Calif. lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history in schools

[Agorism]

Calif. lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history in schools

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-gay-education-california-idUSTRE76509120110706

Kind of silly, but another reason why I am suspicious of the government's version of history being taught to impressionable kids.

[kah13176]

I want to pass a bill that teaches the impact of left-handed people on history too.

[Revolution9]

Another pathetic and ill motivated attack on America's children. I think it should be taught in Hampstead synagogues instead. Betcha they won't be having none of it for their children. It will surely turn into a mess of so-and-so from history was really a closet case with no frigging proof by activist morons. Carpetmunching 101 and Lower Fundament Rotorooting 101 will be on middle school agendas next.

Rev9

[specsaregood]

Carpetmunching 101 and Lower Fundament Rotorooting 101 will be on middle school agendas next.
Rev9

What do those two subjects have to do with the topic in the OP?

[TheViper]

I'm OK with it so long as it's mixed in with all other civil rights movements taught in civics, social studies or government classes. As a separate, independent class or scope outside of civil rights and liberties, it would seem completely unnecessary and pointless. I support gay rights but geez, no reason to make a separate class for it in school.

[Revolution9]

What do those two subjects have to do with the topic in the OP?

One step at a time is how The Enemy encroaches.

HTH
Rev9

[James Madison]

What do those two subjects have to do with the topic in the OP?

You don't wanna know. Trust me.

[angelatc]

It is just another tool used to divide us.

[Rael]

Fudgepacking and pole smoking are an ancient practice and part of our rich cultural heritage. Take a look at this historical artifact from 510 BC:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiki_anal_sex.jpg

These historic treasures prove that the ancients were adept at anal spelunking. Gay historians still have not determined at what point in history this behavior branched out into limp wrist gestures, exaggerated feminized modes of speech, and sex with random strangers in bathrooms, but they hope to "rectify" the situation with further research.

[Sola_Fide]

Compulsory state education...teaching that rights come from groups....socialization...statism....

Connect the dots.


And still we have people here who are "okay" with stuff like this. If you think that this is okay, I would just ask you to sincerely rediscover liberty.

[07041826]

More collectivism. There is no black history, gay history, womens history, etc. there is only history.

[sailingaway]

Calif. lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history in schools

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-gay-education-california-idUSTRE76509120110706

Kind of silly, but another reason why I am suspicious of the government's version of history being taught to impressionable kids.

The last version would have made them do this as early as kindergarten. My 5 year old wasn't even interested in where babies came from at that point, and I think bringing sexuality into the kindergarten is way usurping the proper role of the parents.

The Governator vetoed that. Don't know what Brown will do.

[dannno]

[GRAPHIC IMAGE]
These historic treasures prove that the ancients were adept at anal spelunking.


BIRTH CONTROL.



































http://derentemel.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fosters-map-neonfinal.jpg
c

[specsaregood]

You don't wanna know. Trust me.

Neither of those two subjects are exclusive to homosexuals.

[TheViper]

The last version would have made them do this as early as kindergarten. My 5 year old wasn't even interested in where babies came from at that point, and I think bringing sexuality into the kindergarten is way usurping the proper role of the parents.

The Governator vetoed that. Don't know what Brown will do.
I don't understand the point of teaching any form of sex education while kids still see the opposite sex as having cooties. You need to wait until about 5/6th grade before touching on that.

I also agree with the idea that they shouldn't teach compartmentalized history. History is history and it should be taught as such.

[RP Supporter]

Stupid. The purpose of this of course is to play up the gays that worked within the government's approved framework. Like the suffrage and civil rights movement's, or at least the way they're taught in history. It works like this:

X group fought for rights.
The government gave X group rights.
You are a member of X group.
You owe the government for giving you those rights.

That's why I oppose this, despite being gay myself. Mention the people in history who were gay and actually did something. But as it stands, this is yet another propaganda tool.

[specsaregood]

That's why I oppose this, despite being gay myself. Mention the people in history who were gay and actually did something. But as it stands, this is yet another propaganda tool.

I find the image they put on the OP link sad:
http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110706&t=2&i=453028018&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-07-06T012938Z_01_BTRE765045N00_RTROPTP_0_USA
This person already has the "freedom" to marry. They can go and get married a few churches, they can do it privately with family, they can create private contracts handling inheritance and everything. But no, they want to beg and plead for "permission" for the "freedom" to marry. They should be saying "screw you! I don't need government approval of my marriage."

[dannno]

I find the image they put on the OP link sad:
http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110706&t=2&i=453028018&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-07-06T012938Z_01_BTRE765045N00_RTROPTP_0_USA
This person already has the "freedom" to marry. They can go and get married a few churches, they can do it privately with family, they can create private contracts handling inheritance and everything. But no, they want to beg and plead for "permission" for the "freedom" to marry. They should be saying "screw you! I don't need government approval of my marriage."

Ya, you're totally right.. but they should also be allowed to get married as long as it's a state function.

[AlexanderY]

Another pathetic and ill motivated attack on America's children. I think it should be taught in Hampstead synagogues instead. Betcha they won't be having none of it for their children. It will surely turn into a mess of so-and-so from history was really a closet case with no frigging proof by activist morons. Carpetmunching 101 and Lower Fundament Rotorooting 101 will be on middle school agendas next.

Rev9


One step at a time is how The Enemy encroaches.

HTH
Rev9


The Jews? or The Commies?

[Legend1104]

If schools were run by the local communities instead of the States or Federal governments then this would not be a problem. Granted most schools have local school boards elected by the local citizens, but it defeats the point when the state/federal government gets to mandate school policies. These are politicans that are creating policy for publicity. A local community school wouldn't be as inclined to even care.

[messana]

Kind of embarrassing but I don't know anything about gay history.

[dannno]

Kind of embarrassing but I don't know anything about gay history.

You might start with Abraham Lincoln.

[Echoes]

We saw this coming from a mile away, i heard folks saying this years ago about how schools would be next on the gay agenda.

The typical response by a Progressive would be 'Oh no, no. Stop with that nonsense, gays only want the right to marry, not push their lifestyle on your kids'.

And, so here it is.

Get your kids OUT of public schools is the answer Period. Not just for this reason, but a ton of other reasons.

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW9ZQ86Pws

[Rael]

This person already has the "freedom" to marry. They can go and get married a few churches, they can do it privately with family, they can create private contracts handling inheritance and everything. But no, they want to beg and plead for "permission" for the "freedom" to marry. They should be saying "screw you! I don't need government approval of my marriage."

You hit the nail on the head there. Everyone thinks you must be either for or against gay marriage, I have yet to meet a person who has considered that there is a third option, getting government out of the business altogether.

[Ricky201]

You hit the nail on the head there. Everyone thinks you must be either for or against gay marriage, I have yet to meet a person who has considered that there is a third option, getting government out of the business altogether.

Umm...hi my partner and I support that third option. Nice to meet ya!

[Rael]

Umm...hi my partner and I support that third option. Nice to meet ya!

Lol I meant I haven't met a person outside of the internet that considered it. Nice to meet u just the same
=p

[asurfaholic]

Can I say thank goodness I don't live in California? Without somebody pouncing on me? They already over do the "black history" thing...

[MelissaWV]

I have a spectacular idea. If we're supposed to not discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, mental status, physical disability, age, or any number of other things... let's just leave that crap out of history books unless it's really REALLY relevant (it usually isn't).

How about people just teach History?

You'll never get that in public schools consistently, because it's easier to teach via soundbyte and cliche. Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but his name wasn't "Columbus" and he didn't discover America. Pocahontas was not a slender of-age gal with woodland creatures for pets. The first settlers were not a jolly mix of hardy frontiersmen and pious ladies in long dresses, and the first winter was not pleasant. The Revolutionary War was not won by a bunch of ragtag militia all on their own (I see this lie all over these forums still). Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great speaker, but there were so many others involved in fighting for what they saw as equality that no one even remembers. It's all wedged into Black History Month, rather than included as a chronology of our nation's history. You could go on and on and on with this stuff.

[awake]

Oppression studies.The victims must be taught to be victims and the oppressors need to be politically designated to fit the prevailing narrative.

[Acala]

Lol!

Government will ALWAYS use whatever tools are at hand to achieve its goals. One of its most important goals is to divide the people over unimportant issues to keep them from discovering the truth about what government and its masters are doing to them.

The solution couldn't be simpler - get government OUT of education in every way at every level.

[AuH20]

We saw this coming from a mile away, i heard folks saying this years ago about how schools would be next on the gay agenda.

The typical response by a Progressive would be 'Oh no, no. Stop with that nonsense, gays only want the right to marry, not push their lifestyle on your kids'.

And, so here it is.

Get your kids OUT of public schools is the answer Period. Not just for this reason, but a ton of other reasons.

Social engineering. They have big plans.

[oyarde]

Wth is gay history ? Will they have a heterosexual history class as well ? Ridiculous . They need to teach them economics .

[dannno]

Can I say thank goodness I don't live in California? Without somebody pouncing on me? They already over do the "black history" thing...

Well to be fair, CA mostly just likes to talk about black history. I'm from CA and know very little about black history except what I've learned on the internet.

[ChaosControl]

Idiotic.

This is why I dislike public education more than anything, it is too subject to what a bunch of annoying lawyers want it to be.
Laws to dictate what is taught should not exist. Educational professionals in a school should be the ones in charge of such. Then outside parties can look at what the school teaches and determine if it is worthy of their endorsement. People can then choose schools based on the endorsements they have. No need for government intervention.

This kind of stuff isn't education, it isn't what school is about. If one is really curious about such an irrelevant topic, they can look it up on their own time rather than have a tax funded class provided for it.

[Acala]

This kind of stuff isn't education, it isn't what school is about. .

Agreed. School is about crushing the child's natural desire to learn and inculcating submission to authority.

[Guitarzan]

Hmmm....when I was young, schools left things like that to Mel Brooks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPnCqsNv9v4

[newyearsrevolution08]

Not really sure what to think about this.

I mean how are they going to explain where it came from?

Is that going to be a chicken and the egg thing?

Is it going to be based on religious versions of homosexuality and if so how crazy would that be?


I am going to be moving OUT OF CALIFORNIA within the next 2 years (wish I could sooner but can't) and the only thing going for this place is the marijuana laws. I can't think of anything else that is keeping me here.

I have plenty of gay folks in my family, I could care less whether or not they teach gay history or any history for that matter. You want to know why? If we keep allowing the government to EDUCATE our kids does it really matter WHAT they put in their head? I mean you are letting the government train your child to be what THEY WANT.

This is what we are doing to our kids currently. Is learning about homosexuality a bad thing? NO it isn't because maybe it can help some kids not get their asses kicked for being "different" from the heard. I do however think it is wrong for us to let the government take the role on subjects like those.

Religion
Politics
Sexual Topics

Should be covered at home, by all means the KIDS will talk about it but the TEACHING on those topics SHOULD COME from the parents.

My opinion at least but have learned that lifestyle choices are no ones fuckin business and makes people unconfortable.

Imagine being in a gay history class, wonder if they are going to have all the gay people stand up and be applauded for being so "YEAH, I'M GAY!" LOL. Come on, who wants to be paraded across a runway in front of thousands of people cheering them on. Well wait a minute, maybe this isn't a bad idea at all....


teach your kids what you want them to learn, hope they grow up to form their own opinions and not simply listen to either THEIR PARENTS or OTHERS once they get older. Use what those around you have shared but KEEP LEARNING and forming opinions. We are never too old to learn something new.

gay history? never thought I would hear about that today BUT wondering what color the text book cover might be.

[ds21089]

In my opinion, this is an attempt to create more gay children. This is merely a form of population control. GG

[Deborah K]

Compulsory state education...teaching that rights come from groups....socialization...statism....

Connect the dots.


And still we have people here who are "okay" with stuff like this. If you think that this is okay, I would just ask you to sincerely rediscover liberty.

This

[Cowlesy]

Filed under STIHIE.

[jmdrake]

I find the image they put on the OP link sad:
http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110706&t=2&i=453028018&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-07-06T012938Z_01_BTRE765045N00_RTROPTP_0_USA
This person already has the "freedom" to marry. They can go and get married a few churches, they can do it privately with family, they can create private contracts handling inheritance and everything. But no, they want to beg and plead for "permission" for the "freedom" to marry. They should be saying "screw you! I don't need government approval of my marriage."

+rep! It's the polygamists who are being persecuted in this country, not the gays. Abraham, Jacob and David would all be imprisoned in modern America. And Solomon could just forget it.

Edit: I owe you. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to specsaregood again.

[dannno]

In my opinion, this is an attempt to create more gay children. This is merely a form of population control. GG

How do you make more gay children? Studies have shown that kids who grow up in environments where being gay is accepted doesn't make them gay. On the other hand, if you are born gay and grow up in an environment where being gay is not accepted, it is extremely detrimental psychologically to the individual.

[jmdrake]

Filed under STIHIE.

I Googled STIHIE to find out what it meant (So This Is How It Ends) and guess what the top two links were?


STIHIE: Gay Math
www.alternativeright.com › Main › Blogs › Zeitgeist - CachedFeb 4, 2011 – The following is an installment in our ongoing series “So This Is How It Ends” (STIHIE), which chronicles instances of decadence so advanced ...

STIHIE: The Fed Goes Gay
www.alternativeright.com › Main › Blogs › Untimely Observations - Cached -


Weird coincidence? :eek:

Side note, I wonder if the Federal Reserve bank hoisting the gay flag and Herman Cain's recent troubles with his staff are related? FTR I don't care who sleeps with who behind closed doors. But any agenda being pushed by our arch enemies at the Fed is something to be concerned about. (And anything that might split Herman Cain from the tea party is good for us.)

[jmdrake]

How do you make more gay children? Studies have shown that kids who grow up in environments where being gay is accepted doesn't make them gay. On the other hand, if you are born gay and grow up in an environment where being gay is not accepted, it is extremely detrimental psychologically to the individual.

Link to the studies? (And information on who funded them).

[jmdrake]

I have a spectacular idea. If we're supposed to not discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, mental status, physical disability, age, or any number of other things... let's just leave that crap out of history books unless it's really REALLY relevant (it usually isn't).

How about people just teach History?

You'll never get that in public schools consistently, because it's easier to teach via soundbyte and cliche. Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but his name wasn't "Columbus" and he didn't discover America. Pocahontas was not a slender of-age gal with woodland creatures for pets. The first settlers were not a jolly mix of hardy frontiersmen and pious ladies in long dresses, and the first winter was not pleasant. The Revolutionary War was not won by a bunch of ragtag militia all on their own (I see this lie all over these forums still). Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great speaker, but there were so many others involved in fighting for what they saw as equality that no one even remembers. It's all wedged into Black History Month, rather than included as a chronology of our nation's history. You could go on and on and on with this stuff.

+rep. Really with the internet there isn't any reason why history classes couldn't be open sourced. Kind of like Wikipedia, but strictly for history and with at least some level of gatekeeping. (Give the user the ability to see a ranking of entries by academic level for instance). Put in the framework of places, dates, events etc, then if anyone has a special interest they could add extra knowledge. End users could follow different "threads" of history based on their own interest. Maybe they want to know about the impact of the great depression on a particular state or even their own family? There's no reason for things to continue to be so top down.

[dannno]

Link to the studies? (And information on who funded them).

Why do you need a study? I've been going batshit insane over girls every day for the last 16 years of my life. Most guys are also this way. So what could society possibly do that would make me go batshit insane over dudes when I'm not attracted to them? I have to then assume, especially since I've known quite a few gay people in my life who I've been able to ask about this stuff, that, um, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Of course there are people who are "bi" and who can choose, to some extent, who they are with. Even then, people who are bi often don't have any control over who they ultimately end up falling in love with, and I'm not going to be the one to tell them that they fell in love with the wrong person from the wrong gender.

I guess I just don't see any benefit in trying to convince bi people that they should be with the opposite sex when they could end up being happier with someone of the same sex.

[jmdrake]

Why do you need a study?

:rolleyes: Because you said


Studies have shown

Either studies have shown it or they haven't. If you're just going by your own personal observation than say that.

[ctiger2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1xuJ-rw8Ko

[Theocrat]

That is Reason #3,497 why we need the state governments to get out of education.

[dannno]

:rolleyes: Because you said



Either studies have shown it or they haven't. If you're just going by your own personal observation than say that.

Well studies have shown it, but I'm more interested in personal experience and observation. Studies are expensive, and as you pointed out, require funding. If someone was genuinely interested in finding out the truth, why would they pay for an expensive study? It seems to be the people and organizations who already know the answer they want and just want some science to back it up who end up paying for these types of studies.

[Theocrat]

We saw this coming from a mile away, i heard folks saying this years ago about how schools would be next on the gay agenda.

The typical response by a Progressive would be 'Oh no, no. Stop with that nonsense, gays only want the right to marry, not push their lifestyle on your kids'.

And, so here it is.

Get your kids OUT of public schools is the answer Period. Not just for this reason, but a ton of other reasons.

The ironic thing is LGBTs fight so desperately for society to just accept them as normal human beings, with no prejudice towards their sexual preferences. Yet, now they want to teach history, showcasing only those people in the past whose sexual orientation was...LGBT. It seems hypocritical, to me.

[Dr.3D]

Why do you need a study? I've been going batshit insane over girls every day for the last 16 years of my life. Most guys are also this way. So what could society possibly do that would make me go batshit insane over dudes when I'm not attracted to them? I have to then assume, especially since I've known quite a few gay people in my life who I've been able to ask about this stuff, that, um, they don't have a choice in the matter.

Of course there are people who are "bi" and who can choose, to some extent, who they are with. Even then, people who are bi often don't have any control over who they ultimately end up falling in love with, and I'm not going to be the one to tell them that they fell in love with the wrong person from the wrong gender.

I guess I just don't see any benefit in trying to convince bi people that they should be with the opposite sex when they could end up being happier with someone of the same sex.

If you haven't see the movie, "The Crying Game", I suggest you do, it's great. It was required in one of the courses I took while in college. If it doesn't confuse the issue, nothing will.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

It is just another tool used to divide us.

Agreed

[MelissaWV]

The ironic thing is LGBTs fight so desperately for society to just accept them as normal human beings, with no prejudice towards their sexual preferences. Yet, now they want to teach history, showcasing only those people in the past whose sexual orientation was...LGBT. It seems hypocritical, to me.

The silly thing is that you posted this in this thread... after I already posted that the ______ History thing is complete and utter tripe. Don't let it stop you from painting with a broad brush, though.

[Theocrat]

The silly thing is that you posted this in this thread... after I already posted that the ______ History thing is complete and utter tripe. Don't let it stop you from painting with a broad brush, though.

I know there are exceptions, Mel, and I should have stated that in my previous post. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

[awake]

Every totalitarian at heart always grabs for the public school system to inculcate their 'message' through the curriculum.

[Acala]

Well studies have shown it, but I'm more interested in personal experience and observation. Studies are expensive, and as you pointed out, require funding. If someone was genuinely interested in finding out the truth, why would they pay for an expensive study? It seems to be the people and organizations who already know the answer they want and just want some science to back it up who end up paying for these types of studies.

Studies show that the only thing that can make a straight person turn gay is smoking pot. :D

[dannno]

Studies show that the only thing that can make a straight person turn gay is smoking pot. :D

That is demonstrably false.

[Dr.3D]

Studies show that the only thing that can make a straight person turn gay is smoking pot. :D
Oh, so that's it. I wondered why that fellow was trying to pass me a joint.

[Acala]

That is demonstrably false.

The studies show that it takes a few years.

[dannno]

The studies show that it takes a few years.

Also false.

[YumYum]

The ironic thing is LGBTs fight so desperately for society to just accept them as normal human beings, with no prejudice towards their sexual preferences. Yet, now they want to teach history, showcasing only those people in the past whose sexual orientation was...LGBT. It seems hypocritical, to me.

It is kind of like the Texas BOE requiring creationism be taught in public schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/30/texas-school-creationism-textbooks

[asurfaholic]

Well to be fair, CA mostly just likes to talk about black history. I'm from CA and know very little about black history except what I've learned on the internet.

Oops, didn't make myself clear.. when I said "they" overdo black history, I meant local schools in my area of NC. I am doing a big job in New Bern High School right now, and all around school there are huge posters and time lines of nothing but black people, and the history of them. Math? Nada.. Science? Bubblegum on the light fixtures..

I am far from racist, but there is more to life than the history of black people. And I don't care if somebody is gay, just don't put it in my face.

[Agorism]

But government teaches its version of WW2 and would never teach something like Buchanan's Unnecessary War book which has an alternative view on things.

Bottom line is government history is a very bad thing, and it shouldn't be taught at all unless it's some sort of third party.

[QueenB4Liberty]

It is kind of like the Texas BOE requiring creationism be taught in public schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/30/texas-school-creationism-textbooks

I agree with this!

[Agorism]

It is kind of like the Texas BOE requiring creationism be taught in public schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/30/texas-school-creationism-textbooks


Yes!

[dannno]

What is the difference between a state mandating that gay history be taught in schools and a state mandating that creationism be taught in schools from a liberty standpoint?

[dannno]

I think they could make a South Park episode where there is one faction trying to teach the kids gay history and another faction trying to teach the kids creationism and they some how get them both mixed up and think that God making the world in 7 days is "Gay History" (of course the kids still think that gay = lame) and people who happen to like to have sex with people of the same gender and fight for their civil rights is "Creationism".

[Agorism]

Well gay history isn't taught in science class (biology) where as "creationism" is mandated as such.

[dannno]

Well gay history isn't taught in science class (biology) where as "creationism" is mandated as such.

What?

I don't know if I understood you correctly, they want to teach creationism in biology class??

So what is the difference between that and mandating that gay history be taught in history class, especially considering that gay history is history, and creationism is not biology?

[Agorism]

Well in that sense, gay history is more relevant than "creationism" in my opinion.

My newest topic just got moved directly into hot topics. lol

[PaulConventionWV]

Calif. lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history in schools

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-gay-education-california-idUSTRE76509120110706

Kind of silly, but another reason why I am suspicious of the government's version of history being taught to impressionable kids.

Yeah, kind of like evolution, right?

Just thought I'd throw that in as some food for thought.

[dannno]

Yeah, kind of like evolution, right?

Just thought I'd throw that in as some food for thought.

It took 8 pages, but we finally are discussing this just now.

I never realized people who wanted creationism taught in schools wanted it to be taught in biology class, lol..

[Agorism]

Evolution actually makes sense unlike the Chistian curriculum for "science" class.

Go back to your mosques and synagogues and teach "creationism" there.

[Echoes]

Yeah, kind of like evolution, right?

Just thought I'd throw that in as some food for thought.

Oops.

They spoke too soon.

[Echoes]

Evolution actually makes sense unlike the Chistian curriculum for "science" class.

Go back to your mosques and synagogues and teach "creationism" there.

Why's that, because the social darwinist says so ?

[dannno]

I mean, I'm agnostic, I have little problem with the theory that there is an intelligent creator of life and all... but biology is the study of living organisms based on what we can observe, not some random stuff written in 2,000 year old text.

I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, but do it in a history or social studies or religion class.. I have no problem with them teaching about Islam or Buddhism either. Hell, teach kids about whatever you want (for the most part), just try not to tell them what to think.. or leave that for their parents and/or Sunday school.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I think they could make a South Park episode where there is one faction trying to teach the kids gay history and another faction trying to teach the kids creationism and they some how get them both mixed up and think that God making the world in 7 days is "Gay History" (of course the kids still think that gay = lame) and people who happen to like to have sex with people of the same gender and fight for their civil rights is "Creationism".

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

If Stone and Parker gave a crap about South Park anymore that would happen. + rep for sure. Well, if I could, that is.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ya, you're totally right.. but they should also be allowed to get married as long as it's a state function.

No, the state should get out of it first. We can't just add rights into the state-controlled system. That just legitimizes the government's control over marriage, which it has no right interfering with in the first place.

[BlackTerrel]

Wait. I thought the gay agenda wasn't real. All they want is to be able to live in peace.

Oops.

[Echoes]

Why do gays, who make up 1-2% of the population, act like they are 25% ? It's really weird how much attention they get, homosexuality is just one of a myriad of sexual lifestyles out there. There's a very authoritarian aspect of the whole gay movement.

[dannno]

Why do gays, who make up 1-2% of the population

I don't know what the real numbers are as there is a lot of debate surrounding the subject, but that is absolutely laughable.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I mean, I'm agnostic, I have little problem with the theory that there is an intelligent creator of life and all... but biology is the study of living organisms based on what we can observe, not some random stuff written in 2,000 year old text.

I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, but do it in a history or social studies or religion class.. I have no problem with them teaching about Islam or Buddhism either. Hell, teach kids about whatever you want (for the most part), just try not to tell them what to think.. or leave that for their parents and/or Sunday school.

I've never thought about how it would fit into social studies or history. But religion is allowed to be taught in public schools anyhow. That is why there is such disagreement with it, people want it taught about in science.

[MelissaWV]

Wait. I thought the gay agenda wasn't real. All they want is to be able to live in peace.

Oops.


Why do gays, who make up 1-2% of the population, act like they are 25% ? It's really weird how much attention they get, homosexuality is just one of a myriad of sexual lifestyles out there. There's a very authoritarian aspect of the whole gay movement.

Why do some folks make moronic, sweeping generalizations based on the lunacy that goes on in California?

What's the Black Agenda like, BT, since Black History is already taught? :rolleyes: I know you're part of it. There is no room for nuance or individualism.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is kind of like the Texas BOE requiring creationism be taught in public schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/30/texas-school-creationism-textbooks

Actually it's kind of like requiring evolution to be taught in public schools. I don't see how you can look at one and not the other.

[PaulConventionWV]

But government teaches its version of WW2 and would never teach something like Buchanan's Unnecessary War book which has an alternative view on things.

Bottom line is government history is a very bad thing, and it shouldn't be taught at all unless it's some sort of third party.

I agree. They should take evolution out of schools, too. Have any of you ever given that some thougth? Seriously, what is this that people are completely ignoring that evolution doesn't belong in schools.

[jmdrake]

Well studies have shown it, but I'm more interested in personal experience and observation. Studies are expensive, and as you pointed out, require funding. If someone was genuinely interested in finding out the truth, why would they pay for an expensive study? It seems to be the people and organizations who already know the answer they want and just want some science to back it up who end up paying for these types of studies.

Studies have shown that when people are BSing on webforums they claim what they are asserting is backed up by a study and then when you call them on it they ask "Why do you need a study"? ;)

[PaulConventionWV]

Well gay history isn't taught in science class (biology) where as "creationism" is mandated as such.

Creationism is not mandated. I don't like to get off topic, but you are really drumming this up. How come you people keep ignoring the influence of evolution and secular education in public schools? To you, propaganda only applies to things you disagree with.

[PaulConventionWV]

It took 8 pages, but we finally are discussing this just now.

I never realized people who wanted creationism taught in schools wanted it to be taught in biology class, lol..

Excuse me, but did I say that anywhere?

[PaulConventionWV]

Evolution actually makes sense unlike the Chistian curriculum for "science" class.

Go back to your mosques and synagogues and teach "creationism" there.

No, how about we abolish public schools? I can go on all day about the "science" but I'm for taking all origins views out of schools, not just the ones I disagree with. Are you privvy of the fact that they use lies in the textbooks? I can give examples. It does not belong in schools 1) because it is not science and 2) because it is an origins view. Let private schools teach whatever they want.

[PaulConventionWV]

I mean, I'm agnostic, I have little problem with the theory that there is an intelligent creator of life and all... but biology is the study of living organisms based on what we can observe, not some random stuff written in 2,000 year old text.

I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, but do it in a history or social studies or religion class.. I have no problem with them teaching about Islam or Buddhism either. Hell, teach kids about whatever you want (for the most part), just try not to tell them what to think.. or leave that for their parents and/or Sunday school.

Danno, you know I never said that. Stop twisting the meaning of my posts. It's not about what they teach in public schools, it's about whether or not we should have public schools. People only defend evolution because they think it's justified by being right. Well, maybe a few of these people wouldn't be so sure if they hadn't been instilled with propaganda all throughout their middle school, high school, and college careers.

[Echoes]

Danno, you know I never said that. Stop twisting the meaning of my posts. It's not about what they teach in public schools, it's about whether or not we should have public schools. People only defend evolution because they think it's justified by being right. Well, maybe a few of these people wouldn't be so sure if they hadn't been instilled with propaganda all throughout their middle school, high school, and college careers.

Liberals, including ones around here, dont want to abolish public schools. They love the secular, social engineering that's rampant in the system. They do jumping jacks because children are getting secularized through State propaganda. You might see some take an artificial anti-PE stance, i dont buy it though.

[PaulConventionWV]

Liberals, including ones around here, dont want to abolish public schools. They love the secular, social engineering that's rampant in the system. They do jumping jacks because children are getting secularized through State propaganda. You might see some take an artificial anti-PE stance, i dont buy it though.

What bothers me is the double standard many people are showing here. In one breath they say there is gay rights or Keynesian propaganda in our school system and decry the state-run propaganda machine. On the other hand, however, they think it's perfectly fine to teach evolution in schools even if it's funded by the taxpayers when many people don't agree with it. Do you think the schools should stop teaching the government's version of the story or don't you?

That, and they completely ignore the propaganda tools being incorporated. Keynesianism is treated as if it's the only economic game in town. The schools don't just teach propaganda, they have to blend it in with something legitimate, like science, first. The mixing of evolution with science does not mean it belongs in schools. It is not science and should be left out. You still have plenty of good, testable, observable science without it. They also ignore the lies in the textbooks used to support the theory. Oh, but I guess it's ok to teach kids lies as long as your intentions are good, right? It is clear that evolution can have an impact on a kid's worldview, and I would think everyone here should support the choice of the parents whether or not they want their children to be exposed to that. The "young, impressionable children" Agorist speaks of are exposed to one-sided lessons about where they came from and the parents don't have control over whether they want their kids exposed to that, but she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for the state to instill that into kid's minds as long as they aren't teaching one-sided gay history. Give me a fucking break.

[Zippyjuan]

Oh noes! They are going to turn all our kids gay!

[dannno]

Excuse me, but did I say that anywhere?

No, you didn't, I think agorism brought it up but I was confused by their post. Then it got me thinking.

[dannno]

Danno, you know I never said that. Stop twisting the meaning of my posts. It's not about what they teach in public schools, it's about whether or not we should have public schools. People only defend evolution because they think it's justified by being right. Well, maybe a few of these people wouldn't be so sure if they hadn't been instilled with propaganda all throughout their middle school, high school, and college careers.

I have no idea what humans evolved form, even "science" recently changed it's mind on the subject. I actually agree with what Ron Paul said about evolution, it's just a theory. I'm also against public schools, though I think states should be able to have them if they want. It would be best if there was more competition with a voucher system so people could opt-out and we could transition.

But biology is biology. The theory of evolution should be taught in biology, and I have no problem with religious classes in schools teaching what the religions believe and why, not just their history. Of course I'm not going to force that viewpoint on anybody or any schools.

[dannno]

Liberals, including ones around here, dont want to abolish public schools. They love the secular, social engineering that's rampant in the system. They do jumping jacks because children are getting secularized through State propaganda. You might see some take an artificial anti-PE stance, i dont buy it though.

Who around here doesn't want to get rid of public schools :confused: and who is liberal :confused:

[Ranger29860]

No, how about we abolish public schools? I can go on all day about the "science" but I'm for taking all origins views out of schools, not just the ones I disagree with. Are you privvy of the fact that they use lies in the textbooks? I can give examples. It does not belong in schools 1) because it is not science and 2) because it is an origins view. Let private schools teach whatever they want.

/facepalm

How many times do i have to say this on these forums. Evolution != origin of life. Evolution = diversity of life.

[AbVag]

You might start with Abraham Lincoln.

I seriously doubt history lessons are gonna be taught through Electric Six videos.

[Ranger29860]

What bothers me is the double standard many people are showing here. In one breath they say there is gay rights or Keynesian propaganda in our school system and decry the state-run propaganda machine. On the other hand, however, they think it's perfectly fine to teach evolution in schools even if it's funded by the taxpayers when many people don't agree with it. Do you think the schools should stop teaching the government's version of the story or don't you?

That, and they completely ignore the propaganda tools being incorporated. Keynesianism is treated as if it's the only economic game in town. The schools don't just teach propaganda, they have to blend it in with something legitimate, like science, first. The mixing of evolution with science does not mean it belongs in schools. It is not science and should be left out. You still have plenty of good, testable, observable science without it. They also ignore the lies in the textbooks used to support the theory. Oh, but I guess it's ok to teach kids lies as long as your intentions are good, right? It is clear that evolution can have an impact on a kid's worldview, and I would think everyone here should support the choice of the parents whether or not they want their children to be exposed to that. The "young, impressionable children" Agorist speaks of are exposed to one-sided lessons about where they came from and the parents don't have control over whether they want their kids exposed to that, but she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for the state to instill that into kid's minds as long as they aren't teaching one-sided gay history. Give me a fucking break.

First off its not the governments version of the story. I challenge you to show me any scientific study (peer reviewed) that supports creationism. The only theory that had any traction was handled during the Dover trial and it got destroyed by the scientific community. I have no issue with creationism being discussed as long as it is taught in the religious context of which it originates. Not in science class. I am more than willing to let creationism or ID be taught in science class when any real science supports it.

The same logic applies to civil rights. As long as the gay civil rights movement is talked about along side other civil rights movement i have no problem with it. Of course that being said all of the above applies to public schools only.

And i am going to repeat this again since every time i seem to tell you this you either A) ignore it or B) don't comprehend it.

Evolution is the theory on the diversity of life not its origin.

[AbVag]

/facepalm

How many times do i have to say this on these forums. Evolution != origin of life. Evolution = diversity of life.

I figure evolution was God going, "Wait. I got a better idea."

[Imaginos]

It's totally retarded.
Why we need to learn gay history, black history, female history, and XXXX history? (<- insert whatever group you can think of)
Just teach fucking history.
if someone wants to specialize in one category for further study, he or she can pursue that in college.
Gay people can do whatever they want but this is not the way to make people to accept gay culture.

[Ranger29860]

It's totally retarded.
Why we need to learn gay history, black history, female history, and XXXX history? (<- insert whatever group you can think of)
Just teach fucking history.
if someone wants to specialize in one category for further study, he or she can pursue that in college.
Gay people can do whatever they want but this is not the way to make people to accept gay culture.

I feel civil rights history should be taught and that is the only context that is appropriate in the histories your mentioning. If separate classes (electives) want to go into more detail on specific groups that's fine. IMHO

[Danke]

Chalk up another win for those cocksuckers.

[123tim]

The last version would have made them do this as early as kindergarten. My 5 year old wasn't even interested in where babies came from at that point, and I think bringing sexuality into the kindergarten is way usurping the proper role of the parents.

The Governator vetoed that. Don't know what Brown will do.

Well said.

[Deborah K]

Evolution actually makes sense unlike the Chistian curriculum for "science" class.

Go back to your mosques and synagogues and teach "creationism" there.

Last I heard they were both just theories.

[Acala]

Folks, there is no one correct version of anything. Even if you think your version of whatever is the only correct one, there are literally millions of people who disagree with you. That will never change. As a consequence, having a government-run education machine that rams some politically-selected pile of dogma down EVERY child's throat is DOOMED TO FAIL! Let it go. Just let go of the idea that it is a proper function of government to have any involvement with education and then this whole futile argument goes away.

You wouldn't let government dictate what clothing your child wears. Why would you let government control something far more important, like a child's education?

[Acala]

Also false.

Studies show that people who smoke pot tend to think that studies about people who smoke pot are false.

[Dr.3D]

Last I heard they were both just theories.

That would mean, both should be explained so the students would be informed of both beliefs.

[YumYum]

That would mean, both should be explained so the students would be informed of both beliefs.

What "Creation Theory" would you have taught in the schools? I think there are approximately 150 creation stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

[nicoleeann]

School should be for teaching skills, trades, and actual career orientated material only.

[idirtify]

Last I heard they were both just theories.

Right, “theories”.

And so are Socialism & Individual Liberty, Flat Earth & Spherical Earth, and Keynesian Economics & Austrian Economics. So the next time someone advocates Hayek, will you argue by putting him into the same boat as Keynes (“both just theories”)?

Just after you posted here, you argued against RFID and for individual freedom:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302045-What-about-the-roads&p=3383547#post3383547
But Deborah, don’t you know that individual freedom is just theory?

[dannno]

Last I heard they were both just theories.

I agree, except that one is derived from science and the other is not. It doesn't mean one is wrong and the other is right, it's just that one is science and the other is religion and it makes sense to teach in religious classes.

[dannno]

Studies show that people who smoke pot tend to think that studies about people who smoke pot are false.

Further studies show that they are right.

[Krugerrand]

Calif. lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history in schools

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-gay-education-california-idUSTRE76509120110706

Kind of silly, but another reason why I am suspicious of the government's version of history being taught to impressionable kids.

The timing of this is great for Ron Paul. It's stuff like this that should be presented to the religious right ... do you want the Supreme Court telling you what your tax dollars will teach? You need a president that will make sure the government leaves you and your children alone ... Ron Paul is the only candidate that will do that.

[oyarde]

What is the criteria to be qualified to teach gay history in Caly ? How much does it pay ??

[PaulConventionWV]

I have no idea what humans evolved form, even "science" recently changed it's mind on the subject. I actually agree with what Ron Paul said about evolution, it's just a theory. I'm also against public schools, though I think states should be able to have them if they want. It would be best if there was more competition with a voucher system so people could opt-out and we could transition.

But biology is biology. The theory of evolution should be taught in biology, and I have no problem with religious classes in schools teaching what the religions believe and why, not just their history. Of course I'm not going to force that viewpoint on anybody or any schools.

But evolution is not biology. It is not science and does not belong in science class. It is about the unobservable past and is not testable and cannot be experimented on. It is conjecture.

[PaulConventionWV]

/facepalm

How many times do i have to say this on these forums. Evolution != origin of life. Evolution = diversity of life.

You can't deny that it has an impact on a child's belief system about where they come from. I know it's not origins, per se, but it is a big step in that direction. It conflicts with many people's worldviews and is not science. It should not be taught in school because it is useless and controversial and, most importantly, not science.

[dannno]

But evolution is not biology. It is not science and does not belong in science class. It is about the unobservable past and is not testable and cannot be experimented on. It is conjecture.


Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.

Evolution is absolutely observable. The question is where did humans evolve from, exactly? That's what I mean when I say the theory of evolution is just a theory. It's not a complete model of where or how all life on earth came from. For all we know, humans could be a hybrid of some form of chimp or ape with aliens.


Evolution

A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg/300px-Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg.png

[PaulConventionWV]

First off its not the governments version of the story. I challenge you to show me any scientific study (peer reviewed) that supports creationism. The only theory that had any traction was handled during the Dover trial and it got destroyed by the scientific community. I have no issue with creationism being discussed as long as it is taught in the religious context of which it originates. Not in science class. I am more than willing to let creationism or ID be taught in science class when any real science supports it.

The same logic applies to civil rights. As long as the gay civil rights movement is talked about along side other civil rights movement i have no problem with it. Of course that being said all of the above applies to public schools only.

And i am going to repeat this again since every time i seem to tell you this you either A) ignore it or B) don't comprehend it.

Evolution is the theory on the diversity of life not its origin.

That's because the peer-review process is also state-controlled and profit-oriented. People who question evolution don't get far. I bet there weren't a lot of studies supporting capitalism in the Soviet Union, either.

I heard what you said about origins, but I still hold that it has an impact on a child's view of origins. You can separate it from origins all you want, but origins is also taught in science textbooks. They teach about the origin of life from the "primordial ooze" and talk about the big bang. Do you support throwing those out while continuing the teaching of how life diversified?

Once again, however, evolution has no scientific evidence to support it. It is not science and is not a scientific theory. It should be taken out of public science class. You can teach it all you want in your own private school, but don't make me pay taxes to support this non-scientific theory with lies in the textbooks. Thank you very much.

[PaulConventionWV]

Evolution is absolutely observable. The question is where did humans evolve from, exactly? That's what I mean when I say the theory of evolution is just a theory. It's not a complete model of where or how all life on earth came from. For all we know, humans could be a hybrid of some form of chimp or ape with aliens.

You failed to show how it is observable.

[dannno]

You failed to show how it is observable.

How is it NOT observable? Do you deny that parents pass on traits to their kids? Do you deny this happens in the animal kingdom? That part is observable through science.

We can also observe that some things live and reproduce, and some things die.

Therefore we can see evolution in progress every day with everything. Positive traits get passed on, mutations occur, if the mutation is a positive trait then the mutation may be passed down to descendents and you have a step in evolutionary progress. All of this is observable.

[Acala]

Further studies show that they are right.

Lol!

[YumYum]

You failed to show how it is observable.

Remember, the definition of evolution is "a change in the genetic pool due to the surrounding environment".

Here is where evolution has been observed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

[PaulConventionWV]

How is it NOT observable? Do you deny that parents pass on traits to their kids? Do you deny this happens in the animal kingdom? That part is observable through science.

We can also observe that some things live and reproduce, and some things die.

Therefore we can see evolution in progress every day with everything. Positive traits get passed on, mutations occur, if the mutation is a positive trait then the mutation may be passed down to descendents and you have a step in evolutionary progress. All of this is observable.

So, you're saying that, because reproduction and inheritance is observable, that evolution over long periods of time and the history of ancestry is also observable? That makes no sense. Try again.

[PaulConventionWV]

Remember, the definition of evolution is "a change in the genetic pool due to the surrounding environment".

Here is where evolution has been observed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

They should absolutely teach that genes change in response to environments. That much is observable. But leave out the extrapolated history of hocus-pocus relationships and just-so stories about who is related to who and what the "fossil record" says. It doesn't say anything because if you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids, let alone different ones.

Speciation is not the same thing as evolution. One is observable, the other isn't. Both are in the textbooks, one should be taken out. Understand?

We can argue about the semantics of what evolution is all day, but trying to extrapolate the reproductive traits of animals into a huge picture of historical facts is fallacious on so many levels.

[dannno]

So, you're saying that, because reproduction and inheritance is observable, that evolution over long periods of time and the history of ancestry is also observable? That makes no sense. Try again.

I didn't say the history of OUR ancestry is observable, I specifically said it wasn't. I said that evolution is observable, it IS biology, it is science.

When you say evolution is not biology or science, that's like saying that test tubes aren't part of chemistry.

[Krugerrand]

Remember, the definition of evolution is "a change in the genetic pool due to the surrounding environment".

Here is where evolution has been observed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

You article points to something that it says happened 12,000 years ago. Who observed that?

[Krugerrand]

I didn't say the history of OUR ancestry is observable, I specifically said it wasn't. I said that evolution is observable, it IS biology, it is science.

When you say evolution is not biology or science, that's like saying that test tubes aren't part of chemistry.

Has there been an observed change in species?

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't say the history of OUR ancestry is observable, I specifically said it wasn't. I said that evolution is observable, it IS biology, it is science.

When you say evolution is not biology or science, that's like saying that test tubes aren't part of chemistry.

Ok, so I agree that ineritable traits are observable and scientific. But would you also agree that, according to the definition of evolution you just gave, that they also teach things beside that observable, testable part of it? If that was all evolution was, I would be fine with it. It's when you get into hypotheses talking about millions of years of changes accumulating that you leave science and start talking about the unobservable past.

Do you agree that they teach things like the big bang, the primordial ooze, the "tree of life", the history of human ancestry from lower species, and the "fossil record."

[YumYum]

They should absolutely teach that genes change in response to environments. That much is observable. But leave out the extrapolated history of hocus-pocus relationships and just-so stories about who is related to who and what the "fossil record" says. It doesn't say anything because if you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids, let alone different ones.

Speciation is not the same thing as evolution. One is observable, the other isn't. Both are in the textbooks, one should be taken out. Understand?

We can argue about the semantics of what evolution is all day, but trying to extrapolate the reproductive traits of animals into a huge picture of historical facts is fallacious on so many levels.

So, you do agree that the horse was once the size of a dog and had five toes?

You believe in Creationism. Do you believe in the Garden of Eden story? If God created the horse, why didn't he create the horse as we know it today; a big beautiful, majestic animal, rather than the little dog like creature that it was in the beginning? It would seem that nature, over time, has turned out a much better product than what God originally designed.

[PaulConventionWV]

Has there been an observed change in species?

//

[PaulConventionWV]

So, you do agree that the horse was once the size of a dog and had five toes?

You believe in Creationism. Do you believe in the Garden of Eden story? If God created the horse, why didn't he create the horse as we know it today; a big beautiful, majestic animal, rather than the little dog like creature that it was in the beginning? It would seem that nature, over time, has turned out a much better product than what God originally designed.

Nice red herring.

You don't know what the horse looked like. Neither do I. There is built-in variability within each kind of animal in the genetic code, but it has limits. I admit that this is not observable, testable science, but you won't admit that your version is also not observable, testable science.

[Revolution9]

I didn't say the history of OUR ancestry is observable, I specifically said it wasn't. I said that evolution is observable, it IS biology, it is science.

When you say evolution is not biology or science, that's like saying that test tubes aren't part of chemistry.

Forms exist due to morphic resonance. Since DNA is spiral it is the sigil incorporation of all spins on the plane of the ground of that being, along with the frequencies it can embed in and cohere with, which brings forth the form within the power of the force of that particular DNA hologram, then force and form is based on conformation to the plasmic and electrogravitational environment locally for individuation. Evolution is associative hearsay. When saying evolution is not biology or science it is like saying outright synthesis of experimental data to support a theory is not a part of chemistry.

Best Regards
Rev9

[Acala]

It would seem that nature, over time, has turned out a much better product than what God originally designed.

What makes you think God couldn't create the world through natural selection over time? The amount of time scientists hypothesize for the development of life is huge in human terms, but trivial for an eternal God, yes? Indeed, it would be six God-days.

[Revolution9]

So, you do agree that the horse was once the size of a dog and had five toes?

You believe in Creationism. Do you believe in the Garden of Eden story? If God created the horse, why didn't he create the horse as we know it today; a big beautiful, majestic animal, rather than the little dog like creature that it was in the beginning? It would seem that nature, over time, has turned out a much better product than what God originally designed.

Morphic resonance and adaptation of individuals within species locally in concert with the Universal Field of Creation as emanated by The Divine Creator when he spoke on the dark still pool and it vibrated into existence. For a good example of the waveform generation in regards to sounded tones look up Chaldni Figures. The One True God never creates error. It is up to Man to gain knowledge and discernment so he can understand The Creation and not be in error.

Rev9

[PaulConventionWV]

So, you do agree that the horse was once the size of a dog and had five toes?

You believe in Creationism. Do you believe in the Garden of Eden story? If God created the horse, why didn't he create the horse as we know it today; a big beautiful, majestic animal, rather than the little dog like creature that it was in the beginning? It would seem that nature, over time, has turned out a much better product than what God originally designed.

I tried to talk to you about the observable, testable parts of science and you immediately jump into God-bashing mode. How does that not say something about the validity of your argument? You have to rely on this sort of hocus-pocus so that you can demean me and dismiss my arguments. I think that God created fine and that you don't know how the horse evolved because it is the unobservable past. Do you agree that the unobservable past should be left out of science class at taxpayers expense? Do you agree that they should stop using lies in the textbooks, such as the primordial ooze or Ernst Haekel's faked embryo drawings? They still use all of this and you're willing to support it because it agrees with your personal interpretation?

[Guitarzan]

I tried to talk to you about the observable, testable parts of science and you immediately jump into God-bashing mode. How does that not say something about the validity of your argument? You have to rely on this sort of hocus-pocus so that you can demean me and dismiss my arguments. I think that God created fine and that you don't know how the horse evolved because it is the unobservable past. Do you agree that the unobservable past should be left out of science class at taxpayers expense? Do you agree that they should stop using lies in the textbooks, such as the primordial ooze or Ernst Haekel's faked embryo drawings? They still use all of this and you're willing to support it because it agrees with your personal interpretation?


And the opposite is true of you. He's trying to justify the science, which is observable by its very nature...although in a constant state of change. And you call that "hocus pocus", but your argument about God, which isn't observable, and relies on faith, is somehow more concrete than his? And you're offended when someone dismisses your argument as the same "hocus pocus"? LOL come on man!

[TonySutton]

You guys should honestly take your conversation elsewhere because it is way Off Topic.

CA is a fine example of what is wrong with our country. When govt gets involved, quality declines while costs increase. end of story

[nicoleeann]

I think the main thing learned about this topic is that public anything cannot please everyone. All of us have a problem with something that they teach in public schools. Whether its evolution, sex education, socialism, low quality curriculum, worthless classes, etc. We shouldnt have to pay for something if we don't agree with the how they are doing it.
A little while ago when ron pauls' new Liberty Defined book came out I thought i would check it out from the library. boy was i wrong. I couldnt find at any of the 10 libraries in the city. Nevermind that the book was top 20 on amazon. But there is 100's of books on liberalism and republicanism (the palin variety that is). This is similar to the public school system. What I need isnt provided, want i don't want is.....and i pay regardless.

[PaulConventionWV]

And the opposite is true of you. He's trying to justify the science, which is observable by its very nature...although in a constant state of change. And you call that "hocus pocus", but your argument about God, which isn't observable, and relies on faith, is somehow more concrete than his? And you're offended when someone dismisses your argument as the same "hocus pocus"? LOL come on man!

I never said that it was more concrete. In fact, I explicitly stated that I admit mine is unobservable and is not science. I am simply trying to show him that his view is also not science and doesn't deserve special privileges over mine with taxpayer money. Are you going to refute what I say or just demonize me?

I called his argument hocus-pocus, but I never attacked his worldview or his personal beliefs. He did that to me. Beside, I made a good argument that what is taught in schools is not science. I would be all for it if it were all just studying heritability and adaptation, but when you start making broad statements about animal ancestry and accumulated changes over long periods of time, it's no longer observable.

[YumYum]

Nice red herring.

You don't know what the horse looked like. Neither do I. There is built-in variability within each kind of animal in the genetic code, but it has limits. I admit that this is not observable, testable science, but you won't admit that your version is also not observable, testable science.

You didn't look at the web page. The horse fossil record is so complete, there is no dispute that the fossils are not those of the horse. The horse goes from five toes, to four toes, to three toes, down to a hoof. Science has observed evolution in nature. Please read the following article about misconceptions about evolution. This web site helped me a lot when I used to believe literally in the Garden of Eden story and that God created the horse as it is today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[reillym]

They should absolutely teach that genes change in response to environments. That much is observable. But leave out the extrapolated history of hocus-pocus relationships and just-so stories about who is related to who and what the "fossil record" says. It doesn't say anything because if you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids, let alone different ones.

Speciation is not the same thing as evolution. One is observable, the other isn't. Both are in the textbooks, one should be taken out. Understand?

We can argue about the semantics of what evolution is all day, but trying to extrapolate the reproductive traits of animals into a huge picture of historical facts is fallacious on so many levels.

The "fossil record"? Are you serious? Did you go to school?

You pathetically trying to say the FOSSIL RECORD is hocus-pocus is hilarious.

[Ranger29860]

I never said that it was more concrete. In fact, I explicitly stated that I admit mine is unobservable and is not science. I am simply trying to show him that his view is also not science and doesn't deserve special privileges over mine with taxpayer money. Are you going to refute what I say or just demonize me?

I called his argument hocus-pocus, but I never attacked his worldview or his personal beliefs. He did that to me. Beside, I made a good argument that what is taught in schools is not science. I would be all for it if it were all just studying heritability and adaptation, but when you start making broad statements about animal ancestry and accumulated changes over long periods of time, it's no longer observable.

I do not understand how your mind works. On one hand you demand a person refute your position. And on the other hand you say peer reviewed papers that do just that are government controlled and are unreliable because they are propaganda. The onus is not on evolutionist anymore the science has been put forward with testable evidence and clear theories. You say it is not science but then plug your ears like a child. You position of government gestapo like tactics to stop any research that is creationism is laughable. You are making the claim therefore YOU must prove it.

Like it or not peer reviewed papers are not controlled by the government. Show me 1 example of any government run peer reviewed paper. As for not being observable you are incredibly misinformed. First we discovered the fossil records. Yes they do exist and if need be ill link you some but honestly just google it is much easier. Then came the similarities in DNA that have shown up. Hell YOU linked in another thread about soft tissue dinosaur bones claiming it was proof of evolution being untrue but didn't even bother reading the original study. Which stated that there was a very big similarity in the hemoglobin strands and the partial amino acids to that of an ostrich. Which is what they theorized they would find decades ago.

As for observable change look at dogs. Speciation is the best way to separate as you would say "Kinds" since at some point they can no longer interbreed. Chihuahua and a wolf cannot mate.

You attempt to drag evolution down to the creationist level of dishonesty. And has followed an interesting order of arguments.

1."think about how is that even possible" (willful ignorance)
2."It can not explain the origin of life!" ( willful deception and misrepresentation of evolution)
3."show me the evidence" (an actual real demand).
4. Your evidence is false since its government run! ( baseless claim )

I am curios to see what the next few tactics are gonna be!

[reillym]

I never said that it was more concrete. In fact, I explicitly stated that I admit mine is unobservable and is not science. I am simply trying to show him that his view is also not science and doesn't deserve special privileges over mine with taxpayer money. Are you going to refute what I say or just demonize me?

I called his argument hocus-pocus, but I never attacked his worldview or his personal beliefs. He did that to me. Beside, I made a good argument that what is taught in schools is not science. I would be all for it if it were all just studying heritability and adaptation, but when you start making broad statements about animal ancestry and accumulated changes over long periods of time, it's no longer observable.

Yes, it is science. Look up the definition of science before opening our mouth next time, please. You are embarrassing yourself.

Your definition and application of "observable" is weak. You are not a scientist. You have not studied evolution (clearly, based on your misinformed ideas about it) and so you are just making a fool of yourself when you say there is no proof of certain evolutionary changes.

[Ranger29860]

That's because the peer-review process is also state-controlled and profit-oriented. People who question evolution don't get far. I bet there weren't a lot of studies supporting capitalism in the Soviet Union, either.



YumYum and Reilym at this point linking him anything other than answers in genesis will not do you any good since he has taken this stance.

[reillym]

I do not understand how your mind works. On one hand you demand a person refute your position. And on the other hand you say peer reviewed papers that do just that are government controlled and are unreliable because they are propaganda. The onus is not on evolutionist anymore the science has been put forward with testable evidence and clear theories. You say it is not science but then plug your ears like a child. You position of government gestapo like tactics to stop any research that is creationism is laughable. You are making the claim therefore YOU must prove it.

Like it or not peer reviewed papers are not controlled by the government. Show me 1 example of any government run peer reviewed paper. As for not being observable you are incredibly misinformed. First we discovered the fossil records. Yes they do exist and if need be ill link you some but honestly just google it is much easier. Then came the similarities in DNA that have shown up. Hell YOU linked in another thread about soft tissue dinosaur bones claiming it was proof of evolution being untrue but didn't even bother reading the original study. Which stated that there was a very big similarity in the hemoglobin strands and the partial amino acids to that of an ostrich. Which is what they theorized they would find decades ago.

As for observable change look at dogs. Speciation is the best way to separate as you would say "Kinds" since at some point they can no longer interbreed. Chihuahua and a wolf cannot mate.

You attempt to drag evolution down to the creationist level of dishonesty. And has followed an interesting order of arguments.

1."think about how is that even possible" (willful ignorance)
2."It can not explain the origin of life!" ( willful deception and misrepresentation of evolution)
3."show me the evidence" (an actual real demand).
4. Your evidence is false since its government run! ( baseless claim )

I am curios to see what the next few tactics are gonna be!

+1. Good post. However...

Don't go down to this guy's level. People who think evolution is a huge liberal government conspiracy are not worth our time. He simply doesn't have the education to understand the science, no matter how simply it is explained. To him, "god did it" is a reasonable explanation.

[reillym]

YumYum and Reilym at this point linking him anything other than answers in genesis will not do you any good since he has taken this stance.

what?

[Ranger29860]

what?


he has taken the stance of peer reviewed papers (science) is government controlled and then compared it to communism. A you could link a scientific paper from god and he would say its untrue since its government run.

[Dr.3D]

Could a mod please snip this thread in the appropriate spot and splice it on to the end of the "Make a monkey out of Darwin" thread?

[PaulConventionWV]

You didn't look at the web page.

You didn't link to it last time.


The horse fossil record is so complete, there is no dispute that the fossils are not of those of the horse.

That's not true. These are the facts:


1.In 1841, the earliest so-called 'horse' fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

2.In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

3.In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in 'the evolution' of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.


Even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylor Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse


The horse goes from five toes, to four toes, to three toes, down to a hoof. Science has observed evolution in nature. Please read the following article about misconceptions about evolution. This web site helped me a lot when I used to believe literally in the Garden of Eden story and that God created the horse as it is today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

I explained before how no fossil can be used to support evolution. If you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids, let alone different ones. The "fossil record" is an artistic representation of history built on the assumption that evolution must have happened. Either way, it is not science because it is not observable, and it doesn't belong in the textbooks. The horse-evolution thing is akin to the faked Piltdown man, which was also used in textbooks until it was exposed as a fraud.

So, do you agree that science should be taught in science class, or do you think it is perfectly reasonable for the textbooks to keep using lies? Do you think we should continue to have to support something with our own tax dollars that we don't agree with and don't want our kids to be brainwashed with? Look, if you want to teach evolution in a private school, then go right ahead, but don't tell me it should be taught to everyone at taxpayers' expense.

[reillym]

That's because the peer-review process is also state-controlled and profit-oriented. People who question evolution don't get far. I bet there weren't a lot of studies supporting capitalism in the Soviet Union, either.

I heard what you said about origins, but I still hold that it has an impact on a child's view of origins. You can separate it from origins all you want, but origins is also taught in science textbooks. They teach about the origin of life from the "primordial ooze" and talk about the big bang. Do you support throwing those out while continuing the teaching of how life diversified?

Once again, however, evolution has no scientific evidence to support it. It is not science and is not a scientific theory. It should be taken out of public science class. You can teach it all you want in your own private school, but don't make me pay taxes to support this non-scientific theory with lies in the textbooks. Thank you very much.

Yes, every scientist is a government crony. Please, give it a break. It's pathetic.

Evolution isn't science? Please, go read a book. Did you go to school? College? Ever have a *real* biology class? Doubt it. Look up the definition of science and get back to me. You don't seem to understand what it means.

[reillym]

You didn't link to it last time.



That's not true. These are the facts:





http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse



I explained before how no fossil can be used to support evolution. If you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids, let alone different ones. The "fossil record" is an artistic representation of history built on the assumption that evolution must have happened. Either way, it is not science because it is not observable, and it doesn't belong in the textbooks. The horse-evolution thing is akin to the faked Piltdown man, which was also used in textbooks until it was exposed as a fraud.

So, do you agree that science should be taught in science class, or do you think it is perfectly reasonable for the textbooks to keep using lies? Do you think we should continue to have to support something with our own tax dollars that we don't agree with and don't want our kids to be brainwashed with? Look, if you want to teach evolution in a private school, then go right ahead, but don't tell me it should be taught to everyone at taxpayers' expense.

Facts? From AnswersinGenesis?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Ranger29860]

You didn't link to it last time.



That's not true. These are the facts:





http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse



I explained before how no fossil can be used to support evolution. If you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids, let alone different ones. The "fossil record" is an artistic representation of history built on the assumption that evolution must have happened. Either way, it is not science because it is not observable, and it doesn't belong in the textbooks. The horse-evolution thing is akin to the faked Piltdown man, which was also used in textbooks until it was exposed as a fraud.

So, do you agree that science should be taught in science class, or do you think it is perfectly reasonable for the textbooks to keep using lies? Do you think we should continue to have to support something with our own tax dollars that we don't agree with and don't want our kids to be brainwashed with? Look, if you want to teach evolution in a private school, then go right ahead, but don't tell me it should be taught to everyone at taxpayers' expense.


You continue to link to AIG even though i have on a few occasions shredded there sources and show the dishonest tactics.

I agree with Dr 3D with the moving of the evolution stuff to the other thread.

[reillym]

To those fools about the whole "evolution is not observable" bullcrap:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1


Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable. This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.

Evolution is readily-observable, to say otherwise is to be ignorant of reality. Debate over, science and intelligence has won, once again.

[PaulConventionWV]

I do not understand how your mind works. On one hand you demand a person refute your position. And on the other hand you say peer reviewed papers that do just that are government controlled and are unreliable because they are propaganda. The onus is not on evolutionist anymore the science has been put forward with testable evidence and clear theories. You say it is not science but then plug your ears like a child. You position of government gestapo like tactics to stop any research that is creationism is laughable. You are making the claim therefore YOU must prove it.

Like it or not peer reviewed papers are not controlled by the government. Show me 1 example of any government run peer reviewed paper. As for not being observable you are incredibly misinformed. First we discovered the fossil records. Yes they do exist and if need be ill link you some but honestly just google it is much easier. Then came the similarities in DNA that have shown up. Hell YOU linked in another thread about soft tissue dinosaur bones claiming it was proof of evolution being untrue but didn't even bother reading the original study. Which stated that there was a very big similarity in the hemoglobin strands and the partial amino acids to that of an ostrich. Which is what they theorized they would find decades ago.

As for observable change look at dogs. Speciation is the best way to separate as you would say "Kinds" since at some point they can no longer interbreed. Chihuahua and a wolf cannot mate.

You attempt to drag evolution down to the creationist level of dishonesty. And has followed an interesting order of arguments.

1."think about how is that even possible" (willful ignorance)
2."It can not explain the origin of life!" ( willful deception and misrepresentation of evolution)
3."show me the evidence" (an actual real demand).
4. Your evidence is false since its government run! ( baseless claim )

I am curios to see what the next few tactics are gonna be!

Maybe you don't understand because you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't tell anyone to refute my arguments about evolution. I told them to refute my arguments about whether or not it is science and belongs in public schools. You don't need peer-reviewed papers to tell you that something is not science. That is outside the scope of science.

The fossil record is not science because it atttempts to tell a story about history. The bones don't tell that story, the people do. If you find bones in the dirt, you can't prove that it had any kids or show the connect between one bone and another. All you know is that you found some bones in the dirt. You can study them all you want, but you can't say "science says these bones fit into this part of history" that's not science because it is not observable or testable.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, every scientist is a government crony. Please, give it a break. It's pathetic.

Evolution isn't science? Please, go read a book. Did you go to school? College? Ever have a *real* biology class? Doubt it. Look up the definition of science and get back to me. You don't seem to understand what it means.

Yes, I went to school and am now in the latter portion of my college career. I took 8 high school science classes, then took two chemistry classes in college, followed by cell biology and genetics.

However, that is completely irrelevant to the fact that the General Theory of Evolution which is taught in high school textbooks is not science. It is a story about the unobservable past. Therefore, it is not science and I shouldn't have to pay for it to be taught in public schools.

[Ranger29860]

Yes, I went to school and am now in the latter portion of my college career. I took 8 high school science classes, then took two chemistry classes in college, followed by cell biology and genetics.

However, that is completely irrelevant to the fact that the General Theory of Evolution which is taught in high school textbooks is not science. It is a story about the unobservable past. Therefore, it is not science and I shouldn't have to pay for it to be taught in public schools.

You say fossils are not science but you yourself tried to justify creationism with your other post about the t-rex bone. Funny that your willing to take part of the fossil record as scientific truth but won't take any other that does not support your idea. And hell the article you linked straight up lied about the study and i showed it in the other topic. You going in circles trying to justify you position and are not realizing that you are stabbing yourself in the back.

You AIG page you linked with in the last thread talked about the fossil records and tried to interpret their study that suited their purpose and you seem to have no problem with that science. So why the double standard?

[reillym]

Yes, I went to school and am now in the latter portion of my college career. I took 8 high school science classes, then took two chemistry classes in college, followed by cell biology and genetics.

However, that is completely irrelevant to the fact that the General Theory of Evolution which is taught in high school textbooks is not science. It is a story about the unobservable past. Therefore, it is not science and I shouldn't have to pay for it to be taught in public schools.

Again, the DEFINITION of science is NOT dependent on observable events. Geology, astronomy? Not always directly observable. You can learn things without observing them. That's how science works.

Clearly your science education was not sufficient because this is very, very basic science.

What college? Accredited?

[Sola_Fide]

Again, the DEFINITION of science is NOT dependent on observable events. Geology, astronomy? Not always directly observable. You can learn things without observing them. That's how science works.

.......

No, that is how EVERYTHING works. Knowledge never comes from observation. "Facts" are ALWAYS interpreted by the presuppositions of the ones interpreting the facts.


You really need to read some books about the philosophy of science, because you have an incorrect view of it. I would suggest The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

[YumYum]

.......

No, that is how EVERYTHING works. Knowledge never comes from observation. "Facts" are ALWAYS interpreted by the presuppositions of the ones interpreting the facts.

You really need to read some books about the philosophy of science, because you have an incorrect view of it. I would suggest The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

Scientists described in detail exactly how a single living cell functions and described all of its components without being able to observe the cell under an electron microscope. This was done before the invention of the electron microscope. What is eerie is that without observing a single cell, they were 100% accurate.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Gr-Hi/History-of-Biology-Cell-Theory-and-Cell-Structure.html

To keep this on topic, why did God make both of my goats gay? I thought only one was gay, but they both are. If being gay is a learned behavior, why are animals born homosexual?

[libertygrl]

Social engineering. They have big plans.

Yep. And here's how we combat it. Guys, if you haven't seen this thread yet it's a MUST. Maybe the most important thing in helping to wake up the masses to Ron Paul and what is going on:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302219-Jan-Irvin-INCREDIBLE-Awakening-2.0

[jmdrake]

Scientists described in detail exactly how a single living cell functions and described all of its components without being able to observe the cell under an electron microscope. This was done before the invention of the electron microscope. What is eerie is that without observing a single cell, they were 100% accurate.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Gr-Hi/History-of-Biology-Cell-Theory-and-Cell-Structure.html

To keep this on topic, why did God make both of my goats gay? I thought only one was gay, but they both are. If being gay is a learned behavior, why are animals born homosexual?

Interesting. Please describe your gay goats. Do they both refuse to mate with the opposite sex? Or are you merely witnessing gay like behavior? Also from an evolutionary point of view, what genetic benefit are goats that don't reproduce? And how could that particular trait be passed on in humans?

[PaulConventionWV]

You continue to link to AIG even though i have on a few occasions shredded there sources and show the dishonest tactics.

I agree with Dr 3D with the moving of the evolution stuff to the other thread.

Where and how did you show their sources to be faulty? They cited the facts. If you can refute those facts, then by all means.

[Ranger29860]

Interesting. Please describe your gay goats. Do they both refuse to mate with the opposite sex? Or are you merely witnessing gay like behavior? Also from an evolutionary point of view, what genetic benefit are goats that don't reproduce? And how could that particular trait be passed on in humans?

I found a nice little article with reverences that tries to tackle the issue. Its no concrete in its stance but it does gives a good overview of some of the theories and makde for a good read.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu

[PaulConventionWV]

+1. Good post. However...

Don't go down to this guy's level. People who think evolution is a huge liberal government conspiracy are not worth our time. He simply doesn't have the education to understand the science, no matter how simply it is explained. To him, "god did it" is a reasonable explanation.

This is the kind of ad hominem attacks we have to face every day. Not once did I challenge the teaching of evolutionary theory. I said I shouldn't have to pay for it to be taught in public schools. That should be common sense to anybody on this board. Yet you continually attack and demean my intelligence by telling me I don't understand when I have given you argument after argument and you avoid the question by attacking me instead of answering my concerns. So please tell me:

Why should I have to pay for evolution to be taught in public schools?
Why do they use lies in the textbooks to support evolution, such as Ernst Haekel's faked embryo drawings?

All I want is a direct answer to these questions, and then we can talk about whether or not evolution is even science.

[Ranger29860]

Where and how did you show their sources to be faulty? They cited the facts. If you can refute those facts, then by all means.

No they cited a non peer reviewed Pittsburgh journal from the 80's and early 90's all originating from a 1 or 2 sites. This was posted in the Pat Buchanan thread. All the references to sources they showed from journals from places like "Science" were what they were arguing against. And the one peer reviewed paper they did try to use was the one on t-rex bone which all they did was quote the article on "Dino Blood!" which again i showed you in the Pat Buchanan thread as being a falsification of the study. They claimed that the study found full fresh strands of hemoglobin and amino acids when in reality the study found broken up strands and nothing complete and were severely deteriorated due to age. And the only reason they found that in only the bones in that area was due to the unique way it was fossilized.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, it is science. Look up the definition of science before opening our mouth next time, please. You are embarrassing yourself.

Your definition and application of "observable" is weak. You are not a scientist. You have not studied evolution (clearly, based on your misinformed ideas about it) and so you are just making a fool of yourself when you say there is no proof of certain evolutionary changes.

Nice to see the authoritarians are out in full force. You can assert that it is science all you want, but that does not make it true. Science is supposed to be knowledge about the natural world gathered based on facts that are observable, testable, and falsifiable. Evolution is not observable because it supposedly happens over millions of years and nobody can witness it happening. Genetic changes are observable, but they can't be extrapolated into millions of years of hypothetical reproduction and development and still be called science. It is not science because you can't observe it and you can't test it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Facts? From AnswersinGenesis?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, laugh at it so you don't have to be intellectually honest and debate the facts. There's a good little atheist. Don't question conventional wisdom. Don't listen to anyone who might link to a source that disagrees with you.

Did you know that many scientists work at Answeresingenesis, including former evolutionist Jason Lisle?

[MelissaWV]

No, seriously, this was a thread about public school and the idiotic things they try to teach.


Oh noes! They are going to turn all our kids gay!

Less worried about that than I am about kids being forced to waste time on this garbage (at the expense of some other bit of knowledge, maybe) at my expense.

[Ranger29860]

Why should I have to pay for evolution to be taught in public schools?
Why do they use lies in the textbooks to support evolution, such as Ernst Haekel's faked embryo drawings?

All I want is a direct answer to these questions, and then we can talk about whether or not evolution is even science.

1. Because evolution is the basis for many modern day sciences and without and understanding of its function many of the modern day inventions or knowledge of both the world and our own human body can not exist.

2.No biology book i used during school in both high-school and college had those drawings. That being said a quick search does confirm the existence of those drawings in some textbooks. And if that is the case of modern day textbooks then yes it should be removed or be put into the context of what it was.

I don't think you don't understand anymore i think you are willfully ignorant. I am willing to admit when something doesn't seem right as seen with the drawing comment. You on the other hand, when a counterpoint is presented to you and has credibility seem to either say its a bad source or ignore the post all together. Like you did with the bones cant be used for science comment you made. Many of the people on this board who has discussed this with you have have shown multiple sources from multiple journals to back up their points. You have shown 1 source the entire time. No one can have a scientific discussion with you because you refuse to qualify anything other than AIG as a source.

There are many effective ways to talk about this and hell if you would link studies or sources other than the same one over and over i would give this more thought. Dr 3D was a great example of this i don't agree with him but he presented a reputable source to back up his claim and i am doing the responsible thing and looking into it further before i reply to his position. Knowledge is power but what you seem to be doing is closing yourself off to that power. As a fellow college student it saddens me to see this from someone who has taken it upon themselves to go for a higher education.

[dannno]

Also from an evolutionary point of view, what genetic benefit are goats that don't reproduce? And how could that particular trait be passed on in humans?

Well studies have shown that women who are really really slutty tend to have gay male children at a higher rate than women who are not slutty. If slutty women always had straight kids (or boys, at least), then when they had daughters they would tend to be more slutty. So since slutty women will tend to reproduce more and have more kids, having more gay kids is kind of a buffer against a society filled with slutty women. And that makes me a sad panda.

[Theocrat]

Scientists described in detail exactly how a single living cell functions and described all of its components without being able to observe the cell under an electron microscope. This was done before the invention of the electron microscope. What is eerie is that without observing a single cell, they were 100% accurate.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Gr-Hi/History-of-Biology-Cell-Theory-and-Cell-Structure.html

To keep this on topic, why did God make both of my goats gay? I thought only one was gay, but they both are. If being gay is a learned behavior, why are animals born homosexual?

YumYum, I think we have to be careful when we try to justify human behavior based on what we observe in animal behavior, for, basically, two reasons:


Not everyone accepts the assumption implied in your reasoning about the gay goats that humans are descendents of animals. From a creation science standpoint, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans and animals are different enough that they are not linked by some gradual evolution process, yet having been made by a common Creator. That subject is for a different thread, though, so I will not entertain rebuttals here.
Just because we observe animals behave in certain ways in nature, it should not warrant us to compare those behaviors to humans as a justification for it as right behavior. For example, we observe that some animals rape other animals in nature to produce offspring. Should that suggest rape amongst human beings is okay because it is observed amongst certain animals? I would hope your answer is no. So, whether your goats display "gay-like" behavior is not really the issue at hand, and really, it's not the point of this thread.

[PaulConventionWV]

To those fools about the whole "evolution is not observable" bullcrap:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1



Evolution is readily-observable, to say otherwise is to be ignorant of reality. Debate over, science and intelligence has won, once again.

I will respond to that little tidbit you gave:

Scientific investigations don't always have to be based on controlled laboratory studies, but they do have to involve the scientific method and go off of observable facts. Otherwise, the conclusions drawn are very prone to error due to unknown variables. The quote you gave talks about astronomers. While astronomers can't hold stars in their hands, they can certainly observe the stars. They can go to space and collect data. They can conduct experiments showing the effects of gravity on light and other things. However, trying to tell history based on a few bones in the dirt is not science. All you can tell about those bones is that the animal was alive and it died. That's it. You can't tell if it is related to any other bone in the dirt that you found later, or even that it had any children, let alone different ones. The fossil record only has two variables: time and characteristics of the bones. If you try to use the bones to declare some sort of evolutionary history, then it is no longer science because you can't do experiments to show how those bones lived and died and passed on its genes to the next generation. You can't prove any of that.

With the fruit fly experiments, you can observe genetic mutations and inherited traits over a few generations, but you can't use that to tell a history about the whole animal kingdom. You only know what you know and nothing more. So stop acting like looking at a few experiments about mutations proves that all this means everything in life came from a macromolecule way back when. It's absurd to even suggest you can do a few experiments with fruit flies and then know how all life changed over millions of years. Why you continue to defend this, I have no idea. It makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore, adapting to environments shows that animals have the potential for genetic variability. It does not show anything more than that, nor does it show that such a thing can continue for millions of years and result in a completely different organism.

[Ranger29860]

Did you know that many scientists work at Answeresingenesis, including former evolutionist Jason Lisle?


jason Lisle is a Astrophysicist not a evolutionary biologist. This again in AIG trying to say evolution == origin of life which again i point out is a lie on their part.

[PaulConventionWV]

You say fossils are not science but you yourself tried to justify creationism with your other post about the t-rex bone. Funny that your willing to take part of the fossil record as scientific truth but won't take any other that does not support your idea. And hell the article you linked straight up lied about the study and i showed it in the other topic. You going in circles trying to justify you position and are not realizing that you are stabbing yourself in the back.

You AIG page you linked with in the last thread talked about the fossil records and tried to interpret their study that suited their purpose and you seem to have no problem with that science. So why the double standard?

It's not a double standard. You are using fossils to make wild interpretations about the history of the animal kingdom. I used solid, observable, testable evidence that the animal could not have lived more than a couple thousand years ago and did not try to make statements about all of life on earth with that one bone. I deal with the facts, not wild stories about millions of years of genetic changes that I can't see or know about.

[PaulConventionWV]

Again, the DEFINITION of science is NOT dependent on observable events. Geology, astronomy? Not always directly observable. You can learn things without observing them. That's how science works.

Clearly your science education was not sufficient because this is very, very basic science.

What college? Accredited?

The university of richmond.

[Ranger29860]

It's not a double standard. You are using fossils to make wild interpretations about the history of the animal kingdom. I used solid, observable, testable evidence that the animal could not have lived more than a couple thousand years ago and did not try to make statements about all of life on earth with that one bone. I deal with the facts, not wild stories about millions of years of genetic changes that I can't see or know about.

Yes because that 1 bone is what the whole of evolution is based off of.

*edited*
edited out a comment that was fishing for a response lol

[PaulConventionWV]

No they cited a non peer reviewed Pittsburgh journal from the 80's and early 90's all originating from a 1 or 2 sites. This was posted in the Pat Buchanan thread. All the references to sources they showed from journals from places like "Science" were what they were arguing against. And the one peer reviewed paper they did try to use was the one on t-rex bone which all they did was quote the article on "Dino Blood!" which again i showed you in the Pat Buchanan thread as being a falsification of the study. They claimed that the study found full fresh strands of hemoglobin and amino acids when in reality the study found broken up strands and nothing complete and were severely deteriorated due to age. And the only reason they found that in only the bones in that area was due to the unique way it was fossilized.

Answersingenesis didn't write that article of which you speak.

[Ranger29860]

Answersingenesis didn't write that article of which you speak.

But they sourced it and so did you.

[YumYum]

Interesting. Please describe your gay goats. Do they both refuse to mate with the opposite sex? Or are you merely witnessing gay like behavior? Also from an evolutionary point of view, what genetic benefit are goats that don't reproduce? And how could that particular trait be passed on in humans?

I bought the two male goats from my aunt and uncle. My uncle said the goats were "gay", but I thought he was joking. He wasn't. They had a female goat but one of the male goats killed her when she came in heat. These goats have anal sex regularly and are very attached to each other. I don't think this is just "gay" behavior. I am not familiar with animals being homosexual, but I have read that some animals are, and these goats fit the bill.

I don't know how this benefits "evolution", in fact, I think it does just the opposite, since evolutionary theory teaches that the purpose of a species is to reproduce more of the same species.

[PaulConventionWV]

1. Because evolution is the basis for many modern day sciences and without and understanding of its function many of the modern day inventions or knowledge of both the world and our own human body can not exist.

2.No biology book i used during school in both high-school and college had those drawings. That being said a quick search does confirm the existence of those drawings in some textbooks. And if that is the case of modern day textbooks then yes it should be removed or be put into the context of what it was.

I don't think you don't understand anymore i think you are willfully ignorant. I am willing to admit when something doesn't seem right as seen with the drawing comment. You on the other hand, when a counterpoint is presented to you and has credibility seem to either say its a bad source or ignore the post all together. Like you did with the bones cant be used for science comment you made. Many of the people on this board who has discussed this with you have have shown multiple sources from multiple journals to back up their points. You have shown 1 source the entire time. No one can have a scientific discussion with you because you refuse to qualify anything other than AIG as a source.

There are many effective ways to talk about this and hell if you would link studies or sources other than the same one over and over i would give this more thought. Dr 3D was a great example of this i don't agree with him but he presented a reputable source to back up his claim and i am doing the responsible thing and looking into it further before i reply to his position. Knowledge is power but what you seem to be doing is closing yourself off to that power. As a fellow college student it saddens me to see this from someone who has taken it upon themselves to go for a higher education.

Thank you for retracting your statement about my misunderstanding. It appears we are getting somewhere. However, it still shocks me that you think I should be forced to pay for public education that involves something I don't want my kids to be indoctrinated with. The classroom setting is where the child is at an intellectual and authoritative disadvantage to the teacher, so they are brought up not to question the authority which taught them. Don't you think that could have an impact on how a child views the world? Evolution was Hitler's basis for committing all the crimes that he did.

1. You say that, but you don't provide any useful applications of evolution. It is completely useless because you can understand how the body and how chemistry work without being taught evolution. Now, if you're talking about heritable traits that occur, such as Mendel's pea plant experiments, then that is solid science. However, that doesn't mean anything evolved over millions of years. That's where you leave science and get into the hocus-pocus part of evolution. I am not attacking your worldview. You can believe it all you want. The arguments used for it are very poor, though. Also, the kind of argument you give here is the basis for almost all government intervention. What happened to getting the government out of our personal lives and not being forced to teach our kids a certain way? You can teach evolution all you want in private schools, but don't force me to pay for it to be taught to everyone in public schools. This should be common sense to everyone on this board.

2. That is a good start if they didn't teach you that in high school. Now we can work on all of the other lies and baseless claims made in evolutionary textbooks, like the big bang and the primordial ooze, all of which are origins cliams. Then we can stop teaching kids that we know the complete ancestry of the animal kingdom, or the "tree of life", based on the observations of a few generations of genetic changes. Then we can stop teaching them that fossils are somehow evidence for evolution when you can't prove any kind of history based on some dead bones you found in the dirt. You can prove it lived and died, and approximately when, but that's it. Perhaps you would support taking all of this misinformation out of the textbooks as well?

[jmdrake]

Well studies have shown that women who are really really slutty tend to have gay male children at a higher rate than women who are not slutty. If slutty women always had straight kids (or boys, at least), then when they had daughters they would tend to be more slutty. So since slutty women will tend to reproduce more and have more kids, having more gay kids is kind of a buffer against a society filled with slutty women. And that makes me a sad panda.

LOL. Dannno I'm learning to take your studies with a grain of salt. Studies at RPF show that Dannno will make a claim about studies that may or may not exist. And double LOL at your sad panda comment. ;)

That said, even if there is such a study there are too many confounders to to take your conclusions seriously. Maybe the boys of slutty women develop an aversion to women in general? Maybe these slutty women are more likely to have pedophiles around who abuse young boys? (Studies have shown that boys who are sexually abused are more likely to grow up gay. Come to think of it studies have shown that girls who are sexually abused are more likely to grow up slutty. Maybe sexual abuse it the real common thread?)

Anyhow, I was asking about goats, not people. I'm pretty sure goats aren't divided into slutty and non-slutty categories. (I've never heard of goat monogamy, but I could be wrong).

[PaulConventionWV]

jason Lisle is a Astrophysicist not a evolutionary biologist. This again in AIG trying to say evolution == origin of life which again i point out is a lie on their part.

Where did they say that? You pulled that assumption out of nowhere.

[dannno]

LOL. Dannno I'm learning to take your studies with a grain of salt. Studies at RPF show that Dannno will make a claim about studies that may or may not exist. And double LOL at your sad panda comment. ;)

That said, even if there is such a study there are too many confounders to to take your conclusions seriously. Maybe the boys of slutty women develop an aversion to women in general? Maybe these slutty women are more likely to have pedophiles around who abuse young boys? (Studies have shown that boys who are sexually abused are more likely to grow up gay. Come to think of it studies have shown that girls who are sexually abused are more likely to grow up slutty. Maybe sexual abuse it the real common thread?)

Anyhow, I was asking about goats, not people. I'm pretty sure goats aren't divided into slutty and non-slutty categories. (I've never heard of goat monogamy, but I could be wrong).

I'm pretty sure some goats are sluttier than others.

[YumYum]

YumYum, I think we have to be careful when we try to justify human behavior based on what we observe in animal behavior, for, basically, two reasons:


Not everyone accepts the assumption implied in your reasoning about the gay goats that humans are descendents of animals. From a creation science standpoint, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans and animals are different enough that they are not linked by some gradual evolution process, yet having been made by a common Creator. That subject is for a different thread, though, so I will not entertain rebuttals here.
Just because we observe animals behave in certain ways in nature, it should not warrant us to compare those behaviors to humans as a justification for it as right behavior. For example, we observe that some animals rape other animals in nature to produce offspring. Should that suggest rape amongst human beings is okay because it is observed amongst certain animals? I would hope your answer is no. So, whether your goats display "gay-like" behavior is not really the issue at hand, and really, it's not the point of this thread.


My point about gay goats was not to say we came from animals, but that some animals are born gay. I believe some humans are born gay. My mom has a cousin, though born a girl, was a boy from birth. She never did anything girls liked to do and could play sports as good as any boy. She never liked boys; she was always attracted to girls. She was not born from a slutty mom (dannno,lol!!) and she was not molested as a child. She was born into a normal family; she was a boy trapped in a girls body.

I am not a homosexual. I do not have homosexual tendencies. To be honest, the thought of men having sex with each other grosses me out. But when I pointed this out to a homosexual, he replied to me "I think sex between a man and a woman is gross!"

So, the bottom line is: we are wired differently, and I think that Christians who condemn homosexuals need to realize that Jesus never condemned homosexuals. Only the Apostle Paul condemns them, and please notice, he condemns fornicators also, which for some reason, some Christians seem to overlook. Michelle Bachmann stated "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman". Well, look at my signature line below. If that is the case, to please God, should fornication only "be between a man and a woman", since there is this belief by some Christians that God hates homosexuals?

[Ranger29860]

Where did they say that? You pulled that assumption out of nowhere.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp

Off of your favorite website read his bio.

An important consideration is the fact that the origins debate is a matter of competing worldviews. Worldviews control how we interpret the evidence; thus, creationists and evolutionists can draw different conclusions about the same evidence. Most scientists are not consciously aware of their own worldview, and how it influences the conclusions they draw. This realization made it easier for Jason to see that intelligent scientists, including his own professors, can draw erroneous conclusions when it comes to an issue of origins science, even while they are brilliant and successful in their own narrow field of research. Dr. Lisle is convinced that when the evidence is interpreted in a consistent fashion, it consistently confirms biblical creation.

[YumYum]

LOL. Dannno I'm learning to take your studies with a grain of salt. Studies at RPF show that Dannno will make a claim about studies that may or may not exist. And double LOL at your sad panda comment. ;)

That said, even if there is such a study there are too many confounders to to take your conclusions seriously. Maybe the boys of slutty women develop an aversion to women in general? Maybe these slutty women are more likely to have pedophiles around who abuse young boys? (Studies have shown that boys who are sexually abused are more likely to grow up gay. Come to think of it studies have shown that girls who are sexually abused are more likely to grow up slutty. Maybe sexual abuse it the real common thread?)

Anyhow, I was asking about goats, not people. I'm pretty sure goats aren't divided into slutty and non-slutty categories. (I've never heard of goat monogamy, but I could be wrong).

LOL!!! I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe!! Slutty goats!! HA!HA! If anything, these goats are crazy. Oh man. Sometimes I think dannno is just being funny, which he is. lol!

[Ranger29860]

Where did they say that? You pulled that assumption out of nowhere.

O and also the origin of life articles are actually filed underneath evolution on there website.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/origin-life

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp

Off of your favorite website read his bio.

An important consideration is the fact that the origins debate is a matter of competing worldviews. Worldviews control how we interpret the evidence; thus, creationists and evolutionists can draw different conclusions about the same evidence. Most scientists are not consciously aware of their own worldview, and how it influences the conclusions they draw. This realization made it easier for Jason to see that intelligent scientists, including his own professors, can draw erroneous conclusions when it comes to an issue of origins science, even while they are brilliant and successful in their own narrow field of research. Dr. Lisle is convinced that when the evidence is interpreted in a consistent fashion, it consistently confirms biblical creation.

He never said what you claimed he said. He said worldviews were a major part of the origins debate. Then he said that creationists and evolutionists can draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Based on the fact that many evolutionists are, indeed, atheists, this isn't far-fetched at all. However, he did not say that evolution in itself was an origins theory. He said that those who believe in it often tend to have a different worldview than creationists, which is true.

[Ranger29860]

He never said what you claimed he said. He said worldviews were a major part of the origins debate. Then he said that creationists and evolutionists can draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Based on the fact that many evolutionists are, indeed, atheists, this isn't far-fetched at all. However, he did not say that evolution in itself was an origins theory. He said that those who believe in it often tend to have a different worldview than creationists, which is true.

Look at my other link on the origins of life section of AIG.

[PaulConventionWV]

Look at my other link on the origins of life section of AIG.

That doesn't mean anything. That's just how they chose to classify it. Again, they never say that the origin of life is a part of evolution, and they never go off topic to try to pin evolutionists on that question. However, they do realize that an atheistic worldview is inescapably connected to the origins question, and since many evolutionists are atheists, it makes sense to explain origins since you have to have some life in order for it to evolve. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, then you have to believe life arose randomly at some point in time.

[Ranger29860]

then you have to believe life arose randomly at some point in time.
And again you assume life arising (origin) is evolution while arguing that it is not. Evolution == DIVERSITY OF LIFE.

As for AIG on tying evolution to origin of life. Your ignorance on this just shows me that you are not actually reading or investigating what they are saying. Not only that you seem to refuse to apply any other sources to these claims. Your a college student sourcing should be second nature to you. The only real effort it would take to show me any peer reviewed papers is simply to look at the sources that AIG has posted at the bottom of there articles. But instead you simply link AIG and say LOOK! i found proof! I am done doing your work for you i have continued to link reputable, multiple sources for you and it has become apparent you are not even reading them.

[PaulConventionWV]

And again you assume life arising (origin) is evolution while arguing that it is not. Evolution == DIVERSITY OF LIFE.

As for AIG on tying evolution to origin of life. Your ignorance on this just shows me that you are not actually reading or investigating what they are saying. Not only that you seem to refuse to apply any other sources to these claims. Your a college student sourcing should be second nature to you. The only real effort it would take to show me any peer reviewed papers is simply to look at the sources that AIG has posted at the bottom of there articles. But instead you simply link AIG and say LOOK! i found proof! I am done doing your work for you i have continued to link reputable, multiple sources for you and it has become apparent you are not even reading them.

What do you want a peer-reviewed paper for? Showing that evolution does not equal origins? I don't think there are any scientific papers on that. Do you want something on evolution? I'm not even discussing evolution. Do you want a peer-reviewed study showing that evolution is not science? Again, I don't think scientists do studies on whether or not what they do is science, but we can tell by looking at whether the information they gather is observable, testable, and falsifiable based on verifiable facts. I have shown you why teaching about the history of the ancestry of all life on earth is not science. They should stick to one or two generations and what they can verify instead of making wild claims about how some genetic changes proves millions of years of accumulated differences.

Again, what kind of source do you want? The AiG article on horse-evolution contained verifiable facts, so are you going to waste your time calling both me and them liars, or are you going to look at the facts and verify them? I don't believe they would put that up there if their facts were wrong. You know, free market and all.

What kind of work do you want me to do for you? I have shown you that evolution is not science just by showing you it doesn't fit the definition. Therefore, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it to be taught in science class as if it were a part of science.

Also, I never said the origin of life was a part of evolution, but you can't ignore the fact that atheists must believe in some form of origins in order to have any life that evolved. Face it, the two are connected. While origins is not a part of evolution itself, it is closely related. Beside, why are you so scared that I might get confused about it anyway? Are you afraid you might have to eventually answer the question of how life came to be in the first place? Again, not saying it's part of the theory of evolution, but it is inescapably part of the atheistic worldview.

[Dr.3D]

Oh come on.... those goats are just being goats. I've seen them drink their own pee right from the spigot. I've seen them screw hogs at the water trough. I believe goats will screw anything and everything they can find.

[Rael]

Well studies have shown that women who are really really slutty tend to have gay male children at a higher rate than women who are not slutty. If slutty women always had straight kids (or boys, at least), then when they had daughters they would tend to be more slutty. So since slutty women will tend to reproduce more and have more kids, having more gay kids is kind of a buffer against a society filled with slutty women. And that makes me a sad panda.

Wow I never heard that. Which studies are you referring to, can u give a link or something?

I'm wondering how they find subjects for this study. Did they run advertisments asking for really, really slutty women?

Did they accept test subjects who were just really slutty, but not REALLY REALLY slutty?

And most importantly, did the study shed any light on where to find these really, really slutty women?

[BlackTerrel]

Why do some folks make moronic, sweeping generalizations based on the lunacy that goes on in California?

What's the Black Agenda like, BT, since Black History is already taught? :rolleyes: I know you're part of it. There is no room for nuance or individualism.

Doesn't mean all gays are part of it. But there is a segment that wants to indoctrinate youth.

Look being gay is not natural I don't wish them any harm but let's all stop pretending that being gay is some great thing to be celebrated. What next? Asperger's syndrome history?

[MelissaWV]

Who the hell's pretending that?

Being black is some great thing that needs to be celebrated? Being Christian is? Being tall or short or disabled or blond or a ginger or Hispanic or Asian or left-handed is?

I notice how it's gone from everybody down to " a segment" now. Can it get down to "a small segment"? That's what it is, just like so many other groups that have a vocal bunch of idiots that love to try to represent everyone.

[Agorism]

This thread almost as popular as the circumcision thread I made that went to hot topics.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Homosexuality is like an effing religion to some people, and this is why some people HATE it.

[YumYum]

Homosexuality is like an effing religion to some people, and this is why some people HATE it.

That's ironic, because everyone who hates it belongs to a religion.

[Dr.3D]

That's ironic, because everyone who hates it belongs to a religion.

Everybody belongs to a religion.

[Pauls' Revere]

Fudgepacking and pole smoking are an ancient practice and part of our rich cultural heritage. Take a look at this historical artifact from 510 BC:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiki_anal_sex.jpg

These historic treasures prove that the ancients were adept at anal spelunking. Gay historians still have not determined at what point in history this behavior branched out into limp wrist gestures, exaggerated feminized modes of speech, and sex with random strangers in bathrooms, but they hope to "rectify" the situation with further research.

what are the other figures on the jar doing?!?

[UWDude]

Carpetmunching 101 and Lower Fundament Rotorooting 101 will be on middle school agendas next.



Is this a bad thing or a good thing?

[UWDude]

Oh come on.... those goats are just being goats. I've seen them drink their own pee right from the spigot. I've seen them screw hogs at the water trough. I believe goats will screw anything and everything they can find.

Ever see what people will screw?

[Danke]

Ever see what people will screw?

Please, don't encourage AF!

[celestineB]

California bill SB48 passed through the state assembly, states the Associated Press. Congress in Sacramento voted 49-25 in support of the bill which would make California public schools the first in the nation to incorporate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender accomplishments into social studies subjects. Gov. Jerry Brown will soon decide on SB48.

I believe this bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized.

[dannno]

That's ironic, because everyone who hates it belongs to a religion.

lol!