Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 25, 2014, 03:00:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial  (Read 17344 times)
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2007, 08:03:21 AM »

loco, did you watch the documentary? If so, what did you make of it? (If you don't get PBS where you're at, you can watch it online at the link provided above.)

McWay was just venting his anger at the judge's ruling, like the creationists in the documentary did, calling the judge all sorts of names.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism cannot be taught in science class because it is religion, not science.

The creationists invented ID to try and sneak creationism into the classroom under a different name.

They lied through their teeth and said ID was a legitimate science, not creationism.

The judge ruled against them, and ruled that ID is just creationism. Hence, it is unconstitutional to teach ID in science class.

Need I break it down further? Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2007, 01:58:03 AM »

Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed Cool


McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.

Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.

One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).

"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.

In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science".  Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.

After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).

As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.

Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2007, 11:08:45 AM »

Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.

One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).

"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.

In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science".  Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.

After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).

As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.

Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.


Very well said.  Nice post. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Colossus_500
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4005


Psalm 139


« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2007, 12:31:18 PM »

Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.

One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).

"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.

In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science".  Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.

After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).

As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.

Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.

* Standing Ovation *

Great post, McWay! 
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2007, 12:51:00 PM »

Very well said.  Nice post. 

* Standing Ovation *

Great post, McWay! 

Agreed.   Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2007, 05:32:08 AM »

Way to avoid the issue, columbusdude82!  I was looking forward to your response to McWay's questions and to the points he brings up in his post.  But this is all you've got?

Have you visited the Creation Museum?  It's not far from you, and admission is very low cost.  It brings thousands of visitors every day, from all over the world.  In only six months, it has attracted 250,000 visitors, more than they had expected in a whole year.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Creation Museum surpasses expectations
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-02-creationmuseum_N.htm

What I find funny is this cat, Lawrence Krauss, head of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, who calls the attraction's popularity "embarrassing." Embarrasing for whom? Not for Christians!! Perhaps, for the so-called enlightened who, despite having a near-monopoly on the scientific community, had have the darndest time convincing people of the "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" explanation for life on earth (If that 2006 poll is accurate, only 15% of Americans queried buy the godless explanation for life on this planet).

People not buying that their ancestor is 5-billion-year-old "goo"? Imagine that!

 Grin

Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2007, 10:08:57 PM »



"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.




that's becuase the amount of knowledge we have now about physical world makes being a creationists almost laughable, but back then it was still easy to be one becuase we didn't know much yet. 
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2007, 05:10:17 AM »

that's becuase the amount of knowledge we have now about physical world makes being a creationists almost laughable, but back then it was still easy to be one becuase we didn't know much yet. 

Really?  Care to list some of those things we know now that we did not know then that make Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher,  Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, Jonathan Wells, John Polkinghorne, Lee M. Spetner, and Francis Collins being a creationist almost laughable? 
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2007, 06:44:05 AM »

Ronald Fisher was a creationist??? Please present your proof!

Fisher is one of the most quoted, most revered geneticists in the evolutionary literature!
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2007, 07:15:30 PM »

Ronald Fisher was a creationist??? Please present your proof!

Fisher is one of the most quoted, most revered geneticists in the evolutionary literature!

Was he not a devout Christian, very active in his church?  Did he not write articles for Christian magazines?  Did he not believe that God created everything?

BTW, even creationists and Intelligent Design proponents believe in evolution.  They just don't accept everything in Darwin's theory.
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2007, 07:20:47 PM »

So you just expanded the definition of "creationist" to include all religious people.. subtle Smiley

Fisher was not a Creationist, he didn't believe in a young earth, and he didn't believe that God created living organisms some time in the last ten thousand years in their present form. That makes him not a creationist Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2007, 07:29:48 PM »

So you just expanded the definition of "creationist" to include all religious people.. subtle Smiley

Fisher was not a Creationist, he didn't believe in a young earth, and he didn't believe that God created living organisms some time in the last ten thousand years in their present form. That makes him not a creationist Smiley

Oh, okay.  So if you are a Christian who believes that God created everything, that God is the Intelligent Designer, you are still not a creationist as long as you believe that the earth is millions of years old and that God used evolution to create all species?
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2007, 07:32:44 PM »

Creationism means the nutcases in that museum you wanted to send me to Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2007, 07:34:53 PM »

Creationism means the nutcases in that museum you wanted to send me to Smiley

No really, give me a good definition of what a creationist is, not an example.
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2007, 07:38:49 PM »

creationist: one who believes in the literal truth of the creation story of Genesis.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2007, 07:47:38 PM »

creationist: one who believes in the literal truth of the creation story of Genesis.

Where in Genesis does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old?  What about most, if not all, of the people from the Discovery Institue?  They believe that the earth is millions of years old?  Have you and Dawkins not called them creationists?
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2007, 08:27:48 PM »

If you had watched the documentary, you'd have seen how the ID movement is nothing but the old creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Their "ID" textbook was just the old "creationism" textbook, with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponent."

As for all the variations among creationists (old earth, young earth, 6000 years, etc), I refer you to AnswersInGenesis...
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2007, 08:33:51 PM »

If you had watched the documentary, you'd have seen how the ID movement is nothing but the old creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Their "ID" textbook was just the old "creationism" textbook, with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponent."

As for all the variations among creationists (old earth, young earth, 6000 years, etc), I refer you to AnswersInGenesis...

So Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher was a variation among creationists?  What's the difference between him and a guy from the Discovery Institute who believes that the earth is millions of years old?
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2007, 08:59:58 PM »

Difference, you ask?

The first difference is that Fisher was a great scientist, and his contributions to science, especially genetics, evolution, and statistics are immense, whereas the Discovery Institute is a propaganda front whose aim is to subvert science and sabotage the education of American children.

The second difference lies in Fisher's science itself. I challenge you to find examples of references to a supernatural creator or designer in Fisher's scientific writings.
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2007, 09:22:06 PM »

Why is our entertainment complex lodged in the middle of a sewer system. No half a brain engineer would do that, ever. Yet we are to believe that the omnipotent creator of the universe did just that? I often wonder what creationists think when they are sitting on the can, engaged in the painful process of excreting near liquid feces, red in tone, dripping out of their arses. Do they think that is the work of the devil? Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2007, 03:27:15 AM »

What I find funny is this cat, Lawrence Krauss, head of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, who calls the attraction's popularity "embarrassing." Embarrasing for whom? Not for Christians!! Perhaps, for the so-called enlightened who, despite having a near-monopoly on the scientific community, had have the darndest time convincing people of the "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" explanation for life on earth (If that 2006 poll is accurate, only 15% of Americans queried buy the godless explanation for life on this planet).

People not buying that their ancestor is 5-billion-year-old "goo"? Imagine that!

 Grin



Yup, a lot of Americans are proud and stupid...
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2007, 06:12:19 AM »

Difference, you ask?

The first difference is that Fisher was a great scientist, and his contributions to science, especially genetics, evolution, and statistics are immense, whereas the Discovery Institute is a propaganda front whose aim is to subvert science and sabotage the education of American children.

The second difference lies in Fisher's science itself. I challenge you to find examples of references to a supernatural creator or designer in Fisher's scientific writings.

So if you are a scientist and a devout Christian, write articles for Christian magazines, believe that the earth is millions of years old, believe in a supernatural creator and designer, but do not mention that creator and designer in your scientific writings, then you are not a creationist?
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2007, 07:40:56 AM »

Well, you'll have to ask them what they prefer to call themselves, loco. But as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with them believing anything they like in their personal lives as long as they keep faith, unfounded opinion, and superstition out of science.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2007, 07:50:09 AM »

Well, you'll have to ask them what they prefer to call themselves, loco. But as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with them believing anything they like in their personal lives as long as they keep faith, unfounded opinion, and superstition out of science.

Fair enough, columbusdude82!

OzmO,

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question below.  That is, if you want to answer it.

that's becuase the amount of knowledge we have now about physical world makes being a creationists almost laughable, but back then it was still easy to be one becuase we didn't know much yet. 

Really?  Care to list some of those things we know now that we did not know then that make Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher,  Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, Jonathan Wells, John Polkinghorne, Lee M. Spetner, and Francis Collins being a creationist almost laughable? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2007, 07:55:02 AM »

Fair enough, columbusdude82!

OzmO,

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question below.  That is, if you want to answer it.


What about my question?!

Why is our entertainment complex lodged in the middle of a sewer system. No half a brain engineer would do that, ever. Yet we are to believe that the omnipotent creator of the universe did just that? I often wonder what creationists think when they are sitting on the can, engaged in the painful process of excreting near liquid feces, red in tone, dripping out of their arses. Do they think that is the work of the devil? 
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!