|
Author
|
Topic: Judge Rules Against Dover PA School Board
|
Bandit
Advanced Member
Member # 3643
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
1. ID and Creationism are not science, they fail to meet the strict scientific and logical tests that define science. [/QB]
How so? (What are the “strict scientific and logical tests that define science,” and how does ID/creationism fail these test?) And if this is true of intelligent design and creationism, then why is it not also true of evolution? (Does evolution also fail these same test?)
quote:
2. Show how evolutionary theory violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. With your advanced degrees, you should be able to do this with ease, and I would appreciate the demonstration. [/QB]
You need to do some study yourself concerning the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is never violated - that is the whole point! The real issue for evolutionists is that by its very definition, evolution (creation of life from non-life) defies the 2nd law - but no experimental evidence has ever been shown which explains how evolution could work. Evolutionists just claim that if you wait long enough, it will somehow happen. The ID/creation position at least offers an explanation for how the 2nd law gets violated (God did it). Evolution has no explanation other than it just somehow happened - take it on pure faith. So each position falls back on pure faith. Evolution says the current laws of the physical universe were somehow violated - but offers no explanation of how; creation says the current laws of the physical universe were violated - and offers the explanation of a Creator outside the physical universe. Do the evolutionists a favor - show that the theory of evolution doesn’t violate the 2nd law! They would love you for it. At the moment their only answer is ‘I don’t know.’
quote:
3. So what you are saying is that evolutionary theory is irrational and ID/Creationism are rational. Do I have that right, as a point of clarification? [/QB]
Both involve faith. But evolution has been adopted by those contrary to the notion of God, since it takes God (whose notion they oppose) out of the picture. The irrational side of evolution is its intense opposition to the presentation of the alternate theory of origins - namely creation. Both should be presented side-by-side so people can better choose which to believe. But evolutionist claim that science is on their side - and that ID/creation has no scientific basis.
quote:
4. Simply saying secular humanism is a religion does not make it so. Do not get me wrong, I'm not a secular humanist. But please tell me how it is a religion. And then please tell me how this has anything to do with this topic. There certainly are battles going on between good and evil. That Christians would be willing to lie in court is a good example of that in the Dover case. [/QB]
To not believe in God, and to believe that life just happened, is itself a belief system! And the one believing it has made a choice to believe it. To see intelligent design, and to believe that life was created, is a belief system. And the one believing it has made a choice to believe it. For public schools to teach one belief system and squelch the other is nothing more than the promotion of one belief system over the other. Our government is now in the business of promoting an anti-God belief system. This was not the intent of the vast majority of the founding fathers.
quote:
5. No offense, but an appeal to your own authority is hardly a point to base your argument on unless you can demonstrate that you are an acknowledged authority in this area. I'm not denying your degrees or your intelligence. What I am saying is that I fail to see how pointing this out is going to help you if you fail to make a rational argument sustaining your claims. [/QB]
I said that I had investigated the subject, and had a scientific background which enabled me to understand some of the arguments and scientific discussions. The point is that there are scientists who believe creation. And a belief in evolution is not arrived at by purely scientific means. There is a strong element of faith (or prejudice against God) which is involved in its acceptance. And as I have stated, there are scientific reasons (you should research this for yourself) for not accepting the theory of evolution. A common claim is that no scientist with half a brain would believe in creation. I guess that makes me something of a moron.
quote:
The plaintiffs did not object to ID on the grounds that it would demand their acknowledgement of a absolute moral standard. They objected to use of of state resources in the institutionalization of an evangelical strategy in violation of their 1st Amendment Rights. The defendents lied about their intentions, lied about the nature of ID and lied about the nature of the creator as used in ID. [/QB]
Don’t believe all that was reported (or wasn’t reported). I can bet there was a lot of anti-Christian attitude and intent behind the plaintiff’s. I would bet that much of what was portrayed was a smokescreen for what the real agenda was.
quote:
(Sidenote: strictly speaking is was not the public display of the 10 Commandments that was struck down, it was the use of state resources to display the 10 Commandments in public that was struck down - there is an important difference.) [/QB]
Ditto.
quote:
6. Judge Jones surpressed nothing. He brought to light that the defendents were liers willing to use the state to further their evangelical agenda. The voters rightly responded by booting them out of office. [/QB]
Ditto again.
quote:
Science isn't about fair. Science is brutal. Science is about meeting strict burdens of proof and adhering to reason. That which does not measure up is thrown out. ID and Creationism are not science and do not belong in the science classroom. [/QB]
Science is supposedly about observing, or experimenting, or hypothesizing, without personal bias or bigotry. Einstein changed some of his own calculations because they indicated that the universe had a definite beginning (now referred to as the ‘big bang’). If you say ID and creationism are not science, then on what grounds do you say evolution is science?
quote:
God will indeed have the final say in all of this. I can only imagine what He thinks of Christian leaders who are entrusted with public power who then use their power to lie to the public. [/QB]
God will reveal what was true and who was lying. I have no clue whether or not these people lied in any way. But I do know that true scientific inquiry did not win the day - secular humanism did.
Sincerely,
Bandit
Posts: 113 | From: Melbourne, Florida | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Bandit wrote:
quote:
Sorry, Chaos, but I think you have been duped on this one. Intelligent design and creationism are very much science - probably more so than any evolutionary "theory", and definitely more than you know.
The "theory of evolution" violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is one of the most fundamental laws in all of physics. Intelligent design and creationism appeals directly to that violation. By ruling as it did, this court is saying that what is publicly taught as science does not have to defend itself from scientific scrutiny (i.e., evolution does not have to compete with any other scientifically-based alternatives). In other words, evolution is being taught as science when in fact its foundation is as much faith-based, if not more so, than intelligent design (i.e., those who believe evolution must believe in it by faith, because there are numerous scientific principles and facts which it violates).
What you fail to recognize is that secular humanism is a religion, and the “theory of evolution” is its modern-day cornerstone. This is a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil. I’m amazed that someone on this board would not recognize that. Have you ever seriously looked into these issues? I would suspect not.
Not to overstate my own knowledge, but I have degrees in both physics and engineering, and many years ago I did dig into the scientific basis for both evolution and intelligent design (creationism). There are a lot of scientific reasons to seriously consider intelligent design. The main objection (often unstated) to intelligent design is not that it lacks any scientific backing, but that intelligent design implies an Intelligent Designer (God), and this implies an absolute moral standard. People want to do what they want to do, and as a part of this they want to suppress the truth of His existence and His moral code from their own conscience. (Why do you think public display of the 10 Commandments is attacked so vigorously?)
This court ruling is all about the suppression of knowledge. Evolutionary “theory” has an Achilles’ heel, and intelligent design exposes that weakness. By not allowing intelligent design a fair chance to be heard, the fatal weakness of evolution remains concealed. Evolution could not win in a fair fight, so the courts have ruled unfairly; yet it is the Intelligent Designer Who will have the final ruling.
1. ID and Creationism are not science, they fail to meet the strict scientific and logical tests that define science.
2. Show how evolutionary theory violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. With your advanced degrees, you should be able to do this with ease, and I would appreciate the demonstration.
3. So what you are saying is that evolutionary theory is irrational and ID/Creationism are rational. Do I have that right, as a point of clarification?
4. Simply saying secular humanism is a religion does not make it so. Do not get me wrong, I'm not a secular humanist. But please tell me how it is a religion. And then please tell me how this has anything to do with this topic. There certainly are battles going on between good and evil. That Christians would be willing to lie in court is a good example of that in the Dover case.
5. No offense, but an appeal to your own authority is hardly a point to base your argument on unless you can demonstrate that you are an acknowledged authority in this area. I'm not denying your degrees or your intelligence. What I am saying is that I fail to see how pointing this out is going to help you if you fail to make a rational argument sustaining your claims.
The plaintiffs did not object to ID on the grounds that it would demand their acknowledgement of a absolute moral standard. They objected to use of of state resources in the institutionalization of an evangelical strategy in violation of their 1st Amendment Rights. The defendents lied about their intentions, lied about the nature of ID and lied about the nature of the creator as used in ID.
(Sidenote: strictly speaking is was not the public display of the 10 Commandments that was struck down, it was the use of state resources to display the 10 Commandments in public that was struck down - there is an important difference.)
6. Judge Jones surpressed nothing. He brought to light that the defendents were liers willing to use the state to further their evangelical agenda. The voters rightly responded by booting them out of office.
Science isn't about fair. Science is brutal. Science is about meeting strict burdens of proof and adhering to reason. That which does not measure up is thrown out. ID and Creationism are not science and do not belong in the science classroom.
God will indeed have the final say in all of this. I can only imagine what He thinks of Christian leaders who are entrusted with public power who then use their power to lie to the public.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Drew:
Sorry, not correct. If you really must know, PM me.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Main Entry: cha·os
Pronunciation: 'kA-"äs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek -- more at GUM
1 obsolete : CHASM, ABYSS
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion b : a confused mass or mixture <a chaos of television antennas>
- cha·ot·ic /kA-'ä-tik/ adjective
- cha·ot·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
chaoschristian:
a state of utter confusion who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
BanditL
My screen name is chaoschristian. Not Chaos. Not chaos. Not chaos christian. Not Christian. Not christian.
It is chaoschristian.
There is a meaning to it. With your advanced degrees in engineering and physics it should be more readily apparent to you than to others.
I know you didn't mean anything by it, and so I'll let it go at that.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bandit
Advanced Member
Member # 3643
|
posted
Sorry, Chaos, but I think you have been duped on this one. Intelligent design and creationism are very much science - probably more so than any evolutionary "theory", and definitely more than you know.
The "theory of evolution" violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is one of the most fundamental laws in all of physics. Intelligent design and creationism appeals directly to that violation. By ruling as it did, this court is saying that what is publicly taught as science does not have to defend itself from scientific scrutiny (i.e., evolution does not have to compete with any other scientifically-based alternatives). In other words, evolution is being taught as science when in fact its foundation is as much faith-based, if not more so, than intelligent design (i.e., those who believe evolution must believe in it by faith, because there are numerous scientific principles and facts which it violates).
What you fail to recognize is that secular humanism is a religion, and the “theory of evolution” is its modern-day cornerstone. This is a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil. I’m amazed that someone on this board would not recognize that. Have you ever seriously looked into these issues? I would suspect not.
Not to overstate my own knowledge, but I have degrees in both physics and engineering, and many years ago I did dig into the scientific basis for both evolution and intelligent design (creationism). There are a lot of scientific reasons to seriously consider intelligent design. The main objection (often unstated) to intelligent design is not that it lacks any scientific backing, but that intelligent design implies an Intelligent Designer (God), and this implies an absolute moral standard. People want to do what they want to do, and as a part of this they want to suppress the truth of His existence and His moral code from their own conscience. (Why do you think public display of the 10 Commandments is attacked so vigorously?)
This court ruling is all about the suppression of knowledge. Evolutionary “theory” has an Achilles’ heel, and intelligent design exposes that weakness. By not allowing intelligent design a fair chance to be heard, the fatal weakness of evolution remains concealed. Evolution could not win in a fair fight, so the courts have ruled unfairly; yet it is the Intelligent Designer Who will have the final ruling.
Sincerely,
Bandit
Posts: 113 | From: Melbourne, Florida | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
CNN: Dover, PA Court Ruling
OK, bear with me. This is a GOOD thing for Christians. Judge Jones clearly articulates why ID is not science and does not belong in a science curriculum.
Teaching our children about the Bible, its stories, its values, and most importantly, its Message, is the responsibilitiy of parents, family and churches, not of public schools.
My hope is the Christians who support ID will now see the light and move on to more important things. I hope that they will see the difference between faith and science, and why both are necessary and also not necessarily in conflict. I hope they see the foolishness in continuing to make claims that ID is science when it is not. I hope that they will see that there are more important issues to deal with, and that putting effort into the ID agenda is a waste.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
