It would be interesting to see what sort of, eh, regulatory response that post gets.
::Loopy pulls up a chair, waits patiently::
OK, one more try to explain:
What is really Creationists beef with evolution?
A hundred years ago athiests were almost as rare as Unicorns, but today I would guess there are about three million of them in the U.S. Mostly in Education, Government, and Science. Now what caused this explosion of atheists? I believe the answer lies with Science and Scientists. I don’t know how they came to believe in the theories of evolution, Big Bang, and that consciousness is a product of the brain, but they did. Then these scientists taught students these theories as if they were real. Soon we have more and more atheists, some of which become activists. They start sueing to have every semblance of religion removed from government buildings, they want the pledge changed, they want religion to disappear.
Naturally the religionist don’t agree, they claim science and scientists are attacking the basic fundamentals of our country and their rights. Whether they are correct in believing this, yes, I think they are at least over 50% correct. I won’t bother to list all the insults some scientists have hurled at the religionists, or vice versa.
There you have it I clear as I can explain it.
Oh, yes, on the satire thing, I thought you would find it funny at the same time realizing satire begins with a real event.
This time I promise last post, the subject has been covered.
Lekatt:
Your arguing from ignrance. They used the scientific method in studying the facts, the actual physical evidence.
Not only is that ridiculous for any number of reasons, it’s a detour from creating factual counter-arguments.
You also seem to forget that there are many different religions who sharply disagree with each other. Apparently, there mere presence of one religion attacks the rights of the believers of another.
Mathochist and Loopydude, this thread is not going to be moved to the Pit. On the other hand, suggestions of trolling and observations that one is about to “watch” a show are not appropriate on the SDMB.
Math, if you go back and read lekatt’s earlier history you will discover that he truly believes the stuff he posts, including the same errors of fact and logic that he has posted, here. He is not trolling.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Geez, I’m hitting every mine in the field here. Sorry.
Not so- although perhaps those that openly stated total atheism were rare, many were doubters or Deists. And of course- 2000 years ago- before any Evolution was ever “preached”- Christians were even more rare than Unicorns. 
And, since one should believe or not believe on faith alone, then having an opposing veiwpoint to faith is a GOOD thing, as it prevents those who do not really have Faith, but just follow around with the herd and mouth words which are to them- meaningless. See Matt 6:5
Do you see the problem with you making a completely unjustified guess and then using it as evidence? You admit yourself that you have nothing to support this but your own guesses. Why would anyone trust your guesses? Is that why you hate science so much - because you don’t have the capacity to engage in the same level of discourse?
Like I said in my last post, it’s telling that you can only argue these issues on the level of claiming that they’re dangerous ideas - you can’t argue with them on the basis of truth or falsehood. You don’t really care about the truth at all, do you? You only care about what supports your ideology-of-the-moment.
Did you know the pledge didn’t mention God until the McCarthyism of the fifties? Perhaps the issue is more that some of us would like to see the reversal of the many recent instances that religion has been shoehorned into our public lives by the government. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other about ceremonial deism, but try to at least be honest in your claims.
When you say “won’t”, you mean “can’t”, correct? Perhaps there’s a joke site online you can use to support this claim, too.
You’ve said that before. You’ve also stalked off the SDMB in a huff, claiming you weren’t coming back before. You’re a chronic liar; while others seem to think you’re merely crazy and try to cut you slack, I’ve watched you lie over and over. So I don’t believe you this time either.
Well, just what you said. I don’t know of many working scientists who can arrest people (not that they probably don’t wish they could.) And forensic accounting would probably be useful too. But Noriega got arrested when we tired of him politically. Such is usually the case.
Lekatt posted: “The concept of God is very comforting to those facing death in battle, many of our soldiers in Iraq are rediscovering religion, or death from disease, I never talked to a terminally ill person who didn’t believe in God, or death by any means. It is a scary time.”
(That is an awful sentence.)
I just wanted to point out that there are many “atheists in foxholes.” I am one, althought I mean that figuratively and not literally. Also, here is a whole organization of them: Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers http://www.maaf.info/join.html
Ah. Thus my disclaimer that I don’t know his history outside this thread. A link like that just smelled very fishy. Apologies.
Well, from the perspective of aliens encountering us, we would be meat.
I can’t tell anymore whether we agree or disagree. 
My point is that science is advanced enough to find the dictators, but it takes human will to bring them to justice. My overall point, before that tangent, was that neither science nor God is responsible for the human condition; it is man’s own will.
Science is a process, a method, not an entity. It is independent of any religion in it’s nature, just as it is independent of political notions. These are seperate concepts.
That is not to say that a person cannot combine them in their minds, of course. Many people use science to augment their political or religious beliefs. Sometimes this is done in irresponsible or deceitful ways, but that is really unreleated from my point.
Science cannot attack religion, just as it cannot attack political beliefs, or for that matter philosophy. What is learned from science can conflict with these things, but it’s not an attack. That would require some premeditated course of action to intent to damage. If that is the case, then it wouldn’t be science anyway.
Please, please do not confuse the issue. It’s not Religion vs Science.
Lord have mercy that was funny. But it can’t be true, for if it were so we would have to believe in SentientMeat!
I think I mentioned this before: Fides et Ratio, John Paul II’s encyclical, says it better than I could myself. “Faith and Reason are two different methods of coming to knowledge, and as such cannot directly contradict each other.”
then we agree.
As I keep telling people who aren’t creationists but who buy the “science is against religion” balogna, and and some are getting damned tired of it, the argument over evolution isn’t science vs. religion. It is science vs. pseudo-science.
Do you believe this to be true?
I feel sorry for the people who get run over by a bus on the way to confession.
-Joe
Thanks all who answered this! Great responses… Even Lekatt 's who showed jsut how nutty the opposition to Evolution can be (just teasing)