The creationists are BACK

[Uncle Kenny]

It's what Alliebaba does with everything, if you yourself aren't a hardcore christian who takes every word in the Bible as a fact that can't be questioned than you're anti-Christian.

It's a beautiful strategy, you can constantly play the victim card, something that requires no facts.

Is that similar to the "it isn't science, it's belief" justification for believing the incredibly unlikely progressions that are being accepted by evolutionists in some cases? Kool-aid is Kool-aid, no matter who serves it or drinks it, eh?

Has nothing to do what I was talking about, that's just a rant.

If you ask Allie any question at all about the Bible, she takes it as you being anti-Christian for you even "daring" to ask a question.

I'm talking about her individually, not all creationists.

Fair enough. I didn't mean that to be as attacking as it might have seemed. I do understand that Allie seems to be bathing in her Kool-aid, which is ironicly un-Christian and judgemental, but I have learned that it isn't required of someone to learn a religion to be religious.

For the record, I am not a creationist, but I don't like absolutes from either side, especially when it concerns science. It isn't that I dismiss the posibility of ID or the existence of God, I just try not to be narrow in my reasoning, nor biased in my inquiries and pursuit of knowledge.

Reasoned hypothesis and open thinking are essential tools for anyone who wants truth and narrow views hinder solutions, in my opinion. I find that allowing expanded options and theory as well as healthy doses of questioning creates better problem solvers and more intelligent pursuit of answers than narrow "because I say so" approaches which seem unfortunately common on what are they great questions of our universe. By nature they are universal and require expansive thinking, something narrow education and opinion limit greatly. In some ways this might explain why schools that teach both religion and sciences seem to produce more successful academic results than those who are limited to only one or the other.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do non believer hate unalienable rights? Once you can disprove the God Theory you will be proving that the state gives rights, and if the state can give rights they can take them away.

We're talking about US taxpayer dollars being used to fund public science classes. the only things that should be taught in science classes are, well, science.

If you want to teach your kids I.D. fine, if you want your church to fine, but it's not fine that you want my money to teach your beliefs to my future kids.

Who gives rights God or the government?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do non believer hate unalienable rights?

Why do you hate honest and love to lie?

Once you can disprove the God Theory you will be proving that the state gives rights, and if the state can give rights they can take them away.

So god must exist because you need him to exist to defend you fallacious claims?

You've yet to demonstrate how either
A) your god's existence -> rights

or

B) your god's non-existence -> no rights

The FF, at least, were smart enough to realize how stupid your claims are and argue that rights came from 'nature'

Why do you hate honest and love to lie?

You want to talk about lying? I suggest you get a taste of reality. I am the most honest member here.you on the other hand are very low on the totutm pole.

You've yet to demonstrate how either
A) your god's existence -> rights

or

B) your god's non-existence -> no rights

The FF, at least, were smart enough to realize how stupid your claims are and argue that rights came from 'nature'

Who gives rights, God or the government?

 

[JBeukema]

Who gives rights

First you must prove a thing was done before you can ask who did it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who gives rights

First you must prove a thing was done before you can ask who did it.

Simple question who gives rights
God
or
the government?

 

[JBeukema]

Prove x was done, then we can discuss who committed the act

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Prove x was done, then we can discuss who committed the act

It was grounds for the founders to declare independence. Proof enough?

 

[JBeukema]

Their declaration was an act of will. Will and ability do not prove a 'right' to an act. Else I have a right to anally rape you in an alley, as can be proven later on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Their declaration was an act of will. Will and ability do not prove a 'right' to an act. Else I have a right to anally rape you in an alley, as can be proven later on.

You have certain rights that were spelled out in the declaration of Independence, nothing more nothing less. And they are not given by the government.

 

[JBeukema]

You have certain rights that were spelled out in the declaration of Independence, nothing more nothing less.

So you've no right to your property? I'll be by later to pick up your- er, my TV

And they are not given by the government.

1) prove your 'rights' exist
2) prove they were 'given' by anything/one
3) demonstrate who gave them to you

Of course, if rights were given, they can surely be taken away by the same... Which means god-given rights can't be inalienable, so I'm curious as to where you'll go with this. The FF realized this and didn't claim their rights came from God for that very reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Their declaration was an act of will. Will and ability do not prove a 'right' to an act. Else I have a right to anally rape you in an alley, as can be proven later on.

You have certain rights that were spelled out in the declaration of Independence, nothing more nothing less. And they are not given by the government.

So they were given by the guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence? lol, who were self appointed spokespersons for God?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who gives rights

First you must prove a thing was done before you can ask who did it.

Simple question who gives rights
God
or
the government?

God is an unproven idea believed in on faith. The government is real. If rights come from an entity that cannot even be demonstrated to exist,

the rights don't exist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First you must prove a thing was done before you can ask who did it.

Simple question who gives rights
God
or
the government?

God is an unproven idea believed in on faith. The government is real. If rights come from an entity that cannot even be demonstrated to exist,

the rights don't exist.

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

 

[JBeukema]

Simple question who gives rights
God
or
the government?

God is an unproven idea believed in on faith. The government is real. If rights come from an entity that cannot even be demonstrated to exist,

the rights don't exist.

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

Prove these rights exist.

Also, give me your wallet, since you've no right to it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have certain rights that were spelled out in the declaration of Independence, nothing more nothing less.

So you've no right to your property? I'll be by later to pick up your- er, my TV

And they are not given by the government.

1) prove your 'rights' exist
2) prove they were 'given' by anything/one
3) demonstrate who gave them to you

Of course, if rights were given, they can surely be taken away by the same... Which means god-given rights can't be inalienable, so I'm curious as to where you'll go with this. The FF realized this and didn't claim their rights came from God for that very reason.

So you've no right to your property? I'll be by later to pick up your- er, my TV

You said that not me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

God is an unproven idea believed in on faith. The government is real. If rights come from an entity that cannot even be demonstrated to exist,

the rights don't exist.

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

Prove these rights exist.

Also, give me your wallet, since you've no right to it.

It's on a government document called the Declaration of Independence. It's written in the bill of rights.

 

[gekaap]

Gravity is just a theory too

Gravity is a 100% proven theory that has been scientifically verified and can be repeated.

Actually, it's not. There is no "theory of gravity" there is the "law of gravity." In the scientific process, a law is something that is accepted without proof, similar to an axiom in math. It is accepted as universally true without any scientific proof or experimentation, because it can be observed empirically. They are general and fairly simple to articulate.

On the other hand, a theory is a complex explanation of phenomena. It involves rigorous experimental testing to confirm the validity of the theory. Scientific theories have a necessary flexibility, in that they may be amended (or even abandoned if necessary) as new information continues to be discovered. But when accepted by the scientific community, it is usually because they are considered to be as proven true as can reasonably be hoped for. Hence, Einstein's theories of special and general relativity continue to bear the name "theory" even though they have been systematically and thoroughly proven to be true.

[/quote]The so called pseudo theory of evolution has not been proven, nor is it a verifiable fact that can be repeated in the lab..[/QUOTE]

Actually, there's a problem with nomenclature here. Often times people say that a theory is something not yet proven, but when people talk about such things they're confusing a scientific theory with a scientific hypothesis. Evolution is not a hypothesis. Second problem is that what is often called the "theory" of evolution is really a misnomer. Evolution is actually more of a scientific law. It can be accepted as a true concept because it can be readily seen empirically by anyone who simply looks at it, much like the effects of gravity are readily visible to anyone who simply looks. There are, however theories of evolution, i.e. theories as to the many different mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and why those mechanisms happen. For example, one theory holds that natural selection allows a given trait to become more common within a given population over successive generations. Another theory explains how a beneficial trait can actually diminish over successive generations. There are other theories as to how harmful traits can become widespread over successive generations. There are theories as to how vestigial traits can remain common in a population, or can be eliminated from a gene pool, over time.

 

[Old Rocks]

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

Prove these rights exist.

Also, give me your wallet, since you've no right to it.

It's on a government document called the Declaration of Independence. It's written in the bill of rights.

Uh, bigrebnc, the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And if these rights are God given, how come so many men had to die to bring them into effect in just the areas of the world where they actually are part of the law?

The Bill of Rights is man created because of the hard lessons learned when men are not allowed these freedoms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Prove these rights exist.

Also, give me your wallet, since you've no right to it.

It's on a government document called the Declaration of Independence. It's written in the bill of rights.

Uh, bigrebnc, the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And if these rights are God given, how come so many men had to die to bring them into effect in just the areas of the world where they actually are part of the law?

The Bill of Rights is man created because of the hard lessons learned when men are not allowed these freedoms.

the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence.

Two seperate documents The bill of rights are rights that the government is supposed to protect.

Declaration of Independence was crated break away from the king who was tramppling on those God given rights.

 

[JBeukema]

the DoI has no legal weight