|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
He says he thinks there's some evidence. From memory, he says that it's not much, and not enough to stop him being an atheist. He doesn't see this in biology, but more in some things in cosmology. It's quite common in science for people to think there's some evidence that seems to support a hypothesis, but not enough to convince them that its true. So he's not really contradicting himself. Thank you very much! His biased source only quote mined — here is the complete paragraph;
quote: It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Because atheism and science exploration do the exact same thing, they assume one time dimension and three space dimensions, and that’s it. They fit all of reality into those two things, and that’s where the correlation is. Many philosophical questions, the endlessness of space, the existence of love / hate, many other things, logically suggest there could be more, much more, to all of reality. Science / atheists don’t simply work their way up to that possibility, they bypass it. Well, of course none of this is true, but whatever the real reason is, science does actually work. While scientists (or, as you apparently prefer to call them, science/atheists) have come up with stuff like electricity and antibiotics and the silicon chip, theologians have done nothing but come up with a thousand different gods and a thousand excuses for killing each other over the difference. If you are going to claim that science is inextricably bound up with atheism, then what I say is, let's have more atheism. Because apparently it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Nope, wrong again. Science is neutral on religion so it's hard to use it as a weapon against religion. Religion, on the other hand is used as a weapon against science by zealots. That's what Dover was about and its what these bills are about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
What we are asking for is peer reviewed scientific research papers, not books. You do understand the difference, don't you? How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take? ID has a few, but is deemed not enough by the scientific community. How many does the SETI Institute have? I’m sure it has some, but how many did it have when it won its court battle to become science? (uh-oh, maybe it didn't - Dr Adequate couldn't provide me with evidence of its existence) If the scientific community claims to have a criteria for something to become science, shouldn’t that criteria be precisely defined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes. Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct? Or do you consider that only his theistic arguments should be taught, the ones that he thinks aren't as good as his atheistic arguments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Nope, wrong again. Science is neutral on religion so it's hard to use it as a weapon against religion. Religion, on the other hand is used as a weapon against science by zealots. That's what Dover was about and its what these bills are about. The list of books that I provided you with in message #56 is clear proof that it can. You aren't worth any more of my time. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry if some religions can't stand up to the evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct? No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Once more, with feeling, as soon as you bring in reference to religion or God, belief in God, non-belief in God you immediately step outside of science and into religion and we all know that religion cannot be taught in a science class. Your idea represents an attack on science by religion. Let's turn it round and demand that evolution must be taught in Sunday School and churches and religious education classes. How would you feel about that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take? ID has a few, but is deemed not enough by the scientific community. How many does the SETI Institute have? I’m sure it has some, but how many did it have when it won its court battle to become science? (uh-oh, maybe it didn't - Dr Adequate couldn't provide me with evidence of its existence) I can't tell whether you're genuinely insane, or just an enormous troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves. That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
marc9000 writes: I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. You can't seriously believe that theories become science by winning court cases. Slow Friday night? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The list of books that I provided you with in message #56 is clear proof that it can. No, the existence of books written by atheists is not a proof that science can be used as a weapon against religion. However, let's suppose that what you say is true. Well, so much the worse for religion. If science really proves that religion is crap, then I'll go with science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You can't seriously believe that theories become science by winning court cases. When you look at all the other things he apparently believes, it is difficult to set a limit on how stupid he could potentially be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Science is controlled by people with a naturalistic worldview. It’s equivalent to religion. Its establishment in public education makes it in violation of the First Amendment. Sorry, no. Not even close. A naturalistic worldview is the opposite of religion. Religion relies on dogma, revelation, faith, belief and other similar non-empirical sources. Science relies on the scientific method, which requires that ideas be tested against real-world evidence. Ideas which do not measure up are discarded. This is the opposite of religion, in which apologetics is used to keep ideas alive in spite of evidence to the contrary.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024