Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 
As a self confessed christian you have displayed all the things I have come to expect of them

Instead of addressing the points I made you reply with hatred, stereo typical responses based on superiority and a complete lack of knowledge of what you are speaking about.

There's me thinking your religion preached love, understanding and forgiveness. If you believe our kids need your form of christianity taught in our schools you are in the company of one.

As for comprehension you show very little so I take it this is not taught in your schools either? Another great reason to dump unfounded stories and make room for it in your schools curriculum.

I suggest you try to learn the core values of your religion before demanding it be taught alongside science.




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 
Ah but do you know what is so great about our island cesspit? It's that a Prime Minister stated on TV that the reason he had kept his religious ideas a secret during his time in office was because had he not he'd have been thought of as "some kind of nutter".



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by borntowatch
as a Christian taxpayer who wants my taxes to represent me and my family I would like to see the stupid religion of evolution stopped being taught.
I know that wont happen so as a taxpayer I would like to see ID taught alongside evolution.
To all the peculiar people who would like to accept the earth was seeded by aliens, please tell me where did those aliens come from.
Evolution doesnt happen. it cant.

This absurd suggestion that taxpayers dont want to see ID taught in schools is fallacious and inane.
We dont live in a dictatorship....yet!


So given that you believe evolution to be a stupid religion and you want it to be stopped being taught then you must accept others think your religion is stupid and should also stop being taught?

What religion out the the many do you class as the correct one that should be taught. Good luck with that one.

You are happy for ID to be taught in biology classes, Are you just as happy to have alchemy taught in chemistry class? Should we teach how lightning is made by angry gods in physics class?

Why not fill all the empty churches in the UK and teach ID there in its proper place if you believe there are many people clammering to be taught it?

You pay taxes because you are required too and you probably dont live in the UK if you have to ask if we live in a dictatorship.



Ahm, I think comprehension should be taught in UK schools.
Read my post Einstein
Here is a clue " I would like to see ID taught alongside evolution."
and no, I dont live in the UK, who would want to live in that dump. Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester to name a few. Listen matey, you want to live on an estate and put up with all that crap, you are welcome to it.
Wouldnt live in the UK for quids and would never go there either. The UK is a shadow of what it once was.
Its a cesspit and you know it.

I would like to see everything taught in schools, the pros and cons as well.
Education is far more broader than science.
But you wouldnt understand that being in a Police State, Oh no wait a second. The Police are to scared to go on to most estates nowadays. Here is a clue...emigrate from that Island dump.
The land of shopkeepers.


For some there is no hope.

If we teach about God in school, then we need to teach about the easter bunny, santa and his elves, the tooth fairy, the boogie monster, and all other fantasies.

We can't discriminate.

Believing in something does not make it real.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


So I take it you have scientific evidence of intelligent design? If so, sure, teach it in a science class.. But alas you do not and neither does ANY SCIENTIST. Religion is NOT science and should NEVER be taught in a science class. Evolution is based on facts and religion (or ID, creationism, whatever you want to call it), is based on faith and philosophy. Huge difference. We don't teach philosophy in science class. I'd be ok with having a comparative religions class or something similar, but ID is not science, plain and simple. Not a single person has shown me objective evidence to suggest otherwise.

There is no evolution vs religion. They aren't competing theories and aren't mutually exclusive. It's only uninformed fundamentalists that actually believe this and its rooted completely in fear. Plenty of evolutionary biologists believe in god, but they admit it's faith, based on the unknown. You can't teach that in science class. Besides, kids get enough religion indoctrinated to them by their parents, regardless. School should be based on learning things based on reality, ie evolution with the gargantuan pile of evidence in its corner, not guesses. Leave morality and religion to the parents.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Science is based on repeatable observable testable outcomes. Evolution outside of a laboratory (and within from what I have seen) doesnt exist. No evidence.
Poor ol Colin 42 can dish it but not take it. Yes Col I am a Christian but as you can see not a very good one.
Evolution is a faith, so shouldnt be taught as a science.
Dawkins believes alien seeding is acceptable, but alas we have no solid evidence as to aliens existing at this stage, makes Dawkins look like a big fat liar/hypocrite. Making his rather inept comment about alien seeding redundant, all Dawkins does is transfer the problem somewhere else.
Should we teach alien seeding based on Dawkins faith/beliefs??

Problem with the Colin42 types is they are so insular. They think their opinion should rule the world and nobody else matters. Their tax dollars and opinions are the only ones that count
To suggest ID is not a science when compared to evolution is ludicrous.
Evolution is both a faith and a religion with no repeatable observable or testable evidence.

BTW England is a CESS pit, no questions no arguments, its a cess pit.
Ask a Pom where all the swans have gone!

Yeah the UK what a great country. Problem now is the Pound is so weak Poms cant afford to emigrate.
So why has the UK become a huge cess pit?? Anti Christian policy.
You made your bed, lay in it.

and the Pakis can win a test by 10 wickets, freakin losers as well.
edit on 19-1-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Science is based on repeatable observable testable outcomes.
Well I suggest you read/reread my earlier comment about understanding science, but hey ho... here's the spoon... here it comes... open wide...

The theory of evolution is made up of hypotheses which have been tested, the results observed, the tests repeated and crucially such tests could have demonstrated the hypotheses were false. Let's take for an example the idea that speciation is the result of organisms adapting to different environments: if this idea is true then we should observe organisms which are similar divided from each other by some practically insurmountable environmental factor - we do. These observations have been made for countless species by hordes of biologists. If the idea was wrong then a finch in the Galapagos would be the same as a finch anywhere else... they're not.

Can you speculate how an observer might test the hypothesis that the god of Abraham created the world? Bear in mind that for such a test to conform to the scientific method, the hypothesis must also be able to be disproved.

You make much of Dawkins' tentative hypothesis that life on earth may have been seeded from elsewhere, as if this were such a ridiculous idea that it indicates that the man is so insane that nothing he says can be valued. Well, in the first instance, this is a failure of logic. It would not matter if Dawkins claimed that he had evidence that people who enjoy cricket are not hominids like the rest of us, but rather descendants of the giant sloth: his statement that the theory of evolution is backed by so much evidence that for all intents and purposes it can be considered fact is still true. Secondly, the theory of evolution does not stand or fall on what one of its proponents says, like all good science it is the result of millions of man-hours of independant work which taken as a whole produces a broad concensus. Be that as it may, however ridiculous you may find the idea of alien seeded life, it is nevertheless scientifically testable - if our explorations off earth find something close to life or life itself then we shall see how closely it resembles that on earth. If we explore far and long enough that we can say with confidence "there is no life anywhere in the local cosmos" then to all practical intents and purposes the hypothesis will be disproved.

I'm not sure it's worth bothering with the rest of your post, but perhaps you could answer me this: are you claiming that your hypotheses that the UK is in decline and that such is caused by a wholesale abandonment of christianity are supported by cricket scores, against a muslim nation no less? If not, perhaps you could tell us what that last part of your post was for at all and while you're at it, perhaps you might also tell us why you chose to use "Pakis" rather than Pakistanis? You may be unaware, IDK, but said contraction is used as a derogatory racial epithet in the UK and elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by skonaz
 

Yours was a very quick response, I must say. The thread's only been up five minutes.

Life may well have been created, but there is no scientific evidence to show that it was. Therefore, you cannot honestly teach creationism in schools as if it were true.

It certainly is possible that life was originally created, even if it isn't very likely.

edit on 17/1/12 by Astyanax because: of repetition.


Oh Agreed !

I'm a Dawkins fanatic actually but have just never understood why there has to be 2 camps on the issue -

There has to be some middle ground there somewhere



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by skonaz

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by skonaz
 

Yours was a very quick response, I must say. The thread's only been up five minutes.

Life may well have been created, but there is no scientific evidence to show that it was. Therefore, you cannot honestly teach creationism in schools as if it were true.

It certainly is possible that life was originally created, even if it isn't very likely.

edit on 17/1/12 by Astyanax because: of repetition.


Oh Agreed !

I'm a Dawkins fanatic actually but have just never understood why there has to be 2 camps on the issue -

There has to be some middle ground there somewhere
There is: philosophical debate!



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Science is based on repeatable observable testable outcomes.
Well I suggest you read/reread my earlier comment about understanding science, but hey ho... here's the spoon... here it comes... open wide...

The theory of evolution is made up of hypotheses which have been tested, the results observed, the tests repeated and crucially such tests could have demonstrated the hypotheses were false. Let's take for an example the idea that speciation is the result of organisms adapting to different environments: if this idea is true then we should observe organisms which are similar divided from each other by some practically insurmountable environmental factor - we do. These observations have been made for countless species by hordes of biologists. If the idea was wrong then a finch in the Galapagos would be the same as a finch anywhere else... they're not.

Can you speculate how an observer might test the hypothesis that the god of Abraham created the world? Bear in mind that for such a test to conform to the scientific method, the hypothesis must also be able to be disproved.

You make much of Dawkins' tentative hypothesis that life on earth may have been seeded from elsewhere, as if this were such a ridiculous idea that it indicates that the man is so insane that nothing he says can be valued. Well, in the first instance, this is a failure of logic. It would not matter if Dawkins claimed that he had evidence that people who enjoy cricket are not hominids like the rest of us, but rather descendants of the giant sloth: his statement that the theory of evolution is backed by so much evidence that for all intents and purposes it can be considered fact is still true. Secondly, the theory of evolution does not stand or fall on what one of its proponents says, like all good science it is the result of millions of man-hours of independant work which taken as a whole produces a broad concensus. Be that as it may, however ridiculous you may find the idea of alien seeded life, it is nevertheless scientifically testable - if our explorations off earth find something close to life or life itself then we shall see how closely it resembles that on earth. If we explore far and long enough that we can say with confidence "there is no life anywhere in the local cosmos" then to all practical intents and purposes the hypothesis will be disproved.

I'm not sure it's worth bothering with the rest of your post, but perhaps you could answer me this: are you claiming that your hypotheses that the UK is in decline and that such is caused by a wholesale abandonment of christianity are supported by cricket scores, against a muslim nation no less? If not, perhaps you could tell us what that last part of your post was for at all and while you're at it, perhaps you might also tell us why you chose to use "Pakis" rather than Pakistanis? You may be unaware, IDK, but said contraction is used as a derogatory racial epithet in the UK and elsewhere.


Oh NO, not this tired old macro/micro evolution dribble again.
So a finch turning in to a finch is evidence for evolution. I dont go to pre school fella, go feed your nonsense to the kiddies.
Dawkins tentative hypothesis is no more defendable than ID theory. In fact it one of the same, thats the whole point, Dawkins just accepts space boogeymen where Christians accept God.

As for Pakis, no offence but where I am they are referred to as Pakis. Believe it or not Pohms are affectionately called Pohms, Australians are called Aussies, Americans are called Yanks and the French are Frogs and nobody cares though I will be careful next time. Thanks for pointing that out.
Maybe we are a little more relaxed here in my country

The link re cricket scores? None. Just taking the piss for fun.
edit on 20-1-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Science is based on repeatable observable testable outcomes. Evolution outside of a laboratory (and within from what I have seen) doesnt exist. No evidence.


No evidence? REALLY?

The fossil record, modern biology, and genetics mean nothing then, I suppose.

www.wired.com... - was just posted in this section. multicellular life evolving in a lab from single cells.

www.newscientist.com... - micro evolution observed in lab.

www.talkorigins.org... - 29+ pieces of objective evidence that shows common descent.

www.talkorigins.org... - 5 observed instances of speciation

edit on 20-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 



Poor ol Colin 42 can dish it but not take it. Yes Col I am a Christian but as you can see not a very good one.
Not a very accurate or correct one either but hey you base your world on faith so its bound to happen.


Evolution is a faith, so shouldnt be taught as a science.
See what I mean


Dawkins believes alien seeding is acceptable, but alas we have no solid evidence as to aliens existing at this stage, makes Dawkins look like a big fat liar/hypocrite. Making his rather inept comment about alien seeding redundant, all Dawkins does is transfer the problem somewhere else.
That is because evolution does not tell you how life was created, only how it progressed so you look like you are wrong and he is spot on.


Problem with the Colin42 types is they are so insular. They think their opinion should rule the world and nobody else matters.
I think you were the one saying you want your kids taught ID in science and to hell with what the government says (Voted in by the people) because ..... You pay taxes ....... In america. I think you are the insular one and you definitely think YOUR tax dollars outway the british government and people.


To suggest ID is not a science when compared to evolution is ludicrous.
Tell that to the people you do pay your taxes too and your Judiciary who also think ID is bunk.


BTW England is a CESS pit, no questions no arguments, its a cess pit.
We like it like that, its good insulation in the winter and the smell in the streets keeps the flies off our food. Throw as many silly insults you like if it makes you feel better abouth the hole you live in.


Yeah the UK what a great country. Problem now is the Pound is so weak Poms cant afford to emigrate.
Yep another great thing about england, now everything is cheap we will be able to sell London bridge to another thick american a lot easier.


So why has the UK become a huge cess pit?? Anti Christian policy.
I already told you, we love it.


You made your bed, lay in it.
Oh thats the other thing we love to do, lay in bed. You know us so well. Did you learn all this stuffing burger down your throats in front of the TV while your own country collapses?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Creationism/Intelligent Design only has a place in a comparative religions class. It has no basis in empirical data or historical record. Of course the ID/Creationist groups tend to lean towards a Christian worldview therefore they probably wouldn't be happy with it being taught in a comp. religions class as that would involve teaching all creation myths.


While I agree with you in general, there is, IMHO, a place in the Science curriculum for Creationism/Intelligent Design and that place is right next to Spontaneous Generation and other obsolete and discredited idea in Science History.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 
I think you are correct because what happens in a science class if someone asks about ID/creationism?

Does the teacher ignore the question? If he does not then he is teaching ID. He may be showing it to be wrong or not based in science but he is teaching giving information about it.

If he ignores the question then he is not teaching at all.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 




Yeah one of them is london bridge and the guy thought he was buying tower bridge.


That's a myth actually. Probably started by McCulloch himself to sooth the feelings of the Londoners who could then believe that they had put one over on the Yanks, and could then be counted on to come and visit it. You should come over and spend some money, its all done up in a nice tasteful genu-wine honest-to-gosh ersatz pommy village. Its adorable, how could you resist?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that impeaches the rest of your sledging match.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join