|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:57:46 PM | From PPCharile's post:
Mr. Lizard,
wow do you need remedial studies.
You are being uncharacteristically rude and disrespectful to other people participating in this thread. We all have our bad days, so I'm willing to let it slide.
However, the fact remains that the rule you speak of restricts congress from passing laws that will endorse a religion in the context of public education. Asking children to pray to a particular diety before class would be breaking with that. It does not restrict that it be taught that religions exist. This is how I learned what Sunni and Shiite Muslims were in the fifth grade. Its also how I learned about pagan deities and mythology in history class in the fourth grade.
Do not imply again that I or any other member of this thread need remedial education if you want anyone to seriously acknowledge your posts or have any respect for your comments.
Lazyboy:
Scientists supporting Evolutionary theory are not distressed over Mr. Baugh's superstitious conjectures. It is sad that you can so easily convince yourself of such a thing. But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, wrong though it may be. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3527 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:08:47 AM | | BitShy could you explain what you understand as a "biological theory"? | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3528 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:19:23 AM | Are going to go over the Baugh-Old-Humans thing again?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html
Conclusion
The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock. The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine. Creationists would do well to abandon the Burdick track.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:19:30 AM | @Majestic
Scientists supporting Evolutionary theory are not distressed over Mr. Baugh's superstitious conjectures. It is sad that you can so easily convince yourself of such a thing. But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, wrong though it may be.
No disrespect intended for those posting on this thread, but I'm betting most
here can be influenced to accept whatever findings the mainstream
science community produces. These guy's are not scientist...neither am I. But
I throw a few bones out there and see who bites and I'm betting most
of those that respond negatively only do so because they have a sense
that they should. They won't even look at the data because they don't
know how to interpret it. Now if Stephen Hawkings or someone notable in
the field of evolution was to embrace what I've shown you - all would
follow because they are trained monkeys....sorry for saying it, but they truly are.
They are the same guy's who totally abuse the google to find the slant they
want to hear and parrot it.
This isn't debating - it's the copy & paste olympics. And most of those who believe
they are debating can only do so with sarcasim because they are so blinded by
their own anger & closed-mindedness they can't appreciate they've lost objectivity.
They only hear what fits into their neat little puzzle and if anything is amiss they
they freak.
But it is nevertheless an intersting thread to watch and not participate in -
kinda like observing monkeys in their natural habitat. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3530 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:28:30 AM | Who bites who, Mr Lazyboy?
The Scientific process is much more complicated than a "Sacred Cow" followed by a bunch of fellows. First of all, discoveries have to go through something called peered review. If other members of the scientific community agree that there is enough evidence, the evidence is published for further discussion.
If other people disagree, are completely entitled to provide evidence against.
We reply "negatively" to the Baugh data because it has not passed the peer review process. I am not a paleontology expert, so I have to rely on reviews from other people WHO have been through peer review.
If Baugh has more data, would be good to present it and expand on it, otherwise, any possible validity on his work would be lost. Anything against that? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:51:46 AM | The Scientific process is much more complicated than a "Sacred Cow" followed by a bunch of fellows. First of all, discoveries have to go through something called peered review. If other members of the scientific community agree that there is enough evidence, the evidence is published for further discussion.
Who appoints those on the committee? What's the vetting process a scientist
processed through? Do they interview to eliminate those that may
have a "different" opinion or hold different biases compared to those already on the committee?
Lot's of issues to consider. I simply find it difficult to believe that only a small
group of self-important scientist have the answers and all other scientists
are shouted down as delusional.
History has shown that many of our greatest scientists were laughed at. Don't forget that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:02:16 AM |
However, the fact remains that the rule you speak of restricts congress from passing laws that will endorse a religion in the context of public education. Asking children to pray to a particular diety before class would be breaking with that.
classrooms is only one facet being effective by Article one and by the admendments. Take the view from the framers of the constitution and not the side of schools, court house or wherever government places its little hand. The constitution was not written soley with schools in mind as it took many years before the first law suite was brought up in 1947. I left the below website which explains in detail about the establishment clause.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
it is my responsibility as what i wrote and why i wrote it, not yours nor anyone else's. pass judgement, do what you wish, it is your perocative.
This site has no standings in teaching God in public schools. The forum should be closed as it only serves those involved in evolution and science.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:38:21 AM |
This site has no standings in teaching God in public schools. The forum should be closed as it only serves those involved in evolution and science.
That's just loser talk. If you can't keep up, then leave. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3534 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:52:55 AM |
Who appoints those on the committee? What's the vetting process a scientist
processed through? Do they interview to eliminate those that may
have a "different" opinion or hold different biases compared to those already on the committee?
Ok there are different levels to this. The one I was referring was simple publication in scientific journals. There are probably more than 1000 journals published from at least a dozen of different publishers, around the Western world, on Biology (each covering different topics, from the general ones as Nature or Science to the specific ones in computational biology and all the way down to Genetics, Evolution, Ecology, systems biology, Astrobiology, Biophysics, Biostatistics, etc).
Anyway, imagine you have your piece of research, then the first thing is to select the appropriate journal and submit it according to their requirements. They receive your papers and if the editors consider it relevant, they select at least two researchers working in a similar field to have a look at your paper and give their comments, corrections, and even requirements (more experiments or more research) in order to get it accepted.
They send the paper back to you.
From there it varies, you can cry, but most of the time either you substantiate your claims or correct them. Then the paper goes back and forth probably a few times, until it gets accepted. If it doesn't, some people simply resubmit to another journal.
Of course there are high impact journals (Science,, Nature) and those you'll never hear about (Bombay's Bakers Weekly ) , so you normally want your paper in the high-impact ones.
I do peer review for one journal and do not consider any "self-importance" in myself. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 5:05:41 AM | I suppose then it could be argued there could be those scientist who want
the prestige of publication and would write what they think you want
to hear, and even failing that they could always go on to a less prestigious
journal to peddle their findings. When accepted, they may be given
perks like R&D funding and the like?
I'd probably resubmit all the 'corrections' you may desire until it fits into
the puzzle.....but you know, I'm just throwing this all out there to
add a different perspective to those that may read this thread. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3536 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 6:58:39 AM | lazyboy,
Your reasoning is correct. Yes, people sometimes end up publishing stuff in low-impact journals... I forgot to explain that there are two types of journals, those with peer-review mechanisms and those with somehow a lonely editor or with dodgy committees publishing ... rubbish mainly.
Anyway, even when your stuff has been published, it does not mean that it is carved in stone. If no one else can verify it or reproduce it, doubts might arise sooner rather than later. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:34:35 AM | passportcharlie, Do not ever call me “Sweetheart”. Address me with the proper decorum that I show you, by using either my online handle or by using my actual name (which you will find is also my online handle).
Also, YOU need to go further into constitutional amendments to read the clarification of article 1, article 5 and article 14.
The case you are citing was not one concerned with the teaching of religion, but was concerned with the freedom of worship. This is cited in clause 5 and 14 and protected under those, rather than under clause 1. This case has no bearing on ruling over the teaching of religion in public institutions.
But as you are "OBVIOUSLY" (insert sarcasm here) better versed in the US constitution than I am how about we settle this fairly with a mock court. I will put forwards my case and you can counter my arguments with valid case citations and precedence, then you can put forwards your case and I will respond with valid case citations and precedence. Then the jury of those reading this thread can vote on who is correct.
Either that or you could just admit that you were wrong to assert that clause 1 “separation of church and state”, has any bearing on weather or not religion can be taught about in school. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:46:55 AM | I should probably point out that I do not wish to see Creation taught in school as it is lies and disinformation, but whilst I may object to your right to expound religious doctrine, I will defend to the death your right to do so, for that is what the law is about. It is not to take sides, but to be fare and equal to all, no matter their beliefs and viewpoints.
I completely disagree with the idea that creation could ever be taught as science, there is no evidence to support such a position, but creation can be taught as a valid religious viewpoint outside of science class rooms, and as such I will always defend the right of any public institution to teach it outside of science class rooms.
Isn’t it ironic that the secularist is arguing that it should be allowed to be taught in school and the Christian is arguing that it should not!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 1:52:01 PM | Angel,
please give me a few examples where public schools are allowed to have prayer or to be taught religion. Please be exact.
you and i have different views of the constitution. I view it as a legal document which inhibts the government absolute any involvement of religion and gives the people complete religiuos freedom, but outside federal institutions. Is this a diconomy, no. It does take thought. Public schools are institutuions which falls under Federal law. In short, federal law requires these institutions to be void of religion, period.
Please, about your idea about a little court case is beneath both of us. As I have pointed out above, public schools are state institutions. It is a clear example of "separation of church and state".
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 2:11:35 PM | please give me a few examples where public schools are allowed to have prayer or to be taught religion. Please be exact.
Teaching that historically different religions exist is DIFFERENT than the school having children pray to a specific diety of a religion. The former is constitutional the latter is not. Why can't you understand that? Angel never said ANYTHING about how public schools should advocate prayer, you are implying that she did.
There is a seperation of church and state as long the state (public school) does not advocate a particular faith. That doesn't mean that schools can't teach historically that different religions exist or have existed and what those religions basically consist of. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 2:43:33 PM |
sweetheart (the use of this term is protected under article 1, us constitution, freedom of speech, and don't forget you defending to the death to protect my rights) please give me examples of "lies and disinformation". Are you going to join the military to defend to the death so others may have there rights?
This is extremely rude, demeaning, and inappropriate. She specifically told you that she found your use of that handle offensive. Her figure of speech regarding constitutional rights had nothing to do with joining the military, and such a suggestion makes no sense as she isn't even American. Did you forget that again? Asking for examples of "lies and disinformation" in creationism? She doesn't need to do that, just read the thread PPCharlie. You will come across many such examples in the first 20 to 30 pages. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 2:59:48 PM | @Passport
I'm protected by the amendment myself. From this moment forward you
will be dubbed sweet-ass and all in this thread may refer you as such...especially
the guy's. Thanks for the constitutional education.
Talk to you soon. | |
|
| |
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3544 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:45:13 PM | The forum should be closed as it only serves those involved in evolution and science.
mmm... that sounded like the "Ministry of Truth" speaking*.
Is that the healthy censorship that all your ammendments allow Mr Passport?
I just read about this new city they are going to build in Florida "Ave Maria" funded by the guy who build up Dominos Pizza... a christian place with everything including a University... bet Darwin won't appear there often.
*: reference to Orwell's "1984" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:27:40 PM |
mmm... that sounded like the "Ministry of Truth" speaking*.
Is that the healthy censorship that all your ammendments allow Mr Passport? religion is out of the equation in this thread because of federal laws prohibiting religion to being taught in public schools
I just read about this new city they are going to build in Florida "Ave Maria" funded by the guy who build up Dominos Pizza... a christian place with everything including a University... bet Darwin won't appear there often. what's your point?
*: reference to Orwell's "1984"
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:10:05 PM | It's obvious that Creationism is taught, and that Christian viewpoints are also taught in public schools. It's just that no religions are to be taught as truth, and particularly as the supporters of the religions often want theirs to be taught as truth, it only makes sense in a society with many different views that this is the way to do it; present the views with no bias.
Since these schools are not religious schools, and are science teaching schools, then it follows that scientifically derived ideas are presented as possibilities , theories, and working models, etc. And again, scientific ideas change, and knowledge is always considered fallible.
This distinguishes it from religion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:56:17 PM | Hey guys, I'm back, and I'm in a particularly sarcastic mode at the moment, so I'm apologising in advance.
If you cannot disprove it, then it remains a valid theory. It may never be proven, but it's a theory.
Actually, if it's not potentially subject to disproving, then it's not really a scientific theory. It is, however, an opinion, a viewpoint, a belief (not necessarily faith-based), and a hypothesis.
Your points may be valid, but you still fail to provide a scientific theory that explains how life first came to exist. I don't care how important or unimportant you think it is, explain how life can come to exist out of nothing. While you're at it, explain what happened before the Big Bang if you will or how it was set up.
...And for the next impression, more Michael Behe. This argument could have been taken straight from his book. The sad fact of the matter is that it's a bait-and-switch. "You're not accepting my theory, so I won't accept yours, unless it answers all the questions I have about what it doesn't claim to address." Here's one for you: Who's this famous "intelligent designer" about whom we hear so much?
Science is made out of evidence that is forumulated on our terms.
Other than addressing things we can observe, please explain what is meant by this.
There are solid accounts of some. You can't discount all miracles simply because a few lied.
I'm going to assume that this is in reference to "solid accounts" of some biblical miracles. While I'm afraid it might get a bit afield, if the evidence for these miracles can be shown to prove them beyond a doubt, I'm sure there would be a way to incorporate them into the creation argument. In that case, I'd love to hear more.
Regardless, much like you describe science, I look at Creation. I'm willing to correct it if I'm proven wrong
Assuming the assertions are even testable, in order to obtain such proof.
I'm not claiming it to be the absolute correct answer
The question being, in a field that focuses on observable cause and effect (science), without either, how can one even consider this an answer?
and at this time I can't provide you with any facts that you would deem acceptable as they are not the nature of the God that I believe in.
So, no facts, then? Okay, not a theory. Not even a hypothesis. Just an assertion of belief. Nothing wrong with that at all, we just need to all be willing to look at what we're discussing and say, "Oh, look! A spade!"
But perhaps one day we'll have scientific instruments that will be able to detect the presence of God. Perhaps one day he'll reveal himself.
I'll support this. Believe it or not. Perhaps, one day, Black Mother will wake, and the Kings will bestow divinity on all. Until then, though, we have science for looking at stuff, attempting to predict outcomes, and testing conjectures.
I think it's worth bringing up Creation in the classroom if for no other purpose than this debate. It wouldn't hurt to enlighten them on the discussions of the present.
To a degree, I would agree. However, the potential for derailing legitimate learning with such a debate might outweigh the dubious benefits of pointing out that some folks would like to make religious ideology out to look like science.
Then it's definitions we're arguing and that's where I depart. If we don't have common definitions, our discussion can't progress.
Wait,.. what? "You're trying to define rules that I won't agree to (regardless how long the game's been played), so I'm taking my toys and going home"?!?! Okay.
Also, the fact that something can't be proven wrong does not make it a theory.
Actually, an explanation that doesn't provide for testing that could falsify it is most definitely not a theory.
And you can hardly expect someone to read over a 140 pages of posts.
If you don't count my inordinate and unfortunate addiction to the printed word, it's surprising, but I did it. So did Trewq, MLR, and several others. One interesting thing this thread has certainly illustrated is how little folks with powerful convictions are willing to do to research those convictions.
I was using this, "A form of abstract reasoning or speculation." as my definition of a theory. Well, your definition isn't what the accepted academic definition of the word is in a scientific context. And frankly I am not going to type that definition out again after having done so in this thread at least 3 times.
Shouldn't have to. Anyone proposing acceptance of a "theory" in a science class should be aware that, in order to include it as a theory, it would have to be scientific. Weird, it seems so simple...
those who doesnt keep with the thread, which is whether creation or evolution be taught in schools is off topic.
So, basically, any sentence that does not contain "school," "creation," or "evolution," or some combination of them is off-topic?
As you can see from the listings... Science does not appear.
People are not really interested about discussing Science in these fora.
Science is not a mainstream hobby for most.
Truly unfortunate, I feel.
Why dose it fall to a foreigner to point out that teaching creation as religion is not unconstitutional, but teaching it as science is?
I won't speak for any others, but, for my part, I just take it as a given.
Sweetheart, you need to go further into constitutional admendments to read the clarification of article 1 us constitution "the establishment clause".
I'm sorry. I'm a little late on this one, but I'll address it to Angel. Plain and simple, Angel, you've got the right of it. The post from which I've taken this quote simply illustrates the intentional misinterpretation that's being done here. I'm afraid it's a lost cause.
Don't belittle people who have demonstrated a clear understanding of one of the most important aspects of the U.S. Constitution.
The really saddening part of the whole deal is that, in belittling and denying the logic our Angel has provided, the poster simply strengthens the basis for her conviction about those living under the law in question.
wow do you need remedial studies. ...This is so funny yet so sad. You need help too.
Haven't we already covered ad hominem arguments?
Okay, I caught up to me, at least, so I'm going to take a breather. Fear not, true believers! We shall meet again! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 11:30:09 PM | PPC,
The constitutional context of religious philosophy such as creationism is very controversial and stirs the emotions of many people. It is important that in such a discussion respect and civility be maintained for all persons involved.
I have tried to be understanding and tolerant of you throughout your participation in this thread and have even defended you on occasion. Your recent behavior is out of line.
You have tried to have the thread moved, apparently just to see if anyone would do it.
You have said demeaning things to people posting in this thread, repeatedly, even when it was pointed out to you that it was innapropriate and offensive.
You have either deliberately maligned and distorted the posts of others or completely misunderstood said posts due to being too lazy to research exactly what the position of the poster was.
I am not the only person who has observed this and I would strongly encourage you to try to calm down and return to the dignified and respectable behavior that has been more characteristic of you in the past. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2006 1:40:39 AM | Okay, I wasn't going to post on this one again tonight, but I think I might be on a roll, and I'm not sleeping, so...
I'm always amazed that I seem to be the only person I know who realizes that evolution is not simply a biological theory but rather a theory applied to biology.
Good point, Bitshy, but it's about context. Sure, for some things we apparently have to set stringent definitions (theory, hypothesis, science, etc.), but in the context of the debate, I think it's well understood we're talking about the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Dr. Carl Baugh is a scientist who has discovered human tracks 100 million years
of age along side dinosaur tracks.
Hiya, Lazy. Good to see you again. However, I know you were here for the discussions of Baugh and the alleged "human tracks." So, I don't think we'll need to get into that again, will we? Really is good to have you back, though. Sorry your "special friend" isn't around at the moment.
But it is nevertheless an intersting thread to watch and not participate in -
kinda like observing monkeys in their natural habitat.
Go back a few pages. Your new persona backtracked, brother. Oh, and in relation to the rest of the post, replace "scientific community" with "religious community," and follow that pattern throughout. Yeah. Two-way street, man.
Who appoints those on the committee? What's the vetting process a scientist
processed through? Do they interview to eliminate those that may
have a "different" opinion or hold different biases compared to those already on the committee?
Wow, you really do have the ivory tower mapped out in your head, huh? Amazing...
History has shown that many of our greatest scientists were laughed at. Don't forget that.
Or excommunicated, persecuted, jailed, or killed by the religious establishment that refused to yield a supernatural worldview... Yeah, memory's a good thing...
The forum should be closed as it only serves those involved in evolution and science.
Actually, I don't see the forum "serving" anyone. Seems to me it's just a matter of logic being used by only the one side.
please give me a few examples where public schools are allowed to have prayer or to be taught religion.
Well, I've mentioned it before, but there were regular prayer groups at my high school. They were student prayer groups, and it was cool. Now, if the faculty had intervened to facilitate, it could be taken as a breach of the "endorsement" gig, but they didn't. Wasn't their place, so it all went smooth. There's also a thread on here about Biblical Literacy classes going into the mix in public schools as an elective. Groovy-cool, according to the researchers. They're teaching about it rather than endorsing it. It makes me nervous, but it's not unconstitutional.
Public schools are institutuions which falls under Federal law. In short, federal law requires these institutions to be void of religion, period.
And, while that may fit well into the mental compartments of "religion" and "state," it's not the actual setup. Don't look at it like the building, look at it like the institution. Sure, you're not allowed to set up an altar or pulpit in the gymnasium and tell the kids to worship, but that doesn't preclude setting up a "mock-altar" or drawing a church, mosque, and temple on a blackboard to show kids the distinctions.
Note: I deleted all the interim off-topic bickering I was going to do. Can we please all do that?
of course those who are not with Faith, loving God and giving their hearts and soul to Jesus Christ will never understand.
Which is the only possible definition of "understanding religion?" You're done. Repeated misrepresentation of both science and US law, directly disrespecting other posters, yatta, yatta. Whatever. When I was in grade school and the other kids would tease someone, the teachers always pointed out that it was to get a rise out of whomever they were teasing. "Just ignore them, and they'll stop." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:29:56 AM | He's still on about how this thread is 'off topic' or how it's all about the public school system teaching religion? How many times have people pointed out that actually reading page 1 of this thread shows he's completely out to lunch?
Would 'sore loser' be the term applied to someone who, when they are roundly thrashed in a debate, attempts to have the discussion censored or terminated? i.e -- "If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em!" Maybe there could be a name made up for such a habit, like...
Sullen Creationist Protests Thread
Surrendering Complainant Proposes Termination
Or maybe a name for coming up with bizarre theories that try to redefine what other people meant in their easily-checked earlier posts, or that assorted legal documents have novel meanings not supported by the actual laws or court decisions:
Schools! Charges Perplexing Theorist.
Strange Constitutional Parsing, Truthfully.
I just noticed these *all* have the same first letters... how odd.
--R. | |
|
|
| Page 142 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 
