Skip to main content

32 replies

Louisana Gov. signs pro-creationism bill into law

GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
Strike one up for the creationists:

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-40/1...&storylist=louisiana

"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed legislation said to foster "critical thinking" about evolution and other science topics in Louisiana public schools, triggering warnings that lawsuits will follow if the law leads to teachers spreading religious doctrine."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
I say thank God. Glad to see someone with guts. Way to go, Bobby.

Give students the information and "Let them decide for themselves".


Let me tell you what is wrong with that. Creationism is religion. It is not science. Schools teach science. Religion falls under Social Studies, not science. I do not want public school teachers teaching my kids religion except in a historic context. I will take care of my childrens religious education with the help of our church and minister. Don't want the government handling that for me - thank you.
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
And, you think zydeco and jazz are creepy? Now, that's creepy!


Never said EITHER of those things were creepy. I grew up going to N.O. and Napoleonville ( correctly pronounced NAPoleONveal ) and I can comfortably say that there are some odd birds, and creepy folks rambling around those swamps and pine flats over there. There are some creepy people and some REALLY creepy places. Seen um.

P.S. Used to love Cafe' Du Monde at 2:00 A.M. Strong coffee and beignets, hitch the street car down St. Charles Ave. sneak in the house and crawl in between those cool sheets and sleep til noon.
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Always liked the Old Absinthe House! Wonder if they serve absinthe now that its legal, again.


That used to be a wonderful place for lunch when I was a little girl. Don't know about the absinthe. My uncle always said absinthe gave you the WORST headache in the world and the pictures of the devil and little green men in the advertising posters sort of confirmed that. Ever tried it?
miamizsunmiamizsunHall of Famer
10 Things You Didn't Know About Bobby Jindal
Jindal is a potential running mate for McCain
By Jill Konieczko
Posted May 22, 2008

Sen. John McCain disclosed that he is in the "embryonic stages" of selecting a running mate, whom he hopes to introduce at the Republican National Convention. While he refused to disclose any names, McCain told reporters that the list is about 20 deep, and "it's every name imaginable." This is one of a series of profiles on the candidates we imagine might be on his list and some things you might not know about the maybe veeps. See the full list here.

Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana and a former congressman and is thought to be a possible running mate for McCain.

1. The son of immigrants from India's Punjab state, Jindal made history when he became the first U.S. governor with roots in India.

2. Born Piyush Jindal in Baton Rouge in 1971, he gave himself the nickname Bobby—after the youngest son on The Brady Bunch—when he was 4.

3. Raised a Hindu, Jindal converted to Catholicism as a teenager. As a young convert, he wrote of the emotional and intellectual struggles of his spiritual journey in several articles that were published in the New Oxford Review, a Catholic magazine.

4. Jindal graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1987. He attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy. He turned down admissions to medical and law schools at Harvard and Yale to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.

5. While attending Oxford, Jindal contemplated joining the priesthood. He ultimately decided that it was not for him.

6. In 2006, Jindal and his wife, Supriya, delivered their third child at home. Barely able to call 911 before the delivery, Jindal received a nurse's coaching by phone. Just as he was completing the umbilical cord procedure with a shoestring, paramedics arrived. The Jindals have a daughter and two sons.

7. Before he turned 30, Jindal headed Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals and became president of the University of Louisiana System. He served in the Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush and was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in the late '90s. Prior to public service, Jindal worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

8. In 2003, Gov. Mike Foster, who was finishing his second consecutive term and therefore could not run again, encouraged Jindal to run for governor. Defeated by Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Jindal's first bid for governor was unsuccessful.

9. In 2004, he sought the congressional seat from Louisiana's First District. He won with a whopping 78 percent of the vote and was re-elected in 2006 with almost 90 percent.

10. In 2007, Jindal ran for governor again and won. The victory was largely attributed to old-fashioned politicking, which included Jindal "giving testimony" in Pentecostal and Baptist churches in rural and remote sections of Louisiana.

Sources:
The Hill
The Associated Press
The New York Times
Indo-Asian News Service
Religion News Service
the American Spectator

Link to US News Story
miamizsunmiamizsunHall of Famer
More from Hindustan Times - Jindal is facing a recall.

"Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, touted as a potential running mate to likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain, faces a recall petition, stemming from his failure to veto a legislative pay raise.

A recall petition was filed on Friday against Jindal, the first Indian American governor of a US state. He has come under blistering criticism around the state for his refusal to veto a bill doubling state legislators' base pay from $16,800 to $37,500.

Four lawmakers, including Republican House Speaker Jim Tucker, are also objects of recall petitions filed in recent days.

Forcing a recall election against Jindal will be a tough task. It would require verifiable signatures from well over 900,000 registered Louisiana voters. Still, the publicity attending a recall effort illustrates an abrupt change in public attitude toward the young conservative Republican. Jindal, who easily defeated 11 opponents last year, ABC said.

Jindal has repeatedly criticised the pay raise as excessive but said he would not veto it for fear of jeopardising his legislative agenda."
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Without wanting to stir up a c vs e debate (which of course your post will engender Confused) anytime the Government sets to establishing curricula it can only be a bad thing.

Hi Zip,

Yeah, I guess we should stick to letting the ACLU and the NEA set all of our public school curricula. That way we can be assured of having a strong Secular Humanist flavor.

Oh, I forgot, Secular Humanism is a religion. Well, I guess we are stuck with religion in our public schools no matter what we do.

No Christianity in our schools -- but, tons of the Atheism Religion in our schools.

God help our young people.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • One-Nation-Under-God
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Yeah, I guess we should stick to letting the ACLU and the NEA set all of our public school curricula. That way we can be assured of having a strong Secular Humanist flavor.


How bout we let science scholars set the science agenda, math scholars set the math agenda and language scholars set language standards. While we are at it, let religious scholars set religious standards.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Yeah, I guess we should stick to letting the ACLU and the NEA set all of our public school curricula. That way we can be assured of having a strong Secular Humanist flavor.


How bout we let science scholars set the science agenda, math scholars set the math agenda and language scholars set language standards. While we are at it, let religious scholars set religious standards.

Hi Fish,

Great idea. How do we convince the ACLU, NEA, Atheists, and all the Liberal Politicians to keep their hands out of the pudding?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Under_God_1
gracies old mangracies old manPost Master
meansnakes quote-

"I do not want public school teachers teaching my kids religion except in a historic context".

--------------------------

I don't agree with you, but
What's more historical than the creation of the world? Besides, this is in Louisiana, not colbert county, your kids are not affected.

Besides, God has His hand in everything, so I guess, according to you, schools shouldn't teach anything. Some are doing that already.
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
meansnakes quote-

"I do not want public school teachers teaching my kids religion except in a historic context".

--------------------------

I don't agree with you, but
What's more historical than the creation of the world? Besides, this is in Louisiana, not colbert county, your kids are not affected.

Besides, God has His hand in everything, so I guess, according to you, schools shouldn't teach anything. Some are doing that already.


Creationism is not science and should not be taught in a science class. That is factually obvious.

Since Jindal is a Catholic, do you think Christianity should be taught from a Catholic perspective? Perhaps it should include the Assumption of Mary. Or perhaps we should have only Evangelicals teach Creationism. Their proof texting would be the ONLY acceptable method by which to interpret scripture. Should we also allow teachers the lattitude to teach about the use of "tounges", "prayer languages", different forms of baptism, innerancy of scripture, the Aphcrypha, rapture? Is the Holy Eucharist, or "the Lords Supper"? Can the teacher use the "Book of Common Prayer"? How can you prevent someone from teaching your child doctrine you disagree with? What if they refuse to follow rules set out by the State, city or Federal level? What are we then going to do with the Jewish, Orthodox, Coptic, and Muslim children?
Last edited by meanasasnake
JetboyJetboyHall of Famer
meanasasnake wrote...


quote:
I do not want public school teachers teaching my kids religion except in a historic context. I will take care of my childrens religious education with the help of our church and minister. Don't want the government handling that for me - thank you.




I don't want public school teachers teaching my children that homosexuality is right either...sometimes you don't get what you want...goes for you too!
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by jetboy:
meanasasnake wrote...


quote:
I do not want public school teachers teaching my kids religion except in a historic context. I will take care of my childrens religious education with the help of our church and minister. Don't want the government handling that for me - thank you.




I don't want public school teachers teaching my children that homosexuality is right either...sometimes you don't get what you want...goes for you too!


The discussion of sexuality in the public school system is fairly limited these days. But since you brought it up, Alabamians approve of sex education in public schools by a fairly large margin. There is approved discussion of all forms of sexuality. Get over yourself.

http://www.auburn.edu/outreach/ask_alabama/june272005/M...%20Spring%202005.pdf

Back to the subject at hand, creationism will not be and is not taught in the majority of public school systems. In this case, I get my way.

*Since you brought it up, I wonder if Lynn Cheney and Dick expected to have a gay daughter? Alan Keyes? Hmm.......Those two families must not have been teaching "values" at home.
Last edited by meanasasnake
JetboyJetboyHall of Famer
quote:
The discussion of sexuality in the public school system is fairly limited these days.


Not my point. I am talking about teaching by example. Seeing and knowing their teacher is homosexual during a childs formative years can have an influence.


quote:
Still back to the subject at hand, creationism will not be and is not taught in the majority of public school systems.


Not yet.

quote:
Since you brought it up, I wonder if Lynn Cheney and Dick expected to have a gay daughter? Alan Keyes? Hmm.......Those two families must not have been teaching values at home.


Home is not the only place sex or religion is learned. Society in general plays a large part.
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by jetboy:
quote:
The discussion of sexuality in the public school system is fairly limited these days.


Not my point. I am talking about teaching by example. Seeing and knowing their teacher is homosexual during a childs formative years can have an influence.


quote:
Still back to the subject at hand, creationism will not be and is not taught in the majority of public school systems.


Not yet.

quote:
Since you brought it up, I wonder if Lynn Cheney and Dick expected to have a gay daughter? Alan Keyes? Hmm.......Those two families must not have been teaching values at home.


Home is not the only place sex or religion is learned. Society in general plays a large part.


Nothing will lure you out from under your rock faster than a discussion of homosexuals - and always with me. For some reason you have attempted to co-opt this discussion and turn it in to one about gay teachers (about which you can do absolutely nothing ). I am not taking the bait. Feel however you want to about gay anybody. There is nothing you can do about them, me, the clouds, the sky, my car, the way the river flows, or the seasons. Get a life and stop worrying about someone elses.
JetboyJetboyHall of Famer
quote:
Nothing will lure you out from under your rock faster than a discussion of homosexuals - and always with me. For some reason you have attempted to co-opt this discussion and turn it in to one about gay teachers (about which you can do absolutely nothing ). I am not taking the bait. Feel however you want to about gay anybody. There is nothing you can do about them, me, the clouds, the sky, my car, the way the river flows, or the seasons. Get a life.




There is absoluty nothing you can do about teaching religion in schools... Wink


BTW...you cannot refute so you attack...sad!
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by jetboy:
quote:
Nothing will lure you out from under your rock faster than a discussion of homosexuals - and always with me. For some reason you have attempted to co-opt this discussion and turn it in to one about gay teachers (about which you can do absolutely nothing ). I am not taking the bait. Feel however you want to about gay anybody. There is nothing you can do about them, me, the clouds, the sky, my car, the way the river flows, or the seasons. Get a life.




There is absoluty nothing you can do about teaching religion in schools... Wink


BTW...you cannot refute so you attack...sad!


Refute what? The fact that religion is not science? No need. Religion is NOT taught in schools - no need for me to do anything "about it". I dismissed you - it was not an attack. Bye now.
Last edited by meanasasnake
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
Hi Mean,

You say, "Creationism is not science and should not be taught in a science class. That is factually obvious."

That is true. Creationism is history; it is the history of God's creating the heavens and the earth -- and all that these contain. Part of that creation was the different laws which define all aspects of science. Therefore, science is a part of the creation of God; and a subset of all knowledge. Let it be taught that way. No one is saying that we should replace the teaching of science in our schools; just that we keep it in it proper perspective. In the creation, God set the stars in the heaven -- precisely where He wanted them; He set the sun, moon, and earth precisely where He wanted them. He set the waters and the land precisely where He wanted it. And, He created animals and man precisely as He wanted them. Put all that together with the specific laws which govern these bodies -- and you have science. Is this so wrong to teach to kids in our schools?

Then, you say, "Since Jindal is a Catholic, do you think Christianity should be taught from a Catholic perspective?"

No, we do not teach Creation as Catholic, nor Protestant. We do not teach it as Baptist, nor Methodist, nor any other denomination. We should teach it strictly from the Bible, the sole authority on all issues of God and Creation. We look to the Bible as the sole authority on all things moral and spiritual. Being a believer is not being Catholic, nor Baptist, nor Methodists -- nor any other denomination. There is only one thing which determines a believer. John 3:3 tells us, ". . .unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." How does one become born again? Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, Jesus assures us in John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

You will notice that Jesus did not say, "He who is Catholic, or Baptist, or Methodist, and believes has eternal life." No, it is HE (all who by grace through faith) believe has eternal life.

The church is made up of Christian believers; not Catholic, or Baptist, or Methodist believers -- only Christian believers -- those who have been born again.

And, Revelation 3:20 assures us, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if ANYONE hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."

So, to answer your question, ". . .do you think Christianity should be taught from a Catholic perspective?"

No, it should be taught from the Bible perspective -- from the complete Bible perspective; not a Bible which has been selectively edited to delete or overlook Scriptural passages which might make some uncomfortable. Teach the Bible, the whole Bible, and let it speak for itself.

When America was founded, the Bible was distributed throughout the Thirteen Colonies by Congress for its moral teaching and guidance of the people. When our first schools were established; the Bible was used as a text book, to teach reading and Biblical history, along with positive moral values. This was so in our elementary schools and in our institutions of higher learning. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and all the other early schools were founded as Christian universities for the purpose of raising up pastors and Scripturally knowledgeable leaders. The Bible was not excluded; but was a major text book in all those schools.

If you will notice; America has in this last century gradually eliminated the Bible and God from our educational institutions -- and America has declined accordingly in our moral values. We have an epidemic of drive by shootings, teen pregnancies, teen STDs, and teen crimes -- that was not seen in previous generations. There is definitely a cause and effect to be seen here.

And, I can promise you that if America will invite God and the Bible back into our schools, it will not take very many generations to see a positive change in the moral and spiritual climate in America -- and, I am convinced that we would see America return to the successful and glorious nation we have been in the past.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Bible-History-Book-1a
JetboyJetboyHall of Famer
quote:
Refute what? The fact that religion is not science? No need. Religion is NOT taught in schools - no need for me to do anything "about it". I dismissed you - it was not an attack. Bye now.



_______________________________________________
quote:
The discussion of sexuality in the public school system is fairly limited these days.


Not my point. I am talking about teaching by example. Seeing and knowing their teacher is homosexual during a childs formative years can have an influence.



quote:
Still back to the subject at hand, creationism will not be and is not taught in the majority of public school systems.



Not yet.


quote:
Since you brought it up, I wonder if Lynn Cheney and Dick expected to have a gay daughter? Alan Keyes? Hmm.......Those two families must not have been teaching values at home.


Home is not the only place sex or religion is learned. Society in general plays a large part.
meanasasnakemeanasasnakeOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Mean,

You say, "Creationism is not science and should not be taught in a science class. That is factually obvious."

That is true. Creationism is history; it is the history of God's creating the heavens and the earth -- and all that these contain. Part of that creation was the different laws which define all aspects of science. Therefore, science is a part of the creation of God; and a subset of all knowledge. Let it be taught that way. No one is saying that we should replace the teaching of science in our schools; just that we keep it in it proper perspective. In the creation, God set the stars in the heaven -- precisely where He wanted them; He set the sun, moon, and earth precisely where He wanted them. He set the waters and the land precisely where He wanted it. And, He created animals and man precisely as He wanted them. Put all that together with the specific laws which govern these bodies -- and you have science. Is this so wrong to teach to kids in our schools?

Then, you say, "Since Jindal is a Catholic, do you think Christianity should be taught from a Catholic perspective?"

No, we do not teach Creation as Catholic, nor Protestant. We do not teach it as Baptist, nor Methodist, nor any other denomination. We should teach it strictly from the Bible, the sole authority on all issues of God and Creation. We look to the Bible as the sole authority on all things moral and spiritual. Being a believer is not being Catholic, nor Baptist, nor Methodists -- nor any other denomination. There is only one thing which determines a believer. John 3:3 tells us, ". . .unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." How does one become born again? Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, Jesus assures us in John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

You will notice that Jesus did not say, "He who is Catholic, or Baptist, or Methodist, and believes has eternal life." No, it is HE (all who by grace through faith) believe has eternal life.

The church is made up of Christian believers; not Catholic, or Baptist, or Methodist believers -- only Christian believers -- those who have been born again.

And, Revelation 3:20 assures us, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if ANYONE hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."

So, to answer your question, ". . .do you think Christianity should be taught from a Catholic perspective?"

No, it should be taught from the Bible perspective -- from the complete Bible perspective; not a Bible which has been selectively edited to delete or overlook Scriptural passages which might make some uncomfortable. Teach the Bible, the whole Bible, and let it speak for itself.

When America was founded, the Bible was distributed throughout the Thirteen Colonies by Congress for its moral teaching and guidance of the people. When our first schools were established; the Bible was used as a text book, to teach reading and Biblical history, along with positive moral values. This was so in our elementary schools and in our institutions of higher learning. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and all the other early schools were founded as Christian universities for the purpose of raising up pastors and Scripturally knowledgeable leaders. The Bible was not excluded; but was a major text book in all those schools.

If you will notice; America has in this last century gradually eliminated the Bible and God from our educational institutions -- and America has declined accordingly in our moral values. We have an epidemic of drive by shootings, teen pregnancies, teen STDs, and teen crimes -- that was not seen in previous generations. There is definitely a cause and effect to be seen here.

And, I can promise you that if America will invite God and the Bible back into our schools, it will not take very many generations to see a positive change in the moral and spiritual climate in America -- and, I am convinced that we would see America return to the successful and glorious nation we have been in the past.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill,

Creationism is not science. Evolution is scientific theory. The worlds religions are and should be taught about and discussed in several different classes in most of the nations school systems. Just not as a science.

The Bible IS in schools all over this nation. School age kids are allowed to bring Bibles to school, participate in Christian clubs, study groups and prayer on school property just as ALL religions are allowed the same freedom. There is no state sanctioned compulsory prayer, or enforced belief and there should not be. As I have stated, I do not want an Evangelical teaching my children from their religious perspective. My children are and have been active in church all their lives. They have spent 11 summers at camp McDowell, participated in our church in every youth oriented class available, worked with Habitat, and several other activities outside and inside school. I encouraged it, and helped facilitate it in every way possible. It is MY responsibility and the responsibility of our church to teach my children about religion. It is not the responsibility of the public school system.

Your claim about violence in schools being directly linked to the supposed removal of "God and the Bible" from schools, is not exactly accurate. The level of violence in schools actually follows the level of violence in the nation in general. It also reflects a lack of engagement between parents and children. This is reflected in many aspects of our culture. Instead of blaming violence on what the school system is not doing, I would blame it on parents who are not doing their job. Since above 80% of Americans believe in some form of "Creator" and practice religion on a fairly regular basis, it is not the fault of schools, but instead it is the fault of the home in translating the principles of their belief to their children. My children associate with all different kinds of children at school ( got one in college now at Sewanee ). Most of the kids I have encountered are partipating in church, and were raised as Christians. There are a few Jews in the mix, and a very few non-believers, one Hindu and several involved in Eastern religions.

Wiki has an interesting amount of information on this issue and its history from a legal perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

Strangely enough, America has a much higher rate of church attendance than most other Western nations ( with the exceptions of Ireland, Italy, Puerto Rico, Poland and Mexico ), yet we have a very high rate of violence (murder in particular). Poland, and Mexico where church attendance is higher than in the United States actually has a higher murder rate than the U.S. Using your theory, nations with higher church attendance produce more murderers per capita than do those with lower church attendance.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Last edited by meanasasnake
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
No one is saying that we should replace the teaching of science in our schools; just that we keep it in it proper perspective.


Bill, you lying snake. That is EXACTLY what you profess on nearly a daily basis here!

Science itself keeps itself in proper perspective. It's very nature demands that there be no authority. Its nature insists that questions be asked and alternatives be explored.

Contrast that with religion which demands that certain questions not be asked. Religion demands that certain preconceived beliefs be held in spite of contradictory evidence.

Religion, at its extremes (as exemplified by the Prophet Bill Gray) demands a complete shut down of all higher reasoning faculties of the brain.

There is no place for that in a science classroom.

But, I tell ya what: I am coming around a little to your side. I've come to realize that this law will also allow atheist evolutionist science teachers to speak freely about the lies and falsehoods of creationism. Whereas they once had to tread lightly because of fear of recriminations from the state, they can now openly point out the lies.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
Hi Fish,

My original statement was, "No one is saying that we should replace the teaching of science in our schools; just that we keep it in it proper perspective."

To which, with your usual atheistic tact and communication skills, you responded, "Bill, you lying snake. That is EXACTLY what you profess on nearly a daily basis here!"

What I say on a daily basis is that Evolution is not science, but only a theory. Charles Darwin himself said, over one hundred years ago, that if the missing link cannot be found -- evolution would die. R.I.P. Evolution -- for no legitimate missing link which proves that one species evolved into a totally different species -- has ever been found. And don't hand me your silly bird to dinosaur theory. That had been disproved so often it has become boring.

Since Evolution is only a theory; what is wrong with the science teacher also giving the students the theory of Creation? Then, the student can, using their own intelligence, decide which they will believe.

Of course, that is the rub. The reason that Evolutionists are so insistent that Creation not be taught as a competing theory -- is that the atheists know that this would be the death knell for Darwinian Evolution -- R.I.P.

None of us are denying the fact of Evolution; which follows the natural adaptation of animals within a family. What we do deny is the Darwinian Evolution -- which is only a weak theory. As a matter of fact, it is so weak -- that atheists are afraid to have it taught side by side with Creationism.

Then, my fuzzy Friend, you declare, "Science itself keeps itself in proper perspective." It's very nature demands that there be no authority."

So, according to the wisdom of Fish: Science is a power within itself, there is no higher authority -- therefore Science must be god. For when you treasure something higher than all other authority -- that thing becomes your god. In Luke 16:13, Jesus teaches us, "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Mammon can be seen as wealth, property, or anything else you might treasure and worship -- such as your god of science.

No, my Friend, Science is not the final authority. Science operates under the laws created by God; just as you and I operate in the authority He has given to us.

One last thought: You opened your remarks with, "Bill, you lying snake." How often we have seen you address many of the Forum members in this manner -- Liar! -- Stupid! -- etc. Fish, when this is the only way you know how to responds to others; it only makes you look small, weak, and insecure. I am just curious. Were you this way when you were in Junior High and High School? If so, how many times did you get your butt kicked? Is this why you are so insecure today on the Forum; because you were chased home from school every day? So, now you can come on the Forum anonymously and spew your anger at everyone.

Fish, none of us are against you. We truly want to be your Friend. But, how does one befriend someone who is always screaming, "Stupid! Liar!"

Maybe if you put your brain in gear -- before you allow you fingers to type -- just maybe you can avoid such offensive language.

Just a thought.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
What I say on a daily basis is that Evolution is not science, but only a theory.


There you go again, Bill. You are on record here calling evolution a lie, equating it with atheism and blaming most of the evils of the world on it. You equate science with atheism virtually every single day.

You know this yet you sit there with a straight face claiming you have never done such.

I'll stop calling you a liar the moment you stop changing you story to fit your current understanding. I'll stop calling you a liar as soon as you stop insisting that kids be brainwashed into insisting that the earht is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs were on the ark and that incestuous relationships populated the planet.

Liar.
GuffawGuffawOld Faithful
quote:
Charles Darwin himself said, over one hundred years ago, that if the missing link cannot be found -- evolution would die. R.I.P. Evolution -- for no legitimate missing link which proves that one species evolved into a totally different species -- has ever been found. And don't hand me your silly bird to dinosaur theory. That had been disproved so often it has become boring.


Some clarifications:

We gone over this before, Bill, but you have conveniently forgotten:

1: Scientific "Theory" is so very much more than the common definition of "theory." A scientific theory is a (from wiki) "Testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."

Creationism is not a theory because it cannot be tested, observed and no predictions can be made. If you disagree, fine, give me the name of one single laboratory that is currently conduction experiments on the validity of young earth creationism, liar.

2: Charles Darwin never stated what you just stated. What he said is that if once single fossil is ever found in the "wrong place" (i.e. a rabbit fossil found in pe-Cambrian rock layer) then the whole theory would fall. Liar.

3: We have thousands - perhaps millions - of examples of transitional fossils. Again, we have discussed these time and again, you liar. Highly detailed transitional lineages include horses, whales, elephants, and, of course, humans.

Liar.

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×