Congrats, is wild that several of us said back in the early 90's that once they got the right coach and a solid kids program this program could have a dynasty. Now if that happens only time will tell. I believe their first state medal was in 89 to Geoooof Alderman. How times have changed.

There is only one wrestling dynasty in kansas sta has awhile to match up with that i beleive 10 more years.

Hey , BC will be there. You will have to go through BC.
Looking forward to the rematch.

First of all, evolution does not say that there is no god. Evolution is not a religion; it does not require faith because it is testable.

To suggest that evolution is the antithesis of religion is irresponsible. Dr. Greg Graffin of Cornell headed a study to determine the degree to which the world's leading evolutionary biologists believe in traditional religion, naturalism, and the philosophical implications of their science titled "Evolution, Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist World View" concluded that there is "...no conflict between evolutionary theory and religion..."



Anywho, I'd like to congratulate STA on a championship.

I'm from Hutch, and I had the pleasure of watching their team really develop from 2000 to 2004, it's no wonder they're where they are now.

How can you say it is not anti religion? It says that we developed from single celled organisms from the ocean. Uhh that pretty well sounds like they are saying there is not such thing as God. I could care less if they teach evolution I just think they need to teach some sort of creationism in there to. It is unconstitutional to teach one side of it and not the other. I would be just as apposed if they were to teach only creationism and not evolution.

Evolution does not promote nor denounce the existence of an all powerful god and therefor, does not infringe on the separation of church and state.

Evolution is not anti-religion because it has nothing to do with religion. Evolution is science. The Bible is religion. The purpose of science is to determine the mechanisms by which the universe operates - of which evolution is one. The purpose of religion is to determine the meaning the universe - its purpose for existence. Knowing that mankind evolved from apes does not give us any answers as to why we are here, it just informs us as to how we got here.

Evolution means that things change over time. Yep. I agree. Things change over time. But, how did the things get here in the first place? This is where orgins come into play. This is also where religion comes into play. Some people make a religion of evolution by trying to have it account for something that it can't - namely orgins. To believe in evolution in regards to orgins requires FAITH (and therefore, it is a religion) because it is not testable. So, evolution can be a religion - it just depends on one's understand of evolution as it relates to orgins (how did all things get here in the first place vs. the simple and proveable fact that things change over time).

Dwelsh you got it.
But what is sad is if you think about all the lives taken away in the (religion relm) it might suggest that the idea of putting one side against another could be looked at with a more open view of the controversy associated with religion.

Spirituality is cool. Religion sucks.

I could bore all with defining my terms, but i'll pass!

However, standard disclaimer for me - Jesus Christ is my Lord and died for my sins.

Doing some research on your own will show that there are scads of hypotheses and theories in the evolutionary community as to the origin of life.

Here are some keywords to look up:
Abiogenesis
Panspermia
Astrobiology
Exobiology
Clay Theory

Of course, these hypotheses all have some criticism, but that's why they're hypotheses.

Methinks this is a discussion for the "other" section of this forum.

None of the above are proveable, therefore, at this point - they take faith. They are not science, at this point.

But agreed, this belongs in the 'other' section. I'm pretty much done with it anyway.

how many lives have been taken in the name of religion
Now tell me where the devil lives,

You know Smokey Cabin is to blame for that team effort as much as any body.

At least no rumors of Dui's this year.

sounds like a discussion more appropriate for the other board. The evolution discussion that is.

lol, evolution isn't anti-religion (many pro evolutionists are devout) it is just an explanation for how we became what we are. Gvnt support of private schools is a bs idea in its self. Private schools don't have to follow basic regulations set by the federal gvnt, thus they aren't public and don't deserve funding.

Although evolution isn't anit-religion, I would have to disagree that Private schools don't have to folow the same regulations. At STA all students have to take the Kansas Asessment as Juniors in order to certify that the education recieved is adequate according to the standards of both the state and federal GOVERNMENT.

Otherwise, a high school diploma recieved from a private institution would be worthless outside of the private institution, The same goes for home-schooled students. Although they are being home-schooled, there are still tests the kids must pass in order to verify they are recieving a proper education. If that weren't the case we could be learning the proper techniques of spitting a spitball at Aquinas and have the same diploma paper as anywhere else, and no one would know any better.

I hope that makes sense.

Facts (science) are the only LOGICAL evidence that explain our existence, some believe. Archeology proves evolution, so does basic biology, it is foolish to believe otherwise, some believe. Tens of thousands of scientists can prove mathematically or otherwise that our existence not only a product of evolution, but also that matter (everything, including us) has always existed (big bang theory), believing other seems naive to the mechanical mind.

If someone chooses to believe a book that has only the credibility of the paper it's written on, asinine. Analytical/Methodical people follow a credible source, science, no matter how religious they are, to help understand nature and the interactions that go on within.

The difference in people is in origin, where we originated from. Evolution explains how we "advanced" from subspecies, not how our material came to exist. Some believe that out matter came from a deity, others believe that our matter always existed (BB theory). One choice always seems more logical than the other, whether the person is rational to begin with is a completely different argument.

Well said Mr. Hurla.

Yes, they have to be accredited by the state to have validity. But to say that the only regulations the state are state testing isn't true. Besides Lemon vs. Kurtzman said the state or federal gvnt. cannot help finance parochial or otherwise religiously connected schools. It's worthless to argue something that's impossible for a school to obtain.

That is corrext, Smyll. I was not arguing that the government should fund private schools, I just wnateed to make it clear that private high schools, at least in Kansas, do have to adhere to the minimum regulations for education set by the government.

It is true that, as of now, it is against court precedent for the government to fund private high schools.

And the case you are refering to (Lemon v Kurtzman) has beeen clarified in other U.S. Supreme Court rulings since 1971 to allow for some Student aid to those enrolled in parochial schools, commonly in the form of a voucher.
This is from an article in the Cincinatti business Courier:

"The U.S. Supreme Court's new understanding distinguishes "student aid" from "aid to religious schools." Public aid to students at parochial schools is constitutional, Justice O'Connor explained, "where the aid is allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis."

These criteria confirm that the Constitution's First Amendment religion clause does not compel the exclusion of religious groups from government benefits programs "generally available to a broad class of participants."
You can find this article at http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/1998/08/31/editorial2.html

So perhaps the argument isn't worthless?