| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2005 04:21:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130604306.826905.25140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God
Nope. Stop lying about atheists.
and all beleivers in
atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity.
I see: you now think you speak for all atheists as well as all Christians.
Fascinating symptom.
I separated
all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:11:56 AM |
|
|
In article <8abjn15gic2agjcnb37bpsagak45d30l2c@4ax.com>, Jim07D5
<Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the sun
is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that earthquakes
are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and many many other
areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and reading tea leaves, and
cs and id for not being accepted as valid in their claims as science
defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about the
Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the fact
that one of them is false?
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation science
and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either creation
science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
Please describe what there is to learn about creation science that
can't be taught in one sermon.
--- Jim07D5
Jim,
If you are trying to make a point, you have succeeded so you don't need to
do anything to learn about creation science. On the other hand, if you are
serious, read the following book:
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
Please read the book and make your own opinions about the book and the
author. Don't rely on hard core evolutionists to tell you what to think
about the book and author unless you are unable to think for yourself. In
the past, subscribers have told me that they refuse to read the book due
to what hard core evolutionists stated about the book and author on their
web sites. It's my guess that those subscribers can't think for themselves
and rely on other people to do their thinking for them. I hope that you
are not such a person.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:39:21 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050711560001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
It's my guess that those subscribers can't think for themselves
and rely on other people to do their thinking for them. I hope that you
are not such a person.
Oh, the irony.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 10:21:14 AM |
|
|
"Please read the book and make your own opinions about the book and the
author. Don't rely on hard core evolutionists to tell you what to think
about the book and author unless you are unable to think for yourself. In
the past, subscribers have told me that they refuse to read the book due
to what hard core evolutionists stated about the book and author on their
web sites. It's my guess that those subscribers can't think for themselves
and rely on other people to do their thinking for them. I hope that you
are not such a person."
You are the poster child for exactly what you describe. Read the links
provided you and stop relying only on icr and what faint memories of
gish's book you can muster. He is an intellectual fraud, you also refuse
to read in detail the links documenting this too. As you stand before a
mirror what do you see?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:19:46 AM |
|
|
(Jason) said:
In article <8abjn15gic2agjcnb37bpsagak45d30l2c@4ax.com>, Jim07D5
<Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
(Jason) said:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the sun
is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that earthquakes
are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and many many other
areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and reading tea leaves, and
cs and id for not being accepted as valid in their claims as science
defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about the
Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the fact
that one of them is false?
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation science
and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either creation
science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
Please describe what there is to learn about creation science that
can't be taught in one sermon.
--- Jim07D5
Jim,
If you are trying to make a point, you have succeeded so you don't need to
do anything to learn about creation science. On the other hand, if you are
serious, read the following book:
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
Please read the book and make your own opinions about the book and the
author. Don't rely on hard core evolutionists to tell you what to think
about the book and author unless you are unable to think for yourself. In
the past, subscribers have told me that they refuse to read the book due
to what hard core evolutionists stated about the book and author on their
web sites. It's my guess that those subscribers can't think for themselves
and rely on other people to do their thinking for them. I hope that you
are not such a person.
Jason
Actually, you have made my point. There is no K-12 lesson plan on
"creation science" or ID. There is a lesson plan on evolution,
criticizing it. That's all ID and CS can talk about, before opening
the Bible, and that makes it a sermon. Why don't you admit it?
I have read many things that have been presented by "creation
scientists" over the years. It is not new. Years ago, perhaps before
you were born, there were tracts from Garner Ted Armstrong showing
pictures of fish that could shoot bugs off of leaves that were above
the water. Irreducible complexity is not new. I can probably do either
side of the debate, better than you. I have read most of the
transcripts in the Fitzmiller case. Don't make assumptions about your
friendly opponents in the discussion.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 07:04:36 AM |
|
|
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the
sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that
earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and
many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and
reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as valid in
their claims as science defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about
the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the
fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never learn
why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that understanding for
the rest of their lives.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:19:55 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the
sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that
earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and
many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and
reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as valid in
their claims as science defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about
the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the
fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never learn
why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that understanding for
the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific. Both are theories and there is no eye
witness proof about how life came to be on this planet.
If possible, explain how the solar system and sun came to be?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 10:16:45 AM |
|
|
"Both are theories and there is no eye witness proof about how life came
to be on this planet."
Your ignorance is showing again, neither id or evolution speak of origins,
only about how to account for the variation of life over time. Id fails
the test that can make an idea into a scientific notion. Theory does not
mean weak, it means a body of interconnected evidence pointing to
explanations which best fit the evidence. The The germ theory of disease,
the theory of gravity, etc. are examples. There is no theory of id
because it lacks evidence and the ability to do research based upon it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:47:39 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050719550001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the
sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that
earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and
many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and
reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as valid in
their claims as science defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about
the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the
fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never learn
why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that understanding for
the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 12:37:47 PM |
|
|
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050719550001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the
sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that
earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and
many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and
reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as valid in
their claims as science defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about
the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the
fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never learn
why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that understanding for
the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 01:02:51 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051037470001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
snip
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize my question was too difficult for you to
answer. My bad.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 02:39:12 PM |
|
|
In article <3tupl8Fuc6l1U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051037470001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
snip
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize my question was too difficult for you to
answer. My bad.
and my question was too difficult for you.
Evolution would be scientific if it was based only on micro-evolution.
There is no proof that macro-evolution takes place so it's my opinion
that it's not scientific.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 04:04:31 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051239130001@pm4-broad-23.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tupl8Fuc6l1U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051037470001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
snip
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object
if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize my question was too difficult for you to
answer. My bad.
and my question was too difficult for you.
Evolution would be scientific if it was based only on micro-evolution.
Why? Because that's what you think?
There is no proof that macro-evolution takes place so it's my opinion
that it's not scientific.
Just as long as you realize it's just your opinion and certainly not a fact.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 01:51:50 PM |
|
|
"There is no proof that macro-evolution takes place so it's my opinion
that it's not scientific."
Species that existed long ago no longer do and current species appeared
since then, that is as much evidence for macro as is required. Given your
demonstrated lack of knowledge one is not surptirsed as to such unfounded
assertions, it is all you have left considering the complete drubbing you
have recieved on this topic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 04:48:44 PM |
|
|
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1511051239130001@pm4-broad-23.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <3tupl8Fuc6l1U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-1511051037470001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
snip
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would
object if teachers explained to students the reasons that
creation science and evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize my question was too difficult for you to
answer. My bad.
and my question was too difficult for you.
Evolution would be scientific if it was based only on micro-evolution.
But it is. There is only one kind of evolution.
There is no proof that macro-evolution takes place so it's my opinion
that it's not scientific.
Your opinion is worth its weight in gold.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 10:54:10 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <3tupl8Fuc6l1U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051037470001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
snip
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object
if teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science
and evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize my question was too difficult for you to
answer. My bad.
and my question was too difficult for you.
Evolution would be scientific if it was based only on micro-evolution.
There is no proof that macro-evolution takes place so it's my opinion
that it's not scientific.
Evolution occurs. Lots of little changes add up to big changes.
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 01:50:02 PM |
|
|
(Jason) said:
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-1511050719550001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the
sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that
earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and
many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and
reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as valid in
their claims as science defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about
the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the
fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never learn
why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that understanding for
the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
Since they refused to adopt a scientific notion of "theory": An
explanation of the commonalities and the relationships among observed
phenomena in terms of the causal structures and processes that are
presumed to underlie them.
There has been no proposed causal structure or process for creation.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 10:53:08 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050719550001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that
the sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist,
that earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other,
and many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp,
and reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as
valid in their claims as science defines what ideas can be made
scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn
about the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories
is false. Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories
despite the fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never
learn why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that
understanding for the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
LOL. Excuse me, Egyptian Creationism is scientific? Since when?
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 04:02:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:37:47 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <3tue78Fu3n0mU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-1511050719550001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the
sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that
earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and
many many other areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and
reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being accepted as valid in
their claims as science defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about
the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the
fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never learn
why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that understanding for
the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Excuse me? Evolution isn't scientific? Since when?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
In this thread? Since when you were unable to present any scientific
evidence upon which the so called 'scientific theory' is based.
Science is all about observation and the interpretation of what we
observe. Tell me what obeservations link living things to a creator
and the evidence that demonstrates there is a creator and you have
a case.
You cannot, you know you cannot, you know, we know that you
have no evidence, you have admitted as such already, therefore
creationism is a belief based religion not scientic observation based.
And you know it well enough.
Admit it, you have no case to answer.
"For so it had come about, as indeed I and many men might have
foreseen had not terror and disaster blinded our minds. These germs of
disease have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of
things--taken toll of our prehuman ancestors since life began here.
But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed
resisting power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to
many--those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance--our
living frames are altogether immune. But there are no bacteria in
Mars, and directly these invaders arrived, directly they drank and
fed, our microscopic allies began to work their overthrow. Already
when I watched them they were irrevocably doomed, dying and rotting
even as they went to and fro. It was inevitable. By the toll of a
billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is
his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten
times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain."
- H. G. Wells - The War of The Worlds 1898.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
16 Nov 2005 11:45:15 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and (Jason) posting
the following on Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:37:47 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
Escuse me? Creation science isn't scientific? Since when?
Since it's inception.
Tell me, what is creation science? Do you even understand what the
scientific method is?
What experiments have been done to support creationism? Where have
they been published?
By the way, you're favorite source, Gish, has been shown to be a
dishonest liar many, many times.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1E921B2C
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 10:16:44 AM |
|
|
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1511050719550001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <Xns970F524AFF2E9fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that
the sun is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist,
that earthquakes are tectonic plates moving relative to each
other, and many many other areas of science; but not astrology,
and esp, and reading tea leaves, and cs and id for not being
accepted as valid in their claims as science defines what ideas
can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn
about the Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories
is false. Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories
despite the fact that one of them is false?
College students are presumably capable of understanding more complex
arguments than high school students.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation
science and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either
creation science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
The harm is in the students who learn creation "science" but never
learn why it isn't scientific and then go on to lack that
understanding for the rest of their lives.
I doubt that any of the advocates of creation science would object if
teachers explained to students the reasons that creation science and
evolution theory are not scientific.
Why should they lie to students about evolution, which *is* scientific?
Both are theories and there is no
eye witness proof about how life came to be on this planet.
Creation "science" is not a theory. It's not even a respectable
hypothesis. It's religious dogma.
If possible, explain how the solar system and sun came to be?
Don't keep changing the subject.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
14 Nov 2005 11:02:51 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the sun
is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that earthquakes
are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and many many other
areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and reading tea leaves, and
cs and id for not being accepted as valid in their claims as science
defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about the
Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the fact
that one of them is false?
They both have a basis in theoretical physics (which is a beautiful and
difficult discipline), and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Besides, you don't have a clue as to what you're parroting.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation science
and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either creation
science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
Well, *****, why not teach them that electricy could be produced by
wizards or that gravity is just a stupid theory (no one has ever see a
graviton, after all) and that, in a competing theory, we're all held in
place by the inscrutable will of the Almighty? Creation "science" isn't
science, you dimwit, it's lies and stupidity packaged to gull ignorant
bible beaters. Look, if you want to teach your children that a magical
pixie said "poof!" and the world was created, then do so. They'll be
ignorant twerps, but with the right training, say, in accounting, they
can make a gainful living, pay taxes, enjoy all the benefits of the
science pursued by responsible, free-thinking, intelligent people, and
be moderately useful. BUT LEAVE MY CHILDREN ALONE, YOU FUNDY FREAK.
Thank you
Peace and the Blessings of Free Throught Upon you.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 08:07:23 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:51:53 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the sun
is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that earthquakes
are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and many many other
areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and reading tea leaves, and
cs and id for not being accepted as valid in their claims as science
defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about the
Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the fact
that one of them is false?
Which one is false? I had no idea of this.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation science
and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either creation
science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
Since we know which one is false it would not help to teach them both
as correct. But spending time showing what is wrong with creation
science would have value.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:15:59 AM |
|
|
In article <3rqjn1917i3pc4ph7s4o7vfm4vnsl0n615@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:51:53 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1411052051530001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
In article <43793c89$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"In much the same way that evolution is taught by compulsion."
As are the germ theory of disease, newton's laws of motion, that the sun
is at the center of the solar system, that atoms exist, that earthquakes
are tectonic plates moving relative to each other, and many many other
areas of science; but not astrology, and esp, and reading tea leaves, and
cs and id for not being accepted as valid in their claims as science
defines what ideas can be made scientific.
College students that major in a field of science have to learn about the
Big Bang Theory and String Theory. One of these theories is false.
Does it do harm for students to learn about both theories despite the fact
that one of them is false?
Which one is false? I had no idea of this.
Would it do harm for high school students to learn about creation science
and evolution theory? Even if it determined that one either creation
science or evolution theory is false, what's the harm?
Since we know which one is false it would not help to teach them both
as correct. But spending time showing what is wrong with creation
science would have value.
What's you mean "we" paleface? just joking--I'll tell you old joke in case
you have not heard it.
You stated the following:
Since we know which one is false it would not help to teach them both
as correct. But spending time showing what is wrong with creation
science would have value.
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not agree with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
I
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 09:38:34 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not agree with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 12:54:37 PM |
|
|
In article <3tudm7FucbeiU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not agree with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Written evidence and fossil evidence.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 01:04:51 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051054370001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tudm7FucbeiU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not agree
with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Written evidence and fossil evidence.
Cites?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 02:41:56 PM |
|
|
In article <3tupp1Fth7d3U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051054370001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tudm7FucbeiU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not agree
with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Written evidence and fossil evidence.
Cites?
The written evidence is the Bible and the fossil evidence
is discussed in detail in Dr. Gish's book.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 04:05:41 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051241560001@pm4-broad-23.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tupp1Fth7d3U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051054370001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tudm7FucbeiU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not
agree
with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Written evidence and fossil evidence.
Cites?
The written evidence is the Bible
Sorry, but old myths don't count. Try again.
and the fossil evidence
is discussed in detail in Dr. Gish's book.
I've heard this man is a fraud.
Have anything better than old myths and frauds?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 04:20:12 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> said:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051241560001@pm4-broad-23.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tupp1Fth7d3U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051054370001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tudm7FucbeiU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not
agree
with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Written evidence and fossil evidence.
Cites?
The written evidence is the Bible
Sorry, but old myths don't count. Try again.
and the fossil evidence
is discussed in detail in Dr. Gish's book.
I've heard this man is a fraud.
Have anything better than old myths and frauds?
Judge for yourself:
"For example, early on in the lecture, Gish stated that neither
evolution nor creationism is scientific since, among other things,
neither is falsifiable. Gish then spent the remainder of his lecture
attempting to falsify evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html
"Furthermore, he later stated emphatically that creationism is a
scientific explanation, even though, as noted above, he earlier said
that creationism was not scientific."
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
15 Nov 2005 04:29:33 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rlnkn1djt2j6fdkm8s38qdhfuhc4dljq5t@4ax.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> said:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051241560001@pm4-broad-23.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tupp1Fth7d3U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511051054370001@pm4-broad-34.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3tudm7FucbeiU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1511050715590001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
The scientists that are advocates of creation science would not
agree
with
you since they believe that creation science is a valid theory.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Written evidence and fossil evidence.
Cites?
The written evidence is the Bible
Sorry, but old myths don't count. Try again.
and the fossil evidence
is discussed in detail in Dr. Gish's book.
I've heard this man is a fraud.
Have anything better than old myths and frauds?
Judge for yourself:
"For example, early on in the lecture, Gish stated that neither
evolution nor creationism is scientific since, among other things,
neither is falsifiable. Gish then spent the remainder of his lecture
attempting to falsify evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html
"Furthermore, he later stated emphatically that creationism is a
scientific explanation, even though, as noted above, he earlier said
that creationism was not scientific."
Oh brother. Thanks :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
| | | | | | | | |
