# Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textbooks



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

http://grist.org/climate-energy/off...-be-incorporated-into-every-biology-textbook/

"Behind closed doors, textbook reviewers appointed by the Texas State Board of Education are pushing to inject creationism into teaching materials that will be adopted statewide in high schools this year".

WHAT A SHOCKER!
Way to go, Texas! Way to be a shining example of progression stupidity! I am not surprised by this at all.
Let's look at what some of the reviewers said, shall we?

"I understand the National Academy of Scienceâ€™s [sic] strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that â€œcreation scienceâ€ based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."
So you feel that it should be incorporated. Why? Because you believe in it? That is fine and I got no problem with that but stop pushing it on others!

"Text neglects to tell students that no transitional fossils have been discovered. The fossil record can be interpreted in other ways than evolutionary with equal justification. Text should ask students to analyze and compare alternative theories."
Looks like someone never went to a museum!

This is insane. They are once again pushing to get their evil bullshit religion into textbooks of public schools. This is making me sick...
First Ozriel linked me to an article about a rapist priest not being punished and now this... This day is ruined >:C


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I will be writing to the Texan board of education to ask that they include my theory about gravity fairies, based on beowulfian principles. Newtonian and Einsteinium theories of gravity have monopolised science education for too long and they are just theories; no more deserving of a place in education than _my_ theory of gravity fairies!

Crackpots unite!


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

*WHUT*.

Not the whole "evolution is only a theory" thing again... Just please no.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

At least they are correct science education needs reformation, if they don't teach people the difference between academic and colloquial use of the word 'theory'.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexxxLupo said:


> *WHUT*.
> 
> Not the whole "evolution is only a theory" thing again... Just please no.



That's what happens when you let people who have no idea about biology decide what should be part of biology textbooks...
I am pretty sure none of these people know the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes or what ATP stands for and what it does.


----------



## Distorted (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I would imagine the lessons would go something like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo


----------



## BlueStreak98 (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

"Why are we so far behind in math and science?" ask parents and politicians.

THIS IS WHY RIGHT HERE


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> That's what happens when you let people who have no idea about biology decide what should be part of biology textbooks....



This is what happens when someone has the bright idea of incorporating religion in biology textbooks.

And not just religion. _â€‹Creationism._


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I wonder whether the creation science will teach about God's invention of the 900 or so intestinal worm species he has gifted us with.

Or the new version of influenza he prepares for us as a Christmas present each year.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Are they also going to force in Astrology? I mean The Theory of Relativity is only a theory so clearly it has the same academic weight as horoscopes.


----------



## Kalmor (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Ooooooh Texas.......

Somehow I expected this to happen...


----------



## Ranguvar (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Hopefully they are just incorporating a chapter on Creationism and why it isn't science.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> I wonder whether the creation science will teach about God's invention of the 900 or so intestinal worm species he has gifted us with.
> 
> Or the new version of influenza he prepares for us as a Christmas present each year.



The word 'creation science' itself makes me cringe more than those worms


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Green_Knight said:


> Hopefully they are just incorporating a chapter on Creationism and why it isn't science.



That doesn't need a whole chapter, maybe a 5-minute tangent on syllabus day.

What _would_ be great is a primer chapter on the language of science, specifically things such as how the scientific use of the term "theory" differs from the colloquial use and how it is distinct from a "law", and how there is no such thing as "proof" in the absolute sense in inductive reasoning.


----------



## Ranguvar (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> What _would_ be great is a primer chapter on the language of science, specifically things such as how the scientific use of the term "theory" differs from the colloquial use and how it is distinct from a "law", and how there is no such thing as "proof" in the absolute sense in inductive reasoning.


One can only dream.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

The Devil put the fossils there in order to trick us into believing His Truly did not create the universe.
Wake up, sinners!


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> The word 'creation science' itself makes me cringe more than those worms



Whenever people say 'science and religion _can_ get along' my brother links to creationism to show them why they shouldn't.




Hinalle K. said:


> The Devil put the fossils there in order to  trick us into believing His Truly did not create the universe.
> Wake up, sinners!



An ironic coincidence is that one of the most known fossils in England is known as 'Devil's toenail'.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Relevant.

I should probably object to a state that's ideologically nearer to the Seditious Slave-Owning Rebels aka the Confederate State Of America than the rest dictating the education of multiple generations to come, but on the other hand this might be _the _opportunity wrest preeminence in science and technology from you. All you ever did with 'em was building bigger bombs and polluting petro-industry.

Europe shall rise!!


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

One of the reasons I hate Texas right here. Makes the rest of us look bad when something horrendously stupid gets voted in by religious extremists in office. 

Saying that Science Text books should carry Creationism as a serious "theory" would be letting the door open to any other religion or mystic sense of creation theory. I'm talking from the Aborigine Dreamtime Snake to vague South American tribes who believe that the world was regurgitated from the belly of some mythical beast.


----------



## powderhound (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

This is nothing new. When I was in high school we had to write letters to the Board of Education in Kansas as part of our assignments for AP biology. 

If these kids cannot be taught the language of science then they will be at a disadvantage compared to their peers if they progress in their education. 

I could never get a feel for whether this was just small-town drama which makes for good media coverage or if this was a legitimate threat to the educational system in Texas? 

Can any Texan furs comment?

Sadly, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease: http://youtu.be/haLVpRPIeRw


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Recently a creationist sent me a math proof that horses have infinite legs in order to show me that science, which is apparently based on unquestionable mathematical models, is fallible. 

I will spare you the details but the proof consisted of confusing the colloquial expression 'a horse with 6 legs would be odd' with the mathematical definition 'odd numbers cannot be divisible by two,'.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

hahahah 'MURICA


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Whenever people say 'science and religion _can_ get along' my brother links to creationism to show them why they shouldn't.



Religion and science work in completely opposite ways. If people say they can get along I am pretty sure they have no idea about scientific thinking :T



powderhound said:


> If these kids cannot be taught the language of science then they will be at a disadvantage compared to their peers if they progress in their education.



They will have a huge disadvantage! If they don't learn to question everything and not to accept anything without proper evidence they will accept anything they are being told by people of authority!
Wait a minute... Ohhh I get it now!


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kitsune Cross said:


> hahahah 'MURICA



Back to back World War champs!


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

To all those that asked "why texas?" in the state thread...

do you see why now?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> To all those that asked "why texas?" in the state thread...
> 
> do you see why now?



Yeah, I think Mexico actually won the war :V


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I know it shouldn't be a shocker coming from Texas, but I'm always a little surprised to hear things like this because I never had to deal with these kind of issues, while I was growing up.  Anyways, the situation is ridiculous, and I don't think it'll go through.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



BouncyOtter said:


> I know it shouldn't be a shocker coming from Texas, but I'm always a little surprised to hear things like this because I never had to deal with these kind of issues, while I was growing up.  Anyways, the situation is ridiculous, and I don't think it'll go through.



In a state where the main party in power actively works against critical thinking in their plattform anything can happen


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Recently a creationist sent me a math proof that horses have infinite legs in order to show me that science, which is apparently based on unquestionable mathematical models, is fallible.
> 
> I will spare you the details but the proof consisted of confusing the colloquial expression 'a horse with 6 legs would be odd' with the mathematical definition 'odd numbers cannot be divisible by two,'.



My brain melted reading this.

Now I will never be able to understand the logic behind this report =(


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

_*Science (noun)* - A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability._

Holy oxymoron, Batman!

While we're at it let's rev up those Deep-Sea Astronomy textbooks as well.



CaptainCool said:


> I understand the National Academy of Scienceâ€™s [sic] strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory.



People are STILL calling evolution just a fucking theory?


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Wouldn't it be great if it was 'the _fact_ of evolution" instead of 'the theory of evolution'? Then there probably wouldn't be any of this "evolution is just a theory" nonsense.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Saliva said:


> People are STILL calling evolution just a fucking theory?



Yeah.
I mean, it IS a theory. It is still completely falsifiable. It's just that we have so much evidence for it that we can call the core idea, change over time through genetic variations, a fact. And when I hear people say that there are no transitional forms I just feel like smacking them in the face...
They have no idea about the subject at all and they have the audacity to tell those who studied evolution on university level that it is "just a theory" and not a fact? That isn't just stupid. It is arrogant. It is the exact same kind of arrogance that I don't like about religious people.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Yeah.
> I mean, it IS a theory. It is still completely falsifiable. It's just that we have so much evidence for it that we can call the core idea, change over time through genetic variations, a fact. And when I hear people say that there are no transitional forms I just feel like smacking them in the face...
> They have no idea about the subject at all and they have the audacity to tell those who studied evolution on university level that it is "just a theory" and not a fact? That isn't just stupid. It is arrogant. It is the exact same kind of arrogance that I don't like about religious people.



Religious people probably feel the same way when they are told their years of devotion and study in order to become a priest or imam are commitments to figures of myth. 

The difference of course being libraries of evidence.


----------



## DrDingo (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Wait.. so people would be able to answer test questions with 'God did it'?


----------



## Wakboth (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I'm pretty sure this will go nowhere, but will waste time and money getting there. The Dover case pretty much killed ID, and out-and-out Creationism has been repeatedly ruled as religious instead of scientific matter by federal courts IIRC.

Also, the idea that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is silly, uninformed and makes about as much sense than claiming that reason and emotion are fundamentally incompatible. Non-overlapping magisteria, people!


----------



## Blackberry Polecat (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

It's so alien to me that such a developed nation has shit like this going on.

I need to ask a creationist where they think dogs come from, at the very least.

ALSO: Hurr durr there are other religions. Shouldn't Hindu creation myths be taught in these lessons too? Or are these the kind of people who pretend other religions are as imaginary as fossils apparently are?


----------



## Inpw (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



DrDingo said:


> Wait.. so people would be able to answer test questions with 'God did it'?




Prove that x = y
x = y
Because god said so! And we shouldn't question faith cause we'll all burn in hell.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Religious people probably feel the same way when they are told their years of devotion and study in order to become a priest or imam are commitments to figures of myth.
> 
> The difference of course being libraries of evidence.



I see it like this:
We are all free to state our own opinion. But with rights come obligations. And in the case of freedom of expression you have an obligation to make sure that you can actually support your opinion with logic and reason. Otherwise it would be acceptable to have opinions like "the holocause never happened" or "black people aren't real people".

So religious people probably do feel treated unfairly when you speak up against their opinion. But I don't give a shit about that! If they make retarded claims about evolution and other subjects that they have no idea about then I'm not just gonna sit around and deal with that, I am gonna speak up and tell them that what they are saying is nothing but a load of bullshit. And I really wish more people would do that instead of _protecting_ these people because "OH NO THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION!"
No! Fuck you! No one is entitled to their opinion! Bullshit is bullshit, no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Blackberry Polecat said:


> It's so alien to me that such a developed nation has shit like this going on.
> 
> I need to ask a creationist where they think dogs come from, at the very least.
> 
> ALSO: Hurr durr there are other religions. Shouldn't Hindu creation myths be taught in these lessons too? Or are these the kind of people who pretend other religions are as imaginary as fossils apparently are?



I've asked them. They think that 'microevolution' allows breeds of dog to diversify from an archetypal dog 'kind' that was aboard noah's ark. 

Furthermore other religions? Those be the writings of the deveivivlvilvil!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



DrDingo said:


> Wait.. so people would be able to answer test questions with 'God did it'?



"Entirety of Texas students now hitting A+ every exam, USA is now statistically the best place to live for an education"


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Yeah.
> I mean, it IS a theory. It is still completely falsifiable. It's just that we have so much evidence for it that we can call the core idea, change over time through genetic variations, a fact. And when I hear people say that there are no transitional forms I just feel like smacking them in the face...



Evolution IS a fact.

You can grow bacteria in a lab and literally MEASURE their adaptation to the environment.

I know it may be called the 'theory of evolution/natural selection' because that's what it was initially presented as, but our knowledge of what DOES happen has come so far since then.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Filthy savages enamored with filthier savages.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> I've asked them. They think that 'microevolution' allows breeds of dog to diversify from an archetypal dog 'kind' that was aboard noah's ark.
> 
> Furthermore other religions? Those be the writings of the deveivivlvilvil!



"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two other words that make me throw up in my mouth a little...



AlexxxLupo said:


> Evolution IS a fact.
> 
> You can grow bacteria in a lab and literally MEASURE their adaptation to the environment.
> 
> I know it may be called the 'theory of evolution/natural selection' because that's what it was initially presented as, but our knowledge of what DOES happen has come so far since then.



Of course it is a fact^^ When I say it's falsifiable I mean that certain aspects, finer details if you will, can still be improved. It's like a puzzle: You have come so far that you can see the end result already but there are still some holes so you can't see all the finer details yet.
We know a LOT about it already but we are still improving it.


----------



## Smelge (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Blackberry Polecat said:


> It's so alien to me that such a developed nation has shit like this going on.


We only have their word that they're civilised.



> ALSO: Hurr durr there are other religions. Shouldn't Hindu creation myths be taught in these lessons too? Or are these the kind of people who pretend other religions are as imaginary as fossils apparently are?


Fun fact: The American Constitution says that people in America are free to practice whatever religion they so choose. Just at some point, certain people decided that meant Christianity only.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexxxLupo said:


> Evolution IS a fact.
> 
> You can grow bacteria in a lab and literally MEASURE their adaptation to the environment.
> 
> I know it may be called the 'theory of evolution/natural selection' because that's what it was initially presented as, but our knowledge of what DOES happen has come so far since then.



Correct. The reason it's still a theory is because it's impossible to witness sub specie generation in multicellular organisms due to natural selection.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> Correct. The reason it's still a theory is because it's impossible to witness sub specie generation in multicellular organisms due to natural selection.



Multicellular organisms are irrelevant because evolution happens on a genetic level. And prokaryotes have genes as well.
During Richard Lenski's favorite experiment e. coli gained the ability of aerobic citrate usage for example. His experiment is a prime example for evolution in action.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Multicellular organisms are irrelevant because evolution happens on a genetic level. And prokaryotes have genes as well.
> During Richard Lenski's favorite experiment e. coli gained the ability of aerobic citrate usage for example. His experiment is a prime example for evolution in action.



Yeah but creationists will hammer on it until they witness a plant giving birth to a monkey.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Distorted said:


> I would imagine the lessons would go something like this.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo



oooh love it!!


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> Yeah but creationists will hammer on it until they witness a plant giving birth to a monkey.



And while the theory of evolution can only be subject to what is ultimately nitpicking, god forbid anyone tell creationists that their own theory has been entirely refuted by research.

I can barely comprehend that people in this day and age still choose to believe this.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> Yeah but creationists will hammer on it until they witness a plant giving birth to a monkey.



Yes, because they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about^^
"Macroevolution" and "microevolution" are actually words created by creationists. They needed something to agree on to not look like complete fools. For them "microevolution" is essentially a compromise to say that yes, some kind of short term evolution actually happens. Like a certain kind of moth, before the industrial revolution 95% of them were white. Afterwards 95% of them were black. These moths heavily depend on camoflage, white moths are visible on black surfaces. For them, that is "microevolution".
What they deny is "macroevolution", which is essentially long term evolution that actually results in a new species.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexxxLupo said:


> And while the theory of evolution can only be subject to what is ultimately nitpicking, god forbid anyone tell creationists that their own theory has been entirely refuted by research.
> 
> I can barely comprehend that people in this day and age still choose to believe this.



To be fair, you can't choose what to believe. These people got this bullshit hammered into them ever since they were kids, they had no choice but to believe it. And since they just don't know any better they try to spread it.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Seeing as how public schools are required to follow separation of church and state, they should lose federal funding if they go through with this. The very notion is preposterous!


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> To be fair, you can't choose what to believe. These people got this bullshit hammered into them ever since they were kids, they had no choice but to believe it. And since they just don't know any better they try to spread it.



But still, fuckin' keep it out of science class!

Otherise, yes, people have the right to believe what they believe.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

It is so great to have a thread in which we all agree that these people are indeed loonatics. Feels good man :3



DrewlyYours said:


> Seeing as how public schools are required to follow separation of church and state, they should lose federal funding if they go through with this. The very notion is preposterous!



It really is. Schools are supposed to teach facts about the real world and not some 2000 year old pipedreams that some high hippies came up with in their tent...



AlexxxLupo said:


> But still, fuckin' keep it out of science class!
> 
> Otherise, yes, people have the right to believe what they believe.



Yup, they definitely should keep it out of there. As I said many times before, I got nothin' against personal believes that stay personal. Try pushing it on others I will wreck your shit.


----------



## Icky (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Hey, creationism and religious sciences were taught in my chemistry class a few years ago.

Granted, it was the chapter where we learned about the differences between science and pseudoscience, but it was still a lesson!


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> Correct. The reason it's still a theory is because it's impossible to witness sub specie generation in multicellular organisms due to natural selection.



No.  The reason that it's still a theory is that theories stay theories and never become laws or other things because they are different.

Laws are not "proven" theories.  A scientific theory is an explanatory model of some given phenomenon in the natural world, while a scientific law is merely descriptive and is usually expressed mathematically.

Evolution cannot be expressed as a mathematical function or principle, so there is no law of evolution.  But there are things such as the Hardy-Weinberg law that state the expected distribution of genotypes in a population.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> No.  The reason that it's still a theory is that theories stay theories and never become laws or other things because they are different.
> 
> Laws are not "proven" theories.  A scientific theory is an explanatory model of some given phenomenon in the natural world, while a scientific law is merely descriptive and is usually expressed mathematically.
> 
> Evolution cannot be expressed as a mathematical function or principle, so there is no law of evolution.  But there are things such as the Hardy-Weinberg law that state the expected distribution of genotypes in a population.



Law or theory doesn't really matter here though. It is a fact, that is the point that these people don't get into their heads. That they can't grasp the difference between law and theory is kind of understandable but that they are actively ignoring hard facts that prove evolution and then push for their own shit to be taught in schools is plain disgusting.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I think the bible should be teach in literature, I HONESTLY think(seriously no sarcasm) the bible it's the best fiction book ever made by humanity


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kitsune Cross said:


> I think the bible should be teach in literature, I HONESTLY think(seriously no sarcasm) the bible it's the best fiction book ever made by humanity



I think it's a pretty disgusting piece of literature all around^^


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

No, I think it's a fucking excellent story especially if you look deeper into it.

Satan is actually the good guy, for example. That's a great twist hidden inbetween the lines.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> No.  The reason that it's still a theory is that theories stay theories and never become laws or other things because they are different.
> 
> Laws are not "proven" theories.  A scientific theory is an explanatory model of some given phenomenon in the natural world, while a scientific law is merely descriptive and is usually expressed mathematically.
> 
> Evolution cannot be expressed as a mathematical function or principle, so there is no law of evolution.  But there are things such as the Hardy-Weinberg law that state the expected distribution of genotypes in a population.



And this. Laws were never theories and theories don't become laws. My issue with this is the way the word gets thrown around like some sort of pipe dream. We should call it Evolution.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Law or theory doesn't really matter here though. It is a fact, that is the point that these people don't get into their heads. That they can't grasp the difference between law and theory is kind of understandable but that they are actively ignoring hard facts that prove evolution and then push for their own shit to be taught in schools is plain disgusting.



That's another thing, theories are different from facts and don't become facts by being "proven" either.

A fact is simply an objective observation of something that happened.  Evolution is a fact because evolutionary changes in populations have been observed, and then there is also the theory of evolution that explains why those changes occurred.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> That's another thing, theories are different from facts and don't become facts by being "proven" either.
> 
> A fact is simply an objective observation of something that happened.  Evolution is a fact because evolutionary changes in populations have been observed, and then there is also the theory of evolution that explains why those changes occurred.



Exactly^^ That is why evolution is both a theory and not _just_ a theory.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> Satan is actually the good guy, for example. That's a great twist hidden inbetween the lines.



You know, I've always found it curious about how Satan is portrayed in the Bible. He is a fallen soul. An angle, fallen from heaven and grace. For all intents and purposes, a fallen child. And evil one--but a fallen one nonetheless. 

So in all the history of the Bible, including new and old testaments, not *once* does anyone ever pray for Satan--the fallen soul who's needed it most since the beginning of time.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CoyoteCaliente said:


> You know, I've always found it curious about how Satan is portrayed in the Bible. He is a fallen soul. An angle, fallen from heaven and grace. For all intents and purposes, a fallen child. And evil one--but a fallen one nonetheless.
> 
> So in all the history of the Bible, including new and old testaments, not *once* does anyone ever pray for Satan--the fallen soul who's needed it most since the beginning of time.



The devil inspired humans to develop their critical thinking, which god obviously did NOT want and he did NOT want them to eat from his private tree of knowledge so adam and eve and their children could remain thought-slaves.

The devil understands human nature fully, and he does not pass judgement on anyone for behaving like humans do, and those God turns away, the devil accepts unconditionally.

And he recieves so much hate. Why? Because he can take it. He's not our hero. He's our silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight.

I worship the damn devil


----------



## Inpw (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kitsune Cross said:


> I think the bible should be teach in literature, I HONESTLY think(seriously no sarcasm) the bible it's the best fiction book ever made by humanity



I can't read a novel where the first sentence doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I will totally be on board with them as long as they can add the Flying Spaghetti monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn to the mathematics and History curriculum.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> And he recieves so much hate. Why? Because he can take it. He's not our hero. He's our silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight.



He prolly receives a lot of hate cause, I dunno, he tempts people into losing their souls so that he can torture them forever in the depths of hell but idk I may have skimmed that part during Sunday School.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kitsune Cross said:


> I think the bible should be teach in literature, I HONESTLY think(seriously no sarcasm) the bible it's the best fiction book ever made by humanity



Fucking this.

Even if you don't believe in it or anything, you have to admit it's all pretty badass.

I just wish filmmakers didn't make it look so god damn _boring_ all the time. Because it totally wasn't.

Supernatural did a great job making the feud between Heaven and Hell look badass, though.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CoyoteCaliente said:


> He prolly receives a lot of hate cause, I dunno, he tempts people into losing their souls so that he can torture them forever in the depths of hell but idk I may have skimmed that part during Sunday School.



isn't that what _god_ said he did though

satan only killed at most like 9 or 10 people by himself, as opposed to god's countless millions


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> isn't that what _god_ said he did though




God says lots of things, like I should be stoned to death for having premarital sex. :V


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Ozriel said:


> God says lots of things, like I should be stoned to death for having premarital sex. :V



see

what a cunt


----------



## Icky (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kitsune Cross said:


> I think the bible should be teach in literature, I HONESTLY think(seriously no sarcasm) the bible it's the best fiction book ever made by humanity



...You're kidding, right? Regardless of whether or not I believe in it, you have to admit the text and stories by themselves are boring as shit. And don't say it's different if you believe the stories are true. You don't have to believe that Harry Potter or Gandalf were real to find their books entertaining.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> isn't that what _god_ said he did though



Yes, but no... I mean...

Well I won't go too far into it, for the sake of derailing the thread. In the context of the Bible, (whom is, yes, written by God through men), Satan is an evil figure who actively looked to corrupt man farther (first with the burden of knowledge, and then on and on through his many ploys.)

But yes, if it was written from Satan's point of view, it probably would sketch a different story. But that's pretty much with ALL stories. I mean, even Voldemort thought he was in the right pretty much 99 percent of the time.


----------



## Namba (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CoyoteCaliente said:


> He prolly receives a lot of hate cause, I dunno, he tempts people into losing their souls so that he can torture them forever in the depths of hell but idk I may have skimmed that part during Sunday School.


Nah, Satan doesn't reside in Hell; it's more like his final destination. Kind of a "I'm going down and I'm taking you with me" type of thing.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CoyoteCaliente said:


> Yes, but no... I mean...
> 
> Well I won't go too far into it, for the sake of derailing the thread. In the context of the Bible, (whom is, yes, written by God through men), Satan is an evil figure who actively looked to corrupt man farther (first with the burden of knowledge, and then on and on through his many ploys.)
> 
> But yes, if it was written from Satan's point of view, it probably would sketch a different story. But that's pretty much with ALL stories. I mean, even Voldemort thought he was in the right pretty much 99 percent of the time.



Isn't that why it's such a good story?

You can go through the entire text and see how so many things can just be flipped over and change the entire meaning of the story? 

There's a .gif somewhere that I'd love to find to help illustrate my perspective. It was a gif with a white background with an outline of a woman ripping her chest open to let black moths spew forth. Next to it was the exact same gif, but the colours had been inverted. Black exposed white.

The change of the colours, i.e. the perspective, told what is essentially the same story but with a whole new amount of deeper meaning/implications/whathaveyou.

Ed:

Found the white gif


----------



## Namba (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> Isn't that why it's such a good story?
> 
> You can go through the entire text and see how so many things can just be flipped over and change the entire meaning of the story?
> 
> ...


Dude, that's pretty awesome.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> Isn't that why it's such a good story?
> You can go through the entire text and see how so many things can just be flipped over and change the entire meaning of the story?
> There's a .gif somewhere that I'd love to find to help illustrate my perspective. It was a gif with a white background with an outline of a woman ripping her chest open to let black moths spew forth. Next to it was the exact same gif, but the colours had been inverted. Black exposed white.
> The change of the colours, i.e. the perspective, told what is essentially the same story but with a whole new amount of deeper meaning/implications/whathaveyou.
> ...



Haha, trust me I know. As both a writer and someone raised on a daily dose of Jesus, I fully see both sides of the story and all the haunting implications. Probably why I began to doubt and question at a very young age. To say that this argument has been thought over and over in my own mind, up until the 4am black of a lonely morning, would be an understatement.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> isn't that what _god_ said he did though
> 
> satan only killed at most like 9 or 10 people by himself, as opposed to god's countless millions



Old Testament God wasn't a nice guy at all. Full of hate and anger.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexxxLupo said:


> Old Testament God wasn't a nice guy at all. Full of hate and anger.



Almost like a young god---or a teen one. 


Hmmmmm....


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CoyoteCaliente said:


> Almost like a young god---or a teen one.
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm....



aaaaa

see, all these little intricacies and how open to interpretation they are is why the Bible is a real work of arrrrrt

I just wish people could make more interesting movies about it without getting fundies fucking them in the ass


----------



## Distorted (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I've learned to not hate the belief, just the people who believe it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Distorted said:


> I've learned to not hate the belief, just the people who believe it.



I think the belief itself is pretty disgusting as well. Christianity is about a god that can judge you for thought crimes while you are sleeping afterall.


----------



## Namba (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> I think the belief itself is pretty disgusting as well. Christianity is about a god that can judge you for thought crimes while you are sleeping afterall.


The God described in the Bible never made complete sense to me. I mean, what kind of sentient being who hates sin and is only capable of perfection and cannot sin himself puts man on earth _knowing_ Adam and his mate are going to fuck up so he can go "oh, well. Time to curse future generations to come so I can send my son to save humanity. I just knew I created a couple of foul-ups!" I mean, if you think about it, who _really_ tempted man? Was it really Satan, or was it God who put the damn tree there in the first place knowing we'd mess up? And you know what really makes no sense? If we were a perfect race to begin with, where did we even have the capacity to disobey God in the first place? None of it adds up. And if you ask me, God has a serious martyr complex; it's like "oh, you don't believe in me? You won't accept my help and forgiveness? How does an eternity in Hell sound? Oh, and to make it even more interesting, I'm going to make sure my presence is never actually proven to mankind and then get mad that people don't believe in me. Oh, and here's a book. Have fun playing the world's longest game of telephone! See ya!"

Am I on to something here?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Saliva said:


> Fucking this.
> 
> Even if you don't believe in it or anything, you have to admit it's all pretty badass.
> 
> ...



HEY HEY
Prince of Egypt
Joseph, the King of Dreams



Namba said:


> The God described in the Bible never made complete  sense to me. I mean, what kind of sentient being who hates sin and is  only capable of perfection and cannot sin himself puts man on earth _knowing_  Adam and his mate are going to fuck up so he can go "oh, well. Time to  curse future generations to come so I can send my son to save humanity. I  just knew I created a couple of foul-ups!" I mean, if you think about  it, who _really_ tempted man? Was it really Satan, or was it God  who put the damn tree there in the first place knowing we'd mess up? And  you know what really makes no sense? If we were a perfect race to begin  with, where did we even have the capacity to disobey God in the first  place? None of it adds up. And if you ask me, God has a serious martyr  complex; it's like "oh, you don't believe in me? You won't accept my  help and forgiveness? How does an eternity in Hell sound? Oh, and to  make it even more interesting, I'm going to make sure my presence is  never actually proven to mankind and then get mad that people don't  believe in me. Oh, and here's a book. Have fun playing the world's  longest game of telephone! See ya!"
> 
> Am I on to something here?



-sigh- well, i should be working on my religion course but this is close enough.
My explanation of "If God knew x, then why did he do y?"
God doesn't "know" what you're going to do. He only knows the result of what will happen depending on the path you take.
Eve was tricked by the snake. Before then, they didn't give a fuck about the tree. God said "don't eat it" so they didn't.
He  didn't give anyone a book. Man wrote the bible inspired by God. The  only two things that God/Jesus said for us to do is "Love God" and "Love  your Neighbor". Even if you don't know God, as long as you treat your  fellow man as you'd like to be treated then you're fine.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Namba said:


> The God described in the Bible never made complete sense to me. I mean, what kind of sentient being who hates sin and is only capable of perfection and cannot sin himself puts man on earth _knowing_ Adam and his mate are going to fuck up so he can go "oh, well. Time to curse future generations to come so I can send my son to save humanity. I just knew I created a couple of foul-ups!" I mean, if you think about it, who _really_ tempted man? Was it really Satan, or was it God who put the damn tree there in the first place knowing we'd mess up? And you know what really makes no sense? If we were a perfect race to begin with, where did we even have the capacity to disobey God in the first place? None of it adds up. And if you ask me, God has a serious martyr complex; it's like "oh, you don't believe in me? You won't accept my help and forgiveness? How does an eternity in Hell sound? Oh, and to make it even more interesting, I'm going to make sure my presence is never actually proven to mankind and then get mad that people don't believe in me. Oh, and here's a book. Have fun playing the world's longest game of telephone! See ya!"
> 
> Am I on to something here?



You could argue that shit needed to go south for Adam and Eve because god's creation doesn't work without sin. Think about it, if Adam and Eve were supposed to be immortal, why did they have to eat anything (including that fruit fromt he tree of knowledge) to begin with? "Be _fruitful_ and multiply"?
This video shows pretty well what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY


----------



## Namba (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> HEY HEY
> Prince of Egypt
> Joseph, the King of Dreams


And hey, while we're on the topic of religious cinema, The Ten Commandments anyone?


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Despite the risk of getting into it with you Capn' Cool, since I'm ready to be called a dipshit dumbass and all that, Christianity is not about a god who can judge you about crimes you thought up while you were sleeping. It's just about whether or not you believe that Christ existed and was resurrected.  Christianity arguably doesn't even require you to believe that Christ was _divine._ There were early sects of Christians who denied that Jesus was divine.  It doesn't require you to believe in creationism or really anything other than that Christ was resurrected.  What you want to bitch about is all the numerous, stupid Jesus clubs that bicker over the interpretations that are the actual fuckwittery.  Attitudes towards/about Christianity are different in different countries because of the people who make their own flavors, and with the South you get this crazy-ass bullshit, but that's _crazy-ass bullshit_, not Christianity.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Namba said:


> And hey, while we're on the topic of religious cinema, The Ten Commandments anyone?



I would suggest Life of Brian but that's more of a parody than a film proper religious film.


----------



## Namba (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Sutekh_the_Destroyer said:


> I would suggest Life of Brian but that's more of a parody than a film proper religious film.


YES


----------



## Distorted (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> I think the belief itself is pretty disgusting as well. Christianity is about a god that can judge you for thought crimes while you are sleeping afterall.



I hate that's how it seems like that. But I wouldn't blame you. People seem to pervert the actual message behind the religion. It's been like that all through history. It used to make me angry to go to church because the preacher would say such horrible things.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I wish Good Omens was made into a film :c Or at least hurry up with the TV series


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

What is it with furries and rehashed religious arguments? How many times do we need to know about how evil religious people are and how much smarter atheists are compared to them? Seriously people, didn't we already have a million religious threads on here and have argued these subjects multiple times?


It's getting to the point where religious people and atheists are getting to be fucking pathetic and immature. 



Anyhow, I don't see why this surprises you people.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



HipsterCoyote said:


> Despite the risk of getting into it with you Capn' Cool, since I'm ready to be called a dipshit dumbass and all that, Christianity is not about a god who can judge you about crimes you thought up while you were sleeping. It's just about whether or not you believe that Christ existed and was resurrected.  Christianity arguably doesn't even require you to believe that Christ was _divine._ There were early sects of Christians who denied that Jesus was divine.  It doesn't require you to believe in creationism or really anything other than that Christ was resurrected.  What you want to bitch about is all the numerous, stupid Jesus clubs that bicker over the interpretations that are the actual fuckwittery.  Attitudes towards/about Christianity are different in different countries because of the people who make their own flavors, and with the South you get this crazy-ass bullshit, but that's _crazy-ass bullshit_, not Christianity.



I have three problems with that:
- We have almost no evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed.
- Jesus isn't all that special because other people in the bible came back from the dead as well.
- There is no evidence at all that he actually was resurrected.

For that reason I strongly believe that christianity, along with all other religions, really is nothing but crazy-ass bullshit.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



TheMetalVelocity said:


> What is it with furries and rehashed religious arguments? How many times do we need to know about how evil religious people are and how much smarter atheists are compared to them? Seriously people, didn't we already have a million religious threads on here and have argued these subjects multiple times?
> 
> 
> It's getting to the point where religious people and atheists are getting to be fucking pathetic and immature.
> ...


Says the guy who keeps bringing up Zimmerman bullshit :V


----------



## Icky (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



TheMetalVelocity said:


> It's getting to the point where religious people and atheists are getting to be fucking pathetic and immature.



So...everybody?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Says the guy who keeps bringing up Zimmerman bullshit :V


 Maybe twice, but this is like every month.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



TheMetalVelocity said:


> Maybe twice, but this is like every month.



Yeah, and in this case the entire forum seems to agree that these people who are trying to spread their nonsense through textbooks at public schools are giant loonies and need to be stopped.
So what is your point?


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Gibby said:


> Isn't that why it's such a good story?
> 
> You can go through the entire text and see how so many things can just be flipped over and change the entire meaning of the story?
> 
> ...



Fuck, I want to see the other gif now ):


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, and in this case the entire forum seems to agree that these people who are trying to spread their nonsense through textbooks at public schools are giant loonies and need to be stopped.
> So what is your point?



He's mad he can't talk about how people are stupid about the Zimmerman trial because that's still relevant right? :V


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> He's mad he can't talk about how people are stupid about the Zimmerman trial because that's still relevant right? :V


 Says the one that is constantly bringing up Zimmerman on an religious thread like that's what's been on my mind or some shit. Also, you say you are a christian, I am surprised you are actually one of the people who are ticked off about this whole subject, like it's surprising news a religious person would actually do this. Don't tell me you're one of those Christians that believe in evolution or some shit.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Knock it off, or I'm going to be taking heads!


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



TheMetalVelocity said:


> Says the one that is constantly bringing up Zimmerman on an religious thread like that's what's been on my mind or some shit. Also, you say you are a christian, I am surprised you are actually one of the people who are ticked off about this whole subject, like it's surprising news a religious person would actually do this. Don't tell me you're one of those Christians that believe in evolution or some shit.



Holy shit it's like different people believe different things O_O

WHAT A GROUND BREAKING DISCOVERY


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Holy shit it's like different people believe different things O_O
> 
> WHAT A GROUND BREAKING DISCOVERY



BELIEVING IN DIFFERENT THINGS IS HOW WE GOT IN THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

ALL MUST BOW TO THE OLD GODS!


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> - We have almost no evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed.




Correct me if I'm wrong or repeating legend--but isn't there mention of Jesus in the Koran?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Holy shit it's like different people believe different things O_O
> 
> WHAT A GROUND BREAKING DISCOVERY


 Christianity and Evolution combined is like one of the biggest oxymorons. It's like trying to fence sit or something. They are two incompatible beliefs.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CoyoteCaliente said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong or repeating legend--but isn't there mention of Jesus in the Koran?



to be fair, even if this was the case, he said "ALMOST" no evidence. Not just "No evidence".


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I do think jesus was real but I don't think he was god, just some really crazy hippie


----------



## Machine (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kitsune Cross said:


> I do think jesus was real but I don't think he was god, just some really crazy hippie


I think he and several other Biblical figures must have gotten stoned off their asses on some mushrooms or something.

There wasn't a lot to do back in those days.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Machine said:


> I think he and several other Biblical figures must have gotten stoned off their asses on some mushrooms or something.
> 
> There wasn't a lot to do back in those days.



Well that explains the reason why they saw demons.


----------



## Machine (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Well that explains the reason why they saw demons.


Also explains a flaming bush pretty well.

If not, ALIENS. :V


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Machine said:


> I think he and several other Biblical figures must have gotten stoned off their asses on some mushrooms or something.
> 
> There wasn't a lot to do back in those days.



Totally, they also had opium at that age


----------



## Conker (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

It's been said by scientists that even if we shat away all of our fossils, we still have enough evidence to prove evolution to be true with genetics. 

And scientific theory =/= "theory" as used in normal vernacular. 

But it's Texas and I live in the north so fuck it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

...What happened here? 

Whether or not any religious figure existed, or any version of any religion in any sense has any inkling of truth to it the actions attributed to the education board in the OP would be unjustified- because scientific theories do not concede ground to religious mythologies no matter what your view of them or their prophets.

Discussing what kind of bullshit explanation you attribute to a bronze age text in order to make its God appear 21st century friendly, or what possible hallucinogens you think can be invoked to explain the advent of mythologies has no relevance at all, really.



Conker said:


> *It's been said by scientists that even if we shat  away all of our fossils, we still have enough evidence to prove  evolution to be true with genetics. *
> 
> And scientific theory =/= "theory" as used in normal vernacular.
> 
> But it's Texas and I live in the north so fuck it.



I've had the luck of discussing this with a collection of creationists before. They think that genetic evidence supports them and they have a psuedoscientific version of genomics: http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

They believe that their genetic evidence of organism's relation to each other shows that there is a different common ancestor for every 'kind' of life, whatever a 'kind' might be and that all speciation from these kinds occurred after their world flood. 

The lengths they go to in order to disguise their faith in scientific vocabulary surprises me, especially when they insist on using floppy and vague words like 'kind' which ruin the illusion.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Machine said:


> Also explains a flaming bush pretty well.
> 
> If not, ALIENS. :V



The whole flaming bush thing was just Moses being all "Dude, I went to find this sheep and there was this naked chick, right, and she had a HOT BUSH." And Moses's friends were all "EWWW, MAN, GROSS, WHAT ARE YOU, LIKE, FRENCH OR SOMETHING?!" And Moses was all "Guess who has two thumbs and got some? THIS GUY."

And the Lord did not speak to him for a very long time.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> ...What happened here?
> 
> Whether or not any religious figure existed, or any version of any religion in any sense has any inkling of truth to it the actions attributed to the education board in the OP would be unjustified- because scientific theories do not concede ground to religious mythologies no matter what your view of them or their prophets.
> 
> Discussing what kind of bullshit explanation you attribute to a bronze age text in order to make its God appear 21st century friendly, or what possible hallucinogens you think can be invoked to explain the advent of mythologies has no relevance at all, really.



Gibby and I started mildly musing on the intricacies of the Bible before it got took'd off with it.


----------



## Namba (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> I have three problems with that:
> - We have almost no evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed.
> - Jesus isn't all that special because other people in the bible came back from the dead as well.
> - There is no evidence at all that he actually was resurrected.
> ...


Okay, dude, your first bullet point needs to be corrected: Jesus was a real person in history. I'm gonna (loosely) quote C.S. Lewis here: he was either a liar, crazy, or he was telling the truth.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Hahaha. Our state board of education is so full of shit. A few of the members on it are appointed by our dumbass job stealing governor, which means he chooses the most Liberty University* educated Christians to formulate school criteria. Probably so that said Christian groups don't call him gay.

*Not a real university.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



TheMetalVelocity said:


> Says the one that is constantly bringing up Zimmerman on an religious thread like that's what's been on my mind or some shit. Also, you say you are a christian, I am surprised you are actually one of the people who are ticked off about this whole subject, like it's surprising news a religious person would actually do this. *Don't tell me you're one of those Christians that believe in evolution or some shit.*



We got a live one!

OPEN THE BLOOD GATES!


----------



## Machine (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> The whole flaming bush thing was just Moses being all "Dude, I went to find this sheep and there was this naked chick, right, and she had a HOT BUSH." And Moses's friends were all "EWWW, MAN, GROSS, WHAT ARE YOU, LIKE, FRENCH OR SOMETHING?!" And Moses was all "Guess who has two thumbs and got some? THIS GUY."
> 
> And the Lord did not speak to him for a very long time.


Meanwhile, Jesus was busy curbstomping dinosaurs on Mount Sinai.


----------



## Conker (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> I've had the luck of discussing this with a collection of creationists before. They think that genetic evidence supports them and they have a psuedoscientific version of genomics: http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology
> 
> They believe that their genetic evidence of organism's relation to each other shows that there is a different common ancestor for every 'kind' of life, whatever a 'kind' might be and that all speciation from these kinds occurred after their world flood.
> 
> The lengths they go to in order to disguise their faith in scientific vocabulary surprises me, especially when they insist on using floppy and vague words like 'kind' which ruin the illusion.


That's frightening :[


----------



## Machine (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Why don't they just replace the science books with Bibles.


----------



## Troj (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Many Christians believe in evolution, because not all Christians believe that Genesis recounts the _literal_ creation of the Universe, down to the exact time units and timeline---indeed, not all Christians believe that the Bible necessarily has to be interpreted "literally," period, because they recognize that the Bible contains many metaphors, and was written in a different time and context by various authors who were attempting to understand God and the universe using the tools and language they had. 

(For example, the eagle-eyed reader will notice that Genesis contains TWO accounts of creation, each with a different timeline.)

Not to mention, chastising Christians for believing scientifically and/or ethically CORRECT things is utterly asinine, especially when doesn't understand the particular theological rationale for those beliefs in the first place.

Too many young evangelicals erroneously believe that the core of Christian faith is tied to harping on gays and fetuses and believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, so many stifle and deny their doubts and questions because they don't want to be cast into outer darkness. These poor folks are already receiving this idiotic head-trip from their own families and communities; they don't need it from us, too. We'd be doing ourselves a favor as a society if we rejected the claim that to be authentically Christian is to be a pre-millennialist young-earth creationist Republican.

Oh, and I'm a bit rusty on the research related to the "historical Jesus," but my suspicion has been (based on my reading, at least) is that we may be dealing with Historical Jes_i_, plural, with popular mythology mixed in--meaning, you won't find a single identifiable historical figure who matches the _complete _description of the Biblical Christ.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

By saying that the Bible is a metaphorical tool to be used, rather than the literal words of God, I'm pretty sure that's enough to have you branded as a heretic and your soul condemned to the deepest pits of Hell. 

Although I'm a wee bit rusty on the whole thing, as I haven't been a practicing anything in many years. I don't think God has much patience with Christian fencesitters.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> I have three problems with that:
> - We have almost no evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed.
> - Jesus isn't all that special because other people in the bible came back from the dead as well.
> - There is no evidence at all that he actually was resurrected.
> ...



Well with that second one, it's not just that he came back, but what he came back from. I mean the guy was literally punished physically and mentally and spiritually for everyones' sins. And that him having faith in God and dying and coming back three days later (via Power of God) was to show that yes, God WOULD be good on his promise to give the faithful power over death and the power to conquer it when the time was right. 

Gotta read some Pauline writings sometime. He kinda goes into what's so damn important about the resurrection and all that.


----------



## Saiko (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> By saying that the Bible is a metaphorical tool to be used, rather than the literal words of God, I'm pretty sure that's enough to have you branded as a heretic and your soul condemned to the deepest pits of Hell.


It depends on the church really. The pastors at my parent's church constantly harp on evolution and gays. The catholic priest I spoke to literally facepalmed at them and encouraged me to date men.

Funny thing is that they both have countless passages to defend themselves with, so you can imagine how reliable the book is. xD


----------



## Namba (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Ozriel said:


> Knock it off, or I'm going to be taking heads!


I read that as "talking heads" and it made no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Ranguvar (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Saiko said:


> The catholic priest I spoke to literally facepalmed at them and encouraged me to date men.


Catholicism is a gay boi club, no girls allowed. I am a member, conclavin' in the conclave.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

@Capn' Cool: I just kind of spoke up since it bothered me to read that last thing you said in the same way it bothers me to read racist bullshit, since religion is so integrated into culture, and the idea of hating people just freaks me out.  I don't know, your vehemence is part of your charm, but after a while it's like damn, did some Mormons stuff you in a burlap sack and baptise you in lye and piss or something, 'cause you aren't actin' like you're doin' well.  Anyway though, Jesus was a real person in history and belief in the historicity of Jesus's resurrection does not require you to believe that Jesus was the only person to be resurrected, or the only person special to God, or any of that.  The point I was hoping to make was that a Christian is not inherently a creationist fuckhead.   There are Christians who believe in evolution, in creationism, in  hyper-preterism, in futurism, and who have heretical beliefs, but still  are Christians.  This Creationism in the schools thing sucks hairy donkey nuts indeed but the Board of Education has way more stupid-ass problems and corruptions than hyper-religious fuckwittery to blame for this shit. 

The Bible wasn't written by one or a handful of dudes and shouldn't be  lumped as just one solid book, meaning, it is in itself a collaboration of  multiple individuals over a variety of territories and years and so its content shouldn't be scoffed at as something that does not have extra support.  But,  let's go for the secular stuff.  Annals 15:44 by Senator Tacitus, Josephus Flavius's Antiquities of the Jews (to be fair, is debated over since it's more than probable that it was doctored by Christian translators, but nevertheless is considered an important, legitimate historical document since it covers like 500 years of Jewish history), Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, and other non-Christian texts refer to Jesus's existence and execution.  If you add in Christan sources of course you get more things, but, of course you would; you don't go to Korea to learn about Missouri.  I imagine you don't want to get into the whole bias thing where a researcher'll come to the conclusion they wanted in the first place since they're batting for their own team.  That's just some casual Internet sifting, since I'm not going to sit here and research like this is some kind of term paper, but it's a start.  I didn't find any forensic evidence of Jesus existing, but then again, if you'll pardon the potential red herring, you also can't find forensic evidence of Socrates.  That's a really common argument, although it rules in Socrates's favor since Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes's writings of Socrates are considered contemporary whereas while Josephus and Tacitus's commentary on Jesus work concert, they are not contemporary, and there's generally more information on Socrates.  Regardless, there is some evidence, and there are other individuals for which no physical evidence exists as well.  What is 'enough' evidence is probably just a personal standard from individual to individual.

When you say that Jesus was not the only one to be resurrected you seem to be missing the point.  In the Bible, other people came back from the dead, and they were brought back by non-divine people, that's true. But Jesus wasn't considered special simply because he was resurrected.  He's special to Christianity because his resurrection was the only resurrection in the Bible performed in order to prove the resurectee's divine nature: 'I am that I am,' so to speak.  That's what makes his resurrection different, but not necessarily special.  What makes him special in Christianity is that after that, the Bible says that He never died, and conquered death.  Honestly, that's more fantastical than just believing the theme park version that Jesus is special because he was resurrected, but if you're going to think something is stupid, think it's stupid for the right reasons.

As for proof of his resurrection, you're not going to find non-Christian writings on the resurrection of Christ since writings of the resurrection of Christ are inherently Christian.  

Anyway,
Now that I'm reading the rest of this thread and where it went, why do  some people think that shit like creationism is some kind of pivotal  pillar of Christianity? To deny a six day creation is NOT to deny the  Gospel.  There is NO reason at all to believe that your interpretation  of Genesis, literal or not, determines your status before God.  Do  people just try to push Creationism because they're afraid that  inerrancy is a make-or-break issue of Christianity? A denial of  inerrancy does NOT mean a denial of the Gospel.  A denial of the Bible's  inerrancy is NOT a test of one's status before God.  So what's the big  deal?  That 'inerrancy' bullshit of "if something is wrong in the Bible  then that means the Bible is wrong because it's inspired and inspired  things can't be wrong!" needs to get the scissors and cut that  shit out.   Inspiration of Scripture is not a make or break issue of  Christianity.  God did not have to give us the Bible in order to be God.    If he never gave us any written testimony of Himself, He would still  be God, because a self-existent being doesn't depend on a book or need  to be 'believed' in to exist.  Nothing obligated Him to do anything at  all.  The Bible does not make Christianity true.  Why the HELL is creationism such a big deal?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Namba said:


> Okay, dude, your first bullet point needs to be corrected: Jesus was a real person in history. I'm gonna (loosely) quote C.S. Lewis here: he was either a liar, crazy, or he was telling the truth.



...Or he was libelled (existed, but word and deeds were made up to make him more special) or legend (never existed, but it's a hell of a good story).

No such thing as just _three_ options in this case - to pretend otherwise is simply begging the question.

Proof of a Jesus rests on _actual facts_ on the ground from non-Christian sources, not merely theological wankerypre-supposition.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Namba said:


> Okay, dude, your first bullet point needs to be corrected: Jesus was a real person in history.



Prove it.



Nikolinni said:


> Well with that second one, it's not just that he came back, but what he came back from. I mean the guy was literally punished physically and mentally and spiritually for everyones' sins. And that him having faith in God and dying and coming back three days later (via Power of God) was to show that yes, God WOULD be good on his promise to give the faithful power over death and the power to conquer it when the time was right.
> 
> Gotta read some Pauline writings sometime. He kinda goes into what's so damn important about the resurrection and all that.



Did you know that the concept of scapegoating, as in sacrificing one person for everything the others have done wrong, is a practice that was especially common in the area where Jesus supposedly lived? I don't think that is a coincidence...



HipsterCoyote said:


> @Capn' Cool: I just kind of spoke up since it bothered me to read that last thing you said in the same way it bothers me to read racist bullshit, since religion is so integrated into culture, and the idea of hating people just freaks me out.  I don't know, your vehemence is part of your charm, but after a while it's like damn, did some Mormons stuff you in a burlap sack and baptise you in lye and piss or something, 'cause you aren't actin' like you're doin' well.  Anyway though, Jesus was a real person in history and belief in the historicity of Jesus's resurrection does not require you to believe that Jesus was the only person to be resurrected, or the only person special to God, or any of that.  The point I was hoping to make was that a Christian is not inherently a creationist fuckhead.   There are Christians who believe in evolution, in creationism, in  hyper-preterism, in futurism, and who have heretical beliefs, but still  are Christians.  This Creationism in the schools thing sucks hairy donkey nuts indeed but the Board of Education has way more stupid-ass problems and corruptions than hyper-religious fuckwittery to blame for this shit.
> 
> The Bible wasn't written by one or a handful of dudes and shouldn't be  lumped as just one solid book, meaning, it is in itself a collaboration of  multiple individuals over a variety of territories and years and so its content shouldn't be scoffed at as something that does not have extra support.  But,  let's go for the secular stuff.  Annals 15:44 by Senator Tacitus, Josephus Flavius's Antiquities of the Jews (to be fair, is debated over since it's more than probable that it was doctored by Christian translators, but nevertheless is considered an important, legitimate historical document since it covers like 500 years of Jewish history), Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, and other non-Christian texts refer to Jesus's existence and execution.  If you add in Christan sources of course you get more things, but, of course you would; you don't go to Korea to learn about Missouri.  I imagine you don't want to get into the whole bias thing where a researcher'll come to the conclusion they wanted in the first place since they're batting for their own team.  That's just some casual Internet sifting, since I'm not going to sit here and research like this is some kind of term paper, but it's a start.  I didn't find any forensic evidence of Jesus existing, but then again, if you'll pardon the potential red herring, you also can't find forensic evidence of Socrates.  That's a really common argument, although it rules in Socrates's favor since Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes's writings of Socrates are considered contemporary whereas while Josephus and Tacitus's commentary on Jesus work concert, they are not contemporary, and there's generally more information on Socrates.  Regardless, there is some evidence, and there are other individuals for which no physical evidence exists as well.  What is 'enough' evidence is probably just a personal standard from individual to individual.
> 
> ...



I don't hate religious people. I want to stress that again.
What I hate is lies and people who actively spread lies or judge others based on them. I didn't make this thread to "point at christians and how stupid they are".
I didn't make this thread to point at religious people to say how stupid they are. This is all about those loonies who are trying to force others to teach their nonsensical believes to kids.

Anyway, you still made quite a lot of claims in your post without bothering to provide evidence for any of them... Where is the evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed?
Also, of course there is nothing outside of religious texts that talk about the ressurection. Which is why this part is completely irrelevant.

"Correct me if I'm wrong or repeating legend--but isn't there mention of Jesus in the Koran?"
Islam came from christianity. So naturally he is mentioned in their holy book as well. And since islam is just a copy we simply can't see it as an additional source to confirm the existence of Jeebus.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Did you know that the concept of scapegoating, as in sacrificing one person for everything the others have done wrong, is a practice that was especially common in the area where Jesus supposedly lived? I don't think that is a coincidence...



If we're to look at the bible as just a story, probably not a coincidence. I'm taking a class in college right now that looks at the old testament purely as literature, and one of the things revealed is that there's a lot of stuff incorperated in these storeis that involves areas and peolpe who ruled/dominated over the Hebrews. I can't think of all of them right now, but I know he said something about how their rulers used to build tall buildings and what not, and what's the Tower of Babel story about? Not building tall buildings that would go into heaven. 

So, same thing could be going on there as well, for whatever reason. But wait, they were doing the whole scapegoating thing BEFORE Jesus' whole episode. If we read the OT, we find that there's the whole thing of scapegoating a lamb in order to be forgiven. Hmm...I'll have to ask my professor about this on monday, to see if it lines up with anything them Hebrews was going through/doing. 

Or it could be just them taking off from other religions. A lot of religions usually have some kind of sacrifice system in place (in fact, there was an idol in the bible called Moloch, and people would sacrifice their kids via fire to it).


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> If we're to look at the bible as just a story, probably not a coincidence. I'm taking a class in college right now that looks at the old testament purely as literature, and one of the things revealed is that there's a lot of stuff incorperated in these storeis that involves areas and peolpe who ruled/dominated over the Hebrews. I can't think of all of them right now, but I know he said something about how their rulers used to build tall buildings and what not, and what's the Tower of Babel story about? Not building tall buildings that would go into heaven.
> 
> So, same thing could be going on there as well, for whatever reason. But wait, they were doing the whole scapegoating thing BEFORE Jesus' whole episode. If we read the OT, we find that there's the whole thing of scapegoating a lamb in order to be forgiven. Hmm...I'll have to ask my professor about this on monday, to see if it lines up with anything them Hebrews was going through/doing.
> 
> Or it could be just them taking off from other religions. A lot of religions usually have some kind of sacrifice system in place (in fact, there was an idol in the bible called Moloch, and people would sacrifice their kids via fire to it).



It is both. Religion is nothing but old stories that are being attributed to a fictional deity, an attempt at explaining the world (creationism and all that) and a bunch of old traditions. Islam is based on christianity and it's stories, christianity is based on judaism and it's stories and so on and so forth.


----------



## Namba (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I'll just leave this here, because I don't feel like arguing after an entire night of no sleep. If you have to ask who said it, I'll just point you straight to Google. It was Fuller

"Up to the Twentieth Century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality."

And CC, asking me to prove the existence of Jesus is about as ludicrous as me asking you to prove he didn't exist; you can't. And for God's sake man, it's "its" when you're using a possessive pronoun, not "it's". If you want to be taken seriously in a heated debate, learn to grammar.


----------



## BRN (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Focusing on grammar in a heated debate is like focusing on hairstyle during a tennis match. Whether it looks good or not isn't the point when you've got to focus on hitting the ball back.

Also, english is CC's second language and I think he's still pretty darn good at it


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Namba said:


> And CC, asking me to prove the existence of Jesus is about as ludicrous as me asking you to prove he didn't exist; you can't.



How do I logic?


----------



## Namba (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



SIX said:


> Focusing on grammar in a heated debate is like focusing on hairstyle during a tennis match. Whether it looks good or not isn't the point when you've got to focus on hitting the ball back.
> 
> Also, english is CC's second language and I think he's still pretty darn good at it


Well, damn. CC, I owe you a serious apology. That was really shitty of me.

And SIX, I would be able to hit the ball back if I had a racket. I don't know what I believe yet, and I don't know what made me think I was in any condition to argue with anyone, especially since I didn't get a wink of sleep on top of it all. I'll stop now. I've been kind of an idiot.


----------



## Xipoid (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

How many times

do they have

to rule

this shit

as retarded


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Guys. I insist you stop discussing esoteric material about the bible and give the chronicles of telly tubby land, which I hold to be the ultimate truth, some attention. :c

Equal treatment!


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Namba said:


> I'll just leave this here, because I don't feel like arguing after an entire night of no sleep. If you have to ask who said it, I'll just point you straight to Google. It was Fuller
> 
> "Up to the Twentieth Century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality."
> 
> And CC, asking me to prove the existence of Jesus is about as ludicrous as me asking you to prove he didn't exist; you can't. And for God's sake man, it's "its" when you're using a possessive pronoun, not "it's". If you want to be taken seriously in a heated debate, learn to grammar.



We don't know everything yet. So what? That is not a good argument for the existence of god!
Newton himself said that the planets are guided by god because he couldn't figure out how to calculate their orbits. Today we know how to do it.
Going by your logic god is nothing but a pocket that contains everything we can't explain. This pocket is getting smaller and smaller.
This is called the "god of the gaps" argument.

And as Hakar said, me proving that Jesus didn't exist is impossible from a logical point of view. You can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof is on your side of the argument. I simply disagree with you because of a complete lack of evidence, there is nothing to support your claims.



Namba said:


> Well, damn. CC, I owe you a serious apology. That was really shitty of me.



Don't apologize for being right. I made a mistake and you corrected it. (But still, appology accepted^^)


----------



## Migoto Da (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Being in Texas myself... this doesn't surprise me.

I know quite a few teachers are raving mad about this. The teachers I've had have all said that an unbiased and scientific textbook promotes healthier learning.

And to point this out, most of them are Christians.

Soccer moms want this, teachers don't. What does that say?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Migoto Da said:


> Being in Texas myself... this doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I know quite a few teachers are raving mad about this. The teachers I've had have all said that an unbiased and scientific textbook promotes healthier learning.
> 
> ...



Of course they are raving mad. Because even when they are christians, good scientists and teachers can put their beliefs aside when it comes to talking about the truth.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 13, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Can't believe this thread is still going. 

Not to mention the original topic's discussion on wether it's right or wrong for this to be learned in schools. I was raised in a christian school but thankfully for myself and common sense, religion was not mentioned or part of any subjects. They just let the kids pray or what not before class starts and then poof... back to actual life.

What positive things can possibly be gained by incorporating this in science? So far creationism has caused nothing but problems in this world and slags down the progression of science. People should stop making shit up and selling it as the truth dammit!


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> What positive things can possibly be gained by incorporating this in science? So far creationism has caused nothing but problems in this world and slags down the progression of science. People should stop making shit up and selling it as the truth dammit!



You can't gain anything from incorporating non-scientific concepts into science.
And I doubt people are gonna stop that. Who would want to stop being able to manipulate people?


----------



## DrDingo (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

As a compromise, why haven't they thought of saying that Science lessons teach current theory which can be renewed as we make more discoveries? After all, we don't know everything there is to know yet.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



DrDingo said:


> As a compromise, why haven't they thought of saying that Science lessons teach current theory which can be renewed as we make more discoveries? After all, we don't know everything there is to know yet.



Because that is how science works so they really shouldn't have to point that out


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



DrDingo said:


> As a compromise, why haven't they thought of saying that Science lessons teach current theory which can be renewed as we make more discoveries? After all, we don't know everything there is to know yet.



A: That's what we do already.

B: Creationists believe that 'God did it' is a perfectly valid scientific theory, while the theory of evolution is a religion.


----------



## DrDingo (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

What I mean is, they might be annoyed that the schools say 'This is the science, and it's final'. If they stress that they are only teaching the most popular theory, it might cool the nerves of those who disagree.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



DrDingo said:


> What I mean is, they might be annoyed that the schools say 'This is the science, and it's final'. If they stress that they are only teaching the most popular theory, it might cool the nerves of those who disagree.



Two things:
First of all, schools should teach nothing but science. They are supposed to teach facts.
And what do you mean by "most popular theory"? You do know that a theory is something that turned out to be true, right?
Science isn't a populatity contest, something is either true and accepted or it is not^^


----------



## DrDingo (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Science isn't a populatity contest, something is either true and accepted or it is not^^


It's a bit of a popularity contest for those who say God did it. After all, these people want schools to teach something which cannot be proven. Instead, it's something that certain people prefer to believe. That's popularity right there.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



DrDingo said:


> It's a bit of a popularity contest for those who say God did it. After all, these people want schools to teach something which cannot be proven. Instead, it's something that certain people prefer to believe. That's popularity right there.



Right, which is why this is anti-scientific thinking and non-progressive^^


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Perhaps every time cretinists creationists demand "equal time" for the "God did it" theory in science classes, scientists should counter-demand the same equal time for teaching the scientific method in general and evolution in particular in churches and theological institutions. 

And if the creationists demand disclaimer labels on science textbooks that evolution is "only a theory", scientists should counter-demand the same sorts of labels being applied to bibles and theological texts.

Purely in the interest of equal time and balance, of course... <evil grin>


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

SUMMON THE CHRISTIANS :V


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Mayfurr said:


> scientists should counter-demand the same sorts of labels being applied to bibles and theological texts.



Such labels would simply be 'commonsense'.

Or to advise the reader to use commonsense.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Why can't they just keep this in fucking theology classes?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Why can't they just keep this in fucking theology classes?



Those don't belong in schools either :T But I get your point.


----------



## Machine (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Why can't they just keep this in fucking theology classes?


Because Jesus needs to be everywhere.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Those don't belong in schools either :T But I get your point.



So you're against people being educated in the philosophy and history behind religions?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> So you're against people being educated in the philosophy and history behind religions?



I'm pretty sure CC means public schools.  If someone wants to blow money on seminary to study how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that's their prerogative.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> I'm pretty sure CC means public schools.  If someone wants to blow money on seminary to study how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that's their prerogative.



I don't think there are any theology courses in high school that I'm aware of. Even if they are, it's optional. More often than not, theology is pretty much college.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I like the idea of Jesus expounding Newtonian physics to his disciples. 

"You mean, if a Roman throws a rock at us, it will descend NOT by the will of God, but because gravity has an effect on the motive force that originally propelled the rock?"
"Look, Luke, if I have to explain all this to you, I won't have time to build my interplanetary space vessel and then some asshole is going to turn me into a hippy scarecrow on some fucking hill somewhere."


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> I'm pretty sure CC means public schools.  If someone wants to blow money on seminary to study how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that's their prerogative.



True.

I don't have a problem with classes in public schools teaching ABOUT religions, as in the sense of the philosophy, sociology and history or religion in general. I DO have a problem with religious classes in public schools that are basically indoctrination sessions for ONE faith. 

If someone wants to run such religious indoctrination classes, there's already appropriate placees for those to be held instead of public schools. They're called churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 14, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> I don't think there are any theology courses in high school that I'm aware of. Even if they are, it's optional. More often than not, theology is pretty much college.



He also isn't American and probably isn't very well acquainted with our school system?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> He also isn't American and probably isn't very well acquainted with our school system?



Even still what should it matter if the students are being taught objective stances of religions?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> I like the idea of Jesus expounding Newtonian physics to his disciples.
> 
> "You mean, if a Roman throws a rock at us, it will descend NOT by the will of God, but because gravity has an effect on the motive force that originally propelled the rock?"
> "Look, Luke, if I have to explain all this to you, I won't have time to build my interplanetary space vessel and then some asshole is going to turn me into a hippy scarecrow on some fucking hill somewhere."



Unfortunately Jesus's knowledge of biology kinda sucks, as despite being the Son of God he apparently doesn't know enough not to expect a fig tree to bear figs out of season - and gets kinda pissed when he finds his mistake. :roll:


----------



## Lobar (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Even still what should it matter if the students are being taught objective stances of religions?



In public school?  For one, it's pretty hard to guarantee it'll stay objective.  We already have problems with creationism creeping into science classes.  If there was a high school comparative religions class, you know there would be teachers approaching it like, "Okay class, let's get through all these other religions and why they're wrong so we can talk about JESUS."

There's also far more worthy subjects that deserve to be taught in high school and aren't.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> So you're against people being educated in the philosophy and history behind religions?



The history part can be taught in history classes. And the philosophical part could be lumped together in a different class together with all other religious ideas, just not taught as fact.
What I am against is how they do it here in elementary school and higher religious courses. "Jesus did this", "Jesus did that", "gawd is totally reall yo!"... That stuff does NOT belong in schools!


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Even still what should it matter if the students are being taught objective stances of religions?



Because that's indoctrination? 

There are no, or very very few, objectives about religions, so it is misrepresentation to tell young people there are.


edit: on reflection I think I have failed to understand what you mean by objective.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Because that's indoctrination?
> 
> There are no, or very very few, objectives about religions, so it is misrepresentation to tell young people there are.
> 
> ...



I think it would be important to teach kids about all those different fairy tales so that they can properly protect themselves from them ;3

When I was in 2nd grade the teachers gave us coloring books and we had to learn everything about Jesus, Noah and Moses as if these things actually happened. They taught that bullshit to 8 year old me as if they are facts.
The scary part? I used to believe in it (not for very long though and never really in the really weird shit like god and crap like that). And so did my classmates.


----------



## Blackberry Polecat (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> When I was in 2nd grade the teachers gave us coloring books and we had to learn everything about Jesus, Noah and Moses as if these things actually happened. They taught that bullshit to 8 year old me as if they are facts.
> The scary part? I used to believe in it (not for very long though and never really in the really weird shit like god and crap like that). And so did my classmates.



My school would make us say prayer in every assembly and all choir songs were about the Bible (except "The Circle of Life" from The Lion King...)

I love how people think that the story of Noah and the flood is something kids would like. "Look at all the animals, kids! Look at all the other animals and people drowning! Yay!"

From what I can tell: America schools don't have Religious Education as its own lesson?


----------



## Troj (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I think Comparative Religion and Bible as Literature courses should be introduced as early as middle school, because I tend to think that gaining an objective and nuanced understanding of something ideally makes you less likely to either fear or idolize it. 

A GOOD Bible as Literature course will also typically expose the young fundie to all of the nasty, weird, and problematic bits of the Bible that their pastor and their parents usually like to gloss over.

In my experience, it's the religiously-and-philosophically-ignorant folks who are the most likely to shack up with cults and fringe groups, because what the group is selling sounds new and exotic to them.

Of course, you'd have to structure and supervise the rules and the curriculum very carefully, because some teachers would inevitably want to use the class as their own personal pulpit. You wouldn't want to haphazardly rush in and just slap together a religion course in districts or schools where the teachers are almost certainly going to intentionally screw the pooch.

But, my sense is you generally want to avoid leaving a religious-knowledge vacuum, because people are always happy to fill it with their own assumptions and bullshit.


----------



## Conker (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Even still what should it matter if the students are being taught objective stances of religions?


An English class that has a focus on religious mythology would be kind of cool, but people get pissed off when you use the phrase "religious mythology" anywhere around Christianity. 

Odin? Totally not real. Silly Norse folk and their silly stories. Oh, did you know both he and Jesus were sacrificed by being stuck to a giant piece of wood, both could walk on water, and both could turn water into booze? The difference being that Odin was a total warrior badass who plucked his own eye out for knowledge whereas Jesus wore sandals :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> I think it would be important to teach kids about all those different fairy tales so that they can properly protect themselves from them ;3
> 
> When I was in 2nd grade the teachers gave us coloring books and we had to learn everything about Jesus, Noah and Moses as if these things actually happened. They taught that bullshit to 8 year old me as if they are facts.
> The scary part? I used to believe in it (not for very long though and never really in the really weird shit like god and crap like that). And so did my classmates.



The infant and junior schools here also taught Christianity in their religion lessons as if it were true, there were regular visits from the viccar [who later was forced to leave town because of a scandal about his cheating on his wife] and mandatory prayer and hymns. 

I only stopped believing in it at age 13.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I'm a pantheist (meaning that I believe the universe is god), so for me evolution isn't problem . Of course, I do think that if Christianity had included the Kabbalah in it's writings than evolution wouldn't be as much of a problem for them either, as the Kabbalah explicitly states that there was a "first draft" of creation before our creation. Thus, it wouldn't be that hard to say that the dinos were the first draft.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



The young man in the cafe said:


> I'm a pantheist (meaning that I believe the universe is god), so for me evolution isn't problem . Of course, I do think that if Christianity had included the Kabbalah in it's writings than evolution wouldn't be as much of a problem for them either, as the Kabbalah explicitly states that there was a "first draft" of creation before our creation. Thus, it wouldn't be that hard to say that the dinos were the first draft.



I think it would perhaps be worse if ideas that could be melded with scientific theories such as evolution were included in the bible. 

Think of the huge trouble the Copernican model faced because of catholic dogma about earth being immoveable or the global flood-disaster myths which circulated in Geology before they were  eventually banished, and then went on to make genuine flood-disaster events get overlooked by subsequent Geologists who did not want people to think they were affording room to creationists. 
The same even happen in cosmology when some physicists opposed the big bang hypothesis, probably in part because catholics were exploiting it as a 'this provides a gap for god' argument.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Because that's indoctrination?
> 
> There are no, or very very few, objectives about religions, so it is misrepresentation to tell young people there are.
> 
> ...


:I
So no one should know about the differences in Hinduism? How Confucianism paved the way for Taoism? What they hold as values?
That Islam is actually fairly tolerant of Christianity?

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT RELIGIOUS ROOTS.
Christians think Satanists are a bunch of devil-worshiping, baby-eaters, Islamists are just terrorists with a "fake god", atheists are just angry, angsty teenagers and don't know fuck-all about the existence of any other religion. They confuse Sikhs with Islamists to justify gunning them down

etc etc

And talking about the differences, historical roots, who inspired what is INDOCTRINATION?



Blackberry Polecat said:


> From what I can tell: America schools don't have Religious Education as its own lesson?



Only in college and it's just general unless you're majoring in Theology


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> :I
> So no one should know about the differences in Hinduism? How Confucianism paved the way for Taoism? What they hold as values?
> That Islam is actually fairly tolerant of Christianity?
> 
> ...



I said I misunderstood what you meant by objective. 

I thought you were indicating that schools could teaching people to have 'one objective view' about religion [such as 'religion x is the true religion'], whereas I then realised this was probably not what you meant.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> :I
> So no one should know about the differences in Hinduism? How Confucianism paved the way for Taoism? What they hold as values?
> That Islam is actually fairly tolerant of Christianity?
> 
> ...



Apparently just _exposing_ kids or people to religion in any way, shape or form is "indoctrination".


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Blackberry Polecat said:


> From what I can tell: America schools don't have Religious Education as its own lesson?



We don't, at least in public schools. In the South the idea of putting God and primary education together has been reluctant to die out. In bigger cities and in known religious centers of America (Utah in particular), private religious schools have been flourishing like a yeast infection, promoting dogma over logic (and logic is pretty hard to find even in public schools these days). 

I pity the poor kids that have to have a religious education. They'll never be able to be normal. They'll be plagued by doubts and conflicting information when they get older and won't be able to rectify them because of the huge ponderous threat of God and going to Hell for disbelief hanging over their heads.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Apparently just _exposing_ kids or people to religion in any way, shape or form is "indoctrination".



I already said I misread aleu's comment. 

I thought she meant teaching children religions as if there is an objective way to view them rather than multiple subjective ways based on objective data about them. 

This is why I edited my initial comment, but nobody read that apparently.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> I already said I misread aleu's comment.
> 
> I thought she meant teaching children religions as if there is an objective way to view them rather than multiple subjective ways based on objective data about them.
> 
> This is why I edited my initial comment, but nobody read that apparently.



Sorry 'bout that. It looks like you speeded me when you replied to Aleu; after I posted my reply your reply popped up right before mine.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Sorry 'bout that. It looks like you speeded me when you replied to Aleu; after I posted my reply your reply popped up right before mine.



I edited my comment 3 hours ago. By the time both you and Aleu applied you were arguing with a strawman. 

The person who thinks exposing kids to any kind of knowledge of religion is indoctrination doesn't exist; a user who misread aleu's comment does.



Fallowfox said:


> *edit: on reflection I think I have failed to understand what you mean by objective*.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Apparently just _exposing_ kids or people to religion in any way, shape or form is "indoctrination".



The way religions "expose themselves" to people is damn near assault, never mind indoctrination.  I imagine if they weren't told not to, you'd have loonies chasing you down the street, pamphlets in one hand, a big stick with a nail in it in the other.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> We don't, at least in public schools. In the South the idea of putting God and primary education together has been reluctant to die out. In bigger cities and in known religious centers of America (Utah in particular), private religious schools have been flourishing like a yeast infection, promoting dogma over logic (and logic is pretty hard to find even in public schools these days).
> 
> I pity the poor kids that have to have a religious education. They'll never be able to be normal. They'll be plagued by doubts and conflicting information when they get older and won't be able to rectify them because of the huge ponderous threat of God and going to Hell for disbelief hanging over their heads.


I pity more those with home-school education. You can't escape it.



Fallowfox said:


> I edited my comment 3 hours ago. By the time  both you and Aleu applied you were arguing with a strawman.
> 
> The person who thinks exposing kids to any kind of knowledge of religion  is indoctrination doesn't exist; a user who misread aleu's comment  does.



And I explained what exactly is objective about religions
But it's a strawman now apparently.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> I edited my comment 3 hours ago. By the time both you and Aleu applied you were arguing with a strawman.
> 
> The person who thinks exposing kids to any kind of knowledge of religion is indoctrination doesn't exist; a user who misread aleu's comment does.



Well hey get used to people not reading your replies and edits. I can't tell you how many times I had to repeat myself in the same topic when it comes to posting on here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> I pity more those with home-school education. You can't escape it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I knew that I had read your post wrong. I did not think that 'apparently just exposing kids to [knowledge of] religion is indoctrination'. 

That was the straw man I was complaining about; I'm not sure _anybody_ here thinks that or has suggested it.


----------



## Inciatus (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Well hey get used to people not reading your replies and edits. I can't tell you how many times I had to repeat myself in the same topic when it comes to posting on here.


It isn't hard to read replies and edits especially if they are on the same page.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> That was the straw man I was complaining about; I'm not sure _anybody_ here thinks that or has suggested it.


I'm sure which is why I said it :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> I'm sure which is why I said it :V



Nikolinni said it and you this'd him in support.



Nikolinni said:


> Apparently just _exposing_ kids or people to religion in any way, shape or form is "indoctrination".



Nobody here actually thinks that, which is why it is a straw argument.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Nikolinni said it and you this'd him in support.



and? I said that I'm sure that there ARE people here that think this, which is why I said it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> and? I said that I'm sure that there ARE people here that think this, which is why I said it.



If there are, quote them. 

I could argue against people who think it's parental right to teach their children whatever nonsense they please. It's a very easy position to argue against but I doubt anybody in this thread actually supports it.


----------



## Inciatus (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> If there are, quote them.
> 
> I could argue against people who think it's parental right to teach their children whatever nonsense they please. It's a very easy position to argue against but I doubt anybody in this thread actually supports it.


Why shouldn't parents have the right to cripple their child in being able to properly function in society?


----------



## Conker (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I actually went to a religiously motivated college because it was closer and the classes were small. But in the English department, most of the professors were atheists, same with the philosophy department. We had to take some mandatory religious studies classes, but there were enough of them so as to not need to sit through an hour of "JESUS JESUS JESUS." Actually, the few religious classes I took were pretty fun and I had an awesome professor who put up with my atheism pretty well 

Religion seemed pretty far removed from the school, despite it being a religious institution. 

So I guess not all religious schools are bad, but I'm also in the North and far away from Mormon City or the Bible Belt. YMMV.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

You guys are lucky. For me to actually announce that I'm not religious is worse than telling everyone in your family that you've raped and murdered and innocent girl. I don't know where the fuck this tradition came from but you'll be completely eliminated from your family's little society that they have going. If not tied up and stoned like what the bible teaches.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> You guys are lucky. For me to actually announce that I'm not religious is worse than telling everyone in your family that you've raped and murdered and innocent girl. I don't know where the fuck this tradition came from but you'll be completely eliminated from your family's little society that they have going. If not tied up and stoned like what the bible teaches.



...even though we're not supposed to be doing that anymore (that is, stoning people, but I'm sure Christ or hell even Paul wouldn't like the idea of severing family ties over God) but hey different folks different strokes.

And yes, I have the feeling that this'll lead into the whole "did Jesus really set us free from the law or not" argument, of which I will not take part in. Just because it always ends the same way every time.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> but hey different folks different strokes.



That doesn't excuse being a dick and "banning" someone from the family :T
And that discussion probably comes up all the damn time because it says right there in the bible that the old laws still apply...


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> That doesn't excuse being a dick and "banning" someone from the family :T
> And that discussion probably comes up all the damn time because it says right there in the bible that the old laws still apply...



Oh no, by no means do I think that's an excuse. It's a response to that second half of your statement. That's why I added in that "Do the laws still apply?" argument because trust me, when it comes to trying to understand the bible, I try to be open minded (other wise I wouldn't have taken an OT as Literature class this semester), so I've looked on both sides of the fence and both give good arguments based soley off of what Christ said. But then you have to wonder why someone like Paul would write Romans which essentially said that the laws were not the basis for salvation anymore, but acceptance of Christ's gift and repentance of sin is. But then you get the crowd that goes "Well paul this and paul that and whatever pauline conspiracy I've dug up"....and yeah. Just...bleh. Even with other religious people those discussions/debates/arguments get no one anywhere.

AND THEN...you get into the whole "Well Jesus Quoted Commandments! That's proof!" but then you can point out that thsoe were commandments and not laws and....yeah you kinda see why I don't like taking part in those kinda discussions? It's just a never ending circle. 

...besides, didn't Christ STOP people from stoning someone to death? The whole "Let he who is without sin" scene?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> That doesn't excuse being a dick and "banning" someone from the family :T
> And that discussion probably comes up all the damn time because it says right there in the bible that the old laws still apply...



No it doesn't now shut the fuck up about that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Whatever your theological take, kicking your kids out rather defeats the whole point of believe in a 'love based' religion.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Whatever your theological take, kicking your kids out rather defeats the whole point of believe in a 'love based' religion.



Well that was my point by saying "I don't think Christ would approve". True, he DID demand upmost devotion to God (The whole "Love god more than your own family" thing) but from what we see he was more into not being a dick to people. A good example is when he's talking about what you do with people who don't wanna hear anything about God: Just move on. that's it. Don't try to ram it down the peoples' throats. Never once do I recall him saying something like "Oh yeah if your kids don't want to follow God go ahead and kick 'em out or banish them or disown them". 

Inb4 "I come not to send peace but a sword" is brought up, if you read the verse and think into the idea of it, it seems more like a warning that what he'll teach and want people to follow will cause severe divisions, and not a "Haha lol fooled you guys. I'm not about peace but WAR!"

As for why I keep bringing up Christ so much well, the damn religion is _named after him_. I think what he says is kinnnnnda important.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Forgive me you guys I don't like doing this at all but it's almost like christians/catholics never even read the bible.

2 John 1:9-11



> Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.[SUP]10 [/SUP]If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,[SUP]11 [/SUP]for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> As for why I keep bringing up Christ so much well, the damn religion is _named after him_. I think what he says is kinnnnnda important.



Named after him, yes. But did he exist? No idea.
That is the problem that I have with your arguments. I see all of what you say as entirely irrelevant in connection with reality. What I see is people judging others based on a fairy tale and people who try to force anti-scientific bullshit into schools.



Accretion said:


> Forgive me you guys I don't like doing this at all but it's almost like christians/catholics never even read the bible.
> 
> 2 John 1:9-11



Yeah, "love your neighbor as you love yourself, but ONLY if they are white male christians as well!"... What a disgusting book...


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Named after him, yes. But did he exist? No idea.
> That is the problem that I have with your arguments. I see all of what you say as entirely irrelevant in connection with reality. What I see is people judging others based on a fairy tale and people who try to force anti-scientific bullshit into schools.
> 
> 
> ...


excuse you but the bible doesn't say that at all


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Named after him, yes. But did he exist? No idea.
> That is the problem that I have with your arguments. I see all of what you say as entirely irrelevant in connection with reality. What I see is people judging others based on a fairy tale and people who try to force anti-scientific bullshit into schools.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I'm arguing what the text says, regardless of if the people existed or not. So I guess you can say from a literature point of view.

And yeah, aleu's right, the bible never says anything about it pertaining only to white men. 

On top of that, I was talking about what christ said, not what his followers said, as being of the upmost importance to a christian.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> excuse you but the bible doesn't say that at all





Nikolinni said:


> Well, I'm arguing what the text says, regardless of if the people existed or not. So I guess you can say from a literature point of view.
> 
> And yeah, aleu's right, the bible never says anything about it pertaining only to white men.
> 
> On top of that, I was talking about what christ said, not what his followers said, as being of the upmost importance to a christian.



Oh that was all me. I just put it in there based on how shitty the bible sees women and because the south used the bible to justify slavery. That had to come from somewhere.

Also, the point that I wanted to make was that the bible really is a disgusting book by todays standards that simply isn't compatible with modern society anymore.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Oh that was all me. I just put it in there based on how shitty the bible sees women and because the south used the bible to justify slavery. That had to come from somewhere.
> 
> Also, the point that I wanted to make was that the bible really is a disgusting book by todays standards that simply isn't compatible with modern society anymore.


It couldn't be that people are taking things out of context and/or making their own shit up.

Oh no. Seriously, CC, when are you going to get that people are awful and will use any reason to shit on others?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> It couldn't be that people are taking things out of context and/or making their own shit up.
> 
> Oh no.



Of course they do, religion is all made up anyway :T


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Of course they do, religion is all made up anyway :T



....and this proves her wrong how?

Seriously. Get off the "religion is made up" horse. You can only use that as a hand wave for so long.

How about you stop handwaving, and actually confront the ideas and arguments directly?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Then when they get into the issue of conservation, the text will read something to the effect of "There's plenty of room for all God's creatures.....right next to the mashed potatoes!"


----------



## Inpw (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> excuse you but the bible doesn't say that at all



Like I said I don't like referring to bible verses but trust me he's pretty right about the christian male part.

The Christian part is already pointed out in my previous post that is still bullshit and is amazingly disappearing into the history of this thread with the current argument.
Does anyone even have a clue at how superior the book portrays males over the opposite sex?
The race thing is still practiced in some churches today...

Freakin hilarious.

And It also states that you should trust the word of God and not lean to your own understanding. So having an open mind is also forbidden!


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> ....and this proves her wrong how?
> 
> Seriously. Get off the "religion is made up" horse. You can only use that as a hand wave for so long.
> 
> How about you stop handwaving, and actually confront the ideas and arguments directly?



I never tried to prove her wrong. My point is that people always make up stupid shit to get their will.

I don't get what the point here is now though. We all agreed that those loonies who push for creationism should cut that shit out.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Jedi hand waving gets me moist.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Then when they get into the issue of conservation, the text will read something to the effect of "There's plenty of room for all God's creatures.....right next to the mashed potatoes!"



I think conservation in the mid east is a pretty interesting topic. The Middle East and North Africa was once covered in a scrubby woodland. Around 9kya the *Sahara *supported humans who would now be more at home in the Sahel. 

Agriculture emerged in the Fertile Crescent a few centuries later and the middle east and north Africa were deforested over time to make way for crops, as is still happening in the Sahel, which was partly protected because it has an unsuitable rainy season for the crops of Eurasia. 

I'm not sure if there is another climatological reason for the sudden drying of North Africa, but maybe human agriculture can be implicated. 

Verses in the Koran express fears about environmental depletion and recommend custodianship in place of dominion-like attitudes, so maybe as the problem worsened the people living there became aware of what was happening. 

In Europe our land hasn't been desertified because the rainfall is much higher, so plants regenerate more rapidly than we cut them down.


----------



## Khaki (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

So if they teach Creationism and Evolution in their schools now, does that mean there's a Raptor Jesus now?


----------



## Inciatus (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> Forgive me you guys I don't like doing this at all but it's almost like christians/catholics never even read the bible.
> 
> 2 John 1:9-11


That would seem to go against the point of most of the stories of Abraham. Though the bible is full of contradictions, can't really argue that


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Inciatus said:


> That would seem to go against the point of most of the stories of Abraham. Though the bible is full of contradictions, can't really argue that



Foolish fool! The bible is totally the word of GAWD, there are no contradictions!
Except for all of these but let's not mention them! http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> As for why I keep bringing up Christ so much well, the damn religion is _named after him_. I think what he says is kinnnnnda important.



I find it somewhat ironic that out of 27 New Testament books that are the key basis for Christianity, only four (five if you count Acts) books _actually describe what Jesus is supposed to have actually said during his life (and afterlife)._ That's _less than a quarter_ of the NT.

In fact, given that twice as many NT books are the writings of Paul (10 to 13 depending on how you count them) as opposed to Jesus, one could theoretically consider "Christianity" to be actually the *Paulian *faith, given that Paul wrote a good chunk of it


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Mayfurr said:


> I find it somewhat ironic that out of 27 New Testament books that are the key basis for Christianity, only four (five if you count Acts) books _actually describe what Jesus is supposed to have actually said during his life (and afterlife)._ That's _less than a quarter_ of the NT.
> 
> In fact, given that twice as many NT books are the writings of Paul (10 to 13 depending on how you count them) as opposed to Jesus, one could theoretically consider "Christianity" to be actually the *Paulian *faith, given that Paul wrote a good chunk of it



I suppose it's all about the "son of gawd" thing, not about how much he supposedly said.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> excuse you but the bible doesn't say that at all


Christians hold plenty stuff as doctrine that wasn't written down by nameless, sexist, racist old farts who heard voices in their heads over 2000-5000 years ago.


----------



## VGAddict31 (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Should Texas secede?

Should I count myself lucky that I graduated from high school recently, before this started?


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I find the bible to be a good read. Not in a spiritual way, but for comedy and entertainment. People living hundreds of years, well, imagine what those people looked like on the time of their death.
There's also incest, rape, murder, bribery and just plain sex in it if I recall right.
 Don't forget, that this is the book you want your kids to read.
The book about the end of the world is my fave..It's also the only one I have read in it's entirety.


----------



## VGAddict31 (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

I'm worried I won't be able to get a good job because i'm from Texas.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I find the bible to be a good read. Not in a spiritual way, but for comedy and entertainment. People living hundreds of years, well, imagine what those people looked like on the time of their death.
> There's also incest, rape, murder, bribery and just plain sex in it if I recall right.
> Don't forget, that this is the book you want your kids to read.
> The book about the end of the world is my fave..It's also the only one I have read in it's entirety.



They were also into horses as it seems:
Ezekiel 23:20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> They were also into horses as it seems:
> Ezekiel 23:20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."



Or it could just be a simile, but that would be expecting people to y'know, actually take into thought what the damn thing is saying. 

And Lord knows how many Christians and Atheists don't even do that (And then claim they "understand it better").


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> They were also into horses as it seems:
> Ezekiel 23:20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."



So a female Mr. Hands?


----------



## VGAddict31 (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Should we give Texas back to Mexico?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Or it could just be a simile, but that would be expecting people to y'know, actually take into thought what the damn thing is saying.
> 
> And Lord knows how many Christians and Atheists don't even do that (And then claim they "understand it better").



At this point you should have gotten that I love to make fun of the bible and other religious texts as much as possible :T


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> At this point you should have gotten that I love to make fun of the bible and other religious texts as much as possible :T



I prolly should have. Eh, I can be slow sometimes. Slow morning and all, haven't got the coffee yet.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> They were also into horses as it seems:
> Ezekiel 23:20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."



The world's first furry?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> I prolly should have. Eh, I can be slow sometimes. Slow morning and all, haven't got the coffee yet.



And to be fair, when the book of a concept that I absolutely hate throws lines like "whose genitals were like those of donkeys" and "whose emission was like that of horses" at me I think I am perfectly justified in making fun of that ;3
It just amuses me how stupid these people were back then compared to today. And it also kind of amuses me that there are people today who think that is still relevant today.



Fallowfox said:


> The world's first furry?



As far as I know even the earliest humans already had anthro statues and drawings^^


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> And to be fair, when the book of a concept that I absolutely hate throws lines like "whose genitals were like those of donkeys" and "whose emission was like that of horses" at me I think I am perfectly justified in making fun of that ;3
> It just amuses me how stupid these people were back then compared to today. And it also kind of amuses me that there are people today who think that is still relevant today.
> 
> 
> ...



Loewnmensch? x3

Anyway there are some surprising similar follies we still make today that ancient middle easterns did. For example they did not distinguish between birds and bats; anything which flies is a bird. We still use terms like 'fish' which are often no more related to one another than they are to you or me.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> And to be fair, when the book of a concept that I absolutely hate throws lines like "whose genitals were like those of donkeys" and "whose emission was like that of horses" at me I think I am perfectly justified in making fun of that ;3
> It just amuses me how stupid these people were back then compared to today. And it also kind of amuses me that there are people today who think that is still relevant today.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes because loving your neighbor, keeping children's innocence safe and intact (Well that's debatable, but Jesus was for sure on board with keeping the "little ones" safe, becoming "like a child"and not harming kids), forgiving people for their trespasses (Various counts of this in the NT), the burden of knowledge of both good and evil things (The fall of man), or numerous things in the 10 Commandments (Don't steal, bear false witness, use an authority figure's name in vain -- which no I don't mean "God dammit",  I mean saying "God came to me and said..." when he really didn't and you're just trying to get people to do what you want) are TOTALLY irrelevant to today's society. 

Not only that, but there's the whole idea of reading it from a literature perspective, to look at things and to read between the lines for the various allegories, metaphors, and truths that it might have; not necessarily "This really happened" truths, but perhaps other true ideas and concepts. 

Of course, one must actually _study_ the bible and discuss it in order to unlock these meanings, and not just bash it and listen to Website X, or blindly listen to and obey what your pastor says or follow mob rule in the church when it comes to what's true in the bible and what's not true, as well as just listening to what Website Y has to say about the bible.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Yes because loving your neighbor, keeping children's innocence safe and intact (Well that's debatable, but Jesus was for sure on board with keeping the "little ones" safe, becoming "like a child"and not harming kids), forgiving people for their trespasses (Various counts of this in the NT), the burden of knowledge of both good and evil things (The fall of man), or numerous things in the 10 Commandments (Don't steal, bear false witness, use an authority figure's name in vain -- which no I don't mean "God dammit",  I mean saying "God came to me and said..." when he really didn't and you're just trying to get people to do what you want) are TOTALLY irrelevant to today's society.
> 
> Not only that, but there's the whole idea of reading it from a literature perspective, to look at things and to read between the lines for the various allegories, metaphors, and truths that it might have; not necessarily "This really happened" truths, but perhaps other true ideas and concepts.
> 
> Of course, one must actually _study_ the bible and discuss it in order to unlock these meanings, and not just bash it and listen to Website X, or blindly listen to and obey what your pastor says or follow mob rule in the church when it comes to what's true in the bible and what's not true, as well as just listening to what Website Y has to say about the bible.



And you need the bible for all those things... because?
I don't give a rat's ass about religion and I am no shitty neighbor, I don't treat kids badly (I just have a very strong hatred for them), I am a rather forgiving person and so on and so forth.

And no, I don't think I have to study it to understand that it is nothing but a load of old stories and fairy tales.


----------



## BRN (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> As far as I know even the earliest humans already had anthro statues and drawings^^



Close. There was lots of Egyptian porn of humans mating with their anthro gods, but the earliest known porn was actually just them with naturalised bisons.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> And you need the bible for all those things... because?
> I don't give a rat's ass about religion and I am no shitty neighbor, I don't treat kids badly (I just have a very strong hatred for them), I am a rather forgiving person and so on and so forth.
> 
> And no, I don't think I have to study it to understand that it is nothing but a load of old stories and fairy tales.



What do you think "Reading from a literature perspective" is? It's just reading it as a story, nothing more >.>

No, you don't need the bible for those ideas. But you also don't need the countless other stories that illustrate other ideas such as revenge, the dangers of lust, the corrupting nature of money and power, believing in something enough to want to change the world with it, the nature of man, believing in oneself, and countless other ideas and morals and truths we've seen repeated in movies and entertainment again and again and again. 

But still, people draw inspiration and hope from them. Even though we "Don't need them" for those things. 

And again, please _read_ what I'm saying. I'm not saying study it to go "Lol fairytale" I'm saying study it to find a deeper meaning within it. Or is that idea just too complex for you?


----------



## BRN (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> What do you think "Reading from a literature perspective" is? It's just reading it as a story, nothing more >.>
> 
> No, you don't need the bible for those ideas. But you also don't need the countless other stories that illustrate other ideas such as revenge, the dangers of lust, the corrupting nature of money and power, believing in something enough to want to change the world with it, the nature of man, believing in oneself, and countless other ideas and morals and truths we've seen repeated in movies and entertainment again and again and again.
> 
> ...



 This is kind of bizarre. I'm not sure anybody thinks that the female's lovers actually had "genitals like donkey's and emmission's like horses" - it IS a story, after all - but we /are/ making light of the fact that, in order to make that comparison (and for it to make sense to so many people at the time), quite a few people must have known intricate details of horseydicks.

  ED: To wit, there really isn't an applicable metaphor to be dragged out of the text here. It's an admission of animal voyeurism at least, a casual admission of rampant bestiality at best.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



SIX said:


> This is kind of bizarre. I'm not sure anybody thinks that the female's lovers actually had "genitals like donkey's and emmission's like horses" - it IS a story, after all - but we /are/ making light of the fact that, in order to make that comparison (and for it to make sense to so many people at the time), quite a few people must have known intricate details of horseydicks.
> 
> ED: To wit, there really isn't an applicable metaphor to be dragged out of the text here. It's an admission of animal voyeurism at least, a casual admission of rampant bestiality at best.



Oh no, I'm not just talking about this particular verse here. I was talking about applying this mindset to the entire bible.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> But still, people draw inspiration and hope from them. Even though we "Don't need them" for those things.
> 
> And again, please _read_ what I'm saying. I'm not saying study it to go "Lol fairytale" I'm saying study it to find a deeper meaning within it. Or is that idea just too complex for you?



Hope is an irrelevant argument in my opinion. People draw hope from all sorts of things and I think drawing hope from something that is not real is both dangerous and destructive.

That idea is not too complex for me, I just think you are giving that book way too much credit.
Also, how do you distinguish between those parts that have a deeper meaning and those that should be taken at face value? The whole thing just seems desperate to me, like people who study it are desperately trying to keep the book relevant at this day and age :T


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Hope is an irrelevant argument in my opinion. People draw hope from all sorts of things and I think drawing hope from something that is not real is both dangerous and destructive.
> 
> That idea is not too complex for me, I just think you are giving that book way too much credit.
> Also, how do you distinguish between those parts that have a deeper meaning and those that should be taken at face value? The whole thing just seems desperate to me, like people who study it are desperately trying to keep the book relevant at this day and age :T



Well, I've said all I have to say about this subject/concept/what have you, so here's where I'll just exit stage left as far as this idea's concerned in this topic. 

To compensate for not having anything to add to the conversation, here's a  Malice Mizer Music Video.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



SIX said:


> Close. There was lots of Egyptian porn of humans mating with their anthro gods,



I are 500BC porn star! :3



Nikolinni said:


> I mean saying "God came to me and said..." when he really didn't and you're just trying to get people to do what you want)



So we have a better chance of going to the non existing heaven than christians?


----------



## Saiko (Sep 16, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Also, how do you distinguish between those parts that have a deeper meaning and those that should be taken at face value?


Basically common sense and reading comprehension.

For example, Mathew 5:39 has a decent message regarding conflict. Romans 9:19-21 makes me want to punt a baby.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Saiko said:


> Basically common sense and reading comprehension.
> 
> For example, Mathew 5:39 has a decent message regarding conflict. Romans 9:19-21 makes me want to punt a baby.



I don't think common sense applies here. These texts were written hundreds of years ago afterall! Common sense today says "holy shit, those guys were barbaric loonies!" while it was probably common sense at the time.

Then there are those passages that are somewhat decent (I don't agree with Mat. 5:39 by the way, non-violent resistance isn't always your best option) and, as you said, passages that are absolutely horrible, like Romans 9:19-21.
Why is that that even though the bible has such a vast number of disgusting passages mixed with a couple ones that are decent (but should be common sense today) that it is still relevant at all today?


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Why is that that even though the bible has such a vast number of disgusting passages mixed with a couple ones that are decent (but should be common sense today) that it is still relevant at all today?



What makes you think it's relevant? The Bible hasn't moved with the times. It has not been edited, amended, or altered in any way for tens of thousands of years. It cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be applicable to what goes on today and anyone who is stupid enough to use it as a guide to personal decorum deserves to be laughed at. 

Don't do good because God wants you to. Do good because it's the right thing to do. And how do we know what the right thing to do is in the absence of God? Just look around. That's all you have to do is look at what other people in the world are doing, and if their actions don't seem to be benefiting anyone but themselves, then you know it's not right and that you should avoid acting like them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> What makes you think it's relevant? The Bible hasn't moved with the times. It has not been edited, amended, or altered in any way for tens of thousands of years. It cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be applicable to what goes on today and anyone who is stupid enough to use it as a guide to personal decorum deserves to be laughed at.
> 
> Don't do good because God wants you to. Do good because it's the right thing to do. And how do we know what the right thing to do is in the absence of God? Just look around. That's all you have to do is look at what other people in the world are doing, and if their actions don't seem to be benefiting anyone but themselves, then you know it's not right and that you should avoid acting like them.



It's relevant because its believers influence politics and our societal norms in accordance with their interpretation of its instructions.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> What makes you think it's relevant? The Bible hasn't moved with the times. It has not been edited, amended, or altered in any way for tens of thousands of years.


Wow this post is full of fuck.
First of all, yes, it has been edited and altered. Do you honestly think the Bible was written in English? Why the bloody fuck do you think we have so many versions?
Also Christianity hasn't even been around for that long.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Wow this post is full of fuck.
> First of all, yes, it has been edited and altered. Do you honestly think the Bible was written in English? Why the bloody fuck do you think we have so many versions?
> Also Christianity hasn't even been around for that long.



I don't find translation to be = to alteration. Yes, it's different, but it's supposed to be a near literal translation of what is already there. It's repetition, not fabrication.

Also, versions differ on minor points, not big ones - the message of the chapters remains largely unchanged between versions, while the grammar may be different to some degree. 

As for the amount of years I mentioned, yeah, I got it totally up my bum about that. Christianity has, however, existed for some one thousand three hundred and thirty odd years.



Fallowfox said:


> It's relevant because its believers influence politics and our societal norms in accordance with their interpretation of its instructions.



It's only relevant because we have a bunch of religious nutters trying to stuff dogma wherever they see an open space. If we were any kind of Americans at all, we would rise against these people and put them all to death for crimes against separation of church and state.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Alex, stop shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> It's only relevant because we have a bunch of religious nutters trying to stuff dogma wherever they see an open space. If we were any kind of Americans at all, we would rise against these people and put them all to death for crimes against separation of church and state.



That is the main problem with it. It's an ancient concept that is completely outdated, that I can deal with.
But the fact that there are people out there who do think that it is still relevant and who actively push for it to be part of everyone's lives, that is what drives me nuts.
And with that we are sort of back on topic I suppose, because those loonies are those who try to push "creationism" into schools.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> I don't find translation to be = to alteration. Yes, it's different, but it's supposed to be a near literal translation of what is already there. It's repetition, not fabrication.
> 
> Also, versions differ on minor points, not big ones - the message of the chapters remains largely unchanged between versions, while the grammar may be different to some degree.
> 
> As for the amount of years I mentioned, yeah, I got it totally up my bum about that. Christianity has, however, existed for some one thousand three hundred and thirty odd years.



You're also wrong about that. Different words and phrases were altered to mean different things. It's why people have a stick up their ass about homosexuality for the most part.
Here's the King James Version of Corinthians 6:9-10
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Know  ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be  not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor  effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 [SUP]10 [/SUP]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Okay now let's go with the New International Version
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers *nor men who have sex with men*[SUP]10 [/SUP]nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The fuck did that come from? Oh here's the New American Standard Bible
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor *homosexuals*, [SUP]10 [/SUP]nor thieves, nor _the_ covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

So how in the fuck did homosexuals get there? Oh right, because people edited. If you think the Bible NOW is a literal translation of what it originally is, I got news for you, it ain't. It was translated a few times THEN we went off of the translations and those who wrote those made their own little adjustments so they can have power over those they don't like.
And damn near everyone bought it.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> Alex, stop shooting yourself in the foot.



What? What?

I am convinced that Christians are the problem with everything, because EVERYTHING that everyone else does isn't godly enough for them, and so they meddle in what they ought not to meddle in, to wit, running the country and everyone else's lives.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



AlexInsane said:


> What? What?
> 
> I am convinced that Christians are the problem with everything, because EVERYTHING that everyone else does isn't godly enough for them, and so they meddle in what they ought not to meddle in, to wit, running the country and everyone else's lives.



They're not the problem with everything. Some Christians are problematic, not all, and making comments like 'they should all be put to death' is horrible, even if it is in jest.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> They're not the problem with everything. Some Christians are problematic, not all, and making comments like 'they should all be put to death' is horrible, even if it is in jest.



It's kinda ironic in hindsight when Irreligious people call for the deaths or mal-treatment of Christians because of the deaths and mal-treatment that Christianity (or any other Bible God religions, like Catholicism). 

Because two wrongs TOTALLY make a right.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> You're also wrong about that. Different words and phrases were altered to mean different things. It's why people have a stick up their ass about homosexuality for the most part.
> Here's the King James Version of Corinthians 6:9-10
> [SUP]9 [/SUP]Know  ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be  not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor  effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
> 
> ...



I love that many people still claim that the bible is the pure word of god and yet it is is extremely obvious that even just within the last couple hundred years it was edited and changed a LOT.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> It's kinda ironic in hindsight when Irreligious people call for the deaths or mal-treatment of Christians because of the deaths and mal-treatment that Christianity (or any other Bible God religions, like Catholicism).
> 
> Because two wrongs TOTALLY make a right.


Especially when they include those that are on their side.



CaptainCool said:


> I love that many people stillclaim that the bible is the pure word of god and yet it is is extremely obvious that even just within the last couple of years it was edited and changed a LOT.



You know what I find more hilarious?
There is no mention of God EVER handing over the Bible to anyone. The most is the Apostles writing some of the books.

Now, when you look at Islam, the story is that Muhammed was GIVEN the Quran by the archangel Gabriel. So going by the story, the Quran is the TRUE Word of God.

xD


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> I love that many people stillclaim that the bible is the pure word of god and yet it is is extremely obvious that even just within the last couple of years it was edited and changed a LOT.



I think that's because there's some verse somewhere that says that "The scriptures" or that "the word of God" is infalliable. 

The thing is, I don't think that book ever says what "The Word of God" is. 

One thing I've noticed a lot is people read the Bible as some huge connected story, which it is, but it seems like they read it as if each part was written knowing that oh hey, all this is going to be in one massive book someday. How? Well we have this whole "Word of God" business, which somehow came to mean "Entire Bible". Then I've heard some people say that a passage in Revelation (I don't remember which, but it pretty much says anyone who adds or removes from the book is in for it) means the entire bible. But the thing was the bible wasn't even compiled yet. 

Then we get into the books that aren't even canonically part of the bible, and the kinds of things they said and might've explained. For example in my literature class when we got to Noah (Oh stuff it about the flood; this isn't about that) it brings up Nephilim. But it never says what Nephilim are. It's almost like the story expects you to be famliliar with these ideas. So the professor was saying it's almost as if there's other stories and writings that told us what these things were, but for one reason or another, didn't make it into the bible.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> I think that's because there's some verse somewhere that says that "The scriptures" or that "the word of God" is infalliable.
> 
> The thing is, I don't think that book ever says what "The Word of God" is.
> 
> ...



If there is a God, he she or xe should perhaps have considered that there would be a thousand different versions of a thousand different religious scriptures, many worshiping fictitious gods, that any word they had to offer would need to compete with. 

God would also have had to recognise most people throughout history have been illiterate...so a book that is indistinguishable from most other religions was a bad move. 
Perhaps a magic television screen, or telepathy would have made all this squabbling about which version of which text of which religion is true redundant.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fallowfox said:


> If there is a God, he she or xe should perhaps have considered that there would be a thousand different versions of a thousand different religious scriptures, many worshiping fictitious gods, that any word they had to offer would need to compete with.
> 
> God would also have had to recognise most people throughout history have been illiterate...so a book that is indistinguishable from most other religions was a bad move.
> Perhaps a magic television screen, or telepathy would have made all this squabbling about which version of which text of which religion is true redundant.



Or hell, if we're gonna talk about "what God wants" let's just bring up what some stories say God wants. 

For instance, in Spectral Shadows, it's made clear via characters who've either had a higher connection to or have met Ra (The creator of the universe pretty much) that he never had any specific purpose for his creation. Just that he wants his creations to be happy, and that things like religion and gods and what nots were things created by man. Even some of the more powerful characters like Sir Jon end up being idolized and a religion made out of his teachings, even though I'm pretty sure he didn't want that nor tell them to do that.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> You know what I find more hilarious?
> There is no mention of God EVER handing over the Bible to anyone. The most is the Apostles writing some of the books.
> 
> Now, when you look at Islam, the story is that Muhammed was GIVEN the Quran by the archangel Gabriel. So going by the story, the Quran is the TRUE Word of God.
> ...



Well, since islam comes from christianity I guess it's no surprise that they improved some parts^^ Like giving the bible an origin story.



Nikolinni said:


> I think that's because there's some verse somewhere that says that "The scriptures" or that "the word of God" is infalliable.



I guess that is the crucial part, that people just blindly accept what they read and hear about it.

Also, I suppose when you believe we were created from friggin' dirt you are susceptible to believing pretty much anything you are told when it comes to religion


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Well, since islam comes from christianity I guess it's no surprise that they improved some parts^^ Like giving the bible an origin story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But Cool don't you know!? You're not supposed to take the Creation story literally! It's all one big giant metaphor!

....now I know I spent the last page talking about reading the bible as literature, and looking for allegories, metaphors, meanings, and all that, but I meant doing it to the entire book. As opposed to here where this is supposed to be a dig at the Christians who say This or That's supposed to be taken "Not literally" in order to explain some of the more crazy things in the bible (God creating Adam from dust and Eve from a rib, for instance) or save face.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Well, since islam comes from christianity I guess it's no surprise that they improved some parts^^ Like giving the bible an origin story.



...what? Islam didn't come from Christianity.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> ...what? Islam didn't come from Christianity.



Oh well. But at least they do share the same origin, right? They are at least somewhat related.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Oh well. But at least they do share the same origin, right? They are at least somewhat related.



Somewhat. To put it in simple terms of literature
Judaism: The Beginning
Christianity: The Sequel (With Mormonism: The Fanfiction)
Islam: The Spin-off Series


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Somewhat. To put it in simple terms of literature
> Judaism: The Beginning
> Christianity: The Sequel (With Mormonism: The Fanfiction)
> Islam: The Spin-off Series



This is so accurate it's not funny.

Anywho, as for those nutty Texans wanting to tell kids it's fact that Adam and Eve royally pissed off The Great I Am, I hope they at least make them read Paradise Lost. Or even Mark Twain's "Eve's Diary". 

I love Christian Lore as much as the next fantasy buff, but this creationism thing is simply arrogant. They should teach all other religions if they want to go such a route.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> It's kinda ironic in hindsight when Irreligious people call for the deaths or mal-treatment of Christians because of the deaths and mal-treatment that Christianity (or any other Bible God religions, like Catholicism).
> 
> Because two wrongs TOTALLY make a right.



Which is why this almost never happens and gets called out immediately when it does.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> Which is why this almost never happens and gets called out immediately when it does.



Okay, so maybe not the deaths. But some of the comments I've seen on the internet by people who don't like/hate on religions...yeah.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Okay, so maybe not the deaths. But some of the comments I've seen on the internet by people who don't like/hate on religions...yeah.



On the internet you have all information you would ever need readily available at your fingertips. So naturally concepts like religion, which unline science aren't based on any evidence at all, are getting laughed at quite badly.
I actually think that is one of the better aspects of the internet.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> On the internet you have all information you would ever need readily available at your fingertips. So naturally concepts like religion, which unline science aren't based on any evidence at all, are getting laughed at quite badly.
> I actually think that is one of the better aspects of the internet.



It doesn't excuse being a dick to them though...unless shots were fired by them first, so to speak. 

I dunno. It always just strikes me as queer when someone goes "I'm more accepting/tolerant/etc than YOUUUU" and then what do they do? Act unaccepting/intolerant/etc. 

Kinda like when someone goes "Hey you shouldn't judge!" and then judges someone about something they have on their car -.-


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

No no no, you misunderstand. When I say "You shouldn't judge people" I mean exactly that - you, that is, YOU, shouldn't judge people. That is a task best left to my good self.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Here's an interesting thing for christians.

http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/jesusoryeshua.htm

The translations even screwed up his name. Ironically my name still remains the same in all languages.

Edit: Oh yeah the name of God in Hebrew is YHWH. This has been loosely translated to Jehovah.

http://carm.org/questions/about-god/what-real-name-god-yhwh-jehovah-yahweh


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 17, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> It doesn't excuse being a dick to them though...unless shots were fired by them first, so to speak.
> 
> I dunno. It always just strikes me as queer when someone goes "I'm more accepting/tolerant/etc than YOUUUU" and then what do they do? Act unaccepting/intolerant/etc.
> 
> Kinda like when someone goes "Hey you shouldn't judge!" and then judges someone about something they have on their car -.-



Here is the thing though, sane people don't complain about people who aren't annoying at all. I can't stand those people you talk of as well. Believe it or not, I am fully aware that atheists can be dicks as well 
As for the whole tolerance thing, personally I tolerate almost everyone. But religion in itself is simply something I can not tolerate. So naturally you won't see me saying nice things about it which means my comments and posts on the subject will always reflect that.


----------



## RockerFox (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> "I feel very firmly that â€œcreation scienceâ€ based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."


Didn't a law get passed about separation of church and state like 50 years ago? I can't seem to remember. Don't get me wrong I am a Christian but even I agree that there is a fine line between spreading religion and spreading ignorance


----------



## Lobar (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Accretion said:


> Here's an interesting thing for christians.
> 
> http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/jesusoryeshua.htm
> 
> ...



So it's actually okay to say, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"?


----------



## Fernin (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Admittedly I wish the religious simply didn't exist, I view them and their ass backwards beliefs as a cancer strangling the progress of civilization, logical thought, and providing an convenient excuse for billions of deaths through out history. (NEVER has an act of kindness REQUIRED religion to justify it. Countless atrocities HAVE.) Inspite of this belief however I'd not sink down to the level of just lining them all up and shooting them (as tempting at the thought might be.), despite the fact a great many of them would afford me no such courtesy if they could get away with it. All I can hope for is that continued progress will grind them out in the face of reasonable, logical, and realistic thought.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fernin said:


> Admittedly I wish the religious simply didn't exist, I view them and their ass backwards beliefs as a cancer strangling the progress of civilization, logical thought, and providing an convenient excuse for billions of deaths through out history. (NEVER has an act of kindness REQUIRED religion to justify it. Countless atrocities HAVE.) Inspite of this belief however I'd not sink down to the level of just lining them all up and shooting them (as tempting at the thought might be.), despite the fact a great many of them would afford me no such courtesy if they could get away with it. All I can hope for is that continued progress will grind them out in the face of reasonable, logical, and realistic thought.



See now this is the thing I don't like. 

There's plenty of people who are smart, wise, and kind, loving, and what not who are religious, and not closed minded as well (Religious here meaning any and all religious beliefs, atheist or other wise [atheism here meaning "No belief in a God"]). I'll include "Spiritual" people in this as well. 

True there are those who are intolerant, who will use any thing they can from their teachings and "Beliefs" to justify evil, but the truth is, anyone will use anything to justify what they want. Religion, Patriotism, Loyalty, what have you. Does this excuse the religious from abusing their beleifs? No. But they're not the only abusers of belief and doctrine. 

Anyways, I just...there's something about that statement I just don't like. Not to mention it's HIGHLY generalizing and HIGHLY painting all religious people with one broad brush.

But eh, what do I know. I just strangle civilization, "Logical thought", and provide a convenient excuse for innocent murder just by believing in a god, right? To hell with my personal morals, spiritual beliefs, thoughts, moral codes and so on. I'm religious, so I guess that automatically makes me part of that cancer on society.

And before anyone says Atheism is incompatible with Religion, it's clear you 1)Are unfamiliar with "Atheist Religions" like Buddhism (Buddha never taught to follow a god -- he never taught against it either, but the core elements of it don't have you worshiping a God) and 2)are unfamliar with the textbook definition of atheist (No belief in a God).


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> Somewhat. To put it in simple terms of literature
> Judaism: The Beginning
> Christianity: The Sequel (With Mormonism: The Fanfiction)
> Islam: The Spin-off Series



Though I imagine there'd be some people who would prefer to see it as:

Judaism: The Prequel
Christianity: The Original Intent All Along
Islam: The Unauthorised Sequel
Mormonism: The Fanfiction

And for Christianity:
Catholicism: The Expanded Hardback
Mainstream Protestantism: The Regular Hardback
Fundamentalists: The Technical Manual
Charismatics: The Comic Book


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Mayfurr said:


> Though I imagine there'd be some people who would prefer to see it as:
> 
> Judaism: The Prequel
> Christianity: The Original Intent All Along
> ...



For additional lols, add Chick Tracts and Chick Brand Christianity.


----------



## Inpw (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Lobar said:


> So it's actually okay to say, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"?



The name thing is even more funny if you read up Acts 2:21

In other words: no one will be saved.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Butterflygoddess said:


> This creationism thing is simply arrogant.


Indeed it is, as it always has been.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Indeed it is, as it always has been.



Of course it is:
26 Then God said, â€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,* so that they may rule* over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
It's the idea that everything was created for us and that all other creatures can suck it.
I mean sure... We ARE at the top of the food chain, our species has conquered pretty much the whole planet, but it wasn't given to us.


----------



## Inciatus (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Of course it is:
> 26 Then God said, â€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,* so that they may rule* over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
> It's the idea that everything was created for us and that all other creatures can suck it.
> I mean sure... We ARE at the top of the food chain, our species has conquered pretty much the whole planet, but it wasn't given to us.


God let us crush the living shit out of everything here. :V


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Of course it is:
> 26 Then God said, â€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,* so that they may rule* over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
> It's the idea that everything was created for us and that all other creatures can suck it.
> I mean sure... We ARE at the top of the food chain, our species has conquered pretty much the whole planet, but it wasn't given to us.



Kinda reminds me of Machiato Vitae (probably butchered that) from "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs". It means "The Machinery of Life", and it pretty much states that there's a circle or "Machine of life" and humans, being the most versatile and intelligent creatures, have a duty to take care of and maintain this machine and keep it in balance.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> Kinda reminds me of Machiato Vitae (probably butchered that) from "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs". It means "The Machinery of Life", and it pretty much states that there's a circle or "Machine of life" and humans, being the most versatile and intelligent creatures, have a duty to take care of and maintain this machine and keep it in balance.



I don't think we are obligated to do anything just because we are at the top.
However, one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to be aware of our surroundings and to manipulate them. This doesn't give us a duty to take care of our surroundings but common sense should tell us that taking care of the planet would make it easier for our species to survive in the long run.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



CaptainCool said:


> Of course it is:
> 26 Then God said, â€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,* so that they may rule* over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
> It's the idea that everything was created for us and that all other creatures can suck it.
> I mean sure... We ARE at the top of the food chain, our species has conquered pretty much the whole planet, but it wasn't given to us.



I like to think the trees are running the show. :3c


----------



## Troj (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Logically, God must be a massive toxoplasma gondii protozoan.


----------



## Fernin (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Nikolinni said:


> See now this is the thing I don't like.
> 
> There's plenty of people who are smart, wise, and kind, loving, and what not who are religious, and not closed minded as well (Religious here meaning any and all religious beliefs, atheist or other wise [atheism here meaning "No belief in a God"]). I'll include "Spiritual" people in this as well.
> 
> ...



You presume I speak of every single religious person out there. Despite the fact I made the distinction of not all of them. Of course most arguing for religion like to ignore such inconsequential details. And yes, look on the grande scale, religion is strangling civilization, the US in particular. As for your morals, they have nothing to do with religion. Consequentialism and practical ethics are what make functional, decent people, and the vast majority of people abide by this whether they realize it or not (because if they don't then they end up in jail, living in a gutter, or dead). So yes, you can be a good person whether you're religious or not. And yes, by propagating absurd magical, egotistical beliefs you are a part of that cancer, whether you like it or not. (Or actually if you didn't like it then you could move past the fairytales of our species' infancy). As you exemplify, a person can be both, humanity is funny like that. However as good as your personal morals may be it neither excuses the absurd claims and outright horrific things many religions demands you do (even if modern people rarely do, making them all amusingly self selective heretics to their own faiths) nor does it excuse the effect religion has on dividing societies and holding back civilizations advancement as a whole.

Funny enough, most people I know who've disowned religion (I was never religious myself, I was brought up neutral and taught to analyse and figure it out on my own) are those who have critically read and analysed their religious texts. I mean hell the bible itself contradicts itself no less than five times within it's first four chapters. Of course many don't want to do this because no one wants to be told that the believe they were indoctrinated to as children (without being given the choice most often) and every moment they've spent in prayer or in religious observance was a moment wasted.

But such is just how it is.


----------



## Icky (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fernin said:


> You presume I speak of every single religious person out there. Despite the fact I made the distinction of not all of them. Of course most arguing for religion like to ignore such inconsequential details. And yes, look on the grande scale, religion is strangling civilization, the US in particular. As for your morals, they have nothing to do with religion. Consequentialism and practical ethics are what make functional, decent people, and the vast majority of people abide by this whether they realize it or not (because if they don't then they end up in jail, living in a gutter, or dead). So yes, you can be a good person whether you're religious or not. And yes, by propagating absurd magical, egotistical beliefs you are a part of that cancer, whether you like it or not. (Or actually if you didn't like it then you could move past the fairytales of our species' infancy). As you exemplify, a person can be both, humanity is funny like that. However as good as your personal morals may be it neither excuses the absurd claims and outright horrific things many religions demands you do (even if modern people rarely do, making them all amusingly self selective heretics to their own faiths) nor does it excuse the effect religion has on dividing societies and holding back civilizations advancement as a whole.
> 
> Funny enough, most people I know who've disowned religion (I was never religious myself, I was brought up neutral and taught to analyse and figure it out on my own) are those who have critically read and analysed their religious texts. I mean hell the bible itself contradicts itself no less than five times within it's first four chapters. Of course many don't want to do this because no one wants to be told that the believe they were indoctrinated to as children (without being given the choice most often) and every moment they've spent in prayer or in religious observance was a moment wasted.
> 
> But such is just how it is.



Woah, somehow we found someone even more aggressively anti-theist than CC.


----------



## Wither (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Icky said:


> Woah, somehow we found someone even more aggressively anti-theist than CC.



:I
And here I was thinking that couldn't be possible.


----------



## Fernin (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Icky said:


> Woah, somehow we found someone even more aggressively anti-theist than CC.



I do what I can. The difference between me and most is even if given the opportunity to actually personally exterminate religion I wouldn't do so because I hold self determination sacred above all else(this is also the cause of one the reasons I hate religion, it survives solely through the indoctrination of others, particularly children who don't know any better, and this offends my most core belief). There for as much as I may hate it, if people want to worship magical bullshit, then that's their choice. All I can do is point them to the fallacies and hope they get their heads out of their asses.

As for if there will ever be a tipping point, a point where religion has become such a pox that it threatens civilization even more than it does now (a point I fear will come within my life time), then that may change. Hopefully it won't come, and reasonable thinking will win out. But if it doesn't, well. Who knows. It may well be something that sparks a civil war.

That's not to say though that I won't oppose religion in the government. I believe people should be free to believe what they like, but someone else's fairytales will NOT dictate my life, be it personally or through the government of my nation.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 19, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Fernin said:


> That's not to say though that I won't oppose religion in the government. I believe people should be free to believe what they like, but someone else's fairytales will NOT dictate my life, be it personally or through the government of my nation.


  I don't take orders from gurgling, rasping, ululating hairy savages that died in their own filth centuries ago, their stone-clutching fingers sticky with sacrificial blood.


----------



## VGAddict31 (Sep 19, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

Should Texas secede?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 19, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



VGAddict31 said:


> Should Texas secede?



You asked this two pages ago.

No one gave a shit then.

No one gives a shit now.


----------



## Inciatus (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Aleu said:


> You asked this two pages ago.
> 
> No one gave a shit then.
> 
> No one gives a shit now.


If at first you don't succeed try try again.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



Inciatus said:


> If at first you don't succeed secede, try try again.



Fixed


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*



VGAddict31 said:


> Should Texas secede?



No, and Texas would not be allowed to secede.


----------



## BRN (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

The question of whether Texas should secede is like the question of whether Assad used chemical weapons.

We all want the answer to be yes because, frankly, a yes is all we need to start dropping bombs on them.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

They don't have to secede, just give them back to Mexico.


----------



## Troj (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Official Texas review: â€œCreation scienceâ€ should be incorporated into textboo*

That would be amusing.

Who's the foreigner now, _pendejo_? Who needs to "learn the language or go home" now, huh? Huh?


----------

