Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [SFC] Creationism defeated in Texas

Expand Messages
  • Cathryn Paradise
    Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is a link for a good article on the subject: http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 1, 2009
      Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is a link
      for a good article on the subject:

      http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf

      On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:

      >
      > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
      >
      > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
      > unwilling
      > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I am a
      > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
      >
      > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd also love
      > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
      >
      >
      > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just exercises
      > in logic and semantics?
      >
      > Chris
      > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between,
      > stay
      > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023
      > )
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • membi_99
      ... unwilling ... also love ... exercises ... between, stay ... (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023) ... Creationists have a voice here in the UK state
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
        --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, derhexer@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        > ladycatexcel@... writes:
        >
        > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
        unwilling
        > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I am a
        > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
        >
        >
        >
        > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd
        also love
        > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
        >
        >
        > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just
        exercises
        > in logic and semantics?
        >
        > Chris
        > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
        between, stay
        > up-to-date with the latest news.
        (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        Creationists have a voice here in the UK state schools.It's just not
        in the science lessons that they are permitted to disrupt
        teaching.They have infiltrated the Religious Education lessons (which
        in my opinion as an educator) is the correct section of the syllabus
        for the discussion.

        Much as I try to respect theists this atheist is really annoyed with
        creationists for trying to imprint their own viewpoint on others who
        are not theists and whose children are not theist.Religious education
        here in the UK is of the right level in that many faiths and beliefs
        are addressed but I do at times think perhaps the subject should be
        treated in the same way it is in the US..kept out of the school and
        out of the syllabus.

        I see no reason why Creationists can't teach their children about the
        subject outside of school.Many other faiths manage to teach their
        children without leaving it to state schools.The tactics employed in
        Texas smack of indoctrination to me..Something that us British have
        got really sick of across the centuries..

        Here now of course we have the fanatics and certain redtopped media
        trying to fan the flames of religious bigotry.Thankfully the majority
        are refusing to play that game.
        >
      • Allen Smith
        ... a link ... am a ... also love ... exercises ... between, ... ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023 ... Creationism is itself a doctrine that cannot be tested or
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
          --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Cathryn Paradise
          <ladycatexcel@...> wrote:
          >
          > Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is
          a link
          > for a good article on the subject:
          >
          > http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf
          >
          > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          > > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
          > >
          > > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
          > > unwilling
          > > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I
          am a
          > > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
          > >
          > > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd
          also love
          > > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
          > >
          > >
          > > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just
          exercises
          > > in logic and semantics?
          > >
          > > Chris
          > > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
          between,
          > > stay
          > > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?
          ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023
          > > )
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          Creationism is itself a doctrine that cannot be tested or proven.
          Which doesn't bother me, as I am a person of faith, I don't need the
          proof, nor do I think that the schools need to teach creationism.
          There are churches everywhere that can instruct people in religious
          doctrine. One of the tenets of my church is free will, the ability
          to accept or reject God's word and to accept the consequences of
          one's decision. To mandate the teaching of religion (and, what
          religion?) in public schools is just another way to force people to
          believe what the creationists believe.

          Allen Smith
        • Cathryn Paradise
          Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well. Only by speculative science can it be proven. Schools are allowed to preach against the truth that at
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
            Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well. Only by speculative
            science can it be proven. Schools are allowed to preach against the truth
            that at BEST evolution is a GUESS and not a fact since the facts can be
            interpreted in other ways that prove a young earth. It all depends on the
            personal bias of the person examining the data. If a person wants to see
            evolution as a fact he will find proofs for that view. The same is true of
            creationism. Since there are no eyewitness accounts of evolution at best it
            is speculation, creationism, on the other hand, claims to have a written
            account given by an eyewitness, the Creator Himself. Evolution is every bit
            a religious doctrine as creation. Neither is provable by demonstrable
            science, therefore, both must be taken on FAITH. I choose to adhere to the
            one that gives me value as a human being,that I am not a accident and
            nothing more than an advanced animal with no real purpose in life witch is
            how I felt when I was an evolutionist taught by federal indoctrination
            centers (public schools).

            Cathryn Paradise

            On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Allen Smith <metron12001@...> wrote:

            > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com<sciencefictionclassics%40yahoogroups.com>,
            > Cathryn Paradise
            > <ladycatexcel@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is
            > a link
            > > for a good article on the subject:
            > >
            > > http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf
            > >
            > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > >
            > > > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
            > > > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
            > > >
            > > > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
            > > > unwilling
            > > > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I
            > am a
            > > > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
            > > >
            > > > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd
            > also love
            > > > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just
            > exercises
            > > > in logic and semantics?
            > > >
            > > > Chris
            > > > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
            > between,
            > > > stay
            > > > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?
            > ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023
            > > > )
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > Creationism is itself a doctrine that cannot be tested or proven.
            > Which doesn't bother me, as I am a person of faith, I don't need the
            > proof, nor do I think that the schools need to teach creationism.
            > There are churches everywhere that can instruct people in religious
            > doctrine. One of the tenets of my church is free will, the ability
            > to accept or reject God's word and to accept the consequences of
            > one's decision. To mandate the teaching of religion (and, what
            > religion?) in public schools is just another way to force people to
            > believe what the creationists believe.
            >
            > Allen Smith
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • derhexer@aol.com
            In a message dated 2/2/2009 3:10:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
              In a message dated 2/2/2009 3:10:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
              ladycatexcel@... writes:

              Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is a link
              for a good article on the subject:

              _http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf_
              (http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf)

              Are you sure about that? ""Thus, for a theory to qualify as a scientific
              theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be
              observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the
              outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments." The theory
              is made up of observable events in geology, chemistry, genetics, etc., and it
              is predictable.

              The main point of scientific theory is the last 2 words of the quote
              "laboratory experiments." Experiments are being conducted all the time of the
              theory.

              I'm still waiting for someone to say how they will test the theory of
              creationism. After wading thru the dense, 28 page documents, I didn't see that

              So, until you can show how creationism can be tested, please don't call it
              science.

              Chris
              **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
              stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • derhexer@aol.com
              In a message dated 2/2/2009 12:40:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well. A
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
                In a message dated 2/2/2009 12:40:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                ladycatexcel@... writes:

                Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well.


                A scientist would not say a theory is proven, only that it has been tested
                and passed that test at that time.

                Chris
                **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Cathryn Paradise
                Evolution cannot be tested as well. Cathryn ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 3, 2009
                  Evolution cannot be tested as well.

                  Cathryn

                  On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > In a message dated 2/2/2009 12:40:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                  > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
                  >
                  > Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well.
                  >
                  > A scientist would not say a theory is proven, only that it has been tested
                  > and passed that test at that time.
                  >
                  > Chris
                  > **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                  > stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022<http://aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022>
                  > )
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • derhexer@aol.com
                  In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:28:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Evolution cannot be tested as well. Cathryn Wrongo, bongo. We
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 3, 2009
                    In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:28:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                    ladycatexcel@... writes:

                    Evolution cannot be tested as well.

                    Cathryn



                    Wrongo, bongo.

                    We can look back through the fossil records and see species evolve over
                    time. Unless, of course, you follow the creationist line and discount the fossil
                    record. When we discover a new species of animal, we can expect to find it
                    close to species that resemble it (biogeography). We can also expect to find
                    in it DNA like in any other species for they all come from a common ancestor.
                    We have all read of germs becoming more resistant to antibiotics.
                    Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their
                    environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to
                    become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics.

                    The test for Evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it
                    does. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as "progressionism." As
                    you dig deeper into fossil beds, fossils tend to get simpler and simpler in
                    form. Also, Evolution doesn't have to take such a long time all the time.
                    Creationists demand hard evidence of macro-Evolution, which is also known as
                    speciation. Macro-Evolution is when a species splits into two species, the old one
                    and the new one. The other type of Evolution, micro-Evolution, is easily
                    observable. Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species that
                    isn't significant enough to create a new species. For example, cockroaches
                    have, over the generations, adapted to certain pesticides and have become more
                    resistant to them. The adaptation to pesticides is an example of a mutation
                    that results in a survival advantage. However, this change in the cockroach is
                    not nearly significant enough to put the cockroach which has adapted into
                    its own species category. If the cockroach grew an extra pair of antennae,
                    enabling it to have a much better sense of its environmental surroundings than
                    its predecessor, this could be enough of a change to qualify as
                    macro-Evolution. Thus, the cockroach with extra antennae would then be classified in its own
                    species.
                    As an aside, even if we can't directly observe macro-Evolution, the two
                    processes are driven by the same mechanism. Even Creationists admit that
                    micro-Evolution occurs. So, they admit that a species will undergo small, adaptive
                    changes.

                    Or, see this article in the NY Times
                    _http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63_
                    (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63) , or this article from ABC
                    _http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1_
                    (http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1)

                    Chris
                    **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                    stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Cathryn Paradise
                    The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator s own bias. Can you give evidence of a *living species *that became a higher species? ...
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 5, 2009
                      The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator's own bias.

                      Can you give evidence of a *living species *that became a "higher" species?

                      On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:36 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:

                      >
                      > In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:28:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                      > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
                      >
                      > Evolution cannot be tested as well.
                      >
                      > Cathryn
                      >
                      > Wrongo, bongo.
                      >
                      > We can look back through the fossil records and see species evolve over
                      > time. Unless, of course, you follow the creationist line and discount the
                      > fossil
                      > record. When we discover a new species of animal, we can expect to find it
                      > close to species that resemble it (biogeography). We can also expect to
                      > find
                      > in it DNA like in any other species for they all come from a common
                      > ancestor.
                      > We have all read of germs becoming more resistant to antibiotics.
                      > Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their
                      >
                      > environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii
                      > mutate to
                      > become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics.
                      >
                      > The test for Evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it
                      >
                      > does. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as "progressionism." As
                      >
                      > you dig deeper into fossil beds, fossils tend to get simpler and simpler in
                      >
                      > form. Also, Evolution doesn't have to take such a long time all the time.
                      > Creationists demand hard evidence of macro-Evolution, which is also known
                      > as
                      > speciation. Macro-Evolution is when a species splits into two species, the
                      > old one
                      > and the new one. The other type of Evolution, micro-Evolution, is easily
                      > observable. Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species
                      > that
                      > isn't significant enough to create a new species. For example, cockroaches
                      > have, over the generations, adapted to certain pesticides and have become
                      > more
                      > resistant to them. The adaptation to pesticides is an example of a mutation
                      >
                      > that results in a survival advantage. However, this change in the cockroach
                      > is
                      > not nearly significant enough to put the cockroach which has adapted into
                      > its own species category. If the cockroach grew an extra pair of antennae,
                      > enabling it to have a much better sense of its environmental surroundings
                      > than
                      > its predecessor, this could be enough of a change to qualify as
                      > macro-Evolution. Thus, the cockroach with extra antennae would then be
                      > classified in its own
                      > species.
                      > As an aside, even if we can't directly observe macro-Evolution, the two
                      > processes are driven by the same mechanism. Even Creationists admit that
                      > micro-Evolution occurs. So, they admit that a species will undergo small,
                      > adaptive
                      > changes.
                      >
                      > Or, see this article in the NY Times
                      > _
                      > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63_
                      > (
                      > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63)
                      > , or this article from ABC
                      > _http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1_
                      > (http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1)
                      >
                      > Chris
                      > **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                      > stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • derhexer@aol.com
                      In a message dated 2/5/2009 6:36:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator s own
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 5, 2009
                        In a message dated 2/5/2009 6:36:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                        ladycatexcel@... writes:

                        The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator's own bias.

                        Can you give evidence of a *living species *that became a "higher" species?



                        OK, here are some articles on the fossil record for evolution of horses
                        _http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html_
                        (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html)
                        _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse_
                        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
                        _http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm_
                        (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm)

                        And here's some sites for evolution of dogs
                        _http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html_
                        (http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html)
                        _http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html_
                        (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html)

                        I am not sure what you mean by 'higher"

                        Chris
                        **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                        stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.