The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should or should not be taught, its how it should be taught.
Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians" argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument.
Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children learn that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
What is wrong with a sticker that declares the truth-that evolution is a theory? Anyone want to respond and argue that evolution is a fact? Go for it--then you will be on the side of lies.
Don't change the argument here. Is evolution fact or theory? Answer the question.
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should or should not be taught, its how it should be taught.
Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians" argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument.
Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children learn that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
What is wrong with a sticker that declares the truth-that evolution is a theory? Anyone want to respond and argue that evolution is a fact? Go for it--then you will be on the side of lies.
Don't change the argument here. Is evolution fact or theory? Answer the question.
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should or should not be taught, its how it should be taught.
Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians" argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument.
Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children learn that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
What is wrong with a sticker that declares the truth-that evolution is a theory? Anyone want to respond and argue that evolution is a fact? Go for it--then you will be on the side of lies.
We don't mind. I learned about evolution. In fact, the more I learned the more I believed in God. But when you have educators proclaiming that evolution is fact and not theory you run into issues.
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should be taught, its how it should be taught. Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument. Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children know that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.
You assert then that religious people are stupid? People who believe in creation are stupid? Einstein? Hawking? Bill Clinton? George Bush? All the doctors at my church? All the nerds who believe in God? They're stupid and only cut out for work as a Wal Mart greeter?
You are an elitist, not to mention a close-minded bigot. Shame on you.
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.
We are not Europe. They can laugh all they want. You can laugh too--move to Europe and laugh right alongside them. So be it. The US need not be like Europe for any reason.
You use "Europe" in huge generalizations. Do you realize there are more Christians and religious folk in Europe than all the US? Do you care?
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors and gaps in logic. Darwin knew this.
"And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science."
But the same could be said of evolution. There is no proof-only evidence. I think there is evidence of God as well.
And a lacko of respect for how difficult software can be to engineer. Managers want everything done tomorrow, and unlike engineering a skyscraper or a bridge, managers don't understand software--they can't see anything tangible, and they see a gui mock-up and think its 99% done.
Sorry if I sound cruel or mean to managers, but I've seen it over and over and over again. Managers are far too often people who: a. Have never written software b. Were bad software engineers, so they got promoted to management.
Excellent point. They shouldn't be able to tax those who can't vote there. It makes no sense-doesn't this violate federal law? http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
My problem with it is the grey area. You're using an extreme example: Its wrong to encourage genocide. Sure. I agree. But what about my church, that says homosexuality is a sin. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't. I think my church, as an organization, has a free speech right to teach this.
You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Slashdot is all about open source, and most readers of slashdot believe in open source, and free software, and in its success. Why then does IBM *need* to invest so much money in it?
This is intriguing. IBM seems to get it. A bunch of people create free software, which IBM then takes and sells.
"And I'll say it again: Your right to Free Speech stops when you hurt another person or group in any form willfully or intentionaly."
Absolutely! It is free speech. Its may be stupid, bigoted, and hateful, but you cannot have free speech if you cannot say things other people disagree with.
How about these examples: "Christians are wacko fundies." "Republicans are idiots." "Democrats are idiots." "I don't like people with brown hair." "White people can't dance."
Should these statements be outlawed? What's the next step? You can't speak out againsts your government because you may hurt their feelings?
You simply cannot put conditions on free speech. You're not making sense. I hope there aren't too many others like you.
"And calling it a sin is not the issue, it's when the Archdiocese in Toronto not only called them sinners but "evil" and "doing irepperrable harm against children", or maybe that was the pope, whatever."
If people are not allowed to say such things, then you have NO free speech in Canada. That is sad, very sad. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
You make me laugh. Do you think the Iraqi cab driver I met last week whose arms were once broken my Saddam Husseins goons chose that way of life?
Do you think the women whose husbands are entitled by law to kill them choose that way of life?
Do you think the people who were killed by the Hussein regime chose that way of life?
As far as I can tell, you are all for freedom--for people like Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban. Apprently Joe Nobody doesn't matter too much to you. Therefore, you are an elitist.
Being a human grants you the right to bash anyone you feel-- verbally, not physically. That is called free speech.
While I agree with your stance on guns, I cannot agree that people should be restricted from speaking hateful words. You can't have free speech and have it be 'nice' all the time. Bigotry must be free and legal, because the word bigotry means different things to different people.
I don't think calling homosexuality a sin is bigoted, you may. So what--whould I be banned by law from making such a comment?
I guess I always thought free speech would be cherished and appreciated. I am finding I was wrong.
Maybe. I don't happen to own an auto or semi-auto. Semi-autos can be nice for killing bad guys if they break into your house with the intent to harm you.
I gather from your question that you are againsts semi-automatic weapons, and perhaps therefore home defense. But it only takes one round to kill someone.
A hate to sound cliche, but a gun is tool. It can be used for good or bad, like a knife or a baseball bat. Should we outlaw everything that may be used to harm someone?
Slashdot Mirror
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should or should not be taught, its how it should be taught.
Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians" argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument.
Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children learn that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
What is wrong with a sticker that declares the truth-that evolution is a theory? Anyone want to respond and argue that evolution is a fact? Go for it--then you will be on the side of lies.
Don't change the argument here. Is evolution fact or theory? Answer the question.
From The Morning
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should or should not be taught, its how it should be taught.
Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians" argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument.
Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children learn that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
What is wrong with a sticker that declares the truth-that evolution is a theory? Anyone want to respond and argue that evolution is a fact? Go for it--then you will be on the side of lies.
Don't change the argument here. Is evolution fact or theory? Answer the question.
From The Morning
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should or should not be taught, its how it should be taught.
Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians" argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument.
Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children learn that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
What is wrong with a sticker that declares the truth-that evolution is a theory? Anyone want to respond and argue that evolution is a fact? Go for it--then you will be on the side of lies.
From The Morning
We don't mind. I learned about evolution. In fact, the more I learned the more I believed in God. But when you have educators proclaiming that evolution is fact and not theory you run into issues.
The heart of this debate is not whether evolution should be taught, its how it should be taught. Would you agree that evolution is still only a theory, even if a theory you believe likely to be true?
The fact remains--you can't tell kids its true when there is no proof that it is true. You are making this into an "us vs. Christians argument. Its nots---its a theory vs. science vs. education argument. Its a theory, so why not teach it as a theory? The real people who don't want the truth to be known are those who refuse to let the children know that evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Period.
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.
From The Morning
You assert then that religious people are stupid? People who believe in creation are stupid? Einstein? Hawking? Bill Clinton? George Bush? All the doctors at my church? All the nerds who believe in God? They're stupid and only cut out for work as a Wal Mart greeter?
You are an elitist, not to mention a close-minded bigot. Shame on you.
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.
From The Morning
We are not Europe. They can laugh all they want. You can laugh too--move to Europe and laugh right alongside them. So be it. The US need not be like Europe for any reason.
You use "Europe" in huge generalizations. Do you realize there are more Christians and religious folk in Europe than all the US? Do you care?
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.
From The Morning
Hmmm... By your logic I could also say that we must teach "the universe began from nothing, for no reason. One celled lifeform became two celled, three celled, billion celled, again for no apparent reason. It just happened, for no reason."
Belief in God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism, and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors and gaps in logic. Darwin knew this.
From The Morning
"And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science."
But the same could be said of evolution. There is no proof-only evidence. I think there is evidence of God as well.
From The Morning
And a lacko of respect for how difficult software can be to engineer. Managers want everything done tomorrow, and unlike engineering a skyscraper or a bridge, managers don't understand software--they can't see anything tangible, and they see a gui mock-up and think its 99% done.
Sorry if I sound cruel or mean to managers, but I've seen it over and over and over again. Managers are far too often people who:
a. Have never written software
b. Were bad software engineers, so they got promoted to management.
Excellent point. They shouldn't be able to tax those who can't vote there. It makes no sense-doesn't this violate federal law?
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
My problem with it is the grey area. You're using an extreme example: Its wrong to encourage genocide. Sure. I agree. But what about my church, that says homosexuality is a sin. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't. I think my church, as an organization, has a free speech right to teach this.
I believe using the N word is pretty stupid and bigoted, but it must be free... It MUST be. Plain and simple.
You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
They already have legislation that dictates what free speech is and isn't (veiled as 'hate speech' legislation).
http://http//fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Slashdot is all about open source, and most readers of slashdot believe in open source, and free software, and in its success. Why then does IBM *need* to invest so much money in it?
...Here come the moderators!
This is intriguing. IBM seems to get it. A bunch of people create free software, which IBM then takes and sells.
1. Do nothing.
2. Take software written for free by enthusiasts.
3. Profit!
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
So I guess you think human life is nothing worth respect?
I'm sure this is little more than China's other great announcements--like that amazzzzing space program they've got going.
Its to never trust old dead people. Especially the ones that listen to techno.
Lets hope its better than The Simpson Road Rage game.
"And I'll say it again: Your right to Free Speech stops when you hurt another person or group in any form willfully or intentionaly."
Absolutely! It is free speech. Its may be stupid, bigoted, and hateful, but you cannot have free speech if you cannot say things other people disagree with.
How about these examples:
"Christians are wacko fundies."
"Republicans are idiots."
"Democrats are idiots."
"I don't like people with brown hair."
"White people can't dance."
Should these statements be outlawed?
What's the next step? You can't speak out againsts your government because you may hurt their feelings?
You simply cannot put conditions on free speech. You're not making sense. I hope there aren't too many others like you.
"And calling it a sin is not the issue, it's when the Archdiocese in Toronto not only called them sinners but "evil" and "doing irepperrable harm against children", or maybe that was the pope, whatever."
If people are not allowed to say such things, then you have NO free speech in Canada. That is sad, very sad.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
You make me laugh. Do you think the Iraqi cab driver I met last week whose arms were once broken my Saddam Husseins goons chose that way of life?
Do you think the women whose husbands are entitled by law to kill them choose that way of life?
Do you think the people who were killed by the Hussein regime chose that way of life?
As far as I can tell, you are all for freedom--for people like Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban. Apprently Joe Nobody doesn't matter too much to you. Therefore, you are an elitist.
"Sure a gun is a tool. It's a tool with only one use, killing other people."
And target shooting (which is very fun, you really should try it), hunting, and person defense. I'm also glad cops carry guns.
I don't think we should outlaw "stuff" because bad people misuse such things. Why punish the good people because of the bad people?
Being a human grants you the right to bash anyone you feel-- verbally, not physically. That is called free speech.
While I agree with your stance on guns, I cannot agree that people should be restricted from speaking hateful words. You can't have free speech and have it be 'nice' all the time. Bigotry must be free and legal, because the word bigotry means different things to different people.
I don't think calling homosexuality a sin is bigoted, you may. So what--whould I be banned by law from making such a comment?
I guess I always thought free speech would be cherished and appreciated. I am finding I was wrong.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Maybe. I don't happen to own an auto or semi-auto. Semi-autos can be nice for killing bad guys if they break into your house with the intent to harm you.
I gather from your question that you are againsts semi-automatic weapons, and perhaps therefore home defense. But it only takes one round to kill someone.
A hate to sound cliche, but a gun is tool. It can be used for good or bad, like a knife or a baseball bat. Should we outlaw everything that may be used to harm someone?