| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Desertphile" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2006 03:25:30 PM |
| Object: |
Anti-science Bill Filed |
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
Find the bill online at:
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
Here is the text:
==========
SB 96: PUBLIC EDUCATION - INSTRUCTION AND POLICY RELATING TO THE
ORIGINS OF LIFE
Section 1. Section 53A-13-101.7 is enacted to read:
53A-13-101.7. Curriculum and policy on theories [sic] relating to the
origins of life.
(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories [sic]
regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the
human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions,
the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists
agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over
another.
(2) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum
requirements, consistent with Subsection (1), relating to instruction
of students on theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or
present state of the human race.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall
require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the
origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race,
shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.
(4) The State Board of Education shall:
(a) make rules, pursuant to Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative
Rulemaking Act, to fulfill the requirements of this section; and (b)
ensure that all policies and positions of the State Board of Education
relating to theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or
present state of the human race:
(i) do not endorse a particular theory; and (ii) stress that not all
scientists agree on which theory is correct.
==========
All science is tentative. Any good science education education would
teach that not all scientists agree, but when you have 99.9% in in one
camp, they are probably on to something. That 0.1% doesn't need this
much attention.
.
|
|
| User: "DH" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
06 Jan 2006 03:58:13 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136582730.940717.87680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
Find the bill online at:
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
Here is the text:
==========
SB 96: PUBLIC EDUCATION - INSTRUCTION AND POLICY RELATING TO THE
ORIGINS OF LIFE
Section 1. Section 53A-13-101.7 is enacted to read:
53A-13-101.7. Curriculum and policy on theories [sic] relating to the
origins of life.
(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories [sic]
regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the
human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions,
the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists
agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over
another.
(2) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum
requirements, consistent with Subsection (1), relating to instruction
of students on theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or
present state of the human race.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall
require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the
origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race,
shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.
(4) The State Board of Education shall:
(a) make rules, pursuant to Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative
Rulemaking Act, to fulfill the requirements of this section; and (b)
ensure that all policies and positions of the State Board of Education
relating to theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or
present state of the human race:
(i) do not endorse a particular theory; and (ii) stress that not all
scientists agree on which theory is correct.
==========
All science is tentative. Any good science education education would
teach that not all scientists agree, but when you have 99.9% in in one
camp, they are probably on to something. That 0.1% doesn't need this
much attention.
It seems to me that the Honorable Chris Butthead - ooops, that's Buttars,
sorry - will have to include a definition of "scientist" to give this any
real meaning.
And, when we "stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is
correct," can we fulfill this requirement by saying, "very nearly all
evolutionary biologists agree that the Theory of Evolution is fundamentally
correct, provides the best description of how life came to be in its current
forms, is consistent with the scientific knowledge of other disciplines but
is opposed by a peculiar minority of scientists who have actually never
learned any science?"
If that doesn't provide enough stress on the nature of the controversy, do
we add "but they believe that science is done best, not in the lab or field,
but in State Capitals, by lobbying legislators who also don't know any
science?"
Is that what Senator Buttars is hoping he'll hear in 10th grade biology
classrooms around Utah?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
06 Jan 2006 03:52:50 PM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall
require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the
origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race,
shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.
So far there's only one theory. Sounds like another useless bill.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
07 Jan 2006 11:06:10 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1136584370.349793.83320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Desertphile wrote:
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall
require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the
origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race,
shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.
So far there's only one theory. Sounds like another useless bill.
Jim
After reading the excerpt of the bill, I realized that it was a useless
bit of legislation as well. Hopefully others will realize it.
The part that says "In order to encourage students to critically analyze
theories [sic] regarding the origins of life or the origins or present
state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own
opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all
scientists agree on any one theory..."
I am quite sure I can find a scientist that disagrees with the theory of
relativity, theory of gravity, and even music theory which makes the above
statement useless. The fact that not all scientists agree on any given
topic has been true since day one. The person who wrote the bill is
woefully ignorant.
If I were a science teaher, I would welcome the bill as I could then spend
a week on lunatic fringe theories vs. good science. Creationism or ID
certainly falls under the lunatic fringe heading.
My son recently took a biology class and his college professor stated at
the begininning of the class that she taught science and that ID,
creationism, and anything else that is not evolution would not be
discussed. She added, "This is science class. Not religion class. If
you don't like it, then please see the registrar's office for a refund."
My son lives in Texas and goes to school there.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
08 Jan 2006 03:59:16 PM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall
require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the
origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race,
shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.
So far there's only one theory. Sounds like another useless bill.
Indeed: the bill, if turned into law, is impossible to obey because
there are no theories "regarding the origins of life, or the origins or
present state of the human race:" there is only one theory. How does
Buttars expect teachers to teach that which does not exist? (Because
he's a stupid moron).
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 11:41:41 AM |
|
|
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion. The Religion
based on science does not exlude god and although we see evolution as real,
this does not mean that there is God running in the background. The
religion based on science says we cannot see God as he is transparent but it
cannot say He does not exist. There is no way of testing for His existance.
In fact this religion does no exclude Jesus and his philosophy is so good I
try to follow him. That does not mean anything about immortality, even the
Bible says nothing about it, no heaven or hell in the bible and not much
about God either, He is mentioned quite often, but it does not amount to
much. Most of the Bible is history and little snippets about how to live
with the object of a long and succesful life and the promise that this way
of life makes the human environment a better place. The religion based on
science teaches us that life is ubiquitous it is every where that the
conditions are suitable and that is everywhere there is an energy source and
the right materials (these are found nearly everywhere) and the physical
conditions, these can be extreme but probably not over 600K. Pressure can
probably be from near vacuum to the pressure higher than an ocean deep.
Since life is so common then the evolution of complex and intelligent forms
including this strange thing we call conciousness, is probably common. I
know what "intelligent" means but not "concious". From this it becomes
evident from our own species that space travel is possible for these shards
of carbon to travel across interstellar space and come here is some "star -
ship". This means that some people who have strange "contactee" experiences
are telling the truth. The most recent contacee is a bar girl down the road
(stripper on thursday not that I've seen her) and was put in a gulag but
released after she recanted. I fear for my life because the religion based
on science is not accepted here.
Chris.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
11 Jan 2006 05:46:08 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pfxwf.92679$D47.83492@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion. The
Religion based on science does not exlude god and although we see
evolution as real, this does not mean that there is God running in the
background. The religion based on science says we cannot see God as he is
transparent but it cannot say He does not exist. There is no way of
testing for His existance.
Are you a case of arrested development? The invisible divine entities in
the sky you call god went out of the religion business thousands of years
ago, along with Zeus and /or Odin et al.
Ever since Christ, we not only know our God, but have seen Him. See
below, where Jesus is holding forth on the subject.
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one (and the same).
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "erikc" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
11 Jan 2006 12:51:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:46:08 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pfxwf.92679$D47.83492@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion. The
Religion based on science does not exlude god and although we see
evolution as real, this does not mean that there is God running in the
background. The religion based on science says we cannot see God as he is
transparent but it cannot say He does not exist. There is no way of
testing for His existance.
Are you a case of arrested development? The invisible divine entities in
the sky you call god went out of the religion business thousands of years
ago, along with Zeus and /or Odin et al.
Ever since Christ, we not only know our God, but have seen Him. See
below, where Jesus is holding forth on the subject.
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one (and the same).
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Give it up dude, religion is all ***** and your dribblings are indicative
of what it does to a nervous system.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 01:46:00 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pfxwf.92679$D47.83492@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
In your opinion, only.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 10:05:13 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
<rofl!> Bet this kid is a Freshman High School student.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 05:59:18 PM |
|
|
Chris (no-spam) wrote:
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
No.
It is possible to make a religion around anything - even science.
It is certainly not compulsory.
I, for example, don't make science into a religion.
( A single counterexample invalidates a universal claim.)
I dont have a religion at the moment - but if I ever do get one it will
be based on compassion/ethical needs/need for "connection".
A religion that I could adopt/invent would have to be 100% compatible
with reality (therefore not contradict science) and not involve the
worship of gods.
The Religion
based on science
.... is of no real interest to me.
I am *very* interested in science but I reject all false religions -
whatever they may be based upon.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
12 Jan 2006 04:12:36 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1136851158.382694.273760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chris (no-spam) wrote:
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
No.
It is possible to make a religion around anything - even science.
It is certainly not compulsory.
I, for example, don't make science into a religion.
( A single counterexample invalidates a universal claim.)
I dont have a religion at the moment - but if I ever do get one it will
be based on compassion/ethical needs/need for "connection".
A religion that I could adopt/invent would have to be 100% compatible
with reality (therefore not contradict science) and not involve the
worship of gods.
Your "gods" don't exist, so there is no need to worship them. Christ is
our God incarnate because He demonstrated the perfection He wants us to live
up to on the cross of Calvary. See below
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Matthew. 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is
perfect.
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 12:34:08 PM |
|
|
Chris (no-spam) wrote:
hELlo,
ScieNce AND ThE bElIeFS it gEnErAtES is JUST AnOTher RELigiOn. tHe reliGiOn
BaSED ON scIEnCE DOes Not exLuDe goD anD aLTHoUgh WE see evOLUtioN as rEal,
thiS Does Not MEaN ThaT ThErE Is GoD RUNNING in tHE BackgroUNd. tHe
religION BAsed oN SCiencE saYs WE caNNot sEE GOd as hE Is TransPaRent BUT IT
CanNOt saY He DoEs NoT EXisT. THEre iS no wAy OF tEstiNG foR hIs EXiSTanCe.
iN FaCt THis rEliGiOn doEs nO EXCLuDe JesuS AND HiS PhILosoPHY IS sO gOOd I
trY To fOLLoW HIm. tHAt DOES NOt MeAn AnYThIng About ImMorTaliTY, EvEn The
bIbLE sAYS NotHing AbOuT IT, nO heAVen oR helL in tHE BIBlE AnD noT MuCH
AbOUT god EitheR, he IS MEnTioNED quITE often, but IT DOes NOt amoUNT To
mUch. mOsT Of The BiBLE IS HIstORy AnD LitTLe SnIppETS AboUt hoW TO live
With THE OBJeCt of a lOnG aND SUCcESfUL LiFe AnD THe PrOmise THAT This Way
OF LiFE MakES THe HuMan envIronMENT A betTeR Place. THe reLiGion bAsED On
sCIENce tEAchES us tHat liFe iS ubIQuiToUS it iS EveRY WhErE tHat tHe
conDitIoNs are SuITAblE aNd tHAt IS EverYWHeRe therE Is An ENErgY SoURce anD
ThE riGHT MaTeRiAls (ThESE are fOUND nEArlY EVErYWHeRE) AND THe phYSIcal
condItIONS, thesE CaN Be exTRemE BUT pRobAbly NOT oVeR 600k. pRessurE cAn
pRoBAblY BE FRom nEAR vacUUm tO The pResSUre HIGHEr ThAN An OceAn deEP.
sinCE lIfe IS so cOmMOn THen thE eVOLuTion oF coMpLEX aND iNTelliGEnT Forms
INCluDing ThiS StrAngE thInG We cAll COncIousNess, is prOBAblY CoMMOn. i
knOw WhAt "INtEllIGeNt" MEaNS BUt NOt "CoNCious". fROm tHiS It BecOmes
eVidEnt FRoM OUr oWN SPEciES thaT SPAce TRaVeL is pOssIBLE fOr THesE sHArds
OF CarBon To TraVel AcroSS iNteRsTELlAr SPACE aND COme HeRE iS SOME "sTar -
shIp". ThIs mEaNS that Some pEople wHo have StrAnGe "cOntaCTEE" eXPeRIENcEs
aRe teLliNG the TRuTH. the MoST ReCEnt cONTaCee iS A BAR gIrL dOwN the ROAD
(strIPpER on thuRsDAY NoT ThAt I've sEen HER) and WaS Put In a gulaG BUT
RELEAseD aFteR She RECANTEd. i FeaR foR mY lIFE because tHe RELIgIOn baSED
ON sciENCE is nOT aCcEPTeD HeRE.
There are no religions based upon science, silly; if there was, it
would not be a religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
10 Jan 2006 03:23:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
What 'beliefs' oh lying dumbfuck?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
11 Jan 2006 08:53:16 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:7c98s19511gkote7gk0vcrpl7j2tsfok3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
What 'beliefs' oh lying dumbfuck?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ............. it just occurred to me .....................
By saying "science" (or evolution) is just another religion.............
are these idiots saying that it is built on a foundation of false beliefs
and superstitions?
If so ......... how does that validate THEIR religion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
11 Jan 2006 11:47:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:53:16 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
<here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:7c98s19511gkote7gk0vcrpl7j2tsfok3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
What 'beliefs' oh lying dumbfuck?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ............. it just occurred to me .....................
By saying "science" (or evolution) is just another religion.............
are these idiots saying that it is built on a foundation of false beliefs
and superstitions?
I don't think the walking brain dead have a clue what they drool.
If so ......... how does that validate THEIR religion?
It doesn't validate their superstition, but they're too
stupid/uneducated/ to realize that.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 08:35:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <pfxwf.92679$D47.83492@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion. The Religion
based on science does not exlude god and although we see evolution as real,
this does not mean that there is God running in the background. The
religion based on science says we cannot see God as he is transparent but it
cannot say He does not exist. There is no way of testing for His existance.
In fact this religion does no exclude Jesus and his philosophy is so good I
try to follow him. That does not mean anything about immortality, even the
Bible says nothing about it, no heaven or hell in the bible and not much
about God either, He is mentioned quite often, but it does not amount to
much. Most of the Bible is history and little snippets about how to live
with the object of a long and succesful life and the promise that this way
of life makes the human environment a better place. The religion based on
science teaches us that life is ubiquitous it is every where that the
conditions are suitable and that is everywhere there is an energy source and
the right materials (these are found nearly everywhere) and the physical
conditions, these can be extreme but probably not over 600K. Pressure can
probably be from near vacuum to the pressure higher than an ocean deep.
Since life is so common then the evolution of complex and intelligent forms
including this strange thing we call conciousness, is probably common. I
know what "intelligent" means but not "concious". From this it becomes
evident from our own species that space travel is possible for these shards
of carbon to travel across interstellar space and come here is some "star -
ship". This means that some people who have strange "contactee" experiences
are telling the truth. The most recent contacee is a bar girl down the road
(stripper on thursday not that I've seen her) and was put in a gulag but
released after she recanted. I fear for my life because the religion based
on science is not accepted here.
Chris.
Hello Chris.
I am a Nigerian prince, who has access to my family fortune, provided
that you are able to give me your bank account details.
I promixe that you can have half.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 12:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion. The Religion
Only in the pretence of the terminally dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
11 Jan 2006 05:57:00 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:qka5s1972116eqqmtlph19astipv4c0636@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion.
Only in the pretence of the terminally dishonest.
LOL got ourselves another firm believer in the Piltdown man, who calls
all unbelievers "terminally dishonest". But then most atheists are not only
cynical, but paranoid as well, fancying themselves surrounded, besieged if
not inundated by "superstitious religious morons".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 12:35:03 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:41:41 GMT, "Chris"
<nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Hello,
Science and the beliefs it generates is just another religion. The Religion
Appears Mental.
Only in the pretence of the terminally dishonest.
Indeed. Otherwise known as "Creationists."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
07 Jan 2006 01:51:59 PM |
|
|
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136582730.940717.87680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
Find the bill online at:
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
Here is the text:
==========
SB 96: PUBLIC EDUCATION - INSTRUCTION AND POLICY RELATING TO THE
ORIGINS OF LIFE
Section 1. Section 53A-13-101.7 is enacted to read:
53A-13-101.7. Curriculum and policy on theories [sic] relating to the
origins of life.
(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories [sic]
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there
to fear?
regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the
human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions,
the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists
agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over
another.
(2) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum
requirements, consistent with Subsection (1), relating to instruction
of students on theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or
present state of the human race.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall
require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the
origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race,
shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.
(4) The State Board of Education shall:
(a) make rules, pursuant to Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative
Rulemaking Act, to fulfill the requirements of this section; and (b)
ensure that all policies and positions of the State Board of Education
relating to theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or
present state of the human race:
(i) do not endorse a particular theory; and (ii) stress that not all
scientists agree on which theory is correct.
==========
All science is tentative. Any good science education education would
teach that not all scientists agree, but when you have 99.9% in in one
camp, they are probably on to something. That 0.1% doesn't need this
much attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
08 Jan 2006 01:08:21 PM |
|
|
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
"Someone give bush a ***** so we can finally impeach him" -- AVet4Peace
"Frankly, I do not give her the time of day (18:20 MST)" -- Quaoar
"How do you evolutionists explain the Caribbean Explosion?" -- Anonymous
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 10:59:26 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to
fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
I am advocating critical thinking. So, exactly why do you suppose
this is 'begging the question'? While, I do not support the objective
of getting religion in public schools, I don't think that being
critical of evolution is necessarily supporting religion.
RD
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/
http://www.thedarkwind.org/
"Someone give bush a ***** so we can finally impeach him" -- AVet4Peace
"Frankly, I do not give her the time of day (18:20 MST)" -- Quaoar
"How do you evolutionists explain the Caribbean Explosion?" -- Anonymous
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 10:04:28 PM |
|
|
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
I am advocating critical thinking.
You employed the logic fallacy known as "Begging the question." You
can't be advocating critial thought when you don't employ same.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
10 Jan 2006 03:01:21 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6cebf5cc65e2@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there
to fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
I am advocating critical thinking.
You employed the logic fallacy known as "Begging the question." You
can't be advocating critial thought when you don't employ same.
You cannot justify that comment.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
10 Jan 2006 10:39:57 PM |
|
|
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6cebf5cc65e2@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there
to fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
I am advocating critical thinking.
You employed the logic fallacy known as "Begging the question." You
can't be advocating critial thought when you don't employ same.
You cannot justify that comment.
There's no justification required inasmuch as it's beyond question
that those who do not employ reason can not be reasoned with. When
a cultist adopts illogic and occultism, attempting them to employ
logic and science is futile; it doesn't work -- and if you're
unaware of the phenomena it's because you're an illogical cultist.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
10 Jan 2006 10:55:16 PM |
|
|
R.D. Heilman wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to
fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
I am advocating critical thinking. So, exactly why do you suppose
this is 'begging the question'? While, I do not support the objective
of getting religion in public schools, I don't think that being
critical of evolution is necessarily supporting religion.
In this case, critical thinking would require one to look at the
concept of "Intelligent Design", pulling apart its logical structure
and evidentiary support, and realize that ID is nothing more that "We
don't know how X biological phenomena happened, so some Designer must
have done it." If one then does a bit of research, one finds that the
leading lights of the ID movement are not at all shy about calling that
Designer "God" (as in the Deity worshipped by Christians) when they
find themselves before a receptive audience.
Assuming one were to find evidentiary or logical flaws in evolutionary
theory, this would do nothing to support ID... ID must stand on it's
own evidentiary and descriptive / predictive feet. As it happens, it
doesn't.
Evolutionary theory is solid science. What, precisely is one to
criticize? Can you describe what a class on "criticism of evolutionary
theory" would consist of?
While biologists may disagree over the minutae of evolutionary theory,
there is no serious criticism of its validity at this time... and that
isn't because people haven't looked.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
12 Jan 2006 07:33:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
R.D. Heilman wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to
fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
I am advocating critical thinking. So, exactly why do you suppose
this is 'begging the question'? While, I do not support the objective
of getting religion in public schools, I don't think that being
critical of evolution is necessarily supporting religion.
In this case, critical thinking would require one to look at the
concept of "Intelligent Design", pulling apart its logical structure
and evidentiary support, and realize that ID is nothing more that "We
don't know how X biological phenomena happened, so some Designer must
have done it." If one then does a bit of research, one finds that the
leading lights of the ID movement are not at all shy about calling that
Designer "God" (as in the Deity worshipped by Christians) when they
find themselves before a receptive audience.
Creationists tend to be deceivers when it comes to presenting their
case to non-cult members. One would think they would heed Job 13:2-14
but they do not. According to Christian Creationists, their god "Satan"
is the father of lies; that makes "Satan" the father of Creationists.
Assuming one were to find evidentiary or logical flaws in evolutionary
theory, this would do nothing to support ID... ID must stand on it's
own evidentiary and descriptive / predictive feet. As it happens, it
doesn't.
Evolutionary theory is solid science. What, precisely is one to
criticize? Can you describe what a class on "criticism of evolutionary
theory" would consist of?
While biologists may disagree over the minutae of evolutionary theory,
there is no serious criticism of its validity at this time... and that
isn't because people haven't looked.
Also note that if any part of evolutionary theory were found to be
wrong or flawed, evolution, obviously, would still be 100% valid and
factual.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 05:53:13 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to
fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
The opposite is true. Satan told his atheist minions to get government
to abolish free speech and impose censorship on everyone, disallowing the
use in public of certain forbidden words, like bible, god, Jesus Christ,
heaven, hell, faith and belief, etc. etc. on pain of being sent to the
Gulags, if not having your tongue cut out besides.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
09 Jan 2006 10:02:19 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s2ol7k1r4qt69@corp.supernews.com...
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there to fear?
You're employing the logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
The cultists are seeking to try to work occult superstition into the
public schools -- because they're failing to brainwash enough kids
in their churches.
The opposite is true. Satan told
Have any evidence for this "Satan" god of yours?
Debunked.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-science Bill Filed |
07 Jan 2006 07:32:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:51:59 -0500, "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found this on alt christian religion:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136582730.940717.87680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has filed his "evolution is just a
theory" bill. It is SB 96. The Utah legislative session starts on
Monday, January 16.
Find the bill online at:
http://se10.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bbmain.pl
Here is the text:
==========
SB 96: PUBLIC EDUCATION - INSTRUCTION AND POLICY RELATING TO THE
ORIGINS OF LIFE
Section 1. Section 53A-13-101.7 is enacted to read:
53A-13-101.7. Curriculum and policy on theories [sic] relating to the
origins of life.
(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories [sic]
What is the problem with teaching a child to be critical? What is there
to fear?
:
Total collapse of their cherished delusions,
upon which they have based their entire lifes' purpose.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
