Kentucky lawmakers shocked to find Evolution in Biology tests.

Science is the search for the truth.

Most religions proclaim to be the truth and require unwavering devotion to a piece of paper written by people OVER 2000 years ago. Religion is not challenged and updated (except for when a religion, like catholicism, is updated to try and remain relevant in this day and age, which kind of makes you wonder how they got it oh so wrong thousands of years ago).

Just sayin', I think I know which one I can put my "faith" in, and some would consider me mildly religious.

This is kind of like my argument about a lot of things. I tell somebody I am black. They say, no, you are white. Well, that is what you believe is the retort.

How can you argue against that? You can't. It's a weird, scary way to look at the world. It's sort of like people have taken the idea of the "matrix" to the extreme aka nothing is everything, everything is nothing. Nothing can be proved.

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: Prove either. Both are really separate ideas about the same damn thing, IE-where everything came from originally.

Actually, science has pretty damn conclusively proven that all known E36 M3 in the universe is flying outward from one central spot, erego some sort of a "big bang" had to have happened. That doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't some Far Side 'God as a kid making the chicken" moment that caused the bang, but that's religion, and it has to stay out of public schools (praised be his noodly appendage).

For truly His Noodly Appendages have touched us all.

Beware the evolutionist, beware the Darwinian, for they are as likely to completely refute their own previous theories as they are to come up with new and even more radical theories, which in either circumstance they will claim are based on the results and findings of their ‘research’. Beware especially the scientist that investigates any theory that approaches divine Creation, which they call cosmology, for in it is the attempt not only to argue against Creation, but even worse, to steal Creation itself from true believers!

This happened before with ‘quantum physics’ supplanting Newton’s immutable laws. Scientists are shameless, and in the future could just as easily discard evolutionary theory for some new (and equally un-godless) theory based on new ‘data’. The theory itself is not the threat, it is scientists, and those like them who have the evil compulsion to ALWAYS QUESTION AND REQUIRE PROOF, that should be the real targets, it is they who pose the greatest threat.

was that sarcasm?

Tim Baxter wrote: was that sarcasm?

I hope so but I'm cleaning my gun and putting some crucifix ornaments out on the lawn just in case they are hunting us.

Beware the creationists, beware the zealots, for they are as likely to completely refute their own previous theories as they are to come up with new and even more radical theories, which in either circumstance they will claim are based on the teachings and passages of their million times revised man made document. Beware especially the zealot that denies any theory that questions divine Creation, an action they call blasphemy, for in it is the attempt not only to argue against observable fact, but even worse, to steal the reason and logical thought from rational people!

This happened before with the Spanish inquisition and the Salem witch trials, supplanting the previous teachings to love thy neighbor. Creationists are shameless, and in the future could just as easily discard creation for some new (and equally unreasonable) theory based on new ‘interpretations’. The gospel itself is not the threat, it is the interpreters, and those like them who have the evil compulsion to ALWAYS BLINDLY FOLLOW IRRATIONAL DOGMATIC TEACHING, that should be the real targets, it is they who pose the greatest threat.

(please see my previous comment about 2 way streets...and consider that ol' euphemism about pots and kettles)

Tim Baxter wrote: was that sarcasm?

I most fervently hope so...

Born in KY - schooled there until we moved to KS My great uncle was a country, southern baptist preacher. Not sure how I came out the way I am - I think the uncle introduced a lot of skepticism. Turns out after wwII his vocation was knocking over gas stations until he figured out that being a country preacher was a good gig - free housing, free food, not much work. Irony, and a massive stroke took him out, in the pulpit, as he was delivering his usual fire and brimstone.

and now back to today's feature of blasphemous infidelity vs. ignorant zealotry

Duke wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: was that sarcasm?

I most fervently hope so...

If it was it was brilliant.. If not, I am a little scared.

I don't think it was sarcasm.

Funny thing is, we're all talking to each other here using the fruits of science, not religion, using devices that would have been pure evil magic to people who were around when the bible was written (well, maybe they are just pure evil magic...) If science is just lies, then your computer doesn't actually work, and new ones aren't faster and more powerful than old ones.

Scinetific theories exist to be questioned, unlike religious dogma. Scientists encourage probing and refuting and turning previous theory upside down, and if you want to get religious about it, that's why God gave us brains.

Chris_V wrote: Scinetific theories exist to be questioned Scientists encourage probing and refuting and turning previous theory upside down

And that's why I love science.

Once again, many, possibly most Christians accept evolution.

Otto Maddox wrote: Once again, many, possibly most Christians accept evolution.

If God is perfect, and we are created in his image, how can we evolve?

93EXCivic wrote:

Duke wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: was that sarcasm?

I most fervently hope so...

If it was it was brilliant.. If not, I am a little scared.

see, this is how bad social/political/religious discourse has become these days. I honestly can't tell anymore when someone is serious, when they're being sarcastic, and when they're just batE36 M3 crazy.

All of the rhetoric is so damn overheated it doesn't even make sense any more. It's like Godwin's law is a goal, not a failure.

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Once again, many, possibly most Christians accept evolution.

If God is perfect, and we are created in his image, how can we evolve?

So man is perfect, eh? Murder? Rape? Genocide? Do I even need to go on?

Javelin wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Once again, many, possibly most Christians accept evolution.

If God is perfect, and we are created in his image, how can we evolve?

So man is perfect, eh? Murder? Rape? Genocide? Do I even need to go on?

He was joking...

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Javelin wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Once again, many, possibly most Christians accept evolution.

If God is perfect, and we are created in his image, how can we evolve?

So man is perfect, eh? Murder? Rape? Genocide? Do I even need to go on?

He was joking...

We need a sarcasm font or something!

Javelin wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Javelin wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Once again, many, possibly most Christians accept evolution.

If God is perfect, and we are created in his image, how can we evolve?

So man is perfect, eh? Murder? Rape? Genocide? Do I even need to go on?

He was joking...

We need a sarcasm font or something!

Who knows if God is perfect. I have made all kinds of stuff, including kids, and I sure as hell am not perfect.

(edit) Did I post in this thread? Nope. Not me.

Tim Baxter wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

Duke wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: was that sarcasm?

I most fervently hope so...

If it was it was brilliant.. If not, I am a little scared.

see, this is how bad social/political/religious discourse has become these days. I honestly can't tell anymore when someone is serious, when they're being sarcastic, and when they're just batE36 M3 crazy. All of the rhetoric is so damn overheated it doesn't even make sense any more. It's like Godwin's law is a goal, not a failure.

Back in the old Usenet days, the unmoderated atheism group came up with what we call "Poe's Law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

I'm leaving now. The only thing that punches my shiny happy person button harder than ID/Creationism in schools is the moon hoaxers.

http://viraltoob.com/media/buzz-aldrin-punch

EDIT: Okay, the board formatting doesn't like my link. From Wiki:

"The core of Poe's law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe's law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief.[2]

A further corollary, the Poe Paradox, results from suspicion of the first corollary. The paradox is that any new person or idea sufficiently extreme to be accepted by the extremist group risks being rejected as a parody or parodist."

fast_eddie_72 wrote: (edit) Did I post in this thread? Nope. Not me.

I already read it. You took the bait.

Convincing someone their religion is wrong is like trying to convince a mother her baby is ugly. They will fight you to the death and ignore all evidence in plain view. Not that I don't respect that in a way. People need to believe in something. And ugly babies need love too.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

I realized that and decided not to try. Have a nice day.

My leap of faith for today is to believe that grpb's rant is sarcastic.

I think the giveaway is putting "research" in quotation marks, but I don't want to call that proof and by relying on evidence or analysis throw my faith into doubt.