Merlyn_LeRoy

You are correct, we have become atheist, and they don't tolerate anything that doesn't go along with their anti-theology Nope, we still have religious freedom. Got any specific examples of how the US is an atheist country? without further elaboration, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was pressed for time; here's a good, rather famous bit from Everson v. Bd. of Edu: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State. That's quite a bit more than what you say it covers.

The government can say all it wants to about separation of church and state. Particularly the supreme court. The US Constitution is founded on Christian principles, "Endowed by our Creator...." That's not in the US constitution. As a Christian country, it endorses an open tolerance to all faiths We aren't a Christian country. All this means is the federal government cannot proselytize one religion over another and is open to all. It means a lot more than that. However, the Darwinian attack on Christianity continues and in spite of it being illegal, the US government has endorsed atheism as it's national religion. What color is the sky in your world?

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

All I know is we don't have scientific evidence to indicate how old the earth really is. What you "know", as usual, is completely wrong. YOU don't have scientific evidence, sure. I don't know if we ever will. We have no way of knowing. Of course we do. You could educate yourself, but you seem to just adore ignorance. Natural scientists had a major following back 1000 years ago believing the world was flat. No, they didn't. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth over TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. He was only off by about 16%. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere due to many observations (you know, the things you said weren't part of science) -- seeing that ships hulls went below the horizon before their masts, seeing the earth's shadow on the moon (and correctly deducing it was the earth's shadow), etc. Whereas the Grand Canyon took "hundreds of thousands of years to erode", might have occurred in one day due to a major earthquake. Part of the Grand Canyon has eroded to reveal a petrified forest, which means this forest had to grow, then be petrified by being buried in mud. That by itself doesn't show much ago, but on top of that petrified forest layer is another petrified forest layer that grew on top of the first one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. Yep, 18 layers of petrified forests. Sorry, one earthquake can't do that. So where does science get it's credibility with a track record like that? Because it's done by competent people, not clownish ignoramuses like yourself. I wouldn't trust you to walk my dog (and I don't have one).

But of course, if there are no "gods" then you get to be your own god! That's a nonsensical statement. That's gotta be a great feeling to be able to play god! That's due to your nonsensical view of atheism, not actual atheism. There are a lot of people that have taken that line of thought to some pretty "questionable" conclusions. The only person I know who takes that line of thought is you, in describing straw atheists. That's the one and only reason I'm not an atheist You don't seem coherent. Whether someone believes in gods or not has nothing to do with any conclusions (however bizarre) they might draw from it. Are you claiming you somehow force yourself to believe that some god exists because you don't trust yourself if you thought none existed?

Atheists simply claim that through a series of whatever, the end result is the world we have today. Some do, but that's not a requirement to be an atheist. All that needs is to not believe in gods. Your uninformed exposition on evolution continues to be the same quality.

I would just like to point out that jblake47 knows nothing about the science of evolution, so pay as much attention to him as you would a flat-earther or a geocentrist. Also, he knows nothing of Charles Darwin aside from his name. And he hasn't bothered to read the e. coli research I pointed him to, where the evolution of one strain's ability to consume citric acid WAS repeatable from earlier generations of the same strain that did NOT have the ability, so when he says evolution isn't repeatable, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. And for some reason he thinks there are 16 species of mosquito instead of over 3,000. But that's because he speak entirely out of ignorance.

I'd just like to point out to people that jblake47 is pig-ignorant about evolution, so you can safely ignore anything he writes on the subject.

I'd just like to point out to people that jblake47 is pig-ignorant about evolution, so you can safely ignore anything he writes on the subject.

One test No, NOT one test. one strain of E. Coli, one mutation out of how many thousands? Thousands of thousands. That's how evolution works. And there were 20 other mutations that produced negative results. NO. YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE EXPERIMENT. This is a long-term, ongoing evolution experiment, to watch how separated colonies of e. coli evolve differently even though they are from the same original stock. ONE strain developed the ability to metabolize citric acid. The other colonies happened not to, but they evolved in other ways. The citric acid was the most notable, which is why this experiment is so widely known now. But you'd rather keep yourself ignorant: I could run one test and come to yet another conclusion, but I'm not going to waste that much time on something to get infanticimal random results to prove a non-scientific theorem. Look, this one example I've given you is much better evidence for evolution than your comical brick-dropping "experiment" is for gravity, yet you say the brick is evidence for gravity but you keep denying that a strain of e. coli developing the ability to eat something as food that the other strains CAN'T eat as food is not evidence of evolution. An organism developing a new ability after thousands of generations, somehow, isn't evolution. According to you, a non-scientist. According to the study, there are 20 times more chances for the case of devolution instead. No, the other colonies ALSO evolved. If you had bothered to read the study, you'd know that. They all developed (to various degrees) larger average cell sizes, for one thing (which is very common in evolution). They didn't "fail" or "devolved", they ALL EVOLVED. ONE colony happened to develop an entirely new way to metabolize citric acid. THAT'S EVOLUTION. You really got to do a lot better than that study to "prove" the existence of evolution. No, no. You can remain pig-ignorant. Really. You can be as pig-ignorant as you like. I will point out to other people that you are pig-ignorant. Do your homework. Coming from you, that's laughable.

So I assume that no evidence/proof is going to be offered up for the false "science" of evolution? No, you've been given evidence and have ignored it, to maintain your ignorance. By the way, how did that strain of e. coli develop the ability to metabolize citric acid after 31,500 generations? Magic? Oh wait, that's some of the evidence that you're studiously ignoring, so you can parrot your mantra that there's no evidence.

Well, since you don't even accept valid scientific theories, your sloppy usage is not really a concern of mine.

Gravity is currently provable, just drop a brick on your foot and it will prove itself out. No, that's not "proof", that's evidence. - By definition it's one-in-the-same. They aren't the same at all. Like I said, just dropping a brick on your foot doesn't even show that the mass of the earth is involved. Aristotle said that rocks "seek their place", which was the earth, which is why rocks fall. Trying to draw some distinction that doesn't exist is really not all that helpful. They ARE distinct. You are being sloppy with terminology. And evidence of the existing world doesn't show that creationism didn't create it either. So again, the argument isn't very useful. Your "arguments" certainly aren't useful. Observation isn't allowed, but things happening by magic are fine. By the way, I've answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine -- how do you explain one strain of e. coli gaining the ability to metabolize citric acid? As a mutant deviation of primordial pond scum, I'm really not well versed enough to ponder the mysteries and myths of the world. But you know enough to know it couldn't be evolution? How does that work?

Gravity is currently provable, just drop a brick on your foot and it will prove itself out. No, that's not "proof", that's evidence. The brick falling is evidence, but that doesn't even show that the mass of the earth is involved at all. By the way, I've answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine -- how do you explain one strain of e. coli gaining the ability to metabolize citric acid?

Evolution has been observed; creation has not. And if you bother looking into the e. coli experiment, you would find that one strain evolved the ability to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment. That's a new ability that evolved.

Citing bogus references doesn't display proof any kind. talkorigins.org has thousands of cites to actual scientific studies. I guess legit science looks "bogus" to you. Just as much "evidence" for creationism as there is for evolution... Only to ignorant people like yourself who can't tell the difference between actual science and religious myths. So where's the scientific proof? Observation and random hypothesis doesn't fall under the accepted definition of scientific method. OBSERVATION DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD? I've been a student of evolutionary "science" for years and I'm still waiting for any real scientific method proof of its validity. Hey, if you don't accept observation, you're pretty much stuck with just making up stuff out of whole cloth and judging "science" by whether it makes you feel icky or not. >No, you are studiously ignoring evidence. That's what keeps you ignorant. No, I'm just waiting for proof. Again that shows your ignorance of science. There IS no "proof" in science, there's only evidence. Proofs are only possible in formal systems like mathematics. Like Wikipedia is the be-all, end-all source of scientific validity? So, you can't explain it at all, can you? Just attack the source? OK, here's the site itself: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ Refute that. Explain how it isn't evolution. How does anyone know that the mosquito fossil is 46 million years old? And somehow we're supposed to accept this as fact. You can remain ignorant if you like.

So you are assuming the "evidence" provided is correct? You might not have noticed all the cites. But that's okay, a lot of evolution "science" is based on assumptions. As well as that round-earth "science" and thermodynamic "science" (which does not contradict evolution, by the way). So you have no answer other than personal ridicule? You missed my answers? Look, I HAVE been replying to your ignorant questions. I've also been pointing out that your questions are ignorant. If that hurts your widdle feelings, that's too bad. Of course it's easy to compare apples to oranges. Natural laws vs. speculative pseudo-science. Works for me too. Evolution is standard science, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. If you want pseudo-science, I'm sure creationism fits the bill. Of course that isn't provable, just like any other evolutionary "evidence". So observed evolution doesn't count now? Evolutionary theory assumes the betterment of species over time. Nope. That just shows you don't know what evolution is. You ought to at least learn about something before commenting about it. Like any scientific theory vs. scientific law One's measurable, repeatable and will always remain the same. Guess which one that applies to. Thermodynamics and evolution are both scientific theories, and thermo does not contradict evolution. Looking for that evidence. So far no evidence, but as an inquisitive person, I'll keep looking. No, you are studiously ignoring evidence. That's what keeps you ignorant. Again, the decline of species is far more evident than that of the incline of species. I was just pointing out the obvious. No, you were just babbling. Of course we have no idea what the % is, but one can "assume" (something that people often are inclined to do) there is more evidence against evolution than for it. No, evolution has been observed. You've come up with no evidence against it. Thermo isn't against it, extinctions certianly aren't evidence against it. I don't have an objection to evolution, I just don't see it as any valid form of science to explain anything. Then explain this, not using evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Simply put? Yes, tens of thousands of people can be duped by the "theory" and it happens over and over again with predictable certainty. That evidence of it's potential is widely known, but it doesn't evolve, it simply stays the same as the last time. So explain the above evolution experiment. Oh, but of course there's a reason for it. I am fully aware of it. What's the reason?

Did you even bother to read your "evidence"? I've read through some of talkorigins.org before, yes, and I was around for the original talk.origins on usenet. And by the way, you haven't addressed my questions either. Your questions are about on par with "If the earth is round, why don't the people on the bottom fall off?" Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"???? On what basis do you say it hasn't? It isn't possible to check if a fossil mosquito can interbreed with a living mosquito (which is typically how living species are divided). One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change... And on what basis do you say there "should" be some change? Do you even know how evolution works? Why no, you don't. Nope, the theory is just a guess at best No, it isn't. Like any scientific theory, it's a model of how the real world works, and makes falsifiable predictions. Somethings evolve and others don't? On what basis do you say that? And that's a reliable conclusion we all need to buy into. Like I keep saying, you can remain ignorant if you like. Or in this case maybe evolution hasn't been observed correctly. Certainly not by you. Did you look at any of the observed instances of evolution? On the other hand the decline of nature is obvious to anyone who has vividly observed that 99.9% of all species have NOT evolved, but become extinct. On what basis do you tally that percent? Rectally? Of course, I sleep at night really well knowing that I am a mutated form of primordial pond scum. I see, you have some bizarre "icky" objection to evolution. That's real science-y of you. Do you also think there's some worldwide conspiracy keeping the "fraud" of evolution afloat, for some nebulous reason? Do you think tens of thousands of people worldwide are committing a scientific fraud for no reason at all?

Standard answer: When one is confronted with the lack of evidence to support one's beliefs, simply attack the other person. Which is why I've provide links, and you've provided nothing. And you ARE ignorant. You can remain so.

Evolution has been assumed. No scientific evidence. Wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"???? One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change.... Nope, the theory is just a guess at best. Somethings evolve and others don't? Because you're ignorant about evolution. You can stay ignorant if you like. You do realize that you have to posit a worldwide conspiracy, don't you?

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Are you a geocentrist too? Evolution has been observed. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. You don't know the laws of thermodynamics, and you're overlooking a huge energy source.

I'd just like to point out that atheists would be really easy to schedule.

They can't be required to stand for the pledge either; see Holloman v. Harland.

If the BSA wants to be everything to everybody they need to rip the bandage off and make that call. Seems like they shouldn't have said scouting is for "all boys" for decades, then.

Okay how would you explain how little Johnny Jahova Doesn't have to salute the Flag and say the Pledge, Is it an absolute requirement to do either to remain a member? I explained the pledge earlier. If neither is an absolute requirement, I'd tell little Johnny Jahova that neither is a requirement. By the way, you seem to have not answered my earlier question: Which of these are actual requirements for membership, as opposed to things you think ought to be imposed? Instead, you're tossing up red herrings, which suggests to me that none of your examples are actual requirements to remain a member. He never attends Court of Honors, He Doesn't attend any Events and Above all does not Have to say the Oath and Law because It is against his Religion but he is a Scout. When is saying the promise/oath (I'll assume he is young enough to take the cub scout promise instead of the oath) and law an absolute requirement to remain a member? Are you adding requirements that are not actual requirements? I don't think you're allowed to do that. Also, your wacky capitalization doesn't make your arguments look rational. Would you kick out the Other Scouts who did the same thing who were Not JW who followed his examples No. You seem to be making up requirements to remain a member. Repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. I already addressed that; he can state what it is without taking the pledge. Understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath or Promise, Scout Law, motto, and slogan, and the Outdoor Code Specifically, what can't a JW do? Assume he takes the promise and not the oath.