Quote of the Day

Ignore them. You don't have to listen to their screaming do you?

It isn't about the screaming. I can tolerate that. It is about the legislating. Things like the proposed "marriage amendment" are obvious attempts to legislate religious morality.

TerryRC wrote: GEEEZE, TRC, didja scalp your comments from this MSNBC Opinion commentary?

I don't watch MSNBC, Sammy. I went and saw the movie.

You also AVERTED your eyes so you wouldn't see my "hyper link" I posted, to wit:

GEEEZE, TRC, didja scalp your comments from this MSNBC Opinion commentary?

TerryRC wrote:I also saw a statement by one of the interviewees. He was taken out of context by selective edits and was lied to about what he was even being interviewed about.

TRC, sounds like someone you can truly support ......... because that "happens to you all time", ........ RIGHT.

TerryRC wrote:I know Stein was Nixon's speech writer because I studied up on him.

And I know of Stein because he appears on Fox News "commentaries" quite often. Thus, I have heard "what he had to say" ..... whereas you have apparently only "read what Nixon wanted him to say". So, you are blaming Stein for all the things you dislike about Nixon, ...... RIGHT.

TerryRC wrote:When I see the ads on TV I said to myself, ........"Frigging beautiful, a gold mine for sure."

Because making controversy where none exists is a noble thing, I guess. Churches will bus their parishioners in but Stein is doing his best to keep it from the mainstream. It may make less than you think.

HA, some more of your "intellectual dishonesty" I see.

Here TRC, is that "link" that you averted your eyes too.

Intelligent design film far worse than stupid
Ben Stein's so-called documentary ‘Expelled’ isn't just bad, it's immoral
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/

Now is your chance to display some more of your "intellectual dishonesty" by expounding upon your accusation that there is no controversy existing relative to Evolution, Creation and Intelligent Design.



And ps: If you spent money to go see that movie ......... then I know damn well it is going to make Stein a "bundle".

.

TerryRC wrote:Ignore them. You don't have to listen to their screaming do you?

It isn't about the screaming. I can tolerate that. It is about the legislating. Things like the proposed "marriage amendment" are obvious attempts to legislate religious morality.

So now the religious right can't even propose legislation becasue it offends you, huh!!!

Just out of curiousity, where exactly in the constitution is your gurantee not to be offended located?

So now the religious right can't even propose legislation becasue it offends you, huh!!!

No, because it steals rights away, like the "marriage amendment".

Just out of curiousity, where exactly in the constitution is your gurantee not to be offended located?

Why, where did being "offended" come in to it? Fighting for one's freedoms doesn't require animosity or anger.

Freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion, also. I can't practice my religion freely if you are making law based upon yours.

HA, some more of your "intellectual dishonesty" I see.

Here TRC, is that "link" that you averted your eyes too.

Why would I read someone else's opinion (particularly MSNBC's opinion) when I have my own from seeing the movie?

I was not dishonest in my commentary, to you or to TH, except in your imagination.

Tripe, Sammy. Your post is tripe. Address some arguments or stop raving. I think some lithium may be called for, if you wish for the latter.

BTW, Sam, I used to like Stein. Even tried to be a guest on his game show. I even like some of his stands - almost libertarian.

I don't like liars, however, or people that won't admit their mistakes... needless to say, Ben is off my list of faves.

I went to the move because I like to be informed of the enemy's tactics and information. That is why ID'ers lose debates - they stick their fingers in their ears and propaganda flows out their mouths.

You would be agreeing with me on this subject (as you have in the past) if you weren't so busy hating on me.

TerryRC wrote:So now the religious right can't even propose legislation becasue it offends you, huh!!!

No, because it steals rights away, like the "marriage amendment".

Just out of curiousity, where exactly in the constitution is your gurantee not to be offended located?

Why, where did being "offended" come in to it? Fighting for one's freedoms doesn't require animosity or anger.

Freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion, also. I can't practice my religion freely if you are making law based upon yours.

The only thing guranteed by the constitution in regards to religion is that the state can not sponsor it. Unless you can cite a law that sponsors religion, you've got no gripe or complaint. You need to join Ziggy in the cheese line.

The only thing guranteed by the constitution in regards to religion is that the state can not sponsor it. Unless you can cite a law that sponsors religion, you've got no gripe or complaint. You need to join Ziggy in the cheese line.

How about this proposed law:

Florida considers Christian license plate

I liked this quote:

Bullard, the plate's sponsor, isn't sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an "I Don't Believe" plate, for example, he would probably oppose it.

The state isn't just barred from promoting religion - it is also barred from promoting religious beliefs or laws based solely on said. Here are examples:

Laws related to religion and morality:

Every "blue law" on the books is religion-based.

No cheese line here. Just those that will actually admit to what is obvious.

Here is another good one:

Senate Passes Evolution Bill

Since there is NO scientific theory that contradicts evolution, I think we can chalk this one up to religion.

Why shouldn't teachers be able to criticize the theory of evolution now? Is it a religion?

I don't understand why ID and creationism is so threatening. Silly, perhaps, but threatening?

TerryRC wrote:The only thing guranteed by the constitution in regards to religion is that the state can not sponsor it. Unless you can cite a law that sponsors religion, you've got no gripe or complaint. You need to join Ziggy in the cheese line.

How about this proposed law:

Florida considers Christian license plate

I liked this quote:

Bullard, the plate's sponsor, isn't sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an "I Don't Believe" plate, for example, he would probably oppose it.

The state isn't just barred from promoting religion - it is also barred from promoting religious beliefs or laws based solely on said. Here are examples:

Laws related to religion and morality:

Every "blue law" on the books is religion-based.

No cheese line here. Just those that will actually admit to what is obvious.

Really. This is the government pushing religious beliefs on you.

Please!!!



Cheddar or gouda?

TerryRC wrote:
I don't like liars, however, or people that won't admit their mistakes... needless to say,

Then you must get irate and PO'ed every time you look into a mirror, ...... right.

TerryRC wrote:You would be agreeing with me on this subject (as you have in the past) if you weren't so busy hating on me.

In your wildest dreams maybe, ...... but never on a stupid accusation that there is no controversy existing relative to Evolution, Creation and Intelligent Design.

I only agree with you on those rare occasions when you are actually displaying a little intellectual honesty.

.

ohio county wrote:Why shouldn't teachers be able to criticize the theory of evolution now? Is it a religion?

I don't know of any Law or Policy that prohibits them from criticizing evolution ........ unless it is being done in a Science Class.

And in that case ...... they would be "criticizing" Science ...... instead of "teaching" it.

You wouldn't want an English Teacher criticizing the correct/accepted usage of the language, ........... would you?

Or a Health Teacher criticizing "safe sex practices" concerning pregnancy or STDs.

.

Stephanie wrote:I don't understand why ID and creationism is so threatening. Silly, perhaps, but threatening?

There is nothing threatening about them.

It is "the teaching" of ID and creationism that threatens to undermine ........ "the education" of school children.

See my above post.

.

Why shouldn't teachers be able to criticize the theory of evolution now? Is it a religion?

Because it opens the door for the teaching of creationism and/or ID which must deal with a supernatural designer and, as such, is outside of the scope of science.

It doesn't belong in science class.

Then you must get irate and PO'ed every time you look into a mirror, ...... right.

Sam, get on that lithium...

Really. This is the government pushing religious beliefs on you.

Aaron, you asked for examples of people legislating their religion, you got it.

You been taking debate lesson from Sam? Ad hom attacks are not debate.

Terry,

Scientists disagree on all kinds of things. Science teachers have their own beliefs and inject them into classroom discussions all the time. Take the science teacher at my daughter's school who is a global warming fanatic.

Now I like this teacher, and I think overall she is doing an outstanding job. Unfortunately global warming has become a religion for her and she is spreading her irrational fear to her students. I haven't figured out what to do about that.

Now before you go jumping my butt.....here is why I say she irrational. This woman told me (me, I didn't get this via my daughter) that "RI will be underwater by 2020". She believes this. That is not science.

Yet nobody is up in arms that she is teaching this to her students. That is every bit as much a fairy tale as ID is. btw.......I think ID is a possibility. It is possible some "body" created human life. Man creates life every day now. I don't think it is likely, but I do think it is possible.

Now I like this teacher, and I think overall she is doing an outstanding job. Unfortunately global warming has become a religion for her and she is spreading her irrational fear to her students. I haven't figured out what to do about that.

Tell her to stop. Unless it is an earth science class, she is off-topic.

Now before you go jumping my butt.....here is why I say she irrational. This woman told me (me, I didn't get this via my daughter) that "RI will be underwater by 2020". She believes this. That is not science.

Well, if it isn't an earth science class, the question is moot.

What, however, if she said "If current trends continue, scientists predict that RI will be underwater by 2020."?

Yet nobody is up in arms that she is teaching this to her students. That is every bit as much a fairy tale as ID is. btw.......I think ID is a possibility. It is possible some "body" created human life. Man creates life every day now. I don't think it is likely, but I do think it is possible.

Make a noise. If she is wasting time preaching a subject outside of the scope of the class, she is in the wrong.

There is not a controversy about evolution. Even ID'ers point out that microevolution exists. Evolution through natural selection is supported by heaps of evidence.

A supernatural being that may or may not have set it all in motion is, by the very name, outside of the realm of science.

Teach your son evolutionary theory, even if you don't believe it. Nothing, not one thing, in biology makes any sense without it.

TerryRC wrote:Now I like this teacher, and I think overall she is doing an outstanding job. Unfortunately global warming has become a religion for her and she is spreading her irrational fear to her students. I haven't figured out what to do about that.

Tell her to stop. Unless it is an earth science class, she is off-topic.

Now before you go jumping my butt.....here is why I say she irrational. This woman told me (me, I didn't get this via my daughter) that "RI will be underwater by 2020". She believes this. That is not science.

Well, if it isn't an earth science class, the question is moot.

What, however, if she said "If current trends continue, scientists predict that RI will be underwater by 2020."?

Yet nobody is up in arms that she is teaching this to her students. That is every bit as much a fairy tale as ID is. btw.......I think ID is a possibility. It is possible some "body" created human life. Man creates life every day now. I don't think it is likely, but I do think it is possible.

Make a noise. If she is wasting time preaching a subject outside of the scope of the class, she is in the wrong.

There is not a controversy about evolution. Even ID'ers point out that microevolution exists. Evolution through natural selection is supported by heaps of evidence.

A supernatural being that may or may not have set it all in motion is, by the very name, outside of the realm of science.

Teach your son evolutionary theory, even if you don't believe it. Nothing, not one thing, in biology makes any sense without it.

When that took place, she was in her Earth Science class. Yet for some strange reason the same teacher had the kids watch An Inconvenient Truth, in Biology AGAIN!!! grrr

I do teach Loyd evolution. He hasn't got a clue what ID or creationism is. We don't buy into that stuff here. HOWEVER, my husband and I have been discussing the possibility of finding a Universalist Unitarian church to take him to every now and again. He knows other people believe in "god" and it would seem, oddly enough, he does too. It never occurred to me that we nonbelievers who don't give a hoot could raise a little person who thinks that way. Go figure.

When that took place, she was in her Earth Science class. Yet for some strange reason the same teacher had the kids watch An Inconvenient Truth, AGAIN!!! grrr

Well, there it is, then.

Rather than preaching it as gospel, she would be more correct to phase it in ways like, "If current trends continue, scientists predict that RI will be underwater by 2020."? Of course, some might call that "weasel-wording".

As far as ID or creationism is concerned, their "arguments" can be summed up with the following few points:

# Claim that mainstream science isn't actually science in the first place, e.g. it is "religion", "unscientific", "unfalsifiable", "politics", etc.

# Claim that there is an establishment/conspiracy (liberal, leftist, intellectual, political, elitist, etc.) pushing its agenda, censoring and/or persecuting those that "dare to dissent"; sometimes conflating science with brutal totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or religious persecutions like the Inquisition or witch hunts.

# Claim that a vocal minority making claims outside of the primary scientific literature justifies the assertion that a controversy exists; use of unpublished polls/petitions/surveys of scientists or "experts" on topics outside of their field of expertise to give or further impression of same.

# Deliberately equivocate on the meaning of scientific vs. lay terminology (e.g. "theory", "hypothesis", etc.) to persuade lay persons that mainstream science hasn't "been proven".

# Present claims made outside the primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in refereed journals- even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with clear ideological agendas.

# Present self-contradictory alternatives to/criticisms of the mainstream view without apparent realization or acknowledgment of their mutually exclusive nature.

# Present admissions to or criticisms of problematic aspects relating to the mainstream view that have since been resolved for years, decades, etc. as though they are still relevant; conflate mainstream science to past instances of scientific or pseudoscientific failure without evidence of how the same is occurring.

# Attack opinions and/or statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed, respected journals.

# Attack areas of remaining study or uncertainty that may or may not even fall under the scope of the basic premise to give the appearance of discrediting the main tenets.

# Assume any gap or error as positive evidence for the opposing position with no illustration of it being such.


I like that. I think I will put it in the "Teach the Controversy" thread.

Really. This is the government pushing religious beliefs on you.

Please!!!

Aaron, this one is for you:

So US Senators should only be US Senators if they believe exactly as you do.

Now who's the one pushing beliefs?

Terry,

Creationists shouldn't be allowed in the Senate? Anyone else? Muslims? Jews? How about women or Latinos? Asians? You're playing with fire, my friend.

Sounds like the views of a bigot if you ask me.

"Teach your son evolutionary theory, even if you don't believe it. Nothing, not one thing, in biology makes any sense without it."--TerryRC

I am very curious about the need for that biology "make sense." What do you mean by this? Why do you feel the need for the living world to "make sense?"

Wouldn't such a concern be in the realm of, say, phrenology, astrology, magic, or alchemy?