Some Favorite Sayings
Can you match the saying to it's originator?
"There is no such thing as common sense because the common man has no sense."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
"If you stand by the river long enough the bodies of your enemies will come floating by."
"I smoked, but I didn't inhale." (Okay, this one made the list because of how incredibly retarded it is.)
I will post the answers in the comments in 2 days.
"There is no such thing as common sense because the common man has no sense."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
"If you stand by the river long enough the bodies of your enemies will come floating by."
"I smoked, but I didn't inhale." (Okay, this one made the list because of how incredibly retarded it is.)
I will post the answers in the comments in 2 days.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
9:17 PM
28 Comments:
I know some of them (without looking them up):
1. Tom Paine?
2. Einstein
3. Ben Franklin
4. Sitting Bull?
5. slick Willie
By
Dan Trabue, at 5:15 AM
I can't answer this, cuz i've given up thinking for the week...i may try next..year....
By
Libby, at 8:19 AM
"There is no such thing as common sense because the common man has no sense."
I’m having trouble finding these exact words, but it sounds like a paraphrase of this:
“Common sense is not so common.” – Voltaire
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.” – Albert Einstein
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." – Benjamin Franklin
"If you stand by the river long enough the bodies of your enemies will come floating by."
This sounds like Sun Tzu, but I can’t find it in “The Art of War”.
“When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn’t inhale, and never tried it again.” – Bill Clinton
That some of your quotes are incomplete or inaccurate causes me to wonder whether you are making a point that many things taken as common knowledge are not, in fact, true. Is this the point you were trying to get across?
Here’s a recent quote for you. Where did this come from?
“ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.”
By
Anonymous, at 1:47 PM
Hmmm....
Jesse Jackson
John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Hill
Bill
Alright, I was just joking on all except the last! I really have no idea. :)
By
Rebekah, at 4:34 PM
“ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.”
I forget the name, but he is the Catholic Priest who testified in court about it.
I know what you're getting at, but as a Creationist I really don't see a whole lot of point to the ID theory. However, "Science of God", while not a book about ID, does make some compelling arguments that strongly favor that theory over creation. Yes, there VAST differences between ID and Creation. ID for example actually allows for Evolution, creation does not.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 12:01 AM
Well, it's 2 days. Here are the answers.
"There is no such thing as common sense because the common man has no sense." - Robert Heinlein
“Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Einstein, I forst learned this from a bookmark when I was 5 years old. I still have the bookmark.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." – Benjamin Franklin
"If you stand by the river long enough the bodies of your enemies will come floating by." - Sun Tzu, but I may have gotten a few words wrong. I am quoting from memory, not copying from the Art of War.
"I smoked, But I didn't inhale." - Bubba (Bill) Clinton, The quote that was splattered all over the media, his long explanation summarized to the core meaning.
Hey, at least I didn't go quoting any of Al Gore's greatest misspeaks. That would have been funny. Some Howard Dean Quotes would have been a blast too.
Looking for a greater meaning here? Sorry. I'm just having some fun before I get back to the eserious stuff.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 12:09 AM
“I forget the name, but he is the Catholic Priest who testified in court about it.”
I’m sorry, but no cigar. This was Judge Jones in his ruling on Kitzmiller vs Dover. He also had this to say.
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
“We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants’ conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test.”
“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.”
“The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause.”
So it would seem that the courts disagree with you about there being “VAST differences” between ID and Creationism. Once again, Creationism is banned from being taught in public schools.
Sorry I read more into your post than it warranted. I thought you may have been doing another one of those two-part posts.
By
Anonymous, at 4:39 AM
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Jimmyb?
By
Anonymous, at 5:25 AM
"Hey, at least I didn't go quoting any of Al Gore's greatest misspeaks. Or howard dean..."
Surely you don't want to go in to a comparison of the great misspeaks between Gore/Dean and W/Quayle/Reagan do you?
Pound for Ton, you'd lose out.
"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."
"This is an impressive crowd, the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."
Congrats, cjb, for edging me out. Of course! Sun Tzu...I should have thought of that.
What's he win, Dan'l?
By
Dan Trabue, at 5:29 AM
I got here too late, but I would have only gotten the Bill Clinton answer right anyway. I think anyone over 10 probably knows that one!
By
Gayle, at 6:11 AM
CJB,
I have exactly one sentence in response to what you have said:
Since when were lawyers , and all judges are lawyers, experts on science and scientific theory?
Consider that before you go citing them as some kind of experts in the evolution/creation/ID debate.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:17 AM
“I have exactly one sentence in response to what you have said:
Since when were lawyers , and all judges are lawyers, experts on science and scientific theory?”
That’s a rather weak response, Daniel. Of course judges are not experts on science and scientific theory. That’s why there are expert witnesses on both sides in cases involving evidence in a field in which the judge could not be expected to be an expert. The judge then makes a decision based on that evidence. Judges are experts on the law and on making decisions based on what the evidence shows; that is their job.
If you read the ruling (311 KB PDF), you will see that this judge makes a very clear and well reasoned argument (over the course of 139 pages) based on the evidence presented at trial. Now I grant you that the judge could not possibly have heard all the evidence supporting evolution during the course of this trial, but he has certainly heard all the evidence supporting creation.
However, this trial was not about the lack of evidence supporting creation; it was about the Government endorsing or disapproving of a religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. You cannot deny that creation is a religious argument. As such, the Government is prohibited from endorsing it in public schools.
By
Anonymous, at 12:00 PM
CJB,
Here's a quote of my own from a Cicuit appeals court judge. See if you can name him and when this was said.
"Evolution should not be taught in schools. It is bad science and is contrary to our Christian Values. We are a Christian nation."
There were expert witnesses on both sides of the aisle here too. Which judge is right if they always make such great decisions and are such authorities on the cases the rule on?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 1:25 PM
Evolution should not be taught in schools. It is bad science and is contrary to our Christian Values. We are a Christian nation.
I don’t know, Daniel, you’ve got me there. Are you sure this quote is accurate? I find it difficult to believe that a contemporary judge could be so benighted and biased, but I’m sad to say that there isn’t much that surprises me about the religious right anymore.
However, this is utterly irrelevant in the Dover case. It was about whether the teaching of ID or creation in public school science classes endorses a religion and violates the Establishment Clause. The ruling makes it clear that it does and hence it is prohibited.
By
Anonymous, at 2:21 PM
HINT: Think South.
Also, you should be aware that the way the establishment clause has been interpereted is false, and the new crop of judges is starting to say so. Here's a nifty tidbit of judiciary wisdom for you:
Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought "tiresome" arguments about the "wall of separation" between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a "reasonable person."
This same judge declared that "in no way does the Constitution demand a wall of speration between Church and State."
It's good to see sensible judges breaking away from the horrible mistakes of the past. I am hoping for a civil liberties breakout freeing religious expression everywhere similar to desegregationg the South in the Sixties. This is good.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 4:19 PM
I somked but I didn't inhale huh? It was Bill Clinton right?
By
Anonymous, at 5:04 PM
HINT: Think South.
No, sorry, all I can think of is that idiot, Roy Moore, who was removed from office for claiming he followed God’s law. He is so profoundly ignorant that he denies that any evidence for evolution exists.
By
Anonymous, at 7:35 PM
Way off dude. Anyway, he was a state supreme court judge. This was a circuit appeals court judge. It's part of the official legal record since it was part of his ruling that banned the teaching of evolution.
Does that bring you any closer?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 3:54 AM
It's part of the official legal record since it was part of his ruling that banned the teaching of evolution.
I give in. As I stated before, I find it difficult to believe that a contemporary judge could be so benighted and biased so I can only assume from this and your previous quote that this is not a contemporary judge.
As far as I know, the creationists have lost every court case since Epperson v Arkansas in 1968.
By
Anonymous, at 4:49 AM
Ah! Now you're thinking! This quote is historical legal precedent, a thing that seperation of church and staters like to use, but only so far as it supports them and their ideas. It is commonly ignored that prior to the 1960's the court system was so freindly to religion that the Supreme court itself declared the US to be Christian Nation on no less than ten occasions, many of these occasions occured during the 20th century.
I brought this up to prove a point to you. That point is that judges have one constitutional role in this country, to interperet the law as it is iwritten, and to evauluate it in light of the Constitution. When Judges start reaching beyond this role thay start monkeying around with things that they have no moral or legal authority over, and frequently issue piss-poor rulings. Any ruling from a judge saying what can and cannot be taught in schools is a prime example of a piss-poor decision. That is the job of elected officials, taht way the people can elect new representatives if they don't like the direction their schools are going, as happened recently in Pennsylvania. That is how the system is designed to work, and it is how it SHOULD work.
Just for your information, I am not in favor of banning evolution from the schools system any more than I am for banning either Intelligent Design or Creation. All have something that makes them important to know about, and teaching them all allows student to wiegh the evidence themeselves and choose what they think is right. By banning any one you stifle learning and deny students the fully rounded education they and their families are paying for.
The frantic legal defenses mounted by opponents of teaching ANYTHING speak far more about the fears and personal biases of the ones who are suing than they do about the quality of education. The decisions handed by the judges, more often tha not, are based as much if not more on the judge's personal views and beliefs than on the evidence in situations like this. That is why I do not care what a judge says about anything that is not the interperetation of the law and administering justice. Any well-informed person knows that the legal is filled with contradictions, and more contradictions ocur every day, sometime these contradictions contradict past conradictions, whic themselves contradict something else. These silly legal battles over stuff that is not the law are more of a burden that\n a blessing on our society, abd ultimately do nothing.
And don't forget that Intelligent Design, ane even Creation has won in court as well in very recent cases, under the condition that they are taught only as alternative thoeries to evolution. Goodness, with all of the crowing of EVolution proponents lately you would think thtat ID and Creaton haven't ever been upheld in the last 10 years.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 11:29 AM
I’m well aware that the Butler act wasn’t repealed until 1967. However, this shows that attitudes change as we gain more knowledge and is why I mentioned in the comments on a previous post that you cannot take a centuries old document as the last word on a subject. The courts interpret the law in the light of contemporary knowledge and attitudes, which is why their rulings on creation versus evolution have changed over time. It may be that in the future America becomes a theocracy and the courts will change their interpretation again, but we aren’t there yet.
The Establishment Clause states, in essence, that the Government should remain neutral on the question of religion. It should neither endorse nor disapprove of any particular religion or religion in general. In fact, the Government should have nothing to say about religion at all. I’m sure you would be in favour of the Establishment Clause if the Government chose to place stickers in Bibles that said, “The stories contained herein are not supported by evidence and should be approached with a critical mind.” I think you would support a Supreme Court case to have the stickers removed and the ACLU would back you on that.
ID and creation are religious ideas and this is why it is illegal to teach them in public schools. It is illegal in public schools because that implies an endorsement by the Government. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal to teach these things in private schools that do not receive Government support.
I am not in favor of banning evolution from the schools system any more than I am for banning either Intelligent Design or Creation. All have something that makes them important to know about, and teaching them all allows student to wiegh the evidence themeselves and choose what they think is right. By banning any one you stifle learning and deny students the fully rounded education they and their families are paying for.
However, this is where you are wrong, not from a legal standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint. You do the students a disservice by teaching them something that is not true. Should we teach them the creation myths from all religions and expect them to choose whichever they think is correct? Doing so only reduces the time they have to learn about evolution, the only explanation actually supported by evidence. Should we also teach geocentrism in astronomy or Young Earth Creationism in geology? Equal time should not be given to propositions that are not equally valid. You should teach students the facts. If their parents want to poison their minds with drivel outside school, then no one can stop them, but in science classes they should learn science.
And don't forget that Intelligent Design, ane even Creation has won in court as well in very recent cases, under the condition that they are taught only as alternative thoeries to evolution.
Really? Cite some cases, please.
By
Anonymous, at 3:51 PM
CJB, can you name the former Atheist who coned this phrase?
"You cannot be intellectually honest and Not believe in God."
I'll give you a hint, he is very famous, and very British. He is also someone who desperatly wanted there to be no God, but, after weighing science critically, decided there was no alternative to the God of the Bible.
There is nothing about looking critically at the Bible that destroys it. If that were possible the Bibloe would have been dicreditied sometime in the last 1600 years of intensive scrutiny and attempts at debunking. Indeed, no othe rdocument has faced such fierce scrutiny and remained credible. In fact, no other document has recieved such intense scrutiny period. Do you ever wonder why that is?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 8:39 PM
CJB, can you name the former Atheist who coned this phrase?
No, I can’t. What’s your point? Someone’s personal opinion is worthless as evidence. Cite some cases, please.
Indeed, no othe rdocument has faced such fierce scrutiny and remained credible.
Are you kidding? Where do you get such silly notions? The Bible is riddled with contradictions and absurdities. It isn’t even consistent within itself, let alone jibing with reality. It is difficult to think of a book that has been more thoroughly discredited than the Bible.
By
Anonymous, at 10:34 PM
The man is C.S. Lewis. Who was rather prominent man in science and philosophy before and after he became a Christian. His work regarding how all of science points to God is a fascinating read, though it it highly philosophical. More modern scientists have used the best science to expand on this idea ad have done so very compellingly. I will be addressiing this in Dismemebrring Evolution,. Which reminds me, I haven't been doing nearly the amount of reading I need to in order to finish my research and get that series written. I gotta make some time.
As for your assertions about absurdities and contradictions, you can say that what is recorded is absurd if you want to, but that is only an opinion and not fact. The contradictions are not Biblical, but the manmade interperetations of those verses that create the conflict. As one who knows the Bible thoroughly I can say with autority that it most certainly does NOT contradict itself in ANY way. You are not the first, no will you be the last to assert that the Bible contradicts itself, the problem with your assertion is tat it has been proven to be ignorant and dishonest repeatedly for nearly 2,000 years, and every argument you can present to support your assertion has already been debunked at some point. Once again, you are displaying ignorance rather than actual careful study. I suggest you read up on the rebuttals to your assertons, and i suggest you stick to th egreat Christian minds rather than the laymen when you do. See if you still believe what you have said when you are done.
I suggest C.S. Lewis and R.C. Sprohl for starters. Then maybe a little Newton before you dig into actual priests and pastors. Then, if you REALLY want to dig deep, and are willing to focus only on the Old Testament, I suggest you study Kabballah. Education: it's a very good thing.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:41 AM
Daniel,
Philosophical musings and opinions count for nothing in determining the truth of a matter, whether from scientists such as Darwin, Einstein and Newton or storytellers such as C.S. Lewis. I see you are persistently ignoring my request for a citation of recent court cases where creationists have won. And I’m not surprised that you deny the existence of contradictions in the Bible so let’s leave this discussion for now.
I hope your reading for your Dismembering Evolution series has included the web sites I mentioned.
By
Anonymous, at 2:39 PM
CJB,
For a full accounting of where the teching of Intelligent Design and even Creation in schools alongside with evolution please refer to the archives at The American Center for Law and Jsutice a www.aclj.org or you can check out the Christian Law Association at www.Christianlaw.org . You can also check with the Center for Creation Studies. Any of these resources will provide you with all of the examples you could ever need. While you checking out the ACLJ I suggest you readup the latest Ten Commandments display decision in the Sixth(?) Circuit Court of Appeals. It's right there on the front page right now. The presiding Judge in that case has basically declared Seperation of Church and State to be an invalid legal argument. This is within the last week. How's that for contemporary for you?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 4:25 AM
Daniel: And don't forget that Intelligent Design, ane even Creation has won in court as well in very recent cases, under the condition that they are taught only as alternative thoeries to evolution. Goodness, with all of the crowing of EVolution proponents lately you would think thtat ID and Creaton haven't ever been upheld in the last 10 years.
I asked you to cite some cases and you pointed me to the ACLJ and ChristianLaw.org. Neither of these sites mentions any court cases where creationists or ID proponents have won a case in recent times. The ACLJ has cases going back to 1987, but all I see is cases about Bible studies, prayers, the Ten Commandments and the Pledge. Can you cite some court cases that support your first sentence above or was your statement above a misrepresentation of the truth.
By
Anonymous, at 2:51 PM
CJB,
I shall have to do some research to dig up the cases I am referring to in the 1990's. This will take contacting the Center for Creation Studies if the organizations I referred you to have taken this information off of their websites. Rather than post it here I will post it as an article later.
Did you see the articles about the Ten Commandment displays?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 4:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home