Fear terrorists? Nah, fear stupidity.Follow

i learned the basics of all religions in High School its called History class.

i learned the basics of darwinism in H.S> also. its called science class.

theres so little evidence that god exists that if you put it in my hand my hand would feel lighter.

theres so much evidence of darwinism. how many friggin monkey fossils must you idiots see before you realize that humans ecvolved not created in one swift motion.

and if there is a god hes a a$$hole anyway

1.) god creates man...
2.) man says f*ck god im eatin from that tree.
3.) god turns eve into a woman to punish him/her
4.) Adam is sad for the lose of his guy pal
5.) Adam learns he can shag eve
6.) god seeing this warps eve's mind making her a nag.

seriously who wants to buy stock in such a vengeful power tripping freak.?



the majority of americans are against it ? prove it.

A recent NPR poll indicate that a majority of Americans are against Gay Marriage, though narrowly. 56% oppose marriage, 30% favor. 49% oppose unions, 42 favor. When the second question is more strictly defined to include health insurance, inheritence, etc., the number evens to 45% each.

For you, then, I can see why it is not a problem. However, for millions of Americans, it is an issue of deep seeded personal belief, on both sides. The big deal is that no one wants to compromise. It's our system. In order to function we must have two polar factions butting heads in the middle, leaving tough decisions to 9 people unaccountable to anyone, appointed for life, and more powerful than any other body on the planet. I find it truly ironic that, even though the names have changed slightly, the same body that allowed abortion to remain a legal option for women also allowed shrub to assume the presidency.

I believe that a couple that wants to commit to a legally binding contract, whatever it is called, should be granted the same rights and privilages, regardless of their gender. I also believe that the covenant of marriage should no longer hold any legal weight. But that's just me.

ok so on this track of thought it was Hitler and germany's belief to kill the jews. but we stopped him

how can the US goverment be protecting something that is religious when the constitution calls for seperation of church and state?

if marriage is a religious thing then the goverment should have nothing to do with it.
it should have its own view on a binding agreement between 2 people that is like but is marriage.. and since this agreement is not religious in nature why shouldnt gays eb able to do it ?

i do not like the direction society is going. "shrub" holds the highest goverm,ent office and yet he preaches religion......

Umm, grow up? Seriously though, how can any intelligent person connect the two?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;."

Seperation of church and state in it's current form is a complete bastardization of the framers' intent. The above quote is the language in the constitution. You speak of law, when the debate is over a constitutional amendment. That amendment would, for the particular issue, invalidate the arguments of people too stupid to understand the meaning of the first amendment.

Yeah? That's what the paragraph I wrote under the one you quoted said. Time to get the perscription fixed.

Then vote. Then shut the f*ck up when it turns out you lost.
/shrug

o really? how many of those have you seen, held or proven? its all T H E O R Y. makes me sick when someone b*tches someone out for believing in one thing then shoves the other down their throat. Evolution is NOT proven...its all theory. Creationism is NOT proven, its all belief.

One relies on fact to prove itself...each fact based on a previous "fact" made "factual" by some guy in a lab coat. The other relies completely on faith. Faith being belief in something WITHOUT EVER HAVING PROOF..thus being faith. (with proof it wouldn't be faith anymore, it would be fact)

Conclusion: Creationism relies on faith...anyone who tries to back it up with fact is insane and only contributing to the problem..there is no solid fact. Evolution is theory..if you want to say its based on fact, then let me tell you that wood is a liquid..because me saying so is just the same as some scientist ions ago "proving" it otherwise.

This fact is susceptible to the same error as we humans are prone to. Just because its "fact" doesn't mean its truth or reality...it just means it matches up to some table we've accepted as a guidline.

Humans aren't by nature willing to accept things in faith because if we can't see, touch or tase it then we don't have control over it, then it doesn't exist. But that's why we have free will..we can choose which way we wish to go. But if you say one person is wrong for going the other way, your not making any fans for the cause your supporting.

Empyre, have you ever been to Japan?

perhaps your right, but when it comes to something as sensitive and unknowing as where we come from, maybe BOTH should be separated. just because building a bomb is has a scientific basis doesn't mean you are going to teach it to high school students or people applying for citizenship. nothing in this life comes without exception...thats what makes things so complicated when it comes to dealing with others.

IMO, science was created (maybe not even intentionally) for us to satisfy those itching questions in our minds. what we THINK we have is what you say..trial and error spurring the next scientist to do the same. what we FAIL to see is what is left in the wake of the error. drugs that kill people, illegal testing that causing problems or deaths in people or animals, inventions that help terrorists start wars..the list goes on.

i'm not saying we don't need science or that its completely a horrible thing..but in a lot of cases its like trying to escape a shark attack by pushing everyone else under water as you struggle to shore..sure you might make it, but look at the damage your causing in the process. we rely on it a little too much is all i'm saying.

as for creationism not having proof..sure, but there are a heck of a ton of eery coincidences and alignments with the bible. sure, scientifically they can be disproven through statistic and case study, but can't anything? in any case, God said believers will always be persecuted for believing...no sense arguing it, but don't knock it til you've tried it!

EDIT: Yes, I've been to Japan..went from Tokyo to Gotembukan (sp? its at the base of Mt. Fuji) one time on a 3 week trip. frequent business trips through there as well.

Edited, Mon Feb 9 17:28:31 2004 by Empyre

^^ find your own path..each one is our own anyway. you start pushing what works for you on someone else you get cults.

I only PERSONALLY believe in the bible because its a good guide. its not written to force people to bow to some dictator figure..only to show you how to be a good person and live peacefully with each other. no harm in getting a little guidance on being a good person..if more of us tried a little harder at that maybe the world wouldn't be such a hard place to get along in. (if the bible was what you were hinting at...if not disregard)

Edited, Mon Feb 9 17:46:42 2004 by Empyre

so I suppose we didnt know what religious persecution we were escaping from in england either until 1950 or so either?

and just because its a leading theory doesnt mean its what should be solely taught. your leading refers to what the majority of voting parties might think according to polls and statistics...which we all know are so incredibly accurate.

but if your going to tell be evolution is proveable I challenge you to present solid evidence...I guess I should get a couple degrees and write a book, then what I say would be undisputable truth.

once again...i didn't come in here bashing anyone's theories...but seems some are not happy with me having my own belief..says a lil sumpthin dun it? EDIT: removed "evolutionists"..was an admittedley wrong generalization.

Edited, Mon Feb 9 18:12:15 2004 by Empyre

Um... Sure. But they were fleeing *religious* persecution (among other things). They were not fleeing a secular state that didn't allow them to worship. They were fleeing religious states that persecuted folks who weren't of the state religion. I'm hoping you can see the difference?

Also. You specifically said we were founded as "one nation, under God", a very clear reference to the pledge. As I have very clearly proven, we were *not* founded with any such statement.



Scientific theories are not generated by opinion polls. They are generated by making hypothesis, running tests, and then publishing your results. After about 10 thousand other scientists who all want to try to disprove your theory run their own tests, but can't find anything wrong with your idea, then and only then does it become a theory.

In science, there's rarely two equally valid theories. That's just not the way science works. There is generaly one "model" of how things work. If something is found to be incorrect in the model, then model is changed to reflect the new information. Rarely, someone comes up with a completely new model that allows for all the same evidence and test results, but has a completely different explanation behind it. That's when a new theory comes along.

However, even when new theories come along, the ideas of the old ones aren't "disproven". They just aren't as accurate.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not disprove Newton's Laws. It simply added to them. Quantum physics does not disprove Einstein. Quantum mechanics does not disprove quantum physics. Quantum probability theory does not disprove quantum mechanics. They are all steps in a direction. It is most correct to simply say that as we get new theories we gain a more complete model of the universe. Older models are still correct, they are just incomplete.

Thus. You won't have a Theory of Evolution, and a "Theory of some other way for us to have gotten here". It just doesn't work that way. As new data is collected, the Theory of Evolution will change to include it. While there are always going to be disagreements on some minor specifics within the Theory itself, you simply wont see another Theory competing with it. Not unless we find some new data that pushes us in a totally different direction. And that hasn't happened yet.






When did I say the entire theory was "provable". Have you been listening? A Theory is just that: A theory. You can't "prove" the whole thing. However, you can prove that the evidence that we've collected most support the theory of evolution as the cause of life on this planet. What "solid evidence" do you want me to provide? There are literally libraries full of solid evidence. I don't feel a need to prove that. If you want, you are welcome to actually read up on the matter. There are probably hundreds of thousands of papers on the subject. Each will include fossils found. Where they were found. How they were dated. There are huge threads of papers building up sciences like layer dating. There are findings of measuring chemicals in ice to determine ages of glaciers. There are literaly thousands of bits of "proof" that pretty conclusively prove that at the very least, the earth is much older then 6000 years. I'm not going to read them off to you on a board like this. Go to a library and read up on the subject if you want.




No. No one's unhappy with you having your own belief. We are, however, unhappy with your passing your beliefs off as "science". Can't you see the difference? Science, by definition is the use of hypothesis and tests to generate models and theories about the world around us. There is nothing about creationism that makes it a science. Therefore it should not be taught in a science class.

Evolution is currently the most accurate "scientific" explanation for the origin of life on this planet. Thefore, it is a science, and should be taught in science classes. Until that changes, there is zero reason *not* to teach evolution in science classes. In fact, it's abundantly obvious that the only reason anyone would want to remove evolution from science classes is because evolution happens to contradict creationism. Thus, the decision to remove evolution from schools is motivated purely in the interest of preserving a religious belief. Thus, it's an attempt to enforce religious beliefs on school children (in a backhanded way). That's why it's getting that much flack.

Edited, Mon Feb 9 18:32:55 2004 by gbaji

I couldn't care less what you believe. You can believe that we're living on the droppings Frith spread through the sky for all I care. All I'm asking is that you don't try to place faith based beliefs into a physical data based educational environment.