Leftist, No Doubt, Run Amok.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 2 2004, 05:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 2 2004, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Dec 1 2004, 07:40 PM

Ray,

I just figured out that you are being sarcastic and are just spoofing me. Well done, I didn't know you had much of a sense of humor.

On the remote chance (and I do mean remotely remote - no one who can spell and owns a computer could be so dense) that you are not joking - and you are a teacher, then it is no wonder children grow up to be unwed parent, drug abusers, mentally ill, and violent.

Snow- you may think that trying to over power people with insults and derision is somehow making a point, but it just makes you look ridiculous. Actually, Ray seems to understand the point about religion in public schools better than you do. You don't have to endorse religion to endorse positive social virtues, and there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the endorsement of factual information and value judgements in human relations, and the extolling and promoting of positive values like chastity or honesty etc. The sooner you can make the distinction, the less you will be hammering on nice old Ray. (or nice YOUNG Ray) :)

Again Cal, no bonus point for paying attention.

I am not hammering on Ray per say. By his continued talking to me I think he understands that I am attacking what I see as absurdity in his opinions. I hope and expect that Ray knows that I respect him as a good and decent and contributing member of whatever he is a member of...

...but, anyone who maintains that a teacher can talk about honesty and morality and the quadratic equation and not killing babies but should refrain from actually endorsing such position, is few proton-proton chains short of thermonuclear fusion. Likewise, anyone who does not know that 1 + 1 = 2 until he prays about it and has the Holy Ghost testify to it is a more than a few AUs short of a light year (as it relates to his opinion on the issue) and I for one am not so politically correct that I can't say so.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

I don't think we are in diametrically opposed camps on this issue---I have no doubt that you don't favor teachers feeling free to hold prayer sessions in the middle of a Biology lesson, nor do I think that religion can not be mentioned in any context. The only "chill" that a teacher should feel is a chill on his intentions to convince the kids that they should feel obliged to believe in religion over non-religion. If the teacher's lesson carries the message that "hey, kids, the Framers were relgious, so we should all be", then that teacher needs to "chill out".

We may not be in diametrically-opposed camps on this issue, but we appear to be taking diametrically-opposed positions on what the outcome should be. In your last sentence, what does the phrase "carries the message" mean? If the teacher were to say, explicitly, "The Framers were religious, so we should all be," then I agree; the present state of Establishment Clause law prohibits that. The problem is that the phrase "carries the message" is so vague that speech that present constitutional law does not prohibit will be chilled, as appears to be what's happening in Cupertino.

For an example of this vagueness: I could make a plausible case that if I were to teach that Patrick Henry was a stand-up guy, and that he was devoutly and conventionally religious, my teaching may effectively "carry the message" that religion is a good thing, no? On the other hand, I could also make a plausible argument that even though I portray Patrick Henry in a positive light, I'm not directly endorsing any particular aspect of his character. Which is the right conclusion? The Cupertino principal is apparently leaning towards the former, erring against allowing free discussion of religion. I predict that she's going to take a severe legal beating, being cataclysmically wrong in her understanding of both what the Establishment Clause restricts and what the Free Speech Clause requires.

Let's stand this thing on its head. If reporting positive aspects of religion in history (or associating religion with positively-viewed figures) amounts to illegal endorsement of religion, then wouldn't reporting negative aspects of religion (the Inquisition and Crusades, as conventionally taught, although when you compare them to their contemporary secular equivalents -- i.e. strictly politically-based torture and warfare -- they come across looking not quite so bad) effectively be promoting atheism, and likewise be constitutionally impermissible? Religious history is so much a part of human history in general that unless you limit the reach of the Establishment Clause to express endorsements of religion by teachers, you'll make teaching real history virtually impossible.

Whether absolute secularists like it or not, religion has been and continues to be a part of history. Whitewashing history to ignore its huge role is like airbrushing Trotsky out of the official Party pictures after he fell from favor.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM

Do you really want public school teachers to make personal endorsements about their personal beliefs while sharing information with your children or anyone else you know?

Yes Ray, that is what I want. A teacher should say that honesty and morality are good and correct and that everybody must absolutely possess those traits in order for society to prosper and that if the student chooses to be immoral, unethical, or dishonest - then they are being bad, very bad.

Your kind of thinking results in a generation that is valueless; honesty is not the best policy, it is only one of many policies from which the student may select - if honesty is not what the student desires, perhaps they can elect pride or avarice or greed or envy, wrath, anger or lust, gluttony and sloth.

When wishy washy stand-for-nothing, unprincipled educators and role models fail to convey a society's virtues to the young then you wind up with the Netherlands killing babies or worse, France. It's what happened to the Lamanites, it's what happened to the Nephites - it's what happened to every good and decent society that decayed into immorality and ruin.

What if you had children who had a public school teacher who was a Satanist, or a Wiccan, or a Baptist, or who was anything other than a Saint?  Would you really want that public school teacher to make personal endorsements and share their personal religious beliefs while sharing “other” information with your children? 

Here's a news flash Ray - if there are really such things as Satanists - we probably ought to exclude them from teaching in public schools. I know that probably goes against your and Cal's delicate sensibilities but devil worshippers might not be so good for the children. If a good, honest, moral Baptist or Hindu or Buddhist wear their religion on their sleeve - good for them. One of the best LDS missionary tools is that Mormons are publically Mormon. I have no idea of the religion of most of the people I work with but most of them know I am Mormon. What the tagline on Mr. HIGH VISIBILITY -of-the-moment, Mr Ken Jennings? He smart and fast and polite and Mormon. What do they say at Mitt Romney? He's bright and effective and charismatic and Mormon. The founder of Jet Blue? He bright and successful and Mormon. The COO of Dell Computers? High level manager and Mormon. Snoop Dog? Big hit with the ladies, not Mormon. Dracula? Nice widows peak, probably not eligible for baptism.

If a person is good and honest and ethical and moral and religious and a teacher - great. That's good for society. One need'nt say "I'm a Baptist and if you are not you will burn in hell you unsaved heathens" --- that's a different deal.

Because of the Constitution of the United States, otherwise public school teachers and all other public officials would be able to legally make any personal religious endorsement they wished.

Now it is put up or shut up time Ray. Where in the Constitution does it say that?

And btw, I also think public school teachers can and should teach about issues such as unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence without saying something like this to their students:

“I believe that unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence are evil and you should consider those things to be evil too.”

Okay the mods can edit me if they want but that's fool talk. Mental illness is not evil, it is an illness, duh - hence the term mental illness. Violence is not evil, violence may be required to protect the innocent from evil. Unwed parenting may be worse than making a poor choice but I wouldn't consider everyone who succumbs to youthful transgression evil - it's what you do about it after that is important... but if something really is evil only a lilly-livered, spineless, twerp of a teacher would water down his message by saying I am not in favor of evil and you should consider being opposed to it as well.

Information is power, and I believe information can easily be conveyed without adding a personal endorsement, though it is nice when people can come together in agreement.

Information may be power but without context - principled wisdom - it can be dangerous. Societies who don't provide the context fail.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 2 2004, 07:39 PM

Snow- you may think that trying to over power people with insults and derision is somehow making a point, but it just makes you look ridiculous.

Wow, the irony detector just went crazy!

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 2 2004, 10:33 PM

“I believe that unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence are evil and you should consider those things to be evil too.”

Just curious Ray, why DID you include mental illness in the 'evil' category?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Dec 2 2004, 06:27 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Therefore, evolution absolutely should be taught in schools as the model supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as a fact of nature, and natural selection and mutation are two of the main processes by which it takes place.

I agree.

Have either of you read up on the problems with evolution? Macroevolution is not the issue. It is microevolution which Darwin, et al, postulates is the reason for us, and every other species on the planet being here, and there is just no evidence to support it.

If you want to support macroevolution, that is fine, but when evolution is taught, it is microevolution they are referring to.

Thank you for clarifying that point, Jenda. That is what I was referring to....except that you do have the terms mixed up.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM

Have either of you read up on the problems with evolution? Macroevolution is not the issue. It is microevolution which Darwin, et al, postulates is the reason for us, and every other species on the planet being here, and there is just no evidence to support it.

If you want to support macroevolution, that is fine, but when evolution is taught, it is microevolution they are referring to.

Uh, I think you have that backwards. It's "macroevolution" that creationists object to. In other word: A species changing so much that it becomes a new species, unable to mate with it's evolutionary "cousins." I've read creationist pseudoscientific arguments about it, and I don't buy it. Evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. To say that you can believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution is absurd.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Ray+ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

Do you really want public school teachers to make personal endorsements about their personal beliefs while sharing information with your children or anyone else you know?

Yes Ray, that is what I want. A teacher should say that honesty and morality are good and correct and that everybody must absolutely possess those traits in order for society to prosper and that if the student chooses to be immoral, unethical, or dishonest - then they are being bad, very bad.

I think it would be wonderful if all teachers could say that, but I also think that giving teachers the liberty to make personal endorsements like that is also giving them the freedom to make personal endorsements about anything else they might want to personally endorse that isn’t a part of the school curriculum. And that’s all I’m really trying to say here.

Originally posted by -Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

Your kind of thinking results in a generation that is valueless; honesty is not the best policy, it is only one of many policies from which the student may select - if honesty is not what the student desires, perhaps they can elect pride or avarice or greed or envy, wrath, anger or lust, gluttony and sloth.

Perhaps you should try to understand my kind of thinking before jumping on a bandwagon that basically labels me as a menace to society.

I think people can be taught about honesty and its counterpart without receiving any kind of personal endorsement from public school teachers. Do you really need me to explain how ???

How about teaching what honesty is and how honesty isn't just a religiously imposed requirement but a requirement imposed by any society with laws that punish people for being dishonest. Now, class, do you want to be dishonest and risk getting caught, or would you rather live in peace knowing that you don’t have to worry about getting caught for being dishonest? (The class hopefully responds that they would rather live in peace than in fear in getting caught.) << Notice how there is no personal endorsement there, religious or otherwise?

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

When wishy washy stand-for-nothing, unprincipled educators and role models fail to convey a society's virtues to the young then you wind up with the Netherlands killing babies or worse, France. It's what happened to the Lamanites, it's what happened to the Nephites - it's what happened to every good and decent society that decayed into immorality and ruin.

Now that you have a better understanding of "my kind of thinking” (hopefully), do you still label me as a “wishy, washy stand for nothing, unprincipled educator?” I hope not, and whether or not you do, I’m not. I simply advocate that public school teachers refrain from making personal endorsements while they are teaching the public, because the freedom to do that brings the freedom to endorse good as well as evil, as long as being evil is legal.

Originally posted by Ray+ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

What if you had children who had a public school teacher who was a Satanist, or a Wiccan, or a Baptist, or who was anything other than a Saint?  Would you really want that public school teacher to make personal endorsements and share their personal religious beliefs while sharing “other” information with your children?

Here's a news flash Ray - if there are really such things as Satanists - we probably ought to exclude them from teaching in public schools. I know that probably goes against your and Cal's delicate sensibilities but devil worshippers might not be so good for the children.

People who openly admit that they worship Satan do in fact exist, whether you know it or not, and because they are trying to become like the person they worship, they are often very skilled in deception and manipulation to the point that you often wouldn’t know it. And even if you did know it, how would you go about restricting their employment considering the law restricting employers from not employing people on the basis of their religion?

But that’s a separate issue.

The point I’m trying to make is that our Constitution restricts any personal endorsement of religion, without specifying any particular religion, so people who worship Satan and people who worship Jesus are equally protected. And like it or not, that’s the truth. The only restrictions we have in this country in regards to religion are --

1) against people whose religion compels them to commit crimes against the laws of our land,

2) against government officials from making personal endorsements regarding an establishment of religion, and

3) against employers from restricting employment to someone on the basis of their religion.

In light of these laws of our land, I believe public school teachers should not endorse their personal religions, to better allow everyone the freedom to exercise their own personal religion.

Originally posted by -Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

If a good, honest, moral Baptist or Hindu or Buddhist wears their religion on their sleeve - good for them. One of the best LDS missionary tools is that Mormons are publically Mormon. I have no idea of the religion of most of the people I work with but most of them know I am Mormon. What the tagline on Mr. HIGH VISIBILITY -of-the-moment, Mr Ken Jennings? He smart and fast and polite and Mormon. What do they say at Mitt Romney? He's bright and effective and charismatic and Mormon. The founder of Jet Blue? He bright and successful and Mormon. The COO of Dell Computers? High level manager and Mormon. Snoop Dog? Big hit with the ladies, not Mormon. Dracula? Nice widows peak, probably not eligible for baptism.

But again, if a public school teacher was allowed to “wear their religion on their sleeve”, they would be allowed to wear any religion on their sleeve, as long as their religion didn’t go against any of the laws of our land. And that would mean that a Satan worshipper would be allowed to personally endorse their religion just as much as any other person can endorse their religion, and the government wouldn’t be able to do anything about it unless they violated a law of our land.

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

If a person is good and honest and ethical and moral and religious and a teacher - great. That's good for society. One needn’t say "I'm a Baptist and if you are not you will burn in hell you unsaved heathens" --- that's a different deal.

My point isn’t regarding whether or not they needn't say that, it’s about whether or not they are legally allowed to say that.

Originally posted by Ray+ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

Because of the Constitution of the United States, otherwise public school teachers and all other public officials would be able to legally make any personal religious endorsement they wished.

Now it is put up or shut up time Ray. Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

And btw, I also think public school teachers can and should teach about issues such as unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence without saying something like this to their students:

“I believe that unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence are evil and you should consider those things to be evil too.”

Okay the mods can edit me if they want but that's fool talk. Mental illness is not evil, it is an illness, duh - hence the term mental illness. Violence is not evil, violence may be required to protect the innocent from evil. Unwed parenting may be worse than making a poor choice but I wouldn't consider everyone who succumbs to youthful transgression evil - it's what you do about it after that is important... but if something really is evil only a lilly-livered, spineless, twerp of a teacher would water down his message by saying I am not in favor of evil and you should consider being opposed to it as well.

I wasn’t saying that those things are evil, I was saying that a teacher can and should be able to teach about those things without personally endorsing them as being evil. And btw, I believe the word “evil” is a religious term, because what is good to some people is evil to others and the law only distinguishes between what is legal and what is illegal.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

Information is power, and I believe information can easily be conveyed without adding a personal endorsement, though it is nice when people can come together in agreement.

Information may be power but without context - principled wisdom - it can be dangerous. Societies who don't provide the context fail.

Good point, but my point has been concerning our freedom of religion and the right to exercise our freedom within the context of the laws provided by the United States of America.

And btw, I am well pleased, not proud, to be an American.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@ Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Evolution is a scientific theory (not theory, as though it were just a guess, but theory as it provides a model to explain the changes in living things over time), and not a religion.

Religion is also a scientific theory (not theory as though it were just a guess, but a theory as it provides a model to explain object(s) of worship). Btw, religious theories that have to do with the worship of a God or gods are scientifically classified as theology.

Religion starts with accepted premises (there is a God), and accepts only those facts that support it.

Evolution starts with accepted premises (that everything evolves) and accepts only those facts and ideas that support that theory.

Science starts with observed facts and develops theories to explain them.

Students of theology do the same thing, starting with observed facts and developing theories to explain them. These facts include revelation and people who claim to receive revelation.

Scientific theories are never absolute, where as religious dogma is, by its nature, absolutistic.

Scientific theories and religious dogma, aka beliefs, are also more alike than you realize.

There are no absolutes in science, philosophically speaking. All principles and theories are open to question and revision. That is why creationism is not science. First, it is not open to revision, by those who espouse it, and second, it starts with an unprovable premise, and seeks only facts that support it.

The scientific theory that everything evolves cannot be proven in any way other than the way someone can prove the theory that God is who and what people say He is. Or in other words, the only way for someone to prove that everything evolves is for someone to see everything evolve, just as the only way for someone to prove that God is who and what people say He is, is for someone to see and know God.

And btw, if individual people don't see the truth of those things for themselves, they are only relying on the assurances, or faith, of other people.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 01:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM

Have either of you read up on the problems with evolution?  Macroevolution is not the issue.  It is microevolution which Darwin, et al, postulates is the reason for us, and every other species on the planet being here, and there is just no evidence to support it.

If you want to support macroevolution, that is fine, but when evolution is taught, it is microevolution they are referring to.

Uh, I think you have that backwards. It's "macroevolution" that creationists object to. In other word: A species changing so much that it becomes a new species, unable to mate with it's evolutionary "cousins." I've read creationist pseudoscientific arguments about it, and I don't buy it. Evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. To say that you can believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution is absurd.

You are right, I swapped micro for macro, but that doesn't change the meaning of my post.

Microevolution are those changes that are cyclical in nature, adaptations that a species goes through during adverse situations (climatic, etc.), but they always return to what is considered normal. There is no evidence that a series of microevolutionary changes have ever caused an animal to evolve into something else. That is all just theory. And studying up on the individual theories that macroevolution is based on shows them all to be flawed.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 3 2004, 03:17 PM

There is no evidence that a series of microevolutionary changes have ever caused an animal to evolve into something else. That is all just theory. And studying up on the individual theories that macroevolution is based on shows them all to be flawed.

That's what I used to think too. Until I saw a whale fossil with little teenie weenie feet and hind legs. Also, I've seen very ancient human skulls with both primitive and modern features--most startling--the high forhead unique to our species. These may not be "proof" in and of themselves, but they, along with all the accepted evidence is enough to convince me that speciation does occur.

btw: my belief in evolution in no way takes away from my belief in God as the creator. It just convinces me that He works in more brilliant and mysterious ways than we can ever possibly realize.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 2 2004, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 2 2004, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Dec 2 2004, 05:39 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Dec 1 2004, 07:40 PM

Ray,

I just figured out that you are being sarcastic and are just spoofing me. Well done, I didn't know you had much of a sense of humor.

On the remote chance (and I do mean remotely remote - no one who can spell and owns a computer could be so dense) that you are not joking - and you are a teacher, then it is no wonder children grow up to be unwed parent, drug abusers, mentally ill, and violent.

Snow- you may think that trying to over power people with insults and derision is somehow making a point, but it just makes you look ridiculous. Actually, Ray seems to understand the point about religion in public schools better than you do. You don't have to endorse religion to endorse positive social virtues, and there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the endorsement of factual information and value judgements in human relations, and the extolling and promoting of positive values like chastity or honesty etc. The sooner you can make the distinction, the less you will be hammering on nice old Ray. (or nice YOUNG Ray) :)

Again Cal, no bonus point for paying attention.

I am not hammering on Ray per say. By his continued talking to me I think he understands that I am attacking what I see as absurdity in his opinions. I hope and expect that Ray knows that I respect him as a good and decent and contributing member of whatever he is a member of...

...but, anyone who maintains that a teacher can talk about honesty and morality and the quadratic equation and not killing babies but should refrain from actually endorsing such position, is few proton-proton chains short of thermonuclear fusion. Likewise, anyone who does not know that 1 + 1 = 2 until he prays about it and has the Holy Ghost testify to it is a more than a few AUs short of a light year (as it relates to his opinion on the issue) and I for one am not so politically correct that I can't say so.

Snow,

Whether you realize it or not, you are making false judgments against me, and even though I forgive you, my Lord will be holding you accountable unless you repent.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette@ Dec 3 2004, 04:04 PM

That's what I used to think too. Until I saw a whale fossil with little teenie weenie feet and hind legs.

How do you know the teenie weenie feet and hind legs you saw on the whale fossil belonged there? Was it only because they seemed to fit? What if I told you that I could fit a human skull on the neck bone of a giraffe? Would you believe that belonged there too?

Also, I've seen very ancient human skulls with both primitive and modern features--most startling--the high forehead unique to our species.

Heh, you found ancient human skulls with high foreheads and you think that helps to establish the theory that humans evolved from another species? How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion?

These may not be "proof" in and of themselves, but they, along with all the accepted evidence is enough to convince me that speciation does occur.

btw: my belief in evolution in no way takes away from my belief in God as the creator. It just convinces me that He works in more brilliant and mysterious ways than we can ever possibly realize.

Well, while I think it’s great that you believe our heavenly Father is our creator, I think it’s strange that you believe humans originated from lower life forms. And whether you realize it or not, this theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the testimony of our Lord’s prophets.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 3 2004, 04:36 PM

And whether you realize it or not, this theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the testimony of our Lord’s prophets.

When we have a prophet who is roughly my age and has a scientific background, I'll listen to what he or she has to say on the topic of evolution.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 3 2004, 04:36 PM

Heh, you found ancient human skulls with high foreheads and you think that helps to establish the theory that humans evolved from another species? How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion?

I didn't say I found them. I said I saw them. I'm not an anthropologist. If you'd do your homework, you'd know what I mean about archaic and modern human features. I'm not going to argue evolution with you though because you don't seem to even know the basics on the subject.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 04:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 04:36 PM

Heh, you found ancient human skulls with high foreheads and you think that helps to establish the theory that humans evolved from another species?  How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion?

I didn't say I found them. I said I saw them. I'm not an anthropologist. If you'd do your homework, you'd know what I mean about archaic and modern human features. I'm not going to argue evolution with you though because you don't seem to even know the basics on the subject.

I know about some of the theories proposed by some people who believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, or other species, and none of it makes a bit of sense to me. During my life here on Earth I’ve noticed many people with different skeletal structures, some with high foreheads and some with low foreheads, but I don’t consider those people to be lower life forms. The simple truth is that people are different, or in other words, there isn’t one particular human form or skeletal structure.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:09 PM

I know about some of the theories proposed by some people who believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, or other species, and none of it makes a bit of sense to me.

None of it makes a bit of sense to you because you have a preconcieved belief that humans did NOT evolve from earlier life forms. Human evolution is actually doctrinal in our church. If humans can evolve to become like God, why couldn't we have evolved to be human? God could easily have created humans through advanced biological processes. If eternal progression is a true concept, earthly, physical progression seems quite within the realm of possibilities to me.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:09 PM

I know about some of the theories proposed by some people who believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, or other species, and none of it makes a bit of sense to me.

None of it makes a bit of sense to you because you have a preconcieved belief that humans did NOT evolve from earlier life forms. Human evolution is actually doctrinal in our church. If humans can evolve to become like God, why couldn't we have evolved to be human? God could easily have created humans through advanced biological processes. If eternal progression is a true concept, earthly, physical progression seems quite within the realm of possibilities to me.

Heh, nice try, but our “evolution” into becoming like our heavenly parents doesn’t constitute an evolution into another species. We are simply growing up to be like them… or at least we have that potential.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:38 PM

Heh, nice try, but our “evolution” into becoming like our heavenly parents doesn’t constitute an evolution into another species. We are simply growing up to be like them… or at least we have that potential.

I really, really, really think you should look at the supporting evidence out there for evolution. All the creationist arguments are old, and frankly, dishonest. I don't understand why perfectly intelligent people are so afraid of evolution. There is no scientific conspiracy. Scientists concentrate on their own fields of research. They bicker amongst themselves, but there are some things that are simply fact. When you look at their research: archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, etc. They all combine to write a very logical story of our history. Science is not the enemy--ignorance is.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ray,

You suggest that the Constitution's Establishment Clause prohibits government officials from making personal endorsements of religion. That's wrong. A public figure is free to make a personal endorsement of religion -- that is, to state that he, personally, believes in God and a particular religion and explain why. What the official can't do is to endorse religion, not in his personal but in his official capacity. There is a difference between a schoolteacher answering a student's question as to his religion by stating that he is, say, a Catholic, and that teacher's teaching Catholic doctrine as part of a lesson plan, not as an explanation of what Catholics believe: "Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ" -- but as actual truth: "The Pope is the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ."

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:38 PM

Heh, nice try, but our “evolution” into becoming like our heavenly parents doesn’t constitute an evolution into another species.  We are simply growing up to be like them… or at least we have that potential.

I really, really, really think you should look at the supporting evidence out there for evolution. All the creationist arguments are old, and frankly, dishonest. I don't understand why perfectly intelligent people are so afraid of evolution. There is no scientific conspiracy. Scientists concentrate on their own fields of research. They bicker amongst themselves, but there are some things that are simply fact. When you look at their research: archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, etc. They all combine to write a very logical story of our history. Science is not the enemy--ignorance is.

Being able to construct a logical argument on the basis of certain facts doesn't necessarily mean that your argument is true. If you want to know the truth, I say ask God to reveal the truth to you through the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 3 2004, 06:04 PM

Ray,

You suggest that the Constitution's Establishment Clause prohibits government officials from making personal endorsements of religion. That's wrong. A public figure is free to make a personal endorsement of religion -- that is, to state that he, personally, believes in God and a particular religion and explain why. What the official can't do is to endorse religion, not in his personal but in his official capacity. There is a difference between a schoolteacher answering a student's question as to his religion by stating that he is, say, a Catholic, and that teacher's teaching Catholic doctrine as part of a lesson plan, not as an explanation of what Catholics believe: "Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ" -- but as actual truth: "The Pope is the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ."

Thank you, PD. On the basis that I respect your knowledge of the law of the land more than I do my own… and the fact that I can feel the power of the Holy Ghost confirming what you are saying, I can accept your argument as truth. Thank you again for your positive influence. :)

Btw, I’ve also been continuing to think about this and something just didn’t feel right, but I knew I was pretty close to the truth.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ray,

You're setting up an impossible standard of proof. If the only acceptable "proof" that something has happened is that the person to be convinced has actually seen it happen, then Scott Peterson should be a free man.

Since every human enterprise is fallible to some degree, we have to use fallible standards of proof. In civil law, a thing is considered proven when we are convinced that it is more likely than not to have happened. In criminal law, since the stakes are generally higher, guilt is considered proven when there is no reasonable (as opposed to speculative) doubt that it exists. (It is, I suppose, possible that all the patchouli-soaked leftists who used to howl through their psychosis-inducing pot smoke about Mumia Abu Jamal being framed were actually right, and that even though he was found sitting on the curb a few feet from a murdered police officer with his smoking gun a couple of feet away, and was witnessed shooting the man by approximately half of Philadelphia, it was really a Matrix-induced illusion orchestrated by The Man to send a fearless freedom fighter up the river, but again, the word is "reasonable.")

In science, a theory can be considered proven when it appears more likely than not to be true. The evidences of evolution in the fossil record and in existing biology require some truly epic contortions to explain away. Why do some people have remnants of tails, for example? I suppose we could posit that God just has a sense of humor and likes making sitting down on hard surfaces miserable for some people, but that seems less likely than that there are some genes left over from long-ago ancestors who had real tails.

Maybe, notwithstanding that evolution appears more likely than not to have occurred, things actually did happen in some other, apparently less plausible way. When additional light and knowledge is obtained to lead towards other conclusions, then honest scientists will abandon the theory of evolution and adopt the more likely conclusion. (Many more scientists, being less than honest, will not; scientists are human and don't always follow the supposed rules of the scientific method as rigorously as they should.)

In the interim, conclusions that are drawn from the theory of evolution can be used for practical purposes, such as in medical research involving genetics and in conservation. "By their fruits shall ye know them," as it were. Even if the theory of evolution is actually an imperfect understanding of the true facts, it explains observed phenomena precisely enough that it can be used in practice. Similarly, Newton's theories of gravitation and kinetics aren't actually, perfectly accurate; under extreme conditions, Einstein's updated theory of gravitation can be observed. But for centuries, under the conditions most often encountered, Newton's explanation worked, and still does, in much the same way that I can operate a computer well enough without knowing the precise details of why things work the way they do.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:38 PM

Heh, nice try, but our “evolution” into becoming like our heavenly parents doesn’t constitute an evolution into another species.  We are simply growing up to be like them… or at least we have that potential.

I really, really, really think you should look at the supporting evidence out there for evolution. All the creationist arguments are old, and frankly, dishonest. I don't understand why perfectly intelligent people are so afraid of evolution. There is no scientific conspiracy. Scientists concentrate on their own fields of research. They bicker amongst themselves, but there are some things that are simply fact. When you look at their research: archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, etc. They all combine to write a very logical story of our history. Science is not the enemy--ignorance is.

I am not talking about creationists. I am talking about real scientists who have studied the specific areas of science that evolution is concerned with and intimately know their subject. They are the ones who say that the science just doesn't fit. They grew up believing evolution was all but fact, and they have found out it isn't really even in the running. The theories just don't fit the facts, and the more facts they find, the less the theories fit.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells is a good book to read on the subject.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 2 2004, 09:33 PM

One of the best LDS missionary tools is that Mormons are publically Mormon. I have no idea of the religion of most of the people I work with but most of them know I am Mormon. What the tagline on Mr. HIGH VISIBILITY -of-the-moment, Mr Ken Jennings? He smart and fast and polite and Mormon. What do they say at Mitt Romney? He's bright and effective and charismatic and Mormon. The founder of Jet Blue? He bright and successful and Mormon. The COO of Dell Computers? High level manager and Mormon. Snoop Dog? Big hit with the ladies, not Mormon. Dracula? Nice widows peak, probably not eligible for baptism.

Snow, I can't believe you forgot Marvin Philip in this illustrious group mentioned above! Frankly, I am aghast and don't know if I'm going to be able to sleep tonight knowing you snubbed Marvin Philip. This is preposterous and I urge you to add Marvin Philip to the list at once, at least before he wins the Rimington Trophy--given to the nation's best center. Essentially, it was Marvin who made Aaron Rodgers who he is today... for without the "Mormon Nightmare" anchoring Cal's offensive line, Aaron would be on his keister most of the time.

Asked if he'd rather go to football camp or on a mission, Philip's replay was, "It taught me to be determined, to work hard," he said. "There's nothing harder than serving a mission. If I could choose two-a-day practices in camp or being out from 9 in the morning to 9 at night, I'll take camp any day."

I suggest you say something like, "Marvin Philip? He's only the best center in college... he's nasty and brutal on the field, but as gentle a purring pussycat once the final whistle blows. Golden bear teammates say you won't meet a nicer guy. And he's Mormon." You can use your own words and stuff--but that should give you an idea. Thanks.