Amarillo College nixes intelligent de...

Amarillo College nixes intelligent design class

There are 284 comments on the World Magazine story from Dec 23, 2013, titled Amarillo College nixes intelligent design class. In it, World Magazine reports that:

In fall 2013, Amarillo College planned to offer a class entitled "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" as one of its continuing education courses.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at World Magazine.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Every source article says the same thing as boharts. Show me a different article that says different. Show me the facts! Or as they say STFU!
It's right at the top of the page. Are you daft? Rhetorical question.

Fact - "In fall 2013, Amarillo College planned to offer a class entitled "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" as one of its continuing education courses." - from the article.

Fact - It's illegal to teach ID in public schools, period. Always has been, always will be - UNLESS any of you boys can finally come up with an actual scientific theory for it. Something which no IDer has been able to do for thousands of years.

Anything else you're not getting? I'll be happy to explain.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Are you blind or just can't read? It was not going to be a science class. How many times do you have to hear that. It was going to be a philosophy class. You know where you debate about such things as reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, etc.
There is nothing here I have not already addressed.
replaytime wrote:
You would think the atheists, with all their evidence,<<(about evolution) would welcome such a class to debate about reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason and they could do it all against ID.
And where did they stifle such debate? I already provided you with suitable alternatives. But preaching anti-science using public education funds is NOT one of those options.
replaytime wrote:
But noooo,, bitchhh and moan and threaten sue. They wanted no part it.
Because gee, you guys have NEVER done that before, right? Oh, wait.

I see you're now taking the Bo approach by repeating previously refuted arguments. Keep whining, hypocrite.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#85 Dec 27, 2013
bohart wrote:
Really, they aren't! is that why they went on a rant to where a police report was made?

Discussed already. Report filed AFTER the event. Cops weren't called in to break up a fight, it was the college covering its own back after two blokes got into a heated argument.

[QUOTE who="bohart"]A college is an incredibly foolish place to have a debate?
Over whether reality is real or invisible wizards did it differently? Yes, it's a MONUMENTALLY stupid place to have such a debate.

Using public funds.

Teaching illegal bullcrap.
bohart wrote:
Where would you have it ,your laundry mat?When in the hell can't a college discuss a religious belief or any kind of belief?
Lunch hall would be good.
bohart wrote:
You are of the same ilk as those lunatics who freaked out at the thought of a college debate.
Except the "debate" was unbalanced. He wanted to "teach" Flat Earth as being equal to ball-earth.
bohart wrote:
You and those nuts are proof of what Ben Stein said,...no intelligence allowed.
Exactly, no intelligence allowed in the creationist community. For if they DID use any intelligence no-one would see the NEED for debating whether or not invisible magic wizards using unknown means had any relevance to scientific reality. God forbid you fundies should try using any intelligence...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#86 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad atheists only have the courage to debate from behind a computer screen with a fake name. I call that being a coward. You can call it what you want. The only thing wrong with having that philosophy class and debating is that atheists would have to face people in person with their BS.
Funny, since I'm pretty sure I could name some atheists who DON'T use internet nicknames.

Of course I'm expecting you to lay the same criticism towards your lying for Jesus brethren who all post here, say, such as Bohart for example.

Take your time.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#87 Dec 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, since I'm pretty sure I could name some atheists who DON'T use internet nicknames.
Of course I'm expecting you to lay the same criticism towards your lying for Jesus brethren who all post here, say, such as Bohart for example.
Take your time.
The funny thing is how you come on in a rant attacking character rather than addressing the article. The atheists guy went after the teacher so hard and full of hatred that a police report had to be made. That is a fact Jack!..

The class was going to be a debate class under philosophy you know on things like reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason etc which atheists all claim they are better at and more educated on. They ran scared, bitcheddd and moaned and yelled sue. That is a fact Jack!.

You would think that evolutionists/atheists would welcome such a class to show how they are far more educated than they rest and have so much evidence for evolution. But yet again they run and threaten sue. Typical cowardness. That is a fact Jack!.

Evolutionist won't face people in debate. They use the threats of sue and the religious lawsuits to do their bidding for them because they are cowards. If they have so much evidence to show and offer why not just get in there, debate and lay it all out and crush ID once and for all,,, oh yeah because they are full of BS. That is a fact Jack!

The evolutionists think they win lawsuits because evolution is science. They don't win law suits because evolution is science, they win because of religious freedom and the fact that there are so many different religions that believe different things. That is a fact Jack!

You are like the village idiot that runs around thread to thread agreeing on one about a subject and dis-agreeing on another about the same subject. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. That is a fact Jack!.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#89 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The funny thing is how you come on in a rant attacking character rather than addressing the article. The atheists guy went after the teacher so hard and full of hatred that a police report had to be made. That is a fact Jack!..
The class was going to be a debate class under philosophy you know on things like reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason etc which atheists all claim they are better at and more educated on. They ran scared, bitcheddd and moaned and yelled sue. That is a fact Jack!.
You would think that evolutionists/atheists would welcome such a class to show how they are far more educated than they rest and have so much evidence for evolution. But yet again they run and threaten sue. Typical cowardness. That is a fact Jack!.
Evolutionist won't face people in debate. They use the threats of sue and the religious lawsuits to do their bidding for them because they are cowards. If they have so much evidence to show and offer why not just get in there, debate and lay it all out and crush ID once and for all,,, oh yeah because they are full of BS. That is a fact Jack!
The evolutionists think they win lawsuits because evolution is science. They don't win law suits because evolution is science, they win because of religious freedom and the fact that there are so many different religions that believe different things. That is a fact Jack!
You are like the village idiot that runs around thread to thread agreeing on one about a subject and dis-agreeing on another about the same subject. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. That is a fact Jack!.
You are ever a liar and a hypocrite. You post on here like the rest of us. Behind a made up name. In your case, several made up names. Evolutionists have faced people in debate back to the days of Darwin. As usual you have a big mouth full of nothing but shit.

You are found of babbling on incessantly about the points of the story, I will point one out to you since you don't seem to understand it. The group threatening to sue was based around atheism and agnosticism and not evolution. You keep interchanging the terms despite knowing better and have been informed numerous times.

Evolution is science. That is a fact Jack! The court cases hold up in favor of evolution because the challenges all turn out to be religion and thus fall under separation. In most of those cases, religious views were being forced on entire communities at tax payer expense whether everyone wanted it or not by creationists.

I remind you again of your hypocrisy. You open your post about character attack by others and end it by attacking their character.

I predict you won't have the courage to honestly respond to this like an adult.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#90 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The funny thing is how you come on in a rant attacking character rather than addressing the article. The atheists guy went after the teacher so hard and full of hatred that a police report had to be made. That is a fact Jack!..
The class was going to be a debate class under philosophy you know on things like reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason etc which atheists all claim they are better at and more educated on. They ran scared, bitcheddd and moaned and yelled sue. That is a fact Jack!.
You would think that evolutionists/atheists would welcome such a class to show how they are far more educated than they rest and have so much evidence for evolution. But yet again they run and threaten sue. Typical cowardness. That is a fact Jack!.
Evolutionist won't face people in debate. They use the threats of sue and the religious lawsuits to do their bidding for them because they are cowards. If they have so much evidence to show and offer why not just get in there, debate and lay it all out and crush ID once and for all,,, oh yeah because they are full of BS. That is a fact Jack!
The evolutionists think they win lawsuits because evolution is science. They don't win law suits because evolution is science, they win because of religious freedom and the fact that there are so many different religions that believe different things. That is a fact Jack!
You are like the village idiot that runs around thread to thread agreeing on one about a subject and dis-agreeing on another about the same subject. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. That is a fact Jack!.
A police report did not have to be made. It was the choice of the alleged victim to file or not file a report. No crime was committed, but a report is a record.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
This post alone, with the comment "a confrontation that had to be broken up by the police?" shows you are unable to read or you willing lie. Take your pick but you are guilty of one or the other.
Bullshit. Why must you continue to show that you are a moron?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#92 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad atheists only have the courage to debate from behind a computer screen with a fake name. I call that being a coward. You can call it what you want. The only thing wrong with having that philosophy class and debating is that atheists would have to face people in person with their BS.
What is your real name hypocrite?

Why must creationists be idiots wherever they show up?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#93 Dec 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your real name hypocrite?
Why must creationists be idiots wherever they show up?
I think his name is Bud Hole.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#94 Dec 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? They all say that there was a confrontation that had to be broken up by the police? Or do you forget making that claim?
I could not find any such articles, perhaps you have link to one.
Still waiting for you to back this up. Where did any one say a confrontation that had to be broken up by the police?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for you to back this up. Where did any one say a confrontation that had to be broken up by the police?
Fine, a very minor mistake on my part. You still made the huge mistake of reading a biased source and treating it as if it were gospel.

I admit when I do make mistakes. You make idiotic mistakes constantly and never own up to them.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#96 Dec 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, a very minor mistake on my part. You still made the huge mistake of reading a biased source and treating it as if it were gospel.
I admit when I do make mistakes. You make idiotic mistakes constantly and never own up to them.
How is this article biased? Every article says the same thing except one called it a military report which I found odd.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
How is this article biased? Every article says the same thing except one called it a military report which I found odd.
You could not tell that the first article was biased? To start with ID is not a theory. You do know that don't you? Unfortunately I have to run right now, but I will go more in depth when I come back. Maybe by then you will be able to see the bias yourself.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#99 Dec 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You could not tell that the first article was biased? To start with ID is not a theory. You do know that don't you? Unfortunately I have to run right now, but I will go more in depth when I come back. Maybe by then you will be able to see the bias yourself.
Sure ID is a theory. A theory is simply a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on).

There can be a theory of just about anything.

They did not and do not say it is a scientific theory.

You do know there is theory and there is scientific theory right? Just like there is definition and there is scientific definition.
defender

Mount Vernon, KY

#100 Dec 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Over whether reality is real or invisible wizards did it differently? Yes, it's a MONUMENTALLY stupid place to have such a debate.

Using public funds.

Teaching illegal bullcrap.

bohart wrote, "Where would you have it ,your laundry mat?When in the hell can't a college discuss a religious belief or any kind of belief?"

Lunch hall would be good.

bohart wrote, "You are of the same ilk as those lunatics who freaked out at the thought of a college debate."

Except the "debate" was unbalanced. He wanted to "teach" Flat Earth as being equal to ball-earth.

bohart wrote, "You and those nuts are proof of what Ben Stein said,...no intelligence allowed."

Exactly, no intelligence allowed in the creationist community. For if they DID use any intelligence no-one would see the NEED for debating whether or not invisible magic wizards using unknown means had any relevance to scientific reality. God forbid you fundies should try using any intelligence...
If ID is so easily handled by you gents then what's the big deal??... Is ID a theory? No... It's a fact... It's self evident ... All the effort put forth to silence this issue only brings more interest... By all means keep bitching...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure ID is a theory. A theory is simply a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on).
There can be a theory of just about anything.
They did not and do not say it is a scientific theory.
You do know there is theory and there is scientific theory right? Just like there is definition and there is scientific definition.
Wrong, They were treating it as if it were science discussion. In a science discussion the default definition is that of the scientific theory. ID is not a scientific theory.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102 Dec 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If ID is so easily handled by you gents then what's the big deal??... Is ID a theory? No... It's a fact... It's self evident ... All the effort put forth to silence this issue only brings more interest... By all means keep bitching...
No, ID is not a theory. And it is nowhere near being a fact. Now like gravity which is often treated as both a theory and as a fact so is evolution. ID originally was merely creationism in sheep's clothing. It was an attempt at a lie by he Discovery Institute. They were caught in the Dover Trial.
defender

Mount Vernon, KY

#103 Dec 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, ID is not a theory. And it is nowhere near being a fact. Now like gravity which is often treated as both a theory and as a fact so is evolution. ID originally was merely creationism in sheep's clothing. It was an attempt at a lie by he Discovery Institute. They were caught in the Dover Trial.
What lie? What agenda?... Why would anyone want to snuff out science?
Not at all... From all scientific fact we have you cannot rule out ID... More over we know that even if evolution is proven it still could not be so without design... Just don't work...
Big Bang?- Shot in the dark
Abiogenesis?- Not one hypothesis even close
Evolution?- Mutation no doubt observed Mutation without limitations? Not observed...
Strange how the gaps in science are the most important ones huh?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#104 Dec 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure ID is a theory. A theory is simply a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on).
There can be a theory of just about anything.
They did not and do not say it is a scientific theory.
You do know there is theory and there is scientific theory right? Just like there is definition and there is scientific definition.
No, they do treat it like a scientific theory or they wouldn't be trying to support it with scientific evidence.

There is no formal scientific theory of evolution. If you didn't understand that it is because you spend too much time trying stir up drama and attention for yourself.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 59 min Explorer 5,821
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Samuel Patre 87,475
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Dogen 166,362
What's your religion? 16 hr 15th Dalai Lama 772
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Wed Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web