Changes

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:Obviously, Rootpilots6 does not know the history behind Pastafarianism because it ''was'' created as a mock religion to protest the actual allowing of

:Obviously, Rootpilots6 does not know the history behind Pastafarianism because it ''was'' created as a mock religion to protest the actual allowing of creationism to be taught in shools. Yes, they did do that.

creationism to be taught in shools. Yes, they did do that.

:Contrary to your belief, the creator of Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the Kansas State Board of Education. With their descision continue to allow the teaching of Creationism, The creator of Pastafarianism proposed that the theory according to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be taught in schools to as a ''satire''. Satires are certainly not childish.

:Contrary to your belief, the creator of Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the Kansas State Board of Education. With their descision

continue to allow the teaching of Creationism, The creator of Pastafarianism proposed that the theory according to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti

Monster should be taught in schools to as a ''satire''. Satires are certainly not childish.

:Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why would they only introduce the ''Christian'' theory. That's Christian spin. None of these other theories are based on scientific method except for Evolution which is why it is inane to introduce a massive amount of theological theories into the classroom that have no scientific merit whatsoever.

:Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why would they only introduce the ''Christian'' theory. That's Christian spin. None of these other theories are based on scientific method except for Evolution which is why it is inane to introduce a massive amount of theological theories into the classroom that have no scientific merit whatsoever.

:Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't actually study any science that would have contradicted the Bible. However, this changed with

:Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't actually study any science that would have contradicted the Bible. However, this changed with Charles Darwin. He never doubted the Bible as being literal until his studies based on scientific method contradicted the Bible. Nor did science only arise because of a Christian creationist point of view. In fact, the most contributing era to science was the classical antiquity period which was before Christianity arose.

Charles Darwin. He never doubted the Bible as being literal until his studies based on scientific method contradicted the Bible. Nor did science only arise because of a Christian creationist point of view. In fact, the most contributing era to science was the classical antiquity period which was before Christianity arose.

:And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised countries teach only evolution in their schools.

:And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised countries teach only evolution in their schools.

:Now if we don't have to teach any theories based on Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why should we have to teach theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity which doesn't follow scientific method either?

:Now if we don't have to teach any theories based on Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why should we have to teach theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity which doesn't follow scientific method either?

:Yes, it would be biased to only include the Christian God's theory. Please explain to me why the other deities are of less significance. At the moment, the naturalist theory is looked at because it is the only one of all of them that is based on ''scientific method''. Now that is definitely fair.

:Yes, it would be biased to only include the Christian God's theory. Please explain to me why the other deities are of less significance. At the moment, the naturalist theory is looked at because it is the only one of all of them that is based on ''scientific method''. Now that is definitely fair.

:Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is the promotion of a theory that is not based on scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are

:Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is the promotion of a theory that is not based on scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are actually promoting Evolution which is based on scientific method.

actually promoting Evolution which is based on scientific method.

:It does actually make sense that religion has been used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows it.

:It does actually make sense that religion has been used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows it.

:Now you missed something here... Christians are trying to impose their ''pseudoscientific'' views onto the classroom while atheists are trying to impose

:Now you missed something here... Christians are trying to impose their ''pseudoscientific'' views onto the classroom while atheists are trying to impose their ''scientific'' views on the classroom.

their ''scientific'' views on the classroom.

:Your argument is ironically the one that is one-sided: Christian biased sided. However, I will admit that I am biased to science. [[User:Wolverhampton|Wolverhampton]] 19:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:Your argument is ironically the one that is one-sided: Christian biased sided. However, I will admit that I am biased to science. [[User:Wolverhampton|Wolverhampton]] 19:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::When user Coventry returns, this time not as socks Alsace and Wolverhampton, he's going to put his money where his mouth is.  He's going to prove an example of evolution by using the scientific method only, and this example is the so-called evolution of the horse.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::When user Coventry returns, this time not as socks Alsace and Wolverhampton, he's going to put his money where his mouth is.  He's going to prove an example of evolution by using the scientific method only, and this example is the so-called evolution of the horse.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)