|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
archaeologist writes:
Quite right, precious little of what the ICR (and other organisations like it) teaches is true.
our goal is to teach the truth, teach it correctly andprepare our youth for the spiritual war that they will face. sadly, that is not done and we have a weakened church because of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
archaeologist writes:
The constitution says otherwise. since the believer pays their fare share of taxes, they have the right to demand a non-secular education from their public school officials and from the public school teachers. Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong...again...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
It's pretty much the same over here, although I think we've got a higher percentage that identify themselves as atheists. Although, what you see mostly here is the woo belief of "there probably being something more". And that's about as far as it will ever e taken, which for all intents and purposes, to me at least, is atheism.
Our government also spends money on religious schools (catholic, protestant, islamic, for example), but they all have a curriculum they need to abide to. Which pretty much is the secular curriculum. Although, of course, you will be taught about the religion of the school you go to. I myself went to a catholic school (being from the south and all), but the only thing you would notice about this is that once a week a priest would come over to talk about the catholic faith an hour or so. I don't think anyone from my class is ever going to church these days (well, perhaps with Christmas, but that's a bout it). In summary, even though quite a few people will identify themselves as "believers" here, it's not the kind of belief people like archie will appreciate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well, creationists/IDists need to supply evidence for their assertions. So far, they haven't.
Now we are getting somewhere, lets see you explain what you have asserted, if the rules are the same. This should be fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
archaeologist writes:
Sorry Arcie, but asseting is all you have done since you came here, that is why you were temporarily suspended.
yet we have evidence and we do not make 'assertions;'. it is not our fault that secularists close their minds to what they do not want to hear.
Yes yes, we know by now that you hate us, please keep these comments out, they add nothing.
one piece of evidence is --- gravity.
Gravity is evidence for creation?
secular science cannot figure it out, cannot solve how it works, cannot provide any evidence for its origin and why it can keep people on earth while holding the moon in place.
Uhm, yes we can. Gravity is the warping of spacetime by mass. That is how it works, that is why it keeps people on earth while holding the moon in place.
(part of that comes from The Final Theory by McCutcheon, it is adapted to fit the paragraph}
Makes me think the rest of his book is worthless.
it is NOT that creationists do not present evidence IT IS that secularists DO NOT want to hear it.
No, no evidence has been provided, agani not in this post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Secularists have noting to do with it. The problem is that ICR state a priori that the bible is correct no matter what. That's not how science works. If evidence is found that contradicts earlier held beliefs, those beliefs need to be discarded or modified. This can't happen with ICR "science", therefore they're not doing science.
LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
hooah212002 writes:
Take an a priori assumption about something, distort the actual evidence, lie about stuff like other publications on the subject not existing, write a book, and commit purgery in a court.
Now, let's check some "ID science" What sort of experiment could you have me perform that is in accordance with "ID science"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
That would indeed make an interesting thread, I'll see if I can start one on it this evening. Unless you want to start one yourself, of course.
I didn't mean that to sound as though I didn't appreciate your response, Huntard (the first line sounds a bit rude now that I read it in thread). Sorry mate.
Your daddy raped you didn't he? Don't worry mate, if there's one thing about me, I am not easily offended, nor did I read your first line as such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Wasn't that Behe?
Perhaps the same way Dembski did --- by including astrology too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
archaeologist writes:
Well, then all science came from god, including evolution, since they all use that same "intelligence".
i really hate these type of arguments. not thatit is right but that theyignore the fact that those things came from the intelligence God gave man. science had nothing to do with it.
Of course it had, the scientific method was used in inventing all these things.
t also forgets that before modern secular science ancient people were practicing perfect dentistry, medicine, construction, and inventing technologies that were far advanced for their time.
Yes, using the scietific method.
science has nothing to do with it at all.
It had everything to do with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Since the argument can be made for anything to be designed, whether it shows order or not, you can't say that order points to desing since you can equally say chaos points to design.
We like to pick the possiblilty that requires the least assumptions. So, since there is no evidence of a designer, we omit him from our explanations as unnecessary. Until you have evidence of a designer, or the processes by which he designs, you have no valid reason for saying things are designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yes we have, it's called parsimony.
Until you have evidence, real evidence that these things are ordered of themselves and that design is not a very real possibility, you have no reason for asserting they are ordered of themselves. Back to square one.
For you? Yes.
This why both should be taught, because they are the only two scientific methods.
The first one is, the second one (by adding unnecessary things), isn't. It could all have been pooped out by a purple three horned hippo, this is because there is order. Should we teach this as well now?
I could not and will never be wrong on this point.
Well, you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
But that's what we're trying to tell you. There is no obvious obeservation of design. Literally anything can be said to be designed. Especially since you can't explain how or why it was designed. All you're doing is saying order=design. But I could equally validly say chaos=design.
No just the obvious observation of design. Your talking about specifics of who designed, I am talking strickly ABOUT DESIGN, by scientific observation.
But every observation can be said to support design. It is therefore not reasonable to use it. No matter what is observed, it can alays be said to be designed. Thereofore, unless there is some evidence of design, we use the less parsimonious explanation, which is the one that reequires no designer.
My method of evidential construction could not and is not wrong.
Yes it is, it violates parsimony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Of course it does, the fact that literally everything can be explained by design means design explains nothing, and adds nothing to an explanation. Meaning it should be left out.
This works for your purposes but not as evidence in an argument form and what is demonstratable, both by argument and physical evidence. Anything said of design can equally be said of the conclusions derived from evolution or atheism, but you consistently ignore that they both pit themselves agaisnt only two logical possibilites, neither of which is provable, but both are testable against the available physical evidence
Yes, and like I explained to you, in such a case science demands we pick the most parsimonious one. Which would exclude design.
Here is why. You have eliminated one very reasonable onclusion, because youdont like its conclusions, Yet it follows the same available evidence and rule of evidence to derive its conclusion
No, I have eliminated the conclusion because it violates parsimony, something science says we should do.
Design should be taught in the classroom, even if you decided otherwise.
Not as science it shouldn't. It violates one of the prime rules of science, parsimony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
jar writes:
Yes, Dawn did, but I think she was trying to quote Taq and did it wrong, or something. If you look at Taq's Message 409, you will see him using the exact phrase, and the first time Dawn uses it is in response to that post.
Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024