Teacher Sued For Criticizing Creationism

Submitted by: Pooptart19 6 years ago in

Teacher went on an inappropriate rant, but yet is sued for rightfully calling creationism "Superstitious nonsense." WTF?
There are 472 comments:
Male 34
... I`m pretty sure it`s illegal to record a class without prior consent from the teacher and or principal...

Religion has a VERY big impact on human behavior, which influenced history. Yes, the teacher was inserting his own opinion, but it was used quite well in older times as leverage to control people.

Also the teacher seems a lot more correct to me -.-

Possible Resolutions:
1. Teacher does not rant at all
2. Teacher gives a disclaimer before he starts his rant.
3. Student complains about how the teacher is bashing his religion.
0
Reply
Male 17
Burn that student! He is a witch!!!!! Buuuurrrrrrn him!
0
Reply
Male 764
Fair enough, it`s a study still in progress. That sounds far more reasonable then every person sex being established before they are even conceive we`ll see.
0
Reply
Male 881
I don`t know what that is or where it comes from. Had this still been a page one topic I`d Google it to find out, but this is now page 4 and I`m moving on.

The fruit fly study I was talk about was the cover story of the science journal Cell. The title was Genetic and Neural Control of Drosophila Sexual Behavior. The fruit fly study isn`t too useful since it is fruit flies and not humans, but it does show a pattern of evidence that is quickly becoming undeniable. There are environmental factors after birth that affect orientation, but there is also evidence that some have their orientation set before birth.

In Nature there are no hard an fast rules. I`d be willing to bet that some people do choose to be gay, but the evidence is mounting that the majority of people do not choose their orientation. There is good evidence that that orientation is set in utero.
0
Reply
Male 764
@ Notta Spy

1) Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that`s very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

2)
The research demonstrates a likely link between brain function and sexual orientation, Savic suggests. But she told New Scientist that the study "does not answer the cause-and-effect question"

So the brain-activation of gay men by AND may contribute to sexual orientation of those men, or simply be the result of their orientation and sexual behaviour.

Those the studies you were referring to? You left those parts out, but interesting none the less.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@nottaspy
To mischief those all have the same credibility as somebody claiming the bible foretells the future. When you talk about studies that follow the scientific method, use proper statistical analysis, and are published in professional journals what he thinks you`re referring to is studies that use a methodology comparable to that used to prove the bible foretells the future. Basically he takes your documented experiments that can be repeated and will yield results within the established control limits every time and says they`re just meaningless claims.
0
Reply
Male 881
They have found a gene in female fruit flies that when flipped makes them gay.

They have found that the sexual center of a gay man`s brain are activated by the smell of the male pheromone.

Studies have shown links to hormone level in utero, and biological advantage through related female fertility, and links to birth order affecting the rate of gay birth.

Seriously, for you to make that claim that there is no evidence clearly shows an ignorance on the subject. Which begs the question, why did you decide to come here and spout your bullpoo when you clearly have no idea?
0
Reply
Male 881
@mischeif954, you are wrong. There are studies that show that you can be born gay.

They did a study with twins. With identical twins, if one was gay, then there was a 52% chance the other was gay. But with fraternal twins, the rate is only 26%. The difference between identical and fraternal rates shows there is a strong link to either genetic or hormonal influence that produces a gay baby at birth. The study did also show that there was environmental elements, but mainly it shows that there are babies that are born gay, no choice.

There are also brain scans that show the a gay males brain is wired like a straight female and a gay female is wired like a straight male. I do not see how someone chooses to rewire their brain. It is a good argument against gay being a choice.

There are also startle response test that show that people acquire their sexual orientation very early in life, maybe even before they are born.
0
Reply
Male 764
I don`t think that NottaSpy what I`m saying is that if anyone of these studies published and released none of them have shown time and time again that a person is born gay and what factor is it that exactly determines it. It`s not a known fact that people are born gay it`s a popular opinion.

Lol @ Davymid lol nothing more to add then grammar nazi comment.

@ I-Is-Bored once again you are reading my post and "observing" my point. I don`t believe you can predict with a code in the bible or any other code in a book. I was showing an example of how if you know a wanted and outcome its not "random chance" you can to a point manipulate what your studying to get the desired result.

So back to NottaSpy since he`s the only talking about the same thing and has sense to use "context clues" and notice I didn`t say "scientific methods" when I said methods I was referring to the methods in the studies he was referring to.
0
Reply
Male 881
@mischeif954, the math part comes in the form of statistical analysis. It is also where they get the margin of error at the bottom of poll results. If a study shows a statistical significant result, that means that it is a real affect or someone screwed with the base data. When someone publishes, that is when other scientists get a chance to make sure everything is above board. If they find something questionable, they can try to repeat the study to see if they get the same result. With careers and reputations on the line, you rarely see people willing to screw with the results.

What you are saying is that they can pick an algorithm that suits their purpose to make it look like they have a result. That type of crap wouldn`t even get past the committee that determines what gets published. When they submit their finding, they also submit their data.

mischeif954 must think scientists are a bunch of monkeys playing football in the dark.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
Wow mischief... You do realize his post was about the significant number of published and repeated tests with results that don`t vary? And THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD refers to A SINGLE method. See how it has a `the` in front?

And if you really believe the bible contains encoded future events you should also realize that ANY sufficiently large text can be used to do the same.

Moby Dick contains lots of `predictions` and all of them happened after it was published. That doesn`t make them any more than pure random chance.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Holy Jesus mischeif954, learn 2 punctuate. That last one literally hurt to read.
0
Reply
Male 764
@ I is bored

NO, he said there some methods backed by math I was pointing out the fact just because math was used in a method doesn`t mean it a correct theory the bible thing I was referring to is that if you picked select verses correlated them with numbers that there is a code to predict events.

I didn`t not call which ever method he was referring to as wrong because he didn`t even refer to a method he just said there`s methods out there...

What I mean by substantial evidence and your definition are completely different a good scientific theory involves a theory that is tested and if tested again under the same conditions in a different test group produce the same or similar results the theories thus far for the notion of being born gay thus far are inconsistent and have varying results, but I`ve strayed from the threads topic long enough. We`re not even talking about the same thing anymore sooooo l8r.
0
Reply
Male 29
Sounds like a typical college professor. What I can tell from this, including the obvious gap in knowledge of the details on this lawsuit, the court just set a precedent. You can now sue your teacher/professor for being annoying.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@mischief
so when nottaspy says scientific method you hear `bat poo crazy method`? where did you get the idea that he believes "people say you can find mathematical codes in the bible to fore tell events" is true? you seem to be padding your responses with unrelated statements
0
Reply
Male 764
@ Nottaspy I can look around and yes I know the scientific method and math methods also, also know that people have came up with algorithms using math before you can pick numbers anywhere and say they mean something people say you can find mathematical codes in the bible to fore tell events I`m very open minded the problem is no one comes with intelligent article or even a logical argument.

i.e.: I`ve always liked boobies seriously? We all did we fed from them.

And every time you point to the fallacy in the argument of preordained behavior people deflect or digress.

Close minded is saying even if people who are in fact gay or bisexual told you why and or how they became who they are today you still would say its not a choice. Theres people who were one way and live another way now.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@mischeif
dunno bout you, but i liked boobies long before i thought about having sex
0
Reply
Male 881
@mischeif954, you want me to show you irrefutable proof? on the internet? LOL, I`ve been in too many link fights to know better. There are too many think tanks out there manufacturing evidence, falsifying facts, and breeding doubt for me to do that again.

The real test is if you have an open mind or if you have already decided that being gay is a choice. If you really are interested in the science, then I urge you to do your own research. Google it; find and read the studies. They haven`t figured out how to fake publishing studies without being called out by the rest of the scientific community.

You`ll see that I am not talking about theories in the colloquial sense. I am talking about real published studies that rely on real math. Yes it is a complicated subject, that is why science uses controls and looks for statistical significance.

I was not talking out my ass and I`ll assume, based on your post, that you just don`t understand the scientific method.
0
Reply
Male 7
I like that professor
0
Reply
Male 764
Hmmm didn`t think it was hard to understand but ok what the sentence meant is according to you at developmental stages of 0-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-10, 10- puberty before you could even have "sex" or have an urge to have sex. The ages of infancy up until puberty you already knew what sex you were attracted? You seemed to observe my point, but still can`t seem to understand it in a sense yes you there was a point where you had no sexual orientation because you had no sexual attraction. Is there a check box for sexual orientation for a 3 mo olds patient form? Do you suggest that the moment you do find a sexual orientation it was preordained by your genes and not through environmental factors? If you can so eagerly agree by that logic, why is then if I were to ask could a person were to be born on some other spectrum like good or evil, perky or emo, aggressor or pacifist you would immediately dismiss it?
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@mischief
Do you understand what calling a subject `black and white` means? Saying I`m calling sexuality a black and white subject means I`m saying bisexuality doesn`t exist, which is something I NEVER did.

No idea what your sentence is trying to say. Obviously if you aren`t bisexual then you are heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. The only other alternative being attracted to sexless inanimate objects/substances or plants, but even those people typically assign a sex. You are also obviously just ignorant to your sexuality if you are attracted to a sex but are unable to recognize it yourself. No clue what you`re getting at.
0
Reply
Male 764
"now stop using food because saying you LIKE lots of foods and you happen to pick one today is only equivalent to being bisexual and tonight you happen to pick a partner of a particular sex."

My understanding from this is unless your bisexual, you are gay or straight there was no time before that you just were ignorant to sexual behavior and developed your own behavior according to your environmental factors.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
nobody ever said sexuality was black and white
0
Reply
Male 764
Logical statement towards saying people are born gay.
That`s the thing though your trying to limit my scope to things that are black and white but is gay black and white? You can like manly looking women or feminine men sexual attraction is not black and white, there`s transsexuals, there butches there`s givers there`s takers when did you decide you preferred being the dominant one maybe you switch it up these are all behaviors that are developed through experiment like homosexuality.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@mischief
I`ll make the logical statements really easy for you

All Human females are Humans.
This does not imply all Humans are Human females.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@mischief
I can`t believe you can recognize math and not realize that`s the basis for how proper logical statements are put together.

Do you choose to prefer the taste of chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream? No, it`s in your taste buds, now stop using food because saying you LIKE lots of foods and you happen to pick one today is only equivalent to being bisexual and tonight you happen to pick a partner of a particular sex.
0
Reply
Male 764
Lol @ I is bored uhmmm that`s from math more specifically discrete math not science please don`t try to correct people.

Lol If i decide to pick a different food to eat today its not my choice its preordained in my genes GTFOH, I don`t mind sensible arguments but lets stop with the when did you decide you liked women, when do you decide you didn`t like roaches? Now even if you make a choice is not a choice? Really?

Sincerely,
Nah, I take that back.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"if 100 different people came and told you stories of sexually experimenting and told you they decided what was there preference after trying both and saying they felt happier one way over the other"

that`s proof it ISN`T a choice, that says they tried both but found their nature preferred one, not they tried both and chose one because they felt it was better for their popularity
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"I can theorize gay people eat fruits so if you eat fruits your gay and as most gay people eat fruits once in their life time therefore scientifically I`m correct and incorrect."

No, no you`re not. That`s nowhere near a scientific theory.
Please never go into science. Don`t even try.
A=>B, B=>A, and A<=>B all have their own meanings, A=>B does not mean B=>A. Gays eating fruits does not mean eating fruits makes you gay.

Sincerely,
People who make sense.



@Sprinkz
Seriosuly? You called Humans NOT Apes when we ARE, HOMONIDS ARE APES.
The group homonidae includes chimpanzees, orangutans, humans, and gorillas. THOSE ARE THE GREAT APES AKA HOMONIDS.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Humans are descended from apes as much as monkeys, and other ancestors. That is what descent is. Stop being a f*cking tool Angillion and read for once.[/quote]

You don`t even bother reading the various posts from various people pointing out why you`re wrong and now you`re raving at me with your silly claim that I never read anything.

You`re making a complete fool of yourself. Feel free to continue. I don`t care either way, but I`m sure some people find it amusing.

What the hell, I`ll explain it again. You`ll ignore it again of course, but I have some spare time.

You and I are almost certainly distantly related. Go back far enough and we`ll almost certainly have common ancestors.

That does not mean that you are descended from me.

Monkeys and humans are distantly related. Go back far enough and there is a common ancestor.

That does not mean that humans are descended from monkeys.
0
Reply
Male 764
@Nottaspy there`s millions of theories of how being gay is not a choice a lot of them are inconclusive due to either lack of evidence or inconsistencies in recreating test results. I can theorize gay people eat fruits so if you eat fruits your gay and as most gay people eat fruits once in their life time therefore scientifically I`m correct and incorrect. You can see activity in a an area of the brain of an infant and get all sorts of diff activity doesn`t mean that you know the child`s sexual orientation. At the end of the day what it comes down to is that even if 100 different people came and told you stories of sexually experimenting and told you they decided what was there preference after trying both and saying they felt happier one way over the other, even then you still wouldn`t be convinced that being gay is a choice. Me on the other hand if you show me irrefutable proof then I`d believe it till then I call BS.
0
Reply
Male 106
@almightybob1
I never said I believed any of that, just that I believe that Angilion was misinterpreting (or at least not choosing the most likely interpretation of) that particular verse, and so that verse isn`t necesarrily contradictory. To answer your question, if I was a christian my answer would be yes, and I would have no problem with it because I don`t think there`s anything wrong with homosexuality.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
@sprinkz : I dropped an apostrophe, big wow. At least I`m smart enough to know the difference between monkey, ape and common ancestor. ;)
0
Reply
Male 881
That whole discussion on gay being a choice really wasn`t needed. The science shows that being gay is not a choice. That is supported by many studies from bran scans to infant startle response. The APA does not list it as an illness or deviation anymore because of the science. No drugs, therapies (sorry Ted Haggard), surgeries, or electro-shocks will change a gay person straight.

The true evil here are the gay hating religions and the intentionally ignorant who place no value on "fancy edjumakayshun".
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Desperate? No, increasingly frustrated. I like how your diction is so piss poor. I`ll just resume ignoring you pseudopedantic non-nice individuals.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Just googling the lineage (Sprinkz give it up dude your looking increasingly desperate) and maybe the tangent into bestiality was
on topic after all
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Not enough trolling up in here.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
at least that`s better than thinking we all came from a spare rib and some wispy dirt off the fertile crescent.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Humans are descended from apes as much as monkeys, and other ancestors. That is what descent is. Stop being a f*cking tool Angillion and read for once. I`m sick of explaining the same damn thing over and over again. It`s not far off to say we evolved from monkeys. It`s just not accurate in terms of a recent ancestor. We come from a primate relative really far back that is like a monkey. Our line has diverged multiple times, and obviously we had to follow SOME line to get here. That is the point I was making. Not that our ancestors (our most recent) is a monkey, or even was an ape, because it wasn`t like any ape I`ve ever seen. It was a hominid. It stood upright, and used tools. Apes can barely sling their own crap with purpose.

I wasn`t trying to put forth creationist propaganda that we evolved from monkeys, and even if I said we evolved from monkeys and believed it, what does that matter? At least I believe in evolution, albeit incorrectly.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
mischief: I don`t know of any study that has shown that some people are just born with the innate desire to commit murder. If you can find one it would be interesting.

I see where you`re going with bestiality though. That, and paedophilia, are commonly used "slippery slope arguments" brought up against things like gay marriage. "If we allow gay marriage now, how long before kiddyfiddling or bestiality is OK?" That kind of thing.

Perhaps you are right - maybe some people`s sexual orientation is bestial or paedophilic just like some people`s is gay or straight or bi or asexual.

If that is the case, and people are born that way, then I can`t blame them for FEELING the way they do. But I can blame them for ACTING upon it.
Because the animal or child they are acting upon CANNOT give their consent, and to perform sex acts on an unconsenting living being, AKA rape, is unacceptable in my moral code.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]You`re arguing that the existence of one theory proves that everything Christians believe is true, including all the things that have no relevance to that theory. That doesn`t make any sense. [/quote]
Actually I think he was arguing that "Big Bang theory" means "Big Bang guess". The old "just a theory" line.


buscompany: You say you believe that Jesus has abolished the old laws, since you believe he fulfilled the law before he left earth, correct? So do you believe he abolished the Ten Commandments? They were old laws too. As was the "homosexuality is an abomination" line.
If Jesus abolished them all, then homosexuality must be OK, just as wearing clothes made from two materials is OK.

Do you believe the Ten Commandments still apply?
0
Reply
Male 764
Lol, I like that exit how you don`t address the fact how you assert they have some sort of birth defect, but its all good goes hand in hand with the concept why I claimed it to be BS in the first place if you have pick and choose what people are born with then the theory "ain` really logic".

BTW the reason people usually pick murder and bestiality to argue the point is to encourage you to think about the double edged sword your swinging around not to put a stigma on homosexuality.

Good night.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]It`s not your fault your gay you were born that way? "I`m not gay, but if I was, I`d be horrifically offended by that assertion."

How about It doesn`t matter if your gay as long as that makes you happy.[/quote]
Yeah, what I meant was, "I`m not gay, but if I was, I`d be horrifically offended by your assertion that being gay is somehow similar to f*cking animals or murdering people".

Anyways, time for bed. Catch y`all later.
0
Reply
Male 764
Whoa whoa before you take my quote out of context and run away

1) You threw in pedos

2) I have nothing against homosexuals I posted murder and bestiality for a reason being able to murder is an extreme personality trait, bestiality was an extreme sexual personality trait that didn`t include hurting people in the process.

3) Even if I were to group them as you claim I did I think its still way better than how people are trying group them as born that way.

It`s not your fault your gay you were born that way? "I`m not gay, but if I was, I`d be horrifically offended by that assertion."

How about It doesn`t matter if your gay as long as that makes you happy.
0
Reply
Male 106
I really wasn`t arguing with you, well I was, but I didn`t really disagree with you. I was just asking out of curiosity.
0
Reply
Male 764
Have you ever not liked something and tried it later and loved it I`m guilty of that, possibly due to changes in your behavior and/or environment. So while the notion that there`s a mutant gene that makes you attracted to the same sex, and wear tights and possibly gives you the ability to shoot lasers beams from your eyes sounds cool, I`ll pass on that one. If only they thought that one up before wait the X-men...
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]So does that mean that mentally slow people can`t have sex? Or at least can`t be had sex with?[/quote]
buscompany, I really don`t understand where you`re going with this line of reasoning. What do you mean "mentally slow people"? Do I think a person with mild Downs Syndrome who functions perfectly well in society should be allowed to have sex? Of course I do, they can give informed consent. Do I think it`s OK to clamber aboard a wheelchair-bound person who`s in a permanent vegetative state? No, of course not.

I`m simply stating that equating people living in a consensual homosexual relationship to bestiality, murder, paedophilia etc (as mischeif954 did) is a gross, grotesque fallacy. I`m not gay, but if I was, I`d be horrifically offended by that assertion.

Anyways, this has got wildly off-topic, largely my own fault I freely admit. My apologies, suggest we get off this tangent.
0
Reply
Male 764
Meh maybe on pizza night dad always ordering pepperoni may have affected your taste for that style of pizza? Would explain why different regions have different foods with "acquired taste" aka friggin gross. For example my parents are from an island they eat some stuff I thing is disgusting however most of the people on the island like those things. I was born here. Most people born here whose parents are form that same island share my distaste. Born that way or product of our environment? Your call. When did I decide it was gross right away reaffirmed by my American peers maybe if I was in an environment were they said "man you don`t know what you`re missing" I`d be more open and maybe come to like it.
0
Reply
Male 106
So does that mean that mentally slow people can`t have sex? Or at least can`t be had sex with?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
(Sorry for quad post)

Bestiality is taking advantage of a dumb animal for personal sexual gratification. To equate that, in any way, with being homosexual is wrong in the extreme, and as I mentioned before, a "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]So if someone has intercourse with animals by allowing the animal to do the mounting so to speak, does that make it ok? Just fyi, I`m not arguing against homosexuality or for bestiality, I just wondered if the only distinction you make for bestiality is consensus.[/quote]
No, that would still not be consent. Animals cannot give consent, adult humans can. If someone were to lube up their arsehole and go down on all fours in front of a male dog in heat (do people do that?), that dog would probably mount them. However, it`s a dog, it`ll hump a stuffed animal as its base instinct is to hump something. By doing so, you`re abusing the animal`s base instincts to satisfy your own sexual gratification. That`s still bestiality.

I don`t have a dog, but if I did, I could smear peanut butter all over my genitals and the dog would come to lick it off. Is that dog consenting to lick peanut butter off my balls? Yes, it`s peanut butter. Is it a disgusting act of bestiality? Yes.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]So are people born to be more likely to overeat but wait no, the food doesn`t consent to being eaten? [/quote]
OK, this is starting to get a bit silly. A pizza can`t consent to being eaten. It`s a pizza. A better analogy would be, we all like to eat (we all like sex). But I prefer pepperoni pizza and you prefer hawaiian. And that`s fine. I didn`t wake up one day and "make the lifestyle choice" that I like pepperoni and not hawaiian. Nor could I magically change my personal taste tomorrow. I just like pepperoni better. I was born that way. Simple.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Your answer for bisexuality? Because apparently some of us can... [/quote]
Again, you assume that bisexuality os a choice. Let me paraphrase my question again, with slightly different wording:

"Besides, when did you decide to be heterosexual? At what point did you decide to get turned on by naked women? Could you turn around tomorrow and "decide" to be bisexual? To be EQUALLY turned on by the vision of a buff naked dude sucking your dick as a beautiful woman sucking your dick? I know I couldn`t..."

[quote]What does exactly consent have to do with being born with a behavioral trait? [/quote]
You lumped homosexuality with bestiality and murder. I simply pointed out that homosexuals being in a consensual loving relationship is very different from people raping a chicken or murdering someone else. The former involves consent, the latter does not.
0
Reply
Male 106
@davymid

So if someone has intercourse with animals by allowing the animal to do the mounting so to speak, does that make it ok?

Just fyi, I`m not arguing against homosexuality or for bestiality, I just wondered if the only distinction you make for bestiality is consensus.
0
Reply
Male 764
@ elkingo I`ve never heard of that before when i looked it up it made me lol.
0
Reply
Male 764
Your answer for bisexuality? Because apparently some of us can...

No, I lump being gay with all other behaviors for it to be a product of your environment mixed with your personality to create an extreme behavioral trait, desperately wanting others approval, being superficial there`s a million of em I picked two extremes of the top of my head.

What does exactly consent have to do with being born with a behavioral trait? That makes absolutely no sense. So are people born to be more likely to overeat but wait no, the food doesn`t consent to being eaten? So its impossible or is it were gonna start picking and choosing what you are and are born with?
0
Reply
Male 106
You`re right about the Luke passage, I misquoted it by mistake. The Matthew verse is still a straight forward conditional with a disjunctive antecedent. If heaven or earth remains or the law is unfulfilled, then the law cannot be changed. Although, at this point we`re arguing semantics, which is hard to debate when it becomes clear that the exact wording isn`t reliable when you compare different accounts from the different gospels.

So yes, I agree that the heaven and earth part could go either way. I still think the most obvious interpretation is that Jesus was trying to say that the law remains until he fulfills it, which presumably he did before leaving earth, especially since he had just saw fit to mention that the whole reason he came was to fulfill the law. This does not contradict the other verse about making that which is unclean clean.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@mischeif954

I have two words for you:

Godwin`s Law
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Angilion
It just seems to me that for someone who doesn`t *believe* you certainly are passionate about arguing the Bible.

I am merely suggesting that your dedication to argument is leading you to unwanted stress, and therefore (since the majority of people don`t care), you should pursue more fulfilling endeavors.

For example, you have derailed this thread into something that has nothing to do with the post. How is that constructive? I did start reading your posts, but as I soon found out they have nothing to do with the actual post - what I came here to discuss and comment on. I didn`t bother looking at other threads, but if this is your primary goal in these forums, you need to give it a rest and do something that is more beneficial to yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]When did you decide not to have sex with animals or not murder? [/quote]
Ah, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy. So you`d lump being a homosexual together with being into f*cking animals, murdering people, and I`m going to presume, being a paedophile. All are perversions, right?

The difference here is quite clear, it`s consent.

Animals or children don`t, can not, consent to being raped. People also don`t generally consent to being murdered. Gay people tend to have consensual relationships with each other. That`s very different from bestiality, or murder, or whatever.

Besides, when did you decide to be heterosexual? At what point did you decide to get turned on by naked women? Could you turn around tomorrow and "decide" to be gay? To get a hard-on from the vision of a buff naked dude sucking your dick? I know I couldn`t...
0
Reply
Male 764
1) I`m not gonna beat the dead horse of why I feel being born gay is BS mainly because either way it shouldn`t matter if your gay your gay congratulations or my condolences it doesn`t effect me so why should I care but I will respond to smart remarks. When did you decide not to have sex with animals or not murder?

Deleted my post had to add
*Holocaust some people were killed for their religion Jews were killed as well as witnesses who are christian they were allowed to live if they would simply denounce there god and they chose to stick to their god so by your reasoning were they born christian?*

No, I was showing that we don`t exactly know when or how this earth came about so to say Christians believe provably incorrect correct things was ignorant. I believe in god but I have no proof so I can`t blame someone to come to a conclusion that there is not a god, neither of know who`s right till the end even then we may still not know, so why knock the other guy?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Grr...cut off at ~980.

...either way, you have to ignore some verses.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that while heaven and earth remain, not a jot or tittle is to be changed while the law is unfulfilled, which means that the law could be changed either once heaven and earth have passed, or once the law has been fulfilled.[/quote]

Requoted because I couldn`t address it in the last post.

The English translations don`t state one requirement *or* the other, although I see how they could be interpreted that way.

Which means we`d have to hear the original speech to know what the original speaker meant, which is obviously impossible. We`re looking at interpretations/translations of copies of copies of approved copies of something written much later, maybe by someone who heard what was said decades earlier and maybe by someone else who heard what the second person said about what the first person said decades earlier.

My main point is that by choosing different verses you can argue either way, but either way you have t
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]My bad, I forgot that the verse did make reference to heaven and earth, hence why you brought it up. Luke quotes Jesus as saying that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass then for a jot or tittle to be removed before all is fulfilled. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that while heaven and earth remain, not a jot or tittle is to be changed while the law is unfulfilled, which means that the law could be changed either once heaven and earth have passed, or once the law has been fulfilled. Luke`s quote makes this even clearer.[/quote]

If it said what you think it said, then it would contradict Matthew. But it doesn`t say what you think it says.

Luke 16:17
[quote]And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.[/quote]

You added a bit that isn`t there but is crucial to your argument: "before all is fulfilled".

It`s not in verse 18 - that`s about adultery and seperation in marriage.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@ angilion sorry for late response, but as far as we "know" being gay may be a choice[/quote]

When did you chose to be gay or not be gay?

Homosexuality used to carry a death sentence and was totally socially unacceptable. Some people were homosexual anyway - it makes no sense to think they chose it given a free choice.

[quote]the Big Bang is still a theory so to say Christians believe incorrect things already shows that your ignorant and one sided[/quote]

You`re arguing that the existence of one theory proves that everything Christians believe is true, including all the things that have no relevance to that theory. That doesn`t make any sense.

(i) and (ii) aren`t about "not saying you directly". They`re about the fact that creationism and Christianity don`t mean the same thing. You can have either without the other.
0
Reply
Male 764
"Are you seriously arguing that Christianity is biological and Christians have no choice but believe provably incorrect things?

Really? You believe that?

Even if it was true, it would still be completely different to "race" or sexual orientation.

You have also failed to recognise two important things:

i) The teacher didn`t even mention Christianity.
ii) The teacher didn`t bash any religion.

You`re talking rubbish."

@ angilion sorry for late response, but as far as we "know" being gay may be a choice, and the Big Bang is still a theory so to say Christians believe incorrect things already shows that your ignorant and one sided you just have a bigger vocabulary then the other ones. Counter example of the idiocy of points i & ii: Btw someone who shares your ideals are stupid, the amount of time someone like you spends posting is ridiculous, but that`s not bashing you since I didn`t say you directly
0
Reply
Male 106
My bad, I forgot that the verse did make reference to heaven and earth, hence why you brought it up. Luke quotes Jesus as saying that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass then for a jot or tittle to be removed before all is fulfilled. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that while heaven and earth remain, not a jot or tittle is to be changed while the law is unfulfilled, which means that the law could be changed either once heaven and earth have passed, or once the law has been fulfilled. Luke`s quote makes this even clearer.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]When did I say anything about a new heaven and a new earth?[/quote]

When you referred to the Christian bible, because it`s in there.

Matthew 5:18.

[quote]For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/quote]

Note "till heaven and earth pass". It`s an explicitly stated requirement for anything being removed from "the law", i.e. the rules of the old testamant.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]@Angilion 6 posts in under 40 min. Are you that desperate to get your point across, or do enjoy trolling?[/quote]
You made 2 posts in under 5 min. Does it really take you that long to make absolutely no point, or contribution, at all? It did take you a whole 35 minutes less to troll, so congrats on that.
0
Reply
Male 599
He should be sued and fired, its a fudrucking public school, I don`t go around school pissing all over atheists.

"Faulty logic. Very faulty logic"
it`s more logical that a divine being created existence than that nothing created something.
0
Reply
Male 106
@Angillion

When did I say anything about a new heaven and a new earth? All I said was that the first half of the sentence you quoted is Jesus stating that his purpose is to fulfill the law. The actual part of the sentence that you quoted said that nothing about the law is to be changed until it is fulfilled. One of the most basic beliefs of Christianity would be that Jesus was successful. It follows from those three premises that then that the law is now capable of being changed. I`m not just interpreting what I want it to say, I don`t want it to say anything. I`m just pointing out that if you read that verse in it`s entire context, it`s making the opposite point than what you say it is.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You clearly don`t know as much about the bible as you think. Jesus said on multiple occasions (including right before the verse you quoted) that his mission was not to destroy the law, but fulfill it. If you`re a christian, you most likely (actually, definitely) believe that Jesus was successful. Therefore Christians can (and should) interpret that verse to mean that the law was fulfilled and now all the jots and tittles in the world can pass from the law.[/quote]

While it`s true that some Christians do believe that heaven and earth have already ended and new ones started, it is not something that is clearly true.

So your interpretation is just one interpretation. A fairly odd one at that - what makes you think heaven and earth were ended and new ones made a couple of thousand years ago? Where`s that information in your bible?

I know more about your bible than you do, because I don`t just know what I want it to say.
0
Reply
Male 106
@Angillion

You clearly don`t know as much about the bible as you think. Jesus said on multiple occasions (including right before the verse you quoted) that his mission was not to destroy the law, but fulfill it. If you`re a christian, you most likely (actually, definitely) believe that Jesus was successful. Therefore Christians can (and should) interpret that verse to mean that the law was fulfilled and now all the jots and tittles in the world can pass from the law.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
how dare angilion respond to people responding to him! that`s so uncalled for!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angilion 6 posts in under 40 min. Are you that desperate to get your point across, or do enjoy trolling? Seriously man, you may have some kind of anti-theist point to get across, but it comes off as pathetic.[/quote]

If you had actually read the posts, rather than freaking out because someone can read and type more than a couple of words per minute, you might have noticed that they were replies to different posts with different points.

It isn`t *that* hard to read and reply to an extremely short post in 5 minutes.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Less true =/= True. Thank you for at least acknowledge we have ancestry that goes back PAST our common ancestor.[/quote]

Oh yeah, because before now I was saying that humans were created as primates because I`m a creationist. Obviously. That must have been why I was arguing against creationism right from the start of this thread (and for 30-odd years before it).

[quote]Thank you for FINALLY RECOGNIZING THE OBVIOUS POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE[/quote]

You were making the point that humans are descended from monkeys.

You were wrong.
0
Reply
Male 43
@elkingo I agree!,

This video was not meant to turn you christian or religious, or to be an argument over translations of the bible. I am not christian but what I am is an open minded person and I am glad he stuck up for himself. I would not just sit there and let some one tell me that the sky is green and that what I see is fake. Good for him. Way to turn something moral into something completely insane. d-bags
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Angilion 6 posts in under 40 min. Are you that desperate to get your point across, or do enjoy trolling? Seriously man, you may have some kind of anti-theist point to get across, but it comes off as pathetic.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
This forum went from being about why you shouldn`t belittle someone in public, to religion vrs science.

Way to go.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
The Christian bible is a contradiction. One big slew of contradiction after contradiction after contradiction. Some directly and cannot be misinterpreted or taken out of context, and some more ambiguous, but mainly it is a book of contradictions. I don`t understand how it holds up to any scrutiny. Wait, it doesn`t...but somehow it still survives. What a virus it is.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@majornougat
that`s part of the point, one book says one thing and another says another, we both quoted books that are accepted as part of the new testament
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Less true =/= True. Thank you for at least acknowledge we have ancestry that goes back PAST our common ancestor. Thank you for FINALLY RECOGNIZING THE OBVIOUS POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. >_<fdsajfdsajfdsajksdadas kfasdfasdp[fdasasdplfwejfpowefasd
0
Reply
Male 12,365
majornougat, I counter you with Matthew 5:18, which is stated to be a direct quote from Jesus:

[quote]For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/quote]

So the Mosaic laws, including all the food laws, do apply to Christians, according to that verse.

And they don`t, according to the verses you quoted.

The Christian bible contradicts itself frequently.

0
Reply
Female 3,001
I have two words to describe how i feel about the debates that go on over religious beliefs on IAB.

fed. up.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Either you believe Genesis or you don`t. You can`t just say, `God`s days are different..` Then why call it a goddamn day? At least Young Earth Creationists have the balls to stand by their delusions.[/quote]

I disagree on that point. It is internally consistent to think that the six days referred to isn`t 144 hours:

i) "day" is being used non-literally. We do that in English all the time, e.g. "in Caesar`s day", "olden days", etc.

ii) A time-concept that doesn`t have a direct translation into Hebrew was written as `day` for want of a better word. Time is not going to be the same for an immortal, omnipotent and omniscient deity.

iii) God was arranging lighting as they saw fit. `day` and `night` are just defined as light and dark periods in the Christian stories of genesis - it doesn`t say how long they are. The sun wasn`t even created until halfway through.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]and those who are comparing the holy bible to that poorly written book about sparkly vamps and the chicks that love them...that`s just low...real low...[/quote]

I agree. The Twilight books don`t command their fans to kill people for things such as working on the wrong day of the week (amongst many other things - that`s just the first example that came into my head), or order women to be silent in the company of men, or celebrate the ultimate bully`s mass murdering sprees, or...well, I think I`ve made my point.
0
Reply
Male 48
@ I-IS-BORED

Im not even christian and i know that later in the bible after Jesus comes or whatever that he turns that law around...

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Acts 10 (9-15)

regardless of how BS it is trolling is not teh answer.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Call me what you wish but I know what I am. I am not a religious person, I do not take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, and I shall continue to pray for you cynics (you know who you are) and those who take the bible completely out of context.[/quote]

So you make up your own religion and claim biblical authority for it by picking out bits that you can interpret to mean what you want and ignoring the rest.

Given how foul and vile the Christian bible is, that`s not surprising. A Christian who`s a decent person has to do that.

I know a Christian who`s managed to convince herself that adultery is absolutely fine according to Christianity, because that`s what she wants in her Christianity. I used to think that was weird, but on reflection it`s not really any weirder than is normal for Christians.

By the way, you can`t pray for me. You can only pray for yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]That is what the hell I am saying for the LAST TIME. I am not saying we directly evolved from modern day monkeys! Clearly you can`t drating read.[/quote]

Here are quotes from you:

Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:41:06 PM
[quote]We also come from monkeys[/quote]

Sunday, December 05, 2010 4:16:10 PM
[quote]one of our most distant ancestors was a monkey. So to say that we evolved from monkeys isn`t wrong. [/quote]


I said it before and I`ll say it again:

Saying that humans are descended from monkeys is far less true than saying that you are descended from me. You and I have a common ancestor far more recently than 10 million years ago. Likely more recently than 10 thousand years ago.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]For those of you out there who have such a cynical view of Christianity and other forms of belief, I`m going to pray for you all,[/quote]

No you aren`t. You`re going to pray for yourself, so you can feel righteous. If you were considering other people, you`d ask them.

[quote]and sincerely hope that you don`t continue to live your lives so negatively whether you believe in a deity or not.[/quote]

But then who would you feel superior to?

I don`t regard my position as being negative, so I don`t care. In fact, I regard it as being more positive than theism.
0
Reply
Male 190
I agree with the teachers opinions, thats for damn sure... I could rant for hours on how backwards conservatives and christians are.

but... Religion has no place in the class room..

consequently ... as creationism is a part of religion (and not fact)... it has no place in the classroom as well. Only evolution does.

Religion and creationism is for sunday school not highschool.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Satkela
So you stick to the Bible? Ever eat pork? or any other not kosher animal?

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
- Deuteronomy 14:7-10

From there it goes on to talk about birds, but few people eat storks or eagles so I`ll leave that part out.

Seems pretty literal and straightforward to me but I`m betting you broke it and so God`s gonna send you to hell because that`s how he rolls.
0
Reply
Male 255
@Satkela:`I myself do not take Genesis literally`, `even in the bible it states that earth was here but it was without form` `Every comment I make on here is my opinion` `I also know what GOD says in HIS own words--I John 5:12`
`I`m going by what is in the BIBLE`
`Those who are stating event that occurred in the OLD testament` -
I`m confused, which bits of the bible are real and which aren`t. How do you know which to take literally and which not? I thought the old testament was Gods word and the new was Jesus`s teachings but aren`t they the same? Or is Jesus an improved version of God.
Your religion makes science look simple
0
Reply
Female 1,743
@Reganom
Genesis does say that man was made in `their` image.
:D Now that could just be poor translation, but hey, you never know.

@Satkela
It`s not fair to pick and choose what to take from the Bible and what not to take from the Bible. It`s either the word of God, or it`s not.
Make up your mind and stick with it.
Either you believe Genesis or you don`t. You can`t just say, `God`s days are different..` Then why call it a goddamn day? At least Young Earth Creationists have the balls to stand by their delusions.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]I am not a religious person

I shall continue to pray[/quote]
LOL, we know what you are too.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Those who are stating event that occurred in the OLD testament BTW"

is it a different God in the old testament?
0
Reply
Female 584
Call me what you wish but I know what I am. I am not a religious person, I do not take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, and I shall continue to pray for you cynics (you know who you are) and those who take the bible completely out of context. (Those who are stating event that occurred in the OLD testament BTW) and those who are comparing the holy bible to that poorly written book about sparkly vamps and the chicks that love them...that`s just low...real low...
0
Reply
Female 584
@NotTHATBored: I`m going by what is in the BIBLE, if you don`t like it then that`s on you.

@almightybob: No sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, I`m just praying for you to have good health in general.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Fair enough.
I especially enjoyed the part about stoning non-virgins to death.

I had to delete my last post because I meant to say non-virgins and I wrote virgins. woooops. heh.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Satkela, I seem to have misjudged you. It is not that you do not understand the definition of words, it is that you do not think logically. You claim you are not religious, yet you quote the Bible and believe in Jesus and God and Heaven. Sorry to break it to you, but you are religious and Christianity is a religion.

[quote]...that is the WTF?[/quote]
Btw, that is your post that you posted on the Sabbath. Guess you`re not going to heaven either since you can`t even keep 1 day a week holy.

Trading Bible quotes is stupid. Anybody can quote the Bible to suit any view point they want.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
But at least the bible is bad ass with all the rampant baby killing, genocide, rape, etc. Twilight is a bunch of fags with glitter. The bible has people being converted into pillars of salt, lots of fire and brimstone, mass drownings, etc.
0
Reply
Male 505
Nubblin:

Twilight and the Bible are on par i think. Although twilight is more consistent in it`s story...
0
Reply
Female 1,743
@Satkela

How can you suggest that you don`t follow church propaganda and quote the Bible.
This is contradiction.

The Bible is propaganda. It is testament to make non-believers into believers.
Also, I am of the opinion that it is the worst rubbish ever printed on paper, save for maybe Twilight. But that is neither here nor there. :P
0
Reply
Male 505
Satkela:

I hold no negative views to those who believe in a creator. What i do hold a negative view of is the bible, and those that use it to preach hatred under the guise of freedom of religion.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Satkela

"If you don`t believe in Christ you will not see heaven. point blank. Especially if you know of Christ and choose not to follow him."

^This is the kind of crap that makes people angry and feel like ranting (inappropriate or not)^

Point blank you have no way of knowing if there is a heaven or who is going to it. So don`t preach to that you are going and others aren`t.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I said I`ll pray for those who hold a cynical POV towards others beliefs.[/quote]
What form will this prayer take? Will you be praying for God to change my mind?
0
Reply
Female 584
@Nottaspy: I said I`ll pray for those who hold a cynical POV towards others beliefs. If that doesn`t apply to you then don`t reply to that. Every comment I make on here is my opinion and what I deem is my belief on certain topics. To ME Christianity is a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. because I, MYSELF do not like to be religious. I do not view the world as black and white and I do not go by church propaganda. I also know what GOD says in HIS own words--I John 5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." If you don`t believe in Christ you will not see heaven. point blank. Especially if you know of Christ and choose not to follow him.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Angillion, are you denying that my ancestors were once single-celled organisms? Are you denying that my ancestors were lemur like? Are you denying that my ancestors were small, marsupial esque rats?

Can you address that already. Because I am pretty sure that if you go back far enough you will find an ancestor of humans that RESEMBLES A MODERN DAY MONKEY.

Our most RECENT ancestor is shared between us and great apes. I am not spouting creationist propaganda. I am spouting what I have heard from biologists. It is not far off to say that we evolved from monkeys in a distant sense. So Old world monkeys -> Great Apes -> Man`s ancestors -> Modern Man

That is what the hell I am saying for the LAST TIME. I am not saying we directly evolved from modern day monkeys! Clearly you can`t drating read.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Satkela, unfortunately words do have specific definitions and those definitions aren`t, "what Satkela thinks they mean". You believe in Creation, not Creationism. You believe God created the Earth, but not 6,000 years ago.

Christianity is a religion. Go find a dictionary and look up the definition of "religion". Believing in Jesus as the son of God is a religion and it goes by the name of Christianity.

You do not need to pray for me, I do not lead a negative life. If there is a God and He judges me on how moral a life I led and not on how I worshiped him, them He would offer me a place in heaven where He would turn some Christians away.

You have fallen for the church`s propaganda. Atheists are every bit as good and bad as Theists. Atheists find wonder in the universe and give of themselves to help others and enjoy leading positive lives and find the strength to carry on through the hard times, just without a God.
0
Reply
Male 255
"Can any of you creationists please tell me why your creation theory is correct and every other theory (other non-christian religion, evolution etc.) is wrong without saying anything that is a negative proof fallacy. ie. we can`t explain why it happens therefore god must make it happen."
Seriously, I`d like to hear your arguments.
0
Reply
Female 584
@thesandwich: There`s a difference between being blunt and just being a opinionated jerk.

EX:
(Blunt)
Teacher: The Church is a place where Christians go to worship God.
(Jerk approach)
Teacher: The "church" is a place where Jesus-freaks go to worship their phony bologna "god"

0
Reply
Male 150
Calling a particular group stupid, bad but free speech (note: free speech doesn`t really exist in schools as it does outside them)

Bluntly stating your opinion on a highly controversial topic, bad but free speech.

Being sued and ultimately fired for the latter as opposed to the first is honestly the part where I stop and shout WTF?!

Exposing people to a broad range of ideas is a good thing. The world is not a bubble were the only people living are the only ones who agree with you. And, while not the most polite way to expose people to these different ideas is to bluntly state them.

I can say from personal experience that I wouldn`t have learned as much if not bluntly exposed. And this is coming from a guy who`s college Bio professor was a creationist and actually taught that in a state that is not Kansas.
0
Reply
Female 584
@ pumba62: Somebody already said that like 10 pages ago. And well said on Religion.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Christianity is not a religion?
lolwut?

Please do yourself a favor and read a dictionary.
Christianity is a religion, just as Islam and Judaism are religions.
Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc..
These are all different denominations of Christianity.
They all believe in the same superstitious nonsense, they just have different shaped churches and different names for clergy and some have rock bands about Jesus and some wave crazy potpourri in the air.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it`s a duck, you know.
0
Reply
Male 1,016
Does nobody else think Chad looks like Heath Ledger ?
0
Reply
Male 1,016
"I like how you first state that Christianity is not a religion and then give a definition that exactly meets the criteria for it being a religion."

Religion is organizations like Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc.etc....Who believe in Jesus but have their own doctrines in which the sheep believe closely reflect their beliefs.
0
Reply
Female 584
Christianity is Not a religion, it is the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ and our relationship with HIM as HIS followers.

As for creationism, I myself do not take Genesis literally and do not believe that the world was created in 6 (human) days. The length of time we may consider as days can be significantly different from what GOD considers days.

I do not believe that the world is only 6000 years old because even in the bible it states that earth was here but it was without form, so who knows how long it was actually here before GOD decided to add life to it.

For those of you out there who have such a cynical view of Christianity and other forms of belief, I`m going to pray for you all, and sincerely hope that you don`t continue to live your lives so negatively whether you believe in a deity or not.

0
Reply
Male 129
i cant believe that of all the stuff he said the court picked on that creationism is crap. It is. its possibly the one thing he says that is definately undeniably true
0
Reply
Male 75
Ha, he`s called Chad.... Nuff said

0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]"Christianity is my religion" ...Christianity is NOT a religion ......It is a belief that Jesus is the son of God and one can do this without actually being part of a religion ![/quote]
I like how you first state that Christianity is not a religion and then give a definition that exactly meets the criteria for it being a religion.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Creationism IS superstitious nonsense.

No number of lawsuits will ever change that.

Sucks to hold 12th century belief systems in the 21st century, doesn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 15,510
mwaha ha ha they fired you, where is your God now!?!? oh wait
0
Reply
Male 1,016
"Christianity is my religion" ...Christianity is NOT a religion ......It is a belief that Jesus is the son of God and one can do this without actually being part of a religion !

"In this day and age when we are having problems with the economy".....Whaaaaatttt? What does this have to do with the subject at hand ???? I am surprised he didn`t mention 9-11 and terrorists

"Well I hope there are fewer teachers out there like James corbitt." ...Way to keep and impartial stand on the issues and present the facts as they should be !!!

Faux news .....it`s our way or you are UnAmerican and a terrorist
0
Reply
Male 1,287
Holy dratnut! 14 pages of meaningful debate and comments. heh, yeah right.
0
Reply
Male 7,817
angilion, it has nothing to do with superiority. its kind of a controversial study right now, but its just that most people are form homo sapiens who at some point hybridized with homo neandratalis. this even includes people of northern africa including egypt, libya, sudan, and algeria. it doesnt make anybody better than anyone else.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
scary when a teacher is sued for doing is job.
USA! USA!
0
Reply
Male 505
"He wasn`t sued for criticizing creationism, he was sued for not doing his job properly"

Actually he was sued for criticising creationism. Hence why it was considered, wrongly to me, a breach of the kids first ammendement.

Oh by the way, evolution isn`t an opinion. It`s a scientific theory.
0
Reply
Female 24
I don`t think the issue is whether he is right or wrong. He wasn`t sued for criticizing creationism, he was sued for not doing his job properly. He`s a teacher, he`s paid to teach not to voice his opinion. The whole point of education is to be taught unbiased facts not be rambled at by an opinionated old fool

If he wants to tell people how he feels, he is free to discuss it with his friends, stand on a soapbox on a street corner and shout about it, whatever he wants, just not in a classroom full of students taking everything he says as fact when really it is his opinion. Very unprofessional and very irresponsible man
0
Reply
Male 99
It is a terrible thing when a teacher gets sued for teaching his students the truth.
0
Reply
Male 505
Bob:

Mine wasn`t =[ today was just freezing so i still had to do my test. I`m fairly sure i made up a new way of doing maths. By new i mean complete bullcrap.
0
Reply
Male 505
Nubblins:

It was quite lucky that this video came up as recommended on youtube for me just a couple of days before this was posted. So i still had the blog in my history and remembered it.

"Offer both sides and leave it at that"

I think i`m recalling correctly but only one religious comment, i think about creationism, was allowed by the judge. I believe it was the creationism one, but for me creationism is superstitious nonesence. When creationism is the literal interpretation of genesis. It clearly goes against science. When teaching about the orbits of planets theres no way on (non-flat) earty i`m letting a teacher present the falsehood of earth being the center and would expect him/her to debunk it. Creationism may have been brought up by a student, or pertinent to the lesson.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]By the way the teachers right, I have to go to work in -12C and feck knows how many inches of snow, there clearly is no God!!![/quote]
The snow meant my exam today was postponed, there clearly is a God :P
0
Reply
Female 1,743
His defense was a good read, as well as the comments on the defense below it. Thanks for posting it. I agree with the court`s ruling after reading this. Religion and atheism should stay out of public schools. Offer both sides and leave it at that, and you won`t find yourself in court with a derpderp student who is butt hurt about his beliefs being challenged.

He`s probably right in that it was taken out of context. Fox likes to do that. They`re really pro at taking things out of context to spoon-feed their viewers what they want to hear.
Even those who view Fox and enjoy its programming have to admit that this is true.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Everyone involved in this story, the teachers, the student (who just had to be called chad), the lawyer and the newsreaders. Of course the teacher should be sacked for his comments, but why the drat should this weasel get money for it?

By the way the teachers right, I have to go to work in -12C and feck knows how many inches of snow, there clearly is no God!!!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Hey look 334 posts of HUURR DERP DERP DURRRR[/quote]
The stupidest, most pointless posts in this thread are ones like that. Literally nothing of value to contribute.
0
Reply
Male 705
BUT HE`S TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
0
Reply
Male 813
Hey look 334 posts of HUURR DERP DERP DURRRR
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Of course we didn`t come from monkeys because. they`re still here haha. Isn`t that how it works? Something evolves and the old disappears....I guess.[/quote]
Short answer is simply: No, that`s not how it works.

Long answer: The old does not disappear. If someone or maybe several people are born with, say, an extra finger, the five-fingered will not die out within a generation.

Evolution is like a tree, and we are one the twigs at the end. But each branch can have plenty of twigs coming off it. And those offshoots can have offshoots of their own.
Similarly, because a subset of a species takes a certain evolutionary step does not mean the whole species necessarily will. Sometimes the population may split and the separate groups might take quite different evolutionary paths.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"When I say Creationism can`t be proven or dis-proven, I mean just that. It`s not possible to determine if there was in fact an intelligence or other force at work in creating the universe"

What you`re describing here isn`t creationism, or rather it`s not what most people mean when they say it. Creationism generally refers to a literal interpretation Genesis, which is incompatible with a scientific explanation. Neither The Big Bang Theroy nor the Theory of Evolution say explicitly that there is or is not a God. Both describe HOW things came to be, saying nothing about the what caused creation.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Of course we didn`t come from monkeys because. they`re still here haha. Isn`t that how it works? Something evolves and the old disappears....I guess.
0
Reply
Male 255
Can any of you creationists please tell me why your creation theory is correct and every other theory (other non-christian religion, evolution etc.) is wrong without saying anything that is a negative proof fallacy. ie. we can`t explain why it happens therefore god must make it happen.
0
Reply
Male 505
Also i`m going to re point this out. The vast majority of what was filmed was not help up in court. If i recall correctly only one clip was allowed.

It seems many people are still under the impression that fox news is unbiases and will present only the pure unadulterated facts. For those that know not to just listen to one side, here is the teachers explanations.

The teachers defence
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Angillion, sorry, but I`m coming over all pedantic today... you missed out a point in your `reconcile this` statement

iii) Unbroken human occupancy of Africa.

Otherwise i) and ii) would be possible, though seriously unlikely, if the population had died back to a mongolian stronghold before repopulating the planet.

(for the stupid - this did not happen OK)
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If I am wrong, then let me know, but I am pretty sure I am not talking out of my ass and I`d appreciate if it you would stop just contradicting me and tell me why I am wrong, because I feel this is just a misunderstanding.[/quote]

There have been a few posts doing that already. So I`m starting to shout in frustration.

The essence of where you are wrong is that HUMANS ARE NOT DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS.

That statement is creationist propaganda, deliberate disinformation.

The actual position from biologists is that humans and monkeys are both descended from a common ancestor WHICH WAS NOT A MONKEY.

NOT

A

MONKEY
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angillion: Didn`t you see that documentary where this guy traced the males` Y-chromosome DNA and found that all males` original ancestor was from Mongolia, not from Africa.[/quote]

No. Are you confusing original ancestry with the study showing a remarkable number of men descended from Genghis Khan?

I`ve seen studies tracing patrilineal ancestry using Y chromosomes and they point back to Africa, just as those tracing matrilineal ancestry using mDNA do.

[quote]Nothing can be said about maternal DNA, though, but know your facts.[/quote]

A great deal can be said about maternal lineage, due to mitochondrial DNA. I know my facts fairly well.

[quote] Were there humans in Africa before the humans in Mongolia? Undoubtedly. But are they our ancestors? Can`t be said with certainty.[/quote]

i) Humans in Africa before Mongolia.
ii) All male humans descended from those in Mongolia.

How do you reconcile that?
0
Reply
Male 29
Strange - I more or less agree with the teacher, though his comments were too religious to be acceptable in a classroom. But calling creationism `superstitious nonsense` seems completely fine to me. The courts came to that conclusion themselves some time ago.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Maternal DNA is easier to trace since it is carried through the mitochondrial DNA. I am pretty sure we can be traced to a single female ancestor, and a single male ancestor. But, they never lived at the same time together. No Adam and Eve.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
I am not speaking about modern monkeys, and we didn`t evolve from modern apes either. I am talking about very very very very very very very far back. Most recently we evolved from a common ancestor we share with apes, but not directly on the line with modern day monkeys. But apes came from an ancestor that was similar to a monkey, and they to a lemur, and they to a marsupial esque rat. If I am wrong, then let me know, but I am pretty sure I am not talking out of my ass and I`d appreciate if it you would stop just contradicting me and tell me why I am wrong, because I feel this is just a misunderstanding.
0
Reply
Female 412
Angillion: Didn`t you see that documentary where this guy traced the males` Y-chromosome DNA and found that all males` original ancestor was from Mongolia, not from Africa. Nothing can be said about maternal DNA, though, but know your facts. Were there humans in Africa before the humans in Mongolia? Undoubtedly. But are they our ancestors? Can`t be said with certainty.
0
Reply
Female 412
I totally agree with KMeTG.

On a funnier note: the boy is called Chad? XD
0
Reply
Male 12,365
cobrakiller:

I am curious about something which is a logical conclusion from your stated belief about humans and neanderthals.

Do you think that people from Africa are a different species to people from elsewhere?

More specifically, people whose ancestors were in Africa during the period of time that humans and neanderthals co-existed in Europe and part of Asia.

You`re arguing that they are pure human while everyone else is less than half human...so are you arguing that they are superior to everyone else?
0
Reply
Male 650
Ah darn, I see how that one "superstitious nonsense" can be viewed at hate speech against a religious group.
Still, w/e America, have fun with your ignorant majority :D
0
Reply
Male 12,365
SPrinkZ...

I`m a little curious now as to your position overall.

You are strongly supporting a piece of propaganda that creationists made up as deliberate disinformation against science, namely that people who accept that evolution exists think that humans are descended from monkeys.

Yet you don`t openly advocate young earth creationism.

So are you a YEC pretending to be someone who accepts the reality of evolution, in order to spread the anti-evolution propaganda more effectively? That would be a clever move.

Or are you just conned by the creationist disinformation propaganda?

It has to be one of those because the idea that humans evolved from monkey has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It`s a lie made up by creationists claiming it`s part of evolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,306
I feel like I`m talking to a kid who just recites what they hear in class. I am talking about way back. Not 10 million years back. I never said a recent ancestor, and they are not recent by any measure of mine.

In a distant way we are related to everything on the planet.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
So, basically:

TEACHER: Religions control people. Creationism is wrong.
STUDENT: I`m offended and will sue you and win.

Why do people have the freedom to openly state their beliefs while other people don`t have the freedom to say they disagree?

It sends a very clear message: a person`s faith is on an unassailable plinth. If you tell them their beliefs are wrong, you will suffer the consequences. Why should the topic of religion be handled with kid-gloves?
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"monkeys &#8745; apes = {0}"
k that`s supposed to say monkeys intersect apes is null but the intersect symbol is apparently not supported here, point is they don`t overlap
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@davy
aw you totally shoulda gone from the keys to his screen to his evolved eyes/brain etc, to his thought process of confirming he typed it right, back to the computer, then to you :P
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Sprinkz
monkey - "any cercopithecoid (Old World monkey) or platyrrhine (New World monkey) primate. All primates that are not prosimians or apes are monkeys."
even assuming you mean a monkey that predates man, monkeys &#8745; apes = {0}, so you can`t evolve from a monkey
Humans are Great Apes (hominidae)
i think you`re confusing monkey with primate, you and monkeys share primate ancestors, but neither you nor a monkey are the others ancestor
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Atheism is simply the default position. It`s vanilla. No child is born Christian, or Muslim, or Scientologist, or whatever. Children are a blank slate, and by default are atheist until told otherwise. Religion is a personal world-view that is imprinted on people through their experiences and social environment. To say that atheism is just another religion is deeply, deeply retarded.

It`s like saying that people that don`t support Manchester United are soccer fans too, just of a different sort.

I assure you, we`re not.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Ah, creationism vs. evolutionism. The subject that brings out the worst fanatics of both sides.[/quote]
Please, for the love of God, stop calling it evolutionism. Your post should read, "Ah, creationism vs. science". Read that back to yourself as you type on plastic keys which decode individual keystrokes which are sent at close to the speed of light down fibre-optic cables to be decoded on my end and displayed on my liquid crystal laptop screen so that I can respond to you, via the medium of the internet.

[quote]Atheism is a religion as it is a belief in nothing. [/quote]
To wheel out an old adage, atheism is not a belief in nothing, it`s a lack of belief in god or gods of any kind. Atheism is to religion as bald is a hair colour. Atheism is to religion is not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism is to religion as not giving a f*ck about the NFL is the football team you support.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"You`re assuming when I say Creationism, I mean Young Earth Creationism. Probably shouldn`t make assumptions such as that."

that`s the only version that comes to mind that conflicts with evolution, evolution doesn`t say God couldn`t be the source of the beginning of it
0
Reply
Male 2,306
All right then explain how I have no ancestors beyond apes. Are you meaning to tell me that a bunch of animals just conglomerated together or something? Or they passed on their DNA like almost everything else on this planet by sexual reproduction? It`s not a total lie to say that we evolved from monkeys more distantly. I don`t get what the aversion to it is. I know that our most common ancestor wasn`t even an ape. So to say we evolved from apes is just downright stupid if you want to get to the meat of it. Our common ancestor was nothing like the apes that we are familiar with.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Sprinkz
ancestor means your parents or their parents or their parents ...
your cousin is not your ancestor, your cousin species is not your ancestor species
0
Reply
Male 2,306
All right, where do you think the apes came from? How do you think they um...hmm...lost their tails? Or rather, they shrunk? Unless, just maybe...we all come even more DISTANTLY from a monkey ancestor. I am not saying that is our most recent ancestor, but if you go back far enough it isn`t far off to say that we evolved from monkeys. Not that it`s our most recent ancestor. I just hate when people use these cookie-cutter "homo-erectus" and "lucy" yadda yadda as the only bit of information they know about our ancestors. We also come from monkeys, an ancestor like a lemur, an ancestor like a marsupial rat, etc. etc.
0
Reply
Male 234
Ah, creationism vs. evolutionism. The subject that brings out the worst fanatics of both sides.

Now to make things worse.
Atheism is a religion as it is a belief in nothing.

Wrap your heads around that.
0
Reply
Male 1,834
stupid teacher is stupid
0
Reply
Male 2
"so you think it can`t be proven or disproven that the world is only 6000 years old?"

You`re assuming when I say Creationism, I mean Young Earth Creationism. Probably shouldn`t make assumptions such as that.

When I say Creationism can`t be proven or dis-proven, I mean just that. It`s not possible to determine if there was in fact an intelligence or other force at work in creating the universe, because that force would be, by definition, outside the universe (and natural laws). So, IF there is a creator of some kind, it`s unknowable to us.
0
Reply
Male 7,817
angilion and notaspy, technically we share over 90% of our DNA with Homo Sapiens, Homo neadratalis, Homo erectus, and even chimpanzees. i messed up what i said, that 50% just refers to variable genetic information. Think of how big even 1% pointed toward a specific species is when 90% is shared amongst that whole group.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
A fun link seeing as the thread is fizzling out, and one of my personal favourites.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=34934

p.s. not defending that teacher, I thought he went too far, especially when he went on to bash modern-day conservatism.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I think some of us are arguning at cross purposes here. Some definitions are required.

Some people think of Creation in terms of there being a divine creator of the universe, who set the universe in motion with all the laws science that goes along with it. Although I don`t personally believe it, I have no argument with that position. Though in some circles that would be called Deism rather than Theism.

Then there`s Young Earth Creationism, which is a different fish altogether. I personally have no problem with someone believing in divine creation, as long as you keep it the f*ck out of the science classroom and leave the science to the scientists. When you bring *THAT* sh*t to the table, I`m going to shoot it down. Every goddam time.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"Creationism can neither be proven nor disproven."

lol...
so you think it can`t be proven or disproven that the world is only 6000 years old?
0
Reply
Female 157
I still think it`s possible we were created even if evolution is all around us. I`m not stupid either. In my opinion, this was a freak out and as a teacher he should have been more mature then that.
0
Reply
Male 41
when did iab get so one sided
0
Reply
Male 225
lol @ BIAS
0
Reply
Male 881
I wonder if that "well-known and outspoken Christian" is the same one that made the claim that school textbooks haven`t changed much since 1980 and thus that science is dying.
0
Reply
Male 385
lol i love how the trolls come out for these posts...best not to feed a troll. Best way to tell one is over 1000 posts in less than a year.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Am I wrong in saying that this is what Socrates was condemned for? Am i wrong in thinking that?"

Yes, you are. Socrates did not declare people`s assumptions and beliefs to be nonsense- he asked questions which challenged those beliefs and assumptions. He pissed people off by getting them to demonstrate their own ignorance. This guy is just flat out calling people ignorant. There is a difference.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Are you seriously arguing that Christianity is biological[/quote]
Oh, you`d be surprised. I was recently debating with a well-known and outspoken Christian who frequents these boards. I pointed out to him that he`s only a fervent Christian because he was brought up in America, and that he had been born into a Muslim family in the Middle East he`d be a fervent Muslim etc, if he were brought up in India he`d be a Hindu, if he were brought up in Ancient Greece he`d be a believer in Zeus and Apollo.

He told me in no uncertain terms (and presumably with a straight face) I was talking bullcrap and that he would be a Christian no matter where or when he was brought up. He presumably believes just that, that being Christian is as biological as being caucasian, or black, or asian. Of course, this same user affirms that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (and also a disease/addiction), so he won`t agree with you on the biological nature of homosexuality.
0
Reply
Male 936
um...what did the teacher do wrong?
0
Reply
Male 57
somehow i want to smash chads face...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Ohhh wow that teacher was soooooo right he bashed a students belief awesome if the kid was gay it would be wrong if it was a racist rant its wrong but if your a christian everything should go?[/quote]

Are you seriously arguing that Christianity is biological and Christians have no choice but believe provably incorrect things?

Really? You believe that?

Even if it was true, it would still be completely different to "race" or sexual orientation.

You have also failed to recognise two important things:

i) The teacher didn`t even mention Christianity.
ii) The teacher didn`t bash any religion.

You`re talking rubbish.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Throughout history, religion has been used to persuade peasants to support things that would negatively affect them."

Now it`s religion and political ideology. Republicans convince poor people that it`s in their own interests to cut taxes to billionaires and cut programs that would benefit them directly (education, medicare, unemployment benefits). But at least they`re honest about their agenda- they do what they say they`re gonna do. Democrats pretend to stand up for peace, equality and human rights in order to get the vote of people who care about those things, while in reality most Democratic politicians are actively working against those things.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]angilion, homo neandratalis didnt really go extinct, they are still around. at least their genes are, which is how we constitute a species now. when homo sapien expanded from africa that mated with homo neandratalis that had already been around in europe and asia. most non-africans nowadays share just as much (if not more) genetic information with homo neandratalis as homo sapien.[/quote]

The largest estimate is a 1-4% overlap of genes in Europe, and that`s disputed. It`s very hard to tell because homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis had a very close common ancestor - do the overlapping genes come from homo neanderthalensis or homo erectus?

But no-one who has a clue, absolutely no-one, is arguing that at least 50% of homo sapiens DNA outside of Africa comes from homo neanderthalensis. Especially since neanderthals didn`t even exist in most of the world (just in Europe and part of Asia).
0
Reply
Male 84
Am I wrong in saying that this is what Socrates was condemned for? Am i wrong in thinking that?
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@agl126-
You do realize that North Carolina is not particularly representative of the rest of the US, right? I mean really, no state is. You`ve gotta do a lot of travelling to really get a good picture of the US and the people in it.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
only on fox news, trying to protect their kind (white republican christians)
0
Reply
Male 764
Ohhh wow that teacher was soooooo right he bashed a students belief awesome if the kid was gay it would be wrong if it was a racist rant its wrong but if your a christian everything should go? If that`s what some you guys have come to condone I`d rather be superstitious than just another a hole. On another note who wins here money taken away from an already failing public school system just to oppose "superstitious nonsense" and they say religion is fail.
0
Reply
Male 2
My only objection to this story is the "rightful" comment in the description. Creationism can neither be proven nor disproven. Other than that, both what the teacher said and what the kid did were both insane.
0
Reply
Male 881
@cobrakiller, last I heard it was 1% to 4% of modern, non-African genes were Neanderthal. Did I misunderstand that you are saying it is over 50%?
0
Reply
Male 257
i just hope that all students know they have the right in the classroom that they don`t need to be discriminated against oh ! and that i have the right to sue the school board for 16 million but of course i`m not gonna mention my selfish reasons for doing this when pandering for sympathy over the news
0
Reply
Male 7,817
angilion, homo neandratalis didnt really go extinct, they are still around. at least their genes are, which is how we constitute a species now. when homo sapien expanded from africa that mated with homo neandratalis that had already been around in europe and asia. most non-africans nowadays share just as much (if not more) genetic information with homo neandratalis as homo sapien.
0
Reply
Male 21
Teachers do have a responsibility to respect the beliefs of their students... But c`mon... why is this still an issue?? Evolution happened... and continues to progress even today. It`s scientific fact. Deal with it Christians!!!

Check it out:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sxh_L1LUNk
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Okay, now we have a time frame that I severely under-estimated. But you get the point, right?

That all these people who think they know evolution don`t really know a thing about it?[/quote]

I think a few of them do know a bit and are lying, but in almost all cases yes, they`re totally ignorant. Certainly no-one can know anything about evolution and argue it doesn`t exist without lying. The few who are lying mislead the many who are ignorant.

I`ve given a quick overview of what evolution actually is to a fair few theists IRL who thought they were dead set against it. Those that actually listened realised that they weren`t dumb enough to ignore what evolution actually is, as opposed to the disinformation they`d been fed about it. So they switched to thinking that their god created life, created evolution and used it to make humans, sort of like a smith making their own tools to smith with.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]All Australians are criminals. [/quote]
That`s not true. They`re just descended from criminal ancestors.

See what I did there?

Just kidding, Aussies!
0
Reply
Male 51
@hammerdrop

Cultural context. Australia is much more secular than the US, and frankly a whole lot of us DO think that a lot of you hold strange beliefs. I`ve just been in North Carolina for 6 months, and to be fair, the stereotype held true!
0
Reply
Female 126
Im suprised more teachers dont get sued for trying to teach creationism..
0
Reply
Male 59
Oooh, this makes me angry and loses even more faith in humanity. Religion is rather evil!
0
Reply
Male 10
Reganom:

"If someones belief is that weak that purely expressing a contrary oppinion is considered a threat to your belief then you clearly don`t believe strongly.

With regards to the fact about respecting others beliefs. I hardly think its respectful to be told that i will be going to hell for not believing in JC and God. Or for homosexual to behave as how they want, as they believe is right, to be condemned to hell. "

That may be the Christian belief, but I don`t personally approach gay people and tell them "You`re going to hell." I simply leave them be, as they have the right to believe whatever they want. You`re basing an entire populace on the loudest and most annoying, thus making you just as bad as them.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@nubblins
unfortunately there will always be the issue of creationists not being able to stick to words meaning what their definition is
0
Reply
Male 199
@Afroaussie

All Australians are criminals.

Hey look! I can make unreasonable stereotypes too!
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Natural selection is fact and has been observed. Biological evolution is fact. What is there to debate?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]The available evidence indicates that the last common ancestor was at least 12 million years ago. There`s a long way between humans and monkeys.[/quote]
Okay, now we have a time frame that I severely under-estimated. But you get the point, right?

That all these people who think they know evolution don`t really know a thing about it?
0
Reply
Male 73
Lol, you American`s and your strange beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]
one of our most distant ancestors was a monkey.[/quote]

No it wasn`t.

[quote]So to say that we evolved from monkeys isn`t wrong.[/quote]

Yes it is.

Monkeys and humans have a distant common ancestor (more than 10 million years distant). That`s a completely different thing.

Saying that humans are descended from monkeys is far less true than saying that you are descended from me. You and I have a common ancestor far more recently than 10 million years ago. Likely more recently than 10 thousand years ago.
0
Reply
Male 338
His "Jesus glasses" comment was relevant to history. Throughout history, religion has been used to persuade peasants to support things that would negatively affect them.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And here you are insulting it. There`s no real proof for evolutionism. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Not something. Where did that first "particle" come from? Nothing? Where did that come from? Ah, I`m not going to continue here. Everyone is entitled to their own believes, I just found this particular IAB article comment to be quite.. idiotic.[/quote]

Yes, you are. Or maybe, being charitable, just spectacularly ignorant.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Until you learn the difference, you will continue to be an ignorant fool ranting rubbish at people because of your own ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]We DID NOT grow from monkeys, you ignoramus.

We evolved from a common ancestor. As in, at some point thousands or even millions of years ago, there was a creature that was similar to either a monkey or a human, and through evolution the descendants of said creature separated into two distinct species, the monkey and the human being.[/quote]

The available evidence indicates that the last common ancestor was at least 12 million years ago. There`s a long way between humans and monkeys.

Even the closest of the other primates (chimpanzees) doesn`t appear to have a common ancestor with humanity in the last 6 million years or so.

There were other primate species much closer to humans, but the last of them (homo neanderthalenis) became extinct by about 30,000 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 92
Just wait until they find a fossilized snake near an apple core, then you`ll all be sorry!
0
Reply
Male 182
@Ogen

We`re not saying that they should teach Atheism. We`re saying that they should teach science and history. The Atheism part just comes naturally once a person understands these things.

Facts are not there to "insult" religion. It is religion that is incompatible with the facts.

Besides, I think that schools in the US should teach religion like we do here in the UK. Most students here are taught the facts about all major world religions and cultures from a totally neutral standpoint; allowing them to form their own conclusion. Guess what conclusion most of them come to?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Scientific theories are greater than laws because they incorporate laws into them and account for all facts. Laws start off as theories but they become `laws` after they are tested for quite a long time.[/quote]

That`s not how it works. You seem to know better, as your next post stated:

[quote]Not only that, most laws are just axioms. They don`t postulate how, the why, the who, the whatever. Theories do all of that.[/quote]

Scientific laws and theories are different things. A theory can`t be "promoted" into a law with enough evidence. A law is a precise description of a very specific thing. A theory is an explanation with a much wider scope.
0
Reply
Male 199
The fact of the matter is that this teacher is way out of line. As far as I know, he`s teaching in a public school, where religious tolerance must be upheld. If the tables were turned, and this teacher was bashing atheism or gay rights, all you liberals would be up in arms against him, but because he`s calling out religion the kid is in the wrong.

Before you go calling me another "right wing, Fox watching conservative asshat", just know that I`m a libertarian and an atheist, I do think religion is bullpoo. But that doesn`t mean I`m not insensitive to other peoples beliefs (despite how blind I know them to truly be) I let them live in blissful ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 329
hmm.. so much for fair and unbiased reporting...but then again we ARE talking about FOX news here......
0
Reply
Male 441
Sorry, but you can`t talk about religion in school. Not even to insult it. If Atheists don`t want religion taught in school, religious people get that you can`t teach against religion.
0
Reply
Male 270
@Septemberex.

You yourself say stick to their own belief even if it`s proven wrong by fact, and you also say it`s a legitimate belief?

Wow.

Only fools believe in creationism, the same kind of fools who believe in ghosts and not "aliens".
0
Reply
Male 2,868
davymid- you make an excellent point. Most of the arguments I see against evolution and the big bang theory involve a ridiculous straw-man argument. Kind of like if I were to say "Genesis says that man was made from clay, but I`m not made of clay therefore Genesis is incorrect."

Also building on what Davymid said, I kindly ask creationists to keep in mind that you will be remembered by history in much the same way as those who called Galileo a heretic- in fact much of the world already sees you that way.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Septemberex
no, no it`s not
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS

& anything else that`s over 6000 years old
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@nottaspy
that would be awesome, since i live so far up in this building you would think an intelligent designer would give me wings
0
Reply
Female 646
I myself believe in the evolutionary theory, but Creationism is legitimate belief and I understand why people would want to stick to their religious beliefs even in the face of undeniable fact. This teacher was completely inappropriate to teach in that manner and deserves what he gets.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Stating that creationism is not science, or creationism is not consistent with the observable phenomena in our Universe would both be totally appropriate. True, "nonsense" almost means the same thing, but carries a sense of personal judgment not appropriate for the classroom. His choice of words and tone were intended to insult those who disagree with him.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]There`s no real proof for evolutionism. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Not something. Where did that first "particle" come from? Nothing?[/quote]
[quote]Evolutionist believe that everything just expanded from nothing. [/quote]
I find it amusing that the vast majority of people who challenge evolution don`t actually have the first concept of what evolution actually *IS*.

Besides, please stop using the term "evolutionist". Nowadays its called "biologist". Would you call everyone who believes the earth goes around the sun a "galilean"? Seriously, stop it.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]damn, i wish i could have been apart of the evolution/creationism argument[/quote]
I wish I could evolve the way the creationists portray evolution. *poof* and I suddenly become something better.
0
Reply
Male 478
Well the religious portion is fact, but the conservatives remark is a but out of line regardless of your political affiliation.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Teacher should just teach and students should just learn.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"i wish i could have been apart of the evolution/creationism argument. i have been busy studying for my evolution final."

then you were apart from it lol
0
Reply
Male 505
"i have been busy studying for my evolution final."

I wish i was doing evolution. I`m currently having to prepare for my tests on enzyme kinetics and inhibitors and neuroendocrinology.

Good luck with your final =]
0
Reply
Male 7,817
damn, i wish i could have been apart of the evolution/creationism argument. i have been busy studying for my evolution final.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
1) Personally, I pretty much agree with the teacher.
2) As a teacher, he should not have been voicing his personal opinions, certainly not as fact.
3) Suing over this is completely ridiculous. I had plenty of teachers who spouted their own personal beliefs (including one in elementary who slammed a bible down on his desk and said "everything you need to know is right here") but I didn`t sue any of them. You can inform the principal, and after that it`s up to him to deal with as far as I am concerned.
0
Reply
Male 505
"When in fact, that exact behaviour has been observed in several species."

Yeah that made me laugh, just like watching those chimps use their tools to eat the termites.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Evolution is not a fact and evolution does require faith.[/quote]
It is. It has been observed. Google "observed instances of evolution".

[quote]Here is a video i hope you enjoy [/quote]
Thanks, it was a good laugh.
Especially the many times Chesterton brought up long-debunked arguments. Here are a few I spotted:
- "no missing link", 3:47
- argument from design, 4:12
- confusing evolution with abiogenesis, 4:04

Although I suppose since that debate is almost 80 years old, perhaps the evidence we have since discovered was not available at the time. Was an 80-year-old debate the most recent you could find where the creationist position looked remotely tenable?


The rest was interesting, but not relevant to creation or evolution.

Also lol at the end, where he states that animals do not make tools. When in fact, that exact behaviour has been observed in several species.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]Okay then to clarify, If he had stated BIGOTED comments about Gays or someone`s race[/quote]
Apples and oranges. Saying Creationism is nonsense is not "against" Chad`s religion, it is the truth. What he in a sense said was the Earth is not 6,000 years old, that all variations of life did not appear at the same time, and dinosaurs did not play with human children. Saying Creationism is nonsense is about as bigoted as saying Santa Claus doesn`t exist.
0
Reply
Male 172
They are NOT the same.

Regarding your claim about Atheism, you are correct about the first statement. However, Atheism does not say anyone must adhere to anything.

0
Reply
Male 172
"Evolution requires all laypeople to accept much of its data, and its conclusions of faith in the work of the scientists who collected the data. Which is fair.

Religion requires people who have not had experiences of the divine, to have faith in the people who have. Which is fair.

But, atheism declares that all people of faith are wrong about their own experiences, while demanding that the experiences - the experiments, of scientists be believe.

Anti-science religious types pull the same thing in reverse - demanding that their testimony be believed, while refusing to believe that of scientists.

Both are equally wrong."

I hate people that use faith in its two different contexts. Religious faith is not required for Evolution. I don`t need faith in something other scientists did because I CAN SEE AND READ AND REPEAT THE DATA THEY HAVE DISCOVERED. Religious faith requires blind acceptance of the unseen and untestable. They are NOT the
0
Reply
Male 714
chad, why didn`t iab pick up on that?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
Heureux, how have you not drowned in your bowl of soup yet?
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Evolution requires all laypeople to accept much of its data, and its conclusions of faith in the work of the scientists who collected the data. Which is fair.

Religion requires people who have not had experiences of the divine, to have faith in the people who have. Which is fair.

But, atheism declares that all people of faith are wrong about their own experiences, while demanding that the experiences - the experiments, of scientists be believe.

Anti-science religious types pull the same thing in reverse - demanding that their testimony be believed, while refusing to believe that of scientists.

Both are equally wrong.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Satkela, ahh, thanks for going into more detail. You believe in creation, not necessarily creationism. creationism claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. That is nonsense and it doesn`t matter if you believe it or not, it has been proven to be nonsense. Evolution doesn`t not claim a damn thing about how the universe was created. The current thoughts on the origin of the universe do not say it came from nothing. While there are some science that speaks to what came before the Big Bang, it is still hotly debated. Scientists are fine with not knowing what came before the Big Bang. Religion only needs "God did it" to be satisfied, and religion is never satisfied with not being able to answer a question.
0
Reply
Male 7
lol more reasons why the rest of the world is loosing its respect for America. I remember being a kid in the 80`s thinking America was the greatest country in the world.....oh how the mighty have fallen. (btw you can`t tell tone of voice in this text, im not bashing, i`m actualy quite sad that I have lost respect for what was once a great nation)
0
Reply
Male 1,054
pooptart19

Actually, evolution does require faith, but not the way that naywayers mean.

Like every conclusion that is based on information that other people have acquired, and unless someone has personally studied every fossil, and repeated every experiment in the process of developing tree ring and carbon dating methods,

there is a required in faith in the people who did do all that work. But that is perfectly ordinary and acceptable. We have use faith when we order something online that actually will be delivered at the price we paid, and that if there is a problem, the courts are available if necessary.

The real problem is that in the war over creationism vs evolution - fundamentalist Christians vs. fundamentalist atheists, is that people on both sides demand that others take their word about things on faith, but refuse to return the favor.

0
Reply
Male 505
"I believe in creationism and evolution"

You`re seriously confused about your science.

"Evolutionist believe that everything just expanded from nothing"

No we don`t. It`s that simple. That would be like me saying that "christians believe that i am the second son of God, the less well known and clearly not the favorite". Completely untrue, atleast i hope it is.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Satkela
You`re horribly misusing those words, evolution claims nothing about the beginnings of life, evolution itself is the fact that life forms adapt and change overtime, the theory of evolution is a list of reasons for why and how. Creationism says the animals that man has observed in only a few thousand years (because that`s all the time the Earth existed right?) are all that there are, humans never didn`t exist in their current form, no animal that exists today wasn`t created the moment God made the animals, etc.
0
Reply
Male 3,477
I go to Fox for my comedy an to Comedy Central for my news.
0
Reply
Female 584
"Creationism is nonsense"

Everyone has the right to believe in what they wish to believe in. I believe in creationism and evolution. Both support the other in some way or another. Just because you don`t "believe" GOD to be true does not mean that there isn`t any proof of HIS existence. I for one believe that GOD exist and that HE created this planet and the entire universe. Evolutionist believe that everything just expanded from nothing. How is that so far off from the Creationist who believe that "GOD did it"?
0
Reply
Male 19
This is nonsense, Fox News is absolute garbage, just another piece of propaganda to throw at the "Average American"
0
Reply
Male 639
Which SPrinkZ question? The one about there being an omnipotent god (already said I`m atheist on that one so no point in arguing against something I agree with) or the holes in quantum and evolution (I`ve already brought up lack of understanding of some the processes involved in both, which seem to be important gaps in our understanding to me).
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]@almightybob1
Evolution is not a fact and evolution does require faith.
Here is a video i hope you enjoy
http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=FI4rpNrkfps
(just remove the giant space)[/quote]
tatripp, you poor little ignoramus. For f*ck sakes, you have the INTERNET at your disposal and you still haven`t the slightest clue about evolution. I pity you.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"And here you are insulting it. There`s no real proof for evolutionism. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Not something. Where did that first "particle" come from?"

first particle? evolution? wtf? what do you think evolution is exactly?
0
Reply
Male 541
rubored: The same deduction can be used against you. God must have come from something too!
Besides, evolution does not concern itself with the origin of lifeforms, that is abiogenesis...
0
Reply
Female 584
Okay then to clarify, If he had stated BIGOTED comments about Gays or someone`s race he`d be the most hated man in America.

Bigotry against others is WRONG no matter who you are!
0
Reply
Male 1,196
@almightybob1
Evolution is not a fact and evolution does require faith.
Here is a video i hope you enjoy
http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=FI4rpNrkfps
(just remove the giant space)
0
Reply
Male 1,610
"Yeah I took back taking back my statement when I realized I was right initially, like I always am."

lol, ok. Then you still haven`t answered SPrinkZ`s question.
0
Reply
Male 639
SPrinkZ I see you`re back, I`m still waiting for a response to my earlier questions. And also I agree with your last statement.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]one of our most distant ancestors was a monkey. So to say that we evolved from monkeys isn`t wrong.[/quote]
With all due respect, you are a f*cking idiot.

One of our distant ancestors was also a distant ancestor of a monkey.

By your (wrong) logic, that means that either humans evolved from monkeys, or monkeys evolved from humans.

OR, we could go with the RIGHT logic and say that the ancestor was neither, and therefor we did NOT evolve from monkeys, but we both evolved from a common ancestor.
0
Reply
Male 639
There are plenty of gaps in the chemical understanding of evolution. The theory of natural selection is adequately developed, but this is not the same as evolution. Natural selection only takes into account the macrobiological levels (for the most part) while evolution requires more work on the chemical processes involved. This does not mean that it is incorrect, merely that more work needs to be done. I get the impression that people think I am anti-evolution, I`m not, I`m just saying that it isn`t fully developed and that there are questions that still need to be answered before we can say that we have a complete theory of evolution. Most of the problems are with the development of early life and how it could reproduce/express genes without having the necessary pathways or did the pathways give rise to gene expression as we understand it. It`s a chicken and egg argument, but it`s important for a complete theory of evolution.
0
Reply
Male 505
BigMordecai:

Did you watch the clip? It clearly only presents extracts of a lesson. It clearly only presents on side of the story.

I quote you: "conservatives and religious people...evil"

As you can clearly see that is out of context and completely inccorect about what you said. Quotes out of context can not be taken as fact without that context.

0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]If that same teacher had said something against gays or someones race he`d be the most hated man in America, but since he was ranting against Christianity (many peoples belief) its no big deal...that is the WTF?[/quote]

It depends on on if what he said about was true. If he said gays like other men and blacks have darker skin color, then it would be no big deal. Creationism is nonsense, what he said was accurate. Just because the truth is offensive to someone does not make it the same as racism.
0
Reply
Male 505
"If that same teacher had said something against gays"

You mean like the christians? If you`re going to look at one source, which is firstly clearly biased as the evidence was the same put forward by the kid, and secondly because its fox news, not the most impartial source, then i`ll leave your comment at that.

If you do however want to know both sides of the story, i made a post about it earlier, which presents a blog and an extract of a letter sent to parents.
0
Reply
Male 94
Ok did people watch the clip? While that may have been the stated problem, did anyone notice his extremely bigoted approach to politics and people with religion? His statements were extremely politically charged and opinionated. I am the last one to believe in creationism, but I don`t see that as the major issue here. He is making quite outrageous claims as well, which people on either side should be removed for doing. He is essentially trying to portray conservatives and religious people as evil or wrong. Ideally a teacher should be objective in representation. Personally I wouldn`t even care if Creationism was taught in social studies (not science) as a belief people have. I am working towards a PhD, but understand that skills in being able to work with others and understanding viewpoints may be even more valuable to most people than certain scientific theories. Also, interesting to whomever brought up Ohm`s law, it actually only holds when the Drude law is an accurate representation
0
Reply
Male 2,306
Altaru,

one of our most distant ancestors was a monkey. So to say that we evolved from monkeys isn`t wrong.
0
Reply
Male 881
@rubored, that same stupid argument also works for God. Where did God come from? Nothing? Always existed? You have a fundamental, and profound misunderstanding of our current understanding of the universe. The difference is that science doesn`t stop at "because God did it"
0
Reply
Female 584
This is nuts. If that same teacher had said something against gays or someones race he`d be the most hated man in America, but since he was ranting against Christianity (many peoples belief) its no big deal...that is the WTF?
0
Reply
Male 639
Yeah I took back taking back my statement when I realized I was right initially, like I always am.
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]Where did that first "particle" come from? Nothing?[/quote]

You`re demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of what evolution demonstrates. Evolution is not the answer to the origin of life on earth. Evolution is the change of life from less complex organisms.
0
Reply
Female 23
Sueing does seem pretty extreme, but at the same time teachers with religious beliefs aren`t allowed to mention them at all in the classroom. I`ve heard many atheists argue that it`s brainwashing. A Christian teacher would be fired under the same terms if he talked with any mention or bias about his beliefs, so it`s double standards to support the atheist teacher doing the same just because you agree with his beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Kingpong

I`m not even sure what you guys were arguing about anymore. You said you took back your statement that the theory of evolution has holes, but then it still seems like that is what you were are arguing about. All I can say is that if a theory were incomplete it wouldn`t pass peer review and be published. The only holes I know of concerning evolution are the gaps in the fossil record, which don`t undermine the theory, and are supplemented with DNA evidence.
0
Reply
Male 165
And here you are insulting it. There`s no real proof for evolutionism. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Not something. Where did that first "particle" come from? Nothing? Where did that come from? Ah, I`m not going to continue here. Everyone is entitled to their own believes, I just found this particular IAB article comment to be quite.. idiotic.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Lionhart
we`re using creationism to refer to the young Earth belief that says that dinosaurs were never alive and were put there to test your faith
0
Reply
Male 505
Lionhart:

Whilst yes creationism in its original form can exist with evolution. Creation in the sense that is being discussed, or atleast the one i`ve been discussing, is the creationism of the book of genesis. That everything is created as is.
0
Reply
Male 8,302
> almightybob1
> The fact of evolution does not disprove God, but it does disprove creationism

No it doesn`t; you`re assuming that once created, something never changes. That is observably untrue. But the fact that things adapt and change doesn`t prove they weren`t created in the first place by an omnipotent Being.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]evolution or creationism. Both religious beliefs of sort that require some sort of study and faith in those you study[/quote]
Evolution is not a religion. It does not require faith.

[quote]No one in our history as a people can give you definite proof of his God, or a lack there of[/quote]
Agreed. But we can give evidence of evolution. It is a fact.

The fact of evolution does not disprove God, but it does disprove creationism.
0
Reply
Male 505
ErinBtx:

In the very same ammendement it also mentions freedom of speech.

I don`t feel that his freedom of belief was affected. Otherwise every preacher on the street, every sign for a particular religion could be counted as threatening someones freedom of belief. The teacher stated his opinion, yes he could have done it better. Although a small bit of research shows that he will have discussions that are provocative. The student had the choice of speaking to the teacher and not once does it say that he used that right. I haven`t got the link at hand, but the teacher sent a letter to the parents saying that there will be provocative topics discussed and that if they had a problem with one of them to speak to him.

0
Reply
Male 881
@tridirk, do you understand that God and religion are completely different subjects when discussing proof. God is not falsifiable, but religion sure the hell is! It is impossible to prove or disprove God. Creationism, on the other hand, has long ago been debunked.

@DHalo, I do believe everyone has the freedom to believe what they want. I defy you to find anything the founding fathers wrote saying that we have the right to not be offended. If someone believes in that dragon, then they should be prepared for the ridicule that will follow. Also note that our founding fathers wanted us to question, and even ridicule, authority. That is why we have a freedom of speech. Rather than demanding someone "get the drat out", how about you try to understand how peer pressure is a valuable mechanic of social interaction. I`m sure the founding fathers understood it.
0
Reply
Male 167
God damn it we are regressing. The teacher was harsh but he was fulfilling his responsibility of providing the kids with accurate information as opposed to nurturing their childish fantasies
0
Reply
Female 2,120
That guy went a little too far, but I don`t think suing him is the right way to deal with it. Sit down with the principal and have a little talk. When I was in highschool, I remember a teacher randomly bringing up abortion in class, and saying he would call it by it`s true name "Baby Killing". Instead of giving him a hearty punch in the balls like he deserved, I sat down with the principal and got the teacher to calm down with his crazy nonsense. Talk > Sue
0
Reply
Male 4,745
I applaud the teacher for standing up for Atheists. It`s time to put the crazy fairy tails behind us and move into this century.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Wow, silly people!
0
Reply
Male 151
I`ll agree with the teacher insofar as creationism is superstitious nonsense but he went a little far in terms of bashing a political party`s ideology. I`d punish the teacher but I wouldn`t suppress his free speech.

It saddens me that respect for Free Speech is taking a backseat to respecting religion (at least in this case). Opinions are just that: opinions. They`re statements of what someone believes, not statements of fact. Let the man state his beliefs about conservatives and Christianity but please don`t make so much melodrama about it. Religion, is opinion. Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah but Muslims believe he was just a regular ol` prophet. Christianity would have you believe that you get to go to Heaven or Hell for the life you lived while the Bhagavad-Gita would have you believe that your soul is reincarnated until you reach enlightenment and thus salvation (Kaivalya Jnana and moksha respectively).

It`s a matter of opinion so let the man have his.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Tridirk:
[quote]Thanks to all for the spirited discussion.[/quote]
[quote]Thanks again except Altura, he is just too much an angry liberal for me to thank.[/quote]
A) You never actually debated, you insulted liberals and acted high and mighty. Excuse me, you made ONE on-topic debate post.

B) Seeing as how you can`t even spell a six-letter name right, you lose a lot of credibility for being dyslexic (not that you ever had any to begin with). After all, if you can`t read, how does anyone know you`re actually reading what they`ve written?

C) Thanks for proving that cons can be just as arrogant and in the wrong as you claim libs are. Have fun being a f*cking hypocrite.

Not that you`ll read this. It`s typical con behavior to not see anything that they don`t like or that doesn`t agree with them.
0
Reply
Female 83
i`m not surprised at all that many of the posts here miss the point completely... the issue in this lawsuit was the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of religion, which some of you can`t grasp.