God created the world. Why teach children that he didn't?
Your response might be: That's what YOU believe right-wing radical Christian nut-job. Everyone knows we evolved to who we are today, I learned it in science class! (Ok Ok, you'd leave the part about science class out)
To that I'd say: Your belief that we evolved into who we are today should be tought in your private religious system.
I agree ID shouldn't be taught in the public education system. Neither should evolution. Both take faith to believe.
Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web.
I'd like a little more info on this if someone knows how FEC rules are made? Could you please tell me why a court is telling the FEC what regulations to make; rather than judging a case on its merits? Was there a case involved here at all? If so, which case was it, and what were its rulings? How does the FEC work? Are they supposed to be taking instruction from a federal court? Did the FEC ask the court for its opinion or did they make rules that the court struck down or say was unconstitutional? What branch of government does the FEC fall under?
I thought George W., George H.W., and Jeb stood in a circle praying that Katrina would careen into those evil poor black people in the Big Easy which caused it to change course all the while sending all of the aid workers to fight in Iraq so the Bushies could profit off of all of the destroyed oil refineries?!?
Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof What happens when passing laws is an exercise of religion?
What does "shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Does it mean Congressmen can't pass laws based on their religious beliefs? Or does that mean Congress can't pass laws that specifically force someone to practice their religion?
Where do you draw the line? "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13
Can congress pass a law prohibiting murder? It's a Biblical/Torah value. It so happens to be the value of religions that don't believe in a God too. Is that why it's ok? What about religions that support murder? The constitution is being being violated if the nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists (The ones that believe murder is wrong) pass an anti-murder law aren't they?
How do you define murder? Egypt has capital punishment set up for Christians who convert Muslims to Christianity, but its fine for Muslims to convert Christians. Is that murder or not? How does the national governing body decide? Who's rule book do you go by? The short answer is: everybody's You make laws and vote on them.
Isn't our democracy set up such that the majority ideology decides the law and the only way that is changed is by changing the majority ideology? If the majority rules, then why do our laws so closely represent Christian values? If the majority doesn't rule, then how did our government become lopsided with people who created laws that so closely represent Christian values?
Here's a side thought nugget.
China's Christian population is exploding so rapidly that the Chinese Government doesn't know what to do about it. The US's is declining so fast that the US doesn't know what to do about it. China's economy and political influence is also exploding, while the US's has hit a ceiling and is beginning to dwendle.
and splitting into competing factions will only lead to failure.
How do you think the phrase "space race" got coined? We had a competitor. We haven't for quite a while and it's refreshing to see them emerge.
I don't believe the Bible is the "literal word of God", so I don't think this argument is very strained for me to make. And as I said, I have responses to those allegations.
Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Hebrew translation
The word tempt here is ambiguous. In James it specifically lays out that it means God won't tempt man to do evil which means, God won't make a man do evil things. In Genesis it's been translated a couple of ways in which, if you read the chapter, God was testing Abraham, not tempting him to do evil.
MAT 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
Here's an explanation You must think these seeming contradictions are irrefutable, which means you have to make the claim that if they are refuted that the refuter is one of the "brain washed majority".
JOH 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
JOH 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
Understanding the trinity is difficult. I am a father, I am a son, I am a husband, I am a brother, I am an uncle. I as a son, have less authority, a.k.a. potential for greatness, as I do as a father. Jesus was fully flesh and bone and fully God at the same time. I guess I can take a stance much like you might... "I don't understand why there are missing links in the evolution evidence, but I'm sure those will be answered later." I'm sure Jesus meant what he said when he said it, but I don't fully understand it yet.
Again, as I have pointed out, scientists tend not to blindly accept a theory. Your implication is that scientists must be atheists. You accept them as "not false" until you have reason to believe otherwise. When I say "atheistic scientists" I am using the word atheist as an adjective to describe the scientist. There are many many great Christians that use the scientific method to document God's creation. These Christians are scientists. They don't accept their findings as fact; rather, as tools to be used along with the creative possibility God gave them to create space programs, etc.. "Not false" to someone who believes in absolute truth means true. To someone who believes in relativism, "Not false" means "who knows?"
Okay, so what you're saying is that when it comes to space programs, computers, and cars, science is wonderful. When it comes to your beliefs, suddenly it has a "weak foundation". Interesting. Actually, what I am saying is that space programs, computers, and cars have nowhere near the significance as a creator/savior. When using science as a tool to create, its great. Using science as a tool to destroy lives and cause eternal consequence is evil.
I feel that my belief has a place in a science classroom. Your belief has a place in a church or your house, Why do my tax dollars have to pay for your belief, but yours don't have to pay for mine? You might want to reconsider your position. Home schooling growth is beginning to become out of control. The government funds schools per student. Each student a school loses hurts the school and students are leaving the education system in droves. Capitalism and free choice are about to destroy the public education system and birth a superior education system that takes place in the home, unless the politicians attempt to destroy home schooling and send our children to forced education (which is actually what is beginning to happen)
We can use other forms of dating that put the Earth at about 4.6 billion years old.
All of which have "acceptable" error. Which are not fact; rather, opinions or beliefs. I guess you'd probably "believe" differently than me.
The arguments people have presented to you so far have met with "it is wrong because I believe something different".
This argument requires you to say, "I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God". I know of no fallacy in the Bible. You haven't presented evidence of fallacy; rather, merely made the claim that there is fallacy and that I'm ignoring that evidence. Every bit of alleged fallacy that I've been presented has physical evidence to debunk the allegation, of which the presenter most of the time says, "I don't believe your debunk as truth." Or... "You're so blind if you don't believe what I present as truth." The others become Christians.
This argument requires the presenter to believe that scientific truth should somehow trump Biblical truth. "We can use carbon dating to identify fossils older than that." "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part 26,000, and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9,000-10,000." Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Cov. printing office, 1975), p. 30
Why are my peers and I always testing and debunking or improving our scientific theories/results if they are "facts"? Do our old theories/results cease to be facts once we improve upon them? How long do you improve upon then until you label them as fact?
Belief is not fact.
This is the current debate going on in public schools/politics. If you present my children with your belief as if it's fact, please present my belief as if it's fact as well. Seems silly to me to present either.
My Bible tells me that God created the world. I'd expect that something with as weak a foundation as scientific evidence, when used to somehow discredit or undermine the word of God, would be met with contempt by "Bible believing Christians"/Jews/Muslims/etc.... Science is nowhere near perfect nor are all of its results. Science is great for creating space programs, computers, cars, etc but not explaining disproving God's existence.
Your post implies that a majority of the world has blind faith and that you somehow don't because an atheistic scientist presents you with evidence which you label as "fact" that helps you disbelieve the Bible and believe that everyone else should accept this evidence, lest be discredited as "blind". Your post also implies that you are more justified to make the statement "it is wrong because I believe something different."
Why is physics, chemistry, computer science valid and the work of god's creation but evolutionary biology which follows the same principles of scientific method is evil, distorted or wrong?
If it attempts to contradict God's word and separate someone from communion with Christ it's evil. I don't think the work of evolutionary biologists is evil. Only when evolutionary biology is offered as evidence that a creator does not exist is when it becomes a problem.
The Bible has not only been studied for 2k years, but withstood 2k years of scrutiny.
I would add to your list studies the Bible belongs to would be: archeology, psychology, literature, history, business, anthropology, diet...
With the fact that a book has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny, influenced so many societies on every continent in the world, determined a calendar, created trade patterns, determined war ethics, defined national boundaries.... predicted Israel would be a state 2400 years before it became one... Whether it is religious or not, it is clear that it required an incredibly power imagination/mind to create a book that has effected/affected so much. How could you minimize the importance of the most printed and trusted literary work in history? Regardless of if you are looking at it from a religious/philosophical point of view, the bible holds tremendous amounts of information and inspiration that is worth studying from every angle.
Let me back track a bit. The bible isn't a book full of "stories". It's a historical record of Israel, Judah, Assyria, Rome and many other nations that's been corroborated and proven over and over again for 2 millennia going strong even though pagan/atheists attempt to wipe it off the planet. It's clear you reject it as merely a story book. Evolutionary Biology has nowhere near the support that the Bible does.
Your logic about a car, computer, house, electrical grid, power plant, airline transportation system and military munitions implies that scientists/engineers are only Agnostic or Atheists. Christians use the information contained in God's creation, using the scientific method to document it, to create each of the items you listed. I'm a Christian Computer Science major that is now a Software Engineer and work on complex satellite infrared algorithms and computer hardware status and recording algorithms daily. I graduated from a private Christian University called Azusa Pacific University where I was taught creationism. I'm capable of creating all of the systems you talk about above without using my Evolutionary Biology public school training.
The scientific method is perfectly fine until it attempts to redefine reality. It's perfectly acceptable to teach in public education. It's a great tool for documenting God's creation.
I think what President Bush is doing is merely causing these discussions by politically posing the question, "If your theology is taught in the public education system, why not be open minded and allow mine to be taught as well?" I don't like a lot of things that GWB has done, but every time he spouts his blubbering mouth about religion it gives me tons and tons of opportunity to spread the truth. He uses the presidency pulpit effectively to spark religious discussion. It's why he's so hated; non-Christians fear riled up Christians and his spouting off is riling up the Christian community.
But please don't try and teach your bible stories to my children in public school.
This whole story is about compromise. I'm absolutely certain that evolution is a story written by people. But if you happen to disagree with that, I won't take it personally. But please don't try to teach your evolution stories to my children in public school.
Scientists are becoming the priests of Atheism. To make the claim "examples of human ignorance", you have to rely on Science. Science is merely a tool of persuasion. Attempt to make your claims without using Science. I have no problem with the Scientific method until it is used to attempt to disprove the existence of the creator. Public colleges have become the mouth piece for the Atheistic scientific community and secularism. Its no wonder that the argument is used to somehow make the claim that having a college education somehow makes you less ignorant when in reality it only educates a person in secularism and science.
Any type of education that diverts a person from communing with Christ causes that person harm because it doesn't matter what your intelligence quotient is compared to that of the one who made you. The universe is information, if God can walk time like you can flip through a book, he can just flip the page to "blzabub 2 days from now" and determine what the result of his requests in your life are before he makes them. You deciding to listen to yourself and not God's plan is like playing Russian roulette, fun while it lasts, but lethal when you fail. Christ is the future.
God made everything; it was documented in his word. There are people in the world that believe in the theology that somehow (and they don't know how) we were nothing at one point and are now here and are so complex that the only explanation that exists without admitting a creator is that something as complex as us MUST have taken millions or billions of years of random mutation to become what we are now. Fact is an evolutionist can only theorize and produce a sketch of how we mutated, the try find some evidence to support his claim (Sounds like what the Atheists think of Religion/Intelligent Design). We can't travel time to discover whether God created the world, we also can't travel in time to prove that we evolved to what we are now. We can only point to evidence that surrounds us in the present. My evidence is that a landslide majority of the world's population believes in a creator. With that and my personal spiritual experiences, I can confidently say there is a creator. My personal experiences and pointing out that many others share my belief however is not nearly enough evidence for most Atheists.
It doesn't surprise me that an Atheist would think it's an outrage that Intelligent Design should be taught in public education. The thing that does surprise me is that an Atheist doesn't think it's an outrage that Evolution is taught in public education.
My opinion, the government shouldn't dictate what is learned in public education and it should be left up to the local populations. Politically though that's not acceptable because Christians represent the majority in the U.S. and the Atheists know that means they won't have an option.
I don't fully understand how the spam filters work, but I assume it has something to do with a certain percentage of users reporting that an email was spam that caused an ISP to begin filtering it as spam. If its not and the ISP is filtering certain domains because of its politics and not allowing their user base to decide, then this should be reported on and allow users to make up their own minds and allow capitalism to work. I no longer use google because of their filtering of conservative ads. I'd do the same for yahoo, msn,.mac, you name it.
This is where I believe capitalism can be used to pursuade the company to make wise choices.
This can be accomplished now with blogs and easily searchable news.
I hope that I'm a good enough parent that my children will abstain from sex until they get married. Condoms won't be necessary. The argument that, "There going to do it anyway" merely dooms them to. I'm not protecting them from titties; rather, I'm protecting them from the idealogy that the consequences of sex is merely physical. I definately won't be buying them or allowing them to bring a game like GTA home. I won't be a part of spreading the unhealthy idealogies of the game. Please point to my part of my post where I said I wasn't concerned about the violence? Actually, the degridation of institution of marriage as being the sole insitution where sex is allowable is a major cause for domestic abuse and failed marriages. So, by fighting to protect my kids from "titties", I am fighting the spread of violence.
The ESRB pulled the 17+ rating and replaced it with Adult Only (AO) which implies Porn which Wal-mart doesn't sell. Grandma thought she could trust Wal-mart to carry respectful products. Wal-mart (might have) thought they were carrying respectful products.
Shame on Grandma for buying her 14 year old a 17+ game. Shame on Rockstar for pushing a game with porn content to a lower rating. Shame on the parents for not watching what grandma buys for her grandchild.
As a parent myself, if a game with Porn is allowed to be rated 17+, I'll probably brush with a broad stroke and not allow any 17+ games in my home because I don't want to do the research on each game my kid brings home. That'll continue to the extent that if anyone is considering bringing such content into my home, they'll no longer be welcome (or the game'll be trashed and my child's gaming privelages will be removed). That even goes for if my little johnny is playing with jimmy down the street and I hear jimmy has 17+ rated games in his home, johnny won't be allowed to go to jimmy's house.
Just because Grandma did the wrong thing in buying a mature game for a 14 year old doesn't mean Rockstar is blameless. They're attempting to distrubute media that contains porn under a deficient rating.
From the posted article above, "The other option is, of course, to allow the government to mandate the ratings. Unsurprisingly, the gaming industry would rather do it themselves.".
I agree.
It's not the fault of Rockstar, Wal-Mart, the ESRB, Toys-R-Us, Hillary Clinton, the game modders, the mod-chip manufacturer, the kid down the street that installed the mod-chip I guess I see it as, all of the above are at fault, including Grandma. Little johnny shouldn't ever be exposed to porn.
The military used to have a problem at war. Soldiers whose lives were threatened were hesitating to pull the trigger due to the consequences. Since the advent of the video game they've seen this apprehension dissipate, which undermines the argument that somehow behavior exhibited in the virtual world remains in the virtual world when the switch is flipped off. The military encourages enlistees to play video games during R&R, because they know it has real world consequences.
Planes launch horizontally and ICBMs launch vertically. ICBMs follow more of a ballistic flight pattern when they are in the atmosphere, planes.... turn. Planes don't leave the atmosphere. The ICBM would have to re-enter the atmosphere and recorrect its descent and begin traveling at the same altitude as a supersonic jet.
That missile better have some very sophisticated Atificial Intelligence and be on a registered flight pattern because we'll be trying to communicate with it if it isn't and before it even gets close we'd probably scramble jets before it crossed any of our borders if its not telling us with a human voice what it is. There aren't any non-military supersonic jets in service currently so a single supersonic object floating around will be very closely monitored.
...if this whole antitrust case was nothing more than a great marketing gamble.
The longer you standardize on a proprietary OS the more expensive it is to switch.
MS for an avg home user hasn't become enough of a pain to switch. (I admit this is changing)
Labeling MS as a monopoly supports the "MS is ubiquidous" stigma (aka I can't switch because everyone uses MS and I won't be compatible)
*NEW* Downloading a competitor's media player takes "unneccesary work" when I can just have it bundled.
I wouldn't be surprised if MS privately supported making this whole thing very very public so MS dominated the headlines and made it seem as if they were the only well established OS while the puppies nipped at them. All the while making the governing bodies seem inept.
Just about every post I have read on this thread talks about blogging as a completely different beast than/. when in reality,/. is a blog where the article posters are many and "Blogs" are singular article posters. I realise/. has much more granularity when filtering out different subjects, but blogs and/. have more relationships in common than they have differences.
A Blog entry with a link is as much "news" as a/. article.
If your children DO surf the net and you have no blocking, you have already acted irresponsibly and have proven yourself a hypocrite.
... Could you please clarify this statement? Do you mean that I as a parent am absolutely irresponsible if I don't block stuff online? Or I as a parent, relative to my own point of view, am irresponsible if I don't block stuff online?
If you think I am absolutely irresponsible for not blocking content from my child on the internet, then at some level you must think the content is "bad" if it is an issue of responsibility when it comes to filtration.
If you don't think porn is "bad", from your relative perspective then are you asserting that it is just fine to allow your child to look at porn without filtration?
Also, do you assert that if a child grows up looking at porn, there won't be any negative side affects?
Who decides what defines "adult content". This is already being accomplished in broadcast television.
Women in bras (I can see that in the newspaper) Then don't buy that newspaper.
You choose to have kids; you be their moral guide. Translation: Pre-occupy yourself with the invasiveness of the internet so you can't be proactive elsewhere in your child's life. Or cancel the internet so you can.
If your kids can't surf the net without finding porn, don't let them surf the net without supervision. I can't surf the net without finding porn (Yahoo, Google, etc.) No way am I even presenting the internet as an option for my child. LOTS and LOTS of parents around me are beginning to make the same decision; there are many more options other than the internet to gain information and many alternate responsible news sources.
Or just don't have kids. The political demographics of the country is changing because the "radical religious right" are cranking out children like rabbits and the "radical left" are aborting themselves. Of course you want the "radical religious right" to stop having children.
I don't want your standards imposed on my kids, as they may be to strict or too open for my tastes.
Instead you'll have your standards imposed on mine. The people of Utah voted for legislators who would rather have the people of Utah's standards imposed, not yours.
As a father of 4 children, I have cut the cable, cut the internet (I'm at work currently), and cut irresponsible newspapers (LA Times for instance, so my kids won't see Bras) out of my home. A person can't live in this society (US - Los Angeles) without looking at porn on some level and its as a result of orginzations like the ACLU. Its at the malls, its on billboards, its even beginning to creep onto people's vehicles.
The state of California is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling on the medical Marijuana ban, maybe Utah should ignore anything that comes out of the Supreme Court if it decides yet again to vote against the will of the people. Maybe this'll spark another reaction like Gavin Newsome did in San Francisco (13 States with constitutions that define marriage between a man and a woman).
.xxx Domain: Why is it bad to have porn companies all living on one domain that could be easily censored by a parent and easily found by people looking for it? Don't porn companies want their users to be responsible with their content? I would think they'd like to have their own domain so they could be easily located.
I wish there were a centralized place for information that had some controls so it wasn't so dangerous. The argument that parents can buy software to filter the garbage out is really just a redirection of who pays. If the majority of internet users don't pay, then the pornographer does. If the Pornographer gets a blank check to broadcast what he wants, then responsible citizens have to pay to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your response might be: That's what YOU believe right-wing radical Christian nut-job. Everyone knows we evolved to who we are today, I learned it in science class! (Ok Ok, you'd leave the part about science class out)
To that I'd say: Your belief that we evolved into who we are today should be tought in your private religious system.
I agree ID shouldn't be taught in the public education system. Neither should evolution. Both take faith to believe.
Or even worse. The inventor of the Internet, Al Gore!
I'd like a little more info on this if someone knows how FEC rules are made? Could you please tell me why a court is telling the FEC what regulations to make; rather than judging a case on its merits? Was there a case involved here at all? If so, which case was it, and what were its rulings? How does the FEC work? Are they supposed to be taking instruction from a federal court? Did the FEC ask the court for its opinion or did they make rules that the court struck down or say was unconstitutional? What branch of government does the FEC fall under?
Does that mean Microsoft is fighting fire with fire?
I thought George W., George H.W., and Jeb stood in a circle praying that Katrina would careen into those evil poor black people in the Big Easy which caused it to change course all the while sending all of the aid workers to fight in Iraq so the Bushies could profit off of all of the destroyed oil refineries?!?
What happens when passing laws is an exercise of religion?
What does "shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Does it mean Congressmen can't pass laws based on their religious beliefs? Or does that mean Congress can't pass laws that specifically force someone to practice their religion?
Where do you draw the line?
"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13
Can congress pass a law prohibiting murder? It's a Biblical/Torah value. It so happens to be the value of religions that don't believe in a God too. Is that why it's ok? What about religions that support murder? The constitution is being being violated if the nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists (The ones that believe murder is wrong) pass an anti-murder law aren't they?
How do you define murder? Egypt has capital punishment set up for Christians who convert Muslims to Christianity, but its fine for Muslims to convert Christians. Is that murder or not? How does the national governing body decide? Who's rule book do you go by? The short answer is: everybody's
You make laws and vote on them.
Isn't our democracy set up such that the majority ideology decides the law and the only way that is changed is by changing the majority ideology? If the majority rules, then why do our laws so closely represent Christian values? If the majority doesn't rule, then how did our government become lopsided with people who created laws that so closely represent Christian values?
Here's a side thought nugget. China's Christian population is exploding so rapidly that the Chinese Government doesn't know what to do about it. The US's is declining so fast that the US doesn't know what to do about it. China's economy and political influence is also exploding, while the US's has hit a ceiling and is beginning to dwendle.
How do you think the phrase "space race" got coined? We had a competitor. We haven't for quite a while and it's refreshing to see them emerge.
Thanks Bush.
And as I said, I have responses to those allegations.
Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Hebrew translation
The word tempt here is ambiguous. In James it specifically lays out that it means God won't tempt man to do evil which means, God won't make a man do evil things. In Genesis it's been translated a couple of ways in which, if you read the chapter, God was testing Abraham, not tempting him to do evil.
MAT 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Here's an explanation
You must think these seeming contradictions are irrefutable, which means you have to make the claim that if they are refuted that the refuter is one of the "brain washed majority".
JOH 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
JOH 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
Understanding the trinity is difficult. I am a father, I am a son, I am a husband, I am a brother, I am an uncle. I as a son, have less authority, a.k.a. potential for greatness, as I do as a father. Jesus was fully flesh and bone and fully God at the same time. I guess I can take a stance much like you might... "I don't understand why there are missing links in the evolution evidence, but I'm sure those will be answered later." I'm sure Jesus meant what he said when he said it, but I don't fully understand it yet.
Again, as I have pointed out, scientists tend not to blindly accept a theory.
Your implication is that scientists must be atheists.
You accept them as "not false" until you have reason to believe otherwise.
When I say "atheistic scientists" I am using the word atheist as an adjective to describe the scientist. There are many many great Christians that use the scientific method to document God's creation. These Christians are scientists. They don't accept their findings as fact; rather, as tools to be used along with the creative possibility God gave them to create space programs, etc..
"Not false" to someone who believes in absolute truth means true. To someone who believes in relativism, "Not false" means "who knows?"
Okay, so what you're saying is that when it comes to space programs, computers, and cars, science is wonderful. When it comes to your beliefs, suddenly it has a "weak foundation". Interesting.
Actually, what I am saying is that space programs, computers, and cars have nowhere near the significance as a creator/savior. When using science as a tool to create, its great. Using science as a tool to destroy lives and cause eternal consequence is evil.
I feel that my belief has a place in a science classroom. Your belief has a place in a church or your house,
Why do my tax dollars have to pay for your belief, but yours don't have to pay for mine? You might want to reconsider your position. Home schooling growth is beginning to become out of control. The government funds schools per student. Each student a school loses hurts the school and students are leaving the education system in droves. Capitalism and free choice are about to destroy the public education system and birth a superior education system that takes place in the home, unless the politicians attempt to destroy home schooling and send our children to forced education (which is actually what is beginning to happen)
So the rea
All of which have "acceptable" error. Which are not fact; rather, opinions or beliefs. I guess you'd probably "believe" differently than me.
The arguments people have presented to you so far have met with "it is wrong because I believe something different".
- This argument requires you to say, "I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God". I know of no fallacy in the Bible. You haven't presented evidence of fallacy; rather, merely made the claim that there is fallacy and that I'm ignoring that evidence. Every bit of alleged fallacy that I've been presented has physical evidence to debunk the allegation, of which the presenter most of the time says, "I don't believe your debunk as truth." Or... "You're so blind if you don't believe what I present as truth." The others become Christians.
- This argument requires the presenter to believe that scientific truth should somehow trump Biblical truth.
Why are my peers and I always testing and debunking or improving our scientific theories/results if they are "facts"? Do our old theories/results cease to be facts once we improve upon them? How long do you improve upon then until you label them as fact?"We can use carbon dating to identify fossils older than that."
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part 26,000, and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9,000-10,000."
Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Cov. printing office, 1975), p. 30
Belief is not fact.
This is the current debate going on in public schools/politics. If you present my children with your belief as if it's fact, please present my belief as if it's fact as well. Seems silly to me to present either.
My Bible tells me that God created the world. I'd expect that something with as weak a foundation as scientific evidence, when used to somehow discredit or undermine the word of God, would be met with contempt by "Bible believing Christians"/Jews/Muslims/etc.... Science is nowhere near perfect nor are all of its results. Science is great for creating space programs, computers, cars, etc but not explaining disproving God's existence.
Your post implies that a majority of the world has blind faith and that you somehow don't because an atheistic scientist presents you with evidence which you label as "fact" that helps you disbelieve the Bible and believe that everyone else should accept this evidence, lest be discredited as "blind". Your post also implies that you are more justified to make the statement "it is wrong because I believe something different."
If it attempts to contradict God's word and separate someone from communion with Christ it's evil. I don't think the work of evolutionary biologists is evil. Only when evolutionary biology is offered as evidence that a creator does not exist is when it becomes a problem.
The Bible has not only been studied for 2k years, but withstood 2k years of scrutiny.
I would add to your list studies the Bible belongs to would be: archeology, psychology, literature, history, business, anthropology, diet...
With the fact that a book has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny, influenced so many societies on every continent in the world, determined a calendar, created trade patterns, determined war ethics, defined national boundaries.... predicted Israel would be a state 2400 years before it became one... Whether it is religious or not, it is clear that it required an incredibly power imagination/mind to create a book that has effected/affected so much. How could you minimize the importance of the most printed and trusted literary work in history? Regardless of if you are looking at it from a religious/philosophical point of view, the bible holds tremendous amounts of information and inspiration that is worth studying from every angle.
Your logic about a car, computer, house, electrical grid, power plant, airline transportation system and military munitions implies that scientists/engineers are only Agnostic or Atheists. Christians use the information contained in God's creation, using the scientific method to document it, to create each of the items you listed. I'm a Christian Computer Science major that is now a Software Engineer and work on complex satellite infrared algorithms and computer hardware status and recording algorithms daily. I graduated from a private Christian University called Azusa Pacific University where I was taught creationism. I'm capable of creating all of the systems you talk about above without using my Evolutionary Biology public school training.
The scientific method is perfectly fine until it attempts to redefine reality. It's perfectly acceptable to teach in public education. It's a great tool for documenting God's creation.
I think what President Bush is doing is merely causing these discussions by politically posing the question, "If your theology is taught in the public education system, why not be open minded and allow mine to be taught as well?" I don't like a lot of things that GWB has done, but every time he spouts his blubbering mouth about religion it gives me tons and tons of opportunity to spread the truth. He uses the presidency pulpit effectively to spark religious discussion. It's why he's so hated; non-Christians fear riled up Christians and his spouting off is riling up the Christian community.
This whole story is about compromise. I'm absolutely certain that evolution is a story written by people. But if you happen to disagree with that, I won't take it personally. But please don't try to teach your evolution stories to my children in public school.
Any type of education that diverts a person from communing with Christ causes that person harm because it doesn't matter what your intelligence quotient is compared to that of the one who made you. The universe is information, if God can walk time like you can flip through a book, he can just flip the page to "blzabub 2 days from now" and determine what the result of his requests in your life are before he makes them. You deciding to listen to yourself and not God's plan is like playing Russian roulette, fun while it lasts, but lethal when you fail. Christ is the future.
It doesn't surprise me that an Atheist would think it's an outrage that Intelligent Design should be taught in public education. The thing that does surprise me is that an Atheist doesn't think it's an outrage that Evolution is taught in public education.
My opinion, the government shouldn't dictate what is learned in public education and it should be left up to the local populations. Politically though that's not acceptable because Christians represent the majority in the U.S. and the Atheists know that means they won't have an option.
This is where I believe capitalism can be used to pursuade the company to make wise choices.
This can be accomplished now with blogs and easily searchable news.
I hope that I'm a good enough parent that my children will abstain from sex until they get married. Condoms won't be necessary. The argument that, "There going to do it anyway" merely dooms them to. I'm not protecting them from titties; rather, I'm protecting them from the idealogy that the consequences of sex is merely physical. I definately won't be buying them or allowing them to bring a game like GTA home. I won't be a part of spreading the unhealthy idealogies of the game. Please point to my part of my post where I said I wasn't concerned about the violence? Actually, the degridation of institution of marriage as being the sole insitution where sex is allowable is a major cause for domestic abuse and failed marriages. So, by fighting to protect my kids from "titties", I am fighting the spread of violence.
Shame on Grandma for buying her 14 year old a 17+ game. Shame on Rockstar for pushing a game with porn content to a lower rating. Shame on the parents for not watching what grandma buys for her grandchild.
As a parent myself, if a game with Porn is allowed to be rated 17+, I'll probably brush with a broad stroke and not allow any 17+ games in my home because I don't want to do the research on each game my kid brings home. That'll continue to the extent that if anyone is considering bringing such content into my home, they'll no longer be welcome (or the game'll be trashed and my child's gaming privelages will be removed). That even goes for if my little johnny is playing with jimmy down the street and I hear jimmy has 17+ rated games in his home, johnny won't be allowed to go to jimmy's house.
Just because Grandma did the wrong thing in buying a mature game for a 14 year old doesn't mean Rockstar is blameless. They're attempting to distrubute media that contains porn under a deficient rating.
From the posted article above, "The other option is, of course, to allow the government to mandate the ratings. Unsurprisingly, the gaming industry would rather do it themselves.". I agree.
It's not the fault of Rockstar, Wal-Mart, the ESRB, Toys-R-Us, Hillary Clinton, the game modders, the mod-chip manufacturer, the kid down the street that installed the mod-chip
I guess I see it as, all of the above are at fault, including Grandma. Little johnny shouldn't ever be exposed to porn.
The military used to have a problem at war. Soldiers whose lives were threatened were hesitating to pull the trigger due to the consequences. Since the advent of the video game they've seen this apprehension dissipate, which undermines the argument that somehow behavior exhibited in the virtual world remains in the virtual world when the switch is flipped off. The military encourages enlistees to play video games during R&R, because they know it has real world consequences.
That missile better have some very sophisticated Atificial Intelligence and be on a registered flight pattern because we'll be trying to communicate with it if it isn't and before it even gets close we'd probably scramble jets before it crossed any of our borders if its not telling us with a human voice what it is. There aren't any non-military supersonic jets in service currently so a single supersonic object floating around will be very closely monitored.
I wouldn't be surprised if MS privately supported making this whole thing very very public so MS dominated the headlines and made it seem as if they were the only well established OS while the puppies nipped at them. All the while making the governing bodies seem inept.
A Blog entry with a link is as much "news" as a /. article.
I happen to disagree.
If your children DO surf the net and you have no blocking, you have already acted irresponsibly and have proven yourself a hypocrite.
If you think I am absolutely irresponsible for not blocking content from my child on the internet, then at some level you must think the content is "bad" if it is an issue of responsibility when it comes to filtration.
If you don't think porn is "bad", from your relative perspective then are you asserting that it is just fine to allow your child to look at porn without filtration?
Also, do you assert that if a child grows up looking at porn, there won't be any negative side affects?
Ordinary Americans are disgraced and embarassed that we have an organization like the ACLU.
Let me translate: They only need a handful of justices to defeat the choice of the Utah voter majority.
This is already being accomplished in broadcast television.
Women in bras (I can see that in the newspaper)
Then don't buy that newspaper.
You choose to have kids; you be their moral guide.
Translation: Pre-occupy yourself with the invasiveness of the internet so you can't be proactive elsewhere in your child's life. Or cancel the internet so you can.
If your kids can't surf the net without finding porn, don't let them surf the net without supervision.
I can't surf the net without finding porn (Yahoo, Google, etc.) No way am I even presenting the internet as an option for my child. LOTS and LOTS of parents around me are beginning to make the same decision; there are many more options other than the internet to gain information and many alternate responsible news sources.
Or just don't have kids.
The political demographics of the country is changing because the "radical religious right" are cranking out children like rabbits and the "radical left" are aborting themselves. Of course you want the "radical religious right" to stop having children.
I don't want your standards imposed on my kids, as they may be to strict or too open for my tastes.
Instead you'll have your standards imposed on mine. The people of Utah voted for legislators who would rather have the people of Utah's standards imposed, not yours.
As a father of 4 children, I have cut the cable, cut the internet (I'm at work currently), and cut irresponsible newspapers (LA Times for instance, so my kids won't see Bras) out of my home. A person can't live in this society (US - Los Angeles) without looking at porn on some level and its as a result of orginzations like the ACLU. Its at the malls, its on billboards, its even beginning to creep onto people's vehicles.
The state of California is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling on the medical Marijuana ban, maybe Utah should ignore anything that comes out of the Supreme Court if it decides yet again to vote against the will of the people. Maybe this'll spark another reaction like Gavin Newsome did in San Francisco (13 States with constitutions that define marriage between a man and a woman).
I wish there were a centralized place for information that had some controls so it wasn't so dangerous. The argument that parents can buy software to filter the garbage out is really just a redirection of who pays. If the majority of internet users don't pay, then the pornographer does. If the Pornographer gets a blank check to broadcast what he wants, then responsible citizens have to pay to stop it.