Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[AV1611VET]

Your attempts to trivialise the quest of human understanding of origins of life betrays your own faith.

I'm not trivializing anything.

Evolution has more missing links than a donut shop has donut holes.

Look at the chart on the wall in this explanation:

It reminds me of a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[sjastro]

You must know your credibility drops a few points when you suggest that. Anyone reading your posts with an open mind would be discouraged to treat anything else you say as being credible if you try to maintain such a monstrously nonsensical position.

Paradoxically

I'm not trivializing anything.

Evolution has more missing links than a donut shop has donut holes.

Look at the chart on the wall in this explanation:

It reminds me of a game of connect-the-dots.

You are supposed to provide a summary of the video according to forum rules instead of forcing us into a contest in guessing the time on Dawkins' wristwatch.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems to be a source that points out that not all Christians believe in the standard ID model - which they themselves consider to be God. It seems that you've posted something that confirms my statement.

Thanks, I guess...

Here's the rest of the link:

'Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design ... must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting." In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations ... [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."'

 

[Bradskii]

Only on paper.Yup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?

Only on paper? Hardly. I don't want to get into a cut 'n' paste war but there's plenty of information regarding experiments here: The Origin of Life

And effectively, that's what science is. We confirm the first dot. And then find where that might lead and connect the next one. And so on. It builds upon itself. But you knew that anyway. Joining the dots, filling in the jigsaw, painting a larger picture, adding to the story, taking the next step etc etc.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not trivializing anything.

Evolution has more missing links than a donut shop has donut holes.

Look at the chart on the wall in this explanation:.

Huh? There's nothing in that video which mentions anything about 'missing links'?

 

[Bradskii]

Here's the rest of the link:

I guess you must be supporting my contention as you keep posting information that backs it up. So...thanks again.

 

[AV1611VET]

And effectively, that's what science is. We confirm the first dot. And then find where that might lead and connect the next one. And so on. It builds upon itself. But you knew that anyway. Joining the dots, filling in the jigsaw, painting a larger picture, adding to the story, taking the next step etc etc.

After how many tries? after how many computers get involved? after how many knock-down-drag-out peer reviews? rigged votes? catering to sponsors? jumping the gun? and who knows what all?

 

[VirOptimus]

After how many tries? after how many computers get involved? after how many knock-down-drag-out peer reviews? rigged votes? catering to sponsors? jumping the gun? and who knows what all?

If you ever got an education you could learn.

 

[SelfSim]

... rigged votes?

Hilarious! (We all know where that bogus lie led .. straight to court-cases)

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? There's nothing in that video which mentions anything about 'missing links'?

I said look at the chart on the wall.

It looks like a game of connect-the-dots.

Here's another one:

 

[Bradskii]

After how many tries? after how many computers get involved? after how many knock-down-drag-out peer reviews? rigged votes? catering to sponsors? jumping the gun? and who knows what all?

You keep trying until the pieces fit. Until the narrative makes sense. Until multiple lines of enquiry lead to the same conclusion. Until we reach a point where we can formulate a theory. At which point we can test it's predictions. This is the scientific method. It has built the world in which you exist.

But yet again, you already know this. It does seem petulant to deny that it works when it reaches conclusions which counter your religious beliefs...

 

[AV1611VET]

Hilarious! (We all know where that bogus lie led .. straight to court-cases)

QV please:The Vote To Demote Pluto Was Rigged

 

[VirOptimus]

QV please:The Vote To Demote Pluto Was Rigged

Get over it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But yet again, you already know this. It does seem petulant to deny that it works when it reaches conclusions which counter your religious beliefs...

I've seen even scholarly people here set the scientific method aside to ridicule the Bible.

They'll preach the scientific method ... until someone brings up something from the Bible ... like basic doctrine ... and there goes the SM out the window.

 

[VirOptimus]

I've seen even scholarly people here set the scientific method aside to ridicule the Bible.

They'll preach the scientific method ... until someone brings up something from the Bible ... like basic doctrine ... and there goes the SM out the window.

Pitching religious belief against physical reality (i.e. science) is a loosing position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Submitted for your edification, Brad: The Scientific Method Is A Myth

 

[VirOptimus]

Submitted for your edification, Brad: The Scientific Method Is A Myth

Haha, no.

 

[Speedwell]

It seems to be a source that points out that not all Christians believe in the standard ID model - which they themselves consider to be God. It seems that you've posted something that confirms my statement.

Thanks, I guess...

Indeed. AV has no use for ID.

But I think that what happens with many creationists is that they are not particularly well informed about ID and take it to be merely the notion that God "designed" the universe and ignore the fact that ID doesn't sit particularly will with biblical creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pitching religious belief against physical reality (i.e. science) is a loosing position.

That's no excuse to throw doctrine out the window without investigating it first.

How many times have I balked that people don't investigate before they communicate?

Yet they'll insist we should all be using the scientific method like it means something.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's no excuse to throw doctrine out the window without investigating it first.

How many times have I balked that people don't investigate before they communicate?

Yet they'll insist we should all be using the scientific method like it means something.

Belief has nothing to do with science or physical reality.