Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,806 Year: 12,918/6,534 Month: 201/2,210 Week: 142/390 Day: 51/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 30 of 283 (648484)
01-16-2012 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
01-15-2012 8:46 PM


marc9000 writes:
....It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents,....
That's one of the reasons. The star "cdesign proponentist", Dr Behe, had to admit that ID is as much of a "science" as astrology. It basically happened because, under oath, he couldn't get away with telling outright falsehoods the way he can when speaking to church groups.
marc9000 writes:
.... or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community.
Oh, I don't know about that. Do you consider, for example, Francis Collins, a devout Christian and a very prominent scientist, who rejects ID as pseudo-science, part of the "atheistic scientific community"?
marc9000 writes:
Probably a combination of both.
I think the astrology thing did it. The truth shall set you free. Where did I get that?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed paragraph
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake
Edited by Pressie, : Changed words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2012 4:46 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 31 of 283 (648485)
01-16-2012 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2012 11:49 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
You are also good at concealing these realities from simple minded people in the court process, then claiming victory
Can I keep this as a signature?
It's not our fault that one of the founders of ID could not even expose these "realities to simple minded people" in the court process. I mean, all it needs is one piece of evidence.
Was he too "simple minded" to explain his "theory" to those "simple minded people"? It's not our fault that he sees astrology as "science". Even those "simple minded people" were way too intelligent to see astrology as "science". It says a lot about you, though.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2012 11:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 65 of 283 (648873)
01-19-2012 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
marc9000 writes:
In addition to the 93% figure above, I believe there are other figures that show that members of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups including college professors vote for Democrats about 90% of the time.
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? As I understand it, the Democrats in a lot of the Southern states are more conservative than the Republicans from New England, for example.
Do you equate Democrats, evolution and atheism somehow? Aren't a lot of Democrats also Christians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 01-19-2012 4:55 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 88 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:39 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 142 of 283 (649382)
01-23-2012 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
The summary of my argument is neatly summarised by my following answer to the first few sentences from marc9000
marc9000 writes:
I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition.
Of course they would. You have religious "answers", not even one of them having anything to do with science. You were also provided with reasons why ID is not science and why it should not be discussed in science classes.
marc9000 writes:
Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills,...
The only reason for people introducing ID bills is religious fanatisism. Nothing else. It has been pointed out numerous times, one is the Wedge Document, for example. ID is not science and therefore has no place in science classes at school.
marc9000 writes:
....the reasons are what they are.
Yes, we agree. Actually, you've got only one reason for wanting to introduce ID into science classes. Religion. Nothing else.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 168 of 283 (649682)
01-25-2012 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Artemis Entreri writes:
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
Individual States in the US or countries or groups of random people don't determine what is science and what is not science. The scientific method does.
Just as individual States in the US or countries or random groups of people don't determine what 1 + 1 is equal to. Mathematics determine the answer.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 212 of 283 (650570)
02-01-2012 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Trixie
02-01-2012 4:15 AM


Re: One got through Senate!
On January 30, 2012, however, it was amended in the Senate to provide instead, "The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life.
So they can also discuss Panspermia. The FSM will also bless them! Nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution at all. They can still only teach the ToE in Biology!
The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."
Hope this law forces schools to give the FSM equal time on the origin of life with all the other religions in religious studies!
Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:15 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:57 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 214 of 283 (650574)
02-01-2012 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Trixie
02-01-2012 4:57 AM


Re: One got through Senate!
I suppose if they teach this in a comparative religion class that's fine although they're not really comparing religions, they're comparing origins within various religions.
That's fine in religious classes. It will open the eyes of some kids to realise that their parents religions are not special, but just one of many. As long as they give the FSM equal time.
I note that they call these variations "theories", again showing a complete misunderstanding of the term "theory".
Yes, I know, but they've been doing it since they started creation "science". Nothing new.
Actually, that might be a deliberate ploy to conflate theory in everyday language and theory as it's used in science.
Yes, it is. Nothing new. It's been happening for decades now. Remember, after their original creation "science" didn't work, they opened up a new term, called "Intelligent Design". It worked for the unintelligent, but didn't fool the intelligent, nor the courts.
I'm concerned about the term "creation science" though. Will they use this to shoehorn the lot into science class?
They've been trying it for decades now. It works on some people, but scientists and courts (where people have to tell the truth under oath or face a sentence in penetentiary) are not that easily confused.
I suppose if they teach this in a comparative religion class that's fine although they're not really comparing religions, they're comparing origins within various religions.
That's great. That's the time for kids to ask for evidence for their respective religions. When I was at school, only the Christian religion was allowed in religious classes. No evidence asked, no evidence provided. Only sermons. I only found out that other religions existed, later.
I note that they call these variations "theories", again showing a complete misunderstanding of the term "theory". Actually, that might be a deliberate ploy to conflate theory in everyday language and theory as it's used in science.
They've done it that way since creation "science" started. I think it was the early eighties. It's thirty years later, it still hasn't worked. A lot of people do have intelligence and are not that easily fooled.
I'm concerned about the term "creation science" though. Will they use this to shoehorn the lot into science class?
They'll keep on trying to do it , forever. If it doesn't work for them, they tried and will try different names, again. History repeats itself. They'll never stop.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:57 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022