> lawyers have such an ironclad positive reputation already and no one at all is seeking legal reforms.
Of course people are trying for reforms. The problem is that the people who admit it needs reformed will never come into the power required to make that change... because of the lawyers that base their job on keeping the system the way it is.
> yes, there are limits to your first amendment rights. Get over it.
If I go to McDonalds and start making jokes about fast food workers, they can kick me out, but they have no right to have me arrested or sue me, as long as no one was hurt in any way (and I don't mean their "feelings"). There was no crime committed, there should be/have been no repercussions.
There's a difference between limits for the public good and slapping someone down for peaceably expressing their opinion. Get over it? There's another option: Revolt.
>I'm pretty sure if you ask a pretty serious Catholic or non-fundamentalist Protestant if they believe all life evolved from single cell organisms up to it's current state, they wouldn't agree
Whew, good thing that's not what evolution says! Evolution is not a story with a beginning and end, it is a process. Your post is called a straw man argument. Now, there are some people who take evolution and come to the conclusion that there must be one source of all life. I don't necessarily believe that, but I still believe evolution is a fact. Maybe not Darwinism, which is more like what you describe.
Nope. I think "contempt of court" is in almost all cases utter bullshit. The fact that you cannot defend yourself in certain ways just because it annoys a man (& sometimes women) in a black dress with a stained wooden hammer is insulting and a violation of a persons ability to have a fair trial.
> this poor counting > actualy > in there book > actualy (again) > evidences (that word is a verb & does not work here) > concequences
I'm not normally a pedant, but YOU are claiming that the school prevents them from thinking? Considering your grammar & spelling, that's pretty funny. Were you home schooled? I hope your religion wasn't taught to you by the same people who taught you English, or you might want to go back and reconsider both.
> If we lose the ability to decide for them what is fact and what isn't the concequences could be disastrous!
> "science" tend not to burn people on the stake for their beliefs.
No, they get mad and try to ruin their careers. While a far, far cry from burning at the stake, it's still a bit disturbing. Of course, most scientists who had their career ruined by unpopular ideas were deserving, while I have yet to find record of a justified stake-burning.
> Somehow, anyone who has any religous inclination is a supersitous peasant and you are the enlightened philosopher king who must set them straight.
There are people with certain personality traits in every life setting. For instance, I can point to plenty of religious people who consider themselves morally superior to the ignorant nonbelievers and must "set them straight." That is one possible reason why he claims that religious people "attack" first.
> evidence that religion is something that humans are predisposed to
Are there no separated tribes/groups of people that live without religion? Is it possible that it's not religion that we are predisposed to but a need for understanding? Or maybe even stubbornness? Then, when we cannot explain something, we just attach an incredible cause instead of admitting that we just don't know. It seems more than interesting that atheism has become so much more prevalent (I don't any proof of this except for Republicans constantly whining that "the world is losing its morality") the more we explain things we did not previously understand? Maybe that feeling of "the infinite" is similar to the feeling you get when you finally grok something. Eureka! That can be pretty powerful.
> All human language is made from a finite group of phonemes and grammars,
Yes, limited to sounds that flow together well, and we are able to make easily. Makes sense to me. Why do some African tribes use clicks as part of their language, yet no modern language does? Do those not count because they are so remote?
> Similarly, all human religions draw from a group of finite themes.
I think that has more to do explaining historical events, merging of/borrowing from religions and different people asking similar questions in different places. Also, your use of the word "all" is an oversight, ignorant, or just plain wrong. There are religions out there that are very different from christainity.
> as humans, we need to accept our spiritual tendencies, the way we accept our feelings of love,
What about those that have never felt love(d)? Does that make them less human? If I've never had "spiritual feelings," am I somehow defective? I don't NEED to accept anything at all. I am highly suspicious of anyone claiming proof that humans need religion and "need" to consider it bullshit propaganda until I see some evidence or at the very least, skim a scientific study. I think it has more to do with most religious humans coming from common/close ancestors that were religious and that religiosity has just been passed down over generations and it has "evolved."
Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this and could just be showing my own stubbornness in refusing to accept what may be the truth. Or, just maybe, I'm right on some of it. Wacky thought, I know.
> Other than systems with chlorophyll in them, solar energy leads to decay. Check what happens to anything left in the sun long enough.
Well, animals seem to thrive pretty well with some sun. Granted, not 100% sun, like the desert, but there are some animals that do.
But that solar energy is converted by plants into useful energy. The plant energy is converted by animals to chemical energy. So directly, the sun decays, indirectly it grows.
Gotta wonder where you got the idea that he admitted fraud, as it is not true (well, at least not remotely verifiable, he could have said it to a close friend on his deathbed). Read claim #2. For someone claiming a scientific textbook is spreading information that was "admittedly false," you didn't look too hard. I just googled his name and found that within a minute.
> No, I don't believe children are capable of making their own decisions. That's why they aren't allowed to vote or marry
No, they can't make those decisions because you tell them that they can't. Children are perfectly capable of making decisions. Adults think that kids can't because the adults have more life experience and know how damned stupid they were at that age, so their kids must be too. Not really a bad assumption, as kids ARE stupid. But there's a big difference between "You can't decide" and "you don't have enough information and experience to make an informed decision."
I mean, if the lack of information or experience was grounds to disallow voting, about half of the current voting public (I'm not claiming that half is on one political "side") would be barred from the polls.
> does it actually mention religious ideas or God? No, it says to take a certain idea with a grain of salt.
Then why don't they put stickers all over it, pointing out that MANY of the theories in there should be taken "with a grain of salt?" There are theories taught to children that are on shakier logical grounds than Evolution, but because evolution is in contrast to some peoples' religion they feel that it is a personal insult and must do everything they can to discredit it
And, IMO, to keep not only their own children ignorant, but everyone else's children as well.
Slashdot Mirror
> > out on a bender in their daddy's pickup on a week night
> the men were 65 and 69 years old.
Oh, come on and stop defending these criminals! Their 94 year old dad's truck was destroyed on that 10kph rampage!
But seriously, even if they WERE kids, if the police were as all-present as they want to be, at least a quarter of the population would have DUIs.
> lawyers have such an ironclad positive reputation already and no one at all is seeking legal reforms.
Of course people are trying for reforms. The problem is that the people who admit it needs reformed will never come into the power required to make that change... because of the lawyers that base their job on keeping the system the way it is.
> yes, there are limits to your first amendment rights. Get over it.
If I go to McDonalds and start making jokes about fast food workers, they can kick me out, but they have no right to have me arrested or sue me, as long as no one was hurt in any way (and I don't mean their "feelings"). There was no crime committed, there should be/have been no repercussions.
There's a difference between limits for the public good and slapping someone down for peaceably expressing their opinion. Get over it? There's another option: Revolt.
> Living in a democracy is about taking all opinions into account
FACTS DON'T CHANGE WITH OPINION!
>I'm pretty sure if you ask a pretty serious Catholic or non-fundamentalist Protestant if they believe all life evolved from single cell organisms up to it's current state, they wouldn't agree
Whew, good thing that's not what evolution says! Evolution is not a story with a beginning and end, it is a process. Your post is called a straw man argument. Now, there are some people who take evolution and come to the conclusion that there must be one source of all life. I don't necessarily believe that, but I still believe evolution is a fact. Maybe not Darwinism, which is more like what you describe.
Nope. I think "contempt of court" is in almost all cases utter bullshit. The fact that you cannot defend yourself in certain ways just because it annoys a man (& sometimes women) in a black dress with a stained wooden hammer is insulting and a violation of a persons ability to have a fair trial.
> why were the parents so upset?
They didn't want to have to explain to their kids why the religion that was forced upon them does not mirror reality.
> People don't understand calculus
And creationists don't understand evolution (or are just too stubborn to accept it).
> People don't like thier kids being taught something they don't believe to be true themselves
I don't believe in Calculus. Therefore, since I am an idiot, NO ONE should be able to learn about Calculus. That argument falls flat on its face.
> this poor counting
> actualy
> in there book
> actualy (again)
> evidences (that word is a verb & does not work here)
> concequences
I'm not normally a pedant, but YOU are claiming that the school prevents them from thinking? Considering your grammar & spelling, that's pretty funny. Were you home schooled? I hope your religion wasn't taught to you by the same people who taught you English, or you might want to go back and reconsider both.
> If we lose the ability to decide for them what is fact and what isn't the concequences could be disastrous!
That is exactly what religion does.
> I don't reject god because religious people aren't perfect and religions aren't perfect.
> I'm educated in history and a critical thinker
You are a "critical thinker?" I think you need to work on your Critical Reading. Hell, BASIC reading:
> as deep as people who reject God because religious people aren't perfect, and religions aren't perfect
Umm, that means, IMPLICITLY, that if you don't do that, it didn't refer you. DUUUUUUUUH.
> "science" tend not to burn people on the stake for their beliefs.
No, they get mad and try to ruin their careers. While a far, far cry from burning at the stake, it's still a bit disturbing. Of course, most scientists who had their career ruined by unpopular ideas were deserving, while I have yet to find record of a justified stake-burning.
> Somehow, anyone who has any religous inclination is a supersitous peasant and you are the enlightened philosopher king who must set them straight.
There are people with certain personality traits in every life setting. For instance, I can point to plenty of religious people who consider themselves morally superior to the ignorant nonbelievers and must "set them straight." That is one possible reason why he claims that religious people "attack" first.
> why else are we the only species to be congnizant of our own mortality
Wow, that explains why I've never seen animals become aggressive or run away from a threat to their life.
> evidence that religion is something that humans are predisposed to
Are there no separated tribes/groups of people that live without religion? Is it possible that it's not religion that we are predisposed to but a need for understanding? Or maybe even stubbornness? Then, when we cannot explain something, we just attach an incredible cause instead of admitting that we just don't know. It seems more than interesting that atheism has become so much more prevalent (I don't any proof of this except for Republicans constantly whining that "the world is losing its morality") the more we explain things we did not previously understand? Maybe that feeling of "the infinite" is similar to the feeling you get when you finally grok something. Eureka! That can be pretty powerful.
> All human language is made from a finite group of phonemes and grammars,
Yes, limited to sounds that flow together well, and we are able to make easily. Makes sense to me. Why do some African tribes use clicks as part of their language, yet no modern language does? Do those not count because they are so remote?
> Similarly, all human religions draw from a group of finite themes.
I think that has more to do explaining historical events, merging of/borrowing from religions and different people asking similar questions in different places. Also, your use of the word "all" is an oversight, ignorant, or just plain wrong. There are religions out there that are very different from christainity.
> as humans, we need to accept our spiritual tendencies, the way we accept our feelings of love,
What about those that have never felt love(d)? Does that make them less human? If I've never had "spiritual feelings," am I somehow defective? I don't NEED to accept anything at all. I am highly suspicious of anyone claiming proof that humans need religion and "need" to consider it bullshit propaganda until I see some evidence or at the very least, skim a scientific study. I think it has more to do with most religious humans coming from common/close ancestors that were religious and that religiosity has just been passed down over generations and it has "evolved."
Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this and could just be showing my own stubbornness in refusing to accept what may be the truth. Or, just maybe, I'm right on some of it. Wacky thought, I know.
That's great :)
Thanks for the link!
> Other than systems with chlorophyll in them, solar energy leads to decay. Check what happens to anything left in the sun long enough.
Well, animals seem to thrive pretty well with some sun. Granted, not 100% sun, like the desert, but there are some animals that do.
But that solar energy is converted by plants into useful energy. The plant energy is converted by animals to chemical energy. So directly, the sun decays, indirectly it grows.
To summarize the AC post:
You called me a name, I'll make a strawman then call you the same thing you called me.
How about instead of making points that are of no consequence, tell him how he is wrong.
Gotta wonder where you got the idea that he admitted fraud, as it is not true (well, at least not remotely verifiable, he could have said it to a close friend on his deathbed). Read claim #2.
For someone claiming a scientific textbook is spreading information that was "admittedly false," you didn't look too hard. I just googled his name and found that within a minute.
> faith in scientists and textbook editors is laziness.
Assuming these highly-trained professionals are wrong is arrogance.
Which is worse? Questioning whether someone is wrong or SAYING AS FACT that they are wrong because you don't like what they have to say?
Whereas your post presented a logical retort to his perfectly reasonable statements?
> how is that unscientific in any way?
It's not unscientific, but it's also not scientific. More importantly, it's not consistent. Give me one good reason that evolution is singled out.
"Anyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell" is NOT an "open mind."
> Trying to convince children that the scientific community has any doubts about evolution is simply dishonest.
> Does your right to a fair trial
It seems that you think your right to ignorance supercedes reality.
THEY WERE NOT IN A FUCKING COURT ROOM, THERE WAS NO TRIAL GOING ON.
This should be treated exactly the same as if they were cracking lawyer jokes in line at McDonalds.
> No, I don't believe children are capable of making their own decisions. That's why they aren't allowed to vote or marry
No, they can't make those decisions because you tell them that they can't. Children are perfectly capable of making decisions. Adults think that kids can't because the adults have more life experience and know how damned stupid they were at that age, so their kids must be too. Not really a bad assumption, as kids ARE stupid. But there's a big difference between "You can't decide" and "you don't have enough information and experience to make an informed decision."
I mean, if the lack of information or experience was grounds to disallow voting, about half of the current voting public (I'm not claiming that half is on one political "side") would be barred from the polls.
> does it actually mention religious ideas or God? No, it says to take a certain idea with a grain of salt.
Then why don't they put stickers all over it, pointing out that MANY of the theories in there should be taken "with a grain of salt?" There are theories taught to children that are on shakier logical grounds than Evolution, but because evolution is in contrast to some peoples' religion they feel that it is a personal insult and must do everything they can to discredit it
And, IMO, to keep not only their own children ignorant, but everyone else's children as well.