|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, for one thing, you won't find alot of scientists out there working to replace the theory of evolution with something else even when they are confronted with a virtually undeniable sense of design in everything. There is no "undeniable sense of design" in everything. There's an undeniable sense that things work just about as well as we would expect if they had evolved according to the theory.
Even the myriad of scientists who have made open statements regarding the overwhelming sense and indication of design that they see throughout the universe are not abandoning the theory of evolution for intelligent design. That's because ID isn't science, it's pseudo-intellectual claptrap. The scientists you're talking about are smart enough to realize that a similarity to design, or an appearance of design, is not at all the same as being designed, especially in the absence of any known designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: There is no "undeniable sense of design" in everything. There's an undeniable sense that things work just about as well as we would expect if they had evolved according to the theory. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
crashfrog writes: That's because ID isn't science, it's pseudo-intellectual claptrap. The scientists you're talking about are smart enough to realize that a similarity to design, or an appearance of design, is not at all the same as being designed, especially in the absence of any known designer. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! A high number of scientists disagree with you because, unlike you, they understand that you don't have to know or have any knowledge of the designer in order to detect and study the design.(partially borrowed comment) Did I mention that you're wrong? Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Is that the best you have, Dark Star? Pathetic. Remember these rules? They're the forum rules, which you agreed to when you signed up. They state, in part:
quote: A high number of scientists disagree with you because Yeah, yeah. Heard it. Unfortunately for you, ten times as many agree that evolution is an accurate history of life on Earth, and that's only if you count the ones named "Steve." Here's a hint, DS. Science isn't a popularity contest. Positions stand or fall on evidence, not on numbers. Why don't you try again, only this time, without the logical fallacy ad populum, ok?
Did I mention that you're wrong? So you said, but it'd be nice if you had some evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Pay no attention to the frog, er, man behind the curtain.
Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Darkstar, it would seem that Crash doesn't follow your evidence and reasoning from it. It may be appropriate to reiterate your position.
However if that is on ID then it should be done in an ID thread NOT HERE! I will also remind you that there are forum rules. They are not enforced too quickly but if you want to maintain full posting priviledges it is necessary to allow them to guide you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
custard responds to me:
quote: Indeed, he did, but if we talk about it, we'll be sued. I'm not kidding. The "OT" levels of Scientology (what you have to pay even more money once you become "clear") start teaching you that you are actually the descendants of aliens that came to this planet approximately 75 million years ago, implanted in antifreeze, and blown up in thermonuclear blasts. In order to become an "Operating Thetan" ("OT"), you'll need to find out which blast site you were at and go through even more training to get rid of the Thetans that still cling to you (but wait...I thought I was already "clear"...no, you were "clear" of engrams...now you need to pay thousands of dollars for psychic A-200.) The Church of Scientology considers this information trade secrets and regularly sues those who try to reveal it. But, of course, there's a problem: It is now technically public domain. In one of their lawsuits against a reporter, the OT "bible" (for lack of a better term) was introduced into evidence...which makes it available to the public. The CoS has been unable to get the records sealed so they literally send a couple of people to the courthouse every single day to check out the court documents so that nobody else can see. More information can be found at Operation Clambake. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I remember way back in the late 50's or early 60's when L. Ron outlined just what a monemaker religion could be. IIRC it was in an old Astounding or F&SF. He laid out the groundwork and explained it would be the biggest money maker ever.
Guess he was right. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote: I am confident that I know more about the Constitution than you do. Your confusion about common methods of stating the date (i.e., "year of our lord") with comments about the legal standing of religion with regard to the government is what causes you to trip up.
quote: You're right. I do disagree. God is not Jesus. Jesus is the son of god. Haven't you read your own book?
quote: I never said they didn't. What I said was that the Constitution expressly forbids religious bases for governmental action. The document starts out by saying that the system of government is established by "we the people," not "by the grace of god." Religion is mentioned only twice and both times to expressly forbid its use in government: Once in Article VI and again in the First Amendment. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
quote: But that's precisely what it does do. No right is absolute. You do not have the right to say anything you want. There are times and places where you are to keep your mouth shut...not just on religion but about any topic you care to name. F'rinstance, you do not have the right to come into my home to make your speech. I don't care what you're deciding to pontificate about, it is my home and I get to control who has access and who does not. And yes, you are perfectly free to stand up in Congress and talk about your god. What you are not allowed to do is then write legislation that uses god for its justification. What do you think "establishment of religion" means?
quote: Incorrect. That would be the teaching of a religious ideology which has routinely been denied by the Constitution.
quote: Then you must not read very well. ID is religion. The Constitution forbids the government from establishing religion. Therefore, you are not allowed to teach ID as if it were connected to reality. What you want is the philosophy class. This is the science lab. Go out the door you came, two buildings down. Enter through the South door, go up the stairs on your left, it'll be the third door on your right. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:quote: And how would you ever know? It is an exact duplicate in every respect except the method by which it came into being. Do you think that if it were dropped into a vending machine, an exact duplicate wouldn't work?
quote: You are a Christian, are you not? That makes the book commonly known as the Bible your holy book, does it not?
quote: Yes. That piece of nonsense you are claiming has some connection to reality and deserves to be taught alongside actual science.
quote: Yours. You seem to think that if you argue for something, you cannot be considered connected to it.
quote: Then you need to read my posts a little more closely. I directly stated that the links I provided were just for the times when Christianity was under attack. I didn't include the times when other religious traditions were under attack. The reason I did this was so that you couldn't then alter your original claim of "anti-theism" to something like, "They'll protect any religion so long as it isn't Christianity." You want a list of other cases the ACLU has taken up to protect non-Christian theists?
quote: As well they should. The acknowledgement of god is a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, otherwise it is meaningless. You seem to be heading toward a claim that if someone says absolutely nothing about god, then that is the same as actively denying its existence. The oral arguments before the SCOTUS in the Newdow case regarding the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance are quite appropos. It seems the SCOTUS is trying to say that the phrase "under god" is so innocuous as to be devoid of any religious meaning, but that only makes sense to someone who believes in god. To someone who does not believe in god, the mention of any god is an imposition of religious authority. Souter commented that the use of under god is "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He calls it "ceremonial deism" and says that any religious overtones are "close to disappearing." But as Newdow retorts, it's like "getting slapped in the face every time." So yes, Ohio needs to remove references to god from its motto just as the US needs to remove references to god from its motto. Atheists are citizens just like everybody else, aren't they?
quote: Our rights should not be subject to popularity contests. It is precisely because the vast majority of the population would not support it that the ACLU exists. You have a RIGHT to do something that most people would not like you to do. What is the point of having rights if you're not allowed to exercise them due to everybody else thinking it's icky? In the 1960s, fully 70% of the population thought that interracial marriage was wrong and should be outlawed. And yet, the SCOTUS seemed to think differently. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong? That there is no right to marry another person of a different race? That if 70% of the people think it's wrong, then it should be criminalized the way Virginia had made it?
quote: Incorrect. They are quite for restriction of pornography from being exposed to children. However, they are also for an adult's right to view it without governmental interference. You do see the difference, yes? That a method of restriction that protects the children but violates the rights of adults is not valid, yes? You do understand the difference between the means and the ends, yes? And you do understand that the ends can never justify the means as a simple matter of logic, yes?
quote: Simple: Rights have meaning and cannot be violated. That's why they are called RIGHTS. The Constitution expressly forbids governmental establishment of religion, and therefore having governmental displays of the Ten Commandments are a violation of a person's right to have a government free of religious justification.
quote: Exactly where it needs to be. Again, you are headed in the direction of claiming that by saying nothing, that is equivalent to active denial. If you ask me if I believe in god and I respond with, "I am not at liberty to discuss that," have I professed a belief or a disbelief in god? By saying absolutely nothing, the government guarantees that all religious opinions are treated equally.
quote: Towards freedom and equality. Why do you seem to be insisting that's a bad direction to go?
quote: Incorrect. It is because of the aftermath of 9/11 that we need to be ever more vigilant to protect our freedoms so that our rights do not vanish in a wave of fear. Rights have meaning and they exist to be exercised, especially by those who hold unfavorable views. Otherwise, what's the point? If the only people who are allowed to exercise rights are people with whom you agree, it isn't a right, now is it? I seem to recall great speeches by politicos that the reason we were attacked was because of our freedom. So our response to being attacked is to take those freedoms away? That makes no sense. That means the terrorists won. If the goal was to destroy the freedoms we have, then they achieved their goal.
quote: Which is the absolutely correct position. There really is no other way to look at it. The Constitution expressly forbids religious establishment by the government. For the government to acknowledge god is to establish religion. The only recourse is to simply shut up about it. Don't say anything. Surely you aren't implying that saying nothing is equivalent to active denial, are you?
quote: But that's just it: You should be. They're protecting your rights, too. By taking your stance as you have that a person's rights should be subject to a popularity contest, you doom yourself for eventually, your opinions will be considered unpopular and you will be denied the right to hold them.
quote: Bullpuckey. Name a single religious liberty that has been eroded. Do not confuse an action that you once were able to get away with but never should have been allowed to do in the first place to be a "liberty." F'rinstance, it used to be the case that white people could discriminate against people who weren't white. But they never should have been allowed to do so and their loss of that ability is not an erosion of liberty. So be specific. Are you not allowed to pray whenever you want? Even in school. As the joke goes, so long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in school. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to crashfrog:
quote: While I can't speak for crash, you're right about me: I don't believe evolution happened. Instead, I have evidence that it did. I can watch it happen right in front of my own two eyes. There's no need to invoke belief at all. Belief is about things you cannot directly establish. Evolution does not fall into that category but instead is directly established through experimental evidence. You seem to be headed down the road to arguing that science is just as much a religion as any other.
quote:quote: Are you calling crash a liar? Strange how we've managed to discard so many other theories in favor of more accurate models...Aristotelian physics gave way to Newtonian which gave way to Einsteinian. The "plum pudding" model of the atom gave way to the orbital model. Caloric "theory" gave way to modern thermodynamics. The insistence that light is a wave or that light is a particle has given way to the idea that the distinction between a wave and a particle doesn't really exist. So if we're so willing to do this with everything else, why do you think that evolution would be any different? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Everything was "designed", yes. The evidence found in nature strongly supports random mutation combined with natural selection being the designer of life on Earth.
quote: It's THE EVIDENCE and PREDICTIONS that have been BORNE OUT that support and sustain the ToE, not scientists. Scientists work to TEST the theory. Every time we find a new fossil in the layer it was predicted to be in, that is a test of the theory that the theory has passed. What are the predictions of design in nature, and what would falsify a finding of design?
quote: That's because ID isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophy. It makes no testable predictions, so it is useless as science.
quote: The origin of life has nothing to do with the ToE. The ToE applies to life once it got here, not before. What are the testable predictions of Intelligent Design? Cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: (in message 83 of this thread.)DarkStar responds to me: quote: You may want to re-familiarize yourself with the constitution. To which Rrhains responds:I am confident that I know more about the Constitution than you do. And then in message 84 of this thread;
Rrhain writes: The acknowledgement of god is a violation of the First Amendment. Well let's see if the facts support your claim of superior knowledge.My guess is that the facts do "not" support your bold assertion of superior knowledge concerning the Constitution of the United States of America! Let's take a good look at the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, just to see how wrong you truly are.
U.S. Constitution Bill of RightsAmendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Well, it does make it crystal clear that Congress, in making a law respecting an "establishment" of religion, would be in violation of the Constitution. It also makes it crystal clear that Congress, in making a law prohibiting the "free exercise thereof" concerning said religion, would again be in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, it also makes crystal clear that Congress, in making a law abridging the "freedom of speech", which must necessarily include the "religious freedom of speech", would be in violation of the Constitution. Or is it your contention that "religious freedom of speech" is not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country. All three branches of the federal government ceremonially recognize a belief in a supreme being. Our nation’s first president, George Washington, made prayer a part of his first official act as president. Each of the forty-two subsequent presidents has done the same after swearing on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. In addition, Congress opens each session with a prayer delivered by a chaplain, a tradition that began with the first Congress and continues today. The judicial branch also recognizes the importance of prayer as it begins each session with the invocation God save the United States and this Honorable Court.
Welcome nexusjournal.org - BlueHost.com Now it would seem that if all three branches of our Fereral Government recognize that the acknowledgement of god is "not" a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, that you would be able to recognize this as well. So, quite obviously, you do "not" know as much about the Constitution as you think you do. Or is it also your contention that our officials in all three branches of our Federal Government do not understand, and are in violation of, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? I guess those of you who champion the machinations of that anti-theist, anti-American organizaton known as the "ACLU", aka the "Atheists Communist Liberals Union, could always join them in filing suits against all three branches of our Federal Government for daring to mention "god" in their official sessions of their respective branches of our Federal Government. I suppose you could always attempt to convince a super majority of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and then convince a super majority of the states in the Union to ratify said amendment to the Constitution, such amendment stating, in effect and cause, that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is duly nullified and made void. Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar says:
quote:Where did my Uncle Sid get an Internet account? regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
And, for your reading enjoyment, a recent case involving the ACLU:
Thanks to support from the American Civil Liberties Union,
excerpted from http://www.thisistrue.com
Stevenson High School in Sterling Heights, Mich., has been forced to back down after it censored Class of 2001 Valedictorian Abby Moler. School officials removed a biblical quotation from a statement Moler made in the class yearbook, telling her she wasn't allowed to make religious comments. The school will issue a written apology to Moler, add her quote in file copies of the yearbook, and will "train its staff on free speech and religious-freedom issues."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I recall that about 10 or 15 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that if extra-curricular clubs and local civic organizations were allowed to use a school's facilities, then religious organizations must also be allowed use of the facilities in a non-discriminatory manner.
I don't know if the ACLU was directly involved in that case, but here is the stand of the Illinois ACLU:
If a school allows any kind of non-curricular club to meet on school grounds, then it must allow a religious club to use the facilities as well. Teachers and administrative officials must stay out of club activities, except for monitoring for acceptable behavior of all students.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024