|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 245 of 609 (607260)
03-02-2011 7:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 244 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:34 PM
|
|
So far there really is only one answer
shadow71 writes: taq;
Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection. Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works. It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation. People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer. This in my judgement is one sided propaganda. So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 248 of 609 (607263)
03-02-2011 7:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 247 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:50 PM
|
|
Re: So far there really is only one answer
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation. Thats not true. There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today. I hope in a few days to post an OP on this subject that deals with information in the cells and biocommunciation. My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time. Nonsense. Shapiro is NOT promoting anything other than natural evolution. To claim he is is simply misrepresentation. There is no such thing as Intelligent Design theory or Creation Science.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 247 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:50 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
Robert Byers writes: These are Christian doctrines for many and historically for more. Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant. Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught. The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature. Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy. by the law it invokes. Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law. Somebody call a cop. They are not Christian doctrines for MOST of the established Christian churches. No one has to teach that Creationism is wrong, all of the facts and evidence shows that Biblical Creationism is simply Dogma and false doctrine, lies perpetrated by the Christian Cult of ignorance. Creationism is banned from science classes because it is false, not because it is religion. Your problem is that when the facts are taught and the evidence examined the kids realize that what they had been taught based on the Bible is false. If the folk that taught them were so wrong about the stuff that is easy to check like evolution and age of the earth and that there was no Biblical flood, why would they believe any of the other stuff they were taught? Edited by jar, : fix subtitle and add last paragraph
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
Robert Byers writes:
Your just plain wrong. its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it. First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance. You are talking about the court decisions that affirm that Creationism is NOT science and that claiming Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific is a lie and an attempt to introduce religion into science classes? Get serious Robert.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 281 by Phat, posted 03-08-2011 9:39 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 283 of 609 (608002)
03-08-2011 9:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 281 by Phat
03-08-2011 9:39 AM
|
|
Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
Phat writes: jar writes: Robert Byers writes:
Your just plain wrong. its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it. First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance. You are talking about the court decisions that affirm that Creationism is NOT science and that claiming Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific is a lie and an attempt to introduce religion into science classes? Would you say that the belief that GOD exists and created the universe more rational than Biblical Creationism? I think that I understand your point (as I understand it to be) that beliefs should never be a basis of law. Freedom of belief is the only exception, and would go for all beliefs. Would a belief that God created the universe Ex Nihilio drive people away from acceptance of said philosophy in the pool of reality? HUH?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 281 by Phat, posted 03-08-2011 9:39 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: "Creation Science" should have its own science class
Tanypteryx writes: Here's how I picture the first day of class: The teacher walks in and says "God did it. This will be on the final. See you in 9 weeks. Class dismissed." Or, "The question on the final will be 'How did God do it?' Write on no more than two sides of the paper."
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 325 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2011 8:51 PM | | Tanypteryx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 327 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 5:38 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Robert Byers writes: The state is not teaching science but is teaching conclusions on a claim of scientific investigation. No matter. the conclusions being taught are illegal. Thats my point. its not idiotic!!! Show why in a articulate way! Everyone else has come up short. Of course your posts are idiotic. Creationism cannot be taught in science classes because it is not science. It fails even the most basic tests of science. The state does not say that your beliefs are false; reality and the Universe that God created shout out that Creationism is a lie and teaching Creationism blasphemes the Holy Spirit and condemns all those who hold such beliefs to an eternity in Hell. Sorry Charlie. Them's the facts.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
too dumb to understand?
Robert Byers writes:
The law is the law. If teaching the earth is round is against some religion then it must banned. If teaching the earth is round but the state teaches its flat then likewise it must banned. The law is now invoked to censor God/Genesis on origin issues. Your the ones advocating censorship. Not us. . First, you are as usual, either ignorant of the law, too dumb to understand the law or willfully misrepresenting what the law says. There is NO law that says public schools cannot teach material that goes against some religion. In fact, the law says that the public schools cannot even consider whether or not something is counter to some religion. Neither God nor either of the two mutually exclusive Genesis myths are censored and to make that claim is simply a falsehood. Your problem is that you know that when the kids find out that they have been lied to on those areas that are easy to check, things like the fact that there was no Biblical Flood, that the earth is old, that evolution is fact, that they are simply primates and descended from the same common ancestor as the Chimps and Bonobos, they will realize that they cannot believe a word you have said about those things that are not easy to check. Edited by jar, : . --> ,
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Creationism IS false. It is not the Law that says that but reality.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 461 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2011 9:47 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 476 of 609 (611679)
04-09-2011 8:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 475 by subbie
04-09-2011 8:32 PM
|
|
And the method and model the designer uses. Dawn has NEVER answered those questions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 475 by subbie, posted 04-09-2011 8:32 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Dawn Bertot writes: And the method and model the designer uses.
Dawn has NEVER answered those questions When you can demonstrate, outside of your own desires, that such is a requirement for the design principle to not be valid, in and of itself, by order and law alone, your point would have validity. As such it does not I dont know absolutely the ultimate source of the materials that allows gravity to work, but hey, guess what, it does Is it true that law and order exist? As such it is sufficient to establish a valid argument, scientific in nature that allows the design principle. Only a fool or a person void of any reasoning abilites would deny such a simple principle Again if you would explain why these two are necessary and why they would invalidate the argument as such, it might make your contention more reasonable Otherwise your just rambling Dawn Bertot
I'm sorry but once again you are simply spouting nonsense and off topic. There is no design principle until you can explain the model and method used by the designer.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Dawn Bertot writes: There is no design principle until you can explain the model and method used by the designer. Why? DB For the same reason there is no buttercup principle until I can explain the model and method. You got nothing, never have and I doubt that you ever will.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 511 of 609 (611950)
04-12-2011 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 510 by Taq
04-12-2011 11:07 AM
|
|
Even if it was a Truth Class
Even if it was a Truth Class, Biblical Creationism would have to be excluded.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 510 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 11:07 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Off topic rudeness.
Bullshit Dawn, utter bullshit. What is the model and mechanism of ID?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: New header (finally)
Dawn Bertot writes: ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge. And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen. what are your emperical rules for distinguishing, evo as a result of soley natural causes, verses being designed to evolve. Still waiting i answered your question, now answer mine DB There is evidence of natural causes and NO evidence of some designer. It really is that simple.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2