| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2004 04:33:38 PM |
| Object: |
Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
---------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041108/APA/411080643&cachetime=5
or http://tinyurl.com/7ypcd
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
08 Nov 2004 06:17:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
- First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
- second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion;
- finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion."
The disclaimers appear to fail on the grounds that its true original
purpose is to promote religious-based ideas about the origin of life.
It also fails on the grounds that it appears to have no valid secular
purpose. The emphasis of what is actually a poor use of the word
'theory' with respect to science clearly indicates its religious
(scientific creationist) underpinnings..
And how can it not be excessive government entanglement when the
primary purpose is, through legislation, to dictate religious based
misinformation be put at the forefront of a scientific textbook,
completely circumventing any peer review process.
The stickers appear to fail on all three points of the Lemon test.
Read it at
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041108/APA/411080643&cachetime=5
or http://tinyurl.com/7ypcd
J. Spaceman
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
09 Nov 2004 05:34:43 PM |
|
|
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
- First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
- second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion;
- finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion."
The disclaimers appear to fail on the grounds that its true original
purpose is to promote religious-based ideas about the origin of life.
You mean calling evolution a "theory" is religious? Spock said that on Star Trek.
It also fails on the grounds that it appears to have no valid secular
purpose. The emphasis of what is actually a poor use of the word
'theory' with respect to science clearly indicates its religious
(scientific creationist) underpinnings..
And how can it not be excessive government entanglement when the
primary purpose is, through legislation, to dictate religious based
misinformation be put at the forefront of a scientific textbook,
completely circumventing any peer review process.
Calling evolution a theory is not religious. It's for critical thinking.
The stickers appear to fail on all three points of the Lemon test.
You fail in critical thinking.
What about that geology textbook that has the Haeckel chart?
JM
Read it at
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041108/APA/411080643&cachetime=5
or http://tinyurl.com/7ypcd
J. Spaceman
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
09 Nov 2004 07:05:37 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com...
snipping
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the
stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a
textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
How is promotion of a religious belief "critical thinking"?
- First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
- second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion;
- finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion."
The disclaimers appear to fail on the grounds that its true original
purpose is to promote religious-based ideas about the origin of life.
You mean calling evolution a "theory" is religious? Spock said that on
Star Trek.
Equivocating the word "theory" as used by science with the way it's used in
the common vernacular is misleading and since its being done to promote a
religious position, it clearly fails the constitutional test.
It also fails on the grounds that it appears to have no valid secular
purpose. The emphasis of what is actually a poor use of the word
'theory' with respect to science clearly indicates its religious
(scientific creationist) underpinnings..
And how can it not be excessive government entanglement when the
primary purpose is, through legislation, to dictate religious based
misinformation be put at the forefront of a scientific textbook,
completely circumventing any peer review process.
Calling evolution a theory is not religious. It's for critical thinking.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which no one disputes. However, as you
well know, the word "theory" as used in common speech means something
different. To single out evolution, out of all scientific theories for this
is unfair and dishonest.
The stickers appear to fail on all three points of the Lemon test.
You fail in critical thinking.
Again, how is promotion of a religious belief in violation of the US
Constitution "critical thinking"?
What about that geology textbook that has the Haeckel chart?
What about it? Do you really think we need reminders of how much a fool
you are?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 05:50:48 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<OZdkd.10378$Gm6.2668@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com...
snipping
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the
stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a
textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
How is promotion of a religious belief "critical thinking"?
- First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
- second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion;
- finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion."
The disclaimers appear to fail on the grounds that its true original
purpose is to promote religious-based ideas about the origin of life.
You mean calling evolution a "theory" is religious? Spock said that on
Star Trek.
Equivocating the word "theory" as used by science with the way it's used in
the common vernacular is misleading and since its being done to promote a
religious position, it clearly fails the constitutional test.
It also fails on the grounds that it appears to have no valid secular
purpose. The emphasis of what is actually a poor use of the word
'theory' with respect to science clearly indicates its religious
(scientific creationist) underpinnings..
And how can it not be excessive government entanglement when the
primary purpose is, through legislation, to dictate religious based
misinformation be put at the forefront of a scientific textbook,
completely circumventing any peer review process.
Calling evolution a theory is not religious. It's for critical thinking.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which no one disputes.
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
JM
However, as you
well know, the word "theory" as used in common speech means something
different. To single out evolution, out of all scientific theories for this
is unfair and dishonest.
The stickers appear to fail on all three points of the Lemon test.
You fail in critical thinking.
Again, how is promotion of a religious belief in violation of the US
Constitution "critical thinking"?
What about that geology textbook that has the Haeckel chart?
What about it? Do you really think we need reminders of how much a fool
you are?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 08:24:44 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411101601.714b9500@posting.google.com...
snipping
Calling evolution a theory is not religious. It's for critical
thinking.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which no one disputes.
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific
theory.
I'm talking about working scientists, not dillitantes who do not publish in
the scientific literature.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 10:19:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:24:44 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote:
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411101601.714b9500@posting.google.com...
snipping
Calling evolution a theory is not religious. It's for critical
thinking.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which no one disputes.
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific
theory.
I'm talking about working scientists, not dillitantes who do not publish in
the scientific literature.
Not that I disagree with you but I'd be a bit careful about this
question on polemic grounds. Given the fact that there are probably
around 100K people with advanced degrees in any number of the
sciences, and that there is probably at least a few fundamentalists
among them who cannot separate fact from dogma, coming up with quite a
few names, even limited to those who are published, really isn't that
hard. They just don't have many relevant things to say on the
subject!
100 scientists are a 'lot' in one sense, just not with respect to the
much larger list of scientists overall.
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 07:53:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 02:15:56 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 12:16:54 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411110027.673aa953@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific
theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
We also know that he's not a scientist. He's abandoned his scientific
training in order to support a religious belief. He has not published any
papers on Creation in any legitamate scientific journal. He makes his
living by speaking to un-educated, and like minded people, "preaching to the
choir" in effect.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 11:05:08 AM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411110027.673aa953@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific
theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
I will stipulate that Duane Gish has a legitimate degree in a scientific
field, that he has done and published scientific research, and that he is a
creationist. I will further stipulate that one could adduce dozens,
probably hundreds, of examples -- enough to qualify, I suppose, as "lots."
So why am I -- why are so many -- unimpressed?
Duane Gish, among his other qualifications, is the author of _Dinosaurs by
Design_, in which he considers the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
He notes that there were "bird-hipped" dinosaurs, like _Ankylosaurus_, that
clearly were not bird-like and could not plausibly have been ancestral to
birds, and "reptile-hipped" dinosaurs like _Compsognathus_ that looked
birdlike, but had the wrong sort of hips. Oddly, Gish does not consider two
points. The first, arguably irrelevant, is that there were "bird-hipped"
dinosaurs, the ornithopods, which did look much more birdlike than the
squat, giant armored dinosaurs (but these "bird-footed" dinos are not
considered that closely related to birds). The second, though, is something
anyone looking at the evidence *scientifically* would have been struck by.
The hips of "bird-hipped" dinos aren't really very like the hips of birds.
Rather, bird hips are actually "opisthopubic," like the hips of some
"reptile-hipped" theropods. This can be seen just by looking at the
"fully-formed bird" _Archaeopteryx_, whose hip bones are clearly much more
like those of _Compsognathus_ than they are like those of any "bird-hipped"
dinosaur. That bird-hipped dinos don't really have birdlike hips is
mentioned in nearly any decent book on dinosaurs, so I don't see how, if
Gish's book was based on actual research on dinosaurs, he could have avoided
learning this.
This seems to me typical of Gish's approach to creation. He is a scientist,
and he is a creationist, but he does no science in setting forth his case
for creationism and against evolution. In these fields he is an apologist,
not an investigator, and not, frankly, a terribly honest apologist.
You know the man.
JM
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 10:37:39 AM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411110027.673aa953@posting.google.com>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy < > wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
JM
You mean the one who lied about bullfrog proteins, and then repeated
the lie long after it was revealed as a lie?
I can understand why he's a hero of yours. You evidently wish to
emulate him.
Now on the subject of the drawings in the geology book which you first
claimed to be Haeckel's, but have subsequently admitted were modified
versions of his charts in the book you claimed was a geology book but
subsequently admitted was a book on historical geology (though I can
accept that you may be to ignorant to realise the distinction) which
you claimed had brainwashed you through the use of Haeckels drawings
(you know, the ones which are modified versions of Haeckels drawings)
into believing in evolution and which you picked up at a library
recently (truly the same book you were taught from - just happened to
be on the shelves of your library - what a co-incidence!), could you
please explain to us how the drawings were modified from Haeckels
orginals (you know, the ones that you think were first published in
"The American Spectator" - hint: you might benefit from a bit of
research on this one), and in what aspects are they inaccurate?
On the subject of unanswered questions, I'm not clear on whether on
not you assert that the ICR is scientifically incompetent or in thrall
to the EAC in their failure to back up Whyatts claims of having found
the ark. Could you clarify this for me?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 04:09:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:15:56 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
Yes, himself caught in a lie. Gish was long ago discredited.
But you said lots of scientists. Name, say, ten of them and their
qualifications.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 04:49:02 PM |
|
|
In article <slrncp7pdo.1qc.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:15:56 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
Yes, himself caught in a lie. Gish was long ago discredited.
But you said lots of scientists. Name, say, ten of them and their
qualifications.
Their usual claim is that scientists are "abandoning the theory of
evolution in droves," but when called on it, they can't name any
scientists who weren't creationists to begin with.
- Felix
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 06:43:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:49:02 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@SKIPTHESECAPSbackpack.com> wrote:
In article <slrncp7pdo.1qc.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:15:56 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
Yes, himself caught in a lie. Gish was long ago discredited.
But you said lots of scientists. Name, say, ten of them and their
qualifications.
There are hundreds. Both Answers in Genesis and the Institute for
Creation Research maintain a long list of scientists who are
creationists, many in scientific research and/or teaching positions.
Their usual claim is that scientists are "abandoning the theory of
evolution in droves," but when called on it, they can't name any
scientists who weren't creationists to begin with.
- Felix
I can (Beware of absolutes :) I have come across several creationists
who claim that they were once evolutionists. Remember that there are
perhaps 100K (loosely defined) scientists out there and it wouldn't be
hard to find a few nut cases among them.
Answers in Genesis lists several of them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/jumping_ship.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0622catchpoole.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/recover.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/couple.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/abandoned.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4336news6-28-2000.asp
The problem with questions of science and faith is to find some source
that mentions both a person's scientific credentials AND their
religious belief. Other than such sites as answers in genesis, this
is much easier said than done.
When it comes to the question of naming someone who once believed in
evolution and then became a creationist, this is much more difficult,
almost requiring reading multiple personal biographies. Of course it
is in the best interest of such organizations as answers in genesis to
mention such things so they would be a natural place to start.
My guess is your average college web site which lists faculty makes no
mention of their individual religious beliefs or positions regarding a
particular scientific controversy. From these sites, one can only
hazard a guess as to what a given person's views on matters such as
creationism, ID, or evolution might be.
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 04:17:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:15:56 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp5i57.ml.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy < > wrote:
There are lots of scientists that dispute evolution as a scientific theory.
Name them and their qualifications.
Not needed. But I will provide one.
Duane Gish Ph.D Biochemistry, Berkeley.
You know the man.
JM
Yes, he is very well known to be a dishonest or incompetent
scientist. You'd like him. His work is full of evidence mining,
quote mining, misrepresentation of the facts, ignoring facts that
don't support his religious belief, repeatedly stating misinformation
even after it has been demonstrated to be false.
One incompetent creationist liar citing another incompetent
creationist liar.
Gish's law: The number of gaps in the fossil record is directly
proportional to the number of transitional species found.
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 07:51:54 PM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>...
What about that geology textbook that has the Haeckel chart?
Yeah, what *about* that geology textbook you claim
"has the Haeckel chart", Nameless? Got around to
identifying the authors yet? No? How about the
publisher? No? How about the ISBN, then?
Ball's in your court, Professor Genius.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Hammingweight" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
11 Nov 2004 12:22:57 AM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>...
You mean calling evolution a "theory" is religious? Spock said that on Star Trek.
I'm not American so sometimes I don't understand the allusions posted
on usenet. Is quoting Mr Spock an attempt at humour (or, rather,
"humor") or is this really seen as a valid argument by a creationist?
If the latter, creationism would seem to be in trouble...
(Is it just me or was Star Trek vastly overrated?)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
09 Nov 2004 05:59:25 PM |
|
|
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com> (J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 02:30:08 AM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com> (J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
JM
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt! Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 11:43:01 AM |
|
|
<...>
And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard McBane" |
|
| Title: Re: Chez Watt! Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 01:23:07 PM |
|
|
Hank wrote:
<...>
And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
What about the American League and National League, is either one of
them accredited?
--
Richard McBane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 03:04:51 AM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message
news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>
mccoy@sunset.net (J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was
meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that
evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion
of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about
religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is
necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the
book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to
accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put
the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in
a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not
mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails miserably
in this respect.
JM
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 01:27:03 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<VQkkd.1737$DI5.1253@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message
news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>
mccoy@sunset.net (J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was
meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that
evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion
of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about
religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is
necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the
book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to
accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put
the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in
a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not
mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism. As a
proponent of evolution, your opinion regarding the physical evidence
should be called into question. No wonder evolutionists sometimes
refuse to debate creationists.
JM
JM
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 01:45:47 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411101137.19f06f4@posting.google.com...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:<VQkkd.1737$DI5.1253@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message
news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>
mccoy@sunset.net (J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker
was
meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that
evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a
promotion
of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything
about
religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is
necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the
book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to
accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to
put
the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small
disclaimer in
a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not
mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the
Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That
there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting
the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails
miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism.
Not a single bit. All the 'evidence' I've ever seen cited here has been
evidence supposedly refuting evolution, not supporting creationism. That's
because creationism doesn't make any testable predictions, so there is no
possible evidence which could support it - thus invalidating it as a
scientific theory. And even the supposed evidence against evolution has been
mostly in the 'surely you can't expect us to believe...' rhetorical mould.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 02:45:17 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411101137.19f06f4@posting.google.com...
snipping
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That
there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting
the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails
miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism.
Ok, let's see it. Whip it out.
As a
proponent of evolution, your opinion regarding the physical evidence
should be called into question.
Why? Evolution is a well established scientific theory, supported by a
massive amount of physical evidence.
No wonder evolutionists sometimes
refuse to debate creationists.
For the same reason one might refuse to debate someone wearing a tinfoil hat
on the subject of mind control
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 07:47:22 PM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411101137.19f06f4@posting.google.com>...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<VQkkd.1737$DI5.1253@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism.
I haven't noticed you posting any of it, Nameless, unless
you think that that crock concerning Noah's Ark you've
been posting on repeatedly constitutes "physical evidence"
of young-earth creation.
As a
proponent of evolution, your opinion regarding the physical evidence
should be called into question.
As a proponent of creationism who's also been
proven to be a liar in the past and a total
idiot in general, you've got no right to call
anyone on *anything*.
No wonder evolutionists sometimes
refuse to debate creationists.
Largely due to the same reason "debating"
a brick wall is counterproductive.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 01:49:15 PM |
|
|
In article <3f355ee.0411101137.19f06f4@posting.google.com> (J McCoy) writes:
olumbus.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1100114823 53561 128.100.83.246 (10 Nov 2004 19:27:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:27:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.42.92.229
Xref: news.arizona.edu talk.origins:20821 sci.skeptic:7875 alt.atheism:64725
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<VQkkd.1737$DI5.1253@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message
news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>
(J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was
meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that
evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion
of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about
religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is
necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the
book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to
accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put
the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in
a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not
mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism. As a
proponent of evolution, your opinion regarding the physical evidence
should be called into question. No wonder evolutionists sometimes
refuse to debate creationists.
Hmmmm.... I just finished reading three books on this very topic, two
of them quite lengthy, and I didn't come away with a single item
of physical evidence that I saw as supporting creationism. There
was a class of just silly claims, such as the Paluxy tracks, and
a large set of less silly but still bogus concepts, such as
Morris' "hydrodynamic sorting", and another class of propositions
which basically sounded more legitimate but which either made no testable
predictions or simply have produced no active research programs,
such as intelligent design.
What might some items from this significant amount of physical
evidence be?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 05:48:38 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<cmts0h$qkq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411101137.19f06f4@posting.google.com> (J McCoy) writes:
olumbus.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1100114823 53561 128.100.83.246 (10 Nov 2004 19:27:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:27:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.42.92.229
Xref: news.arizona.edu talk.origins:20821 sci.skeptic:7875 alt.atheism:64725
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<VQkkd.1737$DI5.1253@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in message
news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>
(J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was
meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that
evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion
of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about
religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is
necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the
book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to
accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put
the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in
a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not
mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism. As a
proponent of evolution, your opinion regarding the physical evidence
should be called into question. No wonder evolutionists sometimes
refuse to debate creationists.
Hmmmm.... I just finished reading three books on this very topic, two
of them quite lengthy, and I didn't come away with a single item
of physical evidence that I saw as supporting creationism. There
was a class of just silly claims, such as the Paluxy tracks, and
a large set of less silly but still bogus concepts, such as
Morris' "hydrodynamic sorting", and another class of propositions
which basically sounded more legitimate but which either made no testable
predictions or simply have produced no active research programs,
such as intelligent design.
What might some items from this significant amount of physical
evidence be?
-- cary
Interesting. But sorting does occur. Are you disagreeing with the
fact that some items take a longer time to sink? Are you saying that
you could toss rocks and dust into an aquarium and both would mix
evenly at the bottom?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 06:14:45 PM |
|
|
In article <3f355ee.0411101559.f1eabb6@posting.google.com> (J McCoy) writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<cmts0h$qkq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411101137.19f06f4@posting.google.com> (J McCoy) writes:
olumbus.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1100114823 53561 128.100.83.246 (10 Nov 2004 19:27:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:27:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.42.92.229
Xref: news.arizona.edu talk.origins:20821 sci.skeptic:7875 alt.atheism:64725
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<VQkkd.1737$DI5.1253@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100040.7cc034e9@posting.google.com...
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message
news:<cmrm7v$8lj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <3f355ee.0411091545.783a6255@posting.google.com>
(J McCoy) writes:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6q20p05qc3s6908trri1p64n1f8dj8qlj3@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was
meant to
"encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that
evolution was
wrong. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion
of religion.
"It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about
religion,"
he said.
But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Gunn why it is
necessary to have a
sticker clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the
book when
that's already in the book?"
Gunn replied that school board members were simply trying to
accommodate all
views.
The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put
the stickers
in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in
a textbook
where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not
mentioned.
Sounds like a not so hidden agenda, one that clearly fails the Lemon
test (from the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman):
So you don't like critical thinking?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. I think kids should be
given a good round sample of the various theories of creation,
and then let them see for themselves which ones hold up well when
compared against the physical evidence. For this reason I'd
propose that we teach the thory of evolution; and the theory
which holds that Gisoollg formed the first human body when he
caused a bolt of lightening to hit Ootsitgammoo; and the theory
which postulates that Creator, after making Coyote, Grizzly Bear,
the four Wolf Brothers, et. al. informed the animals that He
would soon return to create man; and the theory which holds that
the One Who Lives Above appeared from the darkness seated in a
thin disc, white on one side, yellow on the other, and thus
brought light to the darkness; and the theory which is based on
the idea that Izanagi and Izanami, taking the Jeweled Spear from
Ama-no-Nuboko, dipped it into the primordial brine, congealing it
and forming land wherever drops fell from its tip.
That's a pretty good start, anyhow. If it's a two semester
biology course, then we could examine some other theories of
origin as well.
Actually, Cary, I propose that the beliefs that are contended for in
science class rooms are those that are held by proponents. If there
is nobody with a college degree willing to defend Izanagi and Izanagi
from a scientific point of view, then it won't be given any time. The
requirements would be that there must be a significant minority of
those who believe in such a point of view. And second, there must be
an overwhelming amount of literature in the form of books, journals
and other medium in defense of this proposition. And third, that
proponents must have degrees from acknowledged institutions. The Ivy
League are not accredited, by the way, as far as I know.
You forgot the fourth and most important requirement, McFuckwit. That there
must be a significant amount of objective physical evidence supporting the
position. Creationism, the Christian version or any other, fails miserably
in this respect.
That's where your prejudices get you wrong. There is a significant
amount of objective physical evidence supporting creationism. As a
proponent of evolution, your opinion regarding the physical evidence
should be called into question. No wonder evolutionists sometimes
refuse to debate creationists.
Hmmmm.... I just finished reading three books on this very topic, two
of them quite lengthy, and I didn't come away with a single item
of physical evidence that I saw as supporting creationism. There
was a class of just silly claims, such as the Paluxy tracks, and
a large set of less silly but still bogus concepts, such as
Morris' "hydrodynamic sorting", and another class of propositions
which basically sounded more legitimate but which either made no testable
predictions or simply have produced no active research programs,
such as intelligent design.
What might some items from this significant amount of physical
evidence be?
-- cary
Interesting. But sorting does occur. Are you disagreeing with the
fact that some items take a longer time to sink? Are you saying that
you could toss rocks and dust into an aquarium and both would mix
evenly at the bottom?
Well, no, I'm saying that it's damn odd that, for example,
extinct flying things like pterodactyls seemed to get sorted
into Cretaceous strata but more modern birds-like creatures ended
up sorted into more recent formations; or that primitive insects
seem to have been sorted into ancient deposits and similar but more
advanced insects into later deposits; and that similarly-shaped
marine invertebrates, which occur at almost all levels in the geologic
column seem to have gotten sorted into an order which agrees with
the cladistic trees based on taxonomy and morphology. That kind
of thing.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Georgia: Trial Begins Over Ga. Evolution Disclaimer |
10 Nov 2004 06:59:04 PM |
|
|
Piggybacking:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cmubi8$f2k$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <3f355ee.0411101559.f1eabb6@posting.google.com>
mccoy@sunset.net (J McCoy) writes:
<snip>
Interesting. But sorting does occur. Are you disagreeing with the
fact that some items take a longer time to sink? Are you saying that
you could toss rocks and dust into an aquarium and both would mix
evenly at the bottom?
Gee, McIdiot, that's one of the arguments that refutes claims of a single
world wide flood. There is no world wide geological unit which displays the
characteristics that would have had to have resulted if there had been a
global flood. Those characteristics would be:
Course on the bottom, graded to the top with fine sediment and minor
zonation due to specific gravity of various minerals.
Randomly intermixed marine and terrestrial organisms. Creationists like to
cit various dinosaur bone beds, however, creationsits fail to explain why
the dinosaurs that all died in a specific bone bed managed to all stay in
one place, and not get washed away and randomly distributed over a large
area. Nor do creationsits explain why such bone beds are segragated in a
precice fassion, in relation to relative age of various species. If the
bone beds were the result of a single catastrophic flood, then bone beds do
not fit into the pattern. They do fit in with local flood events, however,
and local is not global.
How do you esplain course sediment (such as sandstone) overlying fine
sediment, such as limestone or chalk? How do you explain formations with
dinosaur trackways that ovelay marine sediment? How do you explane
paleosols with clear evidence of plant life and even burrows of small
animals? How do you explain fossil termite mounds, for example?
Well, no, I'm saying that it's damn odd that, for example,
extinct flying things like pterodactyls seemed to get sorted
into Cretaceous strata but more modern birds-like creatures ended
up sorted into more recent formations; or that primitive insects
seem to have been sorted into ancient deposits and similar but more
advanced insects into later deposits; and that similarly-shaped
marine invertebrates, which occur at almost all levels in the geologic
column seem to have gotten sorted into an order which agrees with
| | | | | | | | | | |
