Quote:
Originally Posted by iGeology
"What does it have to do with evolution? every thing considering evolution monkey to man has permiated all of the secular universities in science and public school in all fields of science."
you said
"admits that he effectively brain washes students in to believing in evolution. "
but thats not the case...there is a difference between biology and physics
"Fact this guy omits or glosses over any evidence that does not fit his world view and that is by his own admision"
thats by everyones own admission... whens the last time youve heard a theologin consider greek gods as a rational area of belief, or whens the last time your chemistry teacher or professor taught u about ancient Greece's atomic theory? Or your geography teacher teach u of a flat earth? Its the same concept...sure we could entertain the idea, but frankly its a waste of time...which is why professors stick with teaching the current best supported data...in the case of this article, big bang cosmology.
as a matter off fact, in the dover trial, it was ruled that if something like ID were to be taught, then, teachers would also have to teach things like alchemy and astrology.
"Fact evolution is just as common in physics as it is in geology biology asstro physics you name it its there. "
no, not really...ive never had a geology professor even utter the word evolution in any course ive had...no chemistry professor utter the word in chemistry, no physics or math professor utter the word in either of those too.
sure some may, but there are different fields of study, and it would be a waste of time discussing evolution, when there are other things to discuss. (Thats like discussing evolution in a statistics class).
and the rest of your message is unsupported subjection...how do i know this? because there are over 200 thousand research papers on biological evolution on just pubmed alone :-p
well, let me give clarity now that uve already brought it up...
"Macro evolution is not just apes to people its also particles to apes"
well, first off, humans are by definition "apes"...but if you mean primitive apes to intelligent advanced apes, then yes...and particles to apes...thats...a lot of things, its evolution, micro biology, a lot of physics, cosmology etc.
Im sure youd love to put out the old "evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life just how it diversified origin of life is another field altogather"
well...its a fact that it is a different field
To bad evolution requires life from non life and it requires big bang and a billions of years old universe as well.
that is not true, and ud be surprised, there are many scientists out there who believe God started the first life, then used evolution.
"Prove abiogenesis first then we can talk evolution"
well...RNA molecules have been made in labs, which are quite close to DNA...and last i checked thats what we are made out of...but im not a molecular biologist, so i wont make any claim, for i do not know the origins of life.
speaking of big bang physics, there will be an astronomer hosting a blog tv chat this sunday at 1pm eastern time...he goes by the name of AndromedasWake...so google if youre interested...he is there to answer any questions as well as respond to any arguments, or complaints in regards to big bang cosmology...just google his name, or message me for more details if youre interested.
|
Not going to bother replying to any thing but your comment on the dover trial saying if id is taught so much every thing else. That was actually just a argument against id used in the trial and as you know its a bold faced lie to try and say other wise here is the real out come i wont reply to you any longer it is painfully obvious you will do any thing to win a debate including but not limited to using out right lies have a nice day here is the decision
* For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
* A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
* The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
* The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
* Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)
* After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)
* [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
* ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
* Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)