Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[JakeStarkey]

The origins of life or the creation of the universe is not what evolution is about.

Do you understand that?

Your analogy is a false derivation of two incompatible concepts.

 

[kaz]

Why has this "missing link" become so elusive to scientists in it's claim that we share an ancestry with apes? Apparently it requires more faith to believe that ALL life evolved from one moment in time, known as the miracle of life, than to say all life was individually created.

shakles, all evolution theory and empirical data can do in the long run is suggest, but its suggestions about the origin of species has nothing to do with creation.

I was comparing evolutionary theory to the belief of creationism, suggesting that there would need to be more faith (by definition) to believe in the evolutionary theory. The conceived idea that ALL life can be proven (without exception) to have traced itself back [evolve] from that same exact single moment in our earth's development, referred to as "the miracle of life". Now to suggest that each group of species was individually created would require much less of a leap of belief to take.

If you define creationism as the strict 6,000 old year theory, then I have to disagree as science would leave us seriously wondering why God created this 6,000 years ago and yet did it in a way to make us believe the universe is billions of years old and there are endless bones and carbon dating implying creatures have lived on the earth for at least millions of them.

However, if you believe that God created the universe in his own way and the bible is figurative in that story, then you're certainly right regarding the massive holes and leaps in the story of evolution.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

single payer is not socialism

Setting the record straight on the definition of Socialized Medicine.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Date: 1937
: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation

Merriam-Webster Search for iPhone

 

[JakeStarkey]

single payer is not socialism

Setting the record straight on the definition of Socialized Medicine.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Date: 1937
: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation

Merriam-Webster Search for iPhone

Your definition is 76 years out of date and does not invalidate at all but confirms the one I gave. Single payer is merely an option for private customers to compete for a payer.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

single payer is not socialism

Setting the record straight on the definition of Socialized Medicine.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Date: 1937
: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation

Merriam-Webster Search for iPhone

Your definition is 76 years out of date and does not invalidate at all but confirms the one I gave. Single payer is merely an option for private customers to compete for a payer.

I seriously doubt the definition of socialism, or even communism for that matter, has changed in 76 years. Anytime you tinker with a mandate of government control system to meet the needs of the population, supported through taxpayer funding, you are flirting with socialized medicine. You can't tell me otherwise based on that definition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I gave you time to fess up. Your link leads to a box for typing in the search word, "socialism", which leads to a restatement of mine. Regulation of an economy is not socialism unless the government runs the industry, hiring and firing and paying the employees, operating all of the facilities etc, like the VA. so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun noun: socialism 1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. https://www.google.com/#q=socialism+definition

By both your comment and the definition we find that Obama is not a socialist. And, by the by, my VA and military experiences since the 1970s have almost always surpassed private industry, with the single exception of Trinity Mother Francis, in Tyler, Texas, where I was referred by VA, which also picked up any additional expenses. Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

shakles and kaz both have fail. Next.

 

[Wildman]

MY POINT OF VIEW !

if you believe in evolution..., you are a monkeys Uncle


if you believe in creation, you are a child of GOD

i believe in Creavolution

 

[JakeStarkey]

Evolution is about the origin of species, while creation is about First Cause.

They are not the same thing.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

JakeStarkey I supplied the definition to the term "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" NOT socialism. You are really out to make yourself look like a complete idiot if you really want to use one definition to try and make it fit with another, they are two separate terms. Here is yet another source providing the definition of "socialized medicine" NOT socialism.

Socialized Medicine
A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation.
socialized medicine - definition of socialized medicine by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Also I would be so glad if you could provide me with a post to which I specifically said Obama is a socialist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about creationism.

You could ask a mod about the OP rules in political forums and start another thread if that is what you want.

Now, as far as government socialized medicine for the military, the VA, medicare, and Medicaid, the gov has done well, in my opinion. But that's just an opinion. So open another thread if you want to discuss it.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Actually, it comes as no surprise to me that you aren't smart enough to know that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

Dumbass.

You are the dumbass.

Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

It's in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That means separation of church and state, dumbass.

Actually, the Constitution says that no law may be passed impeding religious thought in anyway. That would seem to include education.

The constitution says no such thing. The constitution is silent on "thinking." Try reading it again and pay attention this time.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Actually, it comes as no surprise to me that you aren't smart enough to know that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

Dumbass.

You are the dumbass.

Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

It's in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That means separation of church and state, dumbass.

No.. it does not.. dumbass

It means that government shall not establish a state church or religion

So if we don't have separation of churhc and state as you claim, than what is the state religion?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Anyone who quotes "separation of church and state" really has no historical concept of what the Founders had originally intended by the First Amendment. Those very words are found nowhere in the United States Constitution and is not supported by historical fact, nor is it the basis to which our Founders viewed religion. Try doing some research into United States History.

Try some basic logic and reading comprehension.

So, if we don't have separation of church and state, what is the official religion of the U.S. Government?

It seems obvious we are in need of some education on the understanding and relevance of the First Amendment. The left profess that it means all "public" display of religion be forbidden, but then get tripped up when they have to explain when Congress must ALSO not "prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is two segments to the first amendment addressing TWO concerns of government. Had there been a need to fully prohibit religion all together, the Founders simply would have stated "Congress shall make no law towards an establishment of religion". However the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof . It's basic logic and reading comprehension.

When the First Amendment was being discussed by the House Select Committee on August 15,1789, one possible version stated:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed"[1]

However that version was REJECTED as Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York stated the Select Committee's version:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."[2]

James Madison then proposed the insertion of the word "national" before religion, but this was not accepted. Madison's interpretation of the wording was:

"That Congress should not establish a religion, and embrace the legal worship of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."[3]

Congressman Benjamin Huntington, son of the prestigious governor of Connecticut, protested that:

"The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion."[4]

Congressman Huntington then made the suggestion:

"The Amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all."[5]

Madison then responded agreeably to Congressman Huntington and Congresan Sylvester, that he:

".....believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two [Congregational and Angelican] combined and ESTABLISH a religion to which they would COMPEL OTHERS TO CONFORM."[6]



There's that word "Establishment" and the TRUE concerns of the Founders, a SINGLE sect or denomination to which all other religious denominations must conform to. Those who profess no religion at all was not the overall focus surrounding the First Amendment (sorry to deflate those views that presumably think otherwise).

Should you wish to need further examples surrounding the TRUE intent of the First Amendment, I have plenty more sources and quotes that I can include in another reply. To fully comprehend it's meaning, you must first have the basic understanding of the word "establishment", before you go on citing some other quote that has nothing to do with the final interpretation of the First Amendment.



SOURCES:

[1]Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789, the House Select version of the First Amendment. Aunals of the Congress of the United States - First Congress (Washington D.C. : Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 434 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 1991) p. 27, Edwin S. Gaustad, Neither King nor Prelate - Religion and the New Nation, 1776-1826 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 1993), p. 157

[2]Congress of the United States of America August 15,1789, Peter Sylvester of New York debating the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11

[3] Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789 James Madison in the debates on the First Amendment. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[4] Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington, in the debates on the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991),p. 7

[5]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington proposing adjustment to the wording of the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[6]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, James Madison's response to Benjamin Huntington and Peter Sylvester regarding the First Amendment. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founder's Constitution, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), Vol. V, p. 93 M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers-The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, Inc, 1991), p. 12

You completely failed to answer the logic of my question?

If the constitution doesn't guarantee the separation of church and state as you claim, than what is the state religion?

You can't answer that because the 1st amendment does guarantee separation of church and state.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Creationism is a theory like any other.

I don't see how a mention of it along with all the others is a problem.

Really is it so tough to say, "There are several theories regarding the inception of life on the planet and they are..."?

After all we do not know with any certainty how life began or how the universe came into being. All we have are theories.

Creationism is not a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Therefore, it does not belong in a SCIENCE class.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Try some basic logic and reading comprehension.

So, if we don't have separation of church and state, what is the official religion of the U.S. Government?

It seems obvious we are in need of some education on the understanding and relevance of the First Amendment. The left profess that it means all "public" display of religion be forbidden, but then get tripped up when they have to explain when Congress must ALSO not "prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is two segments to the first amendment addressing TWO concerns of government. Had there been a need to fully prohibit religion all together, the Founders simply would have stated "Congress shall make no law towards an establishment of religion". However the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof . It's basic logic and reading comprehension.

When the First Amendment was being discussed by the House Select Committee on August 15,1789, one possible version stated:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed"[1]

However that version was REJECTED as Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York stated the Select Committee's version:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."[2]

James Madison then proposed the insertion of the word "national" before religion, but this was not accepted. Madison's interpretation of the wording was:

"That Congress should not establish a religion, and embrace the legal worship of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."[3]

Congressman Benjamin Huntington, son of the prestigious governor of Connecticut, protested that:

"The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion."[4]

Congressman Huntington then made the suggestion:

"The Amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all."[5]

Madison then responded agreeably to Congressman Huntington and Congresan Sylvester, that he:

".....believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two [Congregational and Angelican] combined and ESTABLISH a religion to which they would COMPEL OTHERS TO CONFORM."[6]



There's that word "Establishment" and the TRUE concerns of the Founders, a SINGLE sect or denomination to which all other religious denominations must conform to. Those who profess no religion at all was not the overall focus surrounding the First Amendment (sorry to deflate those views that presumably think otherwise).

Should you wish to need further examples surrounding the TRUE intent of the First Amendment, I have plenty more sources and quotes that I can include in another reply. To fully comprehend it's meaning, you must first have the basic understanding of the word "establishment", before you go on citing some other quote that has nothing to do with the final interpretation of the First Amendment.



SOURCES:

[1]Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789, the House Select version of the First Amendment. Aunals of the Congress of the United States - First Congress (Washington D.C. : Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 434 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 1991) p. 27, Edwin S. Gaustad, Neither King nor Prelate - Religion and the New Nation, 1776-1826 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 1993), p. 157

[2]Congress of the United States of America August 15,1789, Peter Sylvester of New York debating the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11

[3] Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789 James Madison in the debates on the First Amendment. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[4] Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington, in the debates on the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991),p. 7

[5]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington proposing adjustment to the wording of the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[6]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, James Madison's response to Benjamin Huntington and Peter Sylvester regarding the First Amendment. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founder's Constitution, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), Vol. V, p. 93 M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers-The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, Inc, 1991), p. 12

You completely failed to answer the logic of my question?

If the constitution doesn't guarantee the separation of church and state as you claim, than what is the state religion?

You can't answer that because the 1st amendment does guarantee separation of church and state.

No it is not about separation of church and state, if you were able to follow history, it's about government allowing the freedom of religion of all denominations to freely worship according to their beliefs. There is nothing in history or the drafting of the first amendment that speaks of the REMOVAL of religion to instill a "secular" form of view in its place. Government was meant to "get out if the way" and allow all denominations to openly express their beliefs. You have to know what is meant by the word ESTABLISHMENT in the context of the Founders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's about all religious thought being permitted, but it does not guarantee absolute religious expression.

You can't jump up in a school room and start praying in tongues.

Or proselytizing your class mate while class is in session.

Why is this hard for folks to understand? You can witness between classes on your own time.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It's about all religious thought being permitted, but it does not guarantee absolute religious expression.

You can't jump up in a school room and start praying in tongues.

Or proselytizing your class mate while class is in session.

Why is this hard for folks to understand? You can witness between classes on your own time.

If you were the least bit knowledgeable about our nations history, you would know its not about worship in school as no such actions ever took place. Early schools did allow for silent prayer in schools and included the bible among many other important teachings. With all the values instilled in during the infancy of our nation, there was no signs they suffered from the problems of broken families, teen pregnancies as well as abandoned young single mothers, like we have today. Say what you will about "religion", but those values which promote a solid family unit with a respect of elders, are nowhere to be found in our nation's society today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You clearly don't know our history, shakles.

Some schools had prayer and bible, some schools didn't.

We have always had "broken families, teen pregnancies as well as abandoned young single mothers" in our histories.

We also had, during the good old days, murderous racism and genocide, sexism, ageism, and other sins against God's love for humanity.

Step off

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You clearly don't know our history, shakles.

Some schools had prayer and bible, some schools didn't.

We have always had "broken families, teen pregnancies as well as abandoned young single mothers" in our histories.

We also had, during the good old days, murderous racism and genocide, sexism, ageism, and other sins against God's love for humanity.

Step off

JakeStarkey, clearly our nation didn't have teen pregnancies, and broken families close to what we have today. Try looking back to the 1800s and find me some cases where our nation suffered from broken families to the overwhelming degree we see in society today.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Maybe Texas could teach teach economics????

That topic is surely lacking. Creationism just seems like a waste of time.