Museums starting to tell creationists to jam it

[Beastt]

The ACLU is for the public promotion of secular logic and preventing what it deems "religious" proselytizing.

Show me anywhere in their mission statement or operational procedures where your assertion can be supported.

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

I would say the federal government needs to limit its involvment to those areas specifically mandated in the constitution. Clearly, it is reaching too far and into matters where it has no business.

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.

So then you disagree with the first amendment right to free speech? Do you believe a community should be able to force residents out who disagree with the majority religious opinion of the community in which they live? Should anyone be restricted from engaging in legal activity based on the religious values of the community around them?

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

The "family Christian" atmosphere belongs within the family, not the community unless strictly by unanimous will of the community. Some of the values you're espousing here lie blatantly in contrast to American ideals.

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.

Don't cry when Islamic fundamentalists move into your community in numbers sufficient to utilize the same ideals you're promoting to drive the Christians from the community.

Why would you support the Pledge of Allegiance? That's about allegiance to American ideals and so far, you seem strictly against a number of those ideals. The whole, "under God" thing was added in the 50s and should be removed so that the Pledge once again echos the sentiments for which it was originally written.

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.

Can you present examples to support your claim that the ACLU is spreading lies about the constitutionality of any concept? I would agree that it's not up to the ACLU to label anyone as unAmerican, unless of course, they show themselves to be promoting ideas which directly conflict with the Constitution. Such ideas might include the concept of mandating any community as a "Christian community". That's one of the major reasons people came to American to begin with. They wanted to escape religious persectution. You want to promote religious persecution of any who hold to beliefs/religion other than your own.

The ACLU is an atheistic organization and is being funded in part with American tax dollars.

The ACLU is not concerned with religious beleifs. They are concerned with the continued separation of church and state as per the U.S. Constitution. There was a very good reason for mandating such a separation and it remains a good reason today. Without such a separation, religious persecution becomes commonplace. The founding fathers knew this because they had seen what happened when the government was allowed to affiliate with any specific religion. If you remember the story of Galileo and his narrow escape from being executed by order of the Church, you have an example of what can happen when government is not separated from religion.

That is unConstitutional. Let them take themselves to court ----- they would never do that...

Before you can claim that it's unconstitutional, you need to support your statement that the ACLU is an atheist organization. They clearly are not. They simply wish to support the Constitutional mandate that government remain separate from the church. If you see that as inappropriate, then you're supporting an unAmerican ideal.

 

[immortalavefenix]

What beast said.

 

[llDayo]

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...

You are completely mistaken.
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways
Defends the right of an elementary school student to sing a religious song in a voluntary, after-school talent show
Multiple examples (including defending Jerry Falwell)
Supporting Bible verses written in yearbooks
Christians in the ACLU, including the past president of the Alabama chapter

If it weren't for the ACLU stepping in then our rights would probably be run over by people wanting their own way. Incidentally, the ACLU usually gets law firms that are near a case to work pretty much pro bono, and only requires legal fees be returned, which is decided by the judge. The ACLU can only recover costs when a civil right has been violated and that's when it comes from taxpayers pockets. However, this is hardly out of the question and ANY legal group can do the same, provided they win the case.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

Problem is whether or not that is legal (and I'd be willing to wager it isn't). Hotels are licensed and must comply with certain laws. About half the states in the U.S. have laws against descrimination based on marital status. In addition, hotels can only refuse guests on certain grounds. If you refuse for any reason that isn't allowed, you're opening yourself to a lawsuit.

For example, there was a case in Alaska where a landlord tried to get an exemption for renting to unmarried couples. They wanted to rent to married couples only. The case was thrown out of court.

 

[immortalavefenix]

I get the feeling Lilnipp has a loose tounge and an even looser grasp of logic which has gotten him into some tight spots.

 

[Beastt]

The Flood has NEVER been demonstrated as an event that never happened.

I notice you completely ignored my question about the "Cheetah kind". The reason you failed to address that seems pretty obvious.

As for what you did address, would you mind explaining how anyone manages to demonstrate any supposed historical event not happening?

Whereas science has not been able to travel through time to the supposed era of the flood to film the flood not occuring, it certainly has shown, with conclusive evidence, that no such flood could have occurred. None of the evidence that such a flood would certainly leave behind exists.

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.

Covered up? It's been in all of the top science magazines. Dare I guess that you don't bother to read science magazines? The finding of T-Rex soft tissue has been big news. Why would anyone, (aside from those who note that the Bible says nothing about dinosaurs), want to cover it up?

Soft tissue being found within the larger bones is certainly not beyond logical explanation. You seem to be assuming that tissue simply rots on its own. That's not the case. Decomposition is due to the work of bacteria. Even if there were some bacteria within the bone when the animal died, if the bone were buried within sediments which didn't allow for any exchange of gases, those bacteria would not survive long enough to cause the soft tissue to decompose. And as we know that fossilization requires replacement of the original tissues with minerals, it's clear that it is a process which occurs mainly from the outside, in. That means that the thicker the layer of fossilized tissue on the outside, the more slowly the fossilization will occur more deeply within the material. When you consider the thickness of a T-Rex thigh bone, it should really be expected that some of them may contain soft tissue.

 

[LittleNipper]

I notice you completely ignored my question about the "Cheetah kind". The reason you failed to address that seems pretty obvious.

As for what you did address, would you mind explaining how anyone manages to demonstrate any supposed historical event not happening?

Whereas science has not been able to travel through time to the supposed era of the flood to film the flood not occuring, it certainly has shown, with conclusive evidence, that no such flood could have occurred. None of the evidence that such a flood would certainly leave behind exists.


Covered up? It's been in all of the top science magazines. Dare I guess that you don't bother to read science magazines? The finding of T-Rex soft tissue has been big news. Why would anyone, (aside from those who note that the Bible says nothing about dinosaurs), want to cover it up?

Soft tissue being found within the larger bones is certainly not beyond logical explanation. You seem to be assuming that tissue simply rots on its own. That's not the case. Decomposition is due to the work of bacteria. Even if there were some bacteria within the bone when the animal died, if the bone were buried within sediments which didn't allow for any exchange of gases, those bacteria would not survive long enough to cause the soft tissue to decompose. And as we know that fossilization requires replacement of the original tissues with minerals, it's clear that it is a process which occurs mainly from the outside, in. That means that the thicker the layer of fossilized tissue on the outside, the more slowly the fossilization will occur more deeply within the material. When you consider the thickness of a T-Rex thigh bone, it should really be expected that some of them may contain soft tissue.

This is ridiculous. The Bible has A LOT to say of the Dinosaur. There is an entire chapter and one half in the Book of JOB devoted to the very nature of the beasts and how man had no power over them. I think this is more then for any other creature in the Bible (Read JOB 40:15-24 & Chapter 41). There is no precedent of soft tissue existing as such for extended lengths of time. As for the FLOOD, it happened. According to the Bible, it cannot happen ever again; therefore, Uniformitarians would not be able to subtantiate a FLOOD of this magnitude because it cannot, has not, and will not ever happen again. They would rather believe that marrow would continue to remain soft 100 million years because they MUST believe that Dino has been extinct that long or they must question evolution. They do not wish to go there.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As for the FLOOD, it happened.

So now you're a professional geologist, to go along with your professional biology and hotel management positions?

They would rather believe that marrow would continue to remain soft 100 million years because they MUST believe that Dino has been extinct that long or they must question evolution.

Whether or not dinosaurs completely went extinct doesn't cause any problems to do with biological evolution. No where in the ToE does it mandate extinctions.

 

[nvxplorer]

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

Yes it did, Immortal.

But we do have this from one of Nip’s posts, which sums up his worldview nicely:

The same way they did in the good old days.

 

[LittleNipper]

As for Kind, a male and female and their offspring is a kind. One kind cannot start another kind. Mammals will beget mammals. Insects will beget insects. Fish will beget fish. Birds will beget birds. Bacteria will produce bacteria. Reptiles will beget reptiles. We do not know the quantities in which these animals existed in the past or if they have not become more specialized since the FALL. We do know that cross breeding cannot happen. One cannot mate a cat with a dog and generate offspring.

 

[nvxplorer]

If you do not like a "Family Christian" atmosphere, move to...[Las] Vegas.

I suggest you learn something about an area before attempting to denigrate it. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the US. Nevada has been the fastest growing state for twenty years. I live in Reno. There are gambling casinos everywhere. There are legal brothels a few minutes away. Reno is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. The unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the US. Crime is very, very low. Guess what? People move here because of the family atmosphere. Get your facts straight, Nip.

 

[yasic]

As for Kind, a male and female and their offspring is a kind. One kind cannot start another kind. Mammals will beget mammals. Insects will beget insects. Fish will beget fish. Birds will beget birds. Bacteria will produce bacteria. Reptiles will beget reptiles. We do not know the quantities in which these animals existed in the past or if they have not become more specialized since the FALL. We do know that cross breeding cannot happen. One cannot mate a cat with a dog and generate offspring.

Heh, that is an interesting way out.

However, by that classification, if life started from a single cell organism, its offspeings are its kind, so are their offsprings.... Meaning that every single living organism on the face of the earth is part of 1 kind.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes it did, Immortal.

But we do have this from one of Nip’s posts, which sums up his worldview nicely:

And the concept of American life TODAY is akin to living in raw sewerage. With all it's problems, I am very glad I was born and raised when I was. My family didn't have two TV's, two radios, two cars, or even two telephones. But at least I did not grow up confused or jaded and mother was home to make a cooked dinner. I actually existed in BACK TO THE FUTURE, and I enjoyed it and will remember it fondly.

 

[LittleNipper]

I suggest you learn something about an area before attempting to denigrate it. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the US. Nevada has been the fastest growing state for twenty years. I live in Reno. There are gambling casinos everywhere. There are legal brothels a few minutes away. Reno is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. The unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the US. Crime is very, very low. Guess what? People move here because of the family atmosphere. Get your facts straight, Nip.

Perhaps your kids will frequent the brothels or work them (do you proud). So much better than attending church. So much for "family atmosphere." There is more to life than living.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As for Kind, a male and female and their offspring is a kind. One kind cannot start another kind. Mammals will beget mammals. Insects will beget insects. Fish will beget fish. Birds will beget birds. Bacteria will produce bacteria. Reptiles will beget reptiles. We do not know the quantities in which these animals existed in the past or if they have not become more specialized since the FALL. We do know that cross breeding cannot happen. One cannot mate a cat with a dog and generate offspring.

Problem is, that definition is completely arbitrary (and betrays a 3rd grade understanding of biological classification). By the same token, I could claim that all eukaryotes will beget eukaryotes and therefore eukaryotes are one kind.

But like your definition, it's a pretty arbitrary and pointless.

 

[immortalavefenix]

a male and female and their offspring is a kind

So for organisims that reproduce asexually?

One kind cannot start another kind

What defines one kind, or is it purely based on capacity for reproduction with others of its "kind"?

Mammals will beget mammals. Insects will beget insects. Fish will beget fish. Birds will beget birds. Bacteria will produce bacteria. Reptiles will beget reptiles

Yes and your point is?

One cannot mate a cat with a dog and generate offspring

TOE does not state that a cat will breed with a dog, nor that a insect will give birth to a fish.

TOE simply states that based on fossil evidance it would appear that all organisms shared a common origin, and that through a process of natureal selection speacilized into differnt organisims we now recongnize.

On the topic you know you bring up a good point.

So a kind is what ever mates and has offspring.

You DO realize that there are certain breeds of dogs which cant mate with others. Like say coyotes and dogs. Or hyenas. Tazmanian tiger would not mate with dogs. Certain chiwawas dont mate with other breeds of dog. Mules and Zebras dont produce offspring etc. etc.

Are these all examples of differnt "kinds"?

Do you actually pay attention to what you write?

There is an entire chapter and one half in the Book of JOB devoted to the very nature of the beasts and how man had no power over them.

Im sure whatever the bible says, espeacially when talking about giant monsters, is 100% realible as a scientific source.

As for the FLOOD, it happened

What makes you think so?

They would rather believe that marrow would continue to remain soft 100 million years because they MUST believe that Dino has been extinct that long or they must question evolution

Did you not read Beast post?

There is no mystry. Only of course if you totally ignorant of how fossilization works.



Your post Nip are silly to the extreme. I think your just playing a character. There is no way I could accept that a rational adult can hold your views.

We do know that cross breeding cannot happen.

Its a good thing no one takes you to seriously on matters of what can and cannot be done in nature.




As for your "moral" superiority,...
mien furher,.... I can valk!....sig heil!

 

[nvxplorer]

And the concept of American life TODAY is akin to living in raw sewerage. With all it's problems, I am very glad I was born and raised when I was. My family didn't have two TV's, two radios, two cars, or even two telephones. But at least I did not grow up confused or jaded and mother was home to make a cooked dinner. I actually existed in BACK TO THE FUTURE, and I enjoyed it and will remember it fondly.

Do you think you’re the only old fart in the forum, Nip? I grew up the same way. (Uh...how could a child become jaded? ) My father was a blatant bigot. I learned from my father’s mistakes.

I’ve also learned that people who refer to “the good ol’ days” are those who have refused to grow. Those who can’t come to terms with allowing others the freedom they themselves crave. Do you feel powerless, Nip?

Do you know why it takes two incomes to support a family now, Nip? I’ll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[immortalavefenix]

raw sewerage.

So at last we do see what you really think about what it means to be American.

You live in your own little fantasy land, and are upset because no one wants to play by your rules.

You want thins to be simpler, like when you were a child, and could pick red from blue. Life is complex.

DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

And the concept of American life TODAY is akin to living in raw sewerage.

Lemme guess, next you're going to tell us how the crime rate is out of control.

 

[nvxplorer]

Perhaps your kids will frequent the brothels or work them (do you proud). So much better than attending church. So much for "family atmosphere." There is more to life than living.

What makes you think there are no churches in Reno? Do you think that because prostitution is legal that everyone who lives here is a heathen?

I suggest you investigate the history of Nevada’s brothels. Then compare that history to the rest of the country. Come back and tell me how many cases of AIDS have been contracted in a legal Nevada brothel.

Typical fundamentalist mindset. Pretend something doesn’t exist, and it goes away. Bury your head in the sand; problem solved. “Prostitution is illegal here. Therefore, we don’t have any prostitutes.”

Hey, conservative Christians never seek the services of a lady. Just ask Jimmy Swaggart.