|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
C.S. writes: What if you don't know what you believe? That's called a "Catholic Scientist".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Evidence can exist for positions that are absolutely wrong. For example , I am thinking of a number between 1 and one million. The fact the number is even and divisible by three is some evidence that the number is 12. But of course the number I'm thinking of is actually 491,946.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts. If you read the court transcripts from the Dover trial you will see that it was the evidence that was the most effective tool for the scientific community. The evidence was so overwhelming that even ID "luminaries" like Dembski refused to testify so that they could avoid cross examination. Your only response to a very obvious lack of scientific production on the part of ID proponents is to accuse others of being arrogant. How sad. You have once again shown how empty the ID movement really is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
You immediately group all ID proponents in with religious fanatics, . . . "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."--The Wedge Strategy, founding document for the Discovery Institute.
Good books have been written about it by Behe and Dembski. Good books have been written about humans fighting aliens in a struggle for galactic dominance. What we are asking for is peer reviewed scientific research papers, not books. You do understand the difference, don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science. That was ... bizarre. I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. Could you reference it for me please? I’d like to see that one, the one when the PAH World Hypothesis became science, and I’d like to see the one for the SETI institute also. It would be interesting to see the credentials and backgrounds of the judges and lawyers in those three cases, and compare them to those from the Dover case. It would be even more interesting to know the dates when they occurred, and most of all, it would be interesting to know just how many peer-reviewed papers they submitted to succeed in their victories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. Could you reference it for me please? I’d like to see that one, the one when the PAH World Hypothesis became science, and I’d like to see the one for the SETI institute also. It would be interesting to see the credentials and backgrounds of the judges and lawyers in those three cases, and compare them to those from the Dover case. It would be even more interesting to know the dates when they occurred, and most of all, it would be interesting to know just how many peer-reviewed papers they submitted to succeed in their victories. That was bizarrer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
That was a straightforward complement, Marc, not sarcasm or whatever you thought it was. Your message was very helpful in giving us a clear understanding of how you view things. I thought maybe there was a chance you were sincere, but I couldn’t be sure, especially with all the green dots you got. I do appreciate it.
Many of your arguments seem based upon irrational fears, but you did cite some accurate supporting facts. The NAS is dominated by atheists and agnostics, but there are only around 1600 of them in a total population of scientists in the US of around 300,000. I'm sure their influence is disproportionate to their numbers, but none of the evidence or rationale for evolution is based upon atheism. No scientific textbooks or courses or papers on evolution touch on either religion or atheism. Scientists concerned about science education are in favor of keeping both out of science class. Here’s the exact Steven Weinberg quote;
quote: Do you believe he was talking about weakening the hold of religion within scientific studies, or within society as a whole? The way it’s phrased tells me, and many others in the general population, that he was referring to society as a whole. That's where my fear is, and considering the fact that the world has never had a free, successful atheistic society, I don't think the fear is irrational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
So, what relationship are you suggesting? Is it that being good at science makes one atheistic and liberal, or does being atheistic and liberal make one good at science, or what? Why is it that the people with the best grasp of how the universe works overwhelmingly don't see the hand of a creator in it? Is it because they're smarter than theists, or just better informed, or what? And is there some reason why theists and conservatives are bad at grasping reality --- or is it the other way round, and only people with a poor grasp on reality join the religious right? They are your figures, so let's hear your explanation. Why is there a correlation between scientific excellence and atheism? Because atheism and science exploration do the exact same thing, they assume one time dimension and three space dimensions, and that’s it. They fit all of reality into those two things, and that’s where the correlation is. Many philosophical questions, the endlessness of space, the existence of love / hate, many other things, logically suggest there could be more, much more, to all of reality. Science / atheists don’t simply work their way up to that possibility, they bypass it. For example, if there’s more than one time dimension or more than three space dimensions science’s proclamation of millions of years concerning the formation of the universe or the evolution of man wouldn’t necessarily supplement what they don’t understand about all of reality, it could be wrong, or misleading, about actual reality. Christians believe that God is beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions. Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Do you believe he was talking about weakening the hold of religion within scientific studies, or within society as a whole? The way it’s phrased tells me, and many others in the general population, that he was referring to society as a whole. That's where my fear is, and considering the fact that the world has never had a free, successful atheistic society, I don't think the fear is irrational. The world has plenty of 'em, though that's by-the-by.
Now, perhaps you could get back to being wrong about events in Missouri.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Christians believe that God is beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions. Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out. Could the reason that science does not consider deities be that there is no evidence for them?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The situation is simple. Science is in conflict with your religion. Therefore you demand special privileges for your religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution and good education. And you wonder why people oppose you ? Not that simple. Science is controlled by people with a naturalistic worldview. It’s equivalent to religion. Its establishment in public education makes it in violation of the First Amendment. There was no atheist organization in the U.S. founders time. They couldn’t see organized atheism as a worldview complete with all the closed mindedness, rituals, and desire to dominate people who don’t share their faith as religion sometimes can. A worship of the earth (environmentalism, global warming etc) and a strong faith in big government is a big part of their rituals and domination. By the way, these forums aren't "people". They actually represent a very small minority of people in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Sorry marc9000, if I disrupt this thread, but this is the second time I noticed something like this about the Democrats. Is there anything wrong or is it illegal to vote for the Democrats? Is it anti-American to vote for the Democrats? Don't around 50% of Americans normally vote Democrat? What is your problem with people voting for them? $15 Trillion in debt it the main reason. From past experiences and the reading of forum rules here, anything but a quick mention of this would be off topic. So that’s about all I have to say about it, except;
As I understand it, the Democrats in a lot of the Southern states are more conservative than the Republicans from New England, for example. Your understanding is about 4 decades out of date. It used to be that way, but not anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out. Nonsense, all it says is that God cannot be studied by science.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Can you demonstrate the political process that mathematics, geography, home economics, English literature, languages, history or any other subject goes through that you think should also apply to science? Or is the case more that you want to put constraints on science that don't apply to the aforementioned subjects? Those subjects aren’t used as weapons against religion. Science is used as a weapon against religion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024