Textbook Indoctrination in Public Schools

[JenT]

Actually, God didn't make your dad an alcoholic.

Your dad made your dad an alcoholic. Nobody else.

No SHIT!!!

Dude.. First of all.. If you're going to reply with "No shit!", then why did you make your accusation that "God" made your dad become an alcoholic?

Second... You're getting a bit too worked up. Might want to step away and come back when you can be rational. Jen's a fucking lunatic that could piss off a saint, but your responses don't even make any sense.

Oh I got lots a girlfriend saints mad at me...but I never pissed on any of em

 

[Dis]

No SHIT!!!

Dude.. First of all.. If you're going to reply with "No shit!", then why did you make your accusation that "God" made your dad become an alcoholic?

Second... You're getting a bit too worked up. Might want to step away and come back when you can be rational. Jen's a fucking lunatic that could piss off a saint, but your responses don't even make any sense.

Oh I got lots a girlfriend saints mad at me...but I never pissed on any of em

Speaking of people that should step away....

 

[Father Time]

I never said they don't come from the ground. I just don't know that God ever specifically put them there. Things pretty much got rearranged from the flood. (or have scientists been able to explain why mountain tops have evidence of being undersea...I suppose they would say mountains just popped up that way all on their own...)[/QUOTE]

That is so funny. Mountains actually did just pop up all on their own. From at least two different methods, volcanoes and plate tectonics.

The Flood? Ha ha. Where did all the water go? Did God "drink it"? Millions of species on a wooden boat with hundreds of species of termites, beavers and woodpeckers? What did they eat? Ha ha.

So tell me, do you go to a medical doctor? Have you asked your doctor if they studied evolutionary medicine? I'm telling you now, if you go to a medical doctor, you are being a hypocrite. Stop it now. You must go to a "faith healer".

Funny about those bones. If there had been a "flood", they would be all mixed up instead of laying carefully in layers, the less complex on the bottom, the more complex on top. We found that out at the Grand Canyon, because it's two billion years old. Unless you think that came from a flood? ha ha ha. Still doesn't explain the bones. Man, God was "neat". Ha ha ha ha ho ho tee hee giggle snicker.

There are plenty of sites where fossils have been all mixed together, I don't know what you're laughing about.

I think what's laughable is how they claimed carbon dating was state-of-the-art and undeniable, until they found the flaws.

Oh but now there are new ways of dating material. Until they find better ones, than these will be admittedly flawed.

You guys crunch the numbers that you need to in order to get the results that you want and you KNOW it, it depends on what you feed into all that "complex" data.

Yes they found some flaws in carbon dating in a few general cases but that doesn't make it all around worthless, that's the thing with science it admits when it makes mistakes and gets it wrong.

Oh and back up your claims that their dating methods are wrong.

Oh and what proof is there about this grand conspiracy that scientists are doing whatever they can to make sure their old theories stay right?

 

[THE LIGHT]

There are plenty of sites where fossils have been all mixed together, I don't know what you're laughing about.

I think what's laughable is how they claimed carbon dating was state-of-the-art and undeniable, until they found the flaws.

Oh but now there are new ways of dating material. Until they find better ones, than these will be admittedly flawed.

You guys crunch the numbers that you need to in order to get the results that you want and you KNOW it, it depends on what you feed into all that "complex" data.

Yes they found some flaws in carbon dating in a few general cases but that doesn't make it all around worthless, that's the thing with science it admits when it makes mistakes and gets it wrong.

Oh and back up your claims that their dating methods are wrong.

Oh and what proof is there about this grand conspiracy that scientists are doing whatever they can to make sure their old theories stay right?

Considering the fact that evolutionism's alter, the Gologic Column, was created before carbon dating was around. Pray tell, where did they get their numbers from?

 

[Sidestreamer]

Every shred of evidence points to America being a Christian Nation and yet you would probably fight me over that. And that was only a few hundred years ago so I really don't expect you to believe real scientific evidence when it comes to something that happened a few thousand years ago.

I wouldn't argue that the pilgrims came here to worship independently of the Anglican church. What I would argue is that the Founding Fathers intended to avoid the same theocratic monopoly created by the very British government they rejected by refusing to have a state religion.


This is an oversimplification, but human remains are less "human" the deeper you dig through the earth's surface if you were to scope out a wide area. And other species' fossils seem to converge as far as their structures and appearances go. Are you arguing this isn't an observable sign of evolution?

A system of hope that there is no God.

Yeah, here we go again, we're all out to disprove god. yada yada yada.

Scientists don't care about religion. Religion exists in a metaphysical plane that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the physical realm that scientists study. Believers or not, they cannot rely on physical evidence and observation to make any kind of statement on a concept that does not dwell in a nonphysical realm such as God, or any god for that matter.

I know a man who is drop-dead genius. The government has actually sent out people to follow him around to figure out how he does what he does. (he translated satellite codes years ago, don't know what he's working on now, he'll never talk about it). He's a fascinating man, it's interesting that he has no social skills whatsoever...can't even remember huge events in his life, he's so focused on things beyond my comprehension. He's not a religious man but he does believe in God and I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God.

A lot of doctors seem to follow the same conclusions.

But ask him if he can devise a scientific theory for God's existence.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think it's genetic. In fact I'm sure of it.

Another line of crap. Alcoholism isn't genetic. If it were, I'd be toast.

Dis, if people become alcoholic by drinking a lot, I should have been toast. My twenties were a blur of parties.

And when I met my husband, who I knew had a drinking past and a couple of DUIs, but he was sober and said he didn't have a drinking problem, I figured he was just like me. Kind of got bored with being drunk.

But my whole family has never had a problem with drinking and other whole families do. But I don't think that means it's guaranteed the WHOLE family will be alcoholic, but I do think it runs in families, and I've cautioned my sons about it a lot because their dad's whole family is falling down drunks. Lol, I met my father in law picking his face up out of his chinese noodles.

One must understand the nature of the flaw to truly understand the flaw. I will not say that I fully understand it, but you clearly know even less than I do. Much like people who claim they are not addicted to cigarettes so nicotine cannot be addictive, or those who I have seen addicted to pot though everyone says it's not addictive. People get addicted to anything, it's usually because of a personality flaw that they get non-physical addictions. Alcohol has a minor addictive quality, but it's not fully addictive unless there is a psychological weakness. It's not genetic, it's not chemical, it's all in their heads, and when they choose to stop, they can. I am addicted to nicotine, but the only reason I can't stop is because I simply don't want to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ever fed a cat tuna. Or a woman chocolate for the first time. Yes, addicition can be genetic.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ever fed a cat tuna. Or a woman chocolate for the first time. Yes, addicition can be genetic.

Explain why my best friend and I both hate chocolate, if it's genetic.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Yes they found some flaws in carbon dating in a few general cases but that doesn't make it all around worthless, that's the thing with science it admits when it makes mistakes and gets it wrong.

Oh and back up your claims that their dating methods are wrong.

Oh and what proof is there about this grand conspiracy that scientists are doing whatever they can to make sure their old theories stay right?

Considering the fact that evolutionism's alter, the Gologic Column, was created before carbon dating was around. Pray tell, where did they get their numbers from?

 

[Father Time]

Yes they found some flaws in carbon dating in a few general cases but that doesn't make it all around worthless, that's the thing with science it admits when it makes mistakes and gets it wrong.

Oh and back up your claims that their dating methods are wrong.

Oh and what proof is there about this grand conspiracy that scientists are doing whatever they can to make sure their old theories stay right?

Considering the fact that evolutionism's alter, the Gologic Column, was created before carbon dating was around. Pray tell, where did they get their numbers from?

I asked to prove their dating methods are wrong, please do so.

 

[Ryan]

I believe that promoting a religion in public schools should be prevented, as such a policy is
un-Constitutional. Secular Humanism, believe it or not, is in fact a religion and should face the same restrictions as any other religion and be banned from public schools in the US.

A few years back a twisted political in California, Shelia James Kuehl, supported a policy that would make all school curriculum "gender neutral" under (SB777). The implications of such a twisted agenda is beyond the scope of this post, my main point is provide an example of the extreme social goals of the humanists. Often, secular humanists are considered to be more rational and ethical but such policies as the one mentioned in this post contradict this assumption. The religion of "secular humanism" has inflicted more harm on the minds of students then the belief in "creationism" ever could.

Below is a pretty good def on Secular Humanism. Perhaps drop down to "tenets"? You can see it's a rejection of magic and the occult. That is one of the problems with those with occult beliefs, they desperately want to paint non belief as another form of belief. Well it's not. It is exactly what it is, "a lack of supernatural beliefs", period. IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE!!!!

Creationism is crap disguised as something other than crap. Those that have pushed that crap have caused questioning minds to turn away from science. Who knows what fine minds we may have lost due to those pushing crap?

One thing the religious do it a vain attempt to make a connection between evil people that have no mystical beliefs and those that simply have no mystical beliefs. Example: Stalin was an atheist, so atheism is evil. Wrong, atheism is a lack of belief. Meaning "nothing". You can't build a connection from "nothing" because it's "nothing". Get it? Nothing.

A lack of belief isn't a belief. It's like "cold" is the absence of "heat". The religious person would say, "Heat is the absence of "cold". But a scientist would say, "heat" is "energy". Cold is the absence of heat. You see the difference? You don't take away the cold, you add heat so it's less cold, but cold is nothing - like atheism. The concept is so simple, but for some reason, far, far beyond the ability to comprehend by many religious.

--------------

Def of Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

secular humanism: Definition from Answers.com

There is a major distinction between the "occult" and the belief in the "spiritual" and "supernatural" which you seem to use the terms interchangeably. The basic definition of "secular humanism" which you provided did not use the term the "occult" to define the term. I find it interesting that the definition you provided in part defines "secular humanism" by tenets that the philosophy rejects. Above that definition you posted;

" You can't build a connection from "nothing" because it's "nothing". Get it? Nothing."

So then you must believe a major aspect of the philosophy of "secular humanism" is based on nothing, which then seems to contradict the assertion that the philosophy is based on reason. Get it?

The rest of your post seems to be a confusing argument that secular humanism not a religion, is that the point you were attempting to make? If so then argue the point against the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case where the USSC defined "Secular Humanism" as a religion. Explain why secular humanism is not subject to the no "Establishment Clause." Explain why the "Federal Government cannot force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion" as the USSC ruled, except regarding Secular Humanism. Explain why the SC ruled in 1957 tax exemption case of Washington Ethical Society v. the D.C. that secular humanism is a non-theistic religion and yet exempt from the no "Establishment Clause." Try to answer these questions without any pitiful references to Stalin, cold, heat any other unrelated issues.

Just to further define, Secular Humanism, it is a philosophy based on "moral relativism" or a belief that no absolute moral code exists, and humans must adjust their ethical standards in each situation according to their own judgment. Therefore, Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism.

 

[Ryan]

Here is a bit more on secular humanism without any silly analogies. One of the first signers of the "Humanist Manifesto," John Dewey, described secular humanism as "our common faith." The manifesto contained the description of humanism as a religion. Humanist Julian Huxley, member of the British Eugenics Society described humanism as a "religion without revelation." For nearly 100 years Humanism was glowingly referred to as the "new religion." In 1957 a humanist organization brought a case before the USSC to have this doctrine of belief recognized as a religion and therefore entitled to the same tax exemptions as other religions. The humanist ethical society won the case establishing humanism as a religion and at least one later USSC case specifically recognized secular humanism as a religion.

Later, around the 1980's, Christian organizations sought the same public restrictions placed on secular humanism as those placed on Christianity the strategy was to redefine secular humanism as a "science." The USSC case of 1961 where secular humanism was described as an instance of mere "dicta" but this description was based on the 1957 case that humanists sought and won. Therefore, secular humanism is one of the many religions that are non-theistic. Even Scientology gained recognition as a religion and the claim to science does not preclude a religion.

Secular Humanism seeks one status when free exercise of religion and tax exemptions are concerned and a non-religious status when the no Establishment clause is concerned. How ethical is that? Oh yeah, ethics are gelatinous when secular humanism is concerned.

 

[Ryan]

To help some better understand the "no Establishment Clause" it should be pointed out that this clause was not a anti-clerical tactic, it was necessary for the young Republic to survive. Throughout the original 13 colonies different religions dominated the various regions. In New England areas the Puritans dominated, Maryland had a mix of Catholics and Lutherans, Pennsylvania was dominated by Quakers and the Southern regions dominated by Baptists and Episcopalians.

To establish any one religion would have fragmented the society beyond repair before it even started. Certainly the "Founding Fathers" would have been well aware of the history of the Anglican Church and seek to avoid such a Church and State relationship with a "seperation" that Jefferson described. The beliefs of the "Founding Fathers" were varied maybe even to a greater degree then the rest of the Repulics population including many who were Free Masons.

 

[Father Time]

Just like to ask the people here who want creationism, shall we teach Scientology's views on psychiatry in our schools as another theory to be considered or not?

 

[JenT]

Yes they found some flaws in carbon dating in a few general cases but that doesn't make it all around worthless, that's the thing with science it admits when it makes mistakes and gets it wrong.

Oh and back up your claims that their dating methods are wrong.

Oh and what proof is there about this grand conspiracy that scientists are doing whatever they can to make sure their old theories stay right?

Considering the fact that evolutionism's alter, the Gologic Column, was created before carbon dating was around. Pray tell, where did they get their numbers from?

I asked to prove their dating methods are wrong, please do so.

I read a lot about scientific methods of dating, about isochrons with guessed "starting dates", or about molten rock in the Grand Canyon giving impossible results with modern techniques, or about excess argon screwing up test results, I could tell you about K-Ar Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, how eruptions in 1949, 1954 and 1975 tested .27 to 3.5 million years old. I could talk about how radioisotope laboratories provide forms with sample submissions asking YOU how old you estimate the sample to be. Why? I could tell you about carbon dating and how the earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays and the GUESSED 14C levels contribute to flawed results. I could tell you how researchers just "throw out" samples that don't line up with their calculations. I could tell you how plants discriminate against carbon dioxide differently so scientists can just "guess & correct" manipulating tests any way they want.

But all of these variables are not that impressive to me, they just show that the data that is fed into these techniques is easily skewed. And that is why, if you don't calculate two events in history, you WILL get completely messed up results. And that is two events in the Bible. The flood would have greatly changed the carbon balance. Lowered 12C in biosphere, the 14C relative to 12C is greatly altered. But that's not the biggest cataclysm that is often overlooked.

The Bible says in Genesis 2:4:

Quote:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

From creation to the flood, the biosphere of the earth was radically different. There was no rain, there was mist that came from the ground and watered the whole face of the earth. Scientists have been using techniques that do not account for the radical change between creation and the flood. If their test results are so skewed merely from the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation, imagine what a radically different physics of the earth watering itself would do. A change that apparently caused man to age differently. If you notice, the age of man according to the Bible slowly decreased, one naturally thinks the aging process changed but that's wrong. Earlier men lived longer before the flood than younger men who were born nearer to the flood. It was the flood that decreased their life span. And after the flood when life spans were seriously shortened, it was because of a radically different mix of radiation and mist. I can't imagine what it was like before the flood but it was drastically different than today.

 

[del]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ever fed a cat tuna. Or a woman chocolate for the first time. Yes, addicition can be genetic.

Explain why my best friend and I both hate chocolate, if it's genetic.

You are genetically engineered mutants. Can I have your chocolate?

 

[Dr Grump]

Those are your choices. Back off or ban me. Doesn't matter to me which.

I hate banning, but if Del does it so we don't have to see your drivel for a few days...well, Que Sera Sera....

 

[del]

del, did you miss this? cause you never answered

no, i became a mod by bouncing asshole sockpuppet accounts, al.

would you like a demo?

The slightest little show of courage and you threaten him with a ban demonstration?

You can sling all kinds of stuff, but you can't take it.

Whoooops, I better be careful, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings AGAIN.

Except why should I care, I'm not here for you to abuse.

BACK OFF.

Or keep crying while you do your worst, I don't care.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-these-muslims-must-be-in-big-trouble-14.html

yeah, jent, somehow i missed it.

very dramatic though, i'm sure it felt wonderful for you.

keep up the good work.

 

[Dr Grump]

One of the few I had on ignore, when did I take you off ignore?