|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:16:45 PM | As for a premature "guilty plea", I don't see it. The Creationist stance has certainly been heard on this thread. If its arguments are outside the context of the debate (as referenced in the above paragraph) or are soundly refuted by others, that is only the fault of Creationism being argued as a valid science.
I agree, but you just had to know that a creationist (including myself early on) would
have walked into it. Just as those who hold evolution as their cross to bare.
Tsur, to me, feels that he's covered all scientific avenue's to argue down
the creationist without even providing us anything more than a dare. That's
not an arguement against creationists. That's a cop out. Some like to
float in and out of the guidelines of an arguement - it's easy to be
critical when the opportunity presents itself but it's hard to fight
or defend yourself under the context of rules laid out. It's cowardly to say the least. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:29:18 PM |
Please cite Mr. Gates' and Mr. Robbins' scientific proofs of Creationism
Let me see if I got this:
Bill Gates allegedly believes in a god who created him, therefor he was created. Plus, he has a lot of money, therefor Creationism is "showing us the money."
.......or is this just more off-topic mumbling?
Sadly, the more plausible option... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:31:20 PM | Hey, money can buy you into anywhere.
Let me see if I got this:
Bill Gates allegedly believes in a god who created him, therefor he was created. Plus, he has a lot of money, therefor Creationism is "showing us the money."
Exhibit one^^^^ this is easy pickings! Are you serious about debating or do you
just want to pick this glib statement apart?
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3379 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:34:37 PM | your definition of colloquial is based on your own minds limitations.
Nope, never used that word, it's not a noun. The word I used has a definition.
colloquialism
n : a colloquial expression; characteristic of spoken or written communication that seeks to imitate informal speech
how board or narrow minded ones width of the conversation is for each to determine.
Or, in the case of your reply: if you don't "get it" ........change the subject, and rationalize it with BS.
imho, you have answered your question to my statement,"Nope, the standards are set by the terms of reference, which are set from the frame of reference." exactly goes both ways. now play the game from the beginning, there was creation, there are books condensed into bibles, people have found the truths, put them into their hearts and began living a life to the truths and bingo you have t robbins and b gates. believers in their faith and their God.
See? these guys gots money, ...that means they're right! and they both eat beef too! So thar's my proof!
A guy who makes money from shillin' infomercials and a guy who sells software have what(?) to do with the subject of the thread?
 by the way, where in the orginal meassage does it ask for scientific proof of creationism? it only required "Where is the beef? Show me the money?" imho my replied answered both questions.
The context is clear, so is your agenda. Do you actually have anything on-topic to contribute? If so please do.
Even the Creationists try to at least be on the periphery of the topic, some have even offered well thought out posts, and offered cites (flawed as they are sometimes, not the fault of those who cite them). On the other hand (colloquialism)?
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
.-- Mark Twain
Just as those who hold evolution as their cross to bare.
Actually, I've been in on this thread since page one, it's not evolution per se that I am trying to defend, it's answering the co-opting of science's terms of reference, and heaps of logical fallacy being tossed about.
The issue is about the credibility of an idea that wants to be inclusive of other ideas that have a clear frame of reference, while avoiding the rules that mandate the "other ideas". Can it be done?
This isn't about faith. It's about honesty.
This is a discussion/debate, there is an expectation of views to be of, or relating to logical disputation.
When the dialectic is abandoned for the ridiculous, ridicule of fallacy is a by-product.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:53:21 PM |
Tsur, to me, feels that he's covered all scientific avenue's to argue down
the creationist without even providing us anything more than a dare. That's
not an arguement against creationists. That's a cop out. Some like to
float in and out of the guidelines of an arguement - it's easy to be
critical when the opportunity presents itself but it's hard to fight
or defend yourself under the context of rules laid out. It's cowardly to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege...
Creationism isn't science, it's Christian fundamentalism masquerading as science.
Then these *brave*, **honest** Creationists proceed to misquote and distort actual science to advance their agenda to get Genesis taught in public schools as serious science. It's a matter of public record, over and over.
I'm sorry, who are the cowards here? The ones who distort the truth and misquote and lie about their agenda under the cover of attacking science, or someone else?
If you want to see typical Creationist behaviour, see the recent decision in the Dover case to see what fine honest upstanding Creationists say when asked about their agenda and motives. Or you could just look at the repeated use of misquotes on this thread itself and how Creationists react when you point out they're posting untruths.
Yes, fine, brave, honest Creationists to a man. Fine specimens.
Give me a break. Go come up with a serious Theory of Creationism that explains *anything* better than current scientific theories. *That's* how the rules of science are 'laid out' -- if your theory fits the data better, covers gaps, explains odd cases, whatever -- it displaces the old one. Creationism explains *nothing* -- it's the Book of Genesis rewritten for the gullible. And ID is just Creationism with 'God' crossed out and 'Intelligent Designer' written in in crayon, as I've said before.
Feel free to believe that Genesis is literally true. It's your inalienable right to do so, and I support you 110% in believing it. Bully for you.
Just don't try peddling that in science class. It's cack, and it's an utter waste of precious resources. Go teach your kids about whatever religion you want, on your own time.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:00:24 PM | | ^^^ As a christian, I applaud 100% of what you just said. :up: | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:02:22 PM | | ....actually 95%. I had to take 5% away for your sarcasim...seemed so angry. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3383 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:08:09 PM | Hmmmmm.... I have stated many times on this thread, that I think schools should have Theology classes, in the context of "comparative religion". Perhaps include critical thinking and philosophy to round things out. This makes some people squirm, but if such a course can be carefully defined so as to not "play favourites", there would be a place for all non-science creation stories.
It's the deceit being used by some Christians, (which BTW, is a matter of historical record that goes back way before "Dover"), to loop-hole their agenda into the classroom, that I find an insult to the education system.
....actually 95%. I had to take 5% away for your sarcasim...seemed so angry.
Anger?
Just imagine if a concerted effort was made to force Darwin's "Ascent of Man" into all the churches...... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:39:47 PM | In Feral's defense...
In Feral's further defence, the OP, while titled as it is, is worded such that the challenge is to provide a scientific underpinning to the hypothesis of a supernatural creation. My comment was intended to be to the effect that, were it necessary to do so via cosmological science rather than biological, should scientific investigation bear out the hypothesis of creation, it might be considered scientific.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Thus.
We were never taught the various branches of science. Just a general outline
on how basic basic basic science means.
Not following this one. I took science classes in grade school. In junior high and high school we got a bit more specific: biology, chemistry, geology, physics. Stuff like that. We revisited the basics, but were taught plenty about the different disciplines as well.
religion works from establishing the truth. ones who finds the truth is proof. the beef and the money are found in those like anthony robbins and bill gates.
Wow. I'm actually afraid I might have understood what this means.
this thread has gained its momentum by evolutionists attempt to take control of the thread by stating their standards, how high or low they maybe, requiring the thread to live by it.
Yeah, because this thread is the be-all end-all of the debate, and the rules of science are always fixed by those darn evolutionists.
There is no glory to be had in this thread for the Evolutionists if they thought putting
on 'trial' the creationists would hand them victory.
So, yeah, I'm finishing up "Darwin on Trial," then I'm going on to "Science on Trial" and the books by Josh McDowell on "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Who's on trial? Bollocks. No trial here, dudes. A question was asked. No one's answered the question, at least not satisfactorily for those who'd like to see creation taught in public schools. Well, not on this thread, at least.
by the way, where in the orginal meassage does it ask for scientific proof of creationism? it only required "Where is the beef? Show me the money?" imho my reply answered both questions. get with the drift.
Man, even I wasn't being that literal with the OP. Good on ya, though. Charlie has convinced me. Creation should not only be taught in Sunday School, but on street corners and at soup kitchens, as well! In fact, anyplace that is not government sponsored. Yay, Charlie!
...covered all scientific avenue's to argue down the creationist without even providing us anything more than a dare.
Actually, it's not anyone in here that's done this. The "dare" was made when it was found to be unconstitutional to teach a faith-based religious worldview in public schools. Since that time, there have been plenty of folks who insist on finding a scientific way to support their hypothesis. Cool points them. On the other hand (fingers point the other way), there are those who, with their faith-based, religious worldview firmly in mind, don't have a problem ignoring the rules (even of those worldviews, in some cases - ain't it a funny world?) to get their perspectives taught in public schools, as long as they sound enough like science to get past the watchdogs. It's an unfortunate situation. It tends to discredit even those attempting to perform legitimate science, as well as those with legitimate questions challenging the predominantly held scientific position. It'd be nice to get all the bias and invective out of the way, drop the value-judgments, and press on with the business of finding stuff out. Unfortunately, humans don't work that way.
Edit: Late, I agree on the Theology, Philosophy and Critical Thinking courses. Who squirms at this? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:48:00 PM | Hmmmmm.... I have stated many times on this thread, that I think schools should have Theology classes, in the context of "comparative religion". Perhaps include critical thinking and philosophy to round things out. This makes some people squirm, but if such a course can be carefully defined so as to not "play favourites", there would be a place for all non-science creation stories. one good idea.
It's the deceit being used by some Christians, (which BTW, is a matter of historical record that goes back way before "Dover"), to loop-hole their agenda into the classroom, that I find an insult to the education system.
simply your opinion. loop hole for you opportunity portals for others.
....actually 95%. I had to take 5% away for your sarcasim...seemed so angry.
Anger?
Just imagine if a concerted effort was made to force Darwin's "Ascent of Man" into all the churches......
get real, force darwin's ascent of man into all the chruches?
inmo this is where i see your expressed opinions and begin to become lost and maybe forgotten. your colliqalism takes what ever values you have attempted to established to try to refer to ideas and thoughts of others of the same ilk is how you look into many of our eyes, your opponents searching the truths if any from your statements.
 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3386 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:53:34 PM | Late, I agree on the Theology, Philosophy and Critical Thinking courses. Who squirms at this?
Those who think that the inclusion of "religion", even if it's "comparative", is a bad thing to have in schools, also I suppose, those who balk at the idea of their personal faith being presented as an equal with other religions.
the rules of science are always fixed by those darn evolutionists.
Hmmm, Evolution has to adhere to the fixed rules of science, if another idea wants to compete with it in the arena of science, it has to adhere to the rules of science as well.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:58:17 PM |
Hmmm, Evolution has to adhere to the fixed rules of science, if another idea wants to compete with it in the arena of science, it has to adhere to the rules of science as well. in an open debate with an open door for both, this rule of engagement is for naught. Let the audiance decide.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 11:01:54 PM |
Those who think that the inclusion of "religion", even if it's "comparative", is a bad thing to have in schools, also I suppose, those who balk at the idea of their personal faith being presented as an equal with other religions.
That's sad, man. And it's such a good idea.
Evolution has to adhere to the fixed rules of science...
I ain't arguing. It's just unfortunate that some folks either don't realise this, or refuse to accept it.
in an open debate with an open door for both, this rule of engagement is for naught. Let the audiance decide.
So, let's find an open forum to discuss. The point here is as to why ID should be taught as science in public schools. At least that's what I thought it was... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3389 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 11:04:57 PM | simply your opinion.
Simply..........ridiculous.
Let's see what the courts have to say
1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning issues of origins. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
Then, ....there's the Dover ruling
On whether ID is religious:
[W]e conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
[...]
Although proponents of the IDM [intelligent design movement] occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, [Lehigh University biologist and ID proponent] Professor [Michael] Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (emphasis added).
As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
[...]
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
[...]
This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.
Judge Jones made several comments about problems he found with the disclaimer teachers were supposed to give students.
Paragraph three of the disclaimer proceeds to present this alternative and reads as follows:
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
Students are therefore provided information that contrasts ID with "Darwin's view" and are directed to consult Pandas as though it were a scientific text that provided a scientific account of, and empirical scientific evidence for, ID. The theory or "view" of evolution, which has been discredited by the District in the student's eyes, is contrasted with an alternative "explanation," as opposed to a "theory," that can be offered without qualification or cautionary note. The alternative "explanation" thus receives markedly different treatment from evolutionary "theory."
What I think is the most interesting section of the ruling is where Jones tackles the question of whether intelligent design is science. Lots of people testified, and Jones found a clear conclusion.
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
[...]
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
[...]
Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.
[...]
Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science.
[...]
[W]e believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.
One of the foundations of ID is the idea that some organisms, or parts of them, are "irreducibly complex," meaning that the individual parts cannot function alone, but only as part of the whole. Some examples often cited (incorrectly, as it turns out) are the human eye and the immune system.
Prof. Behe made this argument for the court, and Jones found it, well, wanting. In a big way. (He had plenty of biting criticism for Behe and his flawed arguments, as well as for the book Of Pandas and People, which Dover students were directed to read.)
Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor "missing a part is by definition nonfunctional," what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present.
For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
[...]
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.
[...]
Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students [Of Pandas and People] contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.
Jones goes on to show how ID is simply, clearly, and provably not science
A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory... The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.
[...]
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
[...]
Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
[...]
Jones has plenty more to say; he's particularly critical of the lies (his word) told by members of the school board who were promoting creationism. But I'll end with this quote:
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
get real, force darwin's ascent of man into all the chruches?
Ridiculous, innit? ...........newsflash!
So's the converse.
inmo this is where i see your expressed opinions and begin to become lost and maybe forgotten. your colliqalism takes what ever values you have attempted to established to try to refer to ideas and thoughts of others of the same ilk is how you look into many of our eyes, your opponents searching the truths if any from your statements.
Illogical statemants like this are not a matter of opinion, they are nonsense because they are nonsense.
in an open debate with an open door for both, this rule of engagement is for naught. Let the audiance decide.
non sequitur
So, let's find an open forum to discuss. The point here is as to why ID should be taught as science in public schools. At least that's what I thought it was...
A voice of reason | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 11:35:22 PM |
in an open debate with an open door for both, this rule of engagement is for naught. Let the audiance decide.
So, let's find an open forum to discuss. The point here is as to why ID should be taught as science in public schools. At least that's what I thought it was...
the OT only asked to show the beef and the money. it ask for the proof and did not set establshing rules of engagement. it might be a good idea to begin a tread with prequalify the rules. However i have very little confidence in getting this off grounds since to might be redundant to this thread.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3391 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 11:42:59 PM | the OT only asked to show the beef and the money.
Wrong again. The OP has also been in this thread since day one, he's made this quite clear.
Also, this thread was started to be specific to this, as other threads discussing Creationism and Evolution = Exist.
(otherwise this thread would have been closed/deleted for being redundant)
Read the thread.
This part's good:
"the lies"
A U.S. Judge's finding on Creationism trying to pass itself off as science | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/29/2006 11:44:32 PM | I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?
(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
I suppose if we were to answer the key questions from the original post:
"where is the proof?"
We could then reply with: try through cosmology? He's not asking us to challenge the validity
of Evolution, he's challenging the Creationists with supplying proof as to the
ID as the creator of the universe. Although PROOF can not be
established in the scientific sense through the evolutionary branch of science, it can not
be precluded either from the cosmolgy branch. Which would demand both disciplines to answer the question.
Am I wrong or has this been covered?
EDIT: Never mind, just saw the above post. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 12:12:02 AM |
simply your opinion. loop hole for you opportunity portals for others.
I take it by this you support, perhaps even endorse, efforts like those taken in Dover?
inmo this is where i see your expressed opinions and begin to become lost and maybe forgotten. your colliqalism takes what ever values you have attempted to established to try to refer to ideas and thoughts of others of the same ilk is how you look into many of our eyes, your opponents searching the truths if any from your statements.
I with thinking see now can for to your maybe making sense of. Not so much, really.
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
Ohmygoodness, I don't know if it was reaching the end of that post (probably not) or reading this quote (probably was), but I gotta go clean myself off now.
Illogical statemants like this are not a matter of opinion, they are nonsense because they are nonsense.
How can you tell? I'm not even convinced it's English.
A voice of reason
Hey, now. Let's not be making accusations...
the OT only asked to show the beef and the money. it ask for the proof and did not set establshing rules of engagement.
That's fair. But, how are Bill Gates and Anthony Robbins "proof" of anything? They're certainly not proof of creation. That's what the request for proof was referencing, by the way. Not faith. I think some of us tend to get caught up in something that isn't even implied in the OP.
I suppose if we were to answer the key questions from the original post:
"where is the proof?"
We could then reply with cosmology? He's not asking us to challenge the validity of Evolution, he's challenging the Creationists with supplying proof as to the ID as the creator of the universe.
See, that's what I was asking. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3394 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 12:25:19 AM | May I direct your attention to.........
The Title:
[Another clue.]
Creation vs Evolution
Now,
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
Establishes the premise with which we infer the meaning of the topic's question vis a vis: Science.
Now the thingy that seals the whole dealio?????
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Schooooooooooool! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:07:42 AM |
Establishes the premise with which we infer the meaning of the topic's question vis a vis: Science.
yes, statement only asks the validity for teaching evolution in the classroom. on evolution my taxpaying dollar say no. it is a goofy science.
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Schooooooooooool!
this happens when people wants choices in education. and it does happen in places like private schools.
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
Establishes the premise with which we infer the meaning of the topic's question vis a vis: Science. the statment only requires us to at least consider evolutions 'wealth of facts' since evolution is so goofy i gave just the idea my least consideration. as to facts imho it should only be called information.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:36:51 AM |
it is a goofy science.
I feel the same about chemistry. I don't quite keep up with a lot of the equations and stuff. Physics gets to me like that, too. However, here's the point: they're all science. Funny how that works.
this happens when people wants choices in education. and it does happen in places like private schools.
Which is just fine by me. People want to send their kids to private school where they can learn that 1+1=2 because God says so, that's their choice. Me, I'd rather my kids learned science at school and religion in the appropriate place. Apparently, a good number of others feel similarly.
the statment only requires us to at least consider evolutions 'wealth of facts' since evolution is so goofy i gave just the idea my least consideration. as to facts imho it should only be called information.
I see what Late's saying, and it's pretty clear in the OP; if there's such a controversy about evolution in schools, when evolution is clearly science (regardless of one or another's personal opinion of how it "looks"), why should creation be taught, when it isn't even scientific? This makes sense to me, and it does establish the dichotomy. As for facts, facts = data = information. Synonymous. Wow. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:21:03 AM | Since we have been reading posts above about the subject in relation to school....
Perhaps the solution (in real life) is as-to remove the "vs" in the OP's title. Why should we look at Creation (aka Religious studies) as 'vs' anything else.
These are subjects about which so many think you have to make a Choice. While I look at the two words/descriptives in the title of this thread as intermingled. In school, we learn about things.. we are not expected to pass the class by making a Choice.
The problem that is apparent in society is that Religious studies are not the concern of many parents for their children, as it wasn't introduced to the parents when they were kids, or their parents, etc....
Not all parents take their children to 'sunday school'. Children do not get the option until they are older and strike out on their own.
I think we do an injustice to kids who are not given opportunities to learn alternatives to the typical school curriculum. Creation (aka Religious studies) should be taught as an all encompassing general descriptive of the various religious studies and alternatives to such. Non compulsory.
I was taught Piano in the first grade, not as part of the curriculum, but as an alternative course I could take before school in the morning. Other than that, I would not have been exposed to music until much later in life.
My son's cub scout troup met at the school, was 'sponsored' by the school but was not part of the school's curriculum.
Obviously close to 100% of parents don't involve themselves in scouting and no parents involved themselves in my Piano class.
It is much easier for students to learn subject matter if they don't have to depend on parents. While there are wonderful POF parents, trust me, many parents don't involve themselves with their children's activities, including taking them to sunday school.
Hint: take a raised hand count of POF folks on this thread who take thier kids to sunday school or even talk with their children about this subject matter. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:32:29 AM | Hint: take a raised hand count of POF folks on this thread who take their kids to Sunday school or even talk with their children about this subject matter.
True but still, under which religion would such a class be taken? And what would
be read? The bible? What if the Muslim's and the Buddhists want in?
In my high-school we had religious studies class during lunch breaks. That was
way back in the 80's though...it was more like a club. Even then only about 10
kids would show up...I didn't go.
Anyway, the thread has been laid out with the parameters clearly explained...although
I don't know where it's going from here. LOL | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:45:22 AM |
True but still, under which religion would such a class be taken? And what would
be read? The bible? What if the Muslim's and the Buddhists want in?
there is very little merit in having religion in pulic schools. it belongs in the private sector.
In my high-school we had religious studies class during lunch breaks. That was
way back in the 80's though...it was more like a club. Even then only about 10
kids would show up...I didn't go.
the club idea off school time with a very tiny cost sounds resonable and if can meet the test under the establishment clause.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:59:38 AM | laws regarding state and religon:
“The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause." ~ EVERSON 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, … Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." ~ EVERSON 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
“We are all agreed that the First and the Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an 'established church.' But agreement, in the abstract, that the First Amendment was designed to erect a 'wall of separation between Church and State,' does not preclude a clash of views as to what the wall separates.” ~ MCCOLLUM 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
"The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." ~SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
"The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference. [505 U.S. 577, 590] James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, did not rest his opposition to a religious establishment on the sole ground of its effect on the minority. A principal ground for his view was: [E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), in 8 Papers of James Madison 301 (W. Rachal, R. Rutland, B. Ripel, & F. Teute eds. 1973)." ~ LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
"The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as in the 18th century, when it was written. One timeless lesson is that, if citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people." ~ LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
“It is against this historical backdrop that James Madison, then a Representative from Virginia, rose to the floor of the First Congress on June 8, 1789, and proposed a number of amendments to the Constitution, including the following:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." 1 Annals of Cong. 434 (1789) (emphasis added).
Congressional debate produced several reformulations of the italicized language. 2 One Member suggested the words "Congress shall make no laws touching religion," id., at 731 (emphasis added), soon amended to "Congress shall make no law establishing religion," id., at 766 (emphasis added). After further alteration, this passage became one of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Ratified in 1791, they state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (emphasis added).
4 By its terms the initial draft of the Establishment Clause would have prohibited only the national established church that prevailed in England; multiple establishments, such as existed in six States, would have been permitted. But even [492 U.S. 573, 648] in those States and even among members of the established churches, there was widespread opposition to multiple establishments because of the social divisions they caused. 3 Perhaps in response to this opposition, subsequent drafts broadened the scope of the Establishment Clause from "any national religion" to "religion," a word understood primarily to mean "[v]irtue, as founded upon reverence of God, and expectation of future rewards and punishments," and only secondarily "[a] system of divine faith and worship, as opposite to others." S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); accord, T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796). Cf. Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829, 834 (1989) (construing "religion" protected by Free Exercise [492 U.S. 573, 649] Clause to include "sincerely held religious belief" apart from "membership in an organized religious denomination"). Plainly, the Clause as ratified proscribes federal legislation establishing a number of religions as well as a single national church.
Similarly expanded was the relationship between government and religion that was to be disallowed. Whereas earlier drafts had barred only laws "establishing" or "touching" religion, the final text interdicts all laws "respecting an establishment of religion." This phrase forbids even a partial establishment, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 436 (1962), not only of a particular sect in favor of others, but also of religion in preference to nonreligion, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52 (1985). It is also significant that the final draft contains the word "respecting." Like "touching," "respecting" means concerning, or with reference to. But it also means with respect - that is, "reverence," "good will," "regard" - to. 5 Taking into account this richer meaning, the Establishment Clause, in banning laws that concern religion, especially prohibits those that pay homage to religion. ~ ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
these are very uplifting briefs to this countrys laws and are in great favor for the preservation of our freedom in religion and thoughts there of. goofy sciences like evolution uses these laws to keep us believers in a single God out of public school and public buildings. they cannot keep us out of public parks, public streets, freedom of speech. To their detriminate shouting off high roof tops do they lose there credibility. Those who are here decrying the loudest are mere politicos for their cause. if public school can find the power and authority to steal money from the uniformed public so be it. it will add more people to the dole who cannot read or write nor to have an inkling of the aspects of a truly goofy science topic.
there are to many previous legal history to change the constitution for the great respect it has given christians and jews. it should be taken seriouly and enjoyed we have that protection. as to teaching or occupying space in the public school the point is mute. get on with your life and work towards goals in areas where religion has complete levity.
| |
|
|
| Page 136 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
