Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 4:49 PM
423 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,205 Year: 6,811/21,208 Month: 2,572/2,634 Week: 235/525 Day: 68/82 Hour: 17/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
36373839
40
41Next
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Son
Member (Idle past 1184 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 586 of 609 (612391)
04-15-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:14 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
How is preventing schools from teaching 2+2=4 makes an intelligent populace. That's not searching for truth, that's hiding it. Remember, all you've argued was that we can't teach anything that runs counter to any religion at all, given that there are thousands of religion, we can't teach anything at all regardless of truth (that's according to you anyway).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 587 of 609 (612394)
04-15-2011 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:27 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion (and Religion Doesn't Matter)
if religious matters didn't matter in the classroom then the state would not teach them as being false or ban them

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Have you ever even read the amendment of the Constitution that applies to the separation of church and state?

The claim is that the church and state must not interfere with each other.

No; that is not the claim. Have you even skimmed the amendment of the Constitution that applies to the separation of church and state?

you can't beat the logic here.

LOL. If only there were logic to beat.

Reply to Message 585:

My great insistence is that the founding Yankee and southern Puritan and Protestant population who gave the constitution legitimacy and so its force NEVER intended anything to ban God or Genesis in schools as the truth or options for truth on points of origin.

The 'founding Yankees' are irrelevant; your claims about their intentions are demonstrably false, but it wouldn't matter even if they were true: the Founding Fathers are dead and they don't matter.

HOGWASH.

You can say that again...

There is no constitutional prohibition of ideas on origins from any direction.

Huh? I don't even understand what this sentence means. As far as I know, there are no Constitutional prohibitions on ideasperiod.

Therefore its up to the people through the legislature to decide.

Of course it's not; neither the people nor their legislators can pass laws that violate standing amendments of the Constitution.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:27 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2678
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 588 of 609 (612395)
04-15-2011 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 583 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:22 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Dump this fraud law and then make your case to the people creationism should not be in science/conclusion on origins class.

Sure as long you teach all the other "science", like how the stork brings new baby's to the house, how the tooth fairy buys your teeth at night, how you can cure all manner of diseases by prayer and so need no doctors ....... all this and more is the same as your ID or creationism you want to teach that then be prepared to teach this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:22 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28458
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 589 of 609 (612403)
04-15-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:14 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Robert Byers writes:

Son writes:

Robert, do you actually want to scrap all schools? Do you really want to destroy education so everyone is equally ignorant? It may be your purpose but surely even you can understand why the state would be opposed to that. If it wasn't for education, you wouldn't even have the computer to type this on (remember that you can't make much if you teach 2+2=5).

Our purpose is to demand and allow the truth and the search for tryth in public institutions of learning.
This makes a intelligent populace.

Sorry but that is patently and demonstrably false.

You create avoidance schools and avoidance text books and avoidance radio and TV stations and avoidance browsers and avoidance peer review boards and avoidance accreditation boards.

You do everything you can to avoid a search for truth because you think you already have it.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 590 of 609 (612407)
04-15-2011 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 3:13 AM


Re: An Argument For?
My great insistence is that the founding Yankee and southern Puritan and Protestant population who gave the constitution legitimacy and so its force NEVER intended anything to ban God or Genesis in schools as the truth or options for truth on points of origin.

It's a moot point. The courts have ruled. Those rulings are binding.

There is no constitutional prohibition of ideas on origins from any direction.

Yes, there is, at least where it concerns teaching religion in shools funded by public tax dollars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 3:13 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 591 of 609 (612409)
04-15-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:27 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
if religious matters didn't matter in the classroom then the state would not teach them as being false or ban them.

No teach in any public school is teaching that religion is false.

It bans creationism because it does matter.

It bans creationism because teaching creationism has no secular purpose and entangles the government in religious matters. Please google "Lemon Test" for more information.

The claim is that the church and state must not interfere with each other.
Yet the state is doing just that by teaching ideas contrary to the church.

No, it isn't. Teaching evolution has a clear secular purpose. Also, the government is not teaching that evolution or an old Earth are contrary to religious beliefs. Creationists are the ones teaching this.

you can't beat the logic here.

We can, and have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:27 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2011 3:02 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 592 of 609 (612410)
04-15-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:14 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Our purpose is to demand and allow the truth and the search for tryth in public institutions of learning.

Then you should convince school boards to make Truth Class availabe to students. We are talking about Science Class.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 593 of 609 (612431)
04-15-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 3:13 AM


Re: An Argument For?
Robert Byers writes:

My great insistence is that the founding Yankee and southern Puritan and Protestant population who gave the constitution legitimacy and so its force NEVER intended anything to ban God or Genesis in schools as the truth or options for truth on points of origin.

no, of course they didn't.

because they didn't plan for mandatory, state-funded public education.

they also didn't intend for slavery to end. or for women to gain the right to vote.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 3:13 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 594 of 609 (612432)
04-15-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Taq
04-15-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Taq writes:

No teach[er] in any public school is teaching that religion is false.

i dunno about that. if your religion contradicts reality, teaching reality does tech that that religion is false. but that's hardly the fault of the teacher.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 10:56 AM Taq has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 595 of 609 (612433)
04-15-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:14 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Robert Byers writes:

Our purpose is to demand and allow the truth and the search for tryth in public institutions of learning.
This makes a intelligent populace.

suppose the truth is that you're wrong. do you still demand the search for it?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15485
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1543 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 597 of 609 (612475)
04-16-2011 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:27 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
It bans creationism because it does matter.

No it doesn't. It bans creationism is science classes the same way as alchemy, astrology and magic are banned, because it is not SCIENCE.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:27 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 598 of 609 (612480)
04-16-2011 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by frako
04-14-2011 4:49 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
We have established that ID is not science on NUMEROUS occasions,[

I have established, with no rebuttal at all, that any investigation of the human mind against properties in the world is a scientific invwtigation. Can anyone demonstrate that that point is not reality. Why will no one touch that point. Point to the line that is counter factual to that simple point, if indeed it has been shown as you suggest
I have demonstrated that an examination of the physical properties in this connection and its complexity, is not only an investigation, but that it will demonstrate an unwavering complexiity of order to definate detail and purpose. point to the line or argument that can demonstrate these points and items are not science
I have demonstrated that these investigations lead inevitably to the conclusion of design, in the same way one comes to the conclusion, that the process of evolution would and might lead to lead to the conclusion of soley natural causes.
both are just conclusions and both use the natural world for thier conclusions. Only sheer idiocy would assume as to most evos that the origination source is not a part of the argument

Most evos try and cleverly exclude conclusion of evo (SNCs) as unnecessary, when in fact every position or argument concerning the natural world ofcourse would include one

No the outcome would have been different if ID actually was science. It is not even close to what science is.

Again for the very simple reasons , as i have stated them, ID can be nothing but Science.

just as there is no such thing as reverse prejudice, there is no such thing as religious creationism, only creationism by an intelligent designer. each of the respective positions reach thier conclusions, via, reason, experimentation, applied to the natural world, conclusions being the natural result
Only a tyro would come to another conclusion as to how such conclusions are reached. as I stated before, if the judge did not have a preconcieved idea of what Id and creo were before hand, and was not led by the nose by a bunch of simplistic lawyers, it may have seen it in its simplicty

and if you realy think lots of scientists reject evolution

I never even suggested as much. Evolution does not affect nor is it in contrast to ID, since one could not demonstrate that things were not designed to evolve

Id has very little to do with religious perspectives. Id is a scientific, physical approach to reality
BTW, tell instructor, "miss the point entirely", in your video, we are happy to meet in him in public debate at the time and place of his choosing on this issue

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 4:49 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by frako, posted 04-16-2011 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 604 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2011 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 599 of 609 (612481)
04-16-2011 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by dwise1
04-14-2011 5:19 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Thank you for confirming what we already know and have been saying all along: ID is not something different from creationism; they are the same thing.
And that is exactly what Judge Jones found in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (emphasis added):

Dont mean to be rude dewise, but as usual i find little or nothing in an argument form in your post wherewith to respond. As usual its a collection of verbose, albeit educational info in the form of you hearing yourself speak. However this is a debate forum fo rthe most part

Ofcourse ID is not something different, how could it be when those are just terms. reality is a human using his brain against reality about the natural world to form conclusions, Duhhh, science

They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation

idiocy and blindness beyond belief. Its starts in the same arena as any investigation observation of the natural world, where both change and order exists, not causation as its premise. like evos conclusions, it is preceeded by examination of natural proceeses

You need to demonstrate that ID begins with causation, you cant just assert in a declaration. Let the person that thinks he can do this step forward and ill demonstrate he is an idiot
Is this the same judge that wears a cowboy hat and speaks much of bovine feces? Geeez

the rest of the quote is a waste of my and any other intelligent persons time. perhaps someone should be reconsidered for reelection

"a formal type debate"? As in one of your snake-oil travesties? At least the courtroom would not allow the gross dishonesty practiced by creationists and IDists in their "formal debates", thus giving the truth a chance to be heard.

If this quote is an example of the truth you speak of, you are as informed as it is. Lawyers are notorious for complication and misdirection. if it is presented in its simplicity and accuracy it would not be missed. Oh that Dr Thomas B Warren were still with us. Ahhhhh the good ole days

Ruebel Shelly will you please come out of your shell.

And "apologist"? Apologetics is a religious endeavor, is it not? If ID and creationism are truly science as you claim them to be, why not simply produce the evidence that they are? The body of IDist and creationist research and extensive peer-reviewed literature produced therefrom would immediately demonstrate . . . oh yeah, that's right, there is none.

You like quotes, correct dewise? Lincoln said, "it is better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
Dewise, an apologist is anyone trained in a field, to defend that position, religion or otherwise.

dewise, reality does not need peer reviewed literature. Id is a simple investigation of natural processes, like any other. all anyone needs to do to immediately halt ID, is to demonstrate that such an investigation is not an initial and sustained investigation. How would anyone accomplish such a feat. Observation, evaluation, expermintation and conclusions are science no matter who is doing it. ID is the conclusion, not the processes, which is a scientific investigation
No one can or should question evos procees as not being science, anymore than ID processes, because both follow the same brain methodology

this initial and sustained process (whoever, whenever and for whatever reason, ID or evos) is independant of your conclusions. you simpletons get conclusions mixed up with processes.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2011 5:19 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by frako, posted 04-16-2011 5:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 600 of 609 (612482)
04-16-2011 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 579 by Taq
04-14-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Law and complex order are not processes. They are not investigations. They are undefined words you use to describe reality without any way to measure them or test them.

Just when i think you cannot make a sillier comment than, evo follows empericism and IDst follow rationalism, you do it

Taq anything happening in reality is a process, it doesnt need my approaval to be such
Who said they were investigations, i said we investigate thier patterns

We measure them by thier abilty to accomplish, carryout and produce identifiable purposes. This order and obvious order and functionality does not need your approval to as such. its detectable and measurable, by anyone paying attention

The conclusions of ID or soley natural causes are independent of our scientific investigations on either position. You fellas mix up the conclusions of ID with the clearly scientific approach and call it a failure.
Why are your simple minds unable to make such a clear distinction? Or are you doing it on purpose with full knowledge of your misrepresentation. Im going for the latter

Change in genomes is measurable. On top of that, changes in genomes can prove or disprove evolution. If the changes do not fall into a nested hierarchy then evolution is disproved.

This is like leading children around the fair. Taq, order in organisms is measurable

Taq, ID and evo are not opposites, AS YOU ARE SUPPOSING and erroneously confusing. Evo (change) is an identifiable phemonenon. ID is a conclusion of the process and mechanism, of the same type you use, scientifc investigation, but not the process, that is carried out by investigation

Consistent and persistent complex behaviour can prove identifiable order in numerous organism, like change can prove complex change. Both of these are scientific investigation processes, neither are conclusions

So what observations of law and complex order would disprove design?

Ill take you through just be patient, son Your still comparing oranges with apples. its not consistent change that you describe that would disprove evolution, it would be these processes that would need to disprove, these things as being a result of soley natural causes. Thats what you need to disprove using your own process

Your asking me to provide an example of the process that would disprove my conclusion, while using an example of your process to disprove your process, when you needed an example of it to disprove your conclusion, which, is soley natural causes.
your asking me to disprove my CONCLUSION, when your conclusion is not a part of the equation

In fact there is no example of your process or mine that we could provide to disprove either conclusion, not the process, which your are confusing with your conclusion
For this reason both positions of ORDER and evo (CHANGE)are valid processes, scientifically based, they could be nothing else. Conclusions to the processes are independant as to whether thier approach is scientifc

are you starting to see where you making your fundamental mistake?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 5:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Son, posted 04-16-2011 4:13 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
36373839
40
41Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017