Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

You really do NOT know what you're talking about, do you?


I'm going to assume you quote-mined that off a Creationist site, because it's the kind of M.O. that Creationists display as well as the clever out-of-contexting they love to use in their attempts to sound "scientific".

I hate to break it to you, Kevn, but Hubert Yockey (a physicist, by the way, NOT a biologist) has done landmark work that supports macro-evolution, something you've made disparaging comments about in the past. Yet you'll accept this mined quote from him to support your opinion? Does it bother you that he accepts macro-evolution, or that he has submitted his work to professional peer review unlike so many Creationist pretenders?


Explaining the mechanisms of Life and teaching the state of current research is NOT "faith based". It's Science. Honestly, I wouldn't want any child to sit in class and not ask "ok, I understand how cells divide and organisms adapt, but how did the first ones happen?". That would be the sign of an uncurious intellect.

Thank you for participating. Have a nice day.

But I DON'T believe in abiogenesis without any logical proof. I see the following scientific facts:
chemical compositions that are required for biological organism (taken from studying various biological organisms)
tests and evidence that shows what the earth was llike millions of years ago based on studies of other planets in our universe, as well as geological research.
Tests that show the production of those biological chemical components under what we have established as a fairly accurate model of early earth atmosphere and conditions.
Evidence that life exists today, as well as evidence that life as we know it today can, and has, started out with the most basic of organisms, those being viruses and bacteria.

From that I can very easilly assume that:
Since that biomatter can be created under the conditions that our earth had millions of years ago
And since we do have biological living organisms built out of that same matter existing today
SOMETHING caused that first biomater to clump together to form the first basic viruses and bacteria that eventually evolved into what we are today. No faith, no bible, no god required. The fact that we don't know exactly HOW it happened is the exact same fact that we don't know HOW two objects gravitationally attract each other. We only know they do, and in abiogenesis example, know that they did.

If you believe that we shouldn't believe in things without understanding them or understanding how they work, regardless of whether tests show that something existed in one state and then existed in another, then feel free to not believe in gravity, despite a rocking in a high above state at one point, and then existing in a state below it at another.

Kevn, if you DID know what you were talking about, you wouldn't make outrageously incorrect statements like this:

The troubling fact for you is that there IS material evidence for abiogenesis. We are still working on a deeper understanding and we need more information, but as it looks right now there are a number of mechanisms which have been demonstrated scientifically that could form Life from non-living matter.

Sidney Fox credited with discovering Life's Origins


Self-replication: Even Peptides Do It

The Miller-Urey Experiment (spontaneous formation of amino acids using salt water, hydrocarbons and electrical current)

Methane-belching bugs inspire new theory for origins of Life

What is new in the last 10 years or so is that the objections to experiments such as Stan Miller's involved the availability of the necessary compounds here on Earth, and further research has inspired the idea that the needed compounds could conceivably have arrived here from space, borne here on asteroids and comets which carried methane and other hydrocarbons.

Don't blithely dismiss the notion that Science won't find an answer. It's do-able, but fortunately for all of us, Science will not make premature conclusions until the theories have been tested and reviewed. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

It's not faith. It's Science. And Science is a process for discovering the truth.

It may be they never prove that life has a scientific verifiable mechinism that started it.

It is , however, possible they will, thats what the research that has been pointed out is conducted for.

Its absolutely certain that the mechnism for Intelligent Design will never be proven scientifically. Since its a faith based arguement.

Of course even if the scientific beginings of life and evolution are conclusively proven. It wouldnt not necessarily mean there is no God. Just that the account in Genesis is not what actually happened.

It is of course likely; even assuming the Entire Christain concept of God is true; that much of the bible is alagorical - becuase when you are trying to desribe a being on the enormity of God, simple human comprehension would require the story is in effect, dumbed down.

The intellect required to truley comprehend a being capable of creating The Universe would be beyond any human in my veiw. Thus the mechinism such a being used might very well be the ones that there is scientific evidence supporting.

This is the basis of scientists and Christains who beleieve in Evolution and foundings of life that differ from Genesis.

In my opinion it also could mean that there could be many different beleifs as to God's true nature. Since none could possibly come close to the entirity of somthing that exists on such a scale.

****************************************

This last arguement about proof of development of life reminds me of a part of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"


The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Don't worry. I haven't. I attributed the idea to the person I heard it from.


Its the only one I've heard so far. Are there better ones? What are they?

I didn't say you were against gay marriage. I said you offered this up as a non-religous argument against gay marriage. It's sad people read what they think the poster is saying instead of what was really said.

Nice post.

I think you might be mistaken though by saying the existence of a creator can never be determined. The chances we will ever truly understand how life started are very small, but still there. If science refuses to test for all possibilities it isn't science.

Both creationism and abiogenesis are matters of faith that most likely won't be resolved in our life time. But we shouldn't stop seeking answers because we may never find them.

We need not find God to determine there is a creator. All we need to do is show there was intelligence behind the design. We use science every day to detect intelligence behind an action. Forensics is very good at detecting intelligence behind actions. They determine whether an act was caused naturally or by an intelligence. We can do the same thing when dealing with origins.

The main thing though, is to let kids know abiogenesis is not fact, and is accepted as fact by people who have a horse in the race.

One can have faith in a concept that is not religious. For example...

I have faith in my cat to use the litterbox rather than my shoe.

While I know very well that it is possible I could be wrong, I believe my cat will crap in the box. Now the following is an example of a religious spin on the same concept.

I have faith god will show my cat the path to the litterbox, and the cat shall see that god is good, and the cat will crap in the litterbox.

In both cases, it is a matter of faith. While the first example provides faith based on experience, and experimentation (various kitty litters, behavioral modification, etc), the latter is a more religious expression of faith based on the concept of a creator and excluding the simple fact that the cat knowing where it's ok to crap has nothing to do with god's skill at litter training.

Simply because one can have faith in something... that doesn't exclude the possibility that such faith has nothing to do with religion.

Teaching the scientific theory in public school is perfectly legitimate. Teaching religious theory in private school is perfectly legitimate. Teaching religion in public school is unconstitutional, and should be avoided at all costs.

So, it is possible for me to have my theory for why the world exists, and for you to have your theory for why the world exists, and we can both agree that the world exists. The breakdown begins when you start making assumptions that your view should be taught to all children when it is simply a set of beliefs based on a book compiled of many books, written by different people, at different times, translated many more times, and currently published in many versions with differing interpretations of it's content.

If you want to teach your kids about creationism, Intelligent Design, or Scientology, that's something you can do in private school, your home, or your preferred place of worship.

No, you said....


I never argued any such thing. I pointed out there are risks with gay sex, and if we are going to legislate morality only when it comes to health issues (someone said it's ok to ban drug use because it's a health issue), gay sex would fall under that scope.

I have never argued "that gay men shouldn't be allowed to marry because they get AIDS more than any other group" and I wish you wouldn't say I did.

Actually I didn't mention anything about proper condom application, those were your words. Sexual education is about much more than that. It's the knowledge and understanding about her own body, her mind, the life changine effects on both that will sway her decision and in the end do much more to protect her than lack of knowledge and denial.

I'm curious as to where you are getting your information in regards to what is or isn't taught in schools today.

I acknowledge that I have no idea what is being taught in schools in other countries or even in other states, therefore I will not attempt to even comment on what should be changed elsewhere or what shouldn't. I am aware only of what has been happening in my own children's schools. When the chapter on sexual education came up in health classes over the years both my children came home with permission slips for me to sign. If I hadn't wanted them to recieve that information, all I had to do was refuse to sign the permission slip. So it really isn't "forced" upon my family. I was always asked permission first.

In the cases of both my children when evolution was mentioned in terms of history classes and science classes it was always described as a theory not fact. My son in fact believes in the theory of intelligent design. Being taught the theory of evolution in grade school obviously didn't have any horrible impact on him. It seems to me Kven that perhaps you are generalizing quite a bit about what you believe is going on in schools. But any time you don't like something the school has taught your child, the solution is simple. Offer the child your counter argument. Give the child information from your own perspective. As they grow into adults they are going to decide what works for them regardless of what you want anyway.

There are risks involved with any sex, regardless of sexual orientation. To state otherwise, or to state one orientation is more risky than another is ignorant, dangerous, and utterly bigoted.

Just because you said that does not make that a fact.



This, however, is true, since after almost 100 years of research, we still have people disputing "macro-evolution," as well as a lot of other scientific facts most other people already take for granted. There will always be people unwilling to open up their minds to the truth, especially when they are afraid to, and especially when there will always be a lot of preachers in closed up communities continuing to preach fear.




It is not accepted as fact. Gravity is not a fact either. They are theories, and are taught as such. Claiming that it is taught as fact is a false scare tactic. Nothing else.

What part of sex ed. will give her the ability to tell the boy no? The fact she may become pregnant? Or get a std?

Ok lets rewrite that a bit.....

"...there are risks with sex and if we are going to legislate morality only when it comes to health issues, sex would fall under that scope."

Stated this way, take the sexual preference out of it and think it over for a moment. You're saying that sex comes with a health risk and therefore should be legislated to a degree? (correct me if i'm wrong)

Having as much information about the facts will indeed allow a girl or boy to make informed decisions regarding their sexual activity. Learning about STD's, pregnancy, rape, incest, etc is crucial to the safety and well being of the youth of the world.

If you don't want your kids throwing their naughties around, then teach them not to. This by NO means removes the need for sexual education.

Ummm well.. yes.

But among other things as well. Frankly the sex education she recieves in school should be followed up with more at home. Also an awareness about her body, her mind, her self.... it is a combination of all the proper knowledge that will give her the ability to say no, not just a piece here or there.

But actually yes, if seeing a picture in health class about the effect on someone's body from the ravages of a sexually transmitted disease gives one teenager a moment's pause while groping in his parents basement, then the class did him some good.

Sorry Kevn, didn't mean to misinterpret your statements

The fact that elected officials have been unable over the Nation's history to maintain a seperation of Church and State, is not proof that it is not what was intended.

The fact that the people and elective officials have Insisted on passing laws with a Christain moral bent - does not mean that was intended either.

No more than the fact that for nearly 100 years following the civil war the legislated discrimination against blacks was intended.

The fact that it mentions Congress passing laws is much simpler than your exclusionary statement also - since only Congress may pass laws. Who else would it reference?

The Bill of rights was not written during the Constitutional Convention - it was instead a requirement for some of the States in order to support the document.

The Bill of rights, the first 10 ammendments to the Consititution were written by James Madison 2 Years after the Constitutional Convention.

So - the opinions of Madison on the Matter have more relavance than has been represented in this thread - since he wrote the ammendment.

Reguardless - The seperation of Church and State intent as a Wall has over the years been built upon by numerous court rulings of the history of the nation.

In addition IF the Seperation of church and State is not supposed to exist in the United States - than there are inherrent dangers in the system you are supporting. Since it would not safeguard liberty.

The only limits to a complete codification of Christain morality thus far has been this Seperation - and to be honest MUCH of Christain morality has been codified in the past. Luckily for the minority its enforcement has waned, and some laws to this effect have been struck down or removed.

Again please try to imagine that Christains were a minority in Amaerica. without a seperation of Church and State there would be no limits to a Majority Religeon from imposing its own Moral Code on America.

And no i dont mean things like Legalizing Gay Marriage -

Lets say instead a Majority religeons decides ONLY gay marriage is allowed - Christains as a minority would be powerless to stop it. All those Men and Women would be in the eyes of the law, divorced.

you may now - only half read my post and respond saying the exact same things over and over again - thank you.

I can't speak for anyone else... but I, for one, would *LOVE* to hear you elaborate in this one Kevn.

you can read it here. sorry for not giving the link before
/112/94/110953/5.html

Go back to where I posted the increased risks associated with gay sex as opposed to heterosexual sex. I'm not going to re-post it. I'm not attacking gays, I'm just pointing out the fact they are the highest risk group for contracting HIV. Look it up if you don't believe me.

while others are going to attack you on the comments about gay sex - i think the important thing of your satement is

WHO said we should be allowed to legislate morality when it comes to health issues?!!!!?

You should never legislate morality. Period.

Legislate to protect Life,

Legislate to protect Property.

Legislate to protect rights.

Legislate to better the country.

Leave Morality out of it. Morality is an Opinion.

Thank you for posting the link. Any remaining shred of respect I could have possibly mustered for Kevn has been rather violently squashed.

Wow.

Actually current statistics show that poor black heterosexual females are. Some older statistics for your enjoyment:
"According to CDC data reported through December 2001, African Americans were the largest group of young people affected by HIV. They accounted for 56% of all HIV infections ever reported among those aged 13–24"

It's too bad that being a bigot isn't fatal.