Posted by amazed on March 09, 2007 at 13:00:23 (EST):
In Reply to: Re: ASD part3 posted by Maxx on March 09, 2007 at 09:56:00 (EST):
: Not only COULD I theorize you’re a bum, I did theorize you’re a bum!
Therefore everybody must accept this as fact.
I theorize you are a douchebag.
: What was the copyright date on that Britannica quote, 1966?
I told you it was from Britannica.com. It's a current webpage. I was unaware the internet existed in 1966.
: You said, “I guess you figure they could find a giant planet made of cheese "the same way". You are an idiot.
Good comeback..Douchebag.
: You said, No, I'm saying to take the "time travel theory" as an absolute FACT, is "childish". You are backsliding. That’s not what you said. You never used “absolute fact” when you first said the childish quote. Why don’t you stand behind the crazy things you say?
I do stand behind it. I feel the idea that the theory of relativity=time travel is a very childish.
: You said, “Yes I have given you examples. YOu just refuse to accept them BECAUSE they ID they use DOES NOT involve religion, therefore they destroy your whole ID=Creationism argument.” You have NOT given me examples of what ID crowd believes. You’ve given me examples of what YOU believe. You don’t have the slightest notion what they believe. You didn’t even know what it was called before I brought it up.
Who is this ID crowd? Let me guess, you are going to "cherry pick" a bunch of religous groups now, aren'tcha? Yeah, right, I never heard of ID before you said it.
: You said, “For the last time...I am not debating about CREATIONISM.” Well I guess you’ve changed again. When this thread first started you most certainly were debating CREATIONISM., until I brought up ID and then you changed course and now you disregard creationism.
NO I most certainly was not. What I said was that some people believe in creation and feel that creation should be taught in school. Go get me the quote. There isn't one is there? Or you would have posted it right here.
: You said, “As I've said before, not being able to prove a concept is not evidence that the concept CAN'T be true“. So if this is the case, you believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Read what you quoted me saying here. I said "not being able to prove a concept is not evidence that the concept CAN'T be true." I guess you are too dumb to understand this.
Do I believe in any of these examples you just gave?...Of course not.
Is the inability to prove they do not exist "proof" that they don't exist?...NO.
: You said, “ID is a theory.” Prove to me that ID is a scientific theory. I don’t want web site url’s, I want proof.
What do you want then?
: You said, “I understand how "predictions" are used in the process. What I am saying is that a "prediction" is in no way "evidence" as you say it is“ Well you don’t understand the scientific method if you believe what you just said.
Okay then, that would mean that if I "predict" there is a the Sun is going to turn green that "prediction" is "evidence" that the Sun WILL turn green.
: . You said, “This is like finding unknown tracks, saying "bigfoot" made them, then saying those tracks are proof that "bigfoot" exists.” Why did you quit using the bear tracks example?
Because we KNOW bears exist. We KNOW what their feet look like. We KNOW what kind of tracks bears make.
: See bear tracks in the woods would led you to say, “there are bear tracks, there must be a bear ahead”.
Yeah?
I’m glad you brought up Bigfoot. Using your logic Bigfoot would have to exist, according to you.
NO, using YOUR logic, since I SAID Bigfoot made these tracks, I could then say that these tracks were "evidence" that Bigfoot did, in fact exist.
: Remember, “not being able to prove a concept is not evidence that the concept CAN’T be true”. According to that logic, anything and everything is possible including the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Bigfoot. How about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
Again, not being able to prove something is true is not evidence it is false. Inability to prove something does not automatically make it untrue.
100 years ago they couldn't "prove" a man could survive traveling at the speed of sound.
Can man travel at the speed of sound NOW?...Yes. Can he survive it?...Yes.
According to your logic, 100 years ago the inability to "prove" a man could survive would have been used as evidence that he couldn't survive it.
: You said, “What you KNOW is the "theory" of how they MIGHT be created. You don't know if they definately exist, and you don't definitely know how they were created if they do.” Nope, there are black holes and they are create by collapsing stars. Next question.
No, you DON'T know this. The scientists who study this don't KNOW they exist, and the certainly don't KNOW how they would have been created if they do exist. It's all THEORY.
: I said that no scientists says the universe is infinite and you said, “Yes...they do.” Quote please, from a notable scientist that says this.
More "cherry picking" on your part. Here's what I wrote: "I don't say the universe is infinate, scientists do. Oh, I'm sorry, maybe I should have said "space" is infinate."
I'm not going to go after this. It's a known fact. I'll just say this and you will HAVE to accept it. There is no proof that space is not infinate, therefore it MUST be infinate.
: You said, "“then lightning struck a pool, or whatever they "theorize"". Do you see that? It says "....or whatever they "theorize"" doesn't it?” Yes it does, but you left out the lightning striking the pool and you have to take your quote AS A WHOLE, You cherry picked your own quote, just like your pal George Bush does, to make it sound more believable.
Are you high? What the hell are you trying to say here? You've quoted the same thing twice now. BOTH quotes say "or whatever they "theorize"happened". How did I "leave out the lightinign striking the pool"? It's right fuckin' there! YOU "cherry picked" the quote. YOU left out the "or whatever they "theorize" happened" part. Yes, please take the quote "as a WHOLE". What you did was quoted the lightning part and left out the "or whatever" part. What an idiot!
: You said, “No, they are saying it had to be here before we were. An even more intelliegent being MAY have created that intelligent being. Maybe THAT beings' universe was created by a Big Bang. WE DO NOT KNOW.” If you are going to argue what the ID crowd believe you really should read what they believe so you don’t sound so stupid. You really don’t believe this, do you?
:
What I am arguing is that ID is POSSIBLE. If one intelligent being (or group of beings) COULD create this universe, it only stands to reason that another intelligent beingmCOULD have created that being's universe.
I'm not saying what I do or don't believe. I'm saying what is POSSIBLE.
: I’ll repeat this again. Show me with scientific evidence that ID is a scientific theory and then maybe we can pass out a sheet of paper stating such, in the meantime, if we pass out a sheet of paper with every crazy idea of creation, we wouldn’t have any forests left.
I'm saying it IS possible and to not only say it is not possible, but also prohibit the mention of it's possibility is wrong. It is, at the very least, censorship.
Why are you so afraid of ID being metioned? Are you afraid of it? Do you fear that if it were introduced maybe some "scientific" study WOULD be done on the subject?
: You said that religion has nothing to do with sex ed or the HPV. You also said, “The pap vaccine has to do with both the parents rights to determine what vaccines their kids do and don't receive” So you are against the small pox, flu, cholera, hepatitis, measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus and TB vaccines being given to kids. Some of these are REQUIRED before a child can enter the school system.. Where are the parents rights here dude. We have a cure for cancer here and people like you don’t want the kids to receive it.
WOW YOU ARE A MORON!!!
The only way a person can get HPV is to have sex with someone who carries the virus. You can prevent yourself from being exposed to HPV by simply not having sex. Why should a kid be forced to be injected with a vaccine?
The vaccines that are REQUIRED are all for diseases that are easily transmitted.
We DO NOT have a cure for CANCER we have a VACCINE against HPV, which is A cause of cervical cancer. A CURE is something that can rid a person of a disease AFTER they contract it.
If I had a kid I would have her vaccinated against HPV. But that should be MY decision.
You are probably for child abuse. It’s a fact that most kids will have sex before age 18, so teach them about it and to protect them from diseases is the right thing to do.
Yes, but how to do so, and what steps to take should be the parents decision.
A lot of kids get pregnant before they are 18 too. Do you think all the girls should be FORCED to take birth control.
: If you don’t want your kids learning about this, they can opt out, just like the kids you want to opt out of prayers.
No, they can't "opt out". Health/Phys Ed. is part of the rquired ciriculum and Sex. Ed. is part of that class.
Most of the “off the wall” people “outraged” by sex ed and the HPV are religious conservatives.
So YOU say. Maybe they just don't feel their kids should be FORCED to have a vaccine injected into their bodies for a disease that is sexually transmitted.
I know several non-religious people who disagree with this.
If fact, forcing a child to have an unneccessary vaccine injected into their body would actually be something the liberal democrats would be opposed to.
: You said, “Nonetheless, these RELIGIONS are STILL being taught in class.” No they are not. Get a grip on yourself. These dead religions are taught as that, religions that nobody believe anymore and they were part of the culture of the civilization you are learning about. Nobody is preaching about it.
Yes, they ARE taught. The ways, beliefs and practices of these religions are being taught in our schools. They are not teaching the kids to "practice" these religions, but the religions ARE being taught. The kids ARE being exposed to them. Yet the teachers can't say a word about "modern" religions. How is that right?
: You said, “Think about this. If "modern" religions were taught, maybe we all might have a little better understanding od each others' cultures.” Well you know you may have a point there. But why teach Christianity?
Why not? Why is Christianity BANNED?
: If we are to believe the polls, 90% of Americans say to are of the christian faith. So people already know about it so why teach it.
Maybe ALL the kids should know what ALL the religions are about. If they taught about Christianity, the Muslim kids would learn something.
Teach about Islam and the Chrstian kids would learn something. For instance they would learn that the Islam kids are RIASED chanting, "Death to the United States, Death to the Americans" the same way our kids say the "pledge of allegience" every morning.
We would have to teach Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Chinese traditional religion, primal-indigenous, African Tradition & Diasporic, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Judaism, Baha’I, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism and Scientology.
And if you really what to learn about each others cultures like you say, you also would have to teach Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist ideals also. The following was just list of MAJOR religions or beliefs. If you add all religions that someone, somewhere believes, the list would be very long. Now, what do you think would happen in this country if schools taught those religions? Christianity (and probably most religions) don’t want to be equal on the world’s stage of religion, it wants to be the only game in town. I noticed you didn’t answer my question on why Catholics have their own schools. Catholics were one of the first to try and get prayer and bible reading out of the public schools. Did you know that? In the middle and late 19th century and early 20th century when most of the immigrants coming to this country were from eastern Europe which is mainly Catholic and going into the public schools here, the Catholic Church was shocked that Catholic children were required to say Protestant prayers (lords prayer) and read from the King James Version of the bible. They tried to stop it or get their bible and prayers into the schools. That failed, so the Catholic Church started their own school system. I won’t go into all the Catholic Churches that were burned to the ground and Catholic families and priest who were terrorized and in some cases killed because they dared to have schools change their policies concerning religion.
I'm saying that teaching what these religions/beliefs are about and discussing them, should not be "banned".
: Creationism and ID are IMPOSSIBLE.
That's YOUR opinion.
: You said that you don’t believe that this supreme being that created the universe is the one that Christians believe in. But you know it is the one the ID crowd believe in. You are again just stating what you believe, not what the ID crowd believe.
Why can't you accept that ID and Creation are not one in the same?
ID doesn't even say that ONE being reated the universe. It says that the universe COULD have been created by a more intelligent being than we.
You seem to think that there is only ONE ID "crowd". Where is this "crowd"? Who is in this "crowd"? Who is the leader of this "crowd". ID is an idea, not a "crowd".
: You said, “Exactly! Even here, the only type of life form you seem to be accept is the type of life that exists or has existed here on Earth. You don't even accept that WE could be the PRIMITIVE form f our own type of life. The dinosaurs were here millions of years ago. What's to say thee is not another planet somewhere where WE are the equivalent of dinosaurs here on Earth? There could be lifeforms that thrive without oxygen. There could be lifeforms that are pure energy. WE DON'T KNOW.” Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said any of that. You are assuming to much. BTW, you said, “life forms could be pure energy”, I think you watch too much Star Trek.
What you said was that the reason they sent te signal out was because the universe was so large there was a chance that life had evolved on another planet "like our own".
So apparently you think that carbon based, oxygen breathing life is the only type of life POSSIBLE?
: Why can’t reindeer fly? According to your logic just because it can’t be proved doesn’t mean they can’t exist. Those are your words.
Reindeer DO exist...Dumbo. I CAN prove they exist. Go to the zoo. look in the dictionary. Search on line. Reindeer DO exist.
: There is no LEGEND of Santa Claus. Well maybe in your fantasy world there is. There was a man named St. Nickalas over in Germany and was a real live person who I think was also called Father Christmas. This person is where Santa Claus came from.
Yes, and this man called St. Nickalas was the beginning of the "Santa Clause" LEGEND. I'm sure there was a "Paul Bunyon" that began that LEGEND also. A LEGEND or "tall tale" is a story that begins and become more elaborate over time.
: You said, “but they are not PROVIDED the time to do so. Doing so would be considered a disruption...by people like you.” Why do they need to be provided time.
In order to be ALLOWED to do so WITHOUT disrupting class, they would HAVE to be given time to do so.
: I just said they can do it anytime them want so time doesn’t need to be provided.
No, they can't.
No, it’s people like you would want to cram their religions down people’s throats.
I don't want to do anything. I'm just saying that things shouldn't be "banned".
If you want to pray, just bow your head and do it, why do you want the government to force you to do it?
I don't. And I never said I DID.
Again I have to say it also goes against what Jesus said on how to pray, so you want to go against Jesus and you want the government to help you do this.
No idea what you are trying to say here.
: You said, “AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING CREATIOINISM!!!! YOU are the one who has to keep interjecting it into the conversation.” No it was you who was injecting creationism into this debate when it first started.
NO I did NOT. What I injected was that some people believe in Creation. I didn't say I did. And I didn't say it should be taught. I said that if you are goig to teach one "theory" you should not prohibit another.
: It only changed when I brought up ID. Now you don’t want to argue creationism.
Again, I never argued "creationism"
Why? At first you wanted it, at least, mentioned in the classroom, but now, even though you are “defending the right to express all theories”, you run from creationism, and no longer want it brought up in a classroom. Why?
I'm not "running" from anything.
: Boy are you a backslider!!! First you said all theories should be taught or at least mentioned, especially Creationism.
When did I say "especially Creationism"?
: Then I bring up ID and now you run from creationism. Then you say, “I’m defending the right to express all theories” and now you say, “I'm not even neccessarily saying "alternatives" to Evolution” should be taught in schools. Now you seem to be saying that Evolution should be taught as a valid subject, but ID show be mention or maybe even a sheet of paper handed out. But why? You’ve given no proof, other than your own thoughts on what ID is.
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
I never said evolution shouldn't be taught.
I said evolution is a "theory" and should not be taught as fact.
I said that if they are to teach one "theory" tey shouldn't be prohibitted from mentioning another.
I never said Creation should be taught.
I never said ID sould be taught.
I said that if they are going to teach one "theory", these other "theorie" should also be permitted to be, at the very least, MENTIONED.
: You said, “I never said Evolution was wrong, I said it is a "theory" Like I said, most of evolution is a fact, that’s why you can’t say it’s wrong. Only in your world can ID and Evolution co exist.
No, it is not "fact" it is "theory". Here's one for ya. Did you kow that many of the fossils they say indicate a new "species" are no differnt than other previously discovered "species" other than size. They will find a leg bone for an animal that has already been "discovered". Then they deem it a new "species" so that they can name it an use this "discovery" as a basis to get additional funding for the program.
How is this "scientific"?
Dogs are all the same species, yet these "scientists" would have them all as different "species" if they had found them in the "fossil record". Even one human would be considered a differnet "species" jst becaus he was taller than another. Danny DeVito and Hulk Hogan would be 2 differnet "species" if they were found in the :fossil record". Yeah...that's SCIENTIFIC!!!
: You said, “I don't know where this Constitution stuff is coming from“ You said, “I’m defending the RIGHT to express all theories” Did you see that word right you mentioned” I asked you were that right was in the Constitution and/or Bill of Right” You pleaded “stupid” on it. Where is that right? Quote me the exact reading on it.
I see here that you convieniently omitted the part I wrote about freedom of speech.
: You said, “we ARE supposed to be FREE to do whatever we want.” Really! So you’re saying we are free to rob banks, murder people, rape, steal, etc. Come on now, I can’t believe you really believe this. If you do, then I theorized right, you are a bum.
Don't be a dick. You know exactly what I meant.
: You said, “ We ARE NOT supposed to be MADE to do anything. It's SUPPOSED to be a "free" country.” Again I question you logic. You are saying we are not “MADE” to pay taxes, get licenses to drive, hunt, carry firearms, get married, drive on the right side of the road, send your kids to school, etc, etc. What “free” country do you live in?
See my last statement.
: You said, “I'm arguing that people LIKE YOU should not be able to PROHIBIT prayer in school.” People LIKE ME are not prohibiting anything. I’ve already said, kids can pray anytime they like, but it’s people like you who can’t stand that. Prayer to you means nothing unless the force of the government is behind it.
If this is true, why are people LIKE YOU so consummed with getting religion out of the schools? Getting the Commandments out of courthouses? Getting "In God We Trust" off of the money? Why worry about all these things that have been going on since before this was even a country? Why is this so important FOR YOU?
: You said, “Can you imagine the uproar there would be if a Muslim kid wasn't allowed to do that shit where they have to face,,,whatever the hell it is they are supposed to face at a certain time?” Maybe you should take some of those religious classes you talked about so you could learn about other peoples religions, so you know where they are to face when praying. Truth be told, you could care less about other people’s religion, just by your tone in that sentence. It’s just a way to force your beliefs onto others, that all it is.
No, it is not. I'm by no means a "religous" person. I just feel it is wrong to have such a bias against any religion or belief. Especially the one this country was founded on. The one the pilgrims came here to practice FREELY.
: You said, “Do you see anything about a "flash" here?” If you keep the word explosion in the context of what we were talking about there would be. This explosion is happening in outer space. When something explodes in outer space, yes there is a flash. Next question.
What "context" are you talking about? Here you go again professing to kow how every explosion in the known universe has does or will occur.
How do you know wha kind of explosion the Big Bang would have been? Wait, don't tell me...now you are going to use the same type of evidence as the black hole evidence again aren'tcha?
You are going to say that the "evidence" is the "glow" even though you don't know what caused this "glow".
Don't you see how retarded this is?
: You said, “Therefore when a balloon "bursts" it is an explosion.” With that flawed logic every time I put air in my tires, I’m not filling them with air, I’m exploding them with air. Give that up!!
No, I'm saying if you're tire violently bursts, it is an explosion. Isn't Webster's defintion of an explosion acceptable to you?
: You said, “Also, I see you failed to comment on an explosion due to a chemical reaction.
: Here's another little point for ya. MAny gasses burn without a visible flame, thus an exlosion of these gasses would not create a "flash"“ Again, we were talking about explosions in outer space. So keep that in mind when talking about explosions or chemical reactions.
I did keep that in mind. Also, keep in mind the is no oxygen in space. Which is essential for the type of explosion you seem to be obsessed with.
: You said, “All I've said was that theories are theories.” Yes, and fantasies are fantasies.
Agreed.