Museums starting to tell creationists to jam it

[Pete Harcoff]

I would not allow unmarried men and women to sleep in the same room together.

This is bizarre. How would you even enforce this? Grill everyone on their relationship status?

 

[Arkanin]

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.

Half of me tells myself, "Stay, because the ideals your country was built on need people like you to fight for personal freedom." The other half says "Get the **** out of America before it's too late." At the end of the day, I simply refuse to leave Texas as my way of giving this collective mindset the bird.

Anyway, it would be unamerican of me to try to take away your right to assert that we should take away others' personal freedoms, but I will still very loudly oppose any of your attempts to coerce other people's behavior -- while celebrating your freedom of speech even if your ideals border evil -- because it is my right and duty to oppose the ideas of people like you, to protect religious, civil, and intellectual freedoms, with my equally free speech.

 

[nvxplorer]

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...

You have some severe misconceptions, Nip. The ACLU doesn’t attack Christianity. It only seems that way because the US is overwhelmingly Christian. The ACLU is a civil liberties organization. It deals exclusively with the Bill of Rights. Christians who don’t want separation of church and state see every decision which upholds the establishment clause as an attack. You display the persecution complex inherent with fundamentalist thinking.

Cases are tried in the jurisdictions where they occur, by judges who are already seated. The ACLU has no authority to select “biased” judges nor move the jurisdiction to a “liberal” court.

Your entire post is a strawman. I suspect you have been influenced by the rabid Reconstructionist thinking that wants to do away with the establishment clause altogether.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

No, the ACLU has prevented the exclusionary display of specific religions on government property. People can still say what they want as long as they are not representatives of the government or use their religious beliefs as a bias in a governmental role. You, yourself, can go down to any government property and tell people of Jesus. No one is stopping you.

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

But they have produced new species which is what evolution is all about.

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.

"Kind" is not a scientific term. Science hasn't produced the Everlasting Gobstopper either, but then both are fantasies anyway.

Since there is no room for faith in GOD, there is most definitely no room for faith in theorists or their theories.

Which is why all theories are tentative and open to falsification. Again, there is no faith in science.

A theory that is "said" to be non-falsifiable by those promoting it, certainly sounds true in the ears of those promoting it.

Evolution is falsifiable. The problem for you is that it has not been falsified even though certain evidence, if found, would do so.

 

[Beastt]

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

When/if they do, what will this mean to you? They're perhaps not so far away as you might believe.

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.

Not too surprising when you consider that superstitionists of creationism have yet to define what constitutes a "kind".

Since there is no room for faith in GOD, there is most definitely no room for faith in theorists or their theories.

There is no room in science for faith in anything. Science isn't about faith. Faith is what is used in place of evidence and science must be based on evidence or it is reduced to conjecture and superstition.

A theory that is "said" to be non-falsifiable by those promoting it, certainly sounds true in the ears of those promoting it.

What theory was said to be non-falsifiable? For any idea to be a theory it must be falsifiable. I wonder if you still don't understand what the word "theory" means.

 

[LittleNipper]

If I was certain of your meaning, I wouldn’t have asked for clarification.
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.
First amendment.
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?
Good for you. Everyone doesn’t share this opinion.
You’re assuming everyone thinks like you. You’d be a failed hotel owner.
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.
Perhaps, but they would also disagree with your idea of controlling others’ sex lives.
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.

I don't believe in controlling anyone's sex life in their own community. There are places where people can pretty much behave anyway they choose. Their communities also stand as a stark testimony to just what certain types of behavior will do for the citizens that live by those standards. Christians exist pretty much everywhere. I would agree with you that those religious beliefs that are not based on a personal relationship with GOD, but are a system of rituals and expectations are a cultural phenomenon. How many Hindus are not of Indian descent? How many Moslems are not of Third World Nation descent? How many Buddhists are not of Asian descent? How many Mormons are not connected with Utah? I rest my case...

 

[LittleNipper]

When/if they do, what will this mean to you? They're perhaps not so far away as you might believe.


Not too surprising when you consider that superstitionists of creationism have yet to define what constitutes a "kind".


There is no room in science for faith in anything. Science isn't about faith. Faith is what is used in place of evidence and science must be based on evidence or it is reduced to conjecture and superstition.


What theory was said to be non-falsifiable? For any idea to be a theory it must be falsifiable. I wonder if you still don't understand what the word "theory" means.

A "kind" is whomever the parents are. So if the Flood Theory is falsifiable that would make it true?

 

[Beastt]

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.

I can see where creationism could be mentioned in public schools and it could even be mentioned in a science class. It would provide a good example of what does not constitute a theory on any scientific grounds and could be further used as a demonstration of something to which scattered scientific processes are applied in a manner other than the scientific method. It should serve well to illustrate the difference between science and psuedo-science.

 

[Beastt]

A "kind" is whomever the parents are.

So if the parents are a Cheetah, then they are of the "Cheetah kind"?

So if the Flood Theory is falsifiable that would make it true?

What does the word "falsifiable" mean to you? To be falsifiable "a proposition or theory must admit consideration of the possibility of its being false."

So being falsifiable doesn't, by itself, make anything true or false. It simply admits to the idea that the proposition can be tested and that it retains the quality of possibly being shown to be false by evidence. This does not presume the evidence to be present to prove a proposition to be false, only that it would be possible to prove false were falsifying evidence to be found.

But as far as the flood story goes, it can't really be called a "theory" because it has already shown to be false through evidence. In other words, it has not only been shown to be falsifiable, but has been falsified as well. It didn't happen.

 

[nvxplorer]

I don't believe in controlling anyone's sex life in their own community.

Their own community? What are you talking about? Are you saying communities are based on sexual activity? Are you saying you have the right to dictate sexual practices in “your community?”

There are places where people can pretty much behave anyway they choose.

Are you sure you’re an American? We have this little thing called freedom. Have you heard of it? People can do anything they please. If they break the law, they will have to answer to it. If they don’t break the law, they answer to no one.

Their communities also stand as a stark testimony to just what certain types of behavior will do for the citizens that live by those standards.

Who are “they?” Give me an example of this stark testimony.

Christians exist pretty much everywhere.

Poor, majoritarian, persecuted Christians. My heart pumps Kool-Aid.

I would agree with you that those religious beliefs that are not based on a personal relationship with GOD, but are a system of rituals and expectations are a cultural phenomenon. How many Hindus are not of Indian descent? How many Moslems are not of Third World Nation descent? How many Buddhists are not of Asian descent? How many Mormons are not connected with Utah? I rest my case...

Uh...you rest my case.

 

[Arkanin]

Christians exist pretty much everywhere. I would agree with you that those religious beliefs that are not based on a personal relationship with GOD, but are a system of rituals and expectations are a cultural phenomenon. How many Hindus are not of Indian descent? How many Moslems are not of Third World Nation descent? How many Buddhists are not of Asian descent? How many Mormons are not connected with Utah? I rest my case...

Plenty, plenty, plenty, and plenty. Christianity is just as geographically influenced as any other religion, as well. I am a non-asian buddhist.

I am going to make a wild guess and guess that you live in the south. You don't talk like someone who lives in the north.

As the above said, you rest our case. Belief is highly a function of what society tells you to believe.

 

[Patzak]

So if the parents are a Cheetah, then they are of the "Cheetah kind"?

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. They're of the "cat kind". No, no, wait, I meant "beast kind". Or was is the "wild-cat kind"? Hmmm.

 

[Schroeder]

I note in that article that Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, talks of two types of creationist, and describes one type as a "thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen".

How come I've never met (or encountered, or read about) any of those?

because then you would have to do the same.

 

[Elduran]

because then you would have to do the same.

Are you implying that he refuses to listen? On what grounds?

 

[LittleNipper]

This is bizarre. How would you even enforce this? Grill everyone on their relationship status?

The same way they did in the good old days. The desk clerk looked for a ring and luggage and the couple had to sign in as Mr. & MRS. ___________. Not so bizarre, if one has any scruples whatsoever.

 

[LittleNipper]

You have some severe misconceptions, Nip. The ACLU doesn’t attack Christianity. It only seems that way because the US is overwhelmingly Christian. The ACLU is a civil liberties organization. It deals exclusively with the Bill of Rights. Christians who don’t want separation of church and state see every decision which upholds the establishment clause as an attack. You display the persecution complex inherent with fundamentalist thinking.

Cases are tried in the jurisdictions where they occur, by judges who are already seated. The ACLU has no authority to select “biased” judges nor move the jurisdiction to a “liberal” court.

Your entire post is a strawman. I suspect you have been influenced by the rabid Reconstructionist thinking that wants to do away with the establishment clause altogether.

The ACLU is for the public promotion of secular logic and preventing what it deems "religious" proselytizing. The Federal government needs to keep its nose out of both private and community affairs. The private citizen needs to realize that he is a part of some community and must keep his personal issues to himself or locate himself where others wish to live in accord with the standards he has choosen to broadcast and imbrace. If you do not like a "Family Christian" atmosphere, move to San Francisco, Camden, or Los Vegas. However, don't cry when those citzens stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance, begin taking drugs, gamble, have street gang fights and prostitution is solicited outside your own front door. I have NEVER been to any decidedly "Christian" community where any of this happens everyday or even every month. And I greatly resent the ACLU's attempts at labeling people such as myself as unamerican, while destroying community after community with lies about what is Constitutional and who are the true patriots. The ACLU is an atheistic organization and is being funded in part with American tax dollars. That is unConstitutional. Let them take themselves to court ----- they would never do that...

 

[immortalavefenix]

little nipper.

I DARE you to enforce upon me your morally "approved" sexual standerds.

I DARE YOU.

 

[LittleNipper]

So if the parents are a Cheetah, then they are of the "Cheetah kind"?


What does the word "falsifiable" mean to you? To be falsifiable "a proposition or theory must admit consideration of the possibility of its being false."

So being falsifiable doesn't, by itself, make anything true or false. It simply admits to the idea that the proposition can be tested and that it retains the quality of possibly being shown to be false by evidence. This does not presume the evidence to be present to prove a proposition to be false, only that it would be possible to prove false were falsifying evidence to be found.

But as far as the flood story goes, it can't really be called a "theory" because it has already shown to be false through evidence. In other words, it has not only been shown to be falsifiable, but has been falsified as well. It didn't happen.

The Flood has NEVER been demonstrated as an event that never happened. However, the finding of soft tissue parts of a T-Rex sure has been covered up. There is no logical explanation of how soft tissue of some prehistoric beast could possibly remain for of thousands years, let alone hundreds of millions of years... Yet, some do cling to their theories.

 

[LittleNipper]

little nipper.

I DARE you to enforce upon me your morally "approved" sexual standerds.

I DARE YOU.

You are not invited to sleep overnight in my house with your "significant" other. I just enforced GOD's morality on your sexual standards. I don't care if Hillary says it is OKay or not. I do not care what the ACLU says or not. I answer to GOD first. All others must go to the rear of the line including you and YOUR values...

 

[immortalavefenix]

I only answer to god

Much like the 911 hijackers right?

I AM NOT IN YOUR HOUSE.
I AM NOT INTERSETED IN HAVING SEX WITH YOU.
NOR IS ANYONE DIFFERNT FROM YOU.
WHAT IS YOUR OBESSION WITH OTHER PEOPLES GENTIALS?

The ACLU is for the public promotion of secular logic

Were in the ACLU charter does it say this. Or this is only YOUR speculation?

The Federal government needs to keep its nose out of both private and community affairs

The unless private and community forces are infringing on the civil rights of individuals, in that case the federal goverment has the responsibility to defend the individuals rights.

personal issues to himself or locate himself where others wish to live in accord with the standards he has choosen to broadcast and imbrace.

A person has the RIGHT to live peacably within whatever community he/she choses, in safety, and with the RIGHT to express themself ANYWAY they see fit so long as it does not break the law. And THAT is the LAW. But I can see how you would have complete contempt for that. Because I am MUSLIM I SHOULD NOT feel intimidated to moved into rural North Carolina. In fact I should be recived with friendship and compassion, IN SPITE of my cultural differances. What you are proposing is nothing less then SEGRAGATION.

That concept as an American way of life died out long ago AMIGO. Im sorry you missed the train in the 1950's.

If you do not like a "Family Christian" atmosphere, move to San Francisco, Camden, or Los Vegas

If you are too ignorant, racist, xenophobic, and far far far to much of a hatefull bigot to show tolerance respect for the human dignity of people of differnt cultures/religons/lifestyles,.. get the hell out of the US.

However, don't cry when those citzens stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance, begin taking drugs, gamble, have street gang fights and prostitution is solicited outside your own front door.

Last I heard the only people that stuck to a policy of interlorance xenophobia and racisim for national security were the Nazis and Al-Quida. Sure works for them dosnt it.

And I greatly resent the ACLU's attempts at labeling people such as myself as unamerican

Fear not. I am not a representative of the ACLU.

And I am telling you that you are unamerican TO THE EXTREME.

while destroying community after community

PROVE THAT.