[BarracksSi]

IBTL

[Kickaha]

Didn't you just get over being banned?

[DMBand0026]

I saw an article today about how 2/3 of people think creationism should be taught alongside evolution. I fall squarely in that 1/3 that doesn't think that. Teach creationism to the ones who want to learn creationism, teach evolution to those who want to learn evolution.

Here's the article if anyone is interested. It's an AP story.

I think we can have a civil discussion about this...at least I'd hope so.

[BarracksSi]

Yeah, but I saw the second ID thread get locked after three posts, so I'm just messing around now...

Besides, I wasn't banned for anything other than calling somebody names; nothing else I said was any worse than what was present in the debate.

[DMBand0026]

To be fair, that "debate" turned from just that into a world class flame fest. It wasn't pretty. Like I said, I think we can have a civil discussion about this that won't resort to name calling.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by DMBand0026 Teach creationism to the ones who want to learn creationism, teach evolution to those who want to learn evolution.

New policy: Allow students (or parents) decide whether schools should teach that Santa Claus does or doesn't exist. It makes about as much sense as teaching that creationism is a viable, scientific theory.

Hmm... IBTL indeed!

EDIT: The preceding post wasn't a dig against you at all, DMB. You are more willing to make compromises to appease the brainwashed masses than I am. I would never give any ground, though. Creationism/ID is an explanation looking for evidence, not the other way around as it should be. As such it should not be taught in science classes except perhaps as an example of where the scientific method has been improperly applied.

[Kickaha]

It'd be a refreshing change to actually have a debate on the subject, one that conforms to the rules of logic, burden of proof, and reasoning.

Never gonna happen.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by DMBand0026 To be fair, that "debate" turned from just that into a world class flame fest. It wasn't pretty. Like I said, I think we can have a civil discussion about this that won't resort to name calling.

I gotta step out, then -- most of ya already know what I think of creationism and its proponents.

I normally refuse to discuss politics in a social setting, and religion isn't any better. They're both surefire topics that can kill a party.

I might have gotten out of hand in that previous thread, but my statements are exactly what I think, and if anyone else wants to see they can just go back and read 'em.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by Kickaha It'd be a refreshing change to actually have a debate on the subject, one that conforms to the rules of logic, burden of proof, and reasoning. Never gonna happen.

Yup -- and it won't happen when one side of it (*cough*creationism*cough*) doesn't use logic, proof, or reasoning.

Okay, for real, I'm unsubscribing.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Yup -- and it won't happen when one side of it (*cough*creationism*cough*) doesn't use logic, proof, or reasoning.

And it looks like it's not going to happen as long as people *cough* immediately shut down any opposing views before they're even made. Genius!

IBL!!

[Luca]

You should have said IAL, Brad. I got all confused when it just showed up as locked and you hadn't replied yet .

...IAL!