Oh good lord...irony intended.
 

Okay, now this is just plain stupid.

179-16.

No. And if you think that anybody here is going to accept a denial on your part that the existence not just of god, but of A God, is a necessary implication of your argument, then I'm assessing another penalty stroke.

179-17.

Oh good lord...irony intended.
 

And if they had had science class at that time, then you can believe that's what would have been taught in it. You see, the thing that separates science from religious orthodoxy is that science recognizes its fallability and adjusts its teaching to reflect new knowledge. Science also acknowledges its gaps.

Religious orthodoxy does neither. That's why the Church tried to excommunicate Gallileo and Copernicus but the scientific community welcomed the work of Gregor Mendel.

Oh good lord...irony intended.
 

I'm the last person that wants religion taught in schools (or anywhere else). I'm just quibbling with the idea (not yours) that because the scientific world believes it, then it is a fact.

Oh good lord...irony intended.
 

Yes that is true. I never said that 99% of the scientists were always right. There is just no other way to do it. If the scientists don't decide what we teach then who? My guess is that the scientists are wrong much less of the time than the politicians.

All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12

Spanky in Da O.C.
 

I'm in. Lemme know.

From Spanky's stories, though, I'm expecting to see a serious entourage surrounding him, though. More silicon than in the valley.

The purpsoe of education is not to make people feel good or bad about their religion, the purpose is to educate. In science class that is to teach the truth the best the science community knows it at the time. If someone's religion beliefs are in conflict with what is taught in science class, that it tough. If the science education curriculum was designed around what didn't conflict with religious ideas the classes would last about two seconds.

It is not OK to teach religious ideas to students in public schools (that is state sponsored religion), but it is OK to teach scientific ideas that conflict with religious ideas. Thre is no rule against the government establishing science just against the government establishing a religion.

The Puritans (whom I am decedent from so I can rag on them all I want) wouldn't approve but they set up a theocracy and burned witches. The Puritans democrat and tolerance credentials are highly suspect.

Hank Chinaski, Post # 3543:


179-17.

I did not saying I believe in either. I merely ask if the evidence of both isn't about equal. I'm right and you're wrong, but worse you who are arguing with manifestly don't know what you're talking about. You talk science as your god and scientists as your priests.

205-12

There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17.

"The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds
the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his
brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee
with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison
and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay
my vengeance upon you."

Now I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker 'fore you popped a Guernica or Gilligan post on his ass.

But I saw some shit last year made me think I should be nicer. Now I'm thinkin', it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And my flaming ability is the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could by you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that.

But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin' Spanky. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

Don't hold back on account of me. I can take it. But, Hank, don't take the side of voodoo and psuedoscience. Evolution is a fact.

The question of whether or not their is intelligence design to the universe is a subject for philosophy class. And just because science has figured out how the sun rises, does not mean there is no God, and just as because man has figured out where we came from biologically does not mean there is no God.

Biology is for Biology class, and there is no room for discussion of supernatural forces in Biology class.

Spanky, if you've been reading my posts you know I don't question evolution where it has evidence. The dispute comes where it's pure conjecture, because coincidentially that is where it could be god instead. and I'm not arguing either is right. I'm just saying your beloved scientist don't know either.

Would you like your kids to be taught global warming is a fact?

Who knew?
 

But at least the scientists are measuring the ice cap. The creatonists are looking for a cite in Revelations.

S_A_M

Who knew?