a damning truth for moronic biblical literalists who think that book is anything more than a bunch of stories. Frankly, I see no way to reason with you brain damaged idiots. You’ll cling to your mythology no matter how delusional it is.
@JustAnotherNihilist - First, I’d suggest you do a little research before you open your mouth and demonstrate you’re more of a brain damaged fool than the believers you have such contempt for. Practically every major scientific discipline was founded by Bible believing Christians. So I guess being “brain damaged” isn’t an inhibition to being a scientist, eh?
Second, exactly how can life occurring by random biological processes be “empirically disproven” or even tested. So by your definition, it can’t be science either. So tell me, who is the greater “idiot.” The person who believes in a deity of some sort or the one who worships at the alter of chance.
Ever hear of Michael Behe. You know, holds a doctorate in biochemistry. One of the scientists who believe in intelligent design. Teaches at Lehigh University. Tell me, what college are you a professor at, and what exactly are your scientific credentials in this area. Behe makes a reasoned argument for his theories based on his observations and experiments (which for the record, I don’t necessarily buy into), your arguments consist mainly of pronouncements we’re supposed to accept because you say so and name calling. Just wondering, but which in your opinion is the more credible argument?
@Simian_Musings - Funny that you order me to do research, when you’re the one advocating fraudulent science.
1. I’d ask where you are citing this reference that every major scientific discpline was founded by “Bible-believing Christians”, but I doubt you’d be able to provide me with the data. The challenge is of little relevance. 99% of the population believed the world was flat at one time. Science and faith have always been at odds. It is always religion that has been forced to compromise on its beliefs to fall in line with the findings of science. And now (in the 21st century) less than 1% of relevant scientists (which is to say – scientists that meet the actual definition of scientist) entertain the idea of intelligent design or creationism as a viable. But I’d be interested in where you’ve done your research (hint: the discovery institute is not an accredited scientific body, nor has it produced any tangible results from its ‘experiments’). A battle with reality is easy to wage. Difficult to win.
2. You theological types really have the cards stacked against you. You can’t even distinguish between separate theories. If you’re talking about Macro-Evolution and Abiogenesis, they can absolutely be empirically disproven – unfortunately, what we’ve been finding has only further supported it. Discovery of species that pre-date their suggested period of evolution would empirically disprove Macro-Evolution. For instance, if we found remains within a dig site, that had all the characteristics of modern humans but carbon dated to the age of dinosaurs, and showed up in the same fossil record. But what we find is that the further we dig, the further from modern species the remains we find appear to be. A new species could be discovered that does not have DNA in common with anything that exists today, which would mean it had no evolutionary ancestors and thus, could not have evolved. We could, in our research, find a fully grown house cat that predates our estimate for the first complex organisms. Another empirical disproof would be to find a planet with fully grown human beings on it, since… if life evolved here, we couldn’t possibly have evolved there. And to say that ”life happened by chance” is an admission of complete ignorance of both Abiogenesis and Evolution. You obviously know nothing about what you’re talking about. In a universe of this size and age, given the right conditions life is not just a possibility – it is a certainty. But I don’t claim that to be ultimate truth. I just claim it to be better science than the assertion that an invisible man built the entire 4 billion galaxy universe.
3. Yes, I have. And as previously stated, the discovery institute has already been revealed as fraudulent science. His own university has stated that his views are his alone, and not in any way endorsed by the university. And I quote.
“It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.”
Exactly what “credentials” would you like me to present? You’ll call foul on any claims of education or accreditation I make, just on principle, and were I to provide any sort of verifiable identity, you’d likely make an angry call to my employer about your distaste for my behavior. My views on your idiocy are not endorsed by my employer. I see no reason to bring them into the fold. But my definition of science is. It’s always in you types to turn a logical debate into a personal one. And I reiterate – you have still failed to provide a single shred of evidence to suggest an intelligent designer. So let’s stay on topic, shall we? Intelligent Design is not science.
@Simian_Musings - Oh dear…. I just checked back here. I had no intention of you getting entangled in this. I’m so sorry!!!
@JustAnotherNihilist - I think my idea (several comments back) of you meditating on something profitable was a very good idea. So here it is: ”if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved…”
And every response from here after will be scripture. You can consider it; or not. That’s your decision. But all you’re going to get from me is scripture.
@bakersdozen2 - Hey, he started it. I didn’t intend to get involved to this extent.
@Simian_Musings - Yeah, I know. But I feel responsible and I’m sorry.
@bakersdozen2 - Because you’re a moron. And that’s what you morons do, when you run out of intellectual ammunition. Break out the book, and lob irrelevant propaganda from 2000 years ago at their enemies. You think hurling “scripture” at me is going to support your case? If that’s the best you can do, you may as well admit defeat right now. You’re fulfilling the well-known stereotype of a MINDLESS DRONE for religion with absolutely no intelligence, and no concept of reality. “I can’t debate. Here’s some bible for you.” “I know you don’t want to read it. Here’s some bible for you.” “No, I can’t support my position. Here’s some bible for you.” Take a walk over to the weekly beheadings on jawa report, and see exactly what this head in the sand “recital of scripture” in the face of adversity does for humanity, you ignorant piece of shit.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/
I’m done with you. Go talk to a chapel ceiling.
@JustAnotherNihilist - I don’t have any control over what you do; think; or feel. But I certainly care about your eternal destination. And so there it is…..
@JustAnotherNihilist - ”So let’s stay on topic, shall we? Intelligent Design is not science.”
Well, so far your contributions have consisted of sweeping claims (science and faith being incompatible despite most major scientific disciplines be founded by Bible believers), asinine comments (1% of scientists being believers, which by the way I’d love to see your source for that), and general derogatory comments showing little but a general rudeness and lack of manners.
Just curious. What exactly is the Discovery Institute? I’ve heard of the Creation Research Institute (may have been what you were referring to, and I’ll forgive you for getting it wrong. It seems to be your specialty), but frankly since they are for the most part Young Earth Creationists I don’t read their stuff since I disagree with the bulk of it. My readings in this subject are a bit spotty, mostly the random book or journal article. The entire subject area isn’t really a big interest of mine.
“If you’re talking about Macro-Evolution and
Abiogenesis, they can absolutely be empirically disproven -
unfortunately, what we’ve been finding has only further supported it.”
My guess if you’d spend half the time actually reading what I posted, I was discussing how life came about, not evolution in general (which only a fool would deny, or not, in your case). And as I stated, neither creationists nor evolutionists can “prove” their theories since neither can go that one big step, experimentation to prove them.
But here is my favorite, and which provides ample proof you read at sub-elementary levels. You quoted this.
“It is our collective position that
intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested
experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.”
So lets see what they said.
Intelligent Design has no basis in science, HAS NOT BEEN TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY, and should not be regarded as scientific. So the supposed seekers after truth are rejecting a theory which they themselves admit has not been tested (they didn’t say couldn’t be tested, and even if they did it would have been a lie since I’ve read articles in scientific journals at Notre Dame which speak of the experiments being carried out on the subject). So we’re left with the question why we should not regard the theory as scientific. Why, it must be because they say so. Pity we don’t require the same level of proof you seem to demand from your opponents (and for the record, I read Behe’s “Darwins Black Box” and didn’t really find it all that convincing myself, but biochemistry isn’t my field, history is).
“And to say that ”life happened by chance” is an admission of complete ignorance of both Abiogenesis and Evolution.”
Excuse me, but isn’t both Abiogenesis and Evolution involved with random mutation. Are you telling me something directs the mutation (careful, you’re beginning to sound like a theist, or ::gasp:: a believer in intelligent design). Unless you’re essentially accepting Michael Denton’s theory little green men put us here, your left with random mutation explaining things or a designer, whoever that will be (though I’ve also read some articles by non-believers who are speaking of some force of nature which directs things. Unfortunately I don’t belong to the George Lucas school of science).
“You’ll call foul on any claims of education
or accreditation I make, just on principle, and were I to provide any
sort of verifiable identity, you’d likely make an angry call to my
employer about your distaste for my behavior. My views on your idiocy
are not endorsed by my employer.”
A simple request for whatever actual qualifications you might have other than watching “Universe” on PBS in your room in your parent’s basement. If you say you’re college educated in the field, I’ll accept that, though I’ll have to admit up front I’ve seen no evidence of anything that’d indicate you have been. But I don’t generally call people liars just because they are rude asses.
As far as wanting to know your identity, no. Frankly, I know you about as well as I want to, and have seen nothing here that make me want to get to know you any better. I have no desire to check what your claims mainly because based on the fact that most of your comments provide nothing but general, unsupported “facts” any idiot could make (and in your case, did), if you actually did have training in the field you didn’t learn anything well enough to actually articulate it in an intelligent manner.. And to think I’d waste my time trying to get you fired, well, displays a sort of megalomania that I’d suggest you getting counseling for.
Basically, all I’ve gotten from this whole discussion is the impression your a pathetic little person who is starved for attention, and who has delusions of actually having something to contribute to this discussion. Since you’ve demonstrated that a lack of manners is your strongest character trait, and you actually have contributed nothing constructive to the discussion, like bakersdozen2, I’ll stop wasting my time on you also.
@Simian_Musings - Through that entire vomit session you failed to support Intelligent Design as a viable theory. In fact, you’re more interested in attacking me than you are in supporting your bullshit theory. Let’s try again. Intelligent Design isn’t science. What you’ve displayed in the last 2 page bullshit rant is that you know nothing about it. Perhaps you should read that book again?
The Discovery Institute is a body of conservatives consisting entirely of CHRSITIANS claiming to be scientists, who support Intelligent Design. They are the ONLY “scientists” in the field supporting it, and the entire theory is centered around their non-scientific mission, which is to ”reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”. But you’ve never heard of them. That’s hilarious. How much can you actually know about Intelligent Design without knowing what group of morons it came from? Typical. Demand to know where MY data comes from, but don’t really care what rat hole yours does. There’s the rat hole ID comes from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute.
And there’s that term “completely random” again. The more you talk, the less informed you sound. There is nothing random about the process of natural selection. To call it “random” is to say that you know nothing about it. I’m starting to think your problem is in reading comprehension. Not only did you skip over the part where Behe’s university said “Intelligent Design has no basis in science” – you seem to have ignored that what I said was, less than 1% of relevant scientists (which is to say – scientists that meet the actual definition of scientist) entertain the idea of intelligent design or creationism as viable. And they don’t. Because it’s not science.
@JustAnotherNihilist - First, I never stated as my objective to defend Intelligent Design as a theory. In fact, if you’d actually read my last post, or had the reading comprehension level to understand it, you’d have picked up that little point that I’d read Behe’s book and DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT. Or did you overlook that little point because it might require deviating from your rant. I’m not defending a “bullshit theory” because I DON’T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT. I guess despite your protests about standing on facts and the truth are just a sham, since you insist I defend a position I haven’t said I support. My only position on it was based on the statement you posted from the Lehigh Science Department which stated that Intelligent Design hadn’t been experimentally tested, and hence didn’t qualify as science. My comment was that if the theory hadn’t been tested, how could it be rejected. Again, they did not say that it couldn’t be tested (and if you pulled you head from your nether regions long enough to look, you’d find there have been any number of articles in scientific journals by scientists on both sides doing just that, so even your contention it can’t be tested is a bunch of BS), just that they didn’t consider it science. Frankly, opinions are like asshole, everyone has them. I’d have a whole lot more confidence if science ACTUALLY TESTED A THEORY before rejecting it.
Second, I don’t know anything about this so-called Discovery Institute or the, as you put it, so-called scientists who belong to it. I would, however, if I cared to look at their site (if there is one, again, I don’t know) that the scientists who are linked to it probably have their credentials on it. And supporting a questionable theory resulted in one’s credibility as a scientist being stripped away, then I guess the tens of thousands of those scientists who signed the global warming document, a “theory” which has been pretty much torpedoed in the water and has been marked by sham science from the get go are no longer credible scientists, by your standards. But in any event, I’d have no more reason to doubt their credibility as scientists than I do yours to comment on the subject. In fact, I say they’d have more, because I can actually verify their credentials to speak on the subject. Yours, not so much.
Oh, and let me get this straight. You actually believe Wikipedia is a serious research source.
And I’m supposed to take what you say seriously. Don’t worry about supplying your credentials on this subject. You obviously don’t have any if this is your idea of a source of credible information.
“And there’s that term “completely random” again.”
“There is nothing random about the process of natural selection.”
Actually, the mutations that Darwin used in natural selection were not “planned” in any way, unless there is some sort of guiding force on your side (and there are scientists on your side that hint that there are) would have to have been random. It simply was a change in a species that allowed a species to fit into an ecological niche better than others of that same species which did not have the mutation. So you’re saying the mutations which resulted in, let’s say the eye, were not random. Then I’ll leave it up to you to explain, since you’re the “expert” on the subject. The Natural Selection aspect of adaptation might not be “random” (and the subject here wasn’t Natural Selection to begin with, so please stick to the topic. You switch things faster than a bored drunk a the TV remote) but the mutations which allowed the animal to take advantage of were. And even the mutation was no advantage if the creature with it was born into an ecological niche where it was an advantage, so there is even an aspect of randomness to that.
You actually have read Darwin, right? Or again, is Wikipedia your source document.
@Simian_Musings - So you admit to knowing nothing about the institution or “scientists” who created and study intelligent design. Based on your assessment of natural selection and ignorance of the roots of intelligent design, you know nothing. But keep talking. It only proves my point. If you cared to know anything about it, you’d research it. I’m not under any obligations to fucking educate you. Just to point out how uneducated you are.
Based on your assessment, if 12 trillion scrabble tiles fell on the floor, and we took all the face-up vowels, we’d end up with a “completely random” collection of letters. You can’t talk to darwinian evolution without talking to natural selection. So spare me the semantics. ”Completely random” is a gross misunderstanding of the process.
yes the first is in support of the seperation of church and state but does it truely have any place anymore since the government ruleing to make it illegal to preach against gays… the patriot act…the making of words and books illegal.. all of these impede and aparently supercede the first ammendment