Blizzard Warrior
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The trial in dover proves you wrong. it also shows that ID does not show evidence developed through the Scientific Method. Hence, calling it science is a lie.Busta said:I want I.D. in the science class because it is a scientific subject, no more religious then evolution.
Such as?There are a number of holes in evolution as it pertains to the origin of the species,
But then, any evidence supporting ID is velcome in science class. It just so happens that there isn't any to exclude.and I believe that excluding scientific evidence which supports I.D. as a valid scientific theory is propagandic, arrogant and ignorant.
Sophistic nonsense. Scientology believs that humans come from another planet and such does NOT go for Evolution. Your claim is falseIf teaching the theory of I.D. violates the Wall of Separation, then so does teaching the theory of evolution (Scientology).
Yes, you have the right to lie to your kids all you want at home. You can even teach them the lies of creationism and ID if you want to.Even if I were to teach my sons that God folded his arms, wiggled his nose and blinked the universe into existence, they are not in danger, and thus my fundamental Constitutional right "in the care, custody, and control" of my children superseeds the state's intrest in them as citizens.
Blizzard Warrior said:It has a very liberal reputaion you cant deny that, and fourth place is NOT that good a rank, by the way i would like a refernce for taht information.
I.D. is a theory that in a sense takes new scientific discoveries combined with the flaws in evolution and unites them under a new theory. Now its the most supported alternative to evolution that I have seen proposed, and there are many 'non-relgious' arguemnts backing it up, so wht not present them in the classroom? ALSO secular humanism is refferred to as a relgion by the supreme court, if you would like the case i will gladly give it to you. thats why i dont believe in seperation between church and state to the poitn where some ppl want/have it. yes some seperation is nessacary, but were gettting to the point were we want NO religion in schools, not a signel mention of it by anyone, despite our rich cultural history that has relgion infused in it.
Yes, he testified in the recent trial in Dover, where his claims were proven non-scientific to the point where he had to ADMIT that per his definition of science, astrology would be considered science.Blizzard Warrior said:Ever heard of Michael Behe?
No kidding, Yes you must look that up for us and provide the reference because that flies in the face of the reality of medicine. Antibiotic resistence is the result of evolution, and 58% of medical doctors are not killing off their patients because they ignore bacterial resistance.I recall reading in a magazine that 58% of medical doctors something that flies in the face of evolution, ill have to find the magazine and look it up for you.
Huh? What do you mean?Like over a period of time species slowly change to adapt to their environment and variations in different species occur.
I have heard the terms, but generally, when the creationists try to define the dividing line and find out that there then actually is evidence for what they called "macro-evolution," then the definitions suddenly change. So I am asking you ahead of time what YOU mean with these terms, so you can't pull that dishonest trick later.I am surprised that you have never heard of the terms micro and macro evolution,
Really? That would mostly be abiogenesis, which is not evolution at all. The Scientific Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be in the first place.but then again not many people use it. Macro evolution is the idea that in a chemical pool in ideal conditions evolved protein molecules which eventually evolved into singular celled organisms and which in turn evolved in multi cellular organisms et cetera.
Well, that is to SOME extend true. Not exactly as you describe it, though. And it is Homo sapiens sapiens, just FYI)I do believe that evolution teaches that humans and apes share a common lineage, thus a common ancestors so like ogn. A evolved into 3 variations ogn. B. C. and D. B is like gorillas C. is chimpanzees, and D. are humans (homo sapiens sepia).
Well if you think about it a lot of evolution is faith in a sense,[/quot]Nope. If you think about it, evolution is about the data and the evidence, not about faith. So your claim is false, showing extreme ignorance of Evolution, biology and even the very basic concepts of all science itself. Almost NOTHING that you have said about Evolution or Science has been true so far.
Are there? "large gaps"? How large? Could you please document this? Or do you not have any actual knowledge of this, relying on fundie moral fervor and "just because I say so" postulations?I know your going to hate this, but there are LARGE gaps in the fossil record,
Such as?and wholes in the theory
AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! ding, ding, ding.(notice how it’s called a theory)
You have just shown complete and utter ignorance of the steps of the Scientific Method, the most basic aspect of Science.
The ones who really and truly have NO idea at all what they are talking about, they are the ones who come up with this silly and stupid claim
It is incredibly insulting that people like you will come and spew falsehoods and lies and couldn't even be bothered to have even the tiniest clue of what you are talking about. You know absolutely NOTHING about what science even is, when you can make such a remark.
Go read up on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD before being more insultive by spewing outright falsehoods without having ANY knowledge whatsoever of what you are talking about. Such behavior is incredibly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have basically now showed that every word you have posted is a lie, a deliberate misrepresentation.
and animals that defy evolution.[/quoteThere are no such things. Your claim is false.
I don't need a label here. Rather, you, by your very own display of extreme ignorance even of the Scientific Method, have shown yourself dishonest and your claims thus not worth bothering with.I don’t know any evolutionists who believe this, but then again I always try to avoid labels because they are very general and you get different ‘sects’ in a label.
Tell THAT to Gallileo.:roflYou are aware that many scientific principles were derived and supported from the Catholic church,
Ah, another false claim. You are full of those today.as a matter of fact modern education as we know it wouldn’t be around if it weren’t for the Catholic church.
And so what? You don't even know what science is, so why does this have any relevance to your arguments?By the way I found this:
The Catholic Church has always taught .....
<bashful, seductive batting of eye lids> :3oops:Busta said:You're so cute, steen.
I love you.
Well, they were shown to lie, but yes there is an argument for each of the above terms.Waite, waite, let me guess......."Dishonest Pro. I.D. revisionist linguistic hyperbole, sophistry, and intellectual enslavement of children".....right?
Which is what happened in Dover, PA. The lying, non-scientific claims of the ID movement was dumped.But to answer your question, no. When parents wish to push lying non-science on the Science teacher, they should not be listened to.
When parents wish to push secular, logical science on the science teacher, then they should be listened to.
Agreed. Here is the SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports ID:I believe that the fatal blunder of those who wish for I.D. to be in the science class made recently, is that they wanted a religious element in the curriculum. Within an I.D. curriculum, the question of "who" or "what" the intelligence is should be left open for the student to answer personally.
Only scientific evidence which supports an intelligent design should be presented.
What an ignorant claim. Dover, PA is NOT on the westcoast, and as such an appeal would not go to the 9th.Blizzard Warrior said:Great point Busta, and that is EXACTLY why the case is mostly likely en route to be over turned. by either the eitire 9th circuit OR the supreme court.
Blizzard Warrior said:You state in a previous post that it has 76% turnover rate, and the national average is 77%, well the reference you have me said this “During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73 percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals.*” So I am not sure if I am reading the wrong part, please correct me if I’m wrong. Now yes it does have a less of a ratio but it DOES have the highest number of turnover cases…period. You can water down the point of my argument, but you shouldn’t be calling me ‘silly’ and trying to skew the truth. I would think that the reason for no peer-review evidence is that it’s a brand fresh new theory from the scientific community, and sure many people are against Michael Behe and one of his many books, but the same can be said for Richard Dawkins right? I found a great article on the religion behind secular humanism, if you wish I can get it for you. And I would say it is relevant, because in a sense we learn secular humanistic values in school, and although they should be taught, along side other morals and principles, I am not enforcing morals onto anybody simply teaching them about different viewpoints, so liberals are either too closed minded to learn different perspectives, or scared of the truth. Just because they aren’t theistic there are very few complaints from the left about them, but as soon as you add theism then liberals lash out in every direction.
Well it is pure speculation, so it certainly is not a Scientific Theory.Blizzard Warrior said:I.D. is a theory
Which new scientific discoveries are you talking about? I haven't seen any documented anywhere. I think that you are just dishonest and are making this up.that in a sense takes new scientific discoveries
What flaws? The ones you listed earlier weren't even part of Evolution, so I doubt you can justify your wild claim.combined with the flaws in evolution
But not a Scientific Theory.and unites them under a new theory.
What do you mean with "supported"? By evidence? Would you mind listing this supportive evidence?Now its the most supported alternative to evolution that I have seen proposed,
"arguments"? But not evidence, so WTF does that matter? There are people who "ARGUE" that the Earth is flat also.and there are many 'non-relgious' arguemnts backing it up,
Because they are creationist lies.so wht not present them in the classroom?
How irrelevant, as that has nothing to do with science. Could you please start coming accross as having even a tiny clue what you are talking about? Otherwise you are not worth the time.ALSO secular humanism is refferred to as a relgion by the supreme court, if you would like the case i will gladly give it to you.
Blizzard Warrior said:Reference: please to the Behe accusation. Im getting to the medical thing, bball has really made free time other then online hard to get. Ok the basic pillars of evolution that I am being taugh in 9th grade science right now in my biology class is exactly what I am telling you. Now I haven’t bothered to look up or back up what I am saying about evolution because I figured my teacher having a masters in biology wouldn’t “spew lies of falsehood et cetra”. I will double check what my biology textbook says about evolution though. Hey man take it easy this is a civilized debate, don’t hurt yourself. Of course there are a examples of the Catholic church trying to avoid the advance of science, but again you only look at one side of things. Look at Mendel for example: Mendel, the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, was not a world-renowned scientist of his day. Rather, he was an Augustinian monk who taught natural science to high school students. He was the second child of Anton and Rosine Mendel, farmers in Brunn, Moravia. Mendel's brilliant performance at school as a youngster encouraged his family to support his pursuit of a higher education, but their resources were limited, so Mendel entered an Augustinian monastery, continuing his education and starting his teaching career. - http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.html
Look at this picture >>>>> http://www.mendelweb.org/CollText/homepage.html
I don’t know about you but I see a bunch of intelligent Catholic scientists.
\No, it isn't. It has been around for decades.Blizzard Warrior said:I would think that the reason for no peer-review evidence is that it’s a brand fresh new theory
No, it isn't. There are no scirentific arguments for ID. Your claim is false.from the scientific community,
Irrelevant. It is not about who is against or not. It is about what the evidence is. You REALLY have no clue what science is, do you?and sure many people are against Michael Behe and one of his many books,
steen said:What an ignorant claim. Dover, PA is NOT on the westcoast, and as such an appeal would not go to the 9th.
That aside, the voters of Dover kicked out the fundies from the school board and are not going to appeal. So it won't reach the US Supreme Court.
Blizzard Warrior said:last two posts continued from the site http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=180019
i didnt actauly write a book lol
Engimo said:Really? Because in the "aims" of the Council for Secular Humanism website, I fail to see anything that has anything to do with religion. In fact, it says that one of the precepts of the philosophy is that they search for objective truth.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what
And no, you are entirely wrong about Intelligent Design and it's status as being peer-reviewed. You clearly have no knowledge about how the scientific community works. The idea of Intelligent Design has been around for years, and generally a paper is published on a subject before it enters mainstream scientific discussion. The only reason that Intelligent Design is being mentioned at all is because religious groups have forced it into the public sphere, not because it has any genuine scientific merit.
Blizzard Warrior said:Interesting, did you know that the kansas school board has iniated I.D. Also most of the sources that i am using to do my research paper on for my bio project are very scientific, now i am not scientist, but more people are acception I.D. as an alternative, at least from what i can see in my school and local schools, NOTE that i live in mass....so yea
http://www.ydr.com/doverwestyork/ci_3219285Blizzard Warrior said:Reference: please to the Behe accusation.
Iwill gladly wait for that one.Im getting to the medical thing, bball has really made free time other then online hard to get.
Evolution is the change in alleles in a population over generationsl time.Ok the basic pillars of evolution that I am being taugh in 9th grade science right now in my biology class is exactly what I am telling you.
Did your teacher tell you that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, instead of being the end product of the Scientific Metod, instead is "only a theory"? Is THAT were you got that outright misrepresentation form?Now I haven’t bothered to look up or back up what I am saying about evolution because I figured my teacher having a masters in biology wouldn’t “spew lies of falsehood et cetra”.
And so what? Haven't you figured out that it is not the person but rather the DATA and EVIDENCE that matters?Look at Mendel for example: Mendel, the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, was not a world-renowned scientist of his day.
Blizzard Warrior said:is the JUDGE a scientist? his suppose to interpet the laws of the land, not scientific theory. also Catholism is relvent to what steen was saying about how he didnt care about a Catholic church or any other "non-scientific" organization. I was just ginving him countless counter examples to his "ask gallileo" thing
and can everyone stop saying im 'spewing flasehood' and that i 'dont know what i am talking about' becuase i am simply typing what my biology textbook is saying and what my bio teacher teaches us in class.
Generally, when you copy text from a webpage, especially if you copy the entire page, you need to site the source. Otherwise, you are plagiarizing and very likely violating copyright.Blizzard Warrior said:Today is the official release date....
Yes, they are next in big fat lawsuits. Unless KS AGAIN kick out the fundie idiots that they elected, KS is the next lawsuit, and another paycheck for the ACLU lawyers. Dover now have to come up with $ 1 mill. How much do you think KS has to pay? And then on to Ohio and SC.Blizzard Warrior said:Interesting, did you know that the kansas school board has iniated I.D.
Really? How did you know?Also most of the sources that i am using to do my research paper on for my bio project are very scientific,
So you claim there is scientific evidence? Or are you saying that religious dogma and "just because I say so" fervent postulations is sufficient in your area for something to be taught as science? Well, that will just mean that none of your peers will get into science fields, leaving more room for everybody else.now i am not scientist, but more people are acception I.D. as an alternative, at least from what i can see in my school and local schools,
He listened to the evidemnce.Blizzard Warrior said:is the JUDGE a scientist?
He was asked to decide whether ID was a Scientific theory. He looked at the evidence and clearly saw that it wasn't.his suppose to interpet the laws of the land, not scientific theory.
Ah, when you utterly irrelevantly brought up catholicism as a red herring?also Catholism is relvent to what steen was saying about how he didnt care about a Catholic church or any other "non-scientific" organization. I was just ginving him countless counter examples to his "ask gallileo" thing
Well, it is true, isn't it? We have documented how it is true.and can everyone stop saying im 'spewing flasehood' and that i 'dont know what i am talking about'
OK, you are being lied to by your teachers. I would suggest you switch school so you can get a science education where you are not being lied to. And then call the state school board, as your fellow students are also being lied to. You can be a hero and save them from the lies by turning in the teachers and their false textbooks.becuase i am simply typing what my biology textbook is saying and what my bio teacher teaches us in class.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?