I always miss those winks.

Sorry about that one.

But you are still wrong on the last 2. My analogy stands.  Forbidding a subject from being discussed is just as bad as trying to teach religion - it is the same thing just in a different wrapper.

Lula,

See my previous post.  I'm not an idiot.  I know she's running for VP and I know what is in the Constitution.  I was talking about interpretations by appointed officials.  That 'church and state' thing is usually a biggie    I provided reasons why I won't vote on her side, they're valid for me, and I spoke in hypotheticals that will probably never happen.  We want what's best for the nation overall.  I will not vote for someone who doesn't share my core principles after that.  I choose Obama.  It's not just because of those personal, moral issues either.

Recognize that it is not about forbidding its discussion in general, just in the school system in 'science' classes that I have a problem with.  There we walk a thin line.  Religion is separate. Evolution is taught in school because it is scientific, and there is evidence to back it.  We don't prepare students for scientific analysis in the world by throwing faith-based projections onto them as a valid resource.  Although, I would not object to a religions class being offered as an elective for students.  I believe that would have some wonderful value with discussions of those ideas.  Evolution is scientifically based in theory, so it should be taught in science class - as theory when discussing the development of general life on Earth.

I agree with kurtin here. Have a class for religion (or theology, a little understanding about all major religions would probably be good and promote tolerance) and keep science separate. I must admit though that my high-school science class days consisted of studying the planets, elements, a bit of chemistry and biology. And that was fine. They never went into anthropology or the creation of the universe (which theory has been change or modified a number of times since i was a kid), and other theoretical sciences, those are more suited for a college environment anyway IMO. So with all that has been said on this topic, and what would occur as a result of political action, "What's wrong with Palin" I think the answer is much, much more simpler than most everything written here. It's because she has an "R" after her name that people will either like her or not. That's the real issue isn't it? It's OK to admit it.

Funny you would say that. As an atheist I sat down and thought when DOES life begin. The only answer I COULD come up with was at conception.

As a multi cellular organism I am a collection of gentically identical cells which are each individually alive and if provided with the right environment can live and grow outside the body (a nutrient bath with division inducing chemicals and antibiotics). The colony produces cells with half dna, called sperm and eggs, those cells die in great numbers, but the moment an egg and a cell combine they create a single cell that devides again and again and forms an entire new colony (person).

The only counter argument is that without a soul that life is not sacred and may be killed for your benefit. But that is treading dangerous ground, when does that life become too important to allow killing? why at birth? since a baby does not develop cognizence for years after being born...

Abortion is the hardest of all issues I have ever faced because there is a very true immutable right of the woman to her body, and a very true immutable right of a baby to live, and both completely contradict each other. It is mind boggling. It also bothers me that people on both "sides" of the issue paint each other and dangerous fanatics.

That is a very serious accusation, I am gonna need more then your word for it.

What discussion should not be forbidden? the discussion of weather you can teach creationism? cause the supreme court said that is a violation of the constitution, and any sane individual will say the same. The intelligent design movement was when 3 nutcases took "of peoples and pandas" a creationist book, and replaced the word "cretionism" with "intelligent design". The judge, many witnessess against, etc were devout christians and even they said the ID was a bunch of BS, it is a bunch of straight out lies meant to discredit science by people who beleive that science, specifically the beleif in evolution, is the root of all evil as it means "humans have no obligation to a higher power to do good".

But it is.  It is about harrasment and termination.  Better read the news. This is not hypothetical, it is reality.

harassment and termination of WHOM! of people suggesting that creationism be taught in schools? those people SHOULD be fired. Or are you talking about something else?

Then look at Obama's  "If I'm elected" $800 million new spending spree and see if that's truly what's best for the nation! Now, on top of that burden, add the $700 billion bailout that all the Dems were so eager to sign before the House Republicans said hold your horses!  And just when you think it can't get worse...it does....the Democrats want ACORN in the bill.

NITRO CRUISER POSTS:

B-I-N-G-O!

Beyond that, not only has she an "R" after her name, but she's also a real, walking, talking , action-supporting conservative "R"!!

So, it's that plus it depends on who is saying what is wrong with her....for example take the radical feminists. They are besides themselves becasue she's pro-choice.....that is, Palin chose to keep her baby and so has her pregnant 17 year old daughter...and the radical feminists are beside themselves, simply aghast about Palin's genuine authentic feminine qualities...she's a woman, a wife and a mother who seems to do nothing but be normal and that is just flat out "wrong" with so many radical feminists not to mention scary too!

They all would have preferred that McCain had chosen a high powered, pro-abortion lawyer type rather than a happily married mother of five who shows it.

It won't happen. Things are going to be very different in January and some of us realize this. What is being said vs. reality will be very different in Jan. With 5 weeks left neither candidate is going to begin to change much of what they say unless they start slipping in the polls. The debate showed that. Next week should be interesting. If the bailout plan keeps stalling it will be interesting to see what happens when the unemployment, durable goods, and homes sales numbers come out next week.

Unemployment has risen for more than 6 months now so the number starts to get further and further away from reality. Not to mention the number of jobs that need to be created to keep up with population growth. Expect new government spending, it is going to happen. They are going to have to start fixing what is broken or this country will fail. Expect the deficit to climb and the dollar to dive. The dollar has to dive in order for us to get some of the manufacturing base back. The fed made the money supply way too easy for many many years and Wall St. took the money and ran. Expect to pay a big price for that.

KURTIN POSTS:

Perhaps we should be more clear becasue Evolution and Creation both systems of belief that concern our Origins.

No one questions Evolution meaning "micro" changes within species is real science with evidence to back it. 

The point of contention is with no empirical evidence whatsoever to back it, students are being dogmatically taught macro-Evolution or philosophy of Darwinism as scientific fact. Darwinism states that, through the result of random processes, one basic single cell evolved into all life--- plants, animal and humans--inhabitating the world today.  So students can make up their minds intelligently, they ought to be taught all the weaknesses of the theory and scientific evidence that contradicts it, but they aren't. In fairness and honesty, they also should be told that the textbook presents only one side of the debate. Darwinists have defined their system so that the evidence always has to support the philosophy which always has to deny God.

What if physical evidence is at odds with the philosophy that nature is all there is?

TALTIMER POSTS:

The discussion that would address the answer to the question I just posed......namely,

What if physical, scientific  evidence is at odds with the philosophy that nature is all there is?

I don't see the two as contradictory. yes, the woman has the right to control her body....but once the woman becomes pregnant, it's a whole new ballgame becasue the baby is not part of the mother's body.... the baby resides there but is genetically unique. The mother has no right to destroy her baby's body in any of its stages of growth. The child's right to live , not to be killed, sure outweighs the woman's right to control her body.    

Ugh.  I just don't know what to say anymore.  Look at the provisions of Obama's $800 million spending plan (yes, that also means the cuts that go along with that plan), and you'll see that the benefits are far reaching.  It's interesting how not as much money gets back to the people for services and for national improvement when taxes are slashed to bits.  Although we can't afford not to cut, let's not lose our heads here.  Please don't be so hasty in claiming that Democrats were just rushing to get the bailout plan in and that Republicans swooped in to save the day and avoid such an idea...that is just ignorance.  Keep in mind that the Republicans needed more negotiation so that they could get their provisions in, and Democrats needed to adhere in order to make this thing passable.  We are still talking about roughly $700 billion or more on both sides of the fence.  $800 million seems like chump-change in comparison, wouldn't you agree? {see also: Iraq}

To clarify my position and statement, it is not about forbidding dialogue about creationism and intelligent design in general.  It is about forbidding the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom.  Lula, students are not being taught "Darwinism" as fact in schools.  If you have had experience in witnessing specific teachers engage in such practice, you should be upset, but that is hardly the norm.  I wish you would recognize that students are actually being taught that evolution "could" explain life on Earth but has not been proven by the good science teachers.  Are you also against providing the information and science behind the Big-Bang Theory in science class?  If so, then I'm through with this discussion with you about teaching scientific information.

People who dare mention it.  Schools are not a forum of free ideas, because now some ideas are more free than others.  IN case after case, teachers have been censured not for teaching creationism, but for merely mentioning that there is a strong movement that believes in it (a non-judgement response to students questions).

We can force students to live as Muslims, and obey Sharia Law, but we cannot mention that there are some (rightly or wrongly is not the issue - since I was taught there was 9 planets and we know there are only 8, right?) who have a different view of the world - because it is related to a relilgion that has been singled out for ostracism from school.

That has always been the case. In the past schools did not even PRETEND to be equal and wanting diversity. And when they say diversity they mean diversity of colors, genders, backgrounds, and sexual orientations. But with the EXACT same political opinions. Step out of line and you are in deep trouble.

Sounds like one of the many lies spread by creationists. I don't beleive it for a second until I see some examples of this.

What? where?

1. The fact that a forum of scientists decided to redifine the word planet doesn't make any difference to the steller objects in our solar system. They didn't change, nor did they become wrong. Planet is a word we invented to mean something, and now we decided it means something else. So it is a flawed analogy.

2. The creationists don't have a slightly different world view. The creationist movement uses lies to try and debase the theory of HUMAN evolution (since evolution in of itself is a fact, even if god created us as we are now the laws of evolution apply towards the future). Anyways, The movement is based entirely on lies and fraud and its sole purpose is to debase human evolution and science and to create a conflicted religion vs science atmosphere of fear because some people beleive that the notion of evolution causes atheism, and that atheists are inherantly evil because they are not bound to obey the sky wizard.

3. The creationist movement is not about people who beleive in god or creation, the creationist movement is an organisation that calls itself with names like intelligent design and scientific critique, names that evoke understanding and acceptance, when I first heard intelligent design I ASSUMED it means the notion that maybe there is some being who interferes with us, maybe god, maybe aliens, maybe who knows what... a possiblitiy that one cannot deny. But that is a misleading name, it is actually just a pack of lies meant to debase human evolution. It is like how I told people I am a scientologist because I thought it means a person who beleives in science instead of god. (it doesn't).

If I murder homeless people and call it volunteering in the homeless shelter, it doesn't change what I do, and if I would get people saying "why would ANYONE oppose volunteering at a homeless shelter with such ferocity" then that person is duped by a misleading name on an action that is clearly completely different.

Any person who is supporting the creationism (renamed ID after supreme court ruling, renamed scientific critique after loosing a court battle) is either being duped, or is spreading lies because they beleive science destroys religion and without religion people are inherantly evil.

Merely by CALLING it intelligent design you are helping to spread lies, insinuating something completely untrue. When refering to ID you should called it "lies about evolution by people who beleive atheism is the root of all evil". The scientific world has 0 tolerance policy towards liars. One lie, and you are out.

To get back to the homeless murderer example... when in a conversation, would say say "have you heard about the guy who got the chair for volunteering at the homeless shelter"? no, you would say "Have you heard of the guy that got the chair for murdering a bunch of homeless people".