Should evolution be taught in high school?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a false statement. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Funny, that's what darwinists say all the time!

No they don't. You say that

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Language is important, without the rules and definitions then communication of concepts would be impossible, and while language itself can evolve over time, such changes must benefit the language or be discarded. You cannot add more specific definitions to the word atheist as this would inherently destroy it's use, and therefore, the term means simply "lacking a belief in a deity" and makes no assertion either way.

Language is very important, I totally agree and this is where you and I are bumping heads.

What you are doing is called utilizing a "subject-to-object raising verb".

Take the following sentences into consideration:

A. I do not believe in the existence of Deities.

Notice the location of the negative in this sentence and how it's been moved to the main clause. Whereas syntactically in linguistics (specifically English), the negative should be located at the subordinate clause where it logically goes. Therefore...

I believe Deities do not exist.

This denotes the action on the subject. We do not act on concepts we do not believe in, however, we DO act on ALL concepts we believe in. The action doesn't always have to be a positive action of enforcement, it can very well be a negative affirmation.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
So says self-admitted cartoon boy who draws pictures with crayons for a living.(Truth is stranger than fiction!)

It's an honest living ... and it doesn't require that I LIE about everything in order to maintain a delusional belief in bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALES like you do.

And it's not crayons, it's Adobe CreativeSuite Illustrator and Photoshop on a computer.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
So says self-admitted cartoon boy who draws pictures with crayons for a living.(Truth is stranger than fiction!)

You're only qualifications are to make money, your point is moot.

Langoliers wrote:

There's that piss smell again
What could it be?

You're the only one that seems to notice it, so I'd guess it's your mustache.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
So says self-admitted cartoon boy who draws pictures with crayons for a living.(Truth is stranger than fiction!)

Doesn't really address the fact that you "creationists" have been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at producing anything of scientific or technological value in support of "creation science" despite 2000+ years worth of trying, does it?

Big surprise there.[/sarcasm]

BTW you also didn't comment on the Barna Group paper that indicates that even many of your own children think you "fundie christian creationists" are nuts.

Why is that?

The Nerd wrote:

<quoted text>
We do not act on concepts we do not believe in, however, we DO act on ALL concepts we believe in. The action doesn't always have to be a positive action of enforcement, it can very well be a negative affirmation.

The rest is just rephrasing what I already stated. This however is wrong. You cannot act on anything that you do not believe in, it's not that we do not, it's that we cannot. Therefore, since we do not believe in a god, we cannot in any way act on it.

The Nerd wrote:

Language is very important, I totally agree and this is where you and I are bumping heads.
What you are doing is called utilizing a "subject-to-object raising verb".
Take the following sentences into consideration:
A. I do not believe in the existence of Deities.
Notice the location of the negative in this sentence and how it's been moved to the main clause. Whereas syntactically in linguistics (specifically English), the negative should be located at the subordinate clause where it logically goes. Therefore...
I believe Deities do not exist.
This denotes the action on the subject. We do not act on concepts we do not believe in, however, we DO act on ALL concepts we believe in. The action doesn't always have to be a positive action of enforcement, it can very well be a negative affirmation.

"I do not believe in the existence of Deities" is not the same as "I believe Deities do not exist". Why isn't that sinking in?

Hey, Utter Cowturd, here's another Barna Group article:

http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/...

From the article:

"Overall, about three out of ten young people who grow up with a Christian background stay faithful to church and to faith throughout their transitions from the teen years through their twenties."

Only 30% of Christian kids stay in the church. 30%!

And that's across all Christian denominations. I have read that Evangelical Christian churches are losing their young people at an even more alarming rate.

If your "faith" is so "right" then why are so many abandoning it? You "fundie christians" not doing a good enough job selling the lies to the young people?

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The rest is just rephrasing what I already stated. This however is wrong. You cannot act on anything that you do not believe in, it's not that we do not, it's that we cannot. Therefore, since we do not believe in a god, we cannot in any way act on it.

Then when you act to undermine theistic arguments on the boards are your actions a reflection of your non-beliefs or lack thereof?

MADRONE wrote:

<quoted text>
"I do not believe in the existence of Deities" is not the same as "I believe Deities do not exist". Why isn't that sinking in?

Then explain why there isn't a problem with the location of the negative in your first sentence quoted.

The Nerd wrote:

<quoted text>
Then when you act to undermine theistic arguments on the boards are your actions a reflection of your non-beliefs or lack thereof?

No, when we act to prevent theistic beliefs from being forced on the people who do not agree with them, we are acting on their actions, not their beliefs. As for on message boards, often there is open discussion of the beliefs and due to the persecution complex common in believers of any religion, when their beliefs are challenged they will perceive it as a threat. This is a typical sign of doubt in the assertion.

If theists would not attempt to force their beliefs into law, there would be no reason to undermine their actions at all. If the theist was strong in their beliefs, they would see that the discussion of their beliefs is just a discussion.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Unbelievable some where along your time line in fact millions of times in your time line mutants would have to inbreed to start a new species and even in your evolution line humans started from just one and breed to our current population
So why again could not God have this happen with Adam and Eve?

.....because Adam and Eve are mythological creatures. That's why.

By the way, you are totally oblivious to the concept of population genetics.

The Nerd wrote:

Then explain why there isn't a problem with the location of the negative in your first sentence quoted.

I do not believe that your Deity exists.

Your Deity may exist, but at this point I have no reason to believe that it does.

I have no beliefs concerning your Deity.

I do not concern myself with your Deity.

Get it?

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No, when we act to prevent theistic beliefs from being forced on the people who do not agree with them, we are acting on their actions, not their beliefs. As for on message boards, often there is open discussion of the beliefs and due to the persecution complex common in believers of any religion, when their beliefs are challenged they will perceive it as a threat. This is a typical sign of doubt in the assertion.

When you act on their actions you are in fact acting on their beliefs. The concept of actions is only manifested because of beliefs. How many theists have you argued against where you found yourself arguing against their non-beliefs in God?

MADRONE wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not believe that your Deity exists.
Your Deity may exist, but at this point I have no reason to believe that it does.
I have no beliefs concerning your Deity.
I do not concern myself with your Deity.
Get it?

You didn't explain the problem associated with the negative. Try again.

The Nerd wrote:

<quoted text>
When you act on their actions you are in fact acting on their beliefs. The concept of actions is only manifested because of beliefs. How many theists have you argued against where you found yourself arguing against their non-beliefs in God?

Are you going anywhere with this line of reasoning or are you simply trying to prove everyone is as goofy as you are?

The Nerd wrote:

<quoted text>
When you act on their actions you are in fact acting on their beliefs. The concept of actions is only manifested because of beliefs. How many theists have you argued against where you found yourself arguing against their non-beliefs in God?

No, that is the projection aspect of the persecution complex. It is also proof that you are your god, at least in your mind. When we reject your actions, you project that rejection onto your beliefs to create the illusion of unjustified persecution. It's the same thing with gay marriage or freeing the slaves. These acts of giving equality to unrecognized people were merely acting against the action of inequality, the christian zealots then project that action onto their beliefs to play the victim role by accusing those fighting for equality of "attack the belief." This is also evident in the old canard of "hate the sin not the sinner" being used to justify harming those you disagree with, it's a projection of action onto the religious belief to justify the persecution.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that is the projection aspect of the persecution complex. It is also proof that you are your god, at least in your mind. When we reject your actions, you project that rejection onto your beliefs to create the illusion of unjustified persecution. It's the same thing with gay marriage or freeing the slaves. These acts of giving equality to unrecognized people were merely acting against the action of inequality, the christian zealots then project that action onto their beliefs to play the victim role by accusing those fighting for equality of "attack the belief." This is also evident in the old canard of "hate the sin not the sinner" being used to justify harming those you disagree with, it's a projection of action onto the religious belief to justify the persecution.

All of this and you completely dodged the question. Have you ever found yourself arguing against a theist non-beliefs in a God?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot laugh away the evidence. You may be too stupid to understand the evidence but you cannot laugh it away.

You never told us what your 2 BS degrees are in, sneeky.