Breitbart.tv

[...] Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ Posted on 10 May 2009by admin (0) // Quick Take: Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ → Read full article… [...]

[...] Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ Posted on 10 May 2009by admin (0) // Quick Take: Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ → Read full article… [...]

[...] the original here:  Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ Filed Under: Latest News [...]

I know Jesus Christ will return to earth someday and all those that doubt it will one day see it with their own eyes. Mark my words.

@Tubby

I do take up your challenge! Let’s give you the whole month of May!!! That way ‘your god’ has plenty of time for plane tickets, passports and all that…

But did you need the time frame of ‘infinity’ for your foolish belief to ‘come true’…

A very old warn and very warn out dumb statement from you that has been proven very wrong “NOT” to come true in the past…

burp…

Dumb… Very dumb…

Hey! Don’t let your science get in the way of my right to be ignorant!

Why should Christian students be uncomfortable unless they are afraid of the truth?

2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 (NIV) – “God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”

Wow, times of changed. I think they taught us evolution, I wasn’t paying attention, but I can’t imagine a teacher bashing a religion like this, even the one they’re suposed to bash. Pretty soon there will be cross-dressing dances and mohammed tolerance days, but those awful churchies will be yelled at.

This is beyond ridiculous. Xians know no limits in their delusions.

I encountered something different, when I went to school. Teachers would try to push sectarian values on me. I am a Christian, but do not believe in a Pope or some other proxy for God.

I don’t like it when other Christian sectarians try to assert that my Christian beliefs are flawed. If I want their opinions, I will ask.

This case is a little different. I will allow Athiests a greater amount of slack than others. My job is done when I discretely advise them that I don’t understand their view. To inflict harm upon them for their faith, or lack thereof, is not my way of doing things.

Poor old Obama and his “Team” depend on drooling yahoos like Corbett for ultimate support.

I’d rather have the young student, Farnan, in my corner any day of the week.

The Evolutionists base their arguments on “Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. Right?

Well allow me to provide you with the last sentence in Darwin’s book.

“ There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

So even Darwin believed there was a Creator. But then Darwin wasn’t near as bright as Corbett and L’Arse was he?

Pencey,

Stop lying, it’s a sin. “by the Creator” is not in Darwin’s conclusion.

Typical Xian. Always changing and/or adding words in books to suit their means.

This Teacher was out of line should be fired Never allowed to teach again , He was putting out his opinion , he was not teaching, HE was indoctrinateing , of course today educational system run by liberal fascists in the nea , this is what they want to do is indoctrinate ,NOT educate .

Hey doubters,

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

Jesus Christ will return one day.

You all have a lot to learn.

@Don

Well it’s in my copy you filthy stinking lame-brain jackass. Don’t call me a liar.

The last sentence of the last paragraph of Darwin’s conclusion. (New American Library 1958, Introduction by Julien Huxley)

Probably edited out of your baby edition by some propagandist, the likes of Herr Corbett.

You’re a pathetic indoctrinated moron with the brain of a gnat.

Why did he focus on one religion? Maybe he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble if he had talked about religion in general. I realize it was European History, and there has always been a large Christian following there, but he would have been expressing his opinion rather than denigrating one particular religion. Faith is a choice. You either choose faith or not. If you say “In my opinion……” most will not find fault with you on that. He shot himself in the foot!

What do you suppose would have happened had the teacher made similiar remarks about the Muslim faith? I’ll bet he wouldn’t have made it to his car that afternoon. But hey, it’s OK to bash Christians.

It still baffles me how ignorant of the facts some people are. Have the majority of the people who claim to be “Christians” even read the bible?

The bible is a book supporting the subjugation of women for one, supports incest, and advocates for the unprovoked invasions of peaceful nations.

Por exemplo: Read the story of lot and Sodom and Gamorrah. In it he offers up his daghters to be gang raped by the Sodomites instead of the 2 guests that visit his house.

And later on while lot and his daughters are in the mountains, they get their father drunk and “lay with him”.

This is the moral code you adhere so dearly to?

Do some research, get informed. Don’t just listen to all the crap your parents and ministers spoon feed you.

To borrow a quote, the majority of people are atheists when it comes to the majority of Gods. True atheists just take it one god further.

[...] Why Education Matters ######## digg Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police  Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism Nonsense XKCD – Brakes Ireland: to Surf Where Others Fear to Go [+video] Chinese Drywall – It [...]

LOL

@Tubby – If I became convinced that your god was real, I’m not sure I would be able to sincerely confide in him and ask Jesus to be my savior. I have a problem with authority, you see, and anyone who threatens to punish me forever and ever for one lifetime of breaking arbitrary rules has already lost my respect and admiration. Jesus was a cool guy. His dad, however, appears to be somewhat of a dick, to say the least.

wowzers,

Well, imo the teacher WAS out of line, even if I do agree with some of his viewpoints. The classroom is not the place for a teacher to express such opinions. Simply teach the students to think for themselves, and they are better off and more likely to abandon the foolish parts of religion.

americans are crazy and entertaining

Well … It *IS* superstitious nonsense, though.

And the Republican party’s continued attacks on evolution are a part of the reason why we’ve been losing elections lately.

We’ve stopped doing anything about the issues that matter — in particular, the FISCAL conservatism we’ve abandoned since Reagan — in favor of attacking science.

We used to be the party of progress, liberty, and defense of the Republic; now we’re the party that focuses exclusively on issues that don’t matter.

That student is a puss.y, Religion is not fact so i don’t see the argument of discrimination.

the only real god is the sun

whoa…
Only in america will some ignorant child win a law suit because it caused him to think, or at least consider… problem is the answer he got didn’t fit the the jigsaw version of life he was given.

another walking zombie that now ‘knows’ he is right.

diaf looser.

Is in these moments that I feel happy to be European with a education based on science and not a stupid american with medieval education and beliefs. For some reason only in the US people believe in creationism (and the rest of the world look at you with a smile)…
The fact is “YOUR THE CLOWNS OF THE WORLD”

It is common, while discussing European history, to teach about how the Catholic Church helped keep the common people under control by making up things that would serve the King well. Perhaps you guys don’t realize that the bible says “Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance.” If you have a holy book that says that, and you are the King… don’t you think you could get on board that gravy train??!?!?!

Calling certain parts of Catholicism “Superstitious None-sense” in that context makes perfect sense.

Do we still believe that a King is just as infallible as god because of the divine right of kings? They believed that back then because the church told them to believe it. I don’t believe we still believe it to this day because its a bunch of superstitious none-sense.

I don’t understand what this professor was sued for and how it wasn’t protected under his rights to free speech. Is it now illegal to teach the truth? And I absolutely love how good ol’ Fox news, true to form, only sensationalizes the quotes, without putting them in context or telling us how the court made their decision. Way to tell half the story there Fox, thanks for that!

The reason why the 1st amendment is invoked is because the gov’t can’t endorse religion over non religion or vise versa. the constitution doesn’t regulate private religious discrimination (although things like federal employment non-discrimination laws do, inapplicable here). So, this was only a problem because the teacher was doing it in a public school, which is considered the gov’t. If he said those things in a private school there would be no problem (just as a private christian school can constitutially teach the bible instead of science).

Too bad he wanted to teach public school students something he could have only taught to private school students.

I want this teacher!

I find it amazing that so many of you hide behind the facade of your computer screens. You throw horrible remarks and tout how Christians are so ignorant. How about publishing your real name and we’ll have an intelligent conversation?

Unfortunately, in my encounters with those opposed to Christianity or Creationism, those who disagree with it cannot have an intelligent conversation. They call names and say how nonsense it is and blah blah blah, but they can’t sit down and listen to both side of the story.

Can’t we all grow up a little bit. The internet has made so many of you so childish. If you were to talk about this in real life, many of you would be singing a different tune.

Ok for one thing Evolutionists don’t just base their entire argument off of one book so that argument is a lame duck.

Two; quoting the Bible as proof that God said so is along the same line of stupidity as saying Evolutionists base their entire argument off of one book.

Three; OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, guess this kid will grow up to flip burgers because god knows if he doesn’t like the truth it must not be true.

I don’t think he should have expressed his opinion in the classroom like this, it’s unfortunate, but fair that he was called out on it. However, it is sad that equally across the country school teachers can teach creationism. The idea of teaching impressionable young children that the theory of evolution is just as probable, or less probable than ‘god created the world’ seems inherently wrong to me. They can believe whatever they want personally, but they should not be teaching or pushing that in schools. It is completely anti-science and anti-common sense, and worryingly prevalent in todays anti-intellectual America.

Creationism IS Superstitious Nonsense

Sue me now!

I agree with this teacher’s views, but the timing and venue where all wrong.

@ArtyTru:
Most people in this country don’t want to think for themselves. They would rather be told what to think and believe because it’s easier than the alternative. Unfortunately, these people are also easily controlled.

@Tubby:
Dude, put the bible down and step back. I think you’ve beat it to death. The problem with your religion is that there is little substance to it. I grew up in a Christian home, and forced to go to church every Sunday for 18 years. It was ALWAYS a painful experience. I think what you, and other proselytizing Christians need to do is come to a realization: what is good for or to you isn’t always good for someone else.

I chose become a free thinker of my own free will. If you don’t like it go away and bother someone else. No one can tell me anything about Christianity I haven’t already heard a thousand times.

First off, this title is wrong. He was spouting off politically sensitive, and obviously biased opinions, which shouldn’t be brought into the classroom in the first place. Niether that nor religious material such as creationism.

Welcome to America. Not everyone believes in your god. And if you’re so sensitive about it, send your children to christian schools to learn about creationism. The public school system is driven to provide an education to a broad audience with many religious views, and if you just CAN’T handle the fact that proven science is being taught in schools, then you might as well throw yourself off a cliff.

Thanks.

Mr. Stamos,

Do you read your Bible? The moral code Christians are to adhere to are the 10 Commandments given by Moses and fulfilled by Christ. See Matthew5:17-28. The accounts in the Bible are LESSONS.

This particular passage you speak of Genesis 19:1-11 gives us a picture of the wickedness that was abounding in Sodom. Hence God’s destruction of the city. It was customary of the day to protect guests at any cost. Do you know of a woman that has been gang raped by homosexuals?

The daughters were desperate and showing their acceptance for the morals of Sodom commited incest. The sons Moab and Ben-Ammi would father the two greatest enemies of Isreal, the Moabites and Ammonites. There lies God’s judgement for the daughters sin.

Yes by all means do the research. It is not easy but your diligence and perseverance will be rewarded.

Huh? Where is creationism being taught in US schools? Ali are you sure you have the right country in mind? As for Don, that retard is anti-Christian all the way through. He is a useless troll on these boards and gets angry at the thought of a Christian retaining the rights of free speech and standing up for their rights. And when he pretends to understand Christian scripture, he gets every point scholarly arse backwards.

“Man, who looked for a superhuman being in the fantastic reality of heaven and found nothing there but the reflection of himself, will no longer be disposed to find but the semblance of himself, only an inhuman being, where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The basis of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.”

if we could sue Karl Marx today….

this is ridiculous, just because this teacher has an alternative view doesn’t mean hes wrong. he might have gone about it in the wrong way, but hey kid, college will be a wake up call… they don’t care what you believe in, college professors are going to say what they will.. and the way you learn is by taking away what you get from it because no one is going to MAKE you believe anything either.

Obviously they stumbled upon some Reagan appointee who could sorta-kinda-maybe find something wrong with ONE statement in “hours and hours” of tape.

Reversed on appeal. Stay tuned.

READ CORBETT’S RESPONSE @ OPEN SALON, IT’S VERY THOUGHT PROVOKING!! I’d love to take have a class with this guy, he is my kind of educator!

http://open.salon.com/blog/corribean/2009/05/09/dr_james_jesus_glasses_corbett

This case as well as the student and lawyer are what is wrong with the world today. Rather than deal with someone else’s beliefs, they sue because they’re looking to get rich quick.

Shame on all of us for allowing this to happen.

This is fox news? Typical inflammatory nonsense. Sell media to the rubes LOL..

@European Dude

The fact is we Americans wake up every day, face east, and thank whatever god is available that we don’t live in Europe.

I can’t imagine anything worse than waking to learn that I was a cowering Frenchman or some brand of latent Nazi Squarehead.

@LANCE

Thanks Lance,well phrased.

Am not sure though that any of these droolers would change their tune.

What is for sure, is that on the subjects of Creationsim and Evolution, Darwin himself believed in a Creator and asserted that belief in both “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man.”

People’s religions are much like an animal’s territory: Any encroachment will be met with hostility and possibly death.

@james corbett

Well buddy, I read the corbett tract and then listened once more to the video.

He called Hannity a liar, he claims to have better logic than Aristotle and he refers to Creationism as “superstitious nonsense” in the face of the fact that Darwin himself believed in a Creator.

The man is first class, gold plated, dumb.

He should take the three voter forms that he used to get Obama elected and go home to the 1948 Volkswagon Bus he lives in.

I agree that the teacher should not have been giving his opinions unless he was asked to do so, and even then he should have chosen his words carefully. On the other hand, for him to be sued over his words is absurd.
Science cannot answer all of our questions but at least it is a sane place to start. Throughout history, the church has made a living by keeping the masses ignorant by suppressing and persecuting those who follow the light of science.
It makes me sad that there are people of power in this country who hold a similar view. Namely, republican members of congress who want creationism taught alongside evolution.
It is time for the world to let go of these antiquated belief systems, and move on. As long as we continue organize religions that include some but exclude most others, the boundary lines will continue to be drawn and we will never know peace.

A school should be a place for disagreement and discussion. Otherwise it’s a mill, and not a terribly efficient one. If your teacher calls your beliefs “nonsense” challenge him with something solid, not your hurt feelings. And whatever the outcome, you can’t sue the teacher. Oh, wait; you can. And you win. Because mythology trumps knowledge in this country. Never mind…

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessingtool/questionsforevolutionists.shtml

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#changed

God and science go together. There is no need to discredit one in favor of the other.

really really really really pathetic times we live in. honestly, the earth is not flat. wow. the sheep are mindless. wake up. evolution can be proved in 5 minutes in high school class room. jesus ruled. you neocons are f’n ridiculous.

@michael mckean

Mr. McKean, I suggest you run that video just once more. Listen to that clown and the voice inflection he uses to make his so-called points.

That’s not education chum, that’s attempted indoctrination, and the minds he’s dealing with don’t yet have the knowledge to challenge a teacher and the Corbett’s of the world know that. And they exploit it. It’s been going on since the pot smokers, the failures of the sixties decided to become teachers.

For probably the first time in 40 years someone has taken one of these bozo’s to task and the more that come into the dock the better I’ll like it.

The beauty of this post is that we get a chance to watch the left wing nuts squeal like stuck pigs at finally being attacked legally on their arrogance.

So, sooey sooey sooey you Bolshevik basta*ds.

A short lesson history that is sure to surprise most leftists.

1) There is no separation of church and state clause in the US Constitution.
2) Leftists do not support free speech, especially if it is free religious speech.
3) US Constitution prohibits federal congress from passing “LAWS” regarding the establishment of religion.
4) Hanging a copy of the 10 commandments in a public place does not constitute a federal congressional law being passed.
5) A nativity scene in a public school does not constitute a federal congressional law having been passed.
6) The separation of church and state concept was slipped into US law by a KKK member turned US supreme court judge
7) The KKK required a Separation of Church and State oath of all of it’s members. They did this because they feared that the Catholic church was gaining too much political power.
The KKK at its peak of popularity consisted of 90% white Protestant Democrats.
9) Leftists support the government to shut down conservative talk radio thereby removing their freedom of speech
10) Leftists support shutting down freedom of speech of church leaders, wanting them not to talk about politics, even though it is their American right to discuss politics as much as they so choose.
11) Leftists oppose freedom of speech in any dissenting views in science. As Gore states, the debate is over. Meaning that leftist Gore wants to shut down freedom of speech of those real scientists that think Global Warming science is nothing more than junk science at best and politics of control and manipulation at worst.
12) Leftists have no leg to stand on on these discussions.

For all those hypocritical leftists that figure this is an issue of free speech, I would normally agree, however, the current status of events in the USA is that leftists have forbidden free speech in the public school system and have forced the lame and unfounded idea that free speech does not include religious speech. So, using your own perverse and idiotic interpretation of US law, we must push it back into your own immature faces. If you feel that religious speech is prohibited by law (which in reality it is not founded in the US Constitution) then you should get a taste of your own evil medicine. Most conservatives are very rational and free minded people. We believe in equal justice for all. However the leftist believes that free speech is only for them and leftists have no issues with using lame court created laws to oppress conservatives with. The golden rule says do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well, your own hatred and your own fear of free speech is most justly applied to you. I have hopes that your free speech will be shut down as much as you have hoped it upon others.

wow, so i guess people can be sued over their opinions now? whats next.

@Pency,

in regards to the Darwin quote, you are correct in citing your edition, but Darwin regretted bowing to the clerics to include it:

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curbanowicz/DarwinDayCollectionOneChapter.html

Leftist claim: “Evolution can be proved in 5 minutes in any high school class.”

Truth: Evolution has not been proven after decades upon decades of attempts. Intelligent design is just as likely to be true as the various forms of evolutionary theory.

We have proven intelligent design of life here on our own earth, with earthly scientists creating new forms of life, just with the limited science that they are familiar with.

Anny, I would give you 99 to 1 odds that you support the shutting down of religious free speech and that you support the suing of religious individuals that exercise religious speech on public property.

For the 123hulk, again, I will give you 99 to 1 odds that you are a hypocrite on the subject of free speech and that you feel obligated yourself to try to shut down free religious speech in public areas. And if Fox News is pretend, why do they win all the top slots on their news programs. Fox news has more viewers than all the leftist news programs put together. So hulk, you can set aside you own pretend comments since you are unable to fool anyone.

Yes, I am sure this would not have been news if the teacher was a fundamentalist Christian and belittling Evolution. Would Fox News have given the same air time to an Atheist student? Of course not, instead as usual on that pretend-news-show, they take a completely and utterly one-sided sensationalist tone and thank Chad for standing up the “way all students should”.

TH.

I cant speak for everyone but my Christian religion teaches that earth was created in seven time periods, with each time period most likely being as long as one billion years. Most Catholics that I know also conclude that the creation days were periods of time, that could easily have been billion year periods. Intelligent design is a very logical concept worth pursuing. The idea of higher levels of intelligence than that of earth is scientifically more plausible than not. Leftists fear free speech because they tend to close their minds based on what public school teachers told them in elementary school. Adults find that most public school teachers, although they offer great service to kids, are not all that well trained in the field of science and they tend to take little thought in what they repeat to our kids. Surely leftists don’t believe that they hold all truths within their small minds. If they do, they have much to learn and are likely not to learn quickly since they keep their minds tightly shut.

Re: “Leftists fear free speech because they tend to close their minds based on what public school teachers told them in elementary school.”

Ironically enough kmichaels, that is precisely the complaint most “leftists” have about religious people. No religious person chooses their own religion (unless they convert, which is exceptionally rare). Instead, they are born into their religion and baptized before they can talk (or form any sort of opinion). They spend their lives never doubting what they were born into, and naturally come to its defense whenever they feel it is being criticized.

For the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, religious people’s side is chosen for them at birth. At the very least, “leftists” can look at both sides equally and make up their own minds (whether they actually look at the other side equally is certainly a debatable point). Fox News certainly do not, they support the religious-right without argument, making them an incredibly biased source for news.

R.

The difference, 123 hulk, is that leftists have inserted unjustly into law a prohibition of free religious speech. Do you see your free speech being stopped in any manner? Yet you, hulk, support the prohibition of free religious speech and the ability of churches to be involved in politics.

Conversions, btw, are extremely popular in many religions so you cant even post true comments.

Hulk says: “For the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, religious people’s side is chosen for them at birth.”

Sounds like quite a stupid and unfounded claim. I was born in a certain religion and was not active until I chose to get active after I had been in the military. Are you sure that you have a clue about what you are saying hulk? You sound like you are very bigoted in your comments.

So far you, hulk, have simply chosen to post lies instead of intellectual discussion. Were you born a liar or did you evil mommy force you to be a liar?

@Dude

Thank you sir, am much obliged for the reference. A couple of things trouble me about it:

a) In the Day collection, the reference to Darwins regret at bending to public opinion is dated 1863. But he seems to fall back once again on a Creator in “The Descent of Man” published later in 1871. The Descent if you don’t know it, is an expansion of “Origin” where he goes on to discuss human evolution.

b)My 1958 edition is introduced by Prof Julien Huxley and he makes no objection in his introducion to the inclusion of a “Creator” in the last paragraph.

At any rate, I’m most thankful for the reference and if you’re interested in an interesting discussion of the subject I suggest a book titled “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel and published by Zondervan. Any bookstore for about 20 bucks.

Strobel’s book brings in academics and science people to discuss the issue under the topics, cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, biochemistry and consciousness.

Well worth an afternoon study.

Thanks again

If freedom of speech is a true right then the teacher was within his rights to teach the truth. I suggest that Obama set up a minor’s bill or rights. This would include but not be limited to a law that punishes anybody whom teaches a student a false statement must be fired. The religious must get their information from their parents. This law would prevent even imprison parents for teaching lies or religion to their children. Each child should be taught only the truth and be allowed to get religion on their own after reaching the age of consent at 16 or 18 or 21. We all know the children will believe anything that an adult tells them so why not limit the confusion in their head by just telling them the truth. God is a delusion made from people that were taught about this invention of the last century called the soul. It doesn’t exist in animals and we are animals. Prove it exists. Prove god exists. I would happily donate money to support a higher court ruling on this case and here is my first $1000 to put my money where my mouth is. The teacher was right on the money. How can we sit here and do all of these mental gymnastics to explain what is written in a book that explains the earth as just 6000 years old. This should be a quick give away that something is wrong with the book. Faith. I know.
Just remember that reason is the death of faith.

Airwick, I have seen your game of semantics about theory before. It means nothing. The bottom line is that evolution has not been proven to be true. Period. If your conclusion is correct, nothing can ever be proven. Fine. You are an idiot and you cant prove otherwise.

And that idiotic bit of yours that you dont need to prove theories you just need to disprove them is just idiotic double talk.

The same goes with your moronic conclusion that intelligent design cannot be approached on a scientific basis. Pure simplistic juvenile hogwash.

Let’s use this as an example. An intelligent being goes down to planet A and seeds it with life, leaving some basic written instructions for later.

Using your conclusion, we can never prove that the intelligent being ever went down to planet A. That is hogwash and dumb, to be blunt.

What if the intelligent being had a holographic video in a lock box that was left on that planet that proved it positively? A little research into that lock box at the appropriate time would reveal the truth of the event.

Yet you, Airwick, in your simplistic air head, conclude that it is unknowable and should not be researched. Yawn, you are a dumb bore with a shallow mind.

Ok, a simple ethics test.

1) Do you support free speech?
2) Why do you not allow free religious speech?

Test over, leftist fail.

kmichaels,
You have gotten your logic backwards, as has “godismoney”. Evolution is a scientific theory and, as such, cannot ever be “proven”. The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation of the observable known facts. One can then formulate a hypothesis and challenge that theory through experimentation. I have heard (and read) some religious Conservatives who claimed that Evolution was a “quaint 19th century concept” that no longer applies since approximately 150 years has past since it was formulated.

You do not PROVE theories; you attempt to DISPROVE them. The reality is that the strength of the Theory of Evolution is that is HAS been challenged continuously since it was published and STILL remains fundamentally sound.

The problem with Creationism is basic. You cannot construct experiments to challenge the concept. Hence it is NOT science but must be relegated to the realm of philosophy.

Lance, is this response intelligent enough?

Children are not born with religion. There are no born religious people. These children are born a clean slate with no religious belief at all. During the first few years of live religion is shoveled down their throats by threat of violence if they refuse. I was beaten to go to church by my parents until I was 8 to get me to go to church. This practice is prevalent in religious circles and I have heard may other first hand stories that refer to the violence inflicted upon children to coerce them into believing. This is just a type of permitted abuse to these youths. I am so glad that my dad beat the religion out of me. Had he not I may have ended up just like the rest of those stuck in a rut call religion that blocks the view of the truth. A must read for all of you whom think that your religion is real is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It will open your eyes to the truth and how we as religious people of the world have been duped by unscrupulous people since the invention of the soul. The bicameral mind is what is talking to you you big dummies not god’s voice. It is your own voice in your head that is talking to you. Now go an teach it something useful to say back to you other than what is written in a single book. Try opening a book that is not just another bible.

Ah, thanks kmichaels. Here I was hoping to have found good grounds for a theological discussion with a level-headed person with an opposing viewpoint, and not some religious crackpot who will fling insults at the first opportunity. I am saddened to have you make my hopes unfounded.

Over and out.

TH.

Keith, your comments are full of stupid straw men arguments. Most religious people don’t believe that the earth was created in 6000 years. The most popular belief is 6 periods of time, if you count the seventh as a day of rest, which is up for debate. It is not important to Christians as to how long a day is. I know that non-Christians let this issue get their prejudiced panties in a bind but Christians allow for all sorts of variables in the scientific process of creation. The important issue of the bible is proper social interaction. That means that if you live by a Christian code of conduct everyone benefits and science thrives, general welfare thrives, society thrives and happiness is the norm and not the exception. As the saying go, leftists strain at gnats and swallow camels and ignore the weightier matters of the law.

I see nothing but fear in leftists about the idea of intelligent design being pursued via proper scientific method. I see fear in leftists that reject freedom of speech in others based on lame reasoning on their part. Free speech is free speech and you don’t get to decide which form of speech if more valid than another.

One more thing, I find funny as heck, that I made a guy that calls himself the hulk run away because I disagreed with him. Too funny. Sticks and stones cant hurt him but words seemed to have scared him away. I laugh in your general direction, hulk-wannabe.

A little note on Richard Dawkins. This guy has hated religion and religious people for decades. If you trace his earlier past you see a fairly imbalanced hateful person that spewed all sort of nonsense over the years all aimed at dissing religious people.

Dawkins was in so much pain to hate religion that he concluded that it was ok for aliens to seed earth but not an intelligent being from somewhere in the universe to seed earth. Right, I know, it sounds the same to me. But he was so afraid of referring to a potential God existing that he replaced the idea of God with an Alien being doing the same thing then he was ok with it.

Bottom line is that Dawkins thinking process is rather juvenile at best and his logic against religion is simply a sign of his own hate.

He also tends to set up lots of straw man arguments and almost always misrepresents the opposing view.

So yea, if you want to read a really stupid book or article full of hate and half truths, do pick up Dawkins. It will be sure to be a waste of your time.

Shouldn’t all of you right wingers be bitching about frivolous lawsuits and an activist judge in this case? If the situation were reversed and he was touting creationism and Christianity you’d be cheering him on and bashing the student for suing him. I guess what you’re saying is that frivolous lawsuits and activist judges are OK as long as they agree with your point of view? How is it that you are oblivious to this obvious double standard?

Even my ten year old could pick out this obvious inconsistency in your coverage.

School is not the place to be teaching that the world is 5,000 years old, if you want to learn all that hogwash then go to church… (backs against the wall boys)

There is no excuse for teaching religion as fact in a school, it is nothing but a farce and in this day and age should not be allowed.

Airwick has said it best, just try and DISPROVE evolution, then I will try and disprove creationism, let’s see who wins…

Also it is not about winning for me as my beliefs are all over the place, I believe in a higher state of being, I also believe that the body and mind are as seperate as butter and bread in the way that the body is a vessel for our consciousness… What I don’t believe however, is that there is one almighty and all-powerful being that has the power to create everythin that we see
and is reserving judgement on us all for one day in particular (when btw becaues I would love to kick his *** if he does exist)

Also, just think about the things that go on in the world:
Genocide
Torture
Rape
Murder
And a hell of a lot more, all of which include children… What the hell kind of GOD would allow thing like that to happen to absolutley and completely innocent children.
And if your argument is that Man has done all these things, then why doesn’t GOD put us on the right path instead of letting it continue???

kmichaels:

I cannot begin to tell you how Dawkins is better trained than you in both science and formal logic, has a high rank at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, published close to a dozen of books, debated some of the best thinkers in the world, and has higher status than you. The fact that you presume you can label Dawkins work as ‘juvenile’ just gives us insight into how limited your cognitive processes really are.

Englezul, I agree with everything you said except that Dawkins has a higher status than anyone else, religious or not we are all equal…
Excpet for rapists an paedo’s an that who are not even people in my book, they should be put on an island for sport like in the film “Battle Royale” for people to bet on.
That includes a huge amount of priests btw, deal wid dat christians

Ok, kmichaels, let’s look at how you “disagreed with me” :

“The difference, 123 hulk, is that leftists have inserted unjustly into law a prohibition of free religious speech. Do you see your free speech being stopped in any manner? Yet you, hulk, support the prohibition of free religious speech and the ability of churches to be involved in politics.”

– HAHAHAHA! You just made this up, I said nothing of the sort.

“Conversions, btw, are extremely popular in many religions so you cant even post true comments.”

- BS! Again, you just made this up. Extremely popular????? You mean for instance, like in Islam where it is a capital offense punishable by the death penalty? If you are interested (and obviously you are not) the conversion rate for major religions is 1 in 1000. And that is from a religious source (bible.ca). That makes conversion rare.

“Hulk says: “For the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, religious people’s side is chosen for them at birth.”
Sounds like quite a stupid and unfounded claim. I was born in a certain religion and was not active until I chose to get active after I had been in the military. Are you sure that you have a clue about what you are saying hulk? You sound like you are very bigoted in your comments.”

- Who is the bigot now ? Let me see, someone who states a fact (Christians are baptized at birth) or someone who renders an unsupported opinion (you only became interested in religion as an adult) and then insults the other party ?

“So far you, hulk, have simply chosen to post lies instead of intellectual discussion. Were you born a liar or did you evil mommy force you to be a liar?”

- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for posting this, oh wait, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I guess it was my evil mommy who forced me to post facts when taking a side in an argument, and leave it to the religious nutjobs to post insults. One more, HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Ah, that’s better. By the way, in order to have an intellectual discussion, you need to have an intellect (oops sorry, descended to your level there for a second, shame on me).

TH.

Dawkins may be better trained but it doesn’t change the fact that he is heavily biased; this severely weakens his position but he does bring up interesting points.

Whoever brought up Strobel…Strobel is a hack. “The Case for a Creator” is a poorly written and poorly argued book that makes too many assumptions. Same goes for his even worse book, Case for Christ.

Question about the time periods versus days: Why did it take God time periods to make the Earth? Isn’t he all powerful? Can’t He just make it instantly? Or perhaps he made it instantly and makes it appear like time periods or days or what have you?
But, these are weak questions and arguments.

kmichaels managed to raise an interesting idea: the Bible is meant to be more of a guide on social behaviour and interaction: on what is good and bad, morality etc… The problem is that it happens to be full of wonderfully “evil” things and it’s view of reality and morality happens to take a number of things for granted. (Misogyny anybody? as an example)
Of course, the best way to win an argument is to gesture towards the transcendental, towards that which cannot be explained. Why does the Bible promote women as second class citizens? Because God wills it so. Nice. Can’t explain what we don’t understand? Except for the fact that it’s clearly written by males in patriarchal societies that used slaves, encouraged war against those who sought to destroy the nation of the writers etc… (not the only holy or religious book to do so; see Islam’s texts, Judaism’s texts (similar to Christian), Hindu texts etc…)
Furthermore, by raising this point about the Bible’s purpose as a moral guide, we come to the question: if that is the purpose of the Bible, then why do so many follow it literally, missing the messages and metaphors, interpreting it as fact when there is not much evidence to support its facts?

The “theory of evolution” is not much of a theory anymore but closer to fact. No, we don’t have a full explanation for humans but evolution is clearly observed in nearly every other species on the face of the planet. Natural selection, fitness etc… it’s all there and it all makes sense. Humans happen to be more difficult because we have morals and ethics (obstacles to how much you can experiment ) and tend to live for long periods of time. Evolution happens to take a very long period of time. Of course, creationists and religious will cling to the word “theory”.

Darwin believed in a Creator and was raised religious. Ultimately though, he tended to disagree with religion and had his own personal views. He is more concerned with what he observes in the natural world than he is with proving the existence of a Creator. He is more concerned with what can actually be proven than what cannot due to no observable basis in the phenomena of the world around him.

The teacher in this video? If you listen to his tone and his way of arguing, he is way out of line. As a teacher he is in a position of trust, he should teach students respect, understanding and open-mindedness towards others and their beliefs rather than preaching ignorance and biggotry. In doing so, he is no better than most religious people he seems to so passionately dislike who in their own turn preach that all others are wrong and that their religious belief is the only right path of life.
The kid seems to be on this train of thought rather than just being insulted on religious grounds. That is, I hope he sued the teacher for his lack of respect and understanding towards others and not for being personally insulted that someone doesn’t share his religious views.

Open your minds, be respectful towards others and their views, DO NOT FORCE YOUR VIEW UPON OTHERS, it is a lack of respect and shows ignorance. When arguing, do not insult or belittle, it weakens your position and exposes your prejudices (I realize I have done this a few times above). The Bible is intended more as a moral guide with metaphors, find the good in it but understand that like all other texts, and Christianity, like all other religions, are man-made constructs, meant to find answers and offer comfort and often used for corrupt purposes to control. Seek an education and try to be as unbiased as possible when understanding another’s point of view. You’ve all exposed numerous reasons why religion and its extremes, as well as the irreligious and atheist extremists are all in the same boat: lack of respect, abundance of hate and a great exhibition of ignorance.

I realize that I’ve not properly elucidated a number of points.

Thank you for your time. Fascinating argument and video. Have a great day! Don’t hate those who don’t agree with you too much.

Pencey,

The original edition does not contain Creator. It is only in later editions that contain it to appease the Xians. They still weren’t happy.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=507

Look, it’s over. The Right has lost. The fundies in turn have lost their only hope for power. Let them flail about. It’s over. They lost. It’s done. The days of pushing creationism as science is coming to an end.

Fox News is now just the less funny comedy network.

But do go on, if you feel you must, wingers. You are nothing if not amusing.

Why do you go to school? You might learn some actual facts there instead of the religious supersttious nonsense you want.

Kmichaels,
It is unfortunate that you cannot enter into a conversation regarding a topic without resorting to name calling and insults. I thought that that was a “Libtard” tactic.

Your observation that “nothing can ever be proven” is, in fact, fundamentally sound. Unfortunately, it is the only logical part of your response. What we CAN say is that with a very high degree of confidence certain situations are thought to exist. Subsequent observations and discoveries may cause us to modify and, in rare cases, completely rethink our conclusions. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted the motion of bodies to a high degree of accuracy until the advent of modern atomic theory and nuclear physics where it was found to be wanting. Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of computation if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

As far as Creationism and my “moronic conclusion that intelligent design cannot be approached on a scientific basis” are concerned, the fact is that Creationism cannot be examined scientifically. You may think that this is “hogwash” but your challenge is to show otherwise.

To illustrate my point I will set up an example. If we discover a human gene that codes for a particular protein and we find a similar gene in a number of different species what will their relationship be based on sequence and function? Those who believe in “evolution” will hypothesize that the differences found in the sequences of the genes will reflect the phylogenic drift of the species (an ape gene will have greater homology than a cat gene which will have greater homology than a fruit fly gene). We can now perform experiments to challenge that hypothesis. Can you do something similar using Intelligent Design or Creationism? How would you test whether or not God “did it”? Would you have any ideas on what the relationships these substances would have based upon intelligent design? Why would a Creator make a monkey gene more similar to a human gene than a fly gene? Or would He? You simply have no foundation on which to base your experiment.

Using your example of an intelligent being who “goes down to planet A and seeds it with life, leaving some basic written instructions for later”, you are once again correct; you cannot “prove that the intelligent being ever did so. It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence supporting your “theory”. Darwin at least had anatomical studies to support his. We have yet to see any evidence of your “holographic video in a lock box”.

Finally, as far as “shallow minds” go, it seems that you have already made up yours. I have no problem with the concept of Creationism being researched. You have to suggest a venue by which that is possible without quoting from your “basic written instructions” as the final arbitrator.

Mindtaker makes some good points but also seems to be full of quite a few unfounded assumptions.

“Furthermore, by raising this point about the Bible’s purpose as a moral guide, we come to the question: if that is the purpose of the Bible, then why do so many follow it literally, missing the messages and metaphors, interpreting it as fact when there is not much evidence to support its facts?”

Good question, but this same question may be applied to any subject. Consider politics. Two opposite sides on one subject, politics, results in billions of people having opposing opinions. So, if we assume that because there are opposing opinions means that neither side is right then nobody is right on any issue.

However, the best way to judge truth is on one issue at a time. So that is the way I was taught as a Christian to judge issues. One step at a time. Grace by grace, line upon line, until you come to a full knowledge of the truth. Works for me, works for religion, works for economics, works for science of all sorts.

Funny thing about science too, is that most past scientists are eventually refuted and replaced with future scientists. Einstein is considered wrong on key issues, as was Newton and every other scientist. It seems that science is based line upon line as well but we have not come to a full knowledge of truth there by any means.

The idiot logic of a leftist …

Englezul says that a person that is trained
and goes to a given school and writes books must be classified as superior to others.

I guess that means that Stalin, Hitler and that drooling Obama clown must be considered god, because they went to school and wrote books.

Good god, englezul, grow some brains you nitwitted juvenile.

kmichaels,
I wrote a response to you but BB has it awaiting moderation for some reason. I did not use any profanity but maybe their little minds exploded. We’ll see if it gets posted. If not I will try to do so in pieces to try to find where the offending passages are.

LOL,

“Good god, englezul, grow some brains you nitwitted juvenile.”

That from someone who believes in something equivalent to the tooth fairy or father christmas.

I love a good hearty laugh

“…goes to a given school and writes books must be classified as superior to others”

He is superior in the sense that he is better educated – therefore more intelligent regarding matters of theology.

“…Stalin, Hitler and that drooling Obama clown must be considered god.”

Thats just taking it too far, only people without proper arguments say things like that.

All in all, the argument should be you trying to persuade us that God can exist, not whether he does or not.
And especially not just taking pot shots at what someone else said in an obviously different context.

kmichaels is a TROLL. Quit feeding him. No real person is that incapable of speaking to others without that much name calling. He is an obvious TROLL and should be ignored as such.

What this teacher did was…man…hmmm…yah…this is so tricky. I mean, on the one hand, he is right. His historical points are dead-on. When people start rising up, you get a witch doctor to whip them back into shape. Nothing wrong with that. And, Creationism (the newish political/religious movement, NOT the simple belief in a “creator”…I am still on the fence whether there was something/someone to lay the original seed, not bashing those who believe in a “creator”, the movement however…) is utter religious nonsense.

But, the teacher made two huge mistakes in my opinion. First, he singled out a specific religion. All religions are, in general, pretty heinous and abusive and corrosive. He very obviously and again and again, went after a specific mythology. On that ground, I can see where the student has a point. Second, he is obviously a pompous (you-know-what). As I opened with, I completely agree with most of his points, but the way he says it, makes me want to punch him in the jaw. You don’t…no, you SHOULDN’T be condescending like that, especially in the class room.

But, should someone be sued for being a jack(you-know-what)? No, I don’t think so. But, he really did go after a specific target, singled out a particular mythology. I am no lawyer, so I will leave that to the appellate court, but it certainly does not seem right.

Well that worked. Let’s try for part two.

Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of analysis if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

Airwick, BB and moderation is strange indeed. I get moderated when I say nothing wrong and it lets me be less than kind on other issues. It is automatically moderated by certain words. You cant even say s-ex without being moderated. You can say gay but not h-omo-s-exual (you get my drift. If I spelled it correctly it wont let it through. So, I just try to avoid certain words but still get moderated by who knows what key word. Keep on trucking.

So, somebody asks “Can a God exist” instead of does he or does he not.

The simple answer is yes. The reasoning is that to assume that earth has produced the highest level of intelligence by pure chance, beyond anything that an endless universe can produce is just well, dumb.

The harder issue is if God can exist, what will he be like? Well, if we adopt the survival of the fittest concept, then my God would have a code of conduct that allows for societal progress and the progress of science, technology and truth in general. That would end up with a loving God that respects his neighbors rights as well.

If there is a natural tendancy to die by the sword if you live by the sword then there will be a natural tendency that if you live by peace that peace will be afforded you.

So, given infinite time, God is the most likely end result of an evolutionary process and this end would have been achieved an infinite amount of time ago, in the past.

So here we are, repeating the same questions and issues discussed a gazillion infinities ago.

Kmichaels,
Since the BB censors don’t like my response for some reason I will break it down and try to send it in parts. Here is part one:

It is unfortunate that you cannot enter into a conversation regarding a topic without resorting to name-calling and insults. I thought that that was a “Libtard” tactic.

Your observation that “nothing can ever be proven” is, in fact, fundamentally sound. Unfortunately, it is the only logical part of your response. What we CAN say is that with a very high degree of confidence certain situations are thought to exist. Subsequent observations and discoveries may cause us to modify and, in rare cases, completely rethink our conclusions. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted the motion of bodies to a high degree of accuracy until the advent of modern atomic theory and nuclear physics where it was found to be wanting. Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of computation if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

I think that I have found the dirty word. It is an@lysis. For some reason you can’t say that on BB. Go figure…

Let’s try this:

Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of an@lysis if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

J figures I am a troll because I disagree with what he says. Hmmm, I guess J is a troll since he disagrees with me. We are all trolls.

In any case, here is how it works. Leftists want to stop freedom of speech based on religious issues and this teacher had his freedom of speech stopped based on religious issues.

If you allow freedom of speech to be sued then you get what you ask for.

Nothing should rightly prohibit freedom of religious speech but we are stuck where we are because of hateful leftists trying to cram down the throats of our nation their secular beliefs.

Religion should never be forced but should be able to be freely discussed.

Evolution should never be forced, should be discussed freely, as well as intelligent design has just as much right to be discussed and pursued on a logical basis.

Now, why should men believe in a God? Obviously most people on earth do. So why? Is it logical or is it purely genetic?

I, having studied much science and much religion too conclude that an intelligent being superior to us on earth is much more likely to exist than not exist.

Human scientists have performed intelligent design in human labs on earth. Why cant higher intelligence outside of our own be capable of doing the same? There is no good argument against it.

As to intellectual levels, most atheists seem shallow minded, based on my own experience. Why it is hard to find smart atheists is beyond me, but they seem pretty rare.

Airwick, my point was that using semantics there is no truth ever. I agree that truth is somewhat relative, but only because of our lack of understanding. In reality, truth is absolute.

As to evolution, it has serious flaws and as many people that put faith in it put faith in intelligent design. So we cant conclude logically that one is more true than the other.

Personally, I believe that God exists now and that he came about through an evolutionary form of adaptation over an infinite amount of time. But since infinity is what it is, God has always existed, as far as we are concerned. It sounds mythical but to me it is a logical extension of infinity.

At some point, if God (or a society of God) did progress to an infinite level of intelligence then at that point (if he concludes to make the learning process more intelligent) he can easily create mankind in his own image and give them the necessary guidance to achieve the proper code of conduct in life similar to the one that he has long since adopted.

There is great logic in this conclusion.

Kmichaels,
Well, that didn’t work. Let’s try again. Since the BB censors don’t like my response for some reason, I will break it down and try to send it in parts. Here is part one:

Your observation that “nothing can ever be proven” is, in fact, fundamentally sound. What we CAN say is that with a very high degree of confidence certain situations are thought to exist. Subsequent observations and discoveries may cause us to modify and, in rare cases, completely rethink our conclusions. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted the motion of bodies to a high degree of accuracy until the advent of modern atomic theory and nuclear physics where it was found to be wanting.

Oh yes, Airwick, you are right on that one word. You cant say a-nal in any form. It is offensive to gays, supposedly. I had mine do the same thing with the same word you used. That is why I insert the – into some words.

Analysis

This is ridiculous 100%. Allowing a student to sue a teacher over his opinions of a theory ( … yes … ) is just insane. That’s all this is. It’s not like there is a special line you can jump over anytime someone hurts your feelings because they like red more green. I am more than a little disappointed that so many people took the time to defend their religious beliefs here, instead of just saying how DUMB it is that someone got sued and LOST over an OPINION of someone’s THEORY.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.