LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

It's a fucking doll for god's sake, get over it...

mack_the_knife said:
I can agree on the latter, excepting they would rather the THEORY of evolution be definately taught as a theory, not as a fact (again, just to keep people's heads pointed in the right direction, it IS a theory I ascribe to). A theory is a scientifically-based belief, not a fact. <Shrug> I think that mention should be made, even if only parenthetically, that "Some people believe that rather than evolution, as presented in this text, the world was intelligently designed by a higher being." Just that. Presenting the other side of the argument which is a argument between two competing beliefs.

Your prior statement is overgeneralized and very hostile to the millions of peacable anti-abortion activists.
Click to expand...

The problem you run into when you decide to teach "intelligent design" is if you're going to teach that as a "theory that some believe" then you're going to have to teach the Iroquois creation theory, the Muslim creation theory, the Buddhist creation theory, etc., etc.

It's hardly fair to allow one set of beliefs, but not teach the other, yes?

Where does it end, in that instance?

This is my opinion, and my opinion only - there is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design, especially when compared to evolution theory. Don't teach "beliefs" - teach facts. Otherwise, you're pandering to one religious group, and this country's already leaning far enough, as far as I'm concerned.
 
mack_the_knife said:
dangles...bait, awe c'mon!
Click to expand...
*pout*

Nuh-uh.

But, I'll give you sex for a couple of cheap black pleather miniskirts and some secondhand stiletto heels...

If you throw in some lacy tops, I'll let you slap me around a little, no bruises though.
(we need a smiley for "Fluttering eyelashes)
 
Stella_Omega said:
*pout*

Nuh-uh.

But, I'll give you sex for a couple of cheap black pleather miniskirts and some secondhand stiletto heels...

If you throw in some lacy tops, I'll let you slap me around a little, no bruises though.
(we need a smiley for "Fluttering eyelashes)
Click to expand...
Cool, pleather I can afford, I like cheap lays. Just no $85 dollies!

<tries to put a fish hook through a pleather skirt>
 
Last edited:
cloudy said:
The problem you run into when you decide to teach "intelligent design" is if you're going to teach that as a "theory that some believe" then you're going to have to teach the Iroquois creation theory, the Muslim creation theory, the Buddhist creation theory, etc., etc.

It's hardly fair to allow one set of beliefs, but not teach the other, yes?

Where does it end, in that instance?

This is my opinion, and my opinion only - there is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design, especially when compared to evolution theory. Don't teach "beliefs" - teach facts. Otherwise, you're pandering to one religious group, and this country's already leaning far enough, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not fact either only the current scientific belief. That is why it is a Theory. I believe it's right, you believe it's right, but there are those who do not, and they believe it just as much as you and I do.
 
mack_the_knife said:
Evolution is not fact either only the current scientific belief. That is why it is a Theory. I believe it's right, you believe it's right, but there are those who do not, and they believe it just as much as you and I do.
Click to expand...


You are incorrect. It is more than a scientific belief, it's a rigidly tested and testable theory. More than that, it meets the main criteria for being testable, that is it's disproveable. It's much more than just a belief. And if you don't like it, you can see if you can design a test to disprove it.

The same cannot be said of Genissis, the Koran, creationism or Intelligent design. They are untestable beacuse they are not disporveable, therefore they constitute at the core naked assertions.

Likening one to the other shows a profound lack of understanding of basic principles of science and logic.

I don't mind teaching evolution, it's a scientific theory. If it dosen't met the criteria for being a sceintific theory, it has no place in any classroom other than theology, philospohy or religion. Period.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
You are incorrect. It is more than a scientific belief, it's a rigidly tested and testable theory. More than that, it meets the main criteria for being testable, that is it's disproveable. It's much more than just a belief. And if you don't like it, you can see if you can design a test to disprove it.

The same cannot be said of Genissis, the Koran, creationism or Intelligent design. They are untestable beacuse they are not disporveable, therefore they constitute at the core naked assertions.

Likening one to the other shows a profound lack of understanding of basic principles of science and logic.

I don't mind teaching evolution, it's a scientific theory. If it dosen't met the criteria for being a sceintific theory, it has no place in any classroom other than theology, philospohy or religion. Period.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Sancha. :rose:
 
Colleen Thomas said:
You are incorrect. It is more than a scientific belief, it's a rigidly tested and testable theory. More than that, it meets the main criteria for being testable, that is it's disproveable. It's much more than just a belief. And if you don't like it, you can see if you can design a test to disprove it.

The same cannot be said of Genissis, the Koran, creationism or Intelligent design. They are untestable beacuse they are not disporveable, therefore they constitute at the core naked assertions.

Likening one to the other shows a profound lack of understanding of basic principles of science and logic.

I don't mind teaching evolution, it's a scientific theory. If it dosen't met the criteria for being a sceintific theory, it has no place in any classroom other than theology, philospohy or religion. Period.
Click to expand...
400 years ago, they could not disprove the common perception that the sun orbited the earth. Because we cannot disprove it now does not mean it will not be disproved (though I highly doubt it will). I am simply saying that those wishing to have what they believe with equal fervor, which also cannot be disproved, be mentioned. You argue that because the theory of evolution is fine, because it's not been disproved doesn't work as you argue that the creation beliefs also cannot be disproved.
 
cloudy said:
Thank you, Sancha. :rose:
Click to expand...
flowers from me, too. :rose: :rose:
Now, listen, Mack- I don't give blowjobs for torn pleather skirts! I can't re-sell it to my hos for any profit.
If you wanna flog the torn one to Darleen or Roxy on your own, be my guest :p
 
mack_the_knife said:
400 years ago, they could not disprove the common perception that the sun orbited the earth. Because we cannot disprove it now does not mean it will not be disproved (though I highly doubt it will). I am simply saying that those wishing to have what they believe with equal fervor, which also cannot be disproved, be mentioned. You argue that because the theory of evolution is fine, because it's not been disproved doesn't work as you argue that the creation beliefs also cannot be disproved.
Click to expand...

So.....we're gonna teach all those other creation theories in school then, too, right? After all, they're just as valid as "intelligent design" is.
 
mack_the_knife said:
400 years ago, they could not disprove the common perception that the sun orbited the earth. Because we cannot disprove it now does not mean it will not be disproved (though I highly doubt it will). I am simply saying that those wishing to have what they believe with equal fervor, which also cannot be disproved, be mentioned. You argue that because the theory of evolution is fine, because it's not been disproved doesn't work as you argue that the creation beliefs also cannot be disproved.
Click to expand...


Ok. There is a theory called gravity. It's not a fact either. So why don't you go outside and really relly really believe that since it isn't a fact you can fly? I'm willig to bet your ass will still be firmly stuck to the earth.

the inability to recognize the theory of evolution conforms to the scinetific method and is disproveable while ID does not and is not, represents ignorance on a scale so monumental, I simply cannot concieve of it.

It's useless to discuss further. We aren't even on the same intellectual playing field. Much less in the ball park where a discussion could take place.
 
mack_the_knife said:
400 years ago, they could not disprove the common perception that the sun orbited the earth. Because we cannot disprove it now does not mean it will not be disproved (though I highly doubt it will). I am simply saying that those wishing to have what they believe with equal fervor, which also cannot be disproved, be mentioned. You argue that because the theory of evolution is fine, because it's not been disproved doesn't work as you argue that the creation beliefs also cannot be disproved.
Click to expand...

But they taught it, sadly backed by tyrranical Theologists, and were right to teach it, because so far as they knew, it was true and at the time, had it or had it not been for said Theologists, disprovable at the time. If they don't teach Evolution in schools, then who exactly is going to disprove it, when only the pre-existing scientific community is aware of it. Honestly, it is strongly supported, and should be taught, and the simple teaching of it as theory is what gives the argument that it should be taught in schools. It tells children that what they hold as true, even what is commonly held as true, can be held differently in the future.

And on a separate note, Intelligent Design has little to no bearing, and not an ounce more evidence of truth than any other religious belief. People are free to believe as they wish, but teaching religion in schools is asking for more than jsut trouble. We'd be going from Republic to Theocracy damn quick.

Q_C
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Ok. There is a theory called gravity. It's not a fact either. So why don't you go outside and really relly really believe that since it isn't a fact you can fly? I'm willig to bet your ass will still be firmly stuck to the earth.

the inability to recognize the theory of evolution conforms to the scinetific method and is disproveable while ID does not and is not, represents ignorance on a scale so monumental, I simply cannot concieve of it.

It's useless to discuss further. We aren't even on the same intellectual playing field. Much less in the ball park where a discussion could take place.
Click to expand...
We know it's disprovable how? Has it been disproved? Perhaps it, ultimately, is not. In common parlance, we do not speak of the 'theory of gravity' it has become fact through practice. We simply speak of gravity. Scientists often speak of Gravitational Theory, but they are no longer arguing over whether there is a force exerting pull from mass to mass, that part has become rote. However, how and why it works is still under conjecture.

To resort to ad-hominym attacks upon me, simply because I refuse to fall into lockstep, even on a theory I, myself ascribe to (IE I AM AN EVOLUTIONIST, TOO). You call me ignorant and mentally deficient, simply because I argue a viewpoint I don't even necessarily ascribe to.

I realize there is evidence to back up evolution, while there is none to back up anyone's creation theories. I recognize that it is scientifically provable, within the limits of modern science. But I also recognize that people of faith do not need that proof to fully believe in what they do and their voice should not be barred from the public forum of schools that they help pay for and send their children to, having their beliefs totally disregarded by the very institutions that claim to be there for their benefit.

Intelligent design, Cloudy, basically put would be "Many people believe that a higher power created or brought into being the earth and the life upon it. We can neither confirm nor deny the truth of this, but it is a strongly held belief by many different peoples." Exactly which faiths would not be covered by that disclaimer? No mention of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Wicca, or any other specific religion. Yes, if the school says "God created the earth in six days..." they are crossing the line into preaching a faith. Simply stating that people of various faiths believe in that is NOT the same thing.

I don't believe in intelligent design. I don't even believe in a God. Your God or anyone else's. I, personally, believe all peoples of religious faiths to be wrong. However, I am not hostile to them or their belief to the point of barring even the discussion and acknowledgement of those beliefs in the public venue.
 
mack_the_knife said:
Intelligent design, Cloudy, basically put would be "Many people believe that a higher power created or brought into being the earth and the life upon it. We can neither confirm nor deny the truth of this, but it is a strongly held belief by many different peoples." Exactly which faiths would not be covered by that disclaimer? No mention of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Wicca, or any other specific religion. Yes, if the school says "God created the earth in six days..." they are crossing the line into preaching a faith. Simply stating that people of various faiths believe in that is NOT the same thing.
Click to expand...
That is Social Studies or Comparative Religions, not science.

Now, where are those dresses? My ho's want new clothes!
 
mack_the_knife said:
We know it's disprovable how? Has it been disproved? Perhaps it, ultimately, is not. In common parlance, we do not speak of the 'theory of gravity' it has become fact through practice. We simply speak of gravity. Scientists often speak of Gravitational Theory, but they are no longer arguing over whether there is a force exerting pull from mass to mass, that part has become rote. However, how and why it works is still under conjecture.

To resort to ad-hominym attacks upon me, simply because I refuse to fall into lockstep, even on a theory I, myself ascribe to (IE I AM AN EVOLUTIONIST, TOO). You call me ignorant and mentally deficient, simply because I argue a viewpoint I don't even necessarily ascribe to.

I realize there is evidence to back up evolution, while there is none to back up anyone's creation theories. I recognize that it is scientifically provable, within the limits of modern science. But I also recognize that people of faith do not need that proof to fully believe in what they do and their voice should not be barred from the public forum of schools that they help pay for and send their children to, having their beliefs totally disregarded by the very institutions that claim to be there for their benefit.

Intelligent design, Cloudy, basically put would be "Many people believe that a higher power created or brought into being the earth and the life upon it. We can neither confirm nor deny the truth of this, but it is a strongly held belief by many different peoples." Exactly which faiths would not be covered by that disclaimer? No mention of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Wicca, or any other specific religion. Yes, if the school says "God created the earth in six days..." they are crossing the line into preaching a faith. Simply stating that people of various faiths believe in that is NOT the same thing.

I don't believe in intelligent design. I don't even believe in a God. Your God or anyone else's. I, personally, believe all peoples of religious faiths to be wrong. However, I am not hostile to them or their belief to the point of barring even the discussion and acknowledgement of those beliefs in the public venue.
Click to expand...

I support your right to be as ignorant as you choose. That simple.

When you start intentionally handicapping children, that's child abuse. Pure and simple. Making them less capable of critical thought so you can more easily manipulate them. It's bullshit of the highest order and it's so evil it should be a capital crime.

Evolution is disproveable. It is testable. And it has chanced and continues to change as conditions, examples and failures to explain phenomena force it to evolve. that's why it is a theory. ID isn't testable, It isn't disproveable. And it cannot change or adapt.

Saying something should be taught because people believe it is the most wretched example of intellectual laziness I have ever seen. People believe aliens landed at roswell. People believe UFO's are beaming messages into their brains. People believe the pyramids were built by the Antanteans. So fucking what?

School isn't a place to teach all the crap people believe, It's a venue to teach fact, theory methodology and critical thinking skills. to rob it of that function so a bunch of morons can say they have defeated evil atheism in the schools is a crock. To argue it weakens every other argument made for NOT removing religion from the public square. Because it basically proves you are dealing with ignorant zealots who want a theocracy. And now I'm cold furious.

So I'll let it drop.

It isn't worth hypertension.
 
Today's thread: How to open an elementary science textbook and turn to chapter 1.

Science isn't about beliefs. A bunch of scientists didn't go out and believe real hard that evolution works the way it does and then go "gosh, let's teach it to schools." A bunch of cynics with hard data said "x works this way, oh y works this way, how does x+y work? Okay that does z. Let me go back and test x-z. Hmm, how about with this new equipment and advances how does that change x-z, etc..."

Scientific theory is not conspiracy theory, same word, radically different meaning. If only people actually understood what science meant, this world would be better and not so filled with psuedo-science and science-destroyers. Translating in biology doesn't involve ink and paper. A theoretical mammalian lifeform is "alive" long before conception begins. And a theory doesn't mean Rufus thought it up on the shitter and posted it online.

It's a different world and we're not going to change terminology for the rest of the world. We refuse to compromise ourselves so you can wrap your heads around what we're doing. We are science and we are uncompromising fucks. But it is neccessary to even have a science at all and to keep having things like treatments for AIDS, rocket ships, and aeroplanes.
 
Stella_Omega said:
That is Social Studies or Comparative Religions, not science.

Now, where are those dresses? My ho's want new clothes!
Click to expand...
I can ascribe to that, I'm only saying that religions should be studied, alleviating ignorance of one another's beliefs, not shunned away. It doesn't have to be taught alongside science, though some of the theologians would probably like that. So long as differing schools of thought are explored and looked at at some point. Those thinking I believe we should take a semester out to teach intelligent design are mistaken, and growing quite hostile in the process, toward someone who doesn't care one whit about religion.

I suppose I grew bored enough to play devil's advocate today, and ruffled a few feathers.

I need to know what color you prefer, and do they need to cover the entirety of your backside, personally I prefer just a bit of lobe to be showing, like a dirty little tramp. Else a nice slit up the side up to the upper hem, either is good for access purposes.

About those heels, you didn't give a size, and I'm a lousy judge of foot size. Frilly blouses are too poofy for me, a nice silk string top with a bit of midriff would probably set off the pleather nicely, no? Silk is muy easy to smuggle in, too, as it can be made quite compact, frills not so much.

Not really into beating folk though. However a quick game of 'maglite paradise' could be fun.
 
Last edited:
mack_the_knife said:
I can ascribe to that, I'm only saying that religions should be studied, alleviating ignorance of one another's beliefs, not shunned away. It doesn't have to be taught alongside science, though some of the theologians would probably like that. So long as differing schools of thought are explored and looked at at some point. Those thinking I believe we should take a semester out to teach intelligent design are mistaken, and growing quite hostile in the process, toward someone who doesn't care one whit about religion.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, honey.
We can only assume you mean what you say, and what you said sounded very very much as if you were advocating teaching ID alongside science, regardless of your disclaimers.

This is the first time in this whole conversation that you've said anything remotely like "Differing schools of thought" or "Alleviating ignorance of other beliefs"
I suppose I grew bored enough to play devil's advocate today, and ruffled a few feathers.
Click to expand...
What a waste of time!
You should have come over to the Bon Bon thread, and gotten laid, you dummy!
I need to know what color you prefer, and do they need to cover the entirety of your backside, personally I prefer just a bit of lobe to be showing, like a dirty little tramp. Else a nice slit up the side up to the upper hem, either is good for access purposes.

About those heels, you didn't give a size, and I'm a lousy judge of foot size. Frilly blouses are too poofy for me, a nice silk string top with a bit of midriff would probably set off the pleather nicely, no? Silk is muy easy to smuggle in, too, as it can be made quite compact, frills not so much.
Click to expand...
Look for big sizes, nine and up. We don't care about color, we're happy to get whatever we can!
The girls are boys, you know- and they don't have much taste. Short is just fine with them! If you're getting for me too- Bon Bon likes to hammer you in the face with her sexiness.
We like poofy tops because none of us really have titties, you know. We are almost all of us, men, forced into the role by circumstance and making the best of it that we may...
Not really into beating folk though. However a quick game of 'maglite paradise' could be fun.
Click to expand...
Well, it's your choice, sugar, but you pay for my time anyway... :kiss:
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Conservative is not synonamous with bigoted. However, if you are a bigot, and you need an adjective, that one has become a favorite to hork. Along with Family values, family oriented or pro life.
Click to expand...
Just what I meant, Colly. There is valid conservatism, but look in that original quote, and it seems as if the term is used there as a synonism for 'bigoted".

Shame really: it does no good to either liberals or conservatives.
 
im so confused. :confused:
we went from a doll into politics.

i dred to think what conversation would occur if we started talking about cream corn
 
vella_ms said:
im so confused. :confused:
we went from a doll into politics.

i dred to think what conversation would occur if we started talking about cream corn
Click to expand...
Creamed corn!? Christ, you leftists and your creamed corns. Always trying to foist off your extremist food options on us who just want to be left the hell alone!

Oh. Yeah. Creamed corn is good, specially with a teaspoon of sugar.

Nevermind.
 
mack_the_knife said:
Creamed corn!? Christ, you leftists and your creamed corns. Always trying to foist off your extremist food options on us who just want to be left the hell alone!

Oh. Yeah. Creamed corn is good, specially with a teaspoon of sugar.

Nevermind.
Click to expand...
I like mine with Tobasco sauce :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Censoring Stories: Incorrect Perception It is Generated by AI (Big Brother is Alive & Well)
4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
2K
SmilingLez
SmilingLez
kingstephany39
Looking for a Writing Partner / Story Collaboration
Replies
6
Views
371
Voboy
Voboy
W
Question about cervix during sex
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
vanmyers86
vanmyers86
KittyOfSteele
[SOLVED] Is Literotica the Right Place for Me? (It is)
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
3K
spankmytentacle
spankmytentacle
ChloeTzang
"The Scent of Jasmine Tea - Tales from the Orient” - the 2026 Story Event Official Support Thread
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
3K
sijopunk
sijopunk
Back
Top