Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Uh, it is true. It is a true theory. Theories are not wild guesses. They are explanations of the connections between many different facts supported by evidence and which result in testable predictions. Evolution passes these with flying colors, and is one of the most well-supported theories in all of science.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.
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.
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.
That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.
So god has vestigial organs too?
No wonder the human body is so imperfect.
But the question you didn't answer is why does god have vestigial organs? If he has vestigial organs does that mean he is imperfect?That's the problem with you evolutionists you can't see...or won't see beyond the end of your noses.
No, I didn't read it. But an interesting point, nonetheless. It's telling how the version that was accepted wasn't the one that includes this statement that seems to indicate that any religion is okay, but irreligion is not.Scalia also condemns the Lemon test, so whats your point. But I cannot be bothered with you anymore, you keep bringing more and more and getting farther off what I originally said. I know why you have done this and that is because you saw the Master Draft of the Bill of rights and read Article 20 and decided not say anything on it.
That's the problem with you evolutionists you can't see...or won't see beyond the end of your noses.
No, I didn't read it. But an interesting point, nonetheless. It's telling how the version that was accepted wasn't the one that includes this statement that seems to indicate that any religion is okay, but irreligion is not.
Hey, look, ad hominems. And I thought that Jefferson writing "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" was before 1947 (link).Leftist and their inability to comprehend what they are reading is just so annoying, so I must ask how did you get past the 6th grade if you couldn't comprehend Article #20, that before 1947 was considered the best interpretation of 1st amendment because it gives more information and easily comprehended. But silly me for thinking a atheist could comprehend it now when they couldn't comprehend it in 1947. After all, the nut jobs who created separation of church and state are also the ones who allowed the internment of Japanese Americans.
And why, pray tell, do you think that was the interpretation of the establishment clause? As near as I can tell, the first supreme court case ruling on the establishment clause was Bradfield v Roberts in 1899, and that one it was ruled that the funding was okay because it was to a secular institution, a hospital. I can find no mention of any supreme court case where it was ever ruled okay for promotion of religion in general.Leftist and their inability to comprehend what they are reading is just so annoying, so I must ask how did you get past the 6th grade if you couldn't comprehend Article #20, that before 1947 was considered the best interpretation of 1st amendment because it gives more information and easily comprehended. But silly me for thinking a atheist could comprehend it now when they couldn't comprehend it in 1947. After all, the nut jobs who created separation of church and state are also the ones who allowed the internment of Japanese Americans.
I guess since you didn't answer the question that's the problem with you creationists... a complete inability to answer questions...
But it is possible to learn much just starting with questions that appear foolish.No I didn't answer the question because it was a ridiculous question. I have the ability but choose NOT to answer some questions which are just foolishness.
That I think is an assumption of where the question is going. It also suggests there are some things you do not want to question.Agreed but some questions are argumentative and unproductive.
Scalia also condemns the Lemon test, so whats your point. But I cannot be bothered with you anymore, you keep bringing more and more and getting farther off what I originally said. I know why you have done this and that is because you saw the Master Draft of the Bill of rights and read Article 20 and decided not say anything on it.
Leftist and their inability to comprehend what they are reading is just so annoying,
Let's face it, the vast majority of the creationist movement is in the United States, so I think making the "un-American" statement is well justified.
So to the creationists, please, I'm begging you, please just show a little bit of modesty and give this fight up. You are doing no good by trying to push your particular brand of The Truth. The United States has been a global leader in sciences and technologies for the past hundred years or so, and yet you want to take this country that has given so much to the world and turn it into a place that scorns innovation.
Yes you think you're doing good by trying to get creationism or "intelligent design" or whatever into classrooms, but you're not. By teaching this particular "controversy" you're doing nothing but hurting yourselves. You think evolutionary theory and biology are threatening to your religion, but the real problem is that you can't see the forest for the trees. If you are successful in getting creationism into classrooms you will do nothing but destroy any chances future generations of American children have in the global marketplace.
You think people losing low-paying jobs to immigrants is bad? Just wait until you have to start importing scientists and engineers because the natives are receiving an education sub-standard to the rest of the world.
You lot have your own quaint little view of the world, how you think it was created, but the fact of the matter is that world view does not pay the bills; it doesn't create the medicine; it doesn't help the economy; it doesn't do anything but feed your own hubris. So for the good of the other 60% of the population and the rest of the world at large, just swallow your pride and go with whatever actually works (hint: it's not creationism)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?