| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2006 08:50:22 AM |
| Object: |
Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Nothing Wrong With Kansas
State voters move science education out of the Victorian era.
Sunday, August 6, 2006; Page B06
FOR THE SECOND time in less than a year, voters have turned out
office policymakers who insisted on teaching kids bad science.
Last year, the people of Dover, Pa., got rid of a group of school
board members who injected the theory of "intelligent design" into
high school biology.
Last week, Republican primary voters in Kansas ousted the conservative
majority on the state Board of Education, which had adopted science
standards embracing intelligent design and casting doubt on Darwinian
evolution.
Moderate Republicans replaced two conservatives -- giving those
supporting science at least a 6-to-4 majority, even if the other
conservatives hold on in the general election.
The vote, which should lead to changes to those embarrassing
standards, is an encouraging sign that even in conservative
jurisdictions, most people want kids to be taught biology, not
religion.
The Kansas board has been fighting over evolution since 1999, when it
moved to eliminate references to Darwinian theory from statewide
standards.
After anti-evolutionists lost their majority, the board restored
evolution's place.
But the conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and moved to
promote intelligent design -- a challenge to Darwinian theory based
not on biblical inerrancy or overt creationism but on purportedly
scientific flaws in the theory.
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Intelligent design is a defensible theological position -- the belief
that life is so complex and perfect that a creator must lie somewhere
behind it.
But being untestable in its positing of a supernatural explanation for
natural phenomena, it is no more scientific than the belief that
Athena was born from Zeus's head.
Teaching it as science does a grave disservice to students who wish to
understand natural phenomena that only evolution truly explains.
How do bacteria become drug-resistant?
Why do birds, bees and bats all have wings?
Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students, or at
least badly educated ones.
In the seesawing of Kansas politics on this issue, it is too early to
declare victory.
It is, however, encouraging that voters seem to be insisting, at least
for now, that when students study biology, they learn the real thing.
_____________________________________________________
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science
collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke
miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into
the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to
abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all
fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon
distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
characterize the ideas of their opponents."
Stephen Jay Gould
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 11:03:07 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
The "controversy" takes place only among cultists who try to
pretend that scientific fact trumps their deity constructs. It
doesn't: science says nothing for or against deity constructs.
But being untestable in its positing of a supernatural explanation for
natural phenomena, it is no more scientific than the belief that
Athena was born from Zeus's head.
She was. She was also reborn when she accidentally killed Palus
with an arrow.
How do bacteria become drug-resistant?
That's the Christian gods punishing the sick.
Why do birds, bees and bats all have wings?
The Christian gods dun it.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
Cheney could be ***** fucking Jeff Gannon right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 12:00:07 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the
evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!
We often hear that science has proved Darwin's theory of evolution. Nothing
could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific
fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory regarding the
evolution model does conflict with the creation model. But the facts of
science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept the creation
model of origins. Surprised?
Darwin's theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life
forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish),
and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man).The
creation model, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in
six, 24 hour days. If the creation model is wrong and man actually did
evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample
fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades,
evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove the creation
model wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even
evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found.
It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin's theory
of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard
University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world
said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the
fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our
data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study".
Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects
much of Darwin's theory.
Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New
Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know
what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main
evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil
record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory
of evolution as opposed to special creation." Because the fossils simply do
not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time,
many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have
come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful
monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take
place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in
quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the
changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution.
The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be
observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!
Evolutionists tell us in the new "punctuationalist" theory, that, in effect,
a lizard laid an egg and out pops a baby bird. Because of the compete lack
of missing links, evolutionists now accept as fact what creationists
predicted from the creation model all along; namely, that no transitional
fossils would be found. Evolutionists that still use Darwin or the fossil
record as evidence of their theory in the '90's, are like stubborn and
closed minded old country doctors who have not kept up with the latest
developments of science. Then there are those who cannot even consider the
possibility that there is a creator God. These scientists are so biased that
they cannot not see how much better all the scientific data fits the
creation model of origins as opposed to the evolution model.
Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been
refuted . Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677, "Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary
Hypotheses", reported this in 1986, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two
crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been
found...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils,
says they have advanced avian features. ...tend to confirm what many
paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct
line to modern birds."
Australopithecus or "Lucy", another big star to the evolutionists' stage
show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey's never
believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. With good reason,
they considered it simply and extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had
arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of
humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, "Zihlman compares the
pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and
finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in
stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much
the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89
The "controversy" takes place only among cultists who try to
pretend that scientific fact trumps their deity constructs. It
doesn't: science says nothing for or against deity constructs.
But being untestable in its positing of a supernatural explanation for
natural phenomena, it is no more scientific than the belief that
Athena was born from Zeus's head.
She was. She was also reborn when she accidentally killed Palus
with an arrow.
How do bacteria become drug-resistant?
That's the Christian gods punishing the sick.
Why do birds, bees and bats all have wings?
The Christian gods dun it.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
Cheney could be ***** fucking Jeff Gannon right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 03:49:52 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mgpBg.110379$iU2.55180@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the
evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!
We often hear that science has proved Darwin's theory of evolution.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse
scientific fact with scientific theory.
Look, if you don't want to believe in evolution then don't. Live just like
you would if Darwin hadn't showed up on the Beagle. Every day I talk with
scientists of all stripes and evolution is always there. You'd be living
like people did in the 1860's. Talk about fun, you would have a shot at
yellow fever, tuberculosis, scrofula, boy the fun never stops. Of course no
drugs based on changed critters like polio vaccine.
Idiot, don't you think that scientists who work with evolution every day
would notice any problems?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Kimmel" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 04:39:00 PM |
|
|
"Kevin Cunningham" <smskjd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:QBsBg.739$Qf.576@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mgpBg.110379$iU2.55180@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080
500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the
evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!
We often hear that science has proved Darwin's theory of evolution.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse
scientific fact with scientific theory.
Look, if you don't want to believe in evolution then don't. Live just
like
you would if Darwin hadn't showed up on the Beagle. Every day I talk with
scientists of all stripes and evolution is always there. You'd be living
like people did in the 1860's. Talk about fun, you would have a shot at
yellow fever, tuberculosis, scrofula, boy the fun never stops. Of course
no
drugs based on changed critters like polio vaccine.
Idiot, don't you think that scientists who work with evolution every day
would notice any problems?
Really. It's like the joke of the person who goes to the doctor and the
doctor asks if he believes in evolution or if he is a creationist. The
patient asks why. And the doctor says, "If you understand evolution, I'll
give you the latest antibiotic. If you insist evolution is only an unproven
'theory' I'll give you penicillin and we'll hope for the best."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 01:18:04 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and did
so without embarrassment.
No wonder he posted it anonymously.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 8/6/06
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 03:46:22 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT. psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
No wonder he posted it anonymously.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 8/6/06
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Kimmel" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 04:37:15 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tAsBg.110389$iU2.107827@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR200608
0500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT.
psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is how
*science* explains the available data.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject to
the scientific method.
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 06:29:33 PM |
|
|
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:I7udnREiVsEX_EvZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tAsBg.110389$iU2.107827@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR200608
0500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT.
psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is how
*science* explains the available data.
You are only half right, theory is considered to be the best explanation for
all the
known facts but it is unproven, many times it is impossible to "prove" a
theory is correct, it can only be proven that it is incorrect so it remains
the best explanation for all the known facts until proven otherwise.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
Good point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 09:12:53 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he
happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is how
*science* explains the available data.
You are only half right, theory is considered to be the best explanation
for all the
known facts but it is unproven, many times it is impossible to "prove" a
theory is correct, it can only be proven that it is incorrect so it
remains the best explanation for all the known facts until proven
otherwise.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As
one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
Good point.
God is a verb.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Kimmel" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 08:08:09 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rZuBg.110392$iU2.71500@fed1read01...
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:I7udnREiVsEX_EvZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tAsBg.110389$iU2.107827@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR20060
8
0500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a
handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40
million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT.
psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he
happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven
hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is how
*science* explains the available data.
You are only half right, theory is considered to be the best explanation
for
all the
known facts but it is unproven, many times it is impossible to "prove" a
theory is correct, it can only be proven that it is incorrect so it
remains
the best explanation for all the known facts until proven otherwise.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Yes, actually, as a matter of *science* it has. Evolution has been proven.
For example we have to keep developing stronger antibiotics as older ones no
longer work. Why? Evolution.
Creationism, as noted, offers nothing that can be tested *scientifically*.
It thus fails as *science*/
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As
one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
Good point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 09:00:36 PM |
|
|
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:GOmdnaDlPfsgD0vZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rZuBg.110392$iU2.71500@fed1read01...
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:I7udnREiVsEX_EvZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tAsBg.110389$iU2.107827@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR20060
8
0500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of
evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a
handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40
million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and
did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT.
psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he
happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven
hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is
how
*science* explains the available data.
You are only half right, theory is considered to be the best explanation
for
all the
known facts but it is unproven, many times it is impossible to "prove" a
theory is correct, it can only be proven that it is incorrect so it
remains
the best explanation for all the known facts until proven otherwise.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Yes, actually, as a matter of *science* it has. Evolution has been
proven.
For example we have to keep developing stronger antibiotics as older ones
no
longer work. Why? Evolution.
No actually it hasn't a different strain of the same species does not prove
one species evolved into a totally different species.
Creationism, as noted, offers nothing that can be tested *scientifically*.
It thus fails as *science*/
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As
one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
Good point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 12:24:31 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:GOmdnaDlPfsgD0vZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rZuBg.110392$iU2.71500@fed1read01...
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:I7udnREiVsEX_EvZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tAsBg.110389$iU2.107827@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR20060
8
0500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of
evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a
handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40
million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and
did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT.
psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he
happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven
hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is
how
*science* explains the available data.
You are only half right, theory is considered to be the best explanation
for
all the
known facts but it is unproven, many times it is impossible to "prove" a
theory is correct, it can only be proven that it is incorrect so it
remains
the best explanation for all the known facts until proven otherwise.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Yes, actually, as a matter of *science* it has. Evolution has been
proven.
For example we have to keep developing stronger antibiotics as older ones
no
longer work. Why? Evolution.
No actually it hasn't a different strain of the same species does not prove
one species evolved into a totally different species.
The result doesn't have to be a new species, tho that is one possibility.
What is DEFINITELY shows it that species aren't immutable. They change,
somethings to the point of new species.
ENjoy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Creationism, as noted, offers nothing that can be tested *scientifically*.
It thus fails as *science*/
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As
one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
Good point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 10:15:35 PM |
|
|
Dan Kimmel wrote:
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rZuBg.110392$iU2.71500@fed1read01...
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:I7udnREiVsEX_EvZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@rcn.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tAsBg.110389$iU2.107827@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dccej82knjt4e@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dc4hgl2am6veb@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR20060
8
0500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Right, there is no controversy among scientists about the fact of
evolution. What is discussed is the mode and tempo of evolution --
how it happens, what the mechanisms are, and how quickly or slowly
speciation and other evolution events take place.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a
handsome
prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40
million
years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Good grief, someone who has no idea how evolution works posted his
profound ignorance about simple, mundane science in public -- and did
so without embarrassment.
Good grief someone that doesn't know evolution is a THEORY not a FACT.
psst
if it was a fact scientist would call it the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Fredric Rice is a racist bigoted moron, that's a fact, but here he
happens
to be right. You are using "theory" as if it meant "unproven
hypothesis"
instead of as scientists mean it which is "best explanation for all the
known facts." Evolution is not a notion or an unproven idea. It is how
*science* explains the available data.
You are only half right, theory is considered to be the best explanation
for
all the
known facts but it is unproven, many times it is impossible to "prove" a
theory is correct, it can only be proven that it is incorrect so it
remains
the best explanation for all the known facts until proven otherwise.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Yes, actually, as a matter of *science* it has. Evolution has been proven.
For example we have to keep developing stronger antibiotics as older ones no
longer work. Why? Evolution.
Creationism, as noted, offers nothing that can be tested *scientifically*.
It thus fails as *science*/
Not to mention the intellectual gymnastics Creationists have to go
through to explain the science and direct evidence of carbon dating,
Doppler effect in astronomical observation of distant bodies further
than 6 thousand light years away, etc.
Miles "The Flintstones: The True Story of the Garden of Eden As Told
By..." Long
As a religious person I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. As
one
sloganeer put it, "God is who. Evolution is how."
Good point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 07:49:43 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 6/Aug/06
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
06 Aug 2006 08:07:24 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 6/Aug/06
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Kimmel" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 06:03:18 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:apwBg.110394$iU2.94962@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
"Intelligent design" -- or, to use the proper name, "creationism" -- is not
science. It is properly omitted from science classes.
You want to include it a course on comparative religions, be my guest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Blankenship" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 03:08:16 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:apwBg.110394$iU2.94962@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
Wrong. Not only are you twisting the reality, you are ignoring the truth.
Even "believers" (as you call them) are not so stupid as to think that
"Intelligent Design" is science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:42:48 AM |
|
|
"Roy Blankenship" <biasbros@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:QxCBg.5456$uo6.145@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:apwBg.110394$iU2.94962@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
Wrong. Not only are you twisting the reality, you are ignoring the truth.
Wrong
Even "believers" (as you call them)
I called them Christians, who ever you had read this to you should be fired.
are not so stupid as to think that
"Intelligent Design" is science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:27:51 PM |
|
|
Roy Blankenship wrote:
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:apwBg.110394$iU2.94962@fed1read01...
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
Wrong. Not only are you twisting the reality, you are ignoring the truth.
Even "believers" (as you call them) are not so stupid as to think that
"Intelligent Design" is science.
Only if you lower the bar for what you call science, as poor Behe found out
at the Dover trial when the creationist standard of science meant astrology
qualified!
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
11 Aug 2006 12:24:21 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Roy Blankenship wrote:
Wrong. Not only are you twisting the reality, you are ignoring the truth.
Even "believers" (as you call them) are not so stupid as to think that
"Intelligent Design" is science.
Only if you lower the bar for what you call science, as poor Behe found out
at the Dover trial when the creationist standard of science meant astrology
qualified!
I can never spell his name right, Wickerese or whatever it's spelled
-- the Creationist who testified at the Scopes Trial with Hoyel... He
said that insects were more intelligent than humans only weren't
"letting on." The things Creationists are able to believe are astounding.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:19:56 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
You just exposed your profound ignorance about science.
There are no "missing links," idiot. There never were. At the same time
evolution is a directly observed phenomena.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 6/Aug/06
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:44:53 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12deis1lggfs121@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
You just exposed your profound ignorance about science.
Correction I just exposed your profound ignorance aboutr everything.
There are no "missing links," idiot. There never were.
Well there ya go, no missing link, no evolution.
At the same time
evolution is a directly observed phenomena.
Sit there and watch it.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 6/Aug/06
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:34:04 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12deis1lggfs121@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
You just exposed your profound ignorance about science.
Correction I just exposed your profound ignorance aboutr everything.
There are no "missing links," idiot. There never were.
Well there ya go, no missing link, no evolution.
Missing link no needed. Evolution occurs. Sorry.
At the same time
evolution is a directly observed phenomena.
Sit there and watch it.
Done.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:19:58 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
Woops! It was the founders of the Constitution that dictated the ban
against occult superstition being taught in the public schools.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 6/Aug/06
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:21:17 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12deis37olmj323@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
Woops! It was the founders of the Constitution that dictated the ban
against occult superstition being taught in the public schools.
Woops, you are wrong again. All they did was say there was not going to be a
mandatory state religion.
---
Scientific research into the Theofascist Republican:
http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/CASMSC.pdf
---
"Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students..."
-- The Washington Post, 6/Aug/06
---
"Save Our State" a.k.a. "Minutemen" a.k.a. National Vanguard a.k.a.
"Stormfront," a typical member: http://www.elmerfudd.us/temp/sosmm.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 12:22:42 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
No one's been looking for something like that for some time now - do keep up.
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
ID? Which is really warmed over creationism?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.”
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it,” he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:40:03 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44D6CE22.10852E31@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
No one's been looking for something like that for some time now - do keep
up.
They vare still looking, we had yet another false alarm just this summer.-
do catch up.
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
ID? Which is really warmed over creationism?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not "committed" to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs' attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses."
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. "I can't point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated," he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it," he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:33:10 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44D6CE22.10852E31@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
No one's been looking for something like that for some time now - do keep
up.
They vare still looking, we had yet another false alarm just this summer.-
do catch up.
No, no one is looking for a missing link. The concept is dead. They're looking for
more fossils. YOU keep up.
There was a time when one's occult superstition of choice was a matter
of personal belief, a belief taken upon faith since faith was not only
enough for cultists but the classical Christanic mythologies
specifically
discuss faith as godly.
Along came Christofascism which sought to pretend that science some
how says anything for or against deity constructs. Now fail isn't
enough; cultists want to pretend that their deity constructs are some
how evidenced in fact. Worse, occult fascists want to make sure that
nobody lacking in occult superstition learns science.
It is not the Christians that want to ban "Evolution" from the schools it
is
the non believers that want to ban "intelligent design" don't kid
yourself,
you are the one being narrow minded, not me.
ID? Which is really warmed over creationism?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
No comment? ;)
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of "th | | | | | | | | | | | |
