 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: What kind of answer was that? |
 |
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: | Why would God make natural law if He would violate it?
ECC:3:14"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him"
:::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
Why? You haven't shown yet that God did anything He is blamed for in the Bible. Let's start there then maybe your ramblings will bear some semblance of sense
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rufus
Ferret
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 113
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: The things that come out in court. |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: |
the Dover Pa case.
Kitzmiller v Dover.
What do you think?
|
I think "Kitzmiller v Dover" involves a Judge who made a decision as to what he thinks does, or does not, violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. That's what I think. And not all legal scholars or US Supreme Court Justices (e.g. Justice Scalia's dissent in "Edwards v Agguillard") would agree with the wording of the ruling in this, or any other "court case" determining what is, or is not, allowed to be taught in a public school. That's what I think.
"Kitzmiller v Dover" is a legal argument, and not a scientific argument!
Question: Would ID or Creation be allowed to be taught alongside evolution outside the United States? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: The things that come out in court. |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
Question: Would ID or Creation be allowed to be taught alongside evolution outside the United States? |
Not in civilized countries. I mean civilized in a technical sense, not a derogatory one.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Ferret
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 113
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: The things that come out in court. |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | rufus wrote: |
Question: Would ID or Creation be allowed to be taught alongside evolution outside the United States? |
Not in civilized countries. I mean civilized in a technical sense, not a derogatory one. |
It's a "legal" question. The establishment clause of the first amendment, or at least it's interpretation, applies to court cases in the USA. Not Ireland, or Argentina, or India, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: The things that come out in court. |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
It's a "legal" question. The establishment clause of the first amendment, or at least it's interpretation, applies to court cases in the USA. Not Ireland, or Argentina, or India, etc. |
Sure, but for some reason Canada, Germany, Denmark, France, England, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, etc. don't teach ID in school, nor is there any pressure in those countries to do so, and in those countries the separation between church and state isn't nearly as strongly enshrined in law as it is in the United States.
Why is the U.S. the only civilized country on Earth in which teaching ID in schools is even an issue???
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1804
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is true that ID is primarily a US based debate.
That in itself is interesting conversation. I'll start a thread on it.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: The things that come out in court. |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: |
the Dover Pa case.
Kitzmiller v Dover.
What do you think?
|
I think "Kitzmiller v Dover" involves a Judge who made a decision as to what he thinks does, or does not, violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. That's what I think. And not all legal scholars or US Supreme Court Justices (e.g. Justice Scalia's dissent in "Edwards v Agguillard") would agree with the wording of the ruling in this, or any other "court case" determining what is, or is not, allowed to be taught in a public school. That's what I think.
"Kitzmiller v Dover" is a legal argument, and not a scientific argument!
Question: Would ID or Creation be allowed to be taught alongside evolution outside the United States? |
So why didn't y'all appeal? The Dover case exposed ID for the empty vessel it is. Even ID's principle's like Michael Behe were forced to admit it is just Creationism regurgitated with some names and terms changed to protect the guilty.
ID got it's backside handed to it in court. It won't be long before we see the next generation. Creationism got it's butt kicked in 1987. That led to the rise of ID. It took ID nearly 15 years to get to the point they were before Dover.
It will be interesting to see what else they do to try and disguise the religous nature of their work.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Ferret
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 113
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: |
the Dover Pa case.
Kitzmiller v Dover.
What do you think?
|
| rufus wrote: |
I think "Kitzmiller v Dover" involves a Judge who made a decision as to what he thinks does, or does not, violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. That's what I think. And not all legal scholars or US Supreme Court Justices (e.g. Justice Scalia's dissent in "Edwards v Agguillard") would agree with the wording of the ruling in this, or any other "court case" determining what is, or is not, allowed to be taught in a public school. That's what I think.
"Kitzmiller v Dover" is a legal argument, and not a scientific argument! |
| Bouncer wrote: |
So why didn't y'all appeal? |
y'all? To whom are you speaking? I had no legal or financial interest in that case. I'm just an observer. I just pointed out the obvious, that Kitzmiller v Dover is a "legal" argument and not a scientific argument.
If evolution was real science it wouldn't have to rely on court rulings. Court rulings don't prove what's true or false in science. They only prove what's constitutional or unconstitutional. And even then it's a matter of interpretation. And then there's state vs. federal, as well as jurisdictional. And what's constitutional today is ruled unconstitutional tomorrow, and visa-versa.
The Ohms Law formula (an example of a "scientific" law) wasn't proved true or false because someone brought a law suit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Only junk science like evolution needs an ACLU lawyer to protect it.
Well, I have to go, so y'all come back now Bouncer y'hear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
y'all? To whom are you speaking? I had no legal or financial interest in that case. I'm just an observer. I just pointed out the obvious, that Kitzmiller v Dover is a "legal" argument and not a scientific argument.
|
Courtrooms seems to be the only venue where creationism can get an audience these days. It stopped getting air time in the scientific community decades ago.
| rufus wrote: |
If evolution was real science it wouldn't have to rely on court rulings. |
It doesn't. The court ruling had nothing to do with establishing the veracity of evolution. That was done long before by people called scientists.
If anything, it had to do with establishing that ID is NOT science. It wasn't about the truth of evolution; it was about the FALSEHOOD of ID.
But even there, the Dover case had nothing to do with this. The falsehood of ID was established long before that by scientists.
| rufus wrote: |
Court rulings don't prove what's true or false in science.
|
You've got that right, but in this case the ruling happened to coincide with what is true and false in science. Evolution is science. Creationism is not.
| rufus wrote: |
The Ohms Law formula (an example of a "scientific" law) wasn't proved true or false because someone brought a law suit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Only junk science like evolution needs an ACLU lawyer to protect it.
|
You've got quite a twisted view of events. Evolution doesn't need the courts to protect it. It is well-established science. It's the ID proponents who were trying to take advantage of the law to get ID into classrooms. ID is NOT science, and no reasonable science teacher would teach religion in a science class (or should even be allowed to).
If you actually look at the strategy behind the ID movement, they very specifically understood that they could use the law as a means to getting ID into classrooms. It was part of their strategy.
As for you calling evolution 'junk science', I challenge you to come up with just one *scientific* argument against evolution. Nobody else can think of any, but maybe you'll be able to.
By contrast, ID really IS junk science. It's one and only scientifically-testable statement, called 'irreducibile complexity' has been thoroughly refuted.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: |
the Dover Pa case.
Kitzmiller v Dover.
What do you think?
|
| rufus wrote: |
I think "Kitzmiller v Dover" involves a Judge who made a decision as to what he thinks does, or does not, violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. That's what I think. And not all legal scholars or US Supreme Court Justices (e.g. Justice Scalia's dissent in "Edwards v Agguillard") would agree with the wording of the ruling in this, or any other "court case" determining what is, or is not, allowed to be taught in a public school. That's what I think.
"Kitzmiller v Dover" is a legal argument, and not a scientific argument! |
| Bouncer wrote: |
So why didn't y'all appeal? |
y'all? To whom are you speaking? I had no legal or financial interest in that case. I'm just an observer. |
[sarcasm]
I am sure you could care less that the ID movement was exposed for the fraud they are.
[/sarcasm]
| Quote: |
I just pointed out the obvious, that Kitzmiller v Dover is a "legal" argument and not a scientific argument. |
It seems the only way to get the truth out of the ID movement is to put them on the stand and make them swear to tell the truth.
Which in this case was that ID is as much a Scientific theory as Astrology.
| Quote: | If evolution was real science it wouldn't have to rely on court rulings. Court rulings don't prove what's true or false in science. They only prove what's constitutional or unconstitutional. And even then it's a matter of interpretation. And then there's state vs. federal, as well as jurisdictional. And what's constitutional today is ruled unconstitutional tomorrow, and visa-versa.
The Ohms Law formula (an example of a "scientific" law) wasn't proved true or false because someone brought a law suit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Only junk science like evolution needs an ACLU lawyer to protect it.
Well, I have to go, so y'all come back now Bouncer y'hear. |
Funny how you put that. Were ID an actual scientific theory and not creationism reformulated to remove the 'God' parts then it would not have been necessary for the case to have been brought in the first place.
It's not science as science is normally defined. Meaning ID is not science. It is according to one of it's founders Michael Behe, a pseudoscience, like Astrology. You may not like that, but it is what one of your people swore on the Bible was true. So take it up with them.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 941
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: | | ID is as much a Scientific theory as Astrology. |
An apple tree is as much an apple as a peach.
ID is above Astrology and Science (not to mention everything else), in a similar manner as the apple tree is above the apple.
Bouncer, you have to accept (logic dictates it), that the concept of ID is apart from the scientific method. And, as it is, it just so happens that the court has confirmed this.
Then too, you must accept, by-way of the same logic, that the abstract concept of ID is indisputably greater than any concept (abstract or otherwise) derived by-way of the scientific method. ID is of a higher form/class. P.S. I was going to write.....the abstract concept of ID, if true, is greater.....but I think this, logically, would be a redundant phrase.
Three things.......
I see the court ruling as a victory for the ID concept.
The court ruling does not show the ID concept to be untrue.
The official court ruling may be used to prevent ID from being taught in Public Schools, but this is not a victory for education.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6292
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | ID is above Astrology and Science (not to mention everything else), in a similar manner as the apple tree is above the apple. |
Why?
Further, Behe explicitly pointed out that using his interpretation of the term "scientific theory," astrology was equally scientific.
| Dust wrote: | | Bouncer, you have to accept (logic dictates it), that the concept of ID is apart from the scientific method. And, as it is, it just so happens that the court has confirmed this. |
This is true inasmuch as ID does not follow the scientific method.
| Dust wrote: | | Then too, you must accept, by-way of the same logic, that the abstract concept of ID is indisputably greater than any concept (abstract or otherwise) derived by-way of the scientific method. ID is of a higher form/class. |
Why? How does not following the scientific method make something "indisputably greater"?
This is a really strange argument you've got here, and it doesn't seem logically coherent.
| Dust wrote: | | I see the court ruling as a victory for the ID concept. |
Considering that the point of the ID movement was to get it taught in science clsasrooms and that the court case prevented this from happening, it is by definition a failure for the ID concept.
| Dust wrote: | | The court ruling does not show the ID concept to be untrue. |
That was not the object of the court case. The court case demonstrated that the ID concept is unscientific.
It's fundamentally impossible to prove ID (or creation) untrue because they are defined in such a way that they simply cannot be disproven.
| Dust wrote: | | The official court ruling may be used to prevent ID from being taught in Public Schools, but this is not a victory for education. |
Unscientific ideas prevented from being taught in science classrooms? I fail to see how this can be anything but a victory for education.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: LOL anything to promote God eh? |
|
|
Just as long as you don't name him. Actually that's how ID came to be. Creationism got slammed in court as being religion as opposed to science. The thumper leaders got together and came up with 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' It can't be religous cause they don't even know who the designer is, but, they are convinced there are one. So convinced that initially all of their research and most of their current work involves 'detecting design.'
This tickles me and insults me. On the one hand most Fundies are just ignorant enough to buy Discovery Institute's line.
Their argument from incredulity. Some things are so complex humans will NEVER be able to understand them. I don't know what makes them think they know enough to credibly make that claim. Or why anyone should believe them when they do. It's just a premise to inject God into the discussion.
It insults me because I am an engineer. I design stuff for a living. I spent six years in school. I have worked as an engineer for nearly 10 years ago. I qualify as an expert in design.
For some Bible thumping moron to tell me that not only are life forms 'designed' the designer was 'intelligent' is an insult not only to my intelligence, but belittles all the hard work I have put into getting where I am today.
But, then again, they are not trying to convince people like me. I am not likely to buy a book, magazine, dvd, video tape or admission to a lecture.
Plus I know what constitutes real design. This is a real problem for ID'ers. They sit there and say 'wow look how complex that is, there had to be intelligence involved. Even when the thing is explained in simple layman's terms they stubbornly cling to their willful ignorance. All one has to do is read a post like this one to see that.
| Dust wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: | | ID is as much a Scientific theory as Astrology. |
An apple tree is as much an apple as a peach.
ID is above Astrology and Science (not to mention everything else), in a similar manner as the apple tree is above the apple.
Bouncer, you have to accept (logic dictates it), that the concept of ID is apart from the scientific method. And, as it is, it just so happens that the court has confirmed this.
Then too, you must accept, by-way of the same logic, that the abstract concept of ID is indisputably greater than any concept (abstract or otherwise) derived by-way of the scientific method. ID is of a higher form/class. P.S. I was going to write.....the abstract concept of ID, if true, is greater.....but I think this, logically, would be a redundant phrase.
Three things.......
I see the court ruling as a victory for the ID concept.
The court ruling does not show the ID concept to be untrue.
The official court ruling may be used to prevent ID from being taught in Public Schools, but this is not a victory for education. |
It was a smashing defeat for a deception. ID started out campaigning to have the ToE replaced with ID in gradeschool science classes.
When that idea did not catch on they changed their campaign to call for ID to be taught alongside the ToE.
When that didn't catch on they called for the teaching of the 'weaknesses ' of Evolution. No one will tell me who decides what is or is not a 'weakness' but I suspect they mean someone at or loyal to Discovery Institute.
Since the Dover debacle they have shifted their focus to saying the ToE is not real science.
Now all along they have been trying to come up with ways to show Evolution as a religion. This too they have failed at.
Your post here Dust amply illustrates my last point.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 941
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy FFT!
| FFT wrote: | | How does not following the scientific method make something "indisputably greater"? |
Well, here's how I look at it.....Intellegent design is the product of an intellegent designer. So the greater of these, of course, is the designer. Then second the design. And finally we arrive at the scientific-method. The scientific-method allows us to discover certain elements of the design, and perhaps eventually all discoverable elements of the design.
1. Designer.
2. Design.
3. Elemental discovery of the design.
Now that's logical....is it not?
| FFT wrote: | | Unscientific ideas prevented from being taught in science classrooms? I fail to see how this can be anything but a victory for education. |
FFT, you need to broaden your horizons. Many subjects not related to the scientific-method are taught and have value. Ever here of a little discipline called philosophy.....religion nor science would exist without it. Not to mention reading, writing, history, moral values, and such.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
Well, here's how I look at it.....Intellegent design is the product of an intellegent designer. So the greater of these, of course, is the designer. Then second the design. And finally we arrive at the scientific-method. The scientific-method allows us to discover certain elements of the design, and perhaps eventually all discoverable elements of the design.
1. Designer.
2. Design.
3. Elemental discovery of the design.
Now that's logical....is it not? |
It is not. You haven't defined a scale on which these things can be compared with the out come "greater".
Further, I am curious as to what utility or significance this hierarchy you're trying to set up has.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
