Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[Sky Dancer]

So you believe in something you don't think is scientifically possible?

I didn't say that.

A buddhist arguing about religion in schools. Does the Dalai Lama encourage this ?

Buddhists are into debate--not arguing. They're different but it's a slippery slope, lol

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have studied science. And you?

Oh really? Bachelor of Arts in biology perhaps? No? Bachelor of Science in chemistry perhaps? Still no? Oh I got it! PhD in Quantum Mechanics. Oh, guess not there either. So, what degree do you have in the science field you studied?

So this is how you justify your ignorance and believe all those qualified educated people who have studies these topics for their entire lives are just making stuff up. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Which ones are more educated...the ones that you agree with or the ones you don't?

Please let me know how you arrive at your conclusion.

This is how I arrive at conclusions: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have fun reading that. I do not believe the people I agree with and ignore those I disagree with. Only faith is the denial of verified evidence and observation so that belief can be preserved. Unlike you, I am changed by new information, regardless of whether I like what it has to say or not, as long as it adheres to the principles of the scientific method so that the conclusions are validated and free from bias.

So how do you arrive at your conclusions? Oh I guess I already know.

Bible Blinders.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I have studied science. And you?

Oh really? Bachelor of Arts in biology perhaps? No? Bachelor of Science in chemistry perhaps? Still no? Oh I got it! PhD in Quantum Mechanics. Oh, guess not there either. So, what degree do you have in the science field you studied?

So science didn't come about until people got a PhD at the end of their name? You mean they "created" science.

Actually, I do believe you on that one. They created their own version of it. It's call pseudo science.

This is how I arrive at conclusions: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny, so do I. Amazing how we both reach different conclusions. Simply amazing!

Have fun reading that. I do not believe the people I agree with and ignore those I disagree with. Only faith is the denial of verified evidence and observation so that belief can be preserved.

Very pretty writing. You must have a Bachelor degree in English, No?

You are getting very good at dodging my questions.

Unlike you, I am changed by new information, regardless of whether I like what it has to say or not, as long as it adheres to the principles of the scientific method so that the conclusions are validated and free from bias.

Funny, you say one thing and do another.

So how do you arrive at your conclusions? Oh I guess I already know.

Bible Blinders.

see above

 

[THE LIGHT]

Reincarnation is a topic that doesn't belong in a science class. I am not into reincarnation but I am into rebirth as a spiritual topic. Reincarnation and rebirth are different.

So you believe in something you don't think is scientifically possible?

I didn't say that.

My mistake on that one. Sorry. I'll explain tomorrow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Light, creationism is not science.

End of argument.

 

[sangha]

So you believe in something you don't think is scientifically possible?

I didn't say that.

A buddhist arguing about religion in schools. Does the Dalai Lama encourage this ?

I see that Buddhism is just one more subject you know little about.

The Dalai Lama is not the equivalent of the Pope. No buddhist is required to adhere to his teachings.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have studied science. And you?

Oh really? Bachelor of Arts in biology perhaps? No? Bachelor of Science in chemistry perhaps? Still no? Oh I got it! PhD in Quantum Mechanics. Oh, guess not there either. So, what degree do you have in the science field you studied?

So science didn't come about until people got a PhD at the end of their name? You mean they "created" science.

Actually, I do believe you on that one. They created their own version of it. It's call pseudo science.

So I asked you what science degree you have, and you reply with a completely unrelated rant on making up science. Well done.

So, what science degree do you possess?

Funny, so do I. Amazing how we both reach different conclusions. Simply amazing!

Except, you have shown yourself to completely reject the scientific method if the conclusions in any way contradict the bible. There is absolutely nothing possible in the universe, no amount of evidence or fact, that would make you believe the bible to be incorrect. Once again: faith is the denial of verified evidence so that belief can be preserved.

Ask yourself these questions: do you agree that evolution is the best working idea of this planet's biodiversity? Does a fetus feel pain in the first trimester? Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?

You are getting very good at dodging my questions.

You keep making statements such as this, but I see no questions.

Unlike you, I am changed by new information, regardless of whether I like what it has to say or not, as long as it adheres to the principles of the scientific method so that the conclusions are validated and free from bias.

Funny, you say one thing and do another.

Can you show a single instance that shows the contrary to my statement? Can you point out a single post where I refuse to change my viewpoint despite evidence produced through the scientific method? No, of course not. You don't support anything you say.

So let's recap. You claim you have "studied science" but avoid stating what degree you hold in the field. You claim I avoid your questions when none were posed to me. You continually ignore verifiable fact so that your belief can be preserve, and then claim I am not changed by evidence.

Let me know what points you believe I'm dodging. When I asked you this in the previous thread, you stopped posting.

 

[Gadawg73]

All of the ID lawyers and litigants now admit in open court that creationism is not science at all.
Why do you think they invented ID?
What will be the next show when they admit ID is not science?

 

[AllieBaba]

Great. Yet another thread created for the sole purpose of ridiculing and harranguing those of faith.

Nice.

 

[Mini 14]

I agree with Darwin. Evolution is real, but at some point, you have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator.

So God created something, knowing it would evolve into whatever the end eventually is.

Its the best of both worlds, and it is proven by both science and religion.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Allie, you bunch still wish to teach mythology in science classes.

 

[Old Rocks]

I agree with Darwin. Evolution is real, but at some point, you have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator.

So God created something, knowing it would evolve into whatever the end eventually is.

Its the best of both worlds, and it is proven by both science and religion.

Science deals with the natural, it does not deal with the supernatural, except where the those claims for the supernatural fly in the face of natural evidence.

Such as a worldwide flood, or an Earth created 6000 years ago.

 

[Mini 14]

I agree with Darwin. Evolution is real, but at some point, you have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator.

So God created something, knowing it would evolve into whatever the end eventually is.

Its the best of both worlds, and it is proven by both science and religion.

Science deals with the natural, it does not deal with the supernatural, except where the those claims for the supernatural fly in the face of natural evidence.

Such as a worldwide flood, or an Earth created 6000 years ago.

Exactly.

And as I said, Darwin and I think alike. We both believe in evolution, and we both believe in a Creator.

It is the only thorough explanation.

 

[Gadawg73]

Funny how those with "faith" start most of the wars and kill millions in the name of their "God" because others have a different "faith".
I have religous faith but have been educated at the graduate level to know it is not science and never will be.
My faith is not weak where I require a bogus attempt to equate it to science to validate it. My faith is so strong it would never require that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Funny how those with "faith" start most of the wars and kill millions in the name of their "God" because others have a different "faith".
I have religous faith but have been educated at the graduate level to know it is not science and never will be.
My faith is not weak where I require a bogus attempt to equate it to science to validate it. My faith is so strong it would never require that.

I bow to your faith. Thanks for not needing it to be science for it to be valid. Creation mythology has no business being in science class.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which ones are more educated...the ones that you agree with or the ones you don't?

Please let me know how you arrive at your conclusion.

Creationism is mythology, not science. One can be a scientist or a learned mythologist or spiritual seeker. Both are worthy of respect.

That is a nice montra but what is it that makes evolutionism science and creation not science?

Are you serious? Creationism is NOT science because it deals with the supernatural and has no basis in evidence. It cannot be tested or disproved and cannot predict ANYTHING. Evolution, on the other hand, is based in evidence, IS testable and makes a myriad of predictions, many of which have been proven. THAT is what makes evolution science and creationism religion. Creationism deals in the supernatural and does not belong anywhere near a science class.


As a side note - evolution does not disprove or preclude the possibility of creationism, just the activist movements interpretations of what it should be.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Creationism is mythology, not science. One can be a scientist or a learned mythologist or spiritual seeker. Both are worthy of respect.

That is a nice montra but what is it that makes evolutionism science and creation not science?

Are you serious? Creationism is NOT science because it deals with the supernatural and has no basis in evidence. It cannot be tested or disproved and cannot predict ANYTHING. Evolution, on the other hand, is based in evidence, IS testable and makes a myriad of predictions, many of which have been proven. THAT is what makes evolution science and creationism religion. Creationism deals in the supernatural and does not belong anywhere near a science class.


As a side note - evolution does not disprove or preclude the possibility of creationism, just the activist movements interpretations of what it should be.

I thought this was interesting:

A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny how those with "faith" start most of the wars and kill millions in the name of their "God" because others have a different "faith".
I have religous faith but have been educated at the graduate level to know it is not science and never will be.
My faith is not weak where I require a bogus attempt to equate it to science to validate it. My faith is so strong it would never require that.

Can you back that claim up with documentation, or are you just repeating an anti faith talking point in an attempt to look like your claims about being educated are justified?

 

[sangha]

Funny how those with "faith" start most of the wars and kill millions in the name of their "God" because others have a different "faith".
I have religous faith but have been educated at the graduate level to know it is not science and never will be.
My faith is not weak where I require a bogus attempt to equate it to science to validate it. My faith is so strong it would never require that.

Can you back that claim up with documentation, or are you just repeating an anti faith talking point in an attempt to look like your claims about being educated are justified?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny how those with "faith" start most of the wars and kill millions in the name of their "God" because others have a different "faith".
I have religous faith but have been educated at the graduate level to know it is not science and never will be.
My faith is not weak where I require a bogus attempt to equate it to science to validate it. My faith is so strong it would never require that.

Can you back that claim up with documentation, or are you just repeating an anti faith talking point in an attempt to look like your claims about being educated are justified?

Amazing how often people think they know what irony is and get it wrong.