Evangelicals Hijack Education In Texas (And Beyond)

[smoking357]

You can't fix stupid. We can present every piece of evidence, but if someone wants to stay entrenched in their bitter mentality then that is their decision.

You have evidence for Creationism? The complete lack of evidence is why is it dismissed, out of hand, as any satisfying cosmological thesis.

If you have facts, you win. Show us all the proof of Creationism.

 

[Roadie]

No. It's all bunk. I refuse to legitimize any of it. It's an excuse to avoid science. It's a complete abdication of the scientific method. It starts with a conclusion it needs to reach then manufactures its premises.

No acknowledgment of any flavor it of it must every creep into a textbook.



Wow, you went very defensive with that.



Don't go straw man. You're getting all worked up over this. Calm down.

So you, a random person with unverified credentials, on a random board in cyberspace, are more knowledgeable on science, than actual scientists, purely because you do not agree with them?

Michael J. Behe American biochemist, professor
Charles B. Thaxton physical chemist with post doctorate at Harvard
John F. Ashton Australian research scientist, chemist

Just to name a few...

 

[jdhaines]

Oh my...you listed Behe? wow. Behe got so thouroughly destroyed during the case for Intelligent Design that the judge actually described his arguments as "breathtaking inanity." I would avoid using his name (along with the entire LeHigh University debacle) associated with your name and beliefs at all costs. There are many others you could associate with that at least are still respected by some. He has been proven invalid by so many different people it's sort of sad. I'm going to let this one go.

Stop me if you've heard this: "How can you make Behe wince?.........Say the word "Dogs." " Ahh...I crack myself up.

 

[Roadie]

It sounds like he's trying to find a point to your argument. Just because people in MA are getting gun permits more frequently, the type of people at Harvard are not necessarily following the same actions. There is still a large difference in gun ownership between "intellectuals" such as those at Harvard, and "rurals" such as those who live in the country and small towns...

Not to fight someone else's fight...

I rather hoped this would be obvious.

I was perhaps optimistic to suppose he would wave had the statistical rigor to show the base and the increase to compare to, say, Spencer, IN.

I like your Avvy.

Obvious how exactly? I didn't see you post any statistics to back up your OPINION, but yet you question my lack of statistics? How ironic. or should I say, hypocritical?

Can you post statistical, verifiable proof, of your claims that gun ownership is conversely related to intelligence? or as JD put it "intellectuals vs. rurals"?

After all, YOU made the original claim, should it not be YOU that backs it up?

 

[smoking357]

Can you post statistical, verifiable proof, of your claims that gun ownership is conversely related to intelligence? or as JD put it "intellectuals vs. rurals"?

 

[Roadie]

Ah yes, that makes it very clear

 

[Roadie]

Judging by the title of your failed attempt at posting a picture, just how is asking for statistics a "strawman" when you yourself berated my post for a lack of statistics?

Ironic that you want "statistical proof" in a discussion about Creationism, but scoff at it in a gun ownership vs intelligence discussion.

Rather telling, I would say.

 

[smoking357]

Judging by the title of your failed attempt at posting a picture, just how is asking for statistics a "strawman" when you yourself berated my post for a lack of statistics?

Straw man. You don't do a good job of isolating the argument. Then, instead of asking for clarification, you commit the unscrupulous act of recasting the argument into something you wish was proffered and against which you can make a show of grandstanding.

 

[Roadie]

Straw man. You don't do a good job of isolating the argument.

So, in other words, you do not have statistics to back up your claims.

 

[shooter521]

Now we're arguing about how to argue?

 

[DragonGunner]

I wish we would go back to what our forefathers fought for an believed in. Public schools have been going down hill ever since they took prayer out in the early 60's.

"What sudents should learn in American schools above all is the relgion of Jesus Christ." George Washington

"Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existance." Thomas Paine

 

[smoking357]

Now we're arguing about how to argue?

Much would be solved, and much time would be saved, if only people put more work into forming a proper proof.

 

[dross]

Some scientists believe in creationism. That does not make it a scientific theory. Some lawyers may believe in evolution. That doesn't make evolution a legal theory.

You can say evolution is a theory. You can attack the theory of evolution based on the weaknesses of the theory. You can't reasonably say that because the theory of evolution has some weaknesses, that is de facto evidence for a creator. Nor can you say that because there are interlocking systems in the universe that it was then necessarily designed by a greater being.

You might believe in a superior being that created the universe. Without evidence of a superior being's existence, and then evidence it was THAT being who created the universe, creationism becomes what it always has been, a religious theory.

Now, that said, it is possible to find evidence that can be construed so as to support the religious theory of creationism. That evidence may also be construed to support the general theory of evolution. One is first a scientific theory, supported by evidence. The other is a religious theory, supported by the way some evidence can be construed.

Evolution stands or fails only on science. Creationism requires first that you prove there is a superior being, and then that you prove that superior being created the universe.

 

[smoking357]

Some scientists believe in creationism. That does not make it a scientific theory. Some lawyers may believe in evolution. That doesn't make evolution a legal theory.

Very well said.

You might believe in a superior being that created the universe. Without evidence of a superior being's existence, and then evidence it was THAT being who created the universe, creationism becomes what it always has been, a religious theory.

Which, returning to the call of the original post, is precisely why it must not be allowed into the public's textbooks.

Evolution stands or fails only on science. Creationism requires first that you prove there is a superior being, and then that you prove that superior being created the universe.

There is simply no way around the retort "first, show me a God."

 

[Roadie]

Some scientists believe in creationism. That does not make it a scientific theory. Some lawyers may believe in evolution. That doesn't make evolution a legal theory.

You can say evolution is a theory. You can attack the theory of evolution based on the weaknesses of the theory. You can't reasonably say that because the theory of evolution has some weaknesses, that is de facto evidence for a creator. Nor can you say that because there are interlocking systems in the universe that it was then necessarily designed by a greater being.

You might believe in a superior being that created the universe. Without evidence of a superior being's existence, and then evidence it was THAT being who created the universe, creationism becomes what it always has been, a religious theory.

Now, that said, it is possible to find evidence that can be construed so as to support the religious theory of creationism. That evidence may also be construed to support the general theory of evolution. One is first a scientific theory, supported by evidence. The other is a religious theory, supported by the way some evidence can be construed.

Evolution stands or fails only on science. Creationism requires first that you prove there is a superior being, and then that you prove that superior being created the universe.

So then, how would you respond to this question I have seen asked..

"If an orderly wall is evidence of a Master bricklayer, why couldn't an orderly universe be used as evidence of a Creator?"

 

[Roadie]

Very well said.



Which, returning to the call of the original post, is precisely why it must not be allowed into the public's textbooks.

There is simply no way around the retort "first, show me a God."

"First, show me the undisputed link between lower animals and man"

 

[smoking357]

So then, how would you respond to this question I have seen asked..

"If an orderly wall is evidence of a Master bricklayer, why couldn't an orderly universe be used as evidence of a Creator?"

Because bricks have no other means of being arranged into a wall than by a mason.

Prove that the only means of arranging a universe is by God.

Listen, Kid, I'm not trying to wreck your faith. Please be as devoted as you want. You must understand that if your faith is dependent on some really fanciful beliefs that do not, in any way, affect your relationship with God, you will have a weak faith that is easily dislodged, so you will cling to it, ever tighter, with even more outlandish ideas required to support the original outlandish ideas.

Try to evolve your belief system to something that exists in harmony with Nature and sees God's hand in the regular workings of Nature. Consider being a Methodist. They aren't rattled by Evolution or any other scientific idea. If Evolution is how God wants it, so be it. It's piety is proven.

Is it really necessary for you to do good to your neighbor to believe that you were created in a day out of dust? Kick this one to the curb, and get a more dare I say, evolved, belief system.

 

[jdhaines]

Some scientists believe in creationism. That does not make it a scientific theory. Some lawyers may believe in evolution. That doesn't make evolution a legal theory.

You can say evolution is a theory. You can attack the theory of evolution based on the weaknesses of the theory. You can't reasonably say that because the theory of evolution has some weaknesses, that is de facto evidence for a creator. Nor can you say that because there are interlocking systems in the universe that it was then necessarily designed by a greater being.

You might believe in a superior being that created the universe. Without evidence of a superior being's existence, and then evidence it was THAT being who created the universe, creationism becomes what it always has been, a religious theory.

Now, that said, it is possible to find evidence that can be construed so as to support the religious theory of creationism. That evidence may also be construed to support the general theory of evolution. One is first a scientific theory, supported by evidence. The other is a religious theory, supported by the way some evidence can be construed.

Evolution stands or fails only on science. Creationism requires first that you prove there is a superior being, and then that you prove that superior being created the universe.

Hadn't heard it put that way, but sounds right to me.

 

[HICKMAN]

So Creationism is based in fact, is it?

Guys, here's how the rest of the world views Creationists. It does the community of gun owners little good to have such a heavy representation of Creationists in it.

you seriously used comedians to make a point? really?

Evolutionists say that matter came from nothing or it does not have an origin (Big bang theory). But it is impossible because it is against the Law of thermodynamics. Matter can NOT be created.

Evolutionist claim that life was formed from inorganic compounds. That can never be proven. Moreover it is against the law of biogenesis - life comes only from life.

If evolution was true, we should see in nature millions of ‘missing links’. But where are they?

Geology is supposed to be be the one branch of science that proves evolution. But when all evidences are examined geology favors creation. Evolution requires intermediary fossils and paleontology can’t provide them. Furthermore they provide many proofs for creation. For e.g.-the human and dinosaur tracks which were found together in Texas. But this is impossible according to evolution because humans came to the world 70 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. There are many other proofs such as Polystrate fossils, frozen mammoth in Siberia etc.


The human brain has about 120,000,000,000,000 connections. Such complexity can’t come by mere chance. There is enough information to build an entire body in the DNA of every cell of a body. It is written in the DNA language. But who made this? Certainly a language won’t be made by accident.

IMHO... There has to be a God. This place we exist in is just too complicated to just happen.

I'm not extremely religious, but I know something beyond mere science is going on.

 

[PatriotPride]

Excellent post Hickman. I'm out of rep---I'll get you when I reload.