Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What I have noticed about these debates...
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 238 (31133)
02-03-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by nator
01-30-2003 11:03 AM


bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 11:03 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 156 of 238 (52032)
08-24-2003 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:30 PM


quote:
A kind would be as such as a dog, a dog is not a cat nor is a dog a fish it is a dog a kind. Whether or not it can interbreed is not necessarily the issue a doberman and a chuwawa could never breed, but they are still a dog.
So, are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same 'kind'?
Are Humans and Chimpanzees the same 'kind"?
Are field mice and capybaras the same kind?
What about hippos and horses?
Fish and dolphins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM Cybereagle has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 157 of 238 (52033)
08-24-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:30 PM


quote:
Philip E. Johnson
Here is a great review of "Darwin on Trial" by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/resources/165252685546.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM Cybereagle has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 179 of 238 (52237)
08-25-2003 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by crashfrog
08-25-2003 5:22 PM


quote:
Now, does anyone want to tell me what a "kind" is? And why they are immutable? And how I'm supposed to tell the difference between two kinds? Or does anyone on the other side want to add to the pot? We're at $1.50 US, here.
I'll put up $5.00.
Now it's looking pretty sweet, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 08-25-2003 5:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by truthlover, posted 08-25-2003 11:17 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 196 of 238 (52327)
08-26-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by A_Christian
08-25-2003 4:51 PM


quote:
The "Christian" schools; on the other hand, do invite discussion
and try to explain the origin of evolution and attempt an honest
balance.
Yeah, just like Fox News, right?
I wonder what happens when those good "Christian" school instructors come across some evidence that contradicts their interpretation of what nature is "supposed" to be like according to the Bible?
Do you think they present it to the children, or do you think they might just skip over that part?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by A_Christian, posted 08-25-2003 4:51 PM A_Christian has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 197 of 238 (52334)
08-26-2003 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by jcgirl92
08-26-2003 4:23 AM


quote:
1. The law of the United States of America was (if you read a bit of history) founded on the principals found in the Ten Commandments.
No, the law in the US is not based upon the ten commandments.
If it were, it would be illegal in the US to worship any other god other than the "One True God" (TM) of the Bible.
That is the first commandment, you know.
Actually, only a couple of the commandments have anything to do with our laws, but they are pretty universal; don't kill, steal, etc.
Most of the Biblical commandments have to do with worship, creating graven images, etc.
The US law is based upon the US Constitution, and in particular, individual human rights.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It's "We, the PEOPLE". Not "We, the Christian people".
quote:
2. Muslims who read the Koran (that you mentioned) also support the Ten Commandments as part of their religion.
You missed the point.
The point is that it is clearly a violation of our constitutional rights to choose our own religious path when our government begins to promote a certain religion over all others in our publicly-funded institutions.
How about we enshrine a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Sacred Writings of the Bah? Faith, or the writings of the Buddha in a public government building?
How would you feel about that?
Here is the first ammendment of our Constitution, emphasis added by me:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jcgirl92, posted 08-26-2003 4:23 AM jcgirl92 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 200 of 238 (52351)
08-26-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by A_Christian
08-26-2003 12:00 PM


Is this a cut n paste from another site?
If the work is not your own, you need to provide the source and the author, otherwise you are breaking forum guidelines.
quote:
Evolution had, by that time, been weaving a scholastic trail since the 1930's.
Considering that Evolution is science, and is supported by evidence, why wouldn't it make it's way into supbic school science classrooms?
quote:
The 1964 decision to block public displays of religion WAS the icing on the cake that made fundamental theologists aware that science was now entirely in the hands of evolutionists, and that ALL puplic school children would have little if any exposure to Biblical influence (unless the parent made the effort).
Um, isn't religious education something that the US government has NEVER had the right to dictate to it's citizens?
quote:
To understand the problem let us look at a simple problem. The
height of the Alps. An evolutionistic science teacher would say that
there is not enough water to have covered them by a FLOOD. What is
lacking, is proof that the ALPS were that high prior to the FLOOD.
This the evolutionist will not bother to discuss.
Um, false.
We can measure uplift rates and conclude that the alps were very similar in height a few thousand years ago that they are now.
quote:
This will sound silly but makes a valid point. A dish is created 100 years ago. The dish is then dropped and breaks into hundreds of pieces. Now let's say all the pieces are sweeped into a pile----how old is the pile? If we examine the pieces, we might prove thatthe glaze was of a type used 100 years ago; however, that doesn't
tell me how long that pile has been sitting on the floor.
No, but if the pile of broken shards is found in the context of an archelogical dig in which it is located under 100 feet of dirt, that tells you something, eh?
quote:
If GOD created an "established" world in 6 days, what would it look like? The indications are that Adam looked a 30 year old man, at
least he was not created a baby.
What indications are those? Do you have Adam's skeleton?
quote:
We do know that Jesus started his ministry at age 30 and he is comparied to Adam.
This is relevant why???
quote:
While Science can only measure what it sees, religion has always depended on revelation.
Exactly.
That's why they are not testable, and therefore are not scientifically valid.
quote:
Presently, some scientists are trying to exclude the possibility of revelation and replacing it with opinion and humanistic reasoning.
Um, revelation has never been a part of modern science, and it was only when science broke free from the interference of the Church that we began to truly gain understanding of nature in leaps and bounds.
Opinion is not the main power of science. Logic, evidence, and repeatability is.
quote:
It will take years of research and scientific study to establish a Creationistic view that can rebuff the damage caused by those bent on totally a materialistic view of why we exist scientifically.
Schience has NEVER attempted to answer the question of "Why we exist."
Science describes how things work. Philosophy answers the "why".
quote:
I am not a scientist: however, I am aware that ALL the answers to questions are not only for them to answer.
Science seeks to provide naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.
That's it.
quote:
This is another reason why I am a Christian. it answers
the question WHY?
Great, but why then do you reject science's explanation of the HOW when your own two eyes can observe what thousands of scientists have observed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by A_Christian, posted 08-26-2003 12:00 PM A_Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jcgirl92, posted 08-29-2003 9:17 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 238 (53005)
08-30-2003 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jcgirl92
08-29-2003 9:17 PM


Re: Responding to Schrafinator
quote:
Opinion is not the main power of science. Logic, evidence, and repeatability is.
quote:
Repeatability is a power and asset of experimental science, but not necessarily of historical science where we try and examine the past.
Repeatability is very much a part of historical science.
When many different scientists all over the world find the same kinds of organisms in the same geologic layers, that is a repeated test of the theory that the geologic column is consistent across the entire Earth.
When many different geologists independently date rocks from different parts of the geologic column over and over and over again, and they consistently show consistent dates for the rocks, that is repeatability.
quote:
As for logic and evidence - they are important in science, but can only go so far.
...only go so far in what endeavor?
Logic and evidence has gotten humans to the moon and back, have eliminated small pox, and have made it possible for us to write messages on a keyboard and people anywhere in the world can read them nearly instantly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jcgirl92, posted 08-29-2003 9:17 PM jcgirl92 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by alicelove, posted 09-26-2005 5:30 PM nator has not replied
 Message 237 by alicelove, posted 09-26-2005 5:34 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 238 (53186)
09-01-2003 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by defenderofthefaith
09-01-2003 6:09 AM


Re: Responding to Quetzal
Hi defender,
I have a reply waiting for you in the Welcome forum regarding horse evolution...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-01-2003 6:09 AM defenderofthefaith 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