The second red line is 47% and the third blue one is 48%Pretty pathetic but if sixteen percent of biology teachers do not believe in science, can anyone answer what they are doing in schools? Or even better, who hired Sunday School teachers from religious corporations to teach science in public schools? Read more here.I think it is not only a conflict of interest to have someone from a private religious corporation going into a secular public school to misinform children on the state of the science in the world, but it is also a form of bait and switch. You send your child to a secular public school for an education thinking that they will be taught the curriculum you are insured will be provided to your child. Then you find out your school board has no intention of providing your child with any science education at all. A classic example of Bait and Switch. Someone should truly go to jail.Peter Nuhn
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O'Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
P.S.
The main problem I have with people who dismiss I.D. and the possibility that there actually IS a Supreme Being is that they take an absolutist approach to the argument.
Folks who do not believe in God and deny that there is even the possibility of God’s existence actually have a lot in common with rabid religious zealots! The common thought process is the same, ie. they have a pre-concieved notion about things and simply will not open their minds to other possibilities.
Tim:
It is, get used to it.
Oh, you’re kidding, right? The human eye is about the worst example EVER.
If we were to measure your ‘gawd’s’ love by the construction of the eye, it loves squid more than us.
There is NO ‘ID’ theory. It’s all a bunch of 2nd guesses, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, untestable.
Ergo, it fails to fall in the scientific realm of ‘theory’. I advise strongly that you use the dictionary to look up the term.
(HINT: Conservapedia is NOT a legitimate source.)
I suppose now we’re going to hear about how the kids should ‘vote’ on what they learn? How it’s ‘only fair’ that ID gets a shake?
It’s absurd.
When has ANY child had a say in what they learn in school? Answer: NEVER.
Tim let his ignorance shine out:
Has anyone here ever actually met an atheist that fits this description? I know I haven’t.
Tim
Your’s is one of the most ignorant posts we have had here in a while.
I love the smell of fresh religious insanity in the morning! It smells like… fantasy!
Comment from: Tim
I just love it when people start freaking out about intelligent design.
Almost as much as we love it when religiously insane idiots like you start phreaking out about teh gayz…
Now you folks know how WE feel, seeing the theories of evolution being taught to our kids as scientific “fact”!
I’m sure it must be difficult for the religiously insane, who do not base anything in their lives on facts, just the insane ramblings from their Big Book of Religious Fairy Tales, to consider things like ratinal examination of reality and scientific methodology as tools to come to a conclusion, instead of handling snakes and speaking in tongues.
We don’t teach alchemy or astrology in the science classroom either. Should we start reading entrails again too?
Actually, when you look at the idea or theory behind intelligent design objectively, you begin to see that it makes sense. The best example that comes to mind is the human eye.
Actually, when you look at the idea or theory behind intelligent design, you will see that it in untestable in the science classroom. Which is basically why it cannot be taught in the science classroom – it fails the basic test of scientific study: can we build a repeatable, verifiable test to determine if it is true?
I’ll have to go find the stuff I read on this a while back, but as I recall the paper that was written on I.D. theory concerning the human eye was well thought out and actually grounded in science.
I know of a lot of science fiction novels that are also well thought out and grounded in science. But I’m not hiding from the Thetans or preparing for the Kzinti to invade anytime soon.
P.S.
The main problem I have with people who dismiss I.D. and the possibility that there actually IS a Supreme Being is that they take an absolutist approach to the argument.
The main problem I have with those who support ID as being a scientifically valid theory is that they cannot offer any proof to support their beliefs (which do not even attain the level of scientific hypothesis). Until you can find a way to design a scientific test that would prove or disprove ID, then I would argue that it is you who are being the absolutist here when you expect an untestable faith-based belief to be accepted as a valid scientific theory.
Folks who do not believe in God and deny that there is even the possibility of God’s existence actually have a lot in common with rabid religious zealots! The common thought process is the same, ie. they have a pre-concieved notion about things and simply will not open their minds to other possibilities.
I would ask that you prove this statement. I disagree that the thought process is even similar, let alone the same. Science opens its’ collective mind to possibilities that it can test and verify, and IMHO ID does not allow the possibility of it’s being wrong. And I would think that atheists don’t accept the Invisible Sky Fairy because they can’t find any proof that it exists – sort of the opposite of belief. And that religiously insane idiots such as yourself cannot understand that some people do not feel the need to believe in any brand of occult pagan superstitious nonsense, and have to adjust the atheists’ world view to include a belief system because they cannot conceive of anyone who doesn’t believe in something.
Finally: What: I think Tim’s is one of the most religious posts here in a while, and he needs to curtail his intentional ignorant invisible sky fairy propaganda on a website devoted to non-religious commentary. But I also think that, like the usual religiously insane phreaks around here, he will be unable to stop spreading pagan dren around here.
Timmy
*Sigh*
Good timing though. Because PZ Myers just happens to have an article up right now about how shrimp vision is superior to human vision:
For the whole article, see
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/the_superior_
eyes_of_shrimp.php#more
Now Timmy, why do you suppose the great OZ would give the lowly shrimp, which must not be eaten for it is a shellfish, sight superior to that of the creation which had dominion over the earth? Hmmmmm? Whyforhowcome? And why does the designer have such an aversion to shellfish?
(: tom
What is the definition of “dren”? I see a few different meanings listed at http://www.urbandictionary.com none of which look well accepted.
tom,
Have I talked about religion at all here? No, I have not. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that I agree in principle with the arguments made by a lot of you here – Religion IS man-made! I define religion as man-made tenets and adopted practices thought to get one closer to God.
What I’m talking about is simply whether or not a Supreme Being exists. More specifically, being open to the POSSIBILITY that God exists.
I’ve run into more than a few folks here that simply close their minds to even the POSSIBILITY! THis is actually the opposite of what they want me to do, which is open my mind to the possibility of say, evolution. I am criticised roundly for keeping an open mind by the same folks who keep their minds closed!!!
Now, to be fair I have conversed here with professed Atheists that acknowledge that that God may actually exist. At least they are honest and keep an open mind to possibilites beyond their current understanding.
Which camp are tou in, tom?
tom,
I perceive that in some way you feel threatened when folks like myself post here. THus your “over the top” response!
I can debate rationally with the best of them, my friend. Give it a try.
-Tim
alatham,
How long have you been posting here? You may not remember the many conversations I’ve engaged in a few years back, but I have seen both types of folks – Atheists that vehemently deny even the possibility of God’s existence and those that are keeping an open mind to the possibility!
Tim:
Self delusion is the bread ‘n butter of the relusional.
Do please share, then, your personal definition of this gawd character.
& while you’re about it, provide evidence of the soul.
(this oughta be a good for a few laughs.)
Tim
If you ask nonsensical questions you will get nonsensical answers. You nor anybody else, to my knowledge, has ever given an operational definition of the words “gawd” and “exist” that make the question “Do gawds exist?” anything but nonsensical. You start with a totally unacceptable notion that the question has meaning. It does not and therefore any “answer” that you get, from atheists or otherwise, will be nonsensical.
You say you can “debate rationally with the best of them”. OK then you can start by giving us an operational definition of the words you use. Do it.
Comment from: What
(: tom
What is the definition of “dren”?
I got it from Farscape. I believe it is their equivalent to $h!t…
Comment from: Tim
tom,
Have I talked about religion at all here?
IMHO, yes, you have:
I just love it when people start freaking out about intelligent design.
Now you folks know how WE feel, seeing the theories of evolution being taught to our kids as scientific “fact”!
Perhaps you might be a bit clearer when you talk about how WE feel with regards to evolution. Why, it almost sounds like you’re trying to compare the scientific theory of evolution to a religion, or even imply that it is a religion. And maybe that’s why I thought you were talking about religion.
What I’m talking about is simply whether or not a Supreme Being exists. More specifically, being open to the POSSIBILITY that God exists.
Talk about it all you want – in a religious studies class. If you want to talk about it in a science classroom, perhaps you could focus on trying to prove or disprove it scientifically?
I would also question your statements about evolution as well – they point to your misunderstanding of how science works, and your attempts to inject faith into scientific methodology. There is no opening your mind to the possibility of involved in creating and performing tests, and analyzing the results to create an explanation the supports the results of the testing.
I am criticised roundly for keeping an open mind by the same folks who keep their minds closed!!!
Incorrect – you are criticized for trying to bring untestable faith-based assumptions into the realm of scientific theory. And you also seem unable to comprehend the difference between believing in something no matter what the evidence shows, trying to create an explanaton that fits all the facts, and not believing in something because there is no evidence to support the belief.
Which camp are tou in, tom?
My personal beliefs are just that – personal, and none of your business. But I will say that, scientifically, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of gawd – and so should not be studied in science class.
I can debate rationally with the best of them, my friend. Give it a try.
Perhaps you could heed your own advice?
So far, all I have seen is unsupported statements about an Invisible Sky Fairy that you think others need to be open to the possibility of. I can perfectly understand why challenging your unsupported, unfounded beliefs would be considered over the top by such as you.
And I know that the pagan occult superstitionists are threatened when I make comments like this – they repeatedly remove them from faith based web sites (no matter how politely they are phrased) and refuse to consider any discussion that does not accept their unfounded beliefs as fact.
Funny how the religious suppress dissenting points of view in their own realms, but feel entitiled to spew their religious dreck continuously to those ‘lacking in faith’ on atheist web sites…
Tom
Dreck steeped in dren.
What,
What the H#@ll are you talking about? You make no sense at all.
KA,
I can give my own definition of God, but you know as well as I that there is no way to prove the existence of a spiritual realm using the frame of reference available to us in this physical world.
It’s kinda like trying to imagine an alien life form. If we were to actually encounter one, we would likely not be able to communicate with it or describe it to others who had not seen it.
tom,
Whoa there, big fella…
You are not only jumping, but leaping to conclusions about what I am actually thinking or what I believe in. Please don’t paint me with such a broad brush.
For example, I understand perfectly how science works. I also understand where science leaves off and conjecture masquerading as science begins. The various theories of evolution are a good case in point. Another one is the current theory of “global warming.”
People also get confused about the scientific method and how it works. Remember that true science doesn’t deal in “facts”, but rather assumptions or theories that need to be tested. The problem is, you can’t really “test” some of the theories put forth by those who believe evolution is scientific “fact.” They have filled a lot of the holes in the fossil record, for example with pure conjecture.
I understand that science can explain many phenomena, but there are many things science cannot explain. This does not mean that what science doesn’t have an answer for simply do not (or cannot) exist! To believe so would actually go against the tenets of true science itself.
Finally, if science classes were really focused on teaching instead of pushing only one side of the argument, perhaps we could give our children a more balanced view of the world. If scientific theory is so mighty, what does it have to fear from other theories?
Tim
You are a right-wing-evangelical-BushCo-supporting bafoon. Does that about sum it up?
Comment from: Tim
tom,
Whoa there, big fella…
You are not only jumping, but leaping to conclusions about what I am actually thinking or what I believe in. Please don’t paint me with such a broad brush.
You mean, like the way you’re jumping to conclusions about what atheism is all about? Or the way you’re lumping in the scientific theory of evloution with my theory that anyone who believes in a big book of religious fairy tales is seriously mentally unbalanced?
Funny how it seems to be okay when you’re the one doing the painting…
For example, I understand perfectly how science works.
Is that why you continually misreprensent how science works, what constitutes a scientific theory, and whether intelligent design is even a scientific hypothesis, much less a scintific theory?
I also understand where science leaves off and conjecture masquerading as science begins. The various theories of evolution are a good case in point. Another one is the current theory of “global warming.”
Please check up on the difference between a scientific theory, and the garden variety theory that people come up with every day. Your statement that the various theories of evolution (which lumps in the scientific theory with scientology, religious belief, and my Theory of Religious Insanity as if they all had the same weight scientifically) as being conjecture masquerading as science tells me you have fallen into one of the standard logical fallacies of the religiously insane. Your dismissal of the evidence of global warming (which, if I’m not mistaken, has not yet been proven or disproven enough to be considered a scientific theory – it’s more of a hypothesis as far as I can see) also points to your injection of faith and belief not supported by scintific tests and factual results of said testing into the science classroom.
And you still haven’t told me how you propose we test the theory of intelligent design. Let me know when you come up with that, and then maybe ID could be considered to be discussed in science class as a speculative hypothesis (with less evidence than global climate change, by the way). Until then, you still haven’t shown any reason why ID should be taught in the science classroom…
People also get confused about the scientific method and how it works.
Please edumacate me on the basis of your awesomely extensive scientific studies. Exactly what field of scientific inquiry did you get your first doctorate in? Where can I find your published works on how ID is a valid scientific theory, the proofs of that claim, and how to set up an independent test so I can verify your conclusions?
Remember that true science doesn’t deal in “facts”, but rather assumptions or theories that need to be tested.
Those scientific assumptions and theories are based on repeatable tests that can be objectively observed. If they don’t pass the test, they are abandoned if favor of those that conform to the test data more closely. Can you tell me what the equivalent assumptions and tests are for ID?
The problem is, you can’t really “test” some of the theories put forth by those who believe evolution is scientific “fact.”
And, if you can’t then they’re not a ‘theory’, as far as science is concerned. When they can be tested, if they are found to be lacking then they are amended or abandoned based on the facts observed. Even if you could test ID, would it be amended or abandoned if the facts say that it should?
They have filled a lot of the holes in the fossil record, for example with pure conjecture.
Conjecture which is ready to be proven, and ready to be abandoned, if it is incorrect. Which has actually happened over the course of the scientific theory of evolution’s history. Please enlighten me about the simliar process that has taken place with ID theory.
What exactly is your point here? People don’t just believe in evolution because a big book of religious fairy tales said so, and it is quite offensive to the non-religious when people like you try and make it out to be just another superstitious belief.
I understand that science can explain many phenomena, but there are many things science cannot explain. This does not mean that what science doesn’t have an answer for simply do not (or cannot) exist! To believe so would actually go against the tenets of true science itself.
It also doesn’t mean that any unsupported wild ass fansaties do exist. To believe so, as you appear to be doing, would also go against the tenets of science too.
Funny how it seems to be okay as long as its’ your wild ass fantasies that are being brought into the classroom…
Finally, if science classes were really focused on teaching instead of pushing only one side of the argument, perhaps we could give our children a more balanced view of the world.
Science pushes a particular methodology in evaluating speculation in order to determine whether the speculation can be used to predict what will happpen in the real world. It does not focus on pushing any one side of any argument, but instead tried to provide a framework that can be used to figure out which side of the argument is closer to being completely accurate in its’ application in the real world. Your belief that science is pushing sides of an argument is also quite offensive in terms of being applicable to scintific inquiry, or being used in any discussino of the merits of any particular scientific theory.
If we could avoid exposing our children to pagan occult superstitionist cults, their religiously insane beliefs, and their deviant behavior, perhaps we could give our children a more balanced outlook on life.
If scientific theory is so mighty, what does it have to fear from other theories?
If religion is so mighty, why oh why can’t it stay within its’ own arena, instead of insisting that it be applied and integrated within every other aspect of every human’s life (whether they believe in it or not)?
tom,
You lost me at the mis-spelling of bufoon…
Timmy,
Okay, genius:
mis-pelling = misspelling
bufoon = buffoon
End of English lesson.
Arrrrgghhh! Too much wine! The Nuns who taught me all through grade scholl would be appalled!
Well, I can’t type either, so whip me with a wet noodle…
Actually it’s the keybored’s fault…
OK tom;
Here it is. I’m NOT going to test the theory of intelligent design! I do not even propose we do, in the classroom or elsewhere.
If memory serves me, I don’t think teachers dwell on the testing of evolutionary theory that is taught in our schools either.
It’s kinda like the man-made global warming nonsense being heralded as “scientific” fact. If you take a different view, you are ridiculed and held up for scorn as also believing that the earth is flat!
This is the essence of my disagreement with those who elevate their particular theories by wrapping them with the shiney outergarment of science!
Tim
You are just to stupid to be real. Fess up! Which one of you pranksters here is doing this right-wing-evangelical-BushCo-loving
caricature called Tim.
What (I don’t know),
I am deeply hurt by your insinuation that I am not real! Don’t you remember our many tender conversations from years back?
I think you’ve mistaken What for someone else.
‘Dren’ is a Farscape reference. Scatological.
Good thing, too. You’d lose.
Evolution is the backbone of biology.
Besides which, there are scientists who do that.
Squirming to change the subject, being on thin ice & all.
Even RUPERT MURDOCH, staunch opponent of many years, has ceded it’s a reality.
PS, CO2 can kill ya, ya know.
I am the editor of http://www.ChristianGuideBook.com
I have some questions for the evolution people – 1) Why did we all of a sudden stop evolving? 2) Why are there no monkeys evolving into humans today?
Come on, these are simple to see errors that make it impossible to believe the evolution theory.
I’m only doing as commanded by my Lord – to spread His word throughout the land to all of His people. Please, stop denying there is a God just so you can live in sin.
^ Statement from ignorance.
If you watch an analog clock you cannot honestly state that you witnessed the movement of the minute or hour hands however, the hands move regardless of your inability to see it happen.
Evolution is a fact and humans are evolving. Monkeys are not directly related to humans, however, even if they were, that in no way suggests that their evolution would always result in a human, although, indeed the result could be human-like.
rna2dna: If humans are physically evolving, then what are the changes? What are we evolving to?
I agree, I can’t literally see time pass, but if we are evolving, then we would be able to witness the physical differences taking place. Humans haven’t physically changed in centuries. This is why evolution is a theory, and will always remain to be so.
KA,
It’s kinda surprising to see folks defend the religion of global warming since you folks are all about science!
The fact is, science DOES NOT support the neo-religious dogma that mankind’s activities are somehow causing global warming (or the new buzzword – “climate change”)!
In fact, there is so much science out there that DISPROVES the current thinking that people are finally starting to realize what the global warming crowd’s agenda really is. They are not out to save the planet, that’s for sure!
christianguidebook
We’re not evolving “to” anything. Evolution is not on any plotted path, does not have a plan. Evolution is just gradual change over time for the purpose of adaptation to environment and survival of the species.
We don’t see the changes taking place because it takes so long to happen. For instance, in this video Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye. For one type of eye, it took 250,000 generations of the species for the eye to evolve from a sheath which could merely detect light and shadow, to a camera type eye which could focus clearly on a predator’s face.
http://richarddawkins.net/video/eye_explanation_sm3.mov
When I tried to view the video, I only got the audio portion, so you might have to use your imagination. But Dr. Dawkins still describes quite clearly what he is presenting.
christianguidebook,
[Incidentally, I have been told that the bibel is the only true christian guide book, am I to assume you admit you are your god-idea? Assuming that your christianguidebook isn't the bibel.]
Centuries? You think centuries is a long time? When comparing that time scale to an analog clock we wouldn’t even be able to see the second hand move. However, there have been changes in humans within the centuries time scale. You should be able to name at least one even with a very basic knowledge of human physical attributes within the last centuries. Go ahead, you tell me.
What are we evolving to (you ask)? Clearly, the future is not predetermined.
Just for general amusement, here is a link to a picture of a nautilus (in associtation with the link karen provided in which Dr. Dawkins discusses the evolution of the eye.) [As christians often need things presented with them as the center of attention, do note that the eye isn't the same as the christian eye.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nautilus_profile.jpg
Comment from: christianguidebook
I am the editor of http://www.ChristianGuideBook.com
Good for you! Exactly what do you think you’re going to accomplish around here?
I have some questions for the evolution people – 1) Why did we all of a sudden stop evolving? 2) Why are there no monkeys evolving into humans today?
1) – we didn’t. Microevolutionary changes (of which you are incorrectly and obliquely refer to here) are quite difficult to notice.
How can you even conceive of the changes to a species over millions of years, when your pagan occult superstitions say the world is only 6000 years old?
Come on, these are simple to see errors that make it impossible to believe the evolution theory.
Come on, your theocratic superstitious nonsense has conditioned your mind to make it impossible to utilize rational thought in its’ ravings.
I’m only doing as commanded by my Lord – to spread His word throughout the land to all of His people. Please, stop denying there is a God just so you can live in sin.
I’m only doing as commended by my resoning mind – to show religiously insane idiots like you that your offensive, superstitious nonsense is not appreciated by all, and your ignorance in continuing to shovel your dren is in direct contradiction to the supposedly moral values you claim to follow.
Please, stop trying to foist your Invisible Sky Fairy on rational people by making religiously insane comments on this blog.
Oh, and you can keep your definitions of ’sin’, your mind reading about why atheists choose to reject pagan occult superstitions, your rationale for harassing and percesuting your fellow man if they fail to share your delusional mindset, and your sanctimonious superior attitude about those who are not part of your cult.
Comment from: Tim
tom,
You lost me at the mis-spelling of bufoon…
Funny – the first time it was used, much less spelled incorrectly, was in your comment immediately after mine. Why, it’s almost as if you’re religious in your willful stupidity about science.
Comment from: Tim
OK tom;
Here it is. I’m NOT going to test the theory of intelligent design! I do not even propose we do, in the classroom or elsewhere.
Which would lead me to ask exactly why you think it should be taught in science class, when science class is all about testing scientific theories in order to determine their validity.
Don’t worry – religiously insane idiots like you have a track record of failing to back up their dren with logic and facts – and I certainly don’t expect you’ll stop that now.
If memory serves me, I don’t think teachers dwell on the testing of evolutionary theory that is taught in our schools either.
Check your memory, dude. Teachers in my science classes dwelled on a lot of the other scientific theories, but for each and every theory put forth, we were shown how to devise a way of testing it, and a methodology of how to devise those tests.
Then again, I didn’t take science classes at Bob Jones U…
It’s kinda like the man-made global warming nonsense being heralded as “scientific” fact. If you take a different view, you are ridiculed and held up for scorn as also believing that the earth is flat!
If your different view had some sort of factual basis, unlike the global climate change deniers, you wouldn’t be scorned or ridiculed. That’s for the religiously insane to do when you come up with a scientific theory that disagrees with the pagan occult superstitions in their big book of religious fairy tales.
Funny how you conflate flat earth theory with global climate change. Why, it’s as though you’re religious in your denial of human culpability for some of the climate change!
This is the essence of my disagreement with those who elevate their particular theories by wrapping them with the shiney outergarment of science!
And here we have another attempt to weave religious imagery into a discussion about science. Your disagreement is unsurprisingly lacking in facts, and you utilize a lot of the standard rhetorical tricks of theocratic fundamentalists. And you still haven’t provided one reason why this superstitious nonsense should be taught in the science classroom beside the Theories of Gravity, Relativity, Thermodynamics, or Evolution.
Another religiously insane idiot tries to inject his theocratic superstitions into a rational discussion of science. Yawn…
tom,
Your f’ed up in the head. I won’t bother…