Flying Spaghetti Monster [Archive]

Hawkeye

08-08-2005, 08:19 AM

I competely believe that kids should be able to hear all side and come up with their OWN belief - not the belief of the teachers.Again, so you wouldn't mind having the school teach your children the basics of all of the thousands of different religions out there? Meaning that even off the wall religions, (read: the Flying Spaghetti Monster), would have to get fair time.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that children should be exposed to every religion available so that they can make an informed decision. I just don't think that it is the State's responsibility to teach it to them. Where are their parents?

If we blur the lines between separation of Church and State then we open the flood gates to a host of other problems. The country is made up of a diverse population and it is easiest to respect all people by not singling out one group's beliefs as "The Truth".

Bailey de Mittens

08-08-2005, 07:56 PM

I would love to know why people keep acting like the words of "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution.... they are not. It is one of the ideas of what it means, yes, but the words where written in a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson and suddenly it used everywhere - quoted more than the Constitution itself.

This is what the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances."

I would actually like to see people OWN interpretation of it....(I am actually really interested....)

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."— James Madison

Hawkeye

08-08-2005, 08:14 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."Uhh, you know this sentence pretty much means the same thing, right? It says the government will not recognize a single religion, therefore stating that the government separates itself from all religion as it can not choose one as the "Official U.S. Religion."

Bailey de Mittens

08-08-2005, 11:05 PM

Uhh, you know this sentence pretty much means the same thing, right? It says the government will not recognize a single religion, therefore stating that the government separates itself from all religion as it can not choose one as the "Official U.S. Religion."

Actually it says that the government cannot create laws favoring a religion. Laws. There is not law for the separation of church and state, because the constitution says that no laws could be created dealing with religion - wouldn't you have to to push the religious issue when making the "separation of church and state" into law?

I had friends in public school who where told they could not pray group at the school on their own. That it was unconstitutional - separation of church and state & that someone would be offended.
Here is the thing....after it says that no laws can be made to favor any religion, that it cannot prohibit you from practicing religion. So would it make it unconstitutional for a government run school from letting you practice your religion?
The public government schools would be in the wrong and unconstitutional if they began pushing any one religion - that they only allowed one group to practice their religion and have it pushed onto everyone else and required them to believe it and created rules or had laws that you had to practice it too.
It says right in the constitution that it cannot prohibit you. They just cannot make any religious-favored laws. Is there a law saying you cannot pray before taking a test or in a group in a classroom with like-minded people who all believe the same thing? No laws have been created because that would be unconstitutional and it would be unconstitutional to prohibit someone from practicing what they believe.
Have a different "prayer-group" for every religion? Sure. Fine. They all have the constitutional right, so let them - maybe the offended group could get together and find out that there are plenty of those who share their beliefs.

Hawkeye

08-09-2005, 08:59 AM

Actually it says that the government cannot create laws favoring a religion. Laws. There is not law for the separation of church and state, because the constitution says that no laws could be created dealing with religion - wouldn't you have to to push the religious issue when making the "separation of church and state" into law?The law says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Meaning the government refuses to recognize any single religion and establish it as the Naitonal Religion. Hence, they are SEPARATING themselves from all.

Furthermore, the Constitution lays out guidelines for the country to follow. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret those laws and apply them to the citizens. The Supreme Court has roundly rejected the inclusion of religion in government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

Bailey de Mittens

08-09-2005, 07:19 PM

The law says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Meaning the government refuses to recognize any single religion and establish it as the Naitonal Religion. Hence, they are SEPARATING themselves from all.

The government is not allowed to create a laws respecting any established religion. If they did - that would be unconstitutional. They are not establishing a National Religion. How is having a copy of the ten commandment in a judge's office establishing a religion - he has a constitutional right. The government cannot prohibit him from his display of what he believes.

Hawkeye

08-10-2005, 08:22 AM

The government is not allowed to create a laws respecting any established religion. If they did - that would be unconstitutional. They are not establishing a National Religion. How is having a copy of the ten commandment in a judge's office establishing a religion - he has a constitutional right. The government cannot prohibit him from his display of what he believes.<sigh> Ok, I'm close to done with this argument. The judge is a representative of the government. The courthouse he works at is owned by the government. Therefore, neither he nor the courthouse can have any association with a single religion.

Bailey de Mittens

08-10-2005, 06:24 PM

<sigh> Ok, I'm close to done with this argument. The judge is a representative of the government. The courthouse he works at is owned by the government. Therefore, neither he nor the courthouse can have any association with a single religion.

So the government is prohibiting the government worker from practicing what they believe (because they are guilty by assocation.) Then the government should fire every employee that has a cross necklace around their neck. Someone could think that the government is assocating with a religion because of that necklace. If they didn't - we would haven't have many government workers. Plus, it is unconstitutial to tell that worker to take that necklace off.

Honestly, If my child was told they couldn't create a prayer group to meet either before or after school because it cannot be held on government-owned school. I would be very angry that the government is prohibiting my child from practicing what she believes. Let it be from Christianity to Buddism . . . all the religions should be allowed to create a group.

You can learn in public schools what gods the Romans and Greeks believed in and how it affected their daily life.... Yet, we cannot read anywhere or allowed to be in textbooks what our founding fathers believed in and how it affected the creation of our country - which it did. What people believe in do affect how they behave and so on...no matter what the religion.

We can stop this argument. I believe what I believe and you'll believe what you believe. I have my reasons, just as you have yours.

Jake's Mom

09-21-2005, 11:40 AM

You can learn in public schools what gods the Romans and Greeks believed in and how it affected their daily life.... Yet, we cannot read anywhere or allowed to be in textbooks what our founding fathers believed in and how it affected the creation of our country - which it did.
That is not true I remember very clearly learning about our founding fathers. They were kicked out of England for being to religious. I also remember something about the crusades. Isn't that a christian war?

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 08:05 PM

Dear Flying Spaghetti Monster, please save us all: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/08/ap/tech/mainD8DOHTD03.shtml

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 08:11 PM

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 08:12 PM

So I'm totally not going back to the start and reading every single fucking thing in this thread because I don't really care, but what's wrong with teaching both theories? Or are they saying they are not going to teach one, and only teach the other now?Because one is a religious theory and the other is scientific. The debate is whether you should allow religion to be taught in public schools but it is being disguised as "Intelligent Design."

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 08:13 PM

Because one is a religious theory and the other is scientific. The debate is whether you should allow religion to be taught in public schools but it is being disguised as "Intelligent Design."I think they are both scientific, but they have different ways of saying how it happened. Either way, it's still science.

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 08:14 PM

I think they are both scientific, but they have different ways of saying how it happend. Either way, it's still science.No, they're not. One involves the Big Bang theory where dust particles accumulated and eventually formed the world we know today. The other states there is a "higher power" that made everything you see today. One = science, the other = God.

Edit: From the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design: The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 08:19 PM

Edit: From the demopedia article on Intelligent Design: The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.Yea, that's because of absolute truth.

However, the bible never goes into specifics on this topic. In fact, it never even says who created light. It says something like: "God said, let their be light" or something to that effect... It never said he made it. If you believe that the big bang is science, then why would it not be science anymore if God started the big bang or caused it to occur?

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 08:24 PM

Yea, that's because of absolute truth.

However, the bible never goes into specifics on this topic. In fact, it never even says who created light. It says something like: "God said, let their be light" or something to that effect... It never said he made it. If you believe that the big bang is science, then why would it not be science anymore if God started the big bang or caused it to occur?Intelligent Design does not deal with Christianity specifically, it merely states that some "higher, intelligent power" created our universe, or at least had a hand in its creation. So the Bible is not a valid reference point.

As I posted from the National Academy of Science, you can't test/prove the concept of Intelligent Design, where as scientists have been able to recreate similar instances of the Big Bang Theory in labs.

The debate is that introducing Intelligent Design into public schools will open the flood gates to every other religion on this planet, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, being taught in schools.

Before you argue further, please go read what Intelligent Design actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 08:35 PM

Intelligent Design does not deal with Christianity specifically, it merely states that some "higher, intelligent power" created our universe, or at least had a hand in its creation. So the Bible is not a valid reference point.Last I checked God would be considered a "higher, intelligent power." Therefore Christianity would be discussed, thus, so would the bible.

As I posted from the National Academy of Science, you can't test/prove the concept of Intelligent Design, where as scientists have been able to recreate similar instances of the Big Bang Theory in labs.As I posted: absolute truth. Please go look that up on Demopedia. I'm sure a 12 year old wrote about it for ya.

The debate is that introducing Intelligent Design into public schools will open the flood gates to every other religion on this planet, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, being taught in schools.I don't think this would happen at all. Religion has been taught in schools before and nothing like this ever happened. But, I am for more liberties and freedom, and you are for the government telling us what to do, so I can see how this would upset you and you would want it stopped.

Before you argue further, please go read what Intelligent Design actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designI know what intelligent design is. Perhaps you missed the absolute truth statement I made which specifically relates to what you are talking about.

We have yet to factually prove exactly how and why we are here. I think if a theory is sound, it should be presented and considered with an open mind. Oh wait, that's supposed to be you remember? Open minded? Weird how it never seems to end up that way ...

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 08:47 PM

Last I checked God would be considered a "higher, intelligent power." Therefore Christianity would be discussed, thus, so would the bible.Wrong. Intelligent Design deals with a higher power. It doesn't get into specifics as to which higher power they are referencing. So obviously if a Christian God didn't create the Earth, then this wouldn't be a reference.

As I posted: absolute truth. Please go look that up on Demopedia. I'm sure a 12 year old wrote about it for ya.I get the concept that there are no absolute truths as we never know until we die (I assume). However, whether Intelligent Design is a science or not is the argument, I think it's not, you apparently think it is. Hence, from my view point, if it's not a science, then it shouldn't be taught in schools. A majority of America tends to agree with me, other than the Kansas School Board. Oh, and your president. Hard to believe you agree with him again. :rolleyes:

I don't think this would happen at all. Religion has been taught in schools before and nothing like this ever happened. But, I am for more liberties and freedom, and you are for the government telling us what to do, so I can see how this would upset you and you would want it stopped.<sigh> Again, if you want to teach religion in school then you would have to teach every religion on the planet so that we are technically "free" as you apparently want it to be. That way each child has the ability to decide on their own. If you are saying you want every single religion on this planet to be taught to your kids by the public school system, then I disagree with you. I also believe in having an open mind and studying different ideas. However, I believe when it comes to religion, it should be the parents' responsibility, not the State's. Our current government foundation was built on separation of church and state, should we throw that away too?

You say you don't want the government stepping in and telling you how to live your life, yet you are telling them to throw religion into your life without you having a choice. This doesn't make sense to me.

I know what intelligent design is. Perhaps you missed the absolute truth statement I made which specifically relates to what you are talking about.Sorry, based on some of your comments it didn't seem like you really had a firm understanding of the theory's concepts.

We have yet to factually prove exactly how and why we are here. I think if a theory is sound, it should be presented and considered with an open mind. Oh wait, that's supposed to be you remember? Open minded? Weird how it never seems to end up that way ...I do have an open mind, I have read as much information as I could find on this theory. I also believe that it should be presented to children... by their parents. This theory is religion and religion has no place in public schools. I'm sorry your Republitarian party doesn't allow you to see that.

Boy

11-08-2005, 08:50 PM

But, I am for more liberties and freedom, and you are for the government telling us what to do, so I can see how this would upset you and you would want it stopped.

Translation: Hey lets get in another democrats vs. libertarian debate!

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 08:58 PM

I get the concept that there are no absolute truths as we never know until we die (I assume).Sorry, based on some of your comments it didn't seem like you really had a firm understanding of the theory's concepts....whether Intelligent Design is a science or not is the argument, I think it's not, you apparently think it is.Dude, seriously, hooked on phonics has done wonders for people. I'm not kidding. 1-800-ABCDEFG

Absolute Truth:
Creationism professes to be the absolute truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific. Therefore there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.

I will deal with the rest of why you are wrong tomorrow. Sleepy time. Read what I quoted you saying, and then read what I posted about an hour ago, and then read what I posted an hour ago, but then explained for you now. I know it's going to be hard without me holding your hand, but that's why I put that number up there for you to give a call.

oh man, I wish I could see which wall you punch with anger over this post!

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 09:01 PM

I thought I'd throw one more thing in here before I go to sleep.

Circa 1919 (I think Ford?) closed the patent office because he said everything that was going to be invented had already been invented. Think about that and how it relates. (see number above for help)

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 09:09 PM

Absolute TruthYou didn't explain the concept of Absolute Truth and how it has any relevance to your argument. So allow me to respond to you how you responded to Fonz in the government thread.

Ham Sandwich
Texas
Beach Ball

See how when you just post two words and don't bother to explain your thought process it doesn't make any sense? Absolute Truth by itself doesn't necessarily mean Creationism. However, please provide a little detail how bringing it up means anything.

Ford.You realize that Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing, right? Hence Creationism has been around for a long time, where as the Big Bang Theory is relatively new (in comparison). So by arguing for Intelligent Design you are asking us to go backwards.

oh man, I wish I could see which wall you punch with anger over this post!As I am able to keep my argument/discussion on a profesional level, your snide remarks and *hilarious* jokes don't faze me. I make sound arguments which I provide documented proof of. You make jokes at my expense to attempt to cover up your lack of knowledge.

Crumbles

11-08-2005, 09:15 PM

You didn't explain the concept of Absolute Truth and how it has any relevance to your argument.actually I did, you just weren't able to figure it out.

I make sound arguments which I provide documented proof of. You make jokes at my expense to attempt to cover up your lack of knowledge.You make what YOU think are sound arguments, and what proof YOU think is awesome, but again, the keyword is YOU.

If you seriously can't figure it out by tomorrow, I'll help you out. Try not to get "fazed" deciphering the complexity of the riddle...

I seriously don't have time to explain this to you (because I know it will involve posting the same thing over and over about 10 times) and I want to go to sleep. So good luck for now, and remember, that number is 24/7.

Hawkeye

11-08-2005, 09:18 PM

*repeat*Yet another witty response with no actual content. Allow me to reply in kind: battleship, mongoose, silly putty.

And yes, obviously I think my arguments are sound. The point is that I make real arguments where as you provide numbers to Hooked On Phonics. I stick to the topic, you veer off course and make jokes as soon as you see your logic breaking down and the argument going to my favor.

Regardless, we both keep veering off the main topic, which is: Is Intelligent Design A Science?

Crumbles

11-09-2005, 06:02 AM

Yet another witty response with no actual content. Allow me to reply in kind: battleship, mongoose, silly putty.

And yes, obviously I think my arguments are sound. The point is that I make real arguments where as you provide numbers to Hooked On Phonics. I stick to the topic, you veer off course and make jokes as soon as you see your logic breaking down and the argument going to my favor.

Regardless, we both keep veering off the main topic, which is: Is Intelligent Design A Science?See, your problem is you only see the witty part of my posts, and fail to see the other part. That's not my problem, but yours. I can't make you smarter. I can reccomend ginko biloba or something though.

Hawkeye

11-09-2005, 06:44 AM

See, your problem is you only see the witty part of my posts, and fail to see the other part. That's not my problem, but yours. I can't make you smarter. I can reccomend ginko biloba or something though.That's fine, then this argument is finished. I've asked you repeatedly to restate your proof, you have declined. Which means you don't wish to continue the discussion. I will also let it go as I bore of having a "witty comment" battle and prefer to stick to the actual topic.

If you feel like picking it back up, answer the questions below without bringing out Mr. Funny, and I'll continue with you:

1. Is Intelligent Design a science?
2. What is your proof that it is?
3. Do you believe religion belongs in pubilc schools?

Edit: The Flying Spaghetti Monster surrenders in PA: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-09-PA-evolution_x.htm

Crumbles

11-09-2005, 10:06 AM

That's fine, then this argument is finished.Last edited by Hawkeye : Today at 08:19 AM.

Oops... I guess it's only finished for everyone else except you to try and make a better point?
I've asked you repeatedly to restate your proof, you have declined.OK, go ahead and tell me where I declined. That's right, I didn't. I said I was going to talk about this tomorrow, because I was tired and going to sleep. I guess you never did call that number. They will teach you how to read you know.

Which means you don't wish to continue the discussion.Wait, I thought you were finishing it? So, let me get all of this straight so far:

I say I don't want to continue yesterday because I was tired. You didn't get my point, then you say I had no point because you didn't understand it, then you say that because I didn't post anymore (since I went to bed) that I don't want to offer any more to the disscussion, so then you "finish" the discussion, but then you say that I'm the one that didn't want to continue the discussion. Dude, I'm serious now, call that number. There may still be time to help you.

If you feel like picking it back up, answer the questions below without bringing out Mr. Funny, and I'll continue with you:1. Is Intelligent Design a science? - I think you could have a study of Intelligent Design that is based on science or scientific.

2. What is your proof that it is? - N/A

3. Do you believe religion belongs in pubilc schools? - This is a tough one. I half agree with this, except for the fact I do not think all religions should be taught, for practical reasons. There are just too many different beliefs to spend time on all of them; the ones that should be taught are the religions that are present in that culture and and perhaps those of neighboring countries. More importantly however, I think a philosophy of religion should be emphasized rather than any individual religion, as an understanding and experience of the deeper meaning of religion is a useful thing to have to better understand other religions -- even those you have never seen before.

...and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fucking surprise. Fucking Hawkeye's... I mean Democrats... I mean Hawkeyes ...

Crumbles

11-09-2005, 10:19 AM

Also, before you say something totally ignorant like: "But there are thousands of religions!" Understand I believe in the constition, freedom, and personal liberties. You don't, so you have a hard time understanding some of these things.

I understand there are a ton of religions, but there isn't enough time to go over them all, therefore, I think that Public schools shouldn't inhibit religion. School must be a place where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect.

Schools (are supposed to be) upholding the First Amendment, which protects the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths and none. Schools should be forced to demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education. Meaning if someone has a question about religion, it should be answered and not ignored.

Hawkeye

11-09-2005, 10:23 AM

Last edited by Hawkeye : Today at 08:19 AM.
Oops... I guess it's only finished for everyone else except you to try and make a better point?I fixed a spelling mistake.

OK, go ahead and tell me where I declined. That's right, I didn't. I said I was going to talk about this tomorrow, because I was tired and going to sleep. I guess you never did call that number. They will teach you how to read you know.You supposedly went to sleep at 8:59, then came back twice that night and once more this morning to post more "witty comments." Each time I asked for more clarification of your argument. At no time did you respond.

I say I don't want to continue yesterday because I was tired. You didn't get my point, then you say I had no point because you didn't understand it, then you say that because I didn't post anymore (since I went to bed) that I don't want to offer any more to the disscussion, so then you "finish" the discussion, but then you say that I'm the one that didn't want to continue the discussion. Dude, I'm serious now, call that number. There may still be time to help you.Again, you came back three times after you supposedly went to bed. Each time you posted zero content that mattered, instead you just made jokes. Your point of Absolute Truth means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless you explain it. I'm sorry you don't agree with that. I know it feels good to throw out a large concept and then not explain it. And then hide behind a copy/paste of another person's explanation that really doesn't help your point.

1. Is Intelligent Design a science? - I think you could have a study of Intelligent Design that is based on science or scientific.No you can't because it is impossible to study with science as there is no way to possibly prove/study a higher power.

No one is saying that Intelligent Design is stupid or that there is no way it could possibly be true. People are only saying that it is not a science. If you can't study the theory and conduct investigations and experiments on it, it is not a science.

2. What is your proof that it is? - N/AWow, look at that, you're not providing any proof for your argument again. That's hard to believe. You've been doing it since starting this.

If you can't provide proof that ID is a science, then it doesn't belong in public schools under our current laws.

3. Do you believe religion belongs in pubilc schools? - This is a tough one. I half agree with this, except for the fact I do not think all religions should be taught, for practical reasons. There are just too many different beliefs to spend time on all of them; the ones that should be taught are the religions that are present in that culture and and perhaps those of neighboring countries. More importantly however, I think a philosophy of religion should be emphasized rather than any individual religion, as an understanding and experience of the deeper meaning of religion is a useful thing to have to better understand other religions -- even those you have never seen before.Not possible. The Supreme Court and the Constitution guarantee that the government will not pick a religion for all. Meaning the school system can not pick and choose which religions it would want to teach. It would have to teach all of them. Every single one, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fucking surprise. Fucking Hawkeye's... I mean Democrats... I mean Hawkeyes ...What a surprise Matt, the Conservative/Republican hiding in a cheap Libertarian tuxedo, doesn't agree with something only b/c it says Democrats voted it out.

Edit: An you notice that the voters of the town of Dover, PA voted out all the conservatives who had approved the Intelligent Design vote. Meaning a majority of the population of the town didn't want ID taught in their schools.

Edit 2: On the same note, the Kansas School board that voted ID into Kansas schools this week voted as follows: All six of those who voted for the standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted against them.

Crumbles

11-09-2005, 10:42 AM

I fixed a spelling mistake.Sure you did buddy... sure you did ... You came back to fix a spelling mistake on something you weren't going to come back to anyway... yea, that makes sense...

You supposedly went to sleep at 8:59, then came back twice that night and once more this morning to post more "witty comments." Each time I asked for more clarification of your argument. At no time did you respond.That's right, I did. I have already explained why I did. Refer back to my post where I said I have to post something 10 times before you can finally undertand a concept. I was going to sleep, I was trying to get to sleep, the "witty comment" took .02 seconds to type, vs. me having to explain to you my point which (as you can see by this repeated post) takes much much much longer for you to grasp. I knew this was coming and didn't have time for it since I was trying to get to bed, and in the morning I spend 5 seconds on the PC to check my e-mail and the forum. I have to get to work, and have even less time to explain something to you over and over again...

Again, you came back three times after you supposedly went to bed. Each time you posted zero content that mattered, instead you just made jokes.Hooked on phonics didn't work for you!

Your point of Absolute Truth means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless you explain it.If everythingi has to be explained to you on why somethings relevant, than you really have no buisness in a conversation. If you have a hard time understanding something, or don't have enough knowlege about what's being said, then you have even less buisness being in the conversation.

People are only saying that it is not a science. If you can't study the theory and conduct investigations and experiments on it, it is not a science.First, let me start my argument off like you did. People say that it is a science. Anyway, now that you see how pointless that point was... You can study the environment, scientifically, and explain intelligent design.

Wow, look at that, you're not providing any proof for your argument again. That's hard to believe. You've been doing it since starting this.Seriously, I think that the hooked on phonics might be on sale at eBay or something. Let me explain how that formula works for you, and then try to let go of my hand.

"If yes, then"

Such an easy concept, yet so hard for you to grasp. I didn't say yes to it, so that's not applicable to me.

If you can't provide proof that ID is a science, then it doesn't belong in public schools under our current laws.Me Hawkeye, my opinion only one that matter!

Not possible. The Supreme Court and the Constitution guarantee that the government will not pick a religion for all. Meaning the school system can not pick and choose which religions it would want to teach. It would have to teach all of them. Every single one, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Not true. Show me where it says that in the constitution.

What a surprise Matt, the Conservative/Republican in a cheap Libertarian tuxedo, doesn't agree with something only b/c it says Democrats voted it out.No, actually I was just laughing because Democrats are so fucking stupid. They want the government to do everything for them and that makes me laugh. You know how it is, mr. I want the government to force "stupid" people to save for retirement.

Hawkeye

11-09-2005, 10:58 AM

Sure you did buddy... sure you did ... You came back to fix a spelling mistake on something you weren't going to come back to anyway... yea, that makes sense...Believe me or don't, it doesn't matter.

That's right, I did. I have already explained why I did. Refer back to my post where I said I have to post something 10 times before you can finally undertand a concept. I was going to sleep, I was trying to get to sleep, the "witty comment" took .02 seconds to type, vs. me having to explain to you my point which (as you can see by this repeated post) takes much much much longer for you to grasp. I knew this was coming and didn't have time for it since I was trying to get to bed, and in the morning I spend 5 seconds on the PC to check my e-mail and the forum. I have to get to work, and have even less time to explain something to you over and over again...You agree that you came back to the forum 3 times after you went to bed. Each time I asked for your explanation, you had enough time to make jokes but not enough time to say: Sorry, I'm too busy, I'll give you the answer later.

Hooked on phonics didn't work for you!You should think about starting a comedy routine. I'm sure no one will tire of hearing the same *hilarious* joke over and over again.

If everythingi has to be explained to you on why somethings relevant, than you really have no buisness in a conversation. If you have a hard time understanding something, or don't have enough knowlege about what's being said, then you have even less buisness being in the conversation.Sorry I asked for an explanation Oh Mighty One. If your point is so amazing and bullet-proof, you'd think you wouldn't mind explaining it again.

First, let me start my argument off like you did. People say that it is a science. Anyway, now that you see how pointless that point was... You can study the environment, scientifically, and explain intelligent design.Ok, just to clarify, you are saying that ID is a science.

Seriously, I think that the hooked on phonics might be on sale at eBay or something. Let me explain how that formula works for you, and then try to let go of my hand.

"If yes, then"

Such an easy concept, yet so hard for you to grasp. I didn't say yes to it, so that's not applicable to me.Re-read what you said. You did say yes. You think ID can be studied scientifically, which makes it a science... to you. Hence, I wanted clarification as to how you can study it scientifically and quantify your results.

Me Hawkeye, my opinion only one that matter!The constitution protects the mixture of government/schools and religion. In order to put ID into the classroom you'd have to prove it is a science. You haven't done that, hence under our laws, it can't be in the classroom.

Not true. Show me where it says that in the constitution.Go back to the first pages of this thread that you were too lazy to read. Your wife already quoted it for you.

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) - Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

No, actually I was just laughing because Democrats are so fucking stupid. They want the government to do everything for them and that makes me laugh. You know how it is, mr. I want the government to force "stupid" people to save for retirement.Funny how you laugh at Democrats for wanting the government to step in and do everything for them, yet you want the government to step in and force children to learn about religion.

I'm done. You have provided no new information and have failed to explain your points. Each time I ask for clarification, you instead make fun of me and say your points are so easy to see, I must be stupid.

Funny that a majority of our arguments end this way.

Crumbles

11-09-2005, 11:06 AM

...your snide remarks and *hilarious* jokes don't faze me.I'm done. You have provided no new information and have failed to explain your points. Each time I ask for clarification, you instead make fun of me and say your points are so easy to see, I must be stupid.

ouch.

Crumbles

11-09-2005, 11:27 AM

Hawkeye and I talked about this further on the phone later, and we both agreed that Hawkeye is wrong, and he is going to have to edit peoples messages in order to win. OHH!

dannydud

11-09-2005, 01:50 PM

Now I haven't read a lot of the posts in this thread, but I have a few things to chime in.

In the smartest place in the world, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, they recently okayed a survey that took place with i believe 3rd graders that was a strictly a sex survey. I don't have a link, but the rationale was that parents COULD NOT be the sole providers of information about sex to children. So basically, it is okay to teach 9 year olds about sex in school, but not about god????? I am sorry, but that is completely fucking ridiculous. The fucking bias in this country and world towards religion is out of control. Since when is teaching anything in school 'forcing' that concept on them? Obviously I do believe in God, as do something like 85% of the people in this country. From 'under God' in the pledge, to people in London calling Christmas lights 'holiday lights' and 'celebrity lights,' it is all ridiculous. No one can tell me that they felt that God was being forced upon them when someone spoke of Christmas. No one can tell me that they felt God was forced on them by saying the pledge. If you don't like it, dont fucking say 'under god' when you say the pledge. I am sure not one person in this world could give 1 piece of a fuck about it. Do you really think that I have/had any use for home economics when I was in school? Or Spanish? Nope, but I had to take them. If I had no use for 'intelligent design,' I would pay attention in the class, pass the test and move the fuck on. Same thing I did in home ec, and in every English Lit. class I took in college.