And this from a man who believes that the simple cell, which is more specifically complicated beyond anything our minds can comprehend, created itself.
Still not the topic, but no one in science believes this.
The Constitution says nothing about the "separation of church and state."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
James Madison drafted the First Amendment. A few years prior, he had written in his A Memorial and Remonstrance (a pamphlet opposing a Virginia legislative bill proposing to use public tax money to support Christian ministers; ie, government support of religion) -- my emphasis added:
quote:
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Madison included "rights of conscience" in his drafts of the First Amendment, but the committee did not include it. Still, we know from his earlier writings (and the remaining 13 of his pamphlet's 15 remonstrations ) the intent of his wording of the First Amendment.
Also, while the mere wording, "wall of separation", came later, the very idea of that wall and its intended purpose is expressed by Madison: "The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people." Madison's "great Barrier" is clearly that very wall of which Jefferson wrote decades later. And the "departments of power" being separated are Religion and Civil Society (ie, government) and (as borne out by reading the rest of the pamphlet) its purpose is to protect both Religion and government from each other, not just to protect religion from government as Candle3 so mendaciously asserts.
Therefore, original intent (that far-right darling) clearly places the concept of the "wall of separation" in the First Amendment.
Back in the late 90's, my mother-in-law discovered email. But then she would pass on to everyone in the family junk emails making all kinds of false claims, which led to us explaining to her that they were false and why (lots of visits to snopes.com in those days). There developed a rivalry between her son (another engineer) and me for who would be the first to correct her.
I think we would rather not have that happen here as we rush to correct the multitude of falsehoods that Candle3 posts.
Just for fun, one email my mother-in-law received warned of a Windows virus attack via a Trojan horse file. She was told which system directory it would be in and that she could identify it by its icon, a teddy bear, and that she should delete it immediately. That file was actually a legitimate system file and deleting it would cause the computer to not work right, though I forget what those symptoms would be. Made me look, though.
I saw a similar trick on Facebook. It was a photo of a car tire and it said that the air nozzle was an antenna for a tracking device and that you should cut it off immediately (the photo showed a pair of wire cutters (dikes) about to make that cut). Hate to think how many people fell for that one. Maybe we should warn Candle3 against doing that, but he wouldn't listen anyway.
"Still not the topic, but anyway, flat-earthers and astrologers don't receive grant money, either. Science grants go to people and groups doing science."
***A Christian who places his faith in Jesus will not trust in astrology. I am not concerned with those who believes the earth is flat. It has nothing to do with me.
A Christian who places his faith in Jesus will not trust in astrology. I am not concerned with those who believes the earth is flat. It has nothing to do with me.
What flat-earthers and astrologers have in common with creationists is that none of them are doing science. Science grants go to people and groups who are doing science.
***I agree with you. Science is not debated in the classroom.
Actual constructive debate requires that both sides know what they are talking about. Until you possess enough knowledge about the subject matter and of the different aspects of that subject, how could you possibly engage in such a debate, or even be able to benefit from watching such a debate?
Students are simply told what to think and believe.
That may be true of the indoctrination conducted in your church schools, but that is completely and utterly false of the education conducted in public schools. You are projecting your own failed ideas of "education" (ie, only meaning indoctrination) onto normals.
Again, from the Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, 1990, pg 206, the Anti-Dogmatism Statement:
quote:
"State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
Later, the Framework makes this statement:
"We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them."
The difference between education and indoctrination is:
* The goal of education is for the student to understand the subject matter without compelling belief in it. IOW, you can require the student to understand the material, but not require belief in it.
Example:
In the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School 1982, a USAF NCO Academy residence course, we had classes in Marxism and Communism to provide us with knowledge about and understanding of our enemy (the Soviet Union; I was a Cold Warrior). Never at any point of that evolution (there I go mixing Navy and Air Force terminology again) did the US Air Force ever intend to turn us into Commies! The very notion is ridiculous, so why would you insist that they wanted to turn us into Commies?
Further examples would include:
The teaching about a wide range of religions in a comparative religions class, the objective being that the students know about and understand something about those other religions and not to convert them.
The teaching of old discarded scientific ideas such as geocentrism, flat-earth, caloric fluid, spontaneous generation, Lamarckian evolution, etc. The purpose is to make the students aware that those other ideas existed as well as show how they were disproven and replaced.
* The goal of indoctrination is to impart doctrine to the "student" and to compel him to believe in it. It tells the subject what to believe and enforces that they must believe it.
No understanding of the subject matter is needed nor desired (unlike education where understanding is the goal), and indeed could be counterproductive to the indoctrination when, by thinking about what he's being taught, the student realizes that the doctrine makes no sense or is just plain false.
Example:
Cases of public school classes using creationist materials (eg, LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study) show that creationism in the classroom is indoctrination, and not education. We know this because those materials do try to compel belief. After the lesson had misinformed the student, it then repeatedly urges the student to choose between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists. One of the students of that class of fifth-graders said:
quote:"Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it."
(JP Hunt, student in Ray Baird's 1980 "balanced treatment" class at Emma C. Smith Elementary School, Livermore, CA, in "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982:)
Fifth-graders turned into atheists by creationism. After being forced to make a serious decision about faith before coming of age in most religions. That looks an awful lot like creationists are preying on innocent children.
I'll share an encounter I had with a creationist on CompuServe a few decades ago. He was like you, railing against "evolution" but nothing he said had anything at all to do with evolution. So I strongly advised him, implored him even, to study evolution and learn everything he can about it so that he would be able to do a proper job of opposing it. Guess what his response was to that: "No! Learning evolution would require me to believe in it!"
Yeah, seriously! That actually happened, swear to God and three other white men! (Redd Foxx joke) The concept of just learning something was completely foreign to him, but rather everything required indoctrination which in turn requires the compelling of belief.
What a horribly oppressive worldview!
I would have to believe in evolution in order to learn
Evolution is not a science. It is simply a worldview.
No, evolution is indeed science. However, your stupid bullshit strawman that you falsely call "evolution" is not science, but just stupid bullshit.
The same goes for that "worldview" nonsense. Please describe that "worldview" to us as well as what your stupid "evolution" is.
Oh, that's right! You have no idea what they are supposed to be. You are nothing more than a stupid bottom-feeder creationist who has no clue what he is talking about.
It is so ridiculous that I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes it.
Again, that is only true of YOUR "evolution", but not of actual evolution.
You need to learn about actual evolution so that you can see the vast difference between your stupid bullshit and the real thing.
t would take a being of supernatural powers to convince anyone that there is a semblance of truth to Candle3's stupid bullshit strawman "evolution". Satan is known as the great deceiver.
Well, Satan certain has deceived you, hasn't he? But then you are so very gullible.
Over two decades ago a Christian and opponent of "evolution" but also of creationism described this to me; reconstructing completely from memory:
quote:Satan never uses a single lie with which to deceive us, but rather always a pair of lies: the greater lie that he wants to ensnare us and a lesser lie to frighten us into the greater lie. Kind of catching game by setting up a net to entrap them (the greater lie) and then driving them into the net by beating the bushes (the lesser lie).
Creationism is the greater lie and "evolution" is the lesser lie to scare Christians into embracing the greater lie.
I know how it works. I went to college from 2001-2005. I started at the age of 47. I observed much of this behavior from faculty and staff.
For context, by "this behavior" you meant prejudice against creationists, including your assertion that "most universities are anti-creationists." To that in Message 158, I replied in part:
No, they're just not creationist. To be honest, they don't even think about you creationists ... until you show up being a nutjob getting in their faces spouting stupid bullshit lies, at which point they try to "smile you out the door." I mean, look at yourself honestly in the mirror pulling your stupid bullshit and you should also see why no sane person would want to have you around -- OK, so maybe having you try to imagine what a sane person would think is asking too much of you. Mostly, their view of creationists is that you're all a bunch of pseudo-science loony-tunes who are the same as flat-earther. You are far beneath them and are best left ignored.
So I'll assume that you are talking about your science professors and that the situation was that you, who knew nothing and haven't learned anything since then, went up to these professors and started lecturing them on how they didn't know anything at all, blah blah blah, despite the fact that they had devoted years of intense study to earn their advanced degrees. So they were extremely knowledgeable in their fields while you only knew two things, "jack" and "squat", IOW, nothing. And yet you had the gall to lecture them on subjects that they knew extremely well while your near total lack of knowledge was in full display.
I assume all that based both on the behavior of creationists in general and of you in particular. IOW, you were treating them exactly as you treat everybody here. And when they tried to talk with you then you wouldn't listen. And when they asked you questions and tried to get you to explain your assertions, then you would always duck and dodge and evade, never giving them a straight answer to even the simplest direct questions. IOW, you behaved exactly the same as you do here. No mystery there.
Guess what! Nobody likes a stupid asshole, which is exactly what you are being here and undoubtedly were there. Their treatment of you was not due to prejudice, but rather due to your bad behavior. And their dismissal of your stupid bullshit claims was no different than bullshit claims about geocentrism or flat earth. And I'm sure that you extended their less than warm reception of you to feed your stupid "Christian persecution complex" -- except nobody hates you just because you "luuuv Jeeezuz", but rather because you are a very unpleasant person to be around:
The Bob Newhart Show:
(Dr. Hartley is with a new patient, an angry bitter middle-aged black man.) Patient (bitterly): Everybody hates me just because I'm black! Hartley: Have you ever considered that maybe people don't like you because ... well ... you're not a very pleasant person. (Patient stares at Hartley for a while as Hartley feels increasingly uncomfortable) Patient (smiling): I never thought of that! Thanks, Doc!
(from memory having seen it only once when it first aired half a century ago)
Also bear in mind that you were undoubtedly not the only creationist they had ever seen. It's pretty much guaranteed that they probably saw at least one creationist or similar kind of crackpot obsessed with some other crackpot idea in their class. They've had to deal with your kind before and that experience is very rarely pleasant.
As a result, they preferred to defuse the situation and avoid getting sucked into yet another huge waste of time accomplishing nothing. How could you blame them, especially considering how frustrating and a waste of time trying to deal with you.
I know how it works. I went to college from 2001-2005. I started at the age of 47.
You sound like a recruit who just graduated from basic military training and has the false attitude that he knows everything now, "I know exactly how the military works!" He knows nothing! He still has years of experience to work on gaining before he could truthfully make that claim. All his basic training did was to give him the most basic skills and knowledge to get started.
Same with your four years of college, which I assume culminated in a bachelor's degree in something. Would you care to say what your major was? Not really important, but more important to the discussion is how much science you had and which classes. But even then, undergraduate science classes are mainly to give you the basics that you can then use in postgraduate studies to actually learn how science works.
I have no doubt that you still have not watched this video, so here it yet again:
Scientists do actual research and publish their results. The standards for the papers they publish are rigorous, as Forrest Valkai and Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" describe in relating the nature of their post-graduate science studies (where they read and critique many scientific papers); as I presented their video to you already (02-Mar-2025):
Here's a video in which the creationist calling in to Forrest Valkai and Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" makes your same ignorant claim about universities being dogmatic, etc:
The creationist makes that claim around the 23:20 mark, though what Forrest has to say winding up around 22:45 is also good.
Both Forrest and Erika are in the middle of and deeply involved in their post-graduate studies in science (Forrest on his sixth degree and Erika on her doctorate). They describe to the creationist in detail how university studies in the sciences works, and how research works, and how the evidence works.
A bit earlier, so maybe between 20:00 and 23:00, the creationist they're talking with stated that he had been to college and so he knew all about science, but he had only done a four-year undergraduate program, like you. Both Forrest and Erika laughed when he made that boast and, as I recall, Forrest led in with "Dude! You don't know anything!"
And from there they get into describing how you only really start learning science as a post-grad. All the undergraduate science classes that you take for your general-ed requirements (which is what that creationist had done -- actually, he was very secretive about what his major was -- and you too, I assume) do is teach you the basic concepts and terminology; IOW, they are introductory courses.
Worse, not all intro science classes are equal. If you major in a science, you're required to take the more rigorous and more advanced classes, but if not then you could take the easy non-major class. For example, general physics really requires you to know calculus to understand it (story goes that Newton had to create calculus in order to express and work with the ideas he was developing), but as a non-major you could take the less rigorous physics where you will be given all the formulae in algebraic form without ever seeing the calculus needed to derive those formulae (eg, to calculate angular momentum in a non-major class you need to pick from a long list of formulae, a different one for each shape of the rotating body and position of the axis of rotation, but in general physics you only need to learn one single formula, an integral which you can apply to any shape rotating body and any placement of the axis of rotation).
BTW, the lowest form of physics class in college, the one with the least math, is usually called something like "Physics for Poets". So then tell me, what special kind of stupid do you need to be to think that having taken "Physics of Poets" would qualify you as an expert in science"?
So, what science and math classes did you take? How would qualify you to pontificate to us about science? Including how science is done? Because there again you constantly display your abject ignorance.
Evolutionists are very sensitive to criticism. Perhaps this is because deep down the realize the vast weaknesses of their worldview.
Oh? Did you ever present them with any kind of valid criticism?
Or did you just throw your usual stupid bullshit lies at them?
That wasn't "sensitivity to criticism" you saw, but rather impatience with stupid arrogant assholes like you.
You really need to learn to read the room, dude!
Many evolution/atheists scientists are deceitful. And most of the rest let them ride.
What the fuck does atheism have to do with any of this? Your asshole idiocy is showing again.
Also, that's a flat-out lie. Sure, deceit comes naturally for creationists, but scientists cannot afford it. That is because everybody tests everybody else's work and will refute an article that gets something wrong. Indeed, one the surest ways to get ahead in science is to disprove an established scientific idea, but it must be done right! (HINT: creationists always do it wrong).
When a creationist lies or fabricates evidence, he just becomes more popular because his claims are more sensational and hence sound more convincing (the only coin in the creationism realm). And when that creationist is discovered to have lied and perpetrated a hoax, no creationist cares and they will continue to use those same proven-false claims for as long as they still sound convincing (we have seen a great many examples of this, if you should wish to discuss this point).
But when a scientist lies and he's found out, then his career is over. Period.
So please stop projecting what you creationists do onto scientists. Science and creationism are two very different endeavors with entirely different goals and entirely different standards (or lack thereof as in the case of creationism). Just because you creationists thrive on deceit does not mean that scientists are the same, because they are not!
And a big reason why scientists are not like creationists is because their work is constantly being reviewed, critiqued, and even rebutted. Which comes to your second part, "And most of the rest let them ride." Absolutely not! Not so much because of their great virtue, but because they could not get away with any kind of fraud. Everybody is watching and testing.
On the video, both Forrest and Erika describe that their course work includes reading large numbers of scientific papers, critiquing them, and even suggesting how it could be improved or rewritten. Every paper and article gets the same treatment under enormous scrutiny. Any malfeasance would be discovered causing great loss, so it isn't worth it. Besides, the fun is in discovering something new.
Lucy was said to have human like feet. This was based on the fact that human footprints were discovered multiple hundreds of miles away.
What do you mean by "Lucy"? The initial discovery of the fossil remains of a single individual who was dubbed "Lucy"? Or the entire species of Australopithecus afarensis? Since you will never answer my question, I will assume you're referring to the species.
As I seem to recall, the individual "Lucy" didn't have feet, but very nearby they found a group of the same species with about thirteen (13) individuals (dubbed "The First Family"), some still with feet. For that matter, fossils of over 300 individuals have been found, so plenty of data to work from. From all those individuals, they could construct a complete-enough composite skeleton, including the feet. Which were humanlike (especially when compared with other great apes).
Therefore, the determination of "Lucy" feet being humanlike came from the fossils, not the Laetoli footprints. Which were made by other individuals of the same species.
So what's the problem supposed to be?
Edited by dwise1, : added " ... what special kind of stupid ... "
The absurd part of what you said, that the cell created itself. ***It is absurd, isn't it. Atheists do not believe that a Creator created the cell; therefore, they are stuck with the absurdity that the incredibly complex cell created itself.
Anti-God scientists are in a conundrum. They believe that life cannot come from non-life. But, billions of years can navigate around this law. Weird.
You have multiple questions and inquiries that you can't answer in a straight fashion, and at this point at least 3 offers to debate you on a single topic that you've ignored.
You don't get to talk about being intellectually dishonest.
Also, no scientist says cells created themselves, that's a stupid straw man, but like many other times, you don't care how often you lie. It's yet another case where you don't give a shit about the science and what the science actually says, you have your own faulty view of things.
Percy, the greatest scientist of all time was a Christian. That person was none other than Sir Issac Newton. Newton, and other, were well aware that there a la
WHAT A FUCKING LYING IDIOT!!!
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Percy wrote. Yet again you avoid a simple direct point by running away from it.
What a stupid liar you are! And to show how stupid you are, you cannot even keep track of your own stupid lies!
Here's the simple direct chain that you lost all track of:
Stop pretending to be ignorant. Neither the government nor our universities give grant money to the Christian scientists who try to prove creation.
Summary: you complain that creationists who are not doing science should qualify for grants to do science. That would be like you paying someone to fix your car when all he can do is make Kindergarten level crayon sketches on it.
Still not the topic, but anyway, flat-earthers and astrologers don't receive grant money, either. Science grants go to people and groups doing science.
Summary: Science grants are for those who do science, not for fringe pseudo-science fools who never do science.
***A Christian who places his faith in Jesus will not trust in astrology. I am not concerned with those who believes the earth is flat. It has nothing to do with me. Flat earth and astrology
Summary: you completely duck Percy's points. Yet another of your long lines of running away by changing the subject.
What flat-earthers and astrologers have in common with creationists is that none of them are doing science. Science grants go to people and groups who are doing science.
Summary: Percy took pity on your abject stupidity and explained it to you as simply and clearly as he could. And again the point that you are so terrified of that you always run away from it: "Science grants go to people and groups who are doing science."
Percy, the greatest scientist of all time was a Christian. That person was none other than Sir Issac Newton. Newton, and other, were well aware that there a la
Summary: yet again you run away from reality by changing the subject yet again.
Your dishonesty and idiocy is on full display! As well as your assholery.
And you have the audacity to complain that your professors didn't like you? You were such a stupid asshole, so why wouldn't they want to blow you off?
You're like the old comment about idiots like you showing up and trying to derail discussions, etc: "Stupid is never invited to the party; it just shows up."
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER is that, UNLIKE STUPID LYING CREATIONISTS, Newton did do science. He was also a Christian, as are many current-day scientists along with every other religion. Even fundamentalist Christians.
Doing science has nothing to do with religion nor with what religion a scientist does or does not follow. No more than driving a car, or baking a cake, etc.
As I described in my reply to you, Message 156, there are scientists who are also a creationist and there are a few ways that plays out:
The scientist did science before becoming a creationist and then stopped doing science after becoming a creationist.
The scientist would continue to do science even while doing creationism. HOWEVER, they never mix their science stuff with their creationism stuff, but rather keep their two lives well-compartmentalized from each other.
So, what the fuck is the point that you're trying to make? Yet again, you're just blathering nonsense!
™ Version 4.2