|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: It is not the fault of reality or nature that a literal reading of the bible is wrong. Boohoo-ing about it isn't going to change anything. You must first find scientific evidence that supports a literal reading of Genesis, and show how none of the evidence available contradicts it. This evidence must be testable and observable regardless of religious background. Until anyone does so, theories based solely on religious faith can not enter into discussion within a secular sciente classroom. If you want to be taught creationist theories, then go to a religious school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote: The problem is that your argument sucks. Your argument is no different than claiming that the flat-earthers are discriminated against by teaching the scientific fact of the Earth being round. If you were a flat-earther, you would no doubt then also claim victory, and your here proclaimed "victory" is about as valid as if you were a flat-earther.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Thanks all again. I will once more say you are misunderstanding my equation. I'm looking at you Nosyned.
The arguement used to censer creationism in the classroom is that it violates Church/State. So I demonstrated conclusively that to teach evolution, which is based on the rejection of the Christian doctrine of origins, is itself a violation of Church?State. Simple, Yanks! Therefore the present censorship can be ended with the right Politicians and Lawyers. Again no one took me on in this point. This is because you can't. The truth can not be argued successfully against. It can only be censered. Surely I've settled this matter though I'm a Canadian. Evolutionists must blame the forefathers of your country and thier defense of liberty of thought. Regards Robert Byers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The arguement used to censer creationism in the classroom is that it violates Church/State. So I demonstrated conclusively that to teach evolution, which is based on the rejection of the Christian doctrine of origins, is itself a violation of Church?State. But you did not demonstrate anything conclusively. The history of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are simply taught. It is not based on the rejection of what some few Christians believe. It does not even address what those few Christians might believe or not believe. It is a science, not religion. There is no Science of Creation. There are many creation myths. But everyone (all of them being equally vaid) are simply religion. As such, they can be taught in any religious or theological course even today. You simply have not shown or demonstrated your case. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
So I demonstrated conclusively that to teach evolution, which is based on the rejection of the Christian doctrine of origins, is itself a violation of Church?State The state when responsible for education must teach something. If the religious views are used then it must, since they conflict, reject some and support (to some degree) others. In a diverse, pluralistic society that recognizes the danger of having the state set and prefer any religion what can be done to be as fair as possible? The choice is to teach that which is not derived from any religion but is derived using methods that do not depend on any ones belief system. The fact that the results are acceptable to some members of all the major religions demonstrates that this is a pretty good way to achieve the desired separation of church and state and be as fair as possible and avoid endless religious arguments. The results are also acceptable to the majority of all the world's major religions as an added bonus. There are a minority few who adopt a different view of this. That is unfortunate but not a good reason for doing anything different. We use a system both here in Canada and in the US where impartial courts are used to sort out issues like this when they arise. Those courts have decided on more than one occasion that your argument is not valid. The scientific consensus does not "reject the Christian doctrine of origins". A cult-like sub group of Christianity says that their particular interpretation of Christian doctrine is false if the consensus is correct. Most Christians are not so theologically foolish and have no problem. The scientific process allows for belief in a creator if one wants to believe. It does not allow one to dictate the details of how the creator acted. That is determined from the evidence left behind from the created things themselves. Your "equation" starts with the assumption that there is only one religious story of creation. That is false. Your reasoning presumes that all Christians agree with your interpretation of what is "doctrine". That is false. You implicitly assume that the scientific approach to determining things is equivalent to a religion. That is false and has been shown to be so before various courts. That is why you are declaring victory prematurely. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-05-2004 02:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So I demonstrated conclusively that to teach evolution, which is based on the rejection of the Christian doctrine of origins It's not, though. It's based on evidence. We understand your "equation" all too well - taken to it's logical conclusion, there can be no public schools at all. Moreover, human origins is not an appropriate subject for religious discourse. It's the purview of science. Just because a religion takes a position on it does not make it a religious subject. In this case, it's religion infringing on the purview of science. There can be no legitimate conflict between the state, science, and religion when religion has overstepped it's bounds.
Again no one took me on in this point. This is because you can't. Actually, we all did, including myself twice, and your point was refuted. You haven't addressed those rebuttals; you've simply repeated your argument. Repetition doesn't make you more right. (edited to fix embarrasing spelling error quoted by NN. ) This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2004 04:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Just because a religion takes a position on it does not make it a religious subject. In this case, it's religion infringing on the purview of science.
Thanks, Crash, I'll remember this one.
Repitition doesn't make you more right. And this one. In fact, it is a clue that you might be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
NosyNed
That is why you are declaring victory prematurely. I think he is declaring victory prematurely since the only place he will win is inside his skull.We must pity him though,after all he is stuck out there in Toronto. Poor bastard! This message has been edited by sidelined, 07-06-2004 07:42 AM You see a book lying on a table. You know there's a force due to gravity acting on that book. If you take that force (on the book and due to gravity) as the "action," what then is the "reaction" as required by Newton's third law?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Discouraging news from Kansas
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/... With the results of the August 3, 2004, primary election, the balance of power on the Kansas Board of Education is likely to tilt in favor of anti-evolutionists, for the first time since 1999, when the board voted to de-emphasize evolution in the state's science standards. The board is presently split 5-5 between supporters and opponents of evolution education. In District 6, Kathy Martin defeated incumbent Bruce Wyatt to become the Republican candidate. On July 11, during a candidates' forum, Martin said that evolution should be taught as a theory and alongside alternative theories such as "intelligent design," which she described as "accepted by professors around the US." Noting that evolution was the consensus view among scientists, Wyatt warned that changes to the standards such as those proposed by Martin would compromise the academic standards of Kansas’s schools: the state’s schools should "keep the science in science." In District 10, incumbent Steve Abrams, who submitted a creationist-written version of the standards to his colleagues in 1999, defeated Tim Aiken, who reportedly supported keeping the present standards as they are, to become the Republican candidate. In Districts 2 and 8, moderate Republican incumbents Sue Gamble and Carol Rupe, supporters of evolution education, ran unopposed, apparently because their would-be conservative Republican rivals missed a filing deadline by seconds. Martin, Abrams, Gamble, and Rupe are running unopposed in the general election. The only contested seat will be in District 4, where incumbent Democrat Bill Wagnon, a supporter of evolution education, is running against Republican Robert Meissner, whose views on evolution education have not been reported. It is thus likely that anti-evolutionists will have at least a 6-4 majority on the board, which will be reviewing a revision of the state science standards -- presently under development -- in 2005.(Story in The Witchita Eagle) August 4, 2004{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM} Today's question is: What is the difference between an anti-evolutionist and a pro-creationist? The answer: A Dark Star Yes people.....there is a center in the spectrum of logic and reason. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-20-2004 08:37 PM The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Today's question is: What is the difference between an anti-evolutionist and a pro-creationist? What's the difference between Dark Star and one whose objections to evolution are based on absolutely nothing scientific? Oh, right. Absolutely nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Would that all the actual scientists who can confirm how truly wrong you are could engage you in an actual debate. Perhaps then we could all watch and see the frog crash and burn.
However, I am convinced that you would simply dismiss all scientists who do not believe in this myth of macroevolution that you hold so near and dear to your heart, regardless of how many degrees, doctorates, etc. those scientists may hold. I know for a certainty that there is absolutely no solid scientific evidence confirming macroevolution. There are imperfect speculations, unfounded assumptions, fallacious inferences, superfluous guesswork, and a hell of a lot of wishful thinking, but absolutely no unquestionable scientific evidence whatsoever. None, nada, zip, zero. If there was even one, just one solid piece of scientific evidence confirming that macroevolution is not a myth, which it most surely is, there would not be any controversy, no ongoing debate. The reason there is controversy, the reason there is debate, is because macroevolution can not be confirmed. No one will ever be able to confirm something that obviously has never happened. No matter how hard neo-evo's try, they simply are unable to convince anyone who is willing to excercise true common sense, logic, and reason, that macroevolution has ever occurred, is occurring now, or will occur in the future. This is one of the reasons we have thousands of condemnatory quotes from evolution scientists about macroevolution. They apparently hold to their professional opinions, posting them in various writings, while condemning the very concept of Darwinian macroevolution outside of those same papers, journals, etc., a fact that is made quite evident by the thousands of quotes which, so far, no neo-evo has been able to prove were taken out of context to mean something other than what the scientists actually said, and meant. Macroevolution is a myth! I know it, thousands of scientists know it. Get over it and move on to real science, real evolution. The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Would that all the actual scientists who can confirm how truly wrong you are could engage you in an actual debate. Perhaps then we could all watch and see the frog crash and burn. Bit rich considering your feeble performance on your own thread - you've not managed to back up a single point yet!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
You are truly entitled to your own opinion, no matter how wrong that opinion makes you. However, please feel free to expand on any quote that is given in my "own" thread, offering your own evidence supporting the assertion that any of the quotes given are taken so out of context that a false understanding of what is actually being said is automatic, and that the scientist who is quoted condemning Darwinian evolution did not actually mean what he, or she, said.
I am not against you, or anyone for that matter, offering a fuller text of any quote offered in order to better support their own position. Short of that, any complaints about quotes from scientists making condemnatory statements regarding the myth of macroevolution will have little impact. The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Would that all the actual scientists who can confirm how truly wrong you are could engage you in an actual debate. I doubt that I have the expertise (in bullshitting) to engage any "professional" entanglement with the rabid anti-Darwin crowd. I'm thinking, though, about becoming a high school biology teacher. It's a deplorable state of science education today when it turns out graduates like you.
However, I am convinced that you would simply dismiss all scientists who do not believe in this myth of macroevolution that you hold so near and dear to your heart, regardless of how many degrees, doctorates, etc. those scientists may hold. Since macroevolution is supported by a weight of evidence, what possible relevance would degrees and doctorates have?
If there was even one, just one solid piece of scientific evidence confirming that macroevolution is not a myth, which it most surely is, there would not be any controversy, no ongoing debate. There is no debate. "Debate" is when both sides present evidence that supports their arguments. What we have going on here is biologists presenting evidence, and ideologues like you presenting pseudo-intellectual claptrap. There's no debate among scientific circles that evolution occured and that the modern theory of evolution - including what you term "macroevolution" - represents the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth.
No matter how hard neo-evo's try, they simply are unable to convince anyone who is willing to excercise true common sense, logic, and reason, that macroevolution has ever occurred, is occurring now, or will occur in the future. Really? I've got a list of 400 people of relevant scientific background who are convinced - and that's just the people named "Steve."
This is one of the reasons we have thousands of condemnatory quotes from evolution scientists about macroevolution. Funny that that doesn't seem to stop them from working in macroevolutionary fields, advancing macroevolutionary conjectures, testing macroevolutionary hypotheses, and publishing macroevolutionary papers. Is it coherent to you that these men and women devote their lives to a fraud?
They apparently hold to their professional opinions, posting them in various writings, while condemning the very concept of Darwinian macroevolution outside of those same papers, journals, etc., a fact that is made quite evident by the thousands of quotes which, so far, no neo-evo has been able to prove were taken out of context to mean something other than what the scientists actually said, and meant. I'm sorry, which quotes were those? So far you've presented one, and it didn't say what you said it said. Keep trying, though. I've got plenty of time on my hands; we'll do every one of your "thousands" of quotes one by one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024