Bible study rules for public schools proposed

[Yiago]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>If it helps you to believe that then great... But don't call that science... That's faith...

Dude...you seriously need to learn what you're talking about. I have no college degree and I understand what science is and how it works. You seem to be without even the most rudimentary concept if how theories work, what constitutes evidence, and how to spot BS.

Never start with a conclusion. A Creator is a MASSIVE conclusion to start with. That is one if the reasons ID isn't science. It starts with a required outcome and tries to cobble together a story around it...without supporting evidence.

At least real science has the gonads to ditch a theory when it proves false.

lol, fundies.

[Yiago]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>I have to disagree with your numbers... In the last 5000 years we have lost several hundred species of mammals and Avians... Plus several 1000 species of Insects and Reptilians.... And your number is a bit off from the start as there are an estimated six to ten million species of insect, but only a million or so have been scientifically described. That size boat cannot hold 2 of each Bug on the planet much less all the fish, snakes, birds, turtles, elephants and Wildebeests .....

The numbers must have came from a Creation Engineering program. Thank goodness they don't build bridges.

[Yiago]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>Yes science teaches what it knows... So far in our little debate we've learned that: You cannot explain scientifically how life began, nor how it got the information to reproduce or even why it would see a need to reproduce...(Of course that would suggest a ID)... Shall we continue?

That does not suggest ID, it suggests WE DO NOT YET KNOW.

This is a point Creationists never seem to get. Science does not give us certainty, it just gives us probability.

Theres a lot we do not know. But that "gap" cannot simply be filled with an all powerful, intelligent entity that has never been observed in nature.

Have some humility. We figure it out one piece at a time.

[ChromiuMan]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>
Complex living systems cannot create themselves from random chance... This takes something science cannot explain yet this totally ignored... Never mind me I'm just the 900 pound gorilla in the room... Sweep it under the rug and pretend it all just works anyway...

You use complex sentence structure, but you don't think about it. You weren't born speaking english - you started with a word, then phrases, then sentences. Then you learned the alphabet, and how to print, how to write script, how to type. You learned parts of sentences, verbs, nouns, subjects, objects, prepositions... It is no surprise to you now that you could write a book - but in daycare it would be unimaginable. You somehow think that life was born speaking english, and never went through "learning" more complexity.

Explaining something does not guarantee understanding it.
I could tell you that lamination retards hysteresis. I could tell you that port tuning is inadequate to eliminate fuel scavenging. I could tell you that a car trunk is never a decent helmholtz resonator.
Not understanding the dynamics of electricity, gases or sound does not make any of these examples "magic".
Not understanding biochemistry does not make your frustration invalid.

[Apple At Cha]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>
Complex living systems cannot create themselves from random chance... This takes something science cannot explain yet this totally ignored... Never mind me I'm just the 900 pound gorilla in the room... Sweep it under the rug and pretend it all just works anyway...

Isn't it amazing how being invisible and being non-existent look identical?

[Apple At Cha]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>So when you read a parable, you think it you only need to follow the idea of the lesson if the same exact situation happens that is given in the example?
Clearly you are not understanding what an example or a parable is.
I guess seeing as how their was no internet back then, the bible cannot teach you how to act when using it. Going by your logic anyway.

Heck no. He is a fundamentalist - if the situation doesn't occur EXACTLY the way it was put in the bible, it doesn't count in his mind. It is that black and white for him. It is how he weasels out of those inconvenient commandments to do unto others as he wants done unto him (granted, he must want to be name called with all the name calling he does). It is funny how, in order to get around that "love they neighbor", he restricts the term so much that you probably would need to pass a polygraph with him examining your beliefs before he would ever consider you a "neighbor" worthy of decent treatment.

[defender]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>Wait...you accuse your opponent of scientific ignorance and in the same breath claim there is no evidence for evolution!!??

This is like bizzaro world. lol

Is there some alternate world where science works opposite what we think it does? Mind boggling!!

Yes I claim no evidence for evolution... And so far my opponent isn't fairing to well...

[defender]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>Dude...you seriously need to learn what you're talking about. I have no college degree and I understand what science is and how it works. You seem to be without even the most rudimentary concept if how theories work, what constitutes evidence, and how to spot BS.

Never start with a conclusion. A Creator is a MASSIVE conclusion to start with. That is one if the reasons ID isn't science. It starts with a required outcome and tries to cobble together a story around it...without supporting evidence.

At least real science has the gonads to ditch a theory when it proves false.

lol, fundies.

It that held true then real science would have chucked ToE along time ago... Like I said if you enjoy the kool aid then fine drink up...

[Quantummist]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
I was only counting mammals, avians and reptiles, and even then I knew the number was low.. Fish can fend for themselves - except for the massive salt imbalances, of course. God should have had Noah build an arkuarium for them, I suppose. LOL!

"and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made"

So either Noah had a really big Salt Water tank and a really big Fresh Water tank or God didn't make Fish and Aquatic Mammals....

But I think in reality it was a lingering story told for some 20 thousand years of the time when a catastrophic event happened that caused the swift end of the last ice age... This event would have left a imprint on those left after first fast water rise... Would have been passed through the generations through story telling to be altered and made part of the survival / creation stories of future generations...

I am actually becoming more and more convinced that the actual crust of the earth shifted about 20deg as it's the only explanation that would explain some of the evidence I have studied... First is the rate of melt of the ice caps... If the ice was as we have been told the world temps would have to have risen massively in a short order to explain the rate of melt.... But a crustal shift would have moved the polar caps from the into different latitudes where it would melt quickly... and form new ice caps at the new polar positions... During the last Ice age I'm starting to think the North Pole was about where northern Michigan is today leaving most of Antarctica Ice free... And wiping a existing fairly advanced civilization from history.....

[defender]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>That does not suggest ID, it suggests WE DO NOT YET KNOW.

This is a point Creationists never seem to get. Science does not give us certainty, it just gives us probability.

Theres a lot we do not know. But that "gap" cannot simply be filled with an all powerful, intelligent entity that has never been observed in nature.

Have some humility. We figure it out one piece at a time.

No what YOU don't seem to get is "we don't know yet " translates to this is not possible... Lol.. The experiments have been going since the 1953... Didn't work then, don't work today and isn't going to work tomorrow... But hey knock yourself out...

[Satanic Priest]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I claim no evidence for evolution... And so far my opponent isn't fairing to well...

No evidence for god other than some nut jobs yelling "is to, is to"

[Satanic Priest]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>
No what YOU don't seem to get is "we don't know yet " translates to this is not possible... Lol.. The experiments have been going since the 1953... Didn't work then, don't work today and isn't going to work tomorrow... But hey knock yourself out...

People have been praying in vain for much longer yet some people still insist that prayer is real (what? I have no proof that prayer does not work because I do not know what has happened over the past 1000 years? Yea that is exactly my point)

[defender]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>You use complex sentence structure, but you don't think about it. You weren't born speaking english - you started with a word, then phrases, then sentences. Then you learned the alphabet, and how to print, how to write script, how to type. You learned parts of sentences, verbs, nouns, subjects, objects, prepositions... It is no surprise to you now that you could write a book - but in daycare it would be unimaginable. You somehow think that life was born speaking english, and never went through "learning" more complexity.

Explaining something does not guarantee understanding it.
I could tell you that lamination retards hysteresis. I could tell you that port tuning is inadequate to eliminate fuel scavenging. I could tell you that a car trunk is never a decent helmholtz resonator.
Not understanding the dynamics of electricity, gases or sound does not make any of these examples "magic".
Not understanding biochemistry does not make your frustration invalid.

Whatever... This is the whole point... Yes we as people learn... Why?... We have a brain?... We are taught... Somehow a simple cell taught itself how to reproduce?... Adapt? Mutate?... Without any kind of intelligence?... You guys already admitted that you have no answer for this so let's not get desperate and start with the childish insults and magic spells...

[Known fact]

Could Life Originate by Chance?
WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.
2 Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

[defender]

Apple At Cha wrote:

<quoted text>Heck no. He is a fundamentalist - if the situation doesn't occur EXACTLY the way it was put in the bible, it doesn't count in his mind. It is that black and white for him. It is how he weasels out of those inconvenient commandments to do unto others as he wants done unto him (granted, he must want to be name called with all the name calling he does). It is funny how, in order to get around that "love they neighbor", he restricts the term so much that you probably would need to pass a polygraph with him examining your beliefs before he would ever consider you a "neighbor" worthy of decent treatment.

What's the matter honey?... Mad cause this Christian won't roll over for ya?...

[Satanic Priest]

Known fact wrote:

Could Life Originate by Chance?
WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.
2 Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Some chemicals with a spark of electron movement causes reactions that we call life. sentient beings took much longer, and I use the word sentient loosly

[Satanic Priest]

defender wrote:

<quoted text>
What's the matter honey?... Mad cause this Christian won't roll over for ya?...

You are acting like a christian again!

[Satanic Priest]

Of course the theory of an alien named magog could have visited earth, makes as much sense as god does

[Quantummist]

Known fact wrote:

Could Life Originate by Chance?
WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.
2 Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Well maybe if someone can define Exactly what constitutes Life we might get to the crux of the issue.... Is a Virus alive? Is a Crystal that reproduces and uses surrounding material to do so Alive? Is a Organic Molecular Amino acid Alive?

Once that question has been answered then the more complex life forms can be considered... Life is not just Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My.....

[defender]

Known fact wrote:

Could Life Originate by Chance?
WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.
2 Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Must have is a term evolutionist love... Not only is it not possible for life just spring up from the clay... After that they have major problems with reproduction and dependency... So the best defense is to water down the subject...