When it comes to Prayer 76% of Americans Don't Give a **** About the Constitution

[Sultan Of Swing]

Like tribalism?

What do you mean by that?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You mean you'll just tiptoe around it and skate by it. That's how you'll rip it to shreds.

In the meantime you take your advice and give it to your fellows. I don't want or need it, bro.

No, I won't tiptoe around it and skate by it. Not by a long shot. But I won't be a part of hijacking a thread about prayer in schools to creation v. evolution. We'll present the evidence, we'll define science and the scientific method and show clearly how "creation science" does not fit that definition. Not that scientifically illiterate people like you will be convinced or grasp what's being said; but enough that any right thinking person would be forced to conclude that there is more evidence for evolution than any other hypothesis or theory out there; and that creationism can't even be called "theory" nor "creation science" a 'science". But not here.

 

[Demonslayer]

they teach macro-evolution as fact when it isn't fact

That's because it is as good as fact.

it is taught based on some undefined, unknown theory of abiogenesis

It isn't. When I learned about evolution in school there was no mention of abiogenesis at all. It simply isn't part of the standard evolutionary discussion.

They certainly do not teach that there was any god involved and as a matter of fact they disdain and frown at the very thought

Which God should they teach created the world? Yours? Why?

Why Genesis instead of Nyx, Mbombo, Tepeu & Gucumatz, Tawa, Awonawilona, Pangu, Rangi and Papa, Eurynome, Purusha, Tiamat, Erebus and Gaea, Takamagahara or any of the others?

That's not very objective.

To be truly objective you'd have to teach them all. Are you truly objective, or on second consideration, are you biased to your particular creation myth and would ONLY accept the teaching of that ONE creation story in our schools?

Because if you would only accept the one, that's not very objective. After all, each and every creation myth has the same amount of empirical evidence to back it up.

 

[Demonslayer]

Creation science is very real

Please provide one single "Creation Science" hypothesis and testing cycle. What tests were done? What were the results? How did the analysis of the results either support or refute the hypothesis?

The scientific method is a specific thing. If you don't follow the scientific method, it is not science.

 

[First Baseman]

No, I won't tiptoe around it and skate by it. Not by a long shot. But I won't be a part of hijacking a thread about prayer in schools to creation v. evolution. We'll present the evidence, we'll define science and the scientific method and show clearly how "creation science" does not fit that definition. Not that scientifically illiterate people like you will be convinced or grasp what's being said; but enough that any right thinking person would be forced to conclude that there is more evidence for evolution than any other hypothesis or theory out there; and that creationism can't even be called "theory" nor "creation science" a 'science". But not here.

icr.org

When you have finished reading all of it and debunked everything it says, come see me and we'll talk. In the meantime I'm not interested in your opinions or your theories or your scientists' theories.

 

[First Baseman]

Please provide one single "Creation Science" hypothesis and testing cycle. What tests were done? What were the results? How did the analysis of the results either support or refute the hypothesis?

The scientific method is a specific thing. If you don't follow the scientific method, it is not science.

icr.org

When you have finished reading all of it and debunked everything it says, come see me and we'll talk. In the meantime I'm not interested in your opinions or your theories or your scientists' theories.

 

[McBell]

The founding fathers never meant for anyone to practice religion in the USA at all. As a matter of fact the 1st amendment right to religion is just to be ignored and was only put there for political correctness. Religion should be discouraged and therefore unproven theories should be taught in science classes as fact. Abiogenesis is a wild theory at best but children are taught "around" it. Who cares? Religion is to be discouraged at all costs! Teach any old lie or theory but keep religion away from our classrooms!

You are merely upset because your favorite lies and unproven claims are not the ones being taught.

 

[McBell]

Wrong. They teach macro-evolution as fact when it isn't fact and it is taught based on some undefined, unknown theory of abiogenesis. They certainly do not teach that there was any god involved and as a matter of fact they disdain and frown at the very thought. That's not very objective. Oh well. It's PC, after all, so it must be okay.

Creation science is well defined on this site icr.org. Creation science is very real and has just as much validity as assumed theoretical science does, even more so to many theists. Atheists need to get their heads out of their duffle bags and sniff the possibility that a divine being at least may have been and probably was involved in creation. A big bang as the result of unexplainable but only assumed theories isn't factual science.

Wrong.
What part?
The whole damn above quoted post.

Science is to be taught in science class.
Not wishful thinking.

 

[Skwim]

NewGuyOnTheBlock

icr.org

When you have finished reading all of it and debunked everything it says, come see me and we'll talk. In the meantime I'm not interested in your opinions or your theories or your scientists' theories.

Demonslayer

icr.org

When you have finished reading all of it and debunked everything it says, come see me and we'll talk. In the meantime I'm not interested in your opinions or your theories or your scientists' theories.

FYI, arguing by Read-The-Link is the dodge of the intellectually challenged................... Thought you might like to know where you stand.


.

 

[McBell]

icr.org

When you have finished reading all of it and debunked everything it says, come see me and we'll talk. In the meantime I'm not interested in your opinions or your theories or your scientists' theories.

sticking your head in the sand does not make the truth go away.

 

[Demonslayer]

I'm not interested in your opinions or your theories or your scientists' theories.

Hopefully you don't float off the Earth by not caring about the theory of gravity.

 

[Demonslayer]

icr.org

When you have finished reading all of it and debunked everything it says, come see me and we'll talk

I see no hypothesis/testing cycles. I see a load of supposition and claims.

 

[crossfire]

Why? I believe preserving culture, tradition etc. is important. At least the good parts.

What do you mean by that?

Like tribalism?

This:

It's just a little prayer at the start of the day. Christianity is the cultural religion, if a school wishes to respect that fine by me. Buddhism and Hinduism aren't.

Sorry to break this to you, but the "cultural" expressions of Christianity come from European paganism. There was a culture/tribal kerfuffel in the early Church as to whether Gentile Christians were to be held to Jewish cultural laws. The conclusion was "no," as Christians were guided by conscience rather than cultural nomos.

 

[Scott C.]

No. But it can sure equate to ignorance of the constitution and its intents.

If the Supreme Court makes a 5-4 decision, one can hardly say that the four are ignorant of the constitution and it's tenants. Yet 5-4 becomes the law and the official constitutional interpretation. If John Doe Public sides with the four in opposition, that hardly constitutes ignorance either. The same goes for a 6-3 decision. If John Doe Public consistently disagrees with unanimous decisions, he may be nuts.[/QUOTE]

 

[metis]

If the Supreme Court makes a 5-4 decision, one can hardly say that the four are ignorant of the constitution and it's tenants. Yet 5-4 becomes the law and the official constitutional interpretation. If John Doe Public sides with the four in opposition, that hardly constitutes ignorance either. The same goes for a 6-3 decision. If John Doe Public consistently disagrees with unanimous decisions, he may be nuts.

The dissenting opinion, which I tend to agree with btw, is sharply critical of the majority opinion because they felt it not only was politically biased (all five appointees were Republicans) but also that it went against three previous SCOTUS decisions.

 

[Scott C.]

The dissenting opinion, which I tend to agree with btw, is sharply critical of the majority opinion because they felt it not only was politically biased (all five appointees were Republicans) but also that it went against three previous SCOTUS decisions.

It doesn't surprise me that decisions fall along the political party lines of the judges. That doesn't necessarily mean that the judges are being political. People tend to see the world through conservative or liberal lenses. Their best, non-political, non-partisan decision will be influenced by their conservative or liberal orientation which drives how they interpret the constitution.

 

[metis]

It doesn't surprise me that decisions fall along the political party lines of the judges. That doesn't necessarily mean that the judges are being political. People tend to see the world through conservative or liberal lenses. Their best, non-political, non-partisan decision will be influenced by their conservative or liberal orientation which drives how they interpret the constitution.

Under normal circumstances I would be inclined to agree with you, but not with this group of five. When they interfered with the Florida recount in the 2000, they stepped in where the fed avoided unless there was an indication of impropriety.

The state was going to conduct the recount in a couple of areas whereas there was a doubt about the original count being accurate, but the five stopped in and stopped it, thus awarding the election to Bush. The other four justices were incensed by this, but what could they do other than to write a scathing minority report.

Anyhow, either way, the decisions by the SCOTUS when dealing with the issue of prayer in public facilities has been pretty consistent over the last several decades, so I don't think liberal/conservative as much applies here.

 

[Quagmire]

I am not a fan of snarky posts.

Who cares?

And I believe we were talking about school led prayer in general. That is the way I have read the last 10 pages of posts.

Believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Umm... I didn't say that either. Good for them to respect the freedoms of Christians as they sit in silence while the Christians pray?

That sounds a bit odd. Could you actually quote me?

Maybe I confused you and something First Baseman said in this rapidly growing and long thread. I did try to find the post in question, but it's been at least several pages ago.

 

[metis]

Already one. Certain atheists are all up at arms about moments of silence. In this case, I feel that this small group of atheists are becoming what they started fighting to overcome: the Thought Police.

I don't know what you mean by "already one", so maybe you can explain?

In regards to the latter sentence, all what I was saying deals with the fact that a moment of silence, as harmless as that may appear to be and maybe is, can be challenged whereas the school administration may have to justify it. IOW, is there an ulterior motive that's maybe involved?

Public schools were built for education, not prayer or meditation, although the latter could hypothetically be justified as being an entirely non-religious exercise that could be helpful in mental awareness, for example.