Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Where does the wind come from? Who put the wind in motion? Who put the seasons in motion? Who put the planets in motion? Who created the water? Can scientist create water? Who gave humans eyes to see? Where does wisdom reside? Where does knowledge come from?

edit on 4-9-2013 by BlackSunApocalypse because: (no reason given)

Oh good grief, try reading a book. Or three. Seriously?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Where does the wind come from? Who put the wind in motion? Who put the seasons in motion? Who put the planets in motion? Who created the water? Can scientist create water? Who gave humans eyes to see? Where does wisdom reside? Where does knowledge come from?

edit on 4-9-2013 by BlackSunApocalypse because: (no reason given)

Oh good grief, try reading a book. Or three. Seriously?

Its very sad that these seem to be mysteries to him. I guess when he turns on a light its god making it magically glow and not atoms getting excited and moving to a higher energy state.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
"Scientific theories are not inconclusive, they just don't know every single detail". That seems to contradict itself.

How so? Inconclusive means there isn't enough evidence to suggest the phenomenon is real. Having absolute complete knowledge about every little date and every single creature is not required to verify the phenomena in question. Genetic changes sorted via natural selection is absolutely conclusive.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Children are taught and indoctrinated to perform slave labour, that is a fact. Children are fed with knowledge which they're forced to believe is correct, they aren't under the slightest suspicion that what they are taught is false science. I don't need to prove that the modern education system isn't working, look at the state the world is in today, your idea of utopia? We only have the education system to blame.

Please drop some examples of the false science taught to children and students in school. We know they generalize quite a bit at the very basic grammar school level classes, but it gets more detailed as you take more advanced classes. Don't get me wrong, the education system is far from perfect, but it's better than homeschooling and flat out denial of science without any facts to back it up. Please give me those examples, with citations to modern books used in the education system that teach false science or false concepts. Good luck.

Barcs

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
"Scientific theories are not inconclusive, they just don't know every single detail". That seems to contradict itself.

How so? Inconclusive means there isn't enough evidence to suggest the phenomenon is real. Having absolute complete knowledge about every little date and every single creature is not required to verify the phenomena in question. Genetic changes sorted via natural selection is absolutely conclusive.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Children are taught and indoctrinated to perform slave labour, that is a fact. Children are fed with knowledge which they're forced to believe is correct, they aren't under the slightest suspicion that what they are taught is false science. I don't need to prove that the modern education system isn't working, look at the state the world is in today, your idea of utopia? We only have the education system to blame.

Please drop some examples of the false science taught to children and students in school. We know they generalize quite a bit at the very basic grammar school level classes, but it gets more detailed as you take more advanced classes. Don't get me wrong, the education system is far from perfect, but it's better than homeschooling and flat out denial of science without any facts to back it up. Please give me those examples, with citations to modern books used in the education system that teach false science or false concepts. Good luck.

edit on 4-9-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I think the false science he might have been referring to was Intelligent design since we know a magic deity is not an explanation for the real world. Luckily the courts took care of that problem didn't they.

reply to post by dragonridr


You know, at one time the courts ruled that sterilizing the poor and mentally challenged was a good thing too. They also jailed people at one time for believing the earth was round and not the center of the universe.

The courts have made lots of rulings that have nothing to do with fact and everything to do with who's paying them and politics. So, if you are trusting in the courts for truth, then I hope some group in power who hates you does not decide your life because it goes against current group think.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You know, at one time the courts ruled that sterilizing the poor and mentally challenged was a good thing too. They also jailed people at one time for believing the earth was round and not the center of the universe.

The courts have made lots of rulings that have nothing to do with fact and everything to do with who's paying them and politics. So, if you are trusting in the courts for truth, then I hope some group in power who hates you does not decide your life because it goes against current group think.

Those courts relied on the Bible and only the Bible for their evidence. It's funny you should bring those cases up as instances of judicial unreliability, given that they were operating off of the same materials you are using to argue against evolution. If it failed for the courts, why should it work for you?

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You know, at one time the courts ruled that sterilizing the poor and mentally challenged was a good thing too. They also jailed people at one time for believing the earth was round and not the center of the universe.

The courts have made lots of rulings that have nothing to do with fact and everything to do with who's paying them and politics. So, if you are trusting in the courts for truth, then I hope some group in power who hates you does not decide your life because it goes against current group think.

Really diid i miss these federal court decisions must admit this is the first ive ever heard please post this. See i can post a federal court decision showing Intelligent design was garbage pseudo science. lets look at it shall we the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion. See McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1272. Second, the disclaimer read to students "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1308-09. Third, reading the disclaimer not only disavows endorsement of educational materials but also "juxtaposes that disavowal with an urging to contemplate alternative religious concepts implies School Board approval of religious principles." Freiler, 185 F.3d at 348.

The effect of Defendants' actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Notice the statement by the judge that intelligent design is not science hmmmm kinda says it all doesnt it.

You know now that i think about it lets include the judges conclusions and you can also get me that info on the federal court locking people up for thinking the world is round id appreciate it. Heres his summary on intelligent design being taught as science:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. 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.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

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.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

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 consid ered 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.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

The courts have made lots of rulings that have nothing to do with fact and everything to do with who's paying them and politics. So, if you are trusting in the courts for truth, then I hope some group in power who hates you does not decide your life because it goes against current group think.

Are you seriously suggesting that, in the Kitzmiller case, a Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush to an incredibly "red" federal district handed down a decision in the middle of Bush's administration that stated:

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

because of "who's paying them and politics"?

reply to post by iterationzero


I don't see anything wrong with that conclusion. The part where they determined intelligent design to be a retelling of the creationism myth, I mean. Obviously if intelligent design is involved, the next question will be "Who did the designing?"

They won't look far for the answer when the most convenient solution is right there in their Bibles. Among the most vexing problems I have with creationism is how much work creationists are willing to eschew in their search for the most factual answer to that question: "Who did the designing?" You have some evidence that intelligent design might have been involved. That's like finding a shoe print. It would take a lot more investigating to determine the true nature of the entity responsible.

And, quite frankly, it feels a lot to me that creationists are just settling for the easiest answer rather than the most logical answer. Actually, I'll rephrase that - they settle for the easiest answer according to their logic, and not actual scientific investigation. If it makes sense to them, then who cares if they're ignorant? It's not like they're paid to be right. Lots of people get paid to be wrong, although most of them are in the White House.

reply to post by iterationzero


There are a lot of paid off Republicans. There are a lot of shills in both parties and to suggest that the courts are always right is ludicrous otherwise why would rulings get overturned? At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

Oh I know, when the ruling suits you they are right... rolls eyes.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

There are a lot of paid off Republicans. There are a lot of shills in both parties and to suggest that the courts are always right is ludicrous otherwise why would rulings get overturned? At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

Oh I know, when the ruling suits you they are right... rolls eyes.

What does this have to do with the scientific validity of evolution in comparison to creationism?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

There are a lot of paid off Republicans.

Are you claiming that Judge Jones was paid off? If so, by who?

There are a lot of shills in both parties

Who is Judge Jones a "shill" for? Do you have any evidence that he was "shilling" for someone?

and to suggest that the courts are always right is ludicrous otherwise why would rulings get overturned? At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

Oh I know, when the ruling suits you they are right... rolls eyes.

Your statements are a great indication where fundamentalists who attack evolution are coming from. Because you regularly engage in the logical fallacy known as argument from authority based on your belief that the Bible is authoritative, you assume that proponents of evolution are doing the same thing. "Oh, it must be right because Darwin said it was... it must be right because Dawkins said it was... it must be right because Judge Jones said it was..."

It's been pointed out to you dozens of times, but you're still missing the point that acceptance of a scientific theory has nothing to do with the fact that someone in a position of authority somewhere said it's true. It only has to do with the evidence that is produced to support or refute it.

Was Judge Jones's ruling right because I agree with it? No, if someone actually takes the time to read the judge's decision, read the transcripts of the trial, and review the evidence presented at the trial, it's hard not to reach the same conclusion.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by iterationzero

Oh I know, when the ruling suits you they are right... rolls eyes.

And how exactly is that's different tactic than when you post YouTube videos from pseudo scientists who correlate biblical passages with real science? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

reply to post by iterationzero


I have asked the OP to view this video about the trial....I even made a thread about it and the silence it received from creationists was deafening. here is the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So here is the vid again.



Part one anyhow you can all find the rest.

Just to point out that the judge was picked because it was thought he would agree with ID/creationists but the evidence shown just destroyed the ID argument.

I hope some creationists watch it but as usual they will just ignore the evidence and still choose ignorance and stupidity.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by iterationzero

 

At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

You've made that claim twice now. Prove it. I want to see court cases, transcripts, and rulings. Don't post some potentially sensationalized article either.

Krazysh0t

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by iterationzero

 

At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

You've made that claim twice now. Prove it. I want to see court cases, transcripts, and rulings. Don't post some potentially sensationalized article either.

Sorry, I did mean round, not sure where that disconnect happened. My point should have said jailed for saying earth was round. Courts are not always right, but thanks for letting me correct myself.

UnifiedSerenity

Krazysh0t

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by iterationzero

 

At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

You've made that claim twice now. Prove it. I want to see court cases, transcripts, and rulings. Don't post some potentially sensationalized article either.

Sorry, I did mean round, not sure where that disconnect happened. My point should have said jailed for saying earth was round. Courts are not always right, but thanks for letting me correct myself.

Round or flat doesn't change facts. Can you cite specific court cases? Unless you're confusing courts with the Catholic Church ? The church locking Galileo away is nowhere near the same as a modern court doing so.

iterationzero
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The courts have made lots of rulings that have nothing to do with fact and everything to do with who's paying them and politics. So, if you are trusting in the courts for truth, then I hope some group in power who hates you does not decide your life because it goes against current group think.

Are you seriously suggesting that, in the Kitzmiller case, a Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush to an incredibly "red" federal district handed down a decision in the middle of Bush's administration that stated:

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

because of "who's paying them and politics"?

Apparently you aren't aware of politics but republicans all ways back the church. And Bush was highly religious you know that whole ban abortions thing. Ive never heard anyone claim republicans anti christian before thats funny.

peter vlar

UnifiedSerenity

Krazysh0t

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by iterationzero

 

At one time, the courts jailed people for saying the earth was flat.

You've made that claim twice now. Prove it. I want to see court cases, transcripts, and rulings. Don't post some potentially sensationalized article either.

Sorry, I did mean round, not sure where that disconnect happened. My point should have said jailed for saying earth was round. Courts are not always right, but thanks for letting me correct myself.

Round or flat doesn't change facts. Can you cite specific court cases? Unless you're confusing courts with the Catholic Church ? The church locking Galileo away is nowhere near the same as a modern court doing so.

Ah you jumped the gun on me i asked him to provide evidence when he first said it. I knew he was going to refer to Galileo for example. And then i can inform him that was a church inquisition though they claimed to be a court a group of priests handing down decision, often times without the defendant even being there really doesnt count.Especially since there were no written laws as to what would be blasphemy for example just if the priests didnt like you they could take your life.

reply to post by boymonkey74

I actually graduated from Dover Area High School, but it was a while before the Kitzmiller case. My chemistry teacher was one of the star witnesses for the ACLU in the trial.