|
|
#81
11-11-2005, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Unconstitutional??
[ QUOTE ]
Banned. Insults for their own sake are unneeded. [/ QUOTE ] Oh man, I was really curious to see how he was going to refute the dictionary definition of a word, especially two posts after he called out theweatherman for using a couple of words incorrectly. Also, as an aside, although I think RedLightCruiser was an idiot troll, I think this was an unwarranted ban. 
|
|
#83
11-12-2005, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats wrong with this statement?
Good find. I looked up the Supreme Court decision from the Scopes trial before, but it only showed that laws outlawing the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional, not that the teaching of creationism was unconstitutional.
Anyway, RLC just got banned, so he won't get to respond [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
|
#84
11-12-2005, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Unconstitutional??
[ QUOTE ]
Banned. Insults for their own sake are unneeded. [/ QUOTE ] Three Cheers for Mat Sklansky! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Bye bye trolly.
|
|
#85
11-12-2005, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats wrong with this statement?
I just read the case and the finding seems a bit narrow and thus might not apply to a different approach to introducing ID.
Also, I thought the establishment clause only referred to the federal level and not the state level. I am assuming based on the reading that I am completely wrong.
|
|
#86
11-12-2005, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats wrong with this statement?
[ QUOTE ]
I just read the case and the finding seems a bit narrow and thus might not apply to a different approach to introducing ID. Also, I thought the establishment clause only referred to the federal level and not the state level. I am assuming based on the reading that I am completely wrong. [/ QUOTE ] That is true... until the 14th Amendment was passed (I think). Anyway, the States could restrict anything they wanted until this Amendment was passed, but now it also must be Constitutional as well.
|
|
#87
11-12-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats wrong with this statement?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There are many reasonable challenges to traditional Darwinian explanations, most of which come from microbiologists who have yet to create experimental models that suggest the large scale systemic changes that the fossil evidence would seem to suggest. That's not what ID purports to do. ID is a back-door attempt to reinstate superstition about how life on earth came to be what it is today. Of course, I still don't see how (at least conceptually) evolution and God are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you think even the Pope endorses evolution. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps because the RC Church understands the concept of allegory.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
