Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[gluadys]

Fake. Not true. Didn't happen. A fraudulent way to view the beginning.

So if a story about our beginnings is not a factual record of our beginnings, you consider it fraudulent. It is not just fiction, it is an outright lie. Have I understood your position correctly?

We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we born sinners, which comes by the very nature of Adam's action. Yes, I believe without it being historical, sin, death, thorns, painful pregnancy, etc. don't exist.

Yet all these things do exist. So you take the existence of these things---sin, death, thorns, painful pregnancy (actually the scripture says child-birth, and the scripture is right on this score; giving birth is painful, pregnancy not usually.)...you take the existence of these things as evidence the story is factual. Have I got that right?

I don't understand your question. People born sinners are inherently desiring to do evil. It is because of God's people this world is a better place.

I am asking you to entertain the possibility that the story of the fall is not historical. With this in mind, how would you explain the existence of sin? For sin is a fact, even if the story of the fall is not.

So you seem to believe that one might be capable of making all the right choice and never needing Jesus since you believe sin is just a thing we do by choice.

No, I don't believe that at all. I am a Calvinist on this point. I believe our will is bound by sin and not free to refuse sin, until liberated by Christ.

Why? Because we deny God to get an A?

But neither answer denies God. One speaks to the theology of our origin, one to the biology of our origin. The first speaks explicitly of God, the other does not. But neither denies God.

 

[vossler]

The ACLU has defended the rights to free speech for members of NAMBLA. They have never represented them in their fight to legalize having sex with boys as you originally suggested.

Free speech isn't free unless even undesirable speech is defended.

Do you support supression of free speech?

I find these arguments absolutely fascinating.

The ACLU defends NAMBLA's rights to publish material that promotes sex between men and boys. This material not only promotes this activity but also tells how a man is to lure his child victim into his clutches.

So you believe the ACLU is doing a good thing by defending this right!

Then a school board wishes to open the discussion of origins to other theories and people will vehemently come to the defense of evolution while not giving a second thought to an organization such as NAMBLA.

We call ourselves Christians, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

 

[notto]

I find these arguments absolutely fascinating.

The ACLU defends NAMBLA's rights to publish material that promotes sex between men and boys. This material not only promotes this activity but also tells how a man is to lure his child victim into his clutches.

So you believe the ACLU is doing a good thing by defending this right!

I believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed to everyone means just that - it is guaranteed to everyone. I don't approve or condone of the speech, but neither does the ACLU - that doesn't mean that it should not be defended. If they have not broken any laws, there is no reason to limit their freedoms. Speech isn't free if it has strings attached. Do you favor the limitation of speech? Of course none of this changes the fact that the original poster misrepresented the ACLU's position. That is intellectually dishonest and is simply an appeal to emotion to try to taint the ACLU. It has no bearing on the fact that a republican appointed lutheran judge ruled with them that ID is not science and should not be taught in a science classroom. It is an attempt to distract from the miserable failure of those that define ID presented in court.

Then a school board wishes to open the discussion of origins to other theories and people will vehemently come to the defense of evolution while not giving a second thought to an organization such as NAMBLA.

When a school board wishes to teach something other than science or wishes to teach religion in a science class, there will be outrage. This is why all of those on the board in the dover case who put ID in the classroom were voted out in the last election. Science belongs in science class. The case in Dover showed that ID is not science and even when the defendents lied, misrepresented, and had an open floor, they could not convince a republican appointed lutheran judge that it was not a religiously based attack on legitimate science. It is not a theory in the same sense that evolution or other scientific theories are.

We call ourselves Christians, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Well, as a Christian, an American, and someone who went to college to study science, I don't see why I would not defend freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the teaching of science in science class. I find it surprising when others don't.

 

[reverend B]

I find these arguments absolutely fascinating.

The ACLU defends NAMBLA's rights to publish material that promotes sex between men and boys. This material not only promotes this activity but also tells how a man is to lure his child victim into his clutches.

So you believe the ACLU is doing a good thing by defending this right!

Then a school board wishes to open the discussion of origins to other theories and people will vehemently come to the defense of evolution while not giving a second thought to an organization such as NAMBLA.

We call ourselves Christians, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

let me say categorically that i am not ashamed. the shame is not being vehemently honest when confronting the actual issues at hand, and not bending the argument to something it is not.
what the aclu is doing is protecting your rights under the u.s. constitution. by this document we have certain protections that, even when arguably abused, DO protect individual rights. it is hard to accept that when the rights include talking about something so objectionable to you that it encourages nausea, but it IS protected, and when the aclu protects these twisted little men, they are protecting YOU! the time will come that what you want to talk about will be so objectionable to the status quo that someone will want to shut you up, and when it happens, the aclu will protect you. they have repeatedly proved this by protecting kids rights to pray or read scripture in school, to keep limbaughs medical records private and all the myriad cases that have already been cited regarding the aclu. protecting speech is not protecting the behavior that the speech endorses. stop with this spurious and ridiculous argument that shows nothing but our own ignorance.
we compound our hypocrisy by thinking that science does not have specific evidenciary requirements that makes something arguably under its purview. they had to make the argument that they were not trying to introduce God into the science curriculum. every Christian on here that is outraged about the decision is mad because God is not in the science classroom!!! there is no consistency to these arguments and our credibility is skewered every time we make these fallacious attempts at convincing the world how persecuted we are under this Godless system!!!
bunk. we have freedom here. make use of it. instead of wasting your time and emotional energy on fighting to make the u.s. government the tool for your evangelism, do it yourself!!! love someone foolishly. be kind when the world finds kindness uncalled for. be humble in the face of your greatest achievements. when people wonder how you can be that way, say, "oh, i'm a Christian", and then smile and walk away.
are we trying to convert governments or people? changing the law wont change anyones heart. that is your job and mine. let's get busy. and let's stay brutally honest, with the public and with ourselves. there is no other way to do our job.

 

[Critias]

The performance of which is illegal, and even the ACLU won't come to their aid for that... however, NAMBLA has the constitutionally-protect right to talk about these things, to express their opinion about these things... and that, and that alone, is the right that the ACLU protects... the right to express an opinion that other people think is sick.

Or are opinions outlawed now?



One loaded question deserves another... when did you stop beating your wife?

They are questions that you could have given an answer to. Instead you ignore it and leave the reader to believe that you support sexual immorality.

 

[Critias]

The ACLU has defended the rights to free speech for members of NAMBLA. They have never represented them in their fight to legalize having sex with boys as you originally suggested.

Free speech isn't free unless even undesirable speech is defended.

Do you support supression of free speech?

I support a world without sexually immoral organizations and its supporters. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, maybe you enjoy how sexually immoral America has become.

Here is what NAMBLA wants:

'In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, proposed by Tom Reeves, which said: "The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws."'

And the ACLU has come to their aid. Just as the ACLU has come to support live sex acts in Oregon and the legalization of prostitution. But, I suppose these are good things in your opinion, right, notto?

From your stance, I assume you support Man/Boy love and the removal of the age-of-consent so men can legally molest boys.

 

[Critias]

Well, Critias, do you believe in a geocentric cosmos? Do you believe a bat is a bird? Do you believe demons are the cause of epilepsy?

The statement was made that science ought to bow to scripture. These are statements of scripture that are contradicted by science.

In these cases, which do you honestly believe: scripture or science? And why?

Gluadys, it is you who is now taking what the Bible says and putting it into modern day scientific thinking. Yet, you will then say the Bible isn't a scientific book. You really gotta pick a stance and stick with it.

If the Bible isn't a scientific book, then your argument about bats, geocentrism, and epilepsy are irrelevant. Since you have brought them up as relevant, then obviously you see the Bible as a scientific book.

 

[Critias]

let me say categorically that i am not ashamed. the shame is not being vehemently honest when confronting the actual issues at hand, and not bending the argument to something it is not.
what the aclu is doing is protecting your rights under the u.s. constitution. by this document we have certain protections that, even when arguably abused, DO protect individual rights. it is hard to accept that when the rights include talking about something so objectionable to you that it encourages nausea, but it IS protected, and when the aclu protects these twisted little men, they are protecting YOU! the time will come that what you want to talk about will be so objectionable to the status quo that someone will want to shut you up, and when it happens, the aclu will protect you. they have repeatedly proved this by protecting kids rights to pray or read scripture in school, to keep limbaughs medical records private and all the myriad cases that have already been cited regarding the aclu. protecting speech is not protecting the behavior that the speech endorses. stop with this spurious and ridiculous argument that shows nothing but our own ignorance.
we compound our hypocrisy by thinking that science does not have specific evidenciary requirements that makes something arguably under its purview. they had to make the argument that they were not trying to introduce God into the science curriculum. every Christian on here that is outraged about the decision is mad because God is not in the science classroom!!! there is no consistency to these arguments and our credibility is skewered every time we make these fallacious attempts at convincing the world how persecuted we are under this Godless system!!!
bunk. we have freedom here. make use of it. instead of wasting your time and emotional energy on fighting to make the u.s. government the tool for your evangelism, do it yourself!!! love someone foolishly. be kind when the world finds kindness uncalled for. be humble in the face of your greatest achievements. when people wonder how you can be that way, say, "oh, i'm a Christian", and then smile and walk away.
are we trying to convert governments or people? changing the law wont change anyones heart. that is your job and mine. let's get busy. and let's stay brutally honest, with the public and with ourselves. there is no other way to do our job.

What right is the ACLU supporting when it supports the live sex acts in Oregon?

 

[notto]

And the ACLU has come to their aid.

But not in the way you originally suggested. You can't get around it Critias, you misrepresented the ACLU. You can try to deflect it all you want by trying to suggest that myself or other support sexual immorality or you can continue to suggest that the ACLU does as well, but that doesn't change that your original accusation was just plain wrong.

I don't think you are fooling anyone here with your continued accusations and strawman beating tactics.

Just as the ACLU has come to support live sex acts in Oregon and the legalization of prostitution. But, I suppose these are good things in your opinion, right, notto?

From your stance, I assume you support Man/Boy love and the removal of the age-of-consent so men can legally molest boys.

Well, you would have no reason to because I have never said that I support them. You would be doing nothing but making a false accusation, much like your original accusation against the ACLU. It is an accusation that is incorrect, intellectually dishonest, and basically false witness.

Good show. Outstanding work. Keep it up.

I can only assume from your stance that you support the supression of free speech. Why do you hate the first ammendment?


http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html?ht=nambla nambla#3_4
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, it is you who is now taking what the Bible says and putting it into modern day scientific thinking. Yet, you will then say the Bible isn't a scientific book. You really gotta pick a stance and stick with it.

If the Bible isn't a scientific book, then your argument about bats, geocentrism, and epilepsy are irrelevant. Since you have brought them up as relevant, then obviously you see the Bible as a scientific book.

Actually it is because of such statements in the bible that it is obvious to me that it is not a scientific text. But you are evading the issue.

This tangent began when Beginning Seasons asserted (in post #56) that "Science should bow to Scripture not the other way around!"

I raised a few items in which most people, including most creationists, have come to the opposite conclusion. And provided references when he asked for them.

So far, he has not responded. You have, but you are trying to pull the conversation off course.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, answer the question directly. In these cases, should science bow to scripture or not? Give reasons for your answer please.

 

[Crusadar]

The performance of which is illegal, and even the ACLU won't come to their aid for that... however, NAMBLA has the constitutionally-protect right to talk about these things, to express their opinion about these things... and that, and that alone, is the right that the ACLU protects... the right to express an opinion that other people think is sick.

Or are opinions outlawed now?

What was it that Christ said? "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28

One loaded question deserves another... when did you stop beating your wife?

At least ask the question correctly "Have you stopped beating your wife?" My answer would be: Why don't you ask my wife?

 

[vossler]

I believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed to everyone means just that - it is guaranteed to everyone. I don't approve or condone of the speech, but neither does the ACLU - that doesn't mean that it should not be defended. If they have not broken any laws, there is no reason to limit their freedoms. Speech isn't free if it has strings attached. Do you favor the limitation of speech? Of course none of this changes the fact that the original poster misrepresented the ACLU's position. That is intellectually dishonest and is simply an appeal to emotion to try to taint the ACLU. It has no bearing on the fact that a republican appointed lutheran judge ruled with them that ID is not science and should not be taught in a science classroom. It is an attempt to distract from the miserable failure of those that define ID presented in court.

For me there are two main points to this.

#1 Maybe for you freedom of speech means one can say or promote anything one wishes, even things against the law, which is exactly what MAMBLA is doing. How that is in any way Christ-like, I'd like you to explain.

#2 As Christians we should be protecting our kids by not allowing pedophiles easier access to children. Instead it appears we accept it without complaint.

How either of those two points are not easily on everyone's wish list is beyond me.

When a school board wishes to teach something other than science or wishes to teach religion in a science class, there will be outrage. This is why all of those on the board in the dover case who put ID in the classroom were voted out in the last election. Science belongs in science class. The case in Dover showed that ID is not science and even when the defendents lied, misrepresented, and had an open floor, they could not convince a republican appointed lutheran judge that it was not a religiously based attack on legitimate science. It is not a theory in the same sense that evolution or other scientific theories are.

Evolutionists must surely be scared if they think that a science teacher, as part of their lesson, explains to the class that the theory of evolution has a lot of people who call it bunk. This teacher then gives the reasoning for why a significant percentage of the U.S. population believes what they believe. If evolution is a fact as so many folks here believe then I can't help but to believe that our young people will see it as you do and dismiss ID or creationism. What's to fear?

Instead by repeatedly withholding the opposing arguments - which btw would only take at most an hour to present in a year long class - all that will do is cause people to wonder why it is being withheld and eventually have the opposite effect. Censorship on this issue coming from such a big proponent, as yourself, of the Freedom of Speech is actually quite fascinating to witness and observe. It appears that the freedoms you espouse are conditional to the argument being presented.

Well, as a Christian, an American, and someone who went to college to study science, I don't see why I would not defend freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the teaching of science in science class. I find it surprising when others don't.

I don't recall anyone here in anyway saying or promoting that science shouldn't be taught in science class. Isn't it you who is now "...making a false accusation...an accusation that is incorrect, intellectually dishonest, and basically false witness."

 

[reverend B]

The performance of which is illegal, and even the ACLU won't come to their aid for that... however, NAMBLA has the constitutionally-protect right to talk about these things, to express their opinion about these things... and that, and that alone, is the right that the ACLU protects... the right to express an opinion that other people think is sick.

Or are opinions outlawed now?

What was it that Christ said? "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28

here is the problem in a nutshell. quoting scriptural truth (which i believe and agree with here) to attack american law. what does one have to do with the other? if you want to attack peoples freedom of speech, then use the document that establishes it, not one that rightly tells of the possible negative effects of having it, but is toothless to change it. it may be true, but it does not contradict the fact that those legal rights exist. the u.s. constitution in its first amendment is saying that the law of this land is not subject to any other law. we are not under the bible, the koran, the bhagavad-gita or the tao. so though i agree with what you quote from matthew, i submit it has no relevance to the issue, except to the believer, and then for reasons that are seperate from the discussion here.

 

[reverend B]

What right is the ACLU supporting when it supports the live sex acts in Oregon?

freedom of expression. there is no foundation for criminalizing this behavior except for using a religious moral code. so we have our reasons for not pursuing behavior like this, as Christians, but we don't have legal standing to impose those reasons on others.
this is the system we have. you may want to change it. that's fine. but know what that means. you have serious work to do. you are talking profound amendments, and getting a huge majority of people to support them in order to pass them. people will not give up their rights very easily, because with group sex can go freedom of assembly. it is the proverbial slippery slope, and it's all downhill from there.

 

[notto]

Isn't it you who is now "...making a false accusation...an accusation that is incorrect, intellectually dishonest, and basically false witness."

Proponents of ID wish for something other than science to be taught in science class. They also wish to do so in violation of the freedom or religion that is guaranteed by the constitution.

This was the decision of a Bush appointed Lutheran judge. I have no reason to doubt that it was a good ruling and as a Christian and someone who has an interest in science, I support it.

I don't think I have made any false accusations. ID is not science. People want it taught in science class, therefore, people are advocating the teaching of something that is not science in science class.

As far as freedom of speech goes, you are free to discuss and believe anything you want. High school classrooms however are not a venue for free speech. What is taught there is peer reviewed topics that are actual science, not just some fringe philosphy that has been ruled to be religiously motivated.

 

[david_x]

in addition, facts can be tested by SCIENCE, and truth can not be tested.

Not to mock but, truth can be tested. Any conter-example would make in not truth.

If they really happened they wouldn't be stories would they? Did there have to be a real Good Samaritan for Jesus to tell a story featuring a Good Samaritan?

a beutiful example, if Christ said that the Good Sameratin was a story, why wouldn't God have said that the flood was a story?

But I don't believe science more than the Word.

Now your stuck between a rock and a hard place. If thats true, then you do believe that the flood story was true, right?

Would its teaching be any the less valid if Job is a character in a fictional story?

i thought the point of this thread was to point out the truth, not the importence.

 

[gluadys]

a beutiful example, if Christ said that the Good Sameratin was a story, why wouldn't God have said that the flood was a story?

As it happens, Jesus did not say the story of the Good Samaritan was a story. So why does God need to say that the flood was a story? In both instances we have enough smarts to figure that out for ourselves.

Now your stuck between a rock and a hard place. If thats true, then you do believe that the flood story was true, right?

The handiwork of the Word tells us the flood was not global. The story may have been based on a historical but regional flood, or it could be entirely fictional. The teaching of the story is true.

Question for you. Does the handiwork of the Word tell falsehoods about the actions of the Word? Does creation lie about what its Creator did?

i thought the point of this thread was to point out the truth, not the importence.

I didn't ask about the importance of the story. I asked about its validity. That is, about its truth.

 

[david_x]

As it happens, Jesus did not say the story of the Good Samaritan was a story. So why does God need to say that the flood was a story? In both instances we have enough smarts to figure that out for ourselves.

Is it not called the PARABLE of the Good sameritian?

Question for you. Does the handiwork of the Word tell falsehoods about the actions of the Word? Does creation lie about what its Creator did?

Absolutly not!

The handiwork of the Word tells us the flood was not global. The story may have been based on a historical but regional flood, or it could be entirely fictional. The teaching of the story is true.

A question, were is this handiwork of the Word info. coming from.
If it's fictional why didn't God say that!
Of cource the teachings are true but, we were arguing the historical accuracy.

 

[reverend B]

Not to mock but, truth can be tested. Any conter-example would make in not truth.

not to mock, but what the heck does this sentence mean?

 

[david_x]

Oh sorry, i mean that if there is a counter-example (somthin' that does not follow the true statement) than the statement is not entirely true.