Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 464 of 609 (611624)
04-09-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Dawn Bertot
04-09-2011 9:42 AM


Since I clearly believe that creationism and ID are the samething and can provide more than valid reasons why they (it) should be taught in the classroom, prehaps you would like to demonstrate why I might (in your opinion) be making things up or lying
Wait, you're Robert Byers?
That explains the illiteracy and mental confusion.
I say the law is shortsighted and inaccurate. Perhaps you would like to take up the opposite postion to demonstrate otherwise.
I have done so.
My guess is that you are to afraid
You guess that I am "to afraid" to do what I have in fact been doing?
Well, I guess that that's consistent with what we know of your powers of reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2011 9:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2011 4:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 467 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2011 5:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 472 of 609 (611672)
04-09-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Dawn Bertot
04-09-2011 4:47 PM


It has already been explained to you --- several times, and by myself amongst others --- why your particular brand of illiterate gibberish is worthless.
I dare say you didn't understand it, but then I'm not a miracle worker: I cannot make the lame walk, the blind see, or the stupid think.
If you still wish to understand this explanation (and I see no evidence that you have ever wished to understand anything) then I suggest that you re-read the threads in which your stupid blunders were pointed out to you, rather than spamming this thread with the same old crap.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2011 4:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2011 8:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 477 of 609 (611681)
04-09-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Dawn Bertot
04-09-2011 8:22 PM


How can a member spam a thread that is on topic?
The topic is actually "Creationism is science classrooms" not "The same old dreary nonsense Dawn's spewed out to no purpose on innumerable threads already".
I tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides.
No you won't.
You won't understand it.
You are an arrogant one, I sware
Thinking that I know better than you is not arrogance, it's basic self-respect, on a par with thinking that I'm more moral than Hitler and better looking than the Elephant Man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2011 8:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-10-2011 3:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 482 of 609 (611699)
04-10-2011 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Dawn Bertot
04-10-2011 3:14 AM


Your drivel is still not on topic. This is not to say that it's not amusing, but if you want me to mock you at any length you should probably take it to another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-10-2011 3:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-10-2011 3:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 485 of 609 (611702)
04-10-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Dawn Bertot
04-10-2011 3:47 AM


You really dont know how to respond to this argument do you?
You are, of course, wrong. To the extent that there is an argument buried in your sordid mess of whining, hysteria, and gibberish, I have already pointed out its gross defects on another thread.
On this thread I shall therefore content myself with pointing out that although it would be stupid to introduce creationism into science classrooms, it does not follow that every stupid thing you post is on topic merely by consequence of being stupid. It would have to be stupid and about creationism in science classrooms.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-10-2011 3:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-10-2011 7:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 499 of 609 (611778)
04-10-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by Dawn Bertot
04-10-2011 7:46 PM


When and if you ever understand what the words creationism, ID and scientific mehtod, really are, then you will begin to understand that not only should creationism be taught, but you will begin to understand that it invloves nothing more than an examination of the physical world by a means of observation and evaluation to a valid or invalid conclusion
I've seen creationism and ID. What they actually involve is bullshitting.
the war will continue to rage because people simply cant understand that both sides are IN FACT using the same approach.
No ... the scientific approach involves less bullshitting. And more, what's the word? ... science.
If they actually used the same approach to the same facts, they'd come to the same conclusion. The fact that they don't shows that they don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-10-2011 7:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 506 of 609 (611910)
04-12-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 2:50 AM


The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that.
To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false.
Why yes. Just as by use of maps based on a spherical earth rather than a flat one the state (at least tacitly) expresses an official opinion on the religious doctrines of flat-Earth sects.
And the state has every right to do this, as the law affirms. Because there is a secular purpose in the state so doing.
How many times do you need this explaining to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:50 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 507 of 609 (611911)
04-12-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 3:36 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.
So breaking the very law it uses to censor creationism.
No. For reasons which have been explained to you a jillion times.
It may break the stupid law that you've made up in your head, but it does not break the real law which actually exists.
How many fucking times do you need this explaining to you?
The state is making a opinion on God and Genesis conclusions about origins.
The state has a opinion on religious truth.
This is illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state.
Why is my reasoning wrong?????
Because this is not in fact illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state.
Because separation, repeat separation, of church and state does not mean that the state should grovel before the doctrines of every and any church.
Separation, repeat separation, of church and state means that the state should carry on unaffected by such doctrines. If there were no churches, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said that the Earth was flat, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said the Earth was tetrahedral, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said the Earth was round, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every mosque said that the Earth was round, and every church said that it was flat, the state would still teach that the Earth was round, and this would not constitute undue partiality towards Islam, because the state would teach that the Earth was round anyway, no matter whatever various religious groups choose to say.
That is separation, repeat separation, of church and state. If, on the other hand, one church or all churches by teaching that the world was flat could thereby compel the Navy to throw away their charts and the schools to throw away their globes, that would be entanglement of church and state.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 3:36 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 528 of 609 (612057)
04-12-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
frako, Im not defending creo and ID to see if they pass the present day method and explanation of what constitues science.
Which is why creationism has failed.
Thanks for playing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 548 of 609 (612151)
04-13-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 9:40 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
More accurately I have stated that any examination of the human mind is science, that "scientists" have confused what science is ...
Here's a thought. Maybe it isn't scientists who are confused about what science is. Maybe it's you, the non-scientist who has never done any science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 596 of 609 (612466)
04-15-2011 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:19 AM


i'm saying they are breaking the very law they invoke for the censorship!
And this lie does not become truer the oftener you tell it.
You have had the law explained to you. You know what the law actually is. Your lies on this subject cannot even be fooling you yourself any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:19 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024