Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Halleluah! Halleluah! Halle! Lu! Ah!

  1. #1 Halleluah! Halleluah! Halle! Lu! Ah! 
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A federal judge said on Tuesday the teaching of intelligent design by Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

    Judge John Jones, in a 139-page ruling, said, "The defendant's ID (intelligent design) policy violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

    Jones banned the school district from any future implementation of the policy in Dover schools.

    The district was sued by a group of 11 parents who claimed the intelligent design policy was unconstitutional and unscientific and had no place in science classrooms.

    http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...-EVOLUTION.xml

    AP storyhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/...olution_debate

    Quotes from the U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision: http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/...ap2405012.html

    "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."
    "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
    "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
    "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
    "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
    "The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."
    Here's the link to the BBC story for those interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Nice post. Federal judge Jones, a Bush appointee, was quite clear that the ID promoters were liars and deceitful about their statements in his court and under oath. That alone played no small role in his 139 page judgement, which will serve as further precedent after the landmark 1987 ruling against creationism.

    They, of course, will appeal & it will be denied. The fact that the ID'rs had to lie and deceive in order to promote their false beliefs is yet another reason why they must fail.

    The earth is round. The sun shines by hydrogen fusion. The biological life on earth has evolved. There is not way to deny this except by denying the truth and being forced into lies and deceits.

    If one opposes the universe of events, then there will be one, long term outcome. One will be destroyed. Events are inexorable and ultimately very powerful. The size, age and vast power of the universe will inevitably crush anything which tries to act against these rules.

    These events are the great truths upon which the sciences accept and adjust to. and in turn are given great power. That is the secret of the sciences. It yields to the events/facts in existence, and then in turn the universe yields to it.

    This is a fact, which sadly, the religious right cannot see. Nor can it see that in opposing the facts, which all mainstream churches, including the Church of Rome accept, that is, evolution and biological facts, that these religious extremists cannot possibly win.

    The universe of events, inexorable and powerful over the last 14 billions years, guarantee the failure of these anti-scientific people. because they oppose the universe, itself. They cannot stop the sun from shining, either.

    "The scientists have the future in their bones." --C.P. Snow, "The Two Cultures"
    "


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    They cannot stop the sun from shining, either.
    Byplacing their hands firmly over their closed eyelids they believe they can, indeed, stop it shining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Here is a link that will allow you to download a pdf version of the judge's comments.

    http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    They cannot stop the sun from shining, either.
    Byplacing their hands firmly over their closed eyelids they believe they can, indeed, stop it shining.
    The Matrix "Morpheus: 'This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.'"

    "The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it."
    George Bernard Shaw

    "People willingly believe what they want to believe. "Julius Caesar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    It's like the leader of the largest biomedical association in the US stated. If they are allowed to stop the teaching of biology, then where will their medical care come from? If they, the creationists, damage biology teaching, then inevitably those outside nations which do have good biological sciences, will overwhelm us with that advantage, medically, genetically, biochemically and in every other way.

    The facts are the facts. They promote creationism as they always have, by logical fallacies and mistaken notions of science. If that's their best shot, and it is, they are lost.

    The judge was part of the universe forcing them into a confrontation with events in existence. This will continue until they are as marginalized as those who used to believe that the earth was flat, the sun orbitted the earth and that the earth was the universe' center.

    That's effetively, the creationist position. And effectively, they have doomed themselves to the same end. The psychiatric implications of creationist beliefs, which are growing ever more delusional, are rather dismal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    It's definitely good to read this, and I realize there's a heck of a lot of Christians and others who don't have a problem with science/evolution, but it still worries me that the movement will pick up steam in America because of ignorance to science coupled with religious beliefs. Despite how utterly ridiculous it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1
    hal·le·lu·jah (hl-ly)
    interj.
    Used to express praise or joy.
    n.
    1. An exclamation of "hallelujah."
    2. Music A composition expressing praise and based on the word "hallelujah."
    [Hebrew halllû-yh, praise Yahweh : halllû, masculine pl. imperative of hilll, to praise; see hll in Semitic roots + yh, Yahweh; see hwy in Semitic roots.]
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
    Noun 1.
    hallelujah - a shout or song of praise to God
    praise - offering words of homage as an act of worship; "they sang a hymn of praise to God

    I think one needs to remember that evolution is not a proved fact ... it is a theory. It is very difficult to accept the "evolution" of biochemical machines ... possible, but not likely .... science should not teach God, Who is not measurable, but it doesn't mean that alternative ideas can't be considered and problems in evolution discussed ... I do it, and I am not a fanatic. The truth will always stand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Theory: #1 (scientific definition) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (dictionary.com)

    It is very difficult to accept the "evolution" of biochemical machines ... possible, but not likely
    Who says, you? From what perspective are you delivering this? I think its far more likely than our biological diversity being the product of a supernatural being conducting a great moral experiment, but I do tend to place value in reality.

    science should not teach God, Who is not measurable, but it doesn't mean that alternative ideas can't be considered and problems in evolution discussed
    Absolutely all hairbrained schemes should be considered, by whoever is considering them, but they should not be taught because they will not and should not replace evolution unless it satisfies the definition at that top of the post better than evolution. Good luck with that.

    The truth will always stand.
    And nature can not be debated, only understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by balt0_6
    I think one needs to remember that evolution is not a proved fact ... it is a theory.
    First, welcome to the forum.
    Second, evolution is a fact. It has been demonstrated ad infinitum. What is the matter of some debate are details of some aspects of the mechanisms of evolution. Many have been clearly demonstrated, while others are more tentative.
    But this is rather akin to discussing whether a friend came from Paris to Cairo by plane or boat. Everyone agrees he is now in Cairo and that he used some form of transportation. We see no evidence that he teleported into Tahrir square.
    And as silkworm has pointed out Theory is as good as it gets in science. We observe facts - such as evolution - we theorise about the causes of those facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 O.K. but i have a reply 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Georgia, U S A
    Posts
    5
    Tell me are these IDers roman catholics. If so then I would pay no mind to them. As of yet I have not looked at this court case. What are the lies and deciets that you accuse them of, and what is this garbage about comparing evolution with the fact that the sun shines by fusion of H (duh, that can be almost proven with spectrolysis) or that the earth is round. True Christians who actually study the Bible have always known that the earth is round. Just look up Isaiah 40:22 shows you that. Don't forget circumcusisan on the 8th day. Helps keep you clean and the 8th day is when your blood cloting is at its best. Don't forget Isaiah 42:5 that corresponds with Hubble's red shift. For more info goto http://www.drdino.com and you will be shocked. If you can conjer up any difinitive proof that the Universe exploded from nothing and that we all cam form campells primordial soup then he (main man on the web site) is offering at least a quarter of a million dollars. I don't know what these "ID" people said but evolution and the big bang have never been proven. All the evidence that is given like the likness of bones or high percentage of gene sharing is just proof for a common ancestor; many of the poofs are seriously flaued like the urey miller experiment which had tapes in it which is not realist; other proofs are just flights of fancy. There is no nice geoligic column as given in books. Yes there are layers but not in the erronus format given. otherwise they would give us more than a colorful drawing that looks like it was ment to attract a kindergardner. For once why don't you look at the big picture and look at what true creationism is. If there is no God then where do morals come from. Where do courts then think they have the authority to impose there will on us. Is it because they are more evolved people? I think not, and as far as I'm concerned evolution is a religous as Christianity and takes a whole lot more faith to believe, and that if the courts at all oppose the teaching of Intelegent Design then they are being unconstitutional. Belive me they have be so before. I may be politicaly incorrect but who care?
    Bibliomaniac and/or book mongerer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 one more thing 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Georgia, U S A
    Posts
    5
    Evolution has not at all helped in medical advancement. You can still teach the creationist view and still know all that can be know about chemisty, anatomy, etc. I am home schooling this year and my creationist learning has not hindered my intake of science, math, etc. In fact, not to brag but rather as a matter of fact, I will surpase most others at the local high school as far a science goes. Also the Bible does not teach that the sun revolved around the earth. This was made up by superstious people who were to lazy to explore the universe around them and/or those that think that man is some high exalted being. That old teaching way pure vanity. The theory of evolution and the like are just about as vain and smack of satan's lie to Eve that she could become or evolve into a god.
    Bibliomaniac and/or book mongerer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Hey, indoctrination is on special. Only $126.75 on 20 DVDs, down from $169!

    Here's what it's about:
    During his seventeen years of traveling and speaking on creation and evolution, Dr. Hovind has debated evolutionists on over 80 occasions, engaging professors and scientists from many different fields. Enjoy these twenty DVDs and see ardent evolutionists use a variety of tactics to defend their religion. See for yourself how biologists, anthropologists, geologists, and even atheists can offer no evidence for the unsubstantiated theory of evolution.
    Now I can just sit on my fat ass for months and months viewing and reviewing all of this material and canned phrases and I'll be as smart as I'm allowed to be. Finally!

    You have to understand just because you've seen a video doesn't mean you understand what you're talking about. Science isn't about debate "kid," it's about understanding nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Welcome to ScienceForum, PastaDude. [Nice name, by the way.] Park your Ark and lets get down to business. You’ve provided two posts dense with opinions. I’ll examine a few of them if you don’t mind. I’m confident you wont take any remarks personally.

    What are the lies and deciets that you accuse them of,
    We don’t accuse them of anything. A Federal judge, appointed I believe by George Bush, made the observations as to their dishonesty in his official judgement. If you have a problem with that why not take out a civil suit against the judge?
    and what is this garbage about comparing evolution with the fact that the sun shines by fusion of H (duh, that can be almost proven with spectrolysis) or that the earth is round.
    I find myself in partial agreement with you here: there are, indeed, still several areas where observation and theory do not match up. Yes, evolution has been more thoroughly established than the nuclear mechanism responsible for sunshine. However, once the astrophysicists get their act together I am confident they will catch up.
    A side note here. Don’t feel obliged to answer if this is too technical for you. You note that the sun’s fusion can be almost proven by spectrolysis. [I assume you mean spectrometry.] If so, how? The spectrum is generated in the outer layers of the sun: its character is dependent upon the temperature and composition of those layers. What in the spectrum almost proves hydrogen fusion at the core?
    True Christians who actually study the Bible have always known that the earth is round. Just look up Isaiah 40:22 shows you that.
    There seems to be a lot of latent bitterness in your posts: the use of the dismissive words true Christians and actually study , for example. Here, you correctly capitalised Christian. This is the respectful way. Earlier, you did not accord Roman Catholics the same respect, referring to them as roman catholics, whom you would pay no mind .
    Perhaps you are just slightly nervous tackling evolutionists on their home ground. Don’t worry. See Daniel 6:23.
    Don't forget circumcusisan on the 8th day. Helps keep you clean and the 8th day is when your blood cloting is at its best. Don't forget Isaiah 42:5 that corresponds with Hubble's red shift.
    I am not sure what attempting to demonstrate what a storehouse of wisdom the bible is, has to do with the reality of evolution, but I’ll play along for the moment.
    1. I didn’t know that about blood clotting. Could you cite a source please.
    2. Your Isaiah link is rather precious, isn’t it? Let’s have a closer look. Here is the relevant part of the verse [KJV].
    Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;
    Now the phrase stretched them out has been translated from the original Hebrew natah , which also means extend, spread out, pitch, turn, pervert, incline, bend, bow. You can find all of these usages in the bible. Pitch is used in the context of to pitch a tent . For a nomadic people whose place of security was their tent I could reasonably argue that it was this sense that the writers had intended. God pitching the tent of the heavens to protect his people.
    I find that more plausible than an obscure, divine message about the Hubble redshift.

    For more info goto http://www.drdino.com and you will be shocked.
    I was. But not in the way you had anticipated.

    If you can conjer up any difinitive proof that the Universe exploded from nothing and that we all cam form campells primordial soup then he (main man on the web site) is offering at least a quarter of a million dollars.
    This thread is about evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the Universe, or the origin of life. You are employing what looks uncannily like a straw man argument. Irrelevant.

    I don't know what these "ID" people said but evolution and the big bang have never been proven.
    Just so we are clear. I shall say it again. This thread has nothing to do with the Big Bang. It is about evolution.

    All the evidence that is given like the likness of bones or high percentage of gene sharing is just proof for a common ancestor;
    So, how did we become us, from that common ancestor? Right here, in your statement, you are conceding the fact of evolution.

    many of the poofs are seriously flaued like the urey miller experiment which had tapes in it which is not realist;
    This is becoming tedious. That experiment was about abiogenesis, not about evolution. I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to “it had tapes in it”. Please clarify.

    other proofs are just flights of fancy.
    If you are talking about proofs for the origin of life we have established that that is not relevant to a discussion on evolution. If you are talking about proofs of evolution, please mention one of these ‘flights of fancy’ and explain what is so fanciful about it.

    There is no nice geoligic column as given in books. Yes there are layers but not in the erronus format given. otherwise they would give us more than a colorful drawing that looks like it was ment to attract a kindergardner.
    Tell me, in real life do you walk into open doors from time to time? Just curious.
    The books you have been reading were designed to attract kindergardners {sic} . Try reading some research papers, where you will find the complexity of the sequences described in excruciating and convincing detail.

    For once why don't you look at the big picture and look at what true creationism is. If there is no God then where do morals come from.
    Here you are getting dangerously close to being offensive. Once again, we are exploring the subject of evolution. That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

    Where do courts then think they have the authority to impose there will on us. Is it because they are more evolved people?
    I suggest you have some serious reading to do. Here is a link that may help you.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/

    I think not, and as far as I'm concerned evolution is a religous as Christianity and takes a whole lot more faith to believe, and that if the courts at all oppose the teaching of Intelegent Design then they are being unconstitutional. Belive me they have be so before. I may be politicaly incorrect but who care?
    No. you are not being politically incorrect, you are just being ignorant and ill-informed. Fortunately, these conditions are correctable by a good education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Ophiolite, Hans Bethe got his Nobel Prize in physics for elucidating the means by which solar fusion creates sunlight and solar energy. that's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact how it occurs. It's quite well established in fact, as well established as any fact in physics. The Nobel committee does not award prizes in physics for hypotheses, but for Confirmed theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Look, Pastadude, your means of exposition is quite poor, and the coherency of your posts is dubious.

    Most mainline churches, including the Catholic church have no problem with evolution. They believe quite rightly, simply that evolution was the means by which humans were created. They view human creation as an act which God brougth about via evolution.

    They are quite moral and they have no problems believing in God, Christianity as well as good, solid biological sciences. Your problem seems to be a coherent thinking pattern. There is no logical connection whatsoever between a belief in creationism, or evolution, or believing in God or morality.

    Quoting Scripture is hardly relevant here in a biological topic. If you want to discuss theology, you can go to the appropriate topic here. But 'Isaiah" as anyone knows is not biology. Nor is the Old or New Testament.

    What most educated Christians do is to compartmentalize their beliefs. Rather like a tool box. We keep the hammers here, the screw drivers there and the nuts and bolts in their appropriate places. Nor do we try to use a screwdriver or wrench (the sciences, metaphorically) as hammers or nails. Each part of our intellectual toolbox has its own value, its own proper use and place.

    Thus the sciences tell us about biology. The Good Book does not. Nor do the sciences tell us about morality or ethics. That's irrelevant to physics or biology. It's NOT what the sciences are for. We do not mix up our ingredients or our methods. This leads to all sorts of silly outcomes and problems.

    Suggest you keep your sciences compartmentalized and out of your religious issues. The two simply are quite different and largely compatible as long as one does not try to put catsup and chile peppers in one's morning cereal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    well, Ophiolite, while education can sometimes correct ignorance and related problems, one has to be susceptible to education & trainable. Sadly, an irremediable part of most populations are not. No amount of learning or logic, science or clear thinkin will have the slightest impact upon them..

    One kind of such persons are the creationists. Education has failed these, and will mostly fail most of them. The only thing which will correct such extremists in the case of public schools, is a legal confrontation, such as what Judge Jones imposed upon them. They can believe what they choose, but they will not be allowed to impose their false beliefs and deceits upon the school children of Dover, Pa. And Judge Jones' ruling will be taken as a real Federal court precedent to further remove false beliefs from biology classes nationwide, where the parents & school boards have the good sense to act in the best interests of their communities, to follow those rulings. Real biological sciences, including evolution are going to be taught there, rather than religious beliefs which are anti-scientific and opposed to any kind of reason or education in the sciences.

    This is just more of the confrontation of the scientific method with the ignorant delusions of the creationists. Judge Jones was quite, quite clear about what the defendants were, liars and deceitful. course, they will never admit to the facts, because to do so would further undermine their faulty beliefs.

    IN fact the universe of events will undermine these people's beliefs in time, simply because learning and education have a real and beneficial effect upon people's lives. And false beliefs and delusions lead to nothing but bad outcomes. Which is why learned and wise people avoid them, and fools and seriously mistaken persons pursue such chimeras, rather than substantial beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Ophiolite, Hans Bethe got his Nobel Prize in physics for elucidating the means by which solar fusion creates sunlight and solar energy. that's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact how it occurs. It's quite well established in fact, as well established as any fact in physics. The Nobel committee does not award prizes in physics for hypotheses, but for Confirmed theories.
    Three points.
    1. As I think you know I was using a rhetorical device to emphasise the illogic of pastadude's position.
    2. There are still question mark's over some of the details.
    3. Up until a year or two ago I could have said "Neutrino. Neutrino. Nah, nah, nah." That avenue appears close to me now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Balto6, your belief that evolution is just a 'theory' and not a proven fact is just that, a belief, which happens to be mistaken.

    The 'theory of relativity' and quantum mechanics theory also are theories. and they are also proven facts.

    The problem is essentially one of basic ignorance of the sciences. Biological evolution is a fact of the sciences. The evidences are vast and growing by the day, as my post on a scientific article SNP's and the massive 7% evolution of the human race's genome over the last 50K years just showed. It's quite appropriate, therefore to teach the facts of evolution in biology, just is it is to teach quantum mechanics and relativity theories in physics and general science.

    Sadly, most Americans are desperately, and many of us clearly know a large minority will forever be, ignorant of the sciences.

    Judge Jones' ruling was a wise attempt to promote good biology teaching of the facts of biology, including evolution, in student's classes, so they will not be as ignorant as most Americans are. And will not suffer the terrible disadvantages of a poor education in competition with Euro and Asian schools where the facts ARE taught.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Well, regarding any set of findings, there are always questions. But the fact that there are questions, does not mean those established facts are becoming untrue.

    We do not have to know the exact number of steps a felon took to commit a crime, in order to know that his crime was committed. We do not have to know in precise detail HOW a bacteria has developed a resistance to an antibiotic, in order to know the bacteria are resistant. Nor do we need to know HOW an antibiotic works, just that it does work. Nor in the case of any other drug.

    It's simply not the case. Stellar fusion is how the stars shine. Further answers to more questions, of which there always are, will not change this fact, merely add to it. One need not examine every single visible star to test for fusion, in order to reasonably and scientifically believe that all stars shine by hydrogen fusion.

    Judge Jones stated this in his ruling. HE wrote quite clearly, that the biological sciences did NOt have to elucidate every single detail about every single species in order to establish that evolution had occurred. But he stated that the preponderance of evidence was all that was needed. And that the biological science of evolution had established the fact enough to conclude that.

    Again, this argument by the creationists, that since there are 'gaps' in the fossil record, that these are holes in evolutionary truths is quite simply, as is logically apparent, a false objection with no bearing on the issue at all. The overall preponderance of evidence was all that was needed. Just as with solar fusion. This 'gap' argument was one which the creationists used time and again in the trial, and Judge Jones dismissed it as the faulty reasoning it was. The continued fallacies, false beliefs, and mistaken reasoning which the creationists constantly committed, in addition to their lies and deceits, were what Judge Jones pointed out in his ruling against the creationists.

    Interesting that the depth and broadness of Judge Jones' learned and detailed ruling against creationism should once again apply here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Steve, I'm not disagreeing with you. I am simply pointing out (again) that by contrasting and comparing the status of theories on stellar fusion with those on evolution, I could highlight for pastadude how solid a foundation the theory of evolution rests on.
    Perhaps I should abandon subtlety in future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Well, regarding any set of findings, there are always questions. But the fact that there are questions, does not mean those established facts are becoming untrue.

    We do not have to know the exact number of steps a felon took to commit a crime, in order to know that his crime was committed. We do not have to know in precise detail HOW bacteria have developed a resistance to an antibiotic, in order to know the bacteria are resistant. Nor do we need to know HOW an antibiotic works, just that it does work. Nor in the case of any other drug.

    It's simply not the case. Stellar fusion is how the stars shine. Further answers to more questions, of which there always are, will not change this fact, merely add to it. One need not examine every single visible star to test for fusion, in order to reasonably and scientifically believe that all stars shine by hydrogen fusion.

    Judge Jones stated this in his ruling. HE wrote quite clearly, that the biological sciences did NOt have to elucidate every single detail about every single species in order to establish that evolution had occurred. But he stated that the preponderance of evidence was all that was needed. And that the biological science of evolution had established the fact enough to conclude that.

    Again, this argument by the creationists, that since there are 'gaps' in the fossil record, that these are holes in evolutionary truths is quite simply, as is logically apparent, a false objection with no bearing on the issue at all. The overall preponderance of evidence was all that was needed. Just as with solar fusion. This 'gap' argument was one which the creationists used time and again in the trial, and Judge Jones dismissed it as the faulty reasoning it was. The continued fallacies, false beliefs, and mistaken reasoning which the creationists constantly committed, in addition to their lies and deceits, were what Judge Jones pointed out in his ruling against the creationists.

    Interesting that the depth and broadness of Judge Jones' learned and detailed ruling against creationism should once again apply here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I habe no idea what the reposting of your previous post means. Care to clarify?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Trying to write clearly is always a good thing. As you always do seem to write more clearly than most everyone else does, one has no problem with your posts. One simply likes statements to be clear. And may add a comment in order to clarify something, which, to oneself, did not seem altogether apparent. This is a not necessarily a criticism but an attempt for clarity.

    Frankly, from what one has read around here, the usual posts are models of clarity, compared to most websites. The incredibly obtuse and not coherent post of pastaD not withstanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Most websites have browser problems with the composition program. Facts are, my fingers are fat, have arthritis & are not good typers and I have sequencing problems when I type. There may also be some line noise & keyboard problems. This requires I detailedly, often repeatedly correct these small errors in my posts so they are readable. The lettering is small and often hard to read, and the cursor often covers up letters so there are mispellings, not apparent until the post is 'submit'ed. Despite these, my best attempts, there are still problems in the system. I suspect that is the problem.

    It's a browser problem. Compared to the Fidonets from 20 years ago, however, today's browsers are models of perfection!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Political distancing, YAY!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/po...syahoo&emc=rss

    Senator Rick Santorum said Wednesday that he would withdraw his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which had defended the Dover Area School District's policy mandating the teaching of intelligent design in science classes dealing with evolution.

    Mr. Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, earlier praised the district for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution." ...

    ...Mr. Santorum told The Philadelphia Inquirer that he was troubled by testimony indicating that religion had motivated some board members to adopt the policy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    It occurs to me that we must also ban the organized practice of Yoga in public schools since it is an obvious attempt to infuse young impressionable minds with Budhism. Judo and Jujutsu should also be off limits due to their roots in Shintoism. School provided meals must always include meat, because vegetarianism is a tenet of Hinduism.

    To quote Karen Carpenter, "We've only just begun."
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Yoga (though it's not exclusive to Buddhism, which coincidently is a philosophy and not a religion (though it does deal with the supernatural)) I'd agree with, but I do think we'd have less brain damaged people if they learned how to breathe properly. And I was never aware that they taught martial arts in public high schools (outside of wrestling which has nothing to do with religion) and I don't see the vegetarian argument as valid because there are such things as nutritionists who are not dominated by a religious ideology. Weak weak arguments.

    For what it's worth daytonturner, I do believe the Bible should be taught in senior English which is generally the Literature part of English for high school students (and is wasted on Brittish literature, which means nothing to American students). I've felt that critically examining it and how it has effected American society would be immensely valuable to study and the true essense of what Literature is (as a discipline). It's also very valid (to study the Bible in a literature course in an honest and non-religious way) in America because 160 million (a little more than half) people here identify themselves as Christians (not IDers) and we are all affected by the purported ambassadors of the Bible and the Bible itself. For this to be valuable however, it needs to be approached as a Literature course and not Sunday school. I also believe there should be a religious studies course required in high school, though not to indoctrinate but to examine all of the religions of the world, because people need to branch out and understand people from other cultures, especially those isolated in small towns, and what purpose religion actually serves in general. So go for those, and I'll support you, even though IDers have proven they can not be trusted (they've been known to lie as Judge Jones reported) I'll support you in these high school classes if you promise not to use it to force Christianity on people, which is unconstitutional in a public institution. Just stay out of science. Religion has nothing to do with science and because you can't make that distinction, to quote Kelly Clarkson, "Because of you... I am afraid. Because of you."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It occurs to me that we must also ban the organized practice of Yoga in public schools since it is an obvious attempt to infuse young impressionable minds with Budhism. Judo and Jujutsu should also be off limits due to their roots in Shintoism. School provided meals must always include meat, because vegetarianism is a tenet of Hinduism.

    To quote Karen Carpenter, "We've only just begun."
    I would disagree. I don't believe in yoga, but I am a practioner of Judo and Jiu Jitsu, and it makes as much sense as no longer playing basketball, because it was created by a (I presume) Christian. Judo and Jiu Jitsu does not need its philosophical base to be a fun engaging sport for youth.

    And meat is important for children! Down with vegetarianistic starvation!

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I think silkworm and HU, you have failed to see that Dayton's post was tongue in cheek.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Tongue in cheek? Emotions are not well expressed in 2D. That's what emoticons are for!

    One might also add, that "Jewish physics", as Herr Hitler's minions were fond of calling it, WAS Universal physics, independent of cultures or much else. It's the easy crossing of cultural barriers which makes science so very universal, even tho mostly it was Western European.

    There is an inevitable cultural loading whenever new fields are created, but given the nature of such movements, if they are indeed valuable and not locallly useful, they will transcend those cultural limits.

    And the biological sciences definitely, esp. in these days of international research teams, transcend cultures & religions.

    Sadly, the creationists have found it hard to leave the 19th C. This is often called 'obsolescence'. It's likely in time, that judgement will be widely realized.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •