Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 76 of 283 (648934)
01-19-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
01-19-2012 12:14 PM


Re: No real contradiction
C.S. writes:
What if you don't know what you believe?
That's called a "Catholic Scientist".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2012 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2012 12:55 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 283 (648941)
01-19-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
01-19-2012 12:24 PM


Re: No real contradiction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:24 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 283 (648951)
01-19-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Theodoric
01-19-2012 11:48 AM


Re: No real contradiction
Evidence can exist for positions that are absolutely wrong. For example , I am thinking of a number between 1 and one million. The fact the number is even and divisible by three is some evidence that the number is 12. But of course the number I'm thinking of is actually 491,946.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2012 11:48 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 79 of 283 (648956)
01-19-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by marc9000
01-17-2012 8:00 PM


"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts.
If you read the court transcripts from the Dover trial you will see that it was the evidence that was the most effective tool for the scientific community. The evidence was so overwhelming that even ID "luminaries" like Dembski refused to testify so that they could avoid cross examination.
Your only response to a very obvious lack of scientific production on the part of ID proponents is to accuse others of being arrogant. How sad. You have once again shown how empty the ID movement really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 8:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 80 of 283 (648961)
01-19-2012 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:31 PM


You immediately group all ID proponents in with religious fanatics, . . .
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."--The Wedge Strategy, founding document for the Discovery Institute.
Good books have been written about it by Behe and Dembski.
Good books have been written about humans fighting aliens in a struggle for galactic dominance. What we are asking for is peer reviewed scientific research papers, not books. You do understand the difference, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:31 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:47 PM Taq has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 81 of 283 (649123)
01-20-2012 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2012 9:50 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
marc9000 writes:
It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science.
That was ... bizarre.
I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. Could you reference it for me please? I’d like to see that one, the one when the PAH World Hypothesis became science, and I’d like to see the one for the SETI institute also. It would be interesting to see the credentials and backgrounds of the judges and lawyers in those three cases, and compare them to those from the Dover case. It would be even more interesting to know the dates when they occurred, and most of all, it would be interesting to know just how many peer-reviewed papers they submitted to succeed in their victories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2012 9:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 8:23 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 01-20-2012 9:06 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 156 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 283 (649124)
01-20-2012 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:20 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. Could you reference it for me please? I’d like to see that one, the one when the PAH World Hypothesis became science, and I’d like to see the one for the SETI institute also. It would be interesting to see the credentials and backgrounds of the judges and lawyers in those three cases, and compare them to those from the Dover case. It would be even more interesting to know the dates when they occurred, and most of all, it would be interesting to know just how many peer-reviewed papers they submitted to succeed in their victories.
That was bizarrer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 83 of 283 (649125)
01-20-2012 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
01-18-2012 10:08 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
That was a straightforward complement, Marc, not sarcasm or whatever you thought it was. Your message was very helpful in giving us a clear understanding of how you view things.
I thought maybe there was a chance you were sincere, but I couldn’t be sure, especially with all the green dots you got. I do appreciate it.
Many of your arguments seem based upon irrational fears, but you did cite some accurate supporting facts. The NAS is dominated by atheists and agnostics, but there are only around 1600 of them in a total population of scientists in the US of around 300,000. I'm sure their influence is disproportionate to their numbers, but none of the evidence or rationale for evolution is based upon atheism. No scientific textbooks or courses or papers on evolution touch on either religion or atheism. Scientists concerned about science education are in favor of keeping both out of science class.
Here’s the exact Steven Weinberg quote;
quote:
I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.
Do you believe he was talking about weakening the hold of religion within scientific studies, or within society as a whole? The way it’s phrased tells me, and many others in the general population, that he was referring to society as a whole. That's where my fear is, and considering the fact that the world has never had a free, successful atheistic society, I don't think the fear is irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 01-18-2012 10:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 8:32 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 01-20-2012 9:29 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 84 of 283 (649126)
01-20-2012 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
01-19-2012 2:14 AM


Re: That didn't take long!
So, what relationship are you suggesting? Is it that being good at science makes one atheistic and liberal, or does being atheistic and liberal make one good at science, or what? Why is it that the people with the best grasp of how the universe works overwhelmingly don't see the hand of a creator in it? Is it because they're smarter than theists, or just better informed, or what? And is there some reason why theists and conservatives are bad at grasping reality --- or is it the other way round, and only people with a poor grasp on reality join the religious right?
They are your figures, so let's hear your explanation. Why is there a correlation between scientific excellence and atheism?
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. For example, if there’s more than one time dimension or more than three space dimensions science’s proclamation of millions of years concerning the formation of the universe or the evolution of man wouldn’t necessarily supplement what they don’t understand about all of reality, it could be wrong, or misleading, about actual reality.
Christians believe that God is beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions. Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2012 2:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2012 8:34 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-20-2012 8:39 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 01-20-2012 9:37 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 283 (649127)
01-20-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:25 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Do you believe he was talking about weakening the hold of religion within scientific studies, or within society as a whole? The way it’s phrased tells me, and many others in the general population, that he was referring to society as a whole. That's where my fear is, and considering the fact that the world has never had a free, successful atheistic society, I don't think the fear is irrational.
The world has plenty of 'em, though that's by-the-by.
Now, perhaps you could get back to being wrong about events in Missouri.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:25 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 86 of 283 (649128)
01-20-2012 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:30 PM


New subtitle
Christians believe that God is beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions. Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out.
Could the reason that science does not consider deities be that there is no evidence for them?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 87 of 283 (649129)
01-20-2012 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
01-19-2012 1:59 AM


Re: That didn't take long!
The situation is simple. Science is in conflict with your religion. Therefore you demand special privileges for your religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution and good education. And you wonder why people oppose you ?
Not that simple. 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.
There was no atheist organization in the U.S. founders time. They couldn’t see organized atheism as a worldview complete with all the closed mindedness, rituals, and desire to dominate people who don’t share their faith as religion sometimes can. A worship of the earth (environmentalism, global warming etc) and a strong faith in big government is a big part of their rituals and domination.
By the way, these forums aren't "people". They actually represent a very small minority of people in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2012 1:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2012 9:10 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 9:34 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2012 3:22 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 127 by Trixie, posted 01-21-2012 5:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 88 of 283 (649130)
01-20-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Pressie
01-19-2012 4:10 AM


Re: That didn't take long!
Sorry marc9000, if I disrupt this thread, but this is the second time I noticed something like this about the Democrats. Is there anything wrong or is it illegal to vote for the Democrats? Is it anti-American to vote for the Democrats? Don't around 50% of Americans normally vote Democrat? What is your problem with people voting for them?
$15 Trillion in debt it the main reason.
From past experiences and the reading of forum rules here, anything but a quick mention of this would be off topic. So that’s about all I have to say about it, except;
As I understand it, the Democrats in a lot of the Southern states are more conservative than the Republicans from New England, for example.
Your understanding is about 4 decades out of date. It used to be that way, but not anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2012 4:10 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Theodoric, posted 01-21-2012 10:05 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 283 (649131)
01-20-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:30 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out.
Nonsense, all it says is that God cannot be studied by science.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 90 of 283 (649132)
01-20-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Trixie
01-19-2012 4:39 AM


Re: An aside
Can you demonstrate the political process that mathematics, geography, home economics, English literature, languages, history or any other subject goes through that you think should also apply to science? Or is the case more that you want to put constraints on science that don't apply to the aforementioned subjects?
Those subjects aren’t used as weapons against religion. Science is used as a weapon against religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Trixie, posted 01-19-2012 4:39 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Trixie, posted 01-20-2012 8:45 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 97 by jar, posted 01-20-2012 8:50 PM marc9000 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