beautyundone

^ that's the same thing i did... didn't work though, lol. so i didn't post it. but that seems the most logical explanation to me.

229 230 248 197 198 216

i think this is what they were getting at... but i have no idea where to go from here...

i don't think it reffers to the alphabet, mainly because of the 0 that it leaves if you take out the other dividers.

oh, alright. from the way you said it, it sounded as if you had only watched small pieces of it.

i apologize. it was a misunderstanding.

what i was saying is that you did not listen to the entire thing; therefore, there were parts you missed. you cannot accurately dismiss the ENTIRE program as being bull if you haven't seen it all. that's all.

ID is the basis for many religions. if you are going to teach the religions and their relation to history, usually ID ends up getting mentioned somewhere. although i do agree that they should not spend massive ammounts of time preaching the gospel to the students. lol.

yes, i am aware. but that did not answer my question.

if you only "caught bits of it" then how would you know they did not have facts to back up some of the arguments?

well, i was taught about aztec, greek, and roman gods, as well as judaism and islam. i also learned about christianity in history. it is a part of culture. it's difficult to teach history without including religions. for instance, the catholic church plays a HUGE part in history, but it's difficult to understand if you have no idea what the catholic church is. see my point? it really basically is already taught in most history classes. world history classes, that is.

I've been browsing these boards for going on two weeks now and I feel compelled to break my silence because of your asinine comment.. If it is not science why should it be taught in a science class?

 

ID has no scientific merit.

 

None.

 

Zero.

i KNOW that. did you not read the rest of my comments clarifying that i thought it should be taught but NOT within a science class?

i'm not attacking evolution at all. and i was unaware that the anger was directed towards the fact that ID would be taught in a science classroom. i was under the impression that it was directed towards the fact that it would be taught at all. ID is a large part of history, as history usually covers most of those religions and ideas as to how the world started. perhaps it would be better suited in that class? anyhow, i do agree that, while ID should be taught, it doesn't have a place in a science classroom.

Your comparison is most obviously not the same thing. Not in the tiniest sense. Evolution is not a moral dilemma. It's a scientific fact, ripe with evidence and support. If people prefer to seek out and adopt speculatory psuedoscience, they should do so on their own time, rather than be force-fed poorly camoflauged creationism when they should be learning hard facts and sound science.

as i said, they do have the right to a choice. but i can see that i will get nowhere on this extremely "anti-creationist/christianity/anyone who contradicts your ideas" board.

It's not a problem of letting the kids decide what to believe, or anything of that sort. The problem is in the fact that ID is not science, and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I have no problem with the school systems teaching kids ID in non-science classrooms, but not in a science class.

i will agree with you there. it isn't really a scientific subject. but that doesn't mean it cannot be taught as an alternate idea.

i don't care what you think. opinions are not facts, get over it. the fact is: it is a strawman

and what scientific project proved my analogy to be invalid?

YOUR opinion is that it is a "strawman". practice what you preach.

even if it WERE untrue, i don't believe that a post on the internet in any way resembles a man made of straw. you seem to be so addicted to the literal and "factual" meaning of everything, after all.

actually, i think it's a perfectly logical response. same idea; same basic thing.

kids are also taught not to murder when their minds aren't fully developed. i suppose we should wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves to introduce the idea.

i don't really see a problem... why not let the kids decide for themselves? if creationism is so obviously untrue, then what do you all have to worry about? i think kids are logical enough to figure out which is right and which is wrong.

okay i'm really confused. is this some kind of a joke?

Now, I have heard the arguement 50000 times. "Well, he is god, he created the laws of physics, he doesnt have to follow them". Well, first of all, a bit of my opinion. Don't you think it would be sort of stupid to make laws that you, "the creator of the laws of physics" yourself defies? Seems so to me.

haha, but my mother always made rules in our house that she didn't follow. same thing, right? =P

i was under the impression that the whole ID/evolution debate is usually made up of people stating their opinions. and so are the threads on this board. if they have articles and evidence to back themselves up, great. but not everyone does. i was merely stating something i thought to be true. no need to go and fuss at me.

i am aware that they are not the same thing. i was not speaking of evolution.

anyways, i'm curious, what do you all find wrong with the theory of intelligent design? what kind of scientific facts disprove it? (specifically facts that just DISPROVE it. i don't want an essay on why evolution is true. what kind of evidence do you have that SPECIFICALLY disproves the idea of a creator?)

i find it amusing that when people DO find flaws in darwinism, all who believe in darwinism blatantly deny it as being a mistake or a lie. they never bother to actually look into it. because that would make them wrong, and they certainly cannot be wrong. they automatically assume that, because it is trying to disprove darwinism, it must be wrong.

no, i'm not a creationist. i'm not really sure WHAT i believe, but, being a supporter of neither, i find darwinism to be just as likely as the idea of ID. so before you call me a lunatic creationist, know that i am not.

i am merely stating my own opinions.

did your mother actually see it? if she didn't, it could have been a little story your grandparents told her just joking around. and it may not have been related to their death at all.

if you're going to hurt someone, hurt the neighbor himself. no need to make two innocent children suffer for their parents wrongdoings. if you got pulled over while you were driving drunk, would you want your children to go to jail instead of you? if you ticked someone off, would you want them to take it out on your kids?

if he's threatening your children, get a restraining order or move.

don't hurt his kids. they didn't do anything wrong to you. if you have to hurt someone, hurt him.

if you're looking for help in shielding yourself from these emotions or simply learning to control your abilities, a great site to visit is:

http://www.psipog.net

i hope this helps you out. i am greatly intrigued by empathy, as i have recently realized i possess the ability as well. if you would like to discuss it with me, my AIM is brokenmirror65