Museums starting to tell creationists to jam it

[nvxplorer]

Life is not mud. That's what liberals make of it.

Excuse me? I’m not going to guess the meaning of this metaphor. Expand on it, please.

I do not fault people for their opinions. I fault people who think their opinions are worth more and work to subvert the research, opinions and values of those they despise.

I assume you’re still speaking of liberals. Politics is a game. Both sides are guilty of what you claim. It depends who’s in power as to what research is funded, but liberals and conservatives naturally hold their particular opinions as superior to the other’s. How could it be any other way? This has nothing to do with science. More of your black-and-white ideology showing, Nip.

Example, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. That is my opinion based on my faith and my observations. Some homosexuals want my opinion publicly silenced by labelling such as me bigots. Yet, the fact is I treat homosexuals much better they they often treat themselves. Kind of like trying to tell a smoker that smoking is bad for that person and that person saying, "Mind your own business. I enjoy smoking, you narrowminded bigot. You cannot tell me that I can't smoke anywhere I @#% choose." That is what is sad.

Here you are exhibiting the mindset you protested above. Hypocrite? You want your opinion recognized as being “worth more” than others. If you think homosexuality is a sin, don’t engage in it. Simple, no? You don’t want your opinion silenced, but you object when others hold the opinion that you are a bigot. Hypocrite? Your smoking analogy is way off the mark. Smoking is bad for one’s health. Homosexuality is not. Smoking around others is bad for their health. Homosexual activity harms no one.

 

[Patzak]

Kind of like trying to tell a smoker that smoking is bad for that person and that person saying, "Mind your own business. I enjoy smoking, you narrowminded bigot. You cannot tell me that I can't smoke anywhere I @#% choose." That is what is sad.

Amazingly enough, that's probably exactly how I would respond (without the "anywhere I @#% choose" part) - bothering people about smoking being bad for them is not being nice, it's being obnoxious. You might mean well but I know all about the health hazards of smoking; and homosexuals know all about their "sin", they've probably been told about it by hundreds of well-meaning people like you. If you want to be nice, you can start by accepting that people generally know what they want, what they enjoy and what's good for them. No need to tell them for the umpteenth time that what they're doing is unhealthy or sinful - they've heard it all before, they apparently don't care and the best thing you can do for them is to go home and pray for them or something.

 

[BananaSlug]

Life is not mud.

According to the Bible it is. Wait, that's dust. But dust mixed with water is mud!

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe you're afraid that some kids are becoming more sensitive to the fact that the establishment does not possess all the answers.

Actually, I'm afraid of the opposite. Creationism teaches that we have all of the answers, that God Did It. and that the Bible is to be the unquestionable authority. There is no reason to look any farther. No reason to look at fossils, create theories, or question anything since questioning LittleNipper's interpretation of the Bible is not allowed. It seems that you are the one that is afraid of authority being questioned, not me.

Science has flourished because people do question authority, Einstein being a perfect example. It is the challengers that win Nobel Prizes, not the followers.

You are afraid that there are more and more future creation scientists who will have no intension of working in the field of evolution, but may in fact be able to advance FLOOD theory and undermine evolutionary thought.

They have had over 200 years to show that the flood happened and 150 years to show that evolution is false. All the while both an old earth devoid of a global flood and the theory of evolution have gained support in the scientific community. The only way creation "scientists" can make any headway is to do away with science, which is why I am here on these fora. I am protecting the practice of science of which creation scientists want to do away with.

They may even be able to influence public educational practices in a way to encourage and promote investigative reasoning by individuals once again.

Schools already promote investigation, they just won't allow magic to be the conclusion. That is why it is called science and not "make-up-whatever-you-want hour".

The days of memorizing Darwin and his friends at the exclusion of others and their theories might just be coming to a close (or at least face a rockier road)...

If religion has it's way you might be right. If it is science that they want to teach it won't happen.

 

[LittleNipper]

Excuse me? I’m not going to guess the meaning of this metaphor. Expand on it, please.

I assume you’re still speaking of liberals. Politics is a game. Both sides are guilty of what you claim. It depends who’s in power as to what research is funded, but liberals and conservatives naturally hold their particular opinions as superior to the other’s. How could it be any other way? This has nothing to do with science. More of your black-and-white ideology showing, Nip.

Here you are exhibiting the mindset you protested above. Hypocrite? You want your opinion recognized as being “worth more” than others. If you think homosexuality is a sin, don’t engage in it. Simple, no? You don’t want your opinion silenced, but you object when others hold the opinion that you are a bigot. Hypocrite? Your smoking analogy is way off the mark. Smoking is bad for one’s health. Homosexuality is not. Smoking around others is bad for their health. Homosexual activity harms no one.

You know exactly what I mean. Liberals take black and white and make grey or gray. I am not insisting that my opinion is worth more. I simply want some mention of creationism made in public education. The liberals say its about GOD and you cannot talk of GOD in public education. The homosexual wants me to allow him and his "mate" to stay in my hotel. I would not allow unmarried men and women to sleep in the same room together. I believe marriage is about the possibility of procreating children and anything other is an act of lust. I would not on purpose expose my guests to that which I find offensive, any more than someone else would allow me to play Christian music on my player in the lobby of their casino or on the sidewalk outside of their bathhouse. People with AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases would likely disagree with you. However, you are free to politely express your opinion and I am free to politely express mine. A bigot is an individual who blindly holds to his view of others. I would not call any person a bigot who has personal convictions based in personal experiances and personal research. People who believe something is true simply because that is what they were told, makes good candidates for bigots. People who do not believe something because they were never told are not any better.

 

[JohnR7]

A bigot is an individual who blindly holds to his view of others.

Everyone is a bigot to some degree.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know exactly what I mean. Liberals take black and white and make grey or gray.

Liberals prefer the British spelling "grey".

I am not insisting that my opinion is worth more. I simply want some mention of creationism made in public education. The liberals say its about GOD and you cannot talk of GOD in public education.

Wrong, liberals say it is wrong to promote a single religion above others in accordance with the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. It's strange that Liberals are the ones taking the Constitution more literally these days.

I would fully support Christian Creationism being taught in a Comparative Religions course where other creation myths from other religions are taught. Due to the fact that religious views shape world politics I think it is important that high school students understand the religious tenets of people the world over just as they are taught the history of foriegn nations. However, the government should not be in the practice of exalting Christianity over other religions nor supporting the teaching of religious dogma in science class.

 

[And-U-Say]

Life is not mud. That's what liberals make of it. I do not fault people for their opinions. I fault people who think their opinions are worth more and work to subvert the research, opinions and values of those they despise. Example, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. That is my opinion based on my faith and my observations. Some homosexuals want my opinion publicly silenced by labelling such as me bigots. Yet, the fact is I treat homosexuals much better they they often treat themselves. Kind of like trying to tell a smoker that smoking is bad for that person and that person saying, "Mind your own business. I enjoy smoking, you narrowminded bigot. You cannot tell me that I can't smoke anywhere I @#% choose." That is what is sad.

Me irony meter, she's about ta blow, captn!

 

[LittleNipper]

Me irony meter, she's about ta blow, captn!

Logically speaking, isn't it about time you stuck some weenies in the Warpdrive, Scotty.

 

[LittleNipper]

Liberals prefer the British spelling "grey".



Wrong, liberals say it is wrong to promote a single religion above others in accordance with the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. It's strange that Liberals are the ones taking the Constitution more literally these days.

I would fully support Christian Creationism being taught in a Comparative Religions course where other creation myths from other religions are taught. Due to the fact that religious views shape world politics I think it is important that high school students understand the religious tenets of people the world over just as they are taught the history of foriegn nations. However, the government should not be in the practice of exalting Christianity over other religions nor supporting the teaching of religious dogma in science class.

As long as you consider any Creation thought "myth" and yet you do not accept any evolutionary theory "myth" ----it looks like things only go your way and everyone else gets shafted (educationally speaking of course). And as far as the Constitution, I agree. There is a separation of Church and State; however, there is no such separation of GOD and Country. None of the Founding Fathers ever imagined such a thing, or at least if they did, they imagined it with fear and loathing.

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually, I'm afraid of the opposite. Creationism teaches that we have all of the answers, that God Did It. and that the Bible is to be the unquestionable authority. There is no reason to look any farther. No reason to look at fossils, create theories, or question anything since questioning LittleNipper's interpretation of the Bible is not allowed. It seems that you are the one that is afraid of authority being questioned, not me.
Science has flourished because people do question authority, Einstein being a perfect example. It is the challengers that win Nobel Prizes, not the followers.
They have had over 200 years to show that the flood happened and 150 years to show that evolution is false. All the while both an old earth devoid of a global flood and the theory of evolution have gained support in the scientific community. The only way creation "scientists" can make any headway is to do away with science, which is why I am here on these fora. I am protecting the practice of science of which creation scientists want to do away with.
Schools already promote investigation, they just won't allow magic to be the conclusion. That is why it is called science and not "make-up-whatever-you-want hour".
If religion has it's way you might be right. If it is science that they want to teach it won't happen.

Creationists promote the idea that GOD holds the key and has all the answers. Evolutionists promote the idea that man will find all the answers on his own, with his own logic, and by his own merits. The 200 years was spent trying to spread the Gospel of Christ, find cures for many dreaded diseases, and try to relieve poverty. There was little time to waste proving or disproving the notiion that man evolved from single celled organisms that errupted spontaniously somewhere at sometime "naturally". It's all a matter of priority. Such imaginings never benefited a soul. The soul is all true believers really are concerned about. Does evolution concern itself with the soul? I don't think so.

 

[Loudmouth]

As long as you consider any Creation thought "myth" and yet you do not accept any evolutionary theory "myth" ----it looks like things only go your way and everyone else gets shafted (educationally speaking of course).

Until any creation myth can be substantiated with empirical evidence, and is falsified by none of it, it should not be taught as science. The theory of evolution is supported by empirical evidence and is falsified by none of it. That is why it is taught in science class. There is no room for faith in science.

And as far as the Constitution, I agree. There is a separation of Church and State; however, there is no such separation of GOD and Country. None of the Founding Fathers ever imagined such a thing, or at least if they did, they imagined it with fear and loathing.

That is why the government does not prevent people from entering churches. No one is preventing the teaching of christian creationism as science by citizens. However, the constitution does prevent the government from doing so, and this applies to those that represent the government such as public school teachers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists promote the idea that GOD holds the key and has all the answers.

Yep, and that makes it religion, not science. Therefore, creationism belongs in a religions course, not a science course.

Evolutionists promote the idea that man will find all the answers on his own, with his own logic, and by his own merits.

No, SCIENCE is the idea that natural phenomena are best described through natural mechanisms. Creationism does not believe this so it does not belong in science class.

The 200 years was spent trying to spread the Gospel of Christ, find cures for many dreaded diseases, and try to relieve poverty. There was little time to waste proving or disproving the notiion that man evolved from single celled organisms that errupted spontaniously somewhere at sometime "naturally". It's all a matter of priority. Such imaginings never benefited a soul. The soul is all true believers really are concerned about. Does evolution concern itself with the soul? I don't think so.

I never look to the theory of evolution for philosophical answers to philosophical questions. So I guess we agree on this one.

 

[LittleNipper]

Until any creation myth can be substantiated with empirical evidence, and is falsified by none of it, it should not be taught as science. The theory of evolution is supported by empirical evidence and is falsified by none of it. That is why it is taught in science class. There is no room for faith in science.
That is why the government does not prevent people from entering churches. No one is preventing the teaching of christian creationism as science by citizens. However, the constitution does prevent the government from doing so, and this applies to those that represent the government such as public school teachers.

The ACLU has prevented people from speaking of GOD in public settings. The theorists of evolution have not been able to produce life from that which is non-living. The theorists of evolution have not been able to demonstrate one kind which has without question changed into another kind in 4000 thousand years of human historic data. Since there is no room for faith in GOD, there is most definitely no room for faith in theorists or their theories. A theory that is "said" to be non-falsifiable by those promoting it, certainly sounds true in the ears of those promoting it.

 

[Aeothen]

The theorists of evolution have not been able to demonstrate one kind which has without question changed into another kind in 4000 thousand years of human historic data.

Just what's a 'kind', and where do the boundaries lie between one 'kind' and another?

 

[yasic]

The theorists of evolution have not been able to produce life from that which is non-living.

I don't see the priests making people from dirt either.

 

[Dracil]

I know how liberals exaggerate everything to either make an issue of nothing or prove anything...

This is just a variation of the EAC

 

[nvxplorer]

The ACLU has prevented people from speaking of GOD in public settings.

If by public settings, you mean government property, then the rulings were proper. It should be noted that the ACLU has no authority to prohibit anything. Decisions are made by courts, not ACLU lawyers.

As far as non-government public property is concerned, the ACLU has defended the rights of Christians. The ACLU has fought and won cases for baptisms performed in public parks.

Don’t conflate government property with public property, Nip.

 

[nvxplorer]

You know exactly what I mean.

If I was certain of your meaning, I wouldn’t have asked for clarification.

Liberals take black and white and make grey or gray.

Nonesense. Liberals have a certain philosophy, and conservatives have another. No one takes anything and makes something different out of it.

Some things are black-and-white, and some aren’t. Most people realize this. The extreme positions are unacceptable. Extreme black-and-white thinking is dictatorship. Extreme shades-of-gray thinking is anarchy. A tenable position lies somewhere inbetween.

I am not insisting that my opinion is worth more. I simply want some mention of creationism made in public education. The liberals say its about GOD and you cannot talk of GOD in public education.

First amendment.

The homosexual wants me to allow him and his "mate" to stay in my hotel. I would not allow unmarried men and women to sleep in the same room together.

Such decisions would fall to applicable law. If you’re not willing to abide by anti-discrimination laws, you have no business being in business. I don’t know whether you could refuse service based on these criteria, but you would still be resposible to the law. I do know one thing; most people consider their sex life to be a personal matter. Why can’t fundamentalists mind their own business?

I believe marriage is about the possibility of procreating children and anything other is an act of lust.

Good for you. Everyone doesn’t share this opinion.

I would not on purpose expose my guests to that which I find offensive,

You’re assuming everyone thinks like you. You’d be a failed hotel owner.

any more than someone else would allow me to play Christian music on my player in the lobby of their casino or on the sidewalk outside of their bathhouse.

False analogy. People have sex behind closed doors. It affects no one. Playing music in a hotel lobby can be disruptive to others. Playing music on public property would likely be permitted.

People with AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases would likely disagree with you.

Perhaps, but they would also disagree with your idea of controlling others’ sex lives.

A bigot is an individual who blindly holds to his view of others. I would not call any person a bigot who has personal convictions based in personal experiances and personal research. People who believe something is true simply because that is what they were told, makes good candidates for bigots. People who do not believe something because they were never told are not any better.

That’s a strange definition of bigotry.

Nonetheless, what you have described are the majority of religious people who believe the Bible because they have been told it was truth. If religious convictions were the result of personal research, we would expect to see the world religions represented much more equally across the globe. What we do see is that religion is largely a cultural phenomenon.

 

[LittleNipper]

If by public settings, you mean government property, then the rulings were proper. It should be noted that the ACLU has no authority to prohibit anything. Decisions are made by courts, not ACLU lawyers.

As far as non-government public property is concerned, the ACLU has defended the rights of Christians. The ACLU has fought and won cases for baptisms performed in public parks.

Don’t conflate government property with public property, Nip.

The ACLU has done some token jestures; however, their main thrust has always been to attack Christianity anyway it may be successful. Note: They do not apply the same tactics towards other religious minorities. Decisions are made in court by liberal lawyers and phoney "non-bias" judges. If the government is of the people, by the people and for the people------governmental "property" is of the people, by the people and for the people, also. There is not difference or imagined walls...