The Pledge of Allegiance Unconstituitonal

[FatMan]

Originally posted by beam
I am just dissappointed in all the "theory/opinion slinging" that has been going on in this thread and claimed as fact.

Prayer in school. EVIDENCE shows the affects of removing it.

Ahh, what I most dislike about pseudo-science like this is when the professor of the said bovine dung (is that OK Army?) prefaces his rant with a statement about theory versus fact.

To state that Evolution is a fact is like me stating with total certainty that a T-Rex is yellow and blue. How do you know? Did you ever see one ALIVE?

OK, so did you ever see Jesus Alive? Did you ever see the Red Sea part? No. This is sillyness. Get real. There are plenty of examples of establishing fact without direct observation. You are going on like the bone-head that spilled some drivel about his chemistry class and the big-bang theory. (you aren't that guy, are you ... checking to see ... oh, you are, now I get it).

The one thing that gives me goosebumps is that very recently (last couple of decades), scientist are really starting to admit the faults in Evo. THEORY. Too many holes, too many things unexplained. New terms that deal with origins are: INTELLIGENT Design, specified complexity, etc. So, when some teenage kid tries to tell me that evolution is fact....it's easy for me to dismiss it. Mainstream science/academia begs to differ.

Dude, it is so obvious that you are not in touch with "mainstream" science that it hurts from laughing so much! Sure there have been all sorts of revelations about errors in the early assumtions about evolution. Not errors that suggest evolution is dead totally wrong, but errors that call into question HOW and WHY and WHEN evolution happens and what it means to us. In fact, I tend to find that the research you have mentioned tends to suggest (suggest, mind you, it TOO is theory) that BOTH God and evolution are working together. Or that God is working THROUGH evolution (if you prefer) rather than proving evolution wrong.

You may be king of the chat-room science debate but you fall WAY short of reality if all you can do is spout someone else's Pseudo-science babble. This track has gone off the topic of the PoA and into religion and OUGHT TO BE CLOSED! These guys are just bashing each other without taking the time actually understand what each other are saying!

Flame war, time to put it out!

FatMan

(oh, and don't bother posting to say I myself am flaming this guy - you are darn right I'm flaming him! What does he expect if he covers himself with cyber gasoline!)

[obsolete898]

But if it said "under no God" it would be considered wrong by the standards of a religious person. So why is he wrong if he feels that "under God" is wrong by his standards?

[ThePatriot]

I think the dude just wanted attention, i mean honestly, in all reality it wont affect her whatsoever. However, it is one of those things like the evolution in the classroom trials in the south. Like previously stated, no one will change their faith based on a 2 week unit, well most will not. However, it still went to trial, i guess you just have to fight about everything until something is determined. This will probably not cause any change because all of the government is very religious, John Ashcroft tries to make his decisions off his religion...and yes i support republicans, so im not just bashing him because im a democrat, im not. All it takes is 1 moron and a lawyer to change a nation...

For the record Fatman, please dont tell them to close this thread, i am not bashing him at all. I intentionally held back from bashing him JUST to keep this thread alive. I dont feel the least bit insulted so he wasnt bashing me. I am used to people even worse than him, a lot worse, claiming proof for god and creation is the bible. I mean, it doesnt get much worse than that...

[AngelBoy]

Originally posted by obsolete898
But if it said "under no God" it would be considered wrong by the standards of a religious person. So why is he wrong if he feels that "under God" is wrong by his standards?

Actually, saying "under no God" would actually clear up all of this. That would be saying that the government chooses no sides and that they will run this country as fair as possible no matter what class/religion/race/diety/whatever it will effect. So saying that would actually seperate church and government. You would actually have a better argument in changing it to that than u would to just take it out. Just my own opinion on that though.

[cphilip]

Heh...wonder why we had a rule against not discussing religon and politics here?

Hmmmmm I wonder....

Ok lets end this now and get back to some more important things like paintball and why guys like Twins....