Big money backs evolution

[magellan004]

Dover arose because the school board elected to endorse as True a religious doctrine. This violates the constitution.

There is no law against teaching the creation stories of ANY culture or religion, and such a law would also be unconstitutional. Saying "here is what the X people believe" is not only allowed, it is proper and part of any good education. Saying "here is what (our) God did" is illegal, because it makes a religious truth claim. And doing word switches saying "here is what 'the designer' (wink wink) did" fools only the fools.

That won't work. What is the difference between saying 'Our God made the world' and 'Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor.'?
You will say, I imagine, that one is backed up by (label) (label) evidence and the other is supported only by (label) (label) evidence.'

If we boil down what is behind your labels as compared to 'their' labels, all we will find is that evolution labels refer to things agreed on by big money, power brokers and law makers.

Magellan

[lao tzu]

As I understand it, Dover arose after, and maybe as a consequence of an American Law which had outlawed the Story of Creation being taught.
The gloating of the evolutionists is due to continued, successful suppression of ideas and intolerance of questioning.


Big money backs evolution.

Magellan

Certainly after, and a consequence, but not of any law, but rather the first amendment to the American Constitution, which limits the powers of government to support any one religion. In this case, it disallowed government support for a particularly dunder-headed creation story promulgated by a disproportionately loud and obnoxious minority of Christians.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

That won't work. What is the difference between saying 'Our God made the world' and 'Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor.'?

The support of objective evidence. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[magellan004]

The support of objective evidence. Glad I could clear that up for you.

True, which makes it all the more worrying that 'Our God made the world' which is backed by objective evidence, cannot be taught. Yet the other statement - Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor. which is not supported by objective evidence, is taught as truth.

You are a clever man, Lao Tzu, no doubt about it.

Magellan

[phank]

That won't work. What is the difference between saying 'Our God made the world' and 'Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor.'?

Physical, empirical evidence.

You will say, I imagine, that one is backed up by (label) (label) evidence and the other is supported only by (label) (label) evidence.'

No, because your religious claim is backed by no empirical evidence whatsoever. It is a baseless theological assertion, beyond any ability to test even in principle. And this is important, because if you COULD devise any sort of empirical test of any gods, and carry out those tests, and publish them in the scientific literature, and have them peer reviewed and replicated, and have other researchers test similar things using similar methods, etc. then eventually your religious claim WOULD leave the land of religion and enter the land of science. And be permissable under the law.

If we boil down what is behind your labels as compared to 'their' labels, all we will find is that evolution labels refer to things agreed on by big money, power brokers and law makers.

Magellan

Chuckle. Tell this to your practicing research scientist. In HIS world, very very few grant proposals are funded, few of them at the desired levels. There are tens of thousands of practicing scientists and very few of them are wealthy. But this has been pointed out to you many times before, and you've ignored it every time, while producing NO evidence to back your denials.

Here's a hint. If you want what you make up to be even a little bit plausible, it helps to have at least a little bit of knowledge. Because those reading your fantasies probably ALL know orders of magnitude more than you do about everything. You are blessed with the boon of stupidity - you can't recognize your condition! What bliss!

[aegis]

my understanding is that:

ID is not compatible with young earth creationism but compatible with old earth creationism

best regards

Aegis

[magellan004]

From Post 165:

Saying "here is what (our) God did" is illegal, because it makes a religious truth claim.

I said:

That won't work. What is the difference between saying '[A] Our God made the world' and '[B] Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor.'?

And you replied:

Physical, empirical evidence.

No, because your religious claim is backed by no empirical evidence whatsoever. It is a baseless theological assertion, beyond any ability to test even in principle. And this is important, because if you COULD devise any sort of empirical test of any gods, and carry out those tests, and publish them in the scientific literature, and have them peer reviewed and replicated, and have other researchers test similar things using similar methods, etc. then eventually your religious claim WOULD leave the land of religion and enter the land of science. And be permissable under the law.

As before, when we have discussed this you have confused the testability of an hypothesis, the testing process and the results of tests. I think you mean to dismiss Hypothesis A on any and all grounds, but you specifically mentioned 'empirical evidence'.

I can devise exactly the same sorts of test for 'Our God made the world' and for 'Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor.' Anyone can.

The word “empirical” indicate information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiments.
[and] A central theme of science and scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses.

from http://www.experiment-resources.com/...-evidence.html

So empirical evidence is gained through observation. It is something we collect through our senses.

We have two cause and effect hypotheses - 'An agent/thing/entity led to this result.' The type of tests and the type of evidence that can be gathered are the same - no matter what cause and effect hypothesis we are talking about. We gather evidence through observation. We use our senses to gather the evidence, to observe. Automatically the evidence is empirical - by definition.

For example- let's say 'I am going to test that monkeys and people come from a common ancestor by looking at bones.' You label that as 'empirical'.
You can do exactly the same thing for '[A] Our God made the world'. Example 'I am going to test that by looking at land features.' You have to call that empirical as well.

I have as much grounds for dismissing common ancestry as 'religious' as you have for dismissing the creation story.

Magellan

[Jorge]

The support of objective evidence. Glad I could clear that up for you.

****************************************************************

"Objective evidence"? ...................... "Objective evidence" ???

Bwahahahahahahahaha


Good one, LT .... you're a shoe-in for Laugh-of-the-Year Honors .


Jorge

[Jorge]

my understanding is that:

ID is not compatible with young earth creationism but compatible with old earth creationism

best regards

Aegis

***************************************************************

CORRECTION: ID is "compatible" (i.e., "overlaps") to a certain degree with both YEC and OEC.

But ID is NOT THE SAME as either YEC or OEC.
That "ID equals Creationism (YEC or OEC)" is the lie that many people promote (to fulfill an agenda).

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay, I'm finally 100% convinced - you really are a blathering lunatic!

Blathering lunatic (Jorge definition) - Anybody who disagrees with me, in any way.



And thus Jorge admits he can't answer anything that was said again... how typical...

[Jorge]

Blathering lunatic (Jorge definition) - Anybody who disagrees with me, in any way.

And thus Jorge admits he can't answer anything that was said again... how typical...

*************************************************************

Hehe

I don't do drugs but if I did I'd be asking you what YOU sniff each day - I'd want to get that high.

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Hehe

I don't do drugs but if I did I'd be asking you what YOU sniff each day - I'd want to get that high.

Yep, because it's so amazing that people can simply call themselves by a different name, but have almost the same beliefs, for the primary reason of getting their ideas accepted or taught under this new banner, is such a radical concept that only drugs could bring on. So, how big is that rock you live under?

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

Just a reminder. If you have a problem with the way a post is moderated, DO NOT talk about it in the thread, even if you weren't involved. Go to the Psychotherapy Room and start a thread there discussing your issues.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[rogue06]

***************************************************************

CORRECTION: ID is "compatible" (i.e., "overlaps") to a certain degree with both YEC and OEC.

But ID is NOT THE SAME as either YEC or OEC.
That "ID equals Creationism (YEC or OEC)" is the lie that many people promote (to fulfill an agenda).

Jorge

And in some instance it even overlaps TE.

[Jorge]

Yep, because it's so amazing that people can simply call themselves by a different name, but have almost the same beliefs, for the primary reason of getting their ideas accepted or taught under this new banner, is such a radical concept that only drugs could bring on. So, how big is that rock you live under?

**************************************************************************

Honestly and nicely, do you have a reading comprehension disability?

Jorge