Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 100 of 283 (649142)
01-20-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:47 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 101 of 283 (649143)
01-20-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:53 PM


Re: No real contradiction
No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 103 of 283 (649146)
01-20-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:50 PM


Re: An aside
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 104 of 283 (649147)
01-20-2012 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
01-20-2012 9:06 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 01-20-2012 9:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(5)
Message 110 of 283 (649156)
01-20-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:36 PM


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.
Well, again, if this is true, then the advantage is with science. If the fact that I am not currently living in a cave eating raw squirrel and dying of polio requires a technical violation of the First Amendment, then what I say is fuck the First Amendment up the ass with a cactus. Or better still, let's rewrite it so that it says: "Congress shall establish atheism good and hard, and religious people shall be prodded with pointy sticks until it hurts."
Science is worth having. If you feel that it treads on the toes of your imaginary friend, then that's not a reason to give up science, it's a reason to tread on invisible toes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 113 of 283 (649159)
01-20-2012 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:24 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
I was working on Adequate's trolling. Often when I make a good point he trolls it. I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam (court case). He called that "bizarre". So I asked him to specify any other scientific discipline that won a court case, and of course he melted down. It was fun.
I am glad that you enjoy your hallucinations. Otherwise they'd be completely pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 115 of 283 (649161)
01-20-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:39 PM


There's nothing in science that promotes financial responsibility. The book of Proverbs does, but what does it matter?
The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand ...
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? [...] Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? [...] Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 121 of 283 (649174)
01-21-2012 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:24 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam ...
On the contrary. Creationism is the only idea that anyone's tried to get into science class without the usual entrance exam.
Hence the court case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 129 of 283 (649269)
01-21-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by marc9000
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names.
Name me another "scientific discipline" that isn't really a scientific discipline but is just a bunch of absurd religiously-inspired crap that people tried to force into schools without a shred of substantiating evidence let alone anything approaching a scientific consensus, in violation of the establishment clause.
Really, your whining is absurd. It's like a cannibal serial killer saying: "But why isn't anyone else in this town not on trial for being a cannibal serial killer. Why have I been singled out?"
Well, because he's the only cannibal serial killer in town, that's why.
Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life.
The truth is that ID began when judges decided that "creation science" was a bunch of malarkey, and was created by the simple (not to say lazy) expedient of taking a book on "creation science" and changing "creationists" to "design proponents", "creationism" to "intelligent design" and "creator" to "designer".
These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens.
N.B: not an actual quote.
I found that out, as Trixie continues to believe that science isn’t, and can’t, be used as a weapon against religion. It’s politically correct to state that it’s not, and it looks good on news reports, scientific papers, evolution forums, but that doesn’t stop it from being false.
Then so much the worse for religion.
Mistakes that were made by ID proponents at Dover won’t be made again.
They're going to stop being ID proponents?
There could possibly be some lurkers who buy into the politically correct narrative gloss nonsense that science can’t be done without evolution, but that’s false.
I think doing evolutionary biology might be a little harder.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 01-21-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(4)
Message 137 of 283 (649360)
01-22-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are.
Quite so. To quote Bill Buckingham: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?"
Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo ...
Yeah. Status quo: don't teach pseudoscience in science classrooms.
I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.
They claim not to have found any aliens yet. That's testable, repeatable, and observable.
I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple.
No they aren't, pure and simple. See, I'm an atheist, and I can read my mind, whereas you can't.
Claims by evolutionists that we’d all be living in caves without constant thought and application of evolution ...
... are apparently made up by you. It was your attack on the whole of science that elicited that response.
Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision — a decision made by ONE judge — deserves a second look.
We wanted a second look. We hoped the defendants in the Dover trial would appeal to a higher court, remember? But they didn't want a second look.
Science isn’t the only source of knowledge ...
But it is the only thing that's science. So when we decide what is to be taught in science classrooms as science, we're pretty much stuck with science and not things that aren't science. Unless, of course, we happen to be nuts.
The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of the fall from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect.
But because this is in fact true of every institution, it's a bit of special pleading to apply it to one particular thing. You apparently wish to apply this unsensational nondiscovery of human fallibility to the question of whether scientists should assess the merits of your favorite pseudoscience. But I don't hear you saying that courts (another institution of fallible humans) shouldn't assess the guilt of criminals, or that voters through the fallible institution of democracy shouldn't get to choose between representatives, or that you, a fallible human being, shouldn't decide what you eat for dinner tonight. No, it's just that pesky scientific community who, looking at ID, shouldn't be able to say: "No, not good enough, come back when you have something of substance". Because they're human.
Your inconsistency and hypocrisy aside, someone has to decide what goes in the science curriculum. Unless we defer to an inanimate object such as a Magic 8 Ball, that decision is always going to be made by fallible humans. The only thing we can do is place that decision in the hands of the people least likely to fail, i.e. scientists, who are the people least likely to be wrong about science. We do not circumvent human fallibility by instead putting that choice into the hands of an insurance salesman and real-estate developer who knows sweet damn-all about science --- because he is more likely to fail.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 172 of 283 (650464)
01-31-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:13 PM


Re: SHOW ME
No I am going to argue that this bill really doesn’t state anything and that y’all are exaggerating, and worrying about nothing.
And you're wrong.
C'mon, this is straight out of the creationist playbook, and written by a guy whose last crack at evolution was to get equal time for ID. They're trying to get some sort of legal cover for teachers who shouldn't even have jobs to teach retarded creationist nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:13 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 183 of 283 (650481)
01-31-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
Dr. A where have you been? Finally someone to discuss this with who doesn't get mad jump to conclusions and call me names!
I could do that too ...
yeah so what? there are politicians who constantly go one way. I am sure there are creationist politicians who always have some weird thing in for evolution [...] it is not up to the voter or the legislator decide the legality of the bills as it is up to the judicial branch
Well yes. Lemon Test, remember? If he's motivated by being a creationist zealot, then the judicial branch would strike his bill down on the grounds that he has no secular legislative purpose.
I doubt that. I think they are pushing a different agenda than protecting bad teachers. I think they are just being crafty to challenge evolution.
Well, it's the same thing. In order for creationist drivel to be taught, someone has to teach creationist drivel. They're trying to provide a legal screen for people who do so.
My only difference here is that I think if the people of Missouri want to be retarded we should let them.
As so often, you're pulling out the "states' rights" card, and my answer is the same as the last zillion times you did it. No-one's stopping the Republicans in the state legislature of Missouri from being retarded, but we're all allowed to comment on the fact that this is what they're doing. Here I sit in the Battle-Born State, without U.S. citizenship, and without the right to vote anywhere, but I can still say that they're being stupid. "States' rights" doesn't stop me from saying what I damn well please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:46 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 184 of 283 (650483)
01-31-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 4:19 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
it doesn't matter what their reasoning is.
they could do it because they had a dream where a blue monkey on a rainbow cow told them to do so, the reason that the bill proponents made the bill has nothing to do with the legality of the bill.
Yes it does.
Again, I would direct your attention to Lemon v. Kurtzman. If the legislators do something in pursuit of a religious agenda, then according to the Supreme Court that fact alone renders it unconstitutional for them to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:19 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 192 of 283 (650517)
01-31-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 5:05 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
Yeah I thought we were on the same page on this one. I’d leave this up to the Judiciary. There is no real way to prove that there is religious intent in this bill.
Well, you can look at the track-record of the guy introducing it, and you can look at where and how the whole "teach the controversy" nonsense started.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:05 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 194 of 283 (650520)
01-31-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 5:18 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I guess objectively reviewing scientific data is now a religion.
They don't want to objectively review evidence. Scientists have already done that. They want to talk crap that appeals to them subjectively based on their religious dogma.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 5:18 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but 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