Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
32 online now:
dwise1, Hyroglyphx, jar, Theodoric (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,835 Year: 18,871/19,786 Month: 1,291/1,705 Week: 97/446 Day: 97/64 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in Schools
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6172 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 17 of 116 (4762)
02-16-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by gene90
02-16-2002 7:03 PM


anymore religious strife is definetly not necessary. however most of the amendments past the bill of rights are pure bull plop. thats just my opinion but you should read a few of em, they're just tryin to take more and more rights away from citizens and trying to gain more money and power themselves.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by gene90, posted 02-16-2002 7:03 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 10:48 AM KingPenguin has responded

    
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 116 (4768)
02-16-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
02-15-2002 6:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I don't know about constitutions ... we don't have one in the UK.

I think we do but we don`t make such a deal out of it...

(I think you have to have one to be a country).....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 02-15-2002 6:16 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 7:53 PM joz has responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6172 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 19 of 116 (4772)
02-16-2002 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
02-16-2002 7:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I think we do but we don`t make such a deal out of it...

(I think you have to have one to be a country).....


you guys dont have guns either, i think your government is about to make you all into slaves.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 02-16-2002 7:35 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by joz, posted 02-16-2002 11:45 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 116 (4773)
02-16-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Quetzal
02-16-2002 4:31 PM


"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TC: Stop with the "model" business already. The only creationists on this board who've presented anything even remotely resembling a scientific model of creationism are wmscott (who was only dealing with the Flood), and Cobra_snake. Your random utterings don't even come close.
Maybe you could take a look at what Cobra produced and enunciate yours in the same fashion, or look at the way wmscott presented his arguments and try the same. Otherwise, you have nothing to quibble about wrt "models" - at least nothing coherent."
--Why? Is my model too good for this? There is a model for everything, as it explains that science and religion and faith are different concepts, but one in the same in creationism, I am not 'quibbling' over my own ignorance on the subject, but logic and a realization that theres a difference from why the earth works the way it works and why it started working the way it works. I have seen no attempts at seeing fallacy in this model as of yet. Almost seeming as the way some people go overboard with Kent Hovind, which would be easilly seen in the way people respond when the see the name.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 02-16-2002 4:31 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 116 (4775)
02-16-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by no2creation
02-16-2002 5:30 PM


"How can you explain the many different strains of bacteria, evolving from previous strains. Something that CAN be observed."
--Speciation as in contrast with Bacterial life-spans in variation.

"Furthermore, why doesn't the bible make any mention of bacteria or even reference to microorganisms? You must know how important bacteria is in everyday life. We could not live without it, yet there is no mention of this in the Bible."
--What would people think of it if they were to read in a book anything resembling bacteria? A couple hundred years ago people saw mold growth as proof that nothing can become somthing, and abiogenesis, untill someone came along and shown its fallacy. In the bible there is, however, an inquiry on the subject of sanitation, which is greatly contrasting with the effects of disease by micro-organisms.

quote:

Leviticus 11:25 - Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 11:31 - Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 11:32 - When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean.

Leviticus 11:33 - If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot.

Leviticus 11:34 - Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean.

Leviticus 11:35 - Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean.

Leviticus 11:37 - If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean.

Leviticus 11:38 - But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:39 - If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening.


------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 5:30 PM no2creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by no2creation, posted 02-18-2002 4:51 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 116 (4776)
02-16-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by no2creation
02-16-2002 6:25 PM


"Fair enough. But wouldn't it have to be such, in order to make the claim of 'Creation Science'."
--Creation science is different, not in contrast with scripture.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 6:25 PM no2creation has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 116 (4788)
02-16-2002 8:51 PM


TC- I would like to remind that you have admitted or even endorsed evolution when you said that fish could have evolved to tolerate fresh or salt water.

From here on out, I think you now have to argue that evolution is possible, but didn't happen because the Bible doesn't say so, or something like that.

I's also like to remind you that you distinctly told me that you do not take the bible literally (all of it literally). So may I ask you who determines what should be taken literally and what not.

Things with evidence?

Maybe you recall that in the Bible it says the doors in the sky opened and the rain came through.

Should this be taken literally?


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 9:02 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 116 (4790)
02-16-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by quicksink
02-16-2002 8:51 PM


"TC- I would like to remind that you have admitted or even endorsed evolution when you said that fish could have evolved to tolerate fresh or salt water."
--And as I have stated numerous times, you are aware of speciation are you not, or even macro vs. micro evolution, or the process by which specialization and variation are a product?
--If this is 'E'volution, toleration of various salinities in water, then most species of salmon Evolve every season!

"From here on out, I think you now have to argue that evolution is possible, but didn't happen because the Bible doesn't say so, or something like that."
--See above.

"I's also like to remind you that you distinctly told me that you do not take the bible literally (all of it literally). So may I ask you who determines what should be taken literally and what not."
--What I mean by this is that the bible is not meant to be taken as direct literalism, ie, as if a robot decifering meanings of words were to to the reading, and opinionate meaning by sentance. An example would be something along the lines of 'have a heart' or 'love comes from the heart', we know in this reference by using common knowledge and logic, that it does not infer the bodily organ, but is a bit analogetic.

"Maybe you recall that in the Bible it says the doors in the sky opened and the rain came through.

Should this be taken literally?"
--As I explained above, it should not be taken literally in the context of a door, as if it were the doorway to a building complex, and that these 'doors' were literally opened. But what you will find interesting is that in the literal 'translation' you find this:

Genesis 7:11 - 'and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened'
--As we know the clouds act as if it were a 'net-work' and that it would be analogetic to say that they 'open' for the relativally ill-knowledgable mind to understand. Clouds when they get dense they drop their rain.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 8:51 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 116 (4800)
02-16-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 7:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you guys dont have guns either, i think your government is about to make you all into slaves.

You can have shotguns (not pump action though) and rifles (for stag in the highlands I think).

Up untill the mid 90`s (95 or 96) it was possible to own handguns (legaly) in Britain, Then a psycho walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and shot several small children to death....

Our government decided to ban handguns completely, they are now illegal, there were few objections (from sports shooters not the general public) this is because we place a higher value on the lives of small children than the ability to revolt against HM`s government...

By the way who are you lot trying to fool anyway, back in the 18th century everyone having guns did provide a check on government now it all depends on the military`s loyalty, your average 9mm handgun doesn`t have much effect against a tank or a helicopter gunship...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 7:53 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 26 of 116 (4812)
02-17-2002 10:13 AM


This thread is featured under Picture of the Week on the site's Home Page, check it out.

--Percy, EvC Forum Administrator


    
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 116 (4813)
02-17-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 3:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
evolution was never a part of whether or not creationism was to be taught in schools. even our forefathers were smart enough to not intrude upon other peoples religions so that they would be able to have a strong and supported military. evolution is no where near a fact and its barely a theory and will never be seen because it franky just doesnt happen. there have been several mass conversions to christianity throught history, im sure another will come in due time and then our society will finally be taught the truth in school.

There have been several mass conversions to Christianity partially because people had to convert or be killed. Christians have a long history of oppressing and purposefully destroying other religions.

Considering that you admit to not knowing anything about science, the Theory of Evolution, or Biology, how can you say with confidence that evolution doesn't happen. Read my sig file:

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 3:32 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2002 11:58 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 116 (4814)
02-17-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
anymore religious strife is definetly not necessary. however most of the amendments past the bill of rights are pure bull plop. thats just my opinion but you should read a few of em, they're just tryin to take more and more rights away from citizens and trying to gain more money and power themselves.

Yes, it IS "pure bull plop" that:

slavery is illegal
women are allowed to vote
black people are allowed to vote
black people enjoy full citizenship
18 year olds are allowed to vote
Senators are elected by direct popular vote
a poll tax may not be levied
the District of Columbia gets a presidential vote in the electoral college
we have plans for what to do if the president/VP dies

Let's see, other than that, we limited term length for presidents,
changed the timing of presidential and congressional terms, we installed then repealed prohibition (they cancel each other out), and income taxes were authorized.

Only the last one seems to be at all interpretable as having to do with government getting more power, and that's highly debatable.

You were saying? Since you say that "most" of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were bull-plop, could you identify which of the above you were talking about?

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 7:15 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by KingPenguin, posted 02-17-2002 5:50 PM nator has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 29 of 116 (4818)
02-17-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
02-17-2002 10:30 AM


Originally posted by KingPenguin:
"evolution was never a part of whether or not creationism was to be taught in schools."

You may wish to witness what has been called, "The Trial of the Century", a documentary film entitled, "The Monkey Trial", airing on PBS tonight.
Alternatively you may want to rent and watch the movie, "Inherit the Wind", starring George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon.

It's only history, but no one in this debate should be unaware of it.

American Experience[/b], and the title of the episode is Monkey Trials. Many thanks to DoctrBill for calling this to our attention. --Percy

---------------------------
db

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 10:30 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 03-04-2002 10:21 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 4528 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 116 (4825)
02-17-2002 12:52 PM


Originally posted by Peter:
I don't know about constitutions ... we don't have one in the UK.

King George III said that he had never seen the British Constitution, but then he had never seen God, either,and he believed in both.


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-17-2002 1:16 PM The Barbarian has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 31 of 116 (4829)
02-17-2002 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by The Barbarian
02-17-2002 12:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
Originally posted by Peter:
I don't know about constitutions ... we don't have one in the UK.

King George III said that he had never seen the British Constitution, but then he had never seen God, either,and he believed in both.


Was that before or after he went mad?

But he was right to believe - Britain (as a Scot, I shudder to write that word) does not have a single constitutional document. The constitution is the net effect of a range of laws including the Act of Settlement, the 1689 Bill of Rights, etc.

As we so often discuss standards of proof and evidence in this forum, the following quote from the 18th century Scottish Judge, Braxfield, may be entertaining: "Now, before this can be answered, two things must be attended to that require no proof: FIRST, that the British constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better." I can't find his quote on the second thing online, I seem to remember it was that anyone who proposed to change the perfect constitution was prima facie an enemy of the state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by The Barbarian, posted 02-17-2002 12:52 PM The Barbarian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by LudvanB, posted 02-17-2002 3:57 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019