“Speaker Johnson: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer”

Evolution is a scientific theory, open to examination, change and replacement if and when a better theory comes along. It belongs in a science class.

Creationism is a religious claim, taken on faith, and pushed as doctrine. It does not belong in a science classroom, but instead in a religious studies classroom. Science is about questioning, revising, testing, etc. Religion is usually the opposite.

Your better case would be regarding woke ideology being pushed, which is a lot more like religion. The demand that anybody be treated as a woman simply because they "identify" as one is rightly met with skepticism and questions like "what is a woman" and what is the scientific basis people pushing this stuff are standing on. It is often little more than the religious do.

 

No, they do NOT become myths "all the time"

And, in fact, it is extremely rare for a scientific theory to be discarded. And those few times that it does happen? It leads to a complete revision of our understanding of the universe and our place in it.
The Theory of Evolution has been around for about 150 years. There has never been another theory in that time that has even come CLOSE to toppling it. Creationism isn't even a theory. It's an idea and a bad one at that.

 

Because you do not understand the science behind transgederism does not mean that it is "little more than the religious do"

Which is why, when it comes to things like biology and psychology I don't make claims about things I don't have knowledge about.

 

Science shows that intersex people exist. It does not show that children who merely self "identify" as opposite of their visible gender are intersex. Nor does it back many other claims pushed by activists.

But activists do.

 

And you are well versed in the science behind transgenderism?

 

Well versed enough to know when many activists are not. And also able to recognize other trappings of faith based thinking and authoritarian demands not to question.

 

Imagine how he would feel if there were pictures of satan and hellfires all around the classrooms in public schools?

Oh wait, that is Halloween, a "christian" festival, right?

 

I disagree. It is a theory like evolution is. Can you call into question my theory? Sure. But I can also call into question yours. So why do you get to your theory that can be called into question but we can’t teach ours?

Though I would agree with you on the transgender stuff but I knew we would have someone come in like nwolfe did it I said that

 

Yes they do. And evolution will too.

I got a question for you on evolution. Why do we have two arms and not one? Is there any evolutionary evidence that one of our arms developed before the other?

I was actually thinking about this last night tangentially to our conversation. Why would we have two arms? Evolutionarily the idea that two arms would develop simultaneously from no arms would be astronomically coincidental. The evolutionary theory would dictate that random mutations would have perhaps resulted in ONE arm (or limb) forming before the others but that both or all four forming at the same time would be absurdly unlikely.

But as far as the evolutionary record goes there’s no evidence that any of our limbs are evolutionarily older than any of the others.

There are literally thousands of these examples from the intricacies of the human eye to genetic research showing that the evolutionary process couldn’t have occurred in the time period it occurred in.

But you still teach it in school don’t you? Why does your theory which can be more easily called into question than mine get to be taught?

 

CITE the holy texts where your IMAGINARY "creator" "endows" anyone with RIGHTS.

Because I can cite the holy texts where your IMAGINARY "creator" explicitly DENIES you RIGHTS.

YOUR 1st Commandment DENIES you the RIGHT to Freedom of Religion and if you do NOT OBEY your "creator" by worshipping it your entire life you will spend eternity in torment.

What was that you mentioned about SUBJECTIVE MORALITY?

Your imaginary "creator" gave you "free will" to CHOOSE to spend eternity in torment?

What kind of "loving" creator CONDEMNS people to eternal torment just because they chose NOT to stroke the EGO of your "creator"?

The ONLY rights any of us has are the one we UPHOLD for each other.

If YOU do NOT uphold my Freedom FROM Religion YOU will LOSE your Freedom OF Religion because that is how this works.

Civics 101 again.

Reality matters.

 

So you ADVOCATE that we MUST teach that FLYING is SINFUL because only ANGELS can fly in your holy texts?

Creationism is RELIGION.

Evolution is SCIENCE.

Only the wilfully blind would NOT know the DIFFERENCE between teaching science versus teaching religion.

 

No see. The context was he stated that All men are equal.

That principle rests on the standard that follows after. Which is that their creator endowed them with rights.

Without the creator “All men are created equal” is a subjective claim that can be disregarded for the idea that “all men are not created equal” or that “some humans aren’t considered men”.

All of which are equally valid and morally correct without a creator. If morality is subjective then all morality is as moral as the other.

 

The 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865 by 3/4 of the states at that time. The 13 Southern States had no representation in Congress and thus were not considered part of the Union. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 by 3/4 of the states at that time. The 15th amendment was rafified in 1870. The Southern States rejoined the union beginning in 1868 and the last state was Georgia in 1870. But even then, they had predominant Republican legislatures that would have voted for this amendment if they were allowed to.

The simple fact is that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were ratified by 3/4 of the states and thus are as constitutional as the 25th amendment or even the 26th amendment. The 15th amendment has 37 states that have ratified the amendment with Tennessee being the last in 1997. that is 3/4 of the current states in the Union. And thus, Constitutional. The 14th Amendment has 37 states that have ratified this amendment with Kentucky being the last in 1976. Again, with 50 states, 3/4 have ratified the amendment and thus constitutional. The 13th Amendment has 36 states ratifying the amendment, and as the same with the 15th and 14th amendments, is more than 3/4 of the states. It is too Constitutional.

None of your arguments jive here being unconstitutional at all, especially the 14th and 15th amendments.

 

There are much better examples than that but I’ll address the point you were attempting to make.

Science is only a representation of what man THINKS it knows about the universe. Given that man knows VERY LITTLE about the universe, why do you think science is the end all be all?

 

What are you talking about?

The first 27 states to ratify the Amendment were:[80]

1. Illinois: February 1, 1865
2. Rhode Island: February 2, 1865
3. Michigan: February 3, 1865
4. Maryland: February 3, 1865
5. New York: February 3, 1865
6. Pennsylvania: February 3, 1865
7. West Virginia: February 3, 1865
8. Missouri: February 6, 1865
9. Maine: February 7, 1865
10. Kansas: February 7, 1865
11. Massachusetts: February 7, 1865
12. Virginia: February 9, 1865
13. Ohio: February 10, 1865
14. Indiana: February 13, 1865
15. Nevada: February 16, 1865
16. Louisiana: February 17, 1865
17. Minnesota: February 23, 1865
18. Wisconsin: February 24, 1865
19. Vermont: March 9, 1865
20. Tennessee: April 7, 1865
21. Arkansas: April 14, 1865
22. Connecticut: May 4, 1865
23. New Hampshire: July 1, 1865
24. South Carolina: November 13, 1865
25. Alabama: December 2, 1865
26. North Carolina: December 4, 1865
27. Georgia: December 6, 1865

Having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (27 of the 36 states, including those that had been in rebellion), Secretary of State Seward, on December 18, 1865, certified that the Thirteenth Amendment had become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution.[81]Included on the enrolled list of ratifying states were the three ex-Confederate states that had given their assent, but with strings attached. Seward accepted their affirmative votes and brushed aside their interpretive declarations without comment, challenge or acknowledgment.[82]

The Thirteenth Amendment was subsequently ratified by the other states, as follows:[80]: 30 

1. Oregon: December 8, 1865
2. California: December 19, 1865
3. Florida: December 28, 1865 (reaffirmed June 9, 186
4. Iowa: January 15, 1866
5. New Jersey: January 23, 1866 (after rejection March 16, 1865)
6. Texas: February 18, 1870
7. Delaware: February 12, 1901 (after rejection February 8, 1865)
8. Kentucky: March 18, 1976[83] (after rejection February 24, 1865)
9. Mississippi: March 16, 1995; certified February 7, 2013[84] (after rejection December 5, 1865)

6 of which were northern states. You did NOT have the votes without forcing the southern states to sign And the southern states CANNOT SIGN without being states. Which means when you denied them suffrage to force the passage of the 14th you were denying states their suffrage unconstitutionally. Therefore both 14th AND 15th amendments are by definition unconstitutional.

Or they weren’t states when they signed the 13th and the 13th is unconstitutional as well as the 15th because you AGAIN denied them suffrage in the senate to force passage.

But you can’t have both. They can’t be non-states AND have the ability to ratify an amendment.

 

This entire post goes to show that you have no idea on how evolution works.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/66506#:~:text=Any land creature with a,lizards to your pet dog.

 

Complete and utter crap!

Never heard of the SRY gene?

https://medlineplus.gov/download/genetics/gene/sry.pdf

Of course you haven't because if you had you KNOW that what you posted above is complete and utter crap.

Genes are the basis on which EVOLUTION functions.

VARIATION in genes is HOW everything EVOLVES.

RANDOM variation in genes is a SURVIVAL mechanism.

THEREFORE random changes in the SRY gene results in people who are TRANSGENDER!

This is NORMAL!

This is SCIENCE!

Calling it "religion" merely EXPOSES a massive LACK of subject matter knowledge.

Sad!

 

For starters, the Bible, or any religious text, that all men are created equal. The idea came from Locke and others in were arguing is that it is not the King that dishes out favors or platitudes, but that all men, being humankind, determine their own fate. It is in the Declaration of Independence, our argument of rebelling against our king, King George III, and our list of grievances, the least of which was "no taxation without representation." But the DCI is not law, it is an idea. And even at that time, when we were a fledging nation, the issue of Native Americans and Blacks that they were equal to whites was an argument that took over 150 years to solve, eventually. Both sides of the argument used the Bible to justify their arguments, especially the use of Romans 13. And yet, we violated Romans 13 when we rebelled against our sovereign Lord, King George III in the 1770s. didn't we?

 

Blowing own horn duly noted.

 

Actually yes I do.

from your link:

“The analyses revealed that the fan-like structures that form the growth plate in the metaphysis were present both in the ancient amphibian Metoposaurus – which mainly lived in water – and two ‘amniote’ species, Seymouria and Discosauriscus, which could reproduce on land. This suggests that growing bone by calcifying cartilage columns is a process that appeared in earlier, water-bound tetrapods, and has a shared origin between amphibians and amniotes. The way that tetrapod limbs grow today was therefore already present in our earliest four-limbed ancestors, long before the transition to land”

Now why in an aquatic animal would that result in two limbs instead of one?

 

That’s irrelevant. He HAD to make that claim because otherwise what argument does he have for separation? The majority didn’t agree with him. And even IF the majority had agreed with him, his king had broken no laws and his moral code was as ethically sound and righteous as Jefferson’s if morality is subjective.

So Jefferson had to say there is a HIGHER moral code than the those of humans. That’s the ONLY argument he could make in the face of the concept that morality is subjective. Because if morality WAS subjective, he had no argument.

And he knew it. So we get the concept that all men are created equal BECAUSE the creator created them that way.

If you don’t have the creator on what grounds do you assert that all men are created equal? Why? Because you say so? What if someone else says they aren’t? If morality is subjective, he’s just as correct as you are.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

Thorough detailed explanation at the link that DEBUNKS the Xtofascist "creationist" BS completely.

 

I don’t think you understand how many times I had to read, “we theorize, we postulate, we believe”

That’s not scientific evidence. That’s a guess.

 

The FOUNDING FATHERS were HOLY MEN from the EAST following a WANDERING STAR?

Did they also have GIFTS of gold, incense and myrrh?

The Declaration of Independence is a DEAR JOHN letter where the Founding Fathers broke up with the King and told him that they don't love him anymore and want a DIVORCE.

There is NOTHING remotely "divine" about the DoI, it is just an ancient document that details the REASONS why a DIVORCE was necessary.

Interesting how so MANY of the COMPLAINTS about the king are MIRRORED by the behaviour of your TRAITOR-in-Chief.

 

SCIENCE readily ADMITS to NOT having all the answers.

Your RELIGION pretends to KNOW all of the ANSWERS to EVERYTHING.

In REALITY religion is just SUPERSTITIONS and MYTHS from the Stone Age.

Your IMAGINARY "creator" only exists in your BELIEFS and those of your fellow BELIEVERS.

In REALITY your OMNIPOTENT "creator" is a LOGICAL PARADOX.

Can your "creator" make an object so heavy that even your "creator" could not lift it?

If your "creator" can do that then there is something that they cannot do, eg lift something, which means that they are NOT omnipotent.

The REVERSE is also true because if your "creator" can lift it then your "creator" CANNOT create something to heavy for them to lift which means that they are NOT omnipotent.

What you BELIEVE is entirely up to you.

But YOU do NOT get to DEMAND that your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS be given EQUAL value to SCIENCE.

Here is the DEAL, when YOUR beliefs can WITHSTAND the Scientific Method they can be taught.

What have you got that meets that standard?

ZILCH, right?

LOL!