Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 283 (648927)
01-19-2012 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by bluegenes
01-19-2012 12:08 PM


Re: No real contradiction
(Agnostic-I don't know. Atheist-I don't believe)
What if you don't know what you believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 283 (648941)
01-19-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
01-19-2012 12:24 PM


Re: No real contradiction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:24 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 161 of 283 (649632)
01-24-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
maybe they don't have the time or the space to write down all the controversies, and just picked evolution due to its popularity, and how well known it is.
That's retarded.
Didn't you see the model bill this was written after? Don't you realize the DI wants to spread creationism? That they do that by opposing evolution?
This is obviously a pro-creationism-in-science class bill. Its shit.
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
What does that have to do with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 01-24-2012 7:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 173 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 283 (650469)
01-31-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:31 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I don't think I saw the model bill.
From your Message 152:
quote:
Another Discovery Institute Bill Fails...
You don't think the Discovery Institute is actually promoting science, do you?
no.
though the academic freedom link did not sound that bad. the model bill definitely did.
The link is still active where you can see the model bill this was based on.
spread it? don't you live "near St. Louis" as in near Missouri? that shit is already spread.
Ah, the old Is-Ought problem again... Regardless, it can still spread more and that can be opposed.
honestly I am not sure what DI is? did you mean ID? opposing evolution is not illegal, they can if they want to.
DI is the Discovery Institute. They're a Front Orginization for creationism and combating scientific materialism - basically Liars for Jesus.
Nobody cares about the opposition of evolution. The problem is religion in public schools, which *is* illegal - constitutionally.
This is obviously a pro-creationism-in-science class bill. Its shit.
SHOW ME. (show me how, since somehow around here linking court cases that have nothing to do with this suffices in the strangeness that is EvC).
Learn about the DI and that model bill and you'll see for yourself.
are you from "near St. Louis" in Illinois or Missouri? if you are from Missouri then this is your business, if you are from Illinois, then it is not.
Illinois, but I don't have to live in a particular state to argue on the internet about a bill its proposing. And the seperation of church and state isn't a state-by-state issue anyways so states rights is neither here nor there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:31 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 283 (650705)
02-02-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 4:35 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class.
Why do you think that? Its so obvious to me that it is...
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:35 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 283 (650766)
02-02-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:22 PM


Re: SHOW ME
it is not stated anywhere in the bill.
Yeah, not explicitly. But it be really stupid to explicitly state in a bill that you're trying to push religion into the science classroom. The bill certainly implies that that's what there trying to do - there is no scientific controversy about evolution... what the fuck are they even talking about?
I guess you'd have to know more about the DI and how they operate to be able to see this for what it is. You're not gonna get it explicitly from the text in the bill, itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:22 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Trixie, posted 02-02-2012 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 283 (650835)
02-03-2012 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Trixie
02-02-2012 7:32 PM


F the DI
There's no doubt about what this bill is attempting to do.
1. Get religion, ID and creationism into science classes
2. Avoid overtly breaching the Constitution by careful wording.
You know, the sponsor didn't come up with this originally. He was "inspired" by the DI. Given that this would/will be found unconstitutional, doesn't that damn the DI? I doubt there's anything criminal to tricking sponsors into pushing unconstitutional bills, well I dunno, is there? Regardless, people should be louder in exposing the DI for what they are... we don't need their shit.
Do they really think that they're fooling anyone?
Apparently they've fooled AE...
I suppose that the only reason they keep trying this is because they believe that their version of God is above the Constitution and/or the Constitution isn't worth jack.
Or they just don't care. The end justifies the means. Spreading the good news is more important than anything. The must know the Constitution is worth something, or they wouldn't go throught the trouble of trying to word their way around it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Trixie, posted 02-02-2012 7:32 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2012 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 283 (665507)
06-14-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Hawkins
06-13-2012 3:23 PM


Scientists do know where to start, and we should listen to them. What we should teach are the theories that scientists are USING, and who better to tell us what those theories are than the scientists themselves.
That remains your own philisophy.
But you do realize that it is correct, no?
Unlike a religion, science should be questioned all the times as science is to confrim a truth
That doesn't make sense to me as it appears contradictory. If it should be questioned all the time then how could it be said to be confirming a truth? Wouldn't it being a truth mean it need not be questioned? I never question whether 2+2=4...
Its been explained many times that science does not seek The TruthTM. Its an approximation... its an inference... and it works! Look at all the wonderful things science has brought us.
while a religion is adocate a possible truth which inviting for a faith to believe.
And many religions advocate an impossible truth and demand their adherants have faith to believe. YEC's as an example.
You can never confirm a religion as if a religion is confirmed it's no longer a religion.
Not necessarily; it depends on what you mean by "religion".

If you click on the 'Peek' button at the bottom right my post, you can see the coding that I typed into the text box to do the various formatting. For example, if you type:
[qs]quoting is easy[/qs] or
[quote]quoting is easy[/quote]
It will come out like this:
quoting is easy
or
quote:
quoting is easy
qs stands for quote shaded and is typically used for quoting from the message your replying to, but its whatever. Just use something other than a bunch of equal signs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 3:23 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024