So, now that Palin is not seeking re-election.....

[audtatious]

The Supreme Court agrees with me, so I would say that my viewpoint is more correct. Of course, Matt knows more than the Supreme Court...

Really? In what case?

Epperson v. Arkansas set that schools cannot forbid teaching of evolutionEdwards v. Aguillard simply stopped Louisiana from forcing teaching creationism because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

So, show me where the SCOTUS has your viewpoint as they seem to willfully stay away from the issue?

Nah, you're just willfully ignorant.

Troll troll troll your boat....Love the personal attacks, keep it up.

[audtatious]

To gain some credibility?

If there is a huge conspiracy against Creationism, what is the motive? This thread is full of tinfoil hattery.

Thanks, Bill O.

Either have a discussion or don't post in the politics forum.

[ishkabibble]

Why don't you watch the video I posted?

I did:

Polonium halos debunked: http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...t.htm

Rapid coal formation debunked: http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/coal.htm

Hydroplate formation debunked: http://www.answersincreation.o...y.htm (Note that this is a Creationist website debunking the theory)

Awaiting your response, hopefully it's more substantive than "LOL whatever".

[ishkabibble]

Either have a discussion or don't post in the politics forum.

See below; the same goes to you. Funny you say that when you have trolled more than anyone else on this forum. You are one of the most capable debaters on this forum, but sadly more often then not, you just choose to vent.

What for? I mean seriously, we already know the outcome. Every scientist agrees there is no God just as every scientist agrees that the earth is heating due to mans expelling of the pollution called CO2. Evolution withstands scientific scrutiny, just ignore the holes....

We could always try and find a far left liberal to submit such a thing. They seem to do everything based on feelings which is relative to spiritualism.

[ishkabibble]

So, show me where the SCOTUS has your viewpoint as they seem to willfully stay away from the issue?

Edwards v. Aguillard simply stopped Louisiana from forcing teaching creationism because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

If Creationism or Intelligent Design are valid science and presented in an objective manner, they will not violate the Establishment Clause. So, it's not as simple as you state.

Troll troll troll your boat....Love the personal attacks, keep it up.

No more a troll or personal attack than your insinuation that I was not open-minded. Go ahead and couch it as a personal attack so you can ban me *shrug*

"Willfully ignorant" means that you willfully ignore the facts that nearly all Creationist arguments have been debunked, and that there is far more scientific evidence for evolution than creationism.

[audtatious]

If Creationism or Intelligent Design are valid science and presented in an objective manner, they will not violate the Establishment Clause. So, it's not as simple as you state.

Show me where I stated it was a science? I have never stated such a thing which is why I scoff at any form of "peer driven scientific review" as there is no "provable" science with ID nor creationism. If your previous statement in reference to SCOTUS sharing your viewpoint is that creationism is not a science then I would agree with you as it's not.

No more a troll or personal attack than your insinuation that I was not open-minded. Go ahead and couch it as a personal attack so you can ban me *shrug*

"Willfully ignorant" means that you willfully ignore the facts that nearly all Creationist arguments have been debunked, and that there is far more scientific evidence for evolution than creationism.

As far as open-minded that was not personally directed at you in the first place or I would have said so. I am also fully aware of the argument and status of evolution vs creationism and my whole point is it does no harm to discuss creationism in school as long as it is a generalized overview of the idea itself, not any of the "religious significance" which you seem to despise.

Hell, my daughter was taught about UFO's in school, what's the difference between spending a day discussing that topic vs creationism?

[Kohster]

Actually, our religion states that there isn't any conflict between religion and evolution. Maybe you shouldn't make faulty assumptions that make you look foolish kiddo.

[dusred]

I did:

Polonium halos debunked: http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...t.htm

Rapid coal formation debunked: http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/coal.htm

Hydroplate formation debunked: http://www.answersincreation.o...y.htm (Note that this is a Creationist website debunking the theory)

Awaiting your response, hopefully it's more substantive than "LOL whatever".

LOL! Whatever. Just kidding.

So, his theory is proved wrong by another theory. Nice.

edit-

I guess it's not theory. Like I said, scientists find whatever they are looking for when it comes to evolution or Creationism. Gentry was looking for things that made the earth young and the guys who debunked his science were looking for something that would "prove" Gentry wrong.

I'll bet if you looked into the background of Dr. Gentry I'll bet he's a religious man and I'll bet if you look into the background of the others I'll bet they are non-religious.

[dusred]

Actually, our religion states that there isn't any conflict between religion and evolution. Maybe you shouldn't make faulty assumptions that make you look foolish kiddo.

I would respond but I would be banned from this forum. So I won't.

[audtatious]

As a side-note to this thread....

Jacko, bite me....if you wanted to continue being a member of this board you should have heeded others direction and not constantly gone off the deep end.

[heliochrome85]

lulz. i take it you got his emails too.

[Cold_Zero]

but discount all of Evolution because of a perceived minor flaw or lack of evidence.

Since evolutionary theory is hinged on the assertion that all life spawned from a single celled organism, 'evolved' from one kingdom to another, I wouldn't call the genetic questions that I asked perceived minor flaws. It's a bit of an understatement.

[Kohster]

I would respond but I would be banned from this forum. So I won't.

Pretty gay reply.

[Cold_Zero]

The theory of evolution is not a war on anything except ignorance. It has holes/gaps (like most theories do), but there is not currently a better model to replace it.

If it is not a 'war' as you state, then why did I spend the majority of time in my archeology, geography and classics classes at a state run university being lectured to by the professors attempting to 'debunk' the bible and Christianity? I wonder if school children in Taiwan go through the same thing? "Today class we are going to attempt to debunk Buddhism..."

[Cold_Zero]

Pretty gay reply.

Uh no, Dusred made the wise choice. To take the high road. Quit trying to goad him into getting banned.

[themadscientist]

I wonder if school children in Taiwan go through the same thing? "Today class we are going to attempt to debunk Buddhism..."

But wouldn't that be the "the Christian thing to do"?

[audtatious]

lulz. i take it you got his emails too.

Yep

At first I thought it was Ish

[Kohster]

I'm not trying to goad anyone, just thought dusred was capable of making a rational reply. What he said is such a cop out. I guess he can't fathom that there are religions that have reconciled evolution and their own beliefs.

I also have an intense disdain for people (especially ones who aren't from the same religion) who tell me that I should "get reading your bible."
Modified by Kohster at 7:12 AM 7/17/2009

[Kohster]

I wonder if school children in Taiwan go through the same thing? "Today class we are going to attempt to debunk Buddhism..."

Actually, that would never happen because evolution and buddhism go hand in hand and most buddhists view evolution as fact.

[heliochrome85]

i was quite surprised. Namely because the email was just flat out wrong. Seeing how he reads these threads, im sure its just easier to see the response here, than to respond to him via email.

Jacko- you are just plain wrong.

[dusred]

Pretty gay reply.

Very touchy subject to many people. Emotions run high, we don't allow it. Breaking this rule is grounds for an immediate ban without warning

In this thread we've let it slip a little since we 'were' all being civil about it but I think I'm on thin ice already so I'm not pushin it.

[Kohster]

In this thread we've let it slip a little since we 'were' all being civil about it but I think I'm on thin ice already so I'm not pushin it.

So if we were talking face to face you would have no issue with saying it?

[audtatious]

Dude, pressing dusred has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Leave it alone.

[Kohster]

Sorry. Just seems like a ghey move to say something like "if it weren't for getting banned I would totally put you in your place."

Dusred, if ur so afraid of getting banned then email me what you want to say at [email protected]

[audtatious]

Judgment sought against Palin in 'Juneteenth' suit

By RACHEL D'ORO (AP) – 1 hour ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Friday to declare that she broke state law two years ago when she failed to issue a proclamation for a celebration commemorating the freeing of U.S. slaves.

Plaintiffs also sought a retroactive proclamation for the 2007 Juneteenth celebration from Palin, or — with her July 26 resignation looming — from the governor's office, said Gregory Charles Royal, a Washington, D.C., musician, who filed the suit in March.

"You just can't ignore laws," he said.

The Alaska Legislature had passed a measure directing the governor to issue a proclamation to commemorate Juneteenth, which marks June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers arrived in Texas and announced the end of slavery. Several other states also officially commemorate Juneteenth.

The motion for a default judgment filed Friday claims Palin failed to answer the allegations in the lawsuit by a June 19 deadline, and still has not responded. According to the court document, the governor's Juneau office refused to accept another copy of the complaint Tuesday.

Process server Jack Dayton said a staffer in the governor's office would not accept the documents from him.

"You're the governor, doggone it," Dayton said. "It would be in your best interest to take it."

Dayton did successfully serve another set of the documents to the state attorney general's office in Juneau.

Margaret Paton-Walsh, an assistant attorney general, said no deadline was missed because the plaintiffs did not properly serve all the correct state entities initially.

Paton-Walsh also said the proclamation was not issued in 2007 because of a clerical error.

"This slipped through the cracks and it's my understanding that the governor is going to issue the 2007 proclamation," she said. "A very big deal is being made out of a very small clerical error."

Royal said the oversight had a significant impact on a Juneteenth festival in Anchorage that year because it lacked the governor's recognition, likely discouraging community and vendor involvement.

"As a result of the proclamation not being issued, some suffered financial loss," he said.

The case originally was filed in Washington in March and was later transferred to the U.S. District Court of Alaska after adding Eagle River resident Kim Chatman as a plaintiff.

Chatman also has filed an ethics complaint against Palin. That complaint, which is among the few still active, alleges Palin is misusing the governor's office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through a legal defense fund.

The fund was set up by supporters to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against the governor. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees. Most of the complaints have been dismissed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a wonderful use of state and federal funds. As for the second allegation via Chatman, didn't Hillary do something similar to pay off her campaign bills?

[Kohster]

In the future, Its better if you just post a link to an article.

[Kohster]

I'll bet if you looked into the background of Dr. Gentry I'll bet he's a religious man and I'll bet if you look into the background of the others I'll bet they are non-religious.

I bet if you actually read ish's post that destroyed the evidence that Dr. Robert "Quack" Gentry presented, you would've noticed that some of his detractors are from his own church. Lmao.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I'm talking about the the scientific proof of evolution vs creationism. Which do you endorse? Both have scientific evidence that they are true. Just because one has more it doesn't necessarily mean that it is more true. "Scientists" look so hard to find "proof" that we all evolved from apes and they don't even consider that creationism 'might' be true. They already have in their minds what they are going to find.

Please explain to me how evolution can survive scientific scrutiny? Please provide concrete examples. LOL! Yeah. . . if there were concrete examples we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Endorse? Is this a shoe deal?

Creationism is most likely wrong, and evolution is most likely right. Hows that for an endorsement?

Creationism, to be held as a serious scientific theory, would first require substantial scientific evidence of a creator. Where is it?

Evolution, on the other hand, requires substantial scientific evidence of two things: one, that a species can adapt over time and become something else. We CAN prove that. Don't give me that macro vs micro evolution business, they're the same damn thing. It then needs evidence of a "primordial soup," which we don't have.

I'm perfectly fine with belief in Creationism. It doesn't hurt anything, when not called a science. When taught in a science class, though, then we have an issue.

Why is there not an outcry against the teaching of the theory of gravity (which is still a theory, after all), from the pro-graviton people?

[Kohster]

http://Www.theflatearthsociety.org

[audtatious]

In the future, Its better if you just post a link to an article.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q...AAjGM

Not hard to find an AP article