Creationists are selfish and un-American

[Reanimation]

This has got to be the most unfounded mop-bucket of garbage I've heard in a while.

All unfounded. All unprovable.

Can you back up ANY of your allegations with substantial and reliable, un-liberalized reports of this occurance?

If a person's particular belief of creation VS. evolution is preventing them from being an active, effective laborer in the economy....phew...how ever will the average joe support all the illegal's and their kids?

Ah, yes....how "un-American" a country founded on Christian beliefs....being flushed down the toilet....

A person's intelligence or income is by no means based upon their belief of how the world came to be.

Surely anyone knows that.....unless of course, they arent "highly evolved enough" to connect such a thing.

Oh look, a strawman. How surprising.

He's saying that by attempting to push creationism into science classes, and by attempting to have creationism recognised as science, that Americans are doing themselves no favours. By doing so, it will erode the US's status as one of the world's leaders in scientific research. I.e. it will affect those working in the life sciences.

Those with a science degree earned in America will no longer have the same footing when it comes to job opportunities around the world. And why would they? Why would an employer want to take someone with a science degree earned in the US if there's a chance that they could be a reality denying cdesign propensist, when they could instead hire someone from Australia, Canada etc where science education standards haven't been eroded by those with a religious agenda?

 

[Chalnoth]

By the way, even now we import huge numbers of people into graduate programs and higher from outside the US. Not just in biology, but in all sciences. Science education in the US really needs a good kick in the pants, and the teaching of evolution is one significant piece of that.

We need to get science education in this nation to the point where nearly all students can see just how obvious it is that evolution is accurate.

 

[Allegory]

This has got to be the most unfounded mop-bucket of garbage I've heard in a while.

All unfounded. All unprovable.

Can you back up ANY of your allegations with substantial and reliable, un-liberalized reports of this occurance?

If a person's particular belief of creation VS. evolution is preventing them from being an active, effective laborer in the economy....phew...how ever will the average joe support all the illegal's and their kids?

Ah, yes....how "un-American" a country founded on Christian beliefs....being flushed down the toilet....

A person's intelligence or income is by no means based upon their belief of how the world came to be.

Surely anyone knows that.....unless of course, they arent "highly evolved enough" to connect such a thing.

Apparently you're not highly evolved enough to recognize the fact that It's a parody of fundamentalist-right rhetoric.

This comment is stunningly stupid though:

If a person's particular belief of creation VS. evolution is preventing them from being an active, effective laborer in the economy....phew...how ever will the average joe support all the illegal's and their kids?

If a country produces only laborers it turns into the Philippines, and you won't be supporting the immigrants..they'll be supporting you.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Well, sure, you have the freedom to ignore science. But you'd be violating the separation of church and state to take evolution out of the schools, or worse to have intelligent design taught in the public schools. And doing so significantly damages science education in our country. We have a huge fraction of the current generation that is missing this incredibly important fact of biology.

Ignore reality all you want, but don't drag the rest of the country down with you into the dark ages.

You do not even understand separation of church and state. You would actually probably even quote Thomas Jefferson who had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, he was in France as the US Ambassador, or anything to do with the Bill of Rights, he was the Secretary of State. Now I ask you, quote the WRITER of the Bill of Rights promoting what you call separation of church and state. Hint: Google "Master Draft of Bill of Rights"

 

[Danyc]

They didn't which you can get from "so this is how you debate," as in they didn't think this was a debate. Reading comprehension...

Right. You respond to a joke, with a joke.

I assumed everyone knew that.

I guess not.

 

[Chalnoth]

You do not even understand separation of church and state. You would actually probably even quote Thomas Jefferson who had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, he was in France as the US Ambassador, or anything to do with the Bill of Rights, he was the Secretary of State. Now I ask you, quote the WRITER of the Bill of Rights promoting what you call separation of church and state. Hint: Google "Master Draft of Bill of Rights"

Two words: Lemon Test.

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

There is no secular legislative purpose in allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design. Therefore it fails the Lemon Test. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

 

[Morcova]

No, we are not apes at all. We are manKIND. Not apeKIND.

You might as well have said,

"We are humans, not people."

 

[Morcova]

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We can speak.

So god has vestigial organs too?

No wonder the human body is so imperfect.

 

[pgp_protector]

So god has vestigial organs too?

No wonder the human body is so imperfect.

I've notice that questions like this get overlooked.

my version earlier in the thread.

 

[Morcova]

Opposing the status quo is now un-American.

When the status quo is wrong? Certainly.

Just ask the founding fathers.

And sorry guy, but you've got more in common with that fellow than we do.

You both have a belief in invisible people.

 

[Morcova]

I've notice that questions like this get overlooked.

my version earlier in the thread.

Well naturally, they can't acknowledge that the human body, just about ALL human bodies are born with certain imperfections, (eyes that work wrong, the human tail) and then claim that we are made in god's image. There are those who after much reaching and grasping bring up the "fall", which then begs the question... "So we are no longer made in gods image?"

 

[DamonWV]

You do not even understand separation of church and state. You would actually probably even quote Thomas Jefferson who had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, he was in France as the US Ambassador, or anything to do with the Bill of Rights, he was the Secretary of State. Now I ask you, quote the WRITER of the Bill of Rights promoting what you call separation of church and state. Hint: Google "Master Draft of Bill of Rights"

You forgot to add another thing about thomas jefferson, when people shout separation of church and state, in his letter when he addressed the situation , he was talking about the government not interfering with making a one world religion ( reason why people left england to come to america to begin with ) i think he was addressing danbury baptisits reassuring them that the governemt would not interfere with the religion or force them to be one united type of religion. thomas made it quite clear no influence from government should be on religion, but thats it.. a one way wall, religion could affect government.. ( which back then most were god fearing men, and based their rules, laws, ideas from beleifs in a god.

 

[flatworm]

thomas made it quite clear no influence from government should be on religion, but thats it.. a one way wall, religion could affect government.

You have to be pretty ignorant and naive to think that government can be kept from interfering in religion once one religion is allowed to turn its doctrine into government policy.

 

[IzzyPop]

You have to be pretty ignorant and naive to think that government can be kept from interfering in religion once one religion is allowed to turn its doctrine into governmnet policy.

Oh... You mean they can't have their cake and eat it, too?

 

[flatworm]

Oh... You mean they can't have their cake and eat it, too?

I just can't wait to see what would happen when one of these Protestant fundamentalist "one-way-wall" theorists' children comes home with a rosary they were given at school in a Catholic-majority area of the country. They will either have to rebuild that wall in a hurry (a proper wall that works both ways), or unveil their true agenda - passing laws to turn their beliefs into the State Religion, if indeed they still have the political clout to do so.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Two words: Lemon Test.

There is no secular legislative purpose in allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design. Therefore it fails the Lemon Test. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

Now your going to claims, where did I say to teach ID? I did not, stop clinging things other people say to me. I don't want evolution or ID taught in schools.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Now your going to claims, where did I say to teach ID? I did not, stop clinging things other people say to me. I don't want evolution or ID taught in schools.

Can't edit, but if you want to talk about Supreme Court cases, I can do that.

Holy Trinity v US, "a Christian nation"
Vidal v Girard Executors "Christianity must be taught in school"
Davis v Beason
Reynolds v US

Theres some more, but you get the point, all of these are before your precious Everson v Board of Education. Funny thing about those is that back then it wasn't about your political ideology, it was more about the constitution unlike Liberals on the supreme court who base their decision off of their ideology and not the constitution.

 

[Chalnoth]

Now your going to claims, where did I say to teach ID? I did not, stop clinging things other people say to me. I don't want evolution or ID taught in schools.

Oh, well then, there's absolutely no secular reason to keep evolution teaching out of schools, either. It is, after all, the foundation of our understanding of biology.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Oh, well then, there's absolutely no secular reason to keep evolution teaching out of schools, either. It is, after all, the foundation of our understanding of biology.

Good, let the scientist understand it more to make it TRUE and not just a theory that is blatantly just put there to say there is no God. In a school text book you can find things that the evolution chapter says that contradicts the proven science.

 

[Chalnoth]

Can't edit, but if you want to talk about Supreme Court cases, I can do that.

Holy Trinity v US, "a Christian nation"
Vidal v Girard Executors "Christianity must be taught in school"
Davis v Beason
Reynolds v US

Theres some more, but you get the point, all of these are before your precious Everson v Board of Education. Funny thing about those is that back then it wasn't about your political ideology, it was more about the constitution unlike Liberals on the supreme court who base their decision off of their ideology and not the constitution.

On Holy Trinity Church v US:
That's a really odd stance to take on your part, particularly as this case has been loudly denounced by Justice Scalia as inviting "judicial lawmaking." The case was explicitly made on the intent of the law, after all, and not the text of the law, in direct contradiction to your claim that they were basing their decision off the constitution. Your claim becomes particularly specious when it doesn't look like this case even ruled on the constitution, but instead on a law barring foreign workers. The establishment clause doesn't appear to have been touched on.

On Vidal v Girard Executors:
I don't see how this supports your case. The court upheld the statute in Girard's will to prevent the teaching of any religious doctrine in the schooll to be built on his trust, because the will did not explicitly expunge Christianity, but all religion. This seems in perfect keeping with later court decisions on the constitutionality of religious issues.

On Davis v Beason:
Ugh. This decision sounds like a particularly ugly infraction of the first amendment, because they upheld a law specifically designed to disenfranchise Mormons. I'd fully support the law, mind you, if it only required that people don't practice polygamy to vote (as polygamy is pretty odious). But it also required that they don't belong to an institution that supports polygamy. So I'd just have to say that this case seems to me to be completely out of bounds, and very much against the free exercise clause. Either way, though, this case was about the free exercise clause and not the establishment clause, so I don't see how it applies.

On Reynolds v US:
Since this is a ruling on the free exercise clause and not the establishment clause, I don't see how it applies to your claims.