Allow students to critique fish to man evolution? Get your state boycotted
gabriel
surprise that scientists are also forced to keep their mouths
shut. There really aren't as many scientists that support the
fish to man version of evolution - many of them simply keep quiet
about it out of fear of being fired, even when their jobs have
nothing to do with believing that once upon a time fish evolved
over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people. And so
much for students being allowed to think for themselves - fish to
man evolution is nothing short of indoctrination: dishonestly
passing off as science what is not observable and not able to be
shown in a test case actually happening.
This is what happens when we give in to professing Christians
that claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit that what Moses wrote in
Genesis is not true.
John 5:45-47 KJV Jesus said:
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?
Allow the students to think for themselves, and the truth becomes
obvious.
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17boycott.html?_r=1
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/21/news-to-note-02212009#one
Some evolutionists are taking the culture war over origins to the
next step: boycotting an entire U.S. state in protest of the
state�s education laws.
The state is Louisiana, where last summer Governor Bobby Jindal
signed a law allowing teachers to �use supplemental textbooks . .
. to help students critique and review scientific theories,�
though the bill clarified that it should not be used to �promote
any religious doctrine.� Of course, any language suggesting
critical thinking or open discussion of any science sounds alarms
among evolutionists, who want to keep all questions out of
evolutionary indoctrination.
Now, in response to the law, the Society for Integrative and
Comparative Biology announced that it will move its 2011
conference from New Orleans to Salt Lake City, Utah. (This year�s
conference brought nearly 2,000 academics to Boston.)
The president of the SICB executive committee, University of
North Carolina�Wilmington�s Richard Satterlie, sent a letter
telling Gov. Jindal:
It is the firm opinion of SICB�s leadership that this law
undermines the integrity of science and science education in
Louisiana. . . . The S.I.C.B. leadership could not support New
Orleans as our meeting venue because of the official position of
the state in weakening science education and specifically
attacking evolution in science curricula.
(You can read the full text of the letter on SICB�s website
[PDF].)
The New York Times reports that Gov. Jindal�s office has been
nonchalant, with spokesman Kyle Plotkin commenting, �That�s too
bad. New Orleans is a first-class city for a convention.�
Answers in Genesis is also aware of at least one other
organization that has received pressure from members to follow
suit and abandon New Orleans as a conference city.
Usually when a perceived �anti-evolution� bill passes in a state
or community, evolutionists complain that the locale�s children
will end up underprepared academically; the common threat is that
the locale will not be able to attract scientific jobs in the
future. However, the SICB�s boycott shows how such a situation
could arise solely out of the perception of poor education: even
if Louisiana�s students are now twice as scientifically literate
thanks to the new law, evolutionary institutions will refuse to
associate with Louisiana, a priori. This corresponds with the
general evolutionary insinuation that no matter what scientific
degrees you have, you can�t be a �real scientist� unless you
accept evolution.
A second point of interest is that the SICB boycott has come even
before there�s any evidence that the new law is being used to
undermine the teaching of evolution. Again, this reinforces
evolutionists� unwillingness to allow any questioning or critical
thinking of their pet theory. But then again, evolutionists
haven�t always waited on �evidence� anyway!
gabriel
<hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone is allowed to critique evolution. However those critiques
> are usually tested for merit.
Actually they're not. It's what this entire article is all about:
an *entire state* getting boycotted by evolutionists for merely
mentioning the *possibility* of allowing fish to man evolution to
be critiqued.
Scientists get blacklisted for not even believing in it, let
alone speaking out against it or critiquing it. "Expelled"
documents several such cases, and that's only the tip of the
iceberg.
>
> On Dec 28, 6:07�am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If students aren't even allowed to think for themselves, it's no
> > surprise that scientists are also forced to keep their mouths
> > shut.
>
> Unheard of.
Not if you read the actual documents that show it.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/dark_matter_blacklist_at_iowa.html
http://bible.org/article/more-expelled-scientists
and in education, this story repeated:
http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2009/03/state_board_vot.html
I merely found those on the first page of a typical google
search.
>
> > There really aren't as many scientists that support the
> > fish to man version of evolution - many of them simply keep quiet
> > about it out of fear of being fired, even when their jobs have
> > nothing to do with believing that once upon a time fish evolved
> > over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people. And so
> > much for students being allowed to think for themselves -
>
> I don't know where you went but in my experience students were
> encouraged to think for themselves. I even had a few classes where
> you failed unless you learned to think.
In most classes, indeed they are. But they are not allowed to
question evolutionism as proven by this very article that you
don't say a thing about the boycotting. And as this article
clearly shows, when it was suggested students be allowed to
discuss strengths AND weaknesses of the theory, the state was
boycotted for even suggesting it, which contradicts your claim
such things never happen.
So why did they want to boycott the entire state for merely
mentioned the possibility of allowing students to think for
themselves and critique fish to man evolution?
>
> > . . . fish to
> > man evolution is nothing short of indoctrination: dishonestly
> > passing off as science what is not observable and not able to be
> > shown in a test case actually happening.
>
> We have no time machine.
Doesn't excuse it from the fact that it's not observable, and not
able to be shown actually happening in any test cases. Still
shows it's not science. And it makes them dishonest every time
they claim it is, and every time they boycott anyone that will
allow students to even consider critiquing the strengths and
weaknesses of evolutionism.
>
> > This is what happens when we give in to professing Christians
> > that claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit that what Moses wrote in
> > Genesis is not true.
>
> How does that follow from anything else?
That God was there - God knows what He did, and gave knowledge to
some on what He did (along with other things, including the
coming Messiah, Jesus Christ). And Moses wrote not only about God
creating, and creating man and woman, but about the coming
Messiah, Jesus Christ. But professing Christians again do not
believe what Moses wrote, even in Jesus' day, and Jesus condemned
them because they did not believe Moses.
John 5:45-47 KJV
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?
And it's no different today: professing Christians do not believe
what Moses wrote. But Jesus pointed out the same thing: that God
created and that Moses wrote what God did:
Matthew 19:4-6 KJV
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
>
> > John 5:45-47 KJV Jesus said:
> > � � 45 �Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
> > is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
> > � � 46 �For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
> > he wrote of me.
> > � � 47 �But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
> > my words?
>
> How does that follow? What does it have to do with anything?
>
> > Allow the students to think for themselves, and the truth becomes
> > obvious.
>
> It would seem that this is the problem. Students do think for
> themselves and perceive the truth. That is when they have a negative
> reaction to truth suppression they might have experience prior to
> that. Some become atheists. Some become agnostic. Some cling to
> religion anyway but try to find a more honest version of it.
They perceive the truth when they are shown that ultimately
evolutionists believe that, once upon a time populations of fish
evolved over generations eventually into hippos, giraffes, eagles
and people; they perceive that it's not even science.
Meanwhile meaningfully encoded instructions, and the ability for
them to be decoded and acted upon for some clearly organized
purpose (for example, to build machines) is proof of intelligent
design. DNA is exactly all of that and more. Proof of intelligent
design. The only faith part: God.
And finally, you've shown the results of allowing the lie of
evolutionism to be taught as scientific, let alone fact: it
causes people to doubt the obvious truth of God. This is what
evolutionism was designed for: to attack and suppress the truth
of God - to get people to believe people came from fish in some
manner. Even Dawkins, evolutionism's biggest supporter, calls
anyone that believes in God delusional, and wrote an entire book
about it. All the while evolutionism is not observable and cannot
be shown in a single test case actually happening, yet some
professing Christians cling to it, believing God's Word to be the
where the lies are at.
>
>
>
> > www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17boycott.html?_r=1
>
> Not found.
>
> > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/21/news-to-note-02212009#one
>
> Not found either.
Check your Internet connection. Both links work fine for me.
>
> > Some evolutionists are taking the culture war over origins to the
> > next step: boycotting an entire U.S. state in protest of the
> > state�s education laws.
> >
> > The state is Louisiana, where last summer Governor Bobby Jindal
> > signed a law allowing teachers to �use supplemental textbooks . .
> > . to help students critique and review scientific theories,�
> > though the bill clarified that it should not be used to �promote
> > any religious doctrine.�
>
> They have a valid point. We shouldn't allow any old crack pot idea to
> supplant science.
You didn't read carefully. The bill that wanted to allow students
to think for themselves, to critique and review scientific
theories, it was the bill itself that offered the **clarification
that it could not be used to promote any religious doctrine**.
Not good enough. Evolutionists boycotted the state anyway because
they just flat out don't want students to be allowed to think
when being indoctrinated with evolutionist's beliefs.
> You have an alternative that fits the known
> evidence better than modern evolution?
Science is impotent to make any claim about origins: as any claim
they make would be not observable (no time machine, as you so
aptly put it), and not repeatable as actually happening in any
test case.
So really origins is down to faith (and the logically undeniable
fact we were created by an intelligent being - see below). If you
look at the evidence, you can see that it fits God doing exactly
what He said He did. For those who really do believe in God, the
evidence fitting God doing what He said He did should not be a
problem. For those who really don't believe (or don't want to
believe) in God, this is a huge problem even if they claim to
Christians - the real problem is they want to create a version of
a god they are more comfortable following, which is really
idolatry.
Global flood. Special creation. Intelligent design. I.e., God
doing exactly what He said He did. The evidence supports that
more logically than that once upon a time fish evolved over
generations into people.
Romans 1:17-23 KJV
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from
faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the
truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not
as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things.
>
> > Of course, any language suggesting
> > critical thinking or open discussion of any science sounds alarms
> > among evolutionists, who want to keep all questions out of
> > evolutionary indoctrination.
>
> Uh, no. Why do you paint it this way?
Evolutionists did more than paint it that way when they boycotted
the state for even considering this bill. Why did they boycott
the state? Clearly they don't want evolutionism critiqued.
Actually science would have nothing to fear from any critique -
in fact actual science relishes it and demands it.
>
> > Now, in response to the law, the Society for Integrative and
> > Comparative Biology announced that it will move its 2011
> > conference from New Orleans to Salt Lake City, Utah. (This year�s
> > conference brought nearly 2,000 academics to Boston.)
> >
> > The president of the SICB executive committee, University of
> > North Carolina�Wilmington�s Richard Satterlie, sent a letter
> > telling Gov. Jindal:
> >
> > It is the firm opinion of SICB�s leadership that this law
> > undermines the integrity of science and science education in
> > Louisiana. . . . The S.I.C.B. leadership could not support New
> > Orleans as our meeting venue because of the official position of
> > the state in weakening science education and specifically
> > attacking evolution in science curricula.
> > (You can read the full text of the letter on SICB�s website
> > [PDF].)
> >
> > The New York Times reports that Gov. Jindal�s office has been
> > nonchalant, with spokesman Kyle Plotkin commenting, �That�s too
> > bad. New Orleans is a first-class city for a convention.�
> >
> > Answers in Genesis is also aware of at least one other
> > organization that has received pressure from members to follow
> > suit and abandon New Orleans as a conference city.
>
> Can you demonstrate there is a connection?
Why else where they "pressured" into abandoning New Orleans, when
they were already boycotted for considering to allow students to
think for themselves and critique the fish to man version of
evolution? Can you demonstrate there's no connection?
>
> > Usually when a perceived �anti-evolution� bill passes in a state
> > or community, evolutionists complain that the locale�s children
> > will end up underprepared academically;
>
> It does hurt our ability to turn out competent scientists. And the US
> standing among the world is quite poor as it is.
Would help to turn out competent scientists if scientist students
were not forced to believe in and waste their time on the belief
that populations of fish, once upon a time, evolved over
generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people, rather than
more important things that actually *are* observable and/or
actually *can* be shown as actually happening in test cases: also
known as actual science.
>
> > . . . the common threat is that
> > the locale will not be able to attract scientific jobs in the
> > future. However, the SICB�s boycott shows how such a situation
> > could arise solely out of the perception of poor education:
>
> If you teach a child to abandon and denounce scientific methods how
> are they going to unlearn this to discover how to be a microbiologist
> as an adult? It seems like an extra step they would have to overcome.
Actually you have it backwards. The scientific method is about
that which is observable and/or showable as actually happening in
test cases, of which evolutionism is none of these. So teaching
evolutionists is to abandon and/or denounce the scientific
method. We are trying to get school science back to what science
actually is: that which is observable and/or showable in actual
test cases, of with evolutionism is none of these.
>
> > . . . even
> > if Louisiana�s students are now twice as scientifically literate
> > thanks to the new law,
>
> What do you mean? I think it risks making them scientifically
> illiterate because due to feeding them anti-science.
Most likely because they are reminded that science is only about
that which is observable and/or shown to actually happen in
actual test cases - rather than science fiction beliefs that
populations of fish once upon a time evolved over generations
into people, and making up whatever beliefs you want something to
mean to you and everyone else, and dishonestly calling that
science. They are now getting students back to the actual truth
of what science is, and how to perform it through observations
and actual test cases - not just made up beliefs that cannot be
observed and can't be shown happening in actual test cases, but
calling that science anyway. Such students will have no clue what
actual science is or how to perform it.
>
> > . . . evolutionary institutions will refuse to
> > associate with Louisiana, a priori. This corresponds with the
> > general evolutionary insinuation that no matter what scientific
> > degrees you have, you can�t be a �real scientist� unless you
> > accept evolution.
>
> Sure you could, if you can use the scientific method to produce a
> better theory than evolution. So far nobody has but that doesn't mean
> nobody will.
Actually you cannot. No origins theory can qualify as science, as
any such theory is not observable and cannot be shown actually
happening in repeatable test cases. Science is impotent to make
any scientific claims about origins. It's that simple.
So to make up for this, evolutionists attack the reputation of
scientists that point this out, saying you can't be a "real
scientist" unless you believe in (or accept, as they word it)
evolutionism.
> However being a real scientist while embracing anti-
> science is more of a problem.
Actually real science is that which is observable and/or showable
happening in repeatable test cases. It's evolutionism that is
none of these and the only thing being rejected. Actual science
remains alive and well (as it should).
> How does one reconcile the science with
> the anti-science?
Evolutionists have been doing just that for decades. The method
has many facets. Here are a few of the most obvious:
[1] Call the anti-science evolutionism science even though it's
not observable, nor can be shown to actually happen in any test
cases
[2] Call anything that's not evolutionism's "anti-science"
[3] Attack the reputation of those who point out it's not
science, or who even disagree with it
[4] Blacklist and/or fire scientists who still do not desist
after such personal attacks
[5] Do not allow students to critique its strengths and
weaknesses
[6] Boycott states that allow their students to think for
themselves to critique evolutionism
[7] Pass laws forbidding students to critique evolutionism
and so on.
> I tried for decades and only got cognitive
> dissonance for my trouble. However at the time I choose to deprive
> myself of knowledge of biology. I choose to be willfully ignorant.
> Not very scientific.
Biology, Speciation and so on remain perfectly intact without the
imaginary injection that once upon a time populations of fish
eventually evolved over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
and people.
>
>
> > A second point of interest is that the SICB boycott has come even
> > before there�s any evidence that the new law is being used to
> > undermine the teaching of evolution. Again, this reinforces
> > evolutionists� unwillingness to allow any questioning or critical
> > thinking of their pet theory.
>
> You have free speech. You are allowed to question and critique
> evolution at any time.
Actually the entire article contradicts your claim. Even the mere
mention of the *possibility* of these students being allowed to
think for themselves, have free speech, and critique evolutionism
sparked the boycott before it ever actually happened. Clearly
people are not allowed to even *think* about critiquing
evolutionism at any time - they were boycotted for even
*considering* to critique evolutionism, not for actually
critiquing it!!
> However your critiques might be tested for
> merit by others exercising their free speech. In the past such
> debates were all one sided.
Actually such debates are nonexistent if students are forbidden
from even being able to debate evolutionism to begin with.
And in the end, it's not even science.
>
> > But then again, evolutionists
> > haven�t always waited on �evidence� anyway!
>
> The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
No, the **beliefs** attached to dead bones and fossils and DNA
and so on, on what they want those things to mean, and what they
want it to mean to everyone else, and how often it's fed to the
public, is the only thing that's overwhelming.
What's actually more overwhelming is that their beliefs are
impossible to observe actually happening, and impossible to be
shown happening in a single actual test case. Not science by
definition. One can only believe in it.
If students were allowed to think for themselves and critique the
weaknesses of the fish to man version of evolution, they'd
realize it doesn't even qualify as science, and that they've been
lied to at every turn that it was.
And by the way, since I presume you believe in God.
Science shows that once a person's heart stops, and they are
dead, it's impossible for such a person to be risen from death
hours later, let alone three days later. This is scientific fact:
observable, and repeatable in test cases.
So, do you now follow what actually is scientific FACT and not
believe that Christ rose from death three days later? Or do you
instead have faith that God did what He said He did? Why or why
not?
Do you now follow what actually is scientific FACT and not
believe that Christ rose others from death, and performed all His
other miracles? Or do you instead have faith that God did what He
said He did? Why or why not?
And finally, if you do rely on faith and reject what really IS
science to believe Christ rose from death, ask yourself why you
believe what is *not* observable, and is *not* showable in any
test cases as actually happening (in other words, what is NOT
science) and reject what God said instead?
Such a double standard is not even logical, because if you're
gong to cling to what's *not* observable and *not* showable in
any test cases to reject what God says, why then reject what IS
observable and IS showable in actual test cases to suddenly have
faith in what God said? A glaring and illogical contradiction in
faith.
It brings us back to the words of Jesus:
John 5:45-47 KJV
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?
Maybe we're ashamed of God's Word? Ashamed of the Words of
Christ?
Matthew 19:4-6 KJV Jesus said:
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mark 8:34-38 KJV
34 And when he [Jesus] had called the people unto him with
his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after
me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the
same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall
the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his
Father with the holy angels.
>
>
> God bless,
You as well.
>
> House
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:09:39 -0800 (PST), In My Fathers House
><hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is allowed to critique evolution. However those critiques
>> are usually tested for merit.
>
>Actually they're not. It's what this entire article is all about:
>an *entire state* getting boycotted by evolutionists for merely
>mentioning the *possibility* of allowing fish to man evolution to
>be critiqued.
Wrong. They can still be critiqued in or out of the state. But
intelligent critiquing requires actually knowing something about what
is being critiqued, and elementary school kids don't know nearly
enough. There are also proper ways to critique scientific
conclusions, and school kids don't know them. YOU don't know them,
either.
The issue is whether the government should be promulgating such
critiquing by school children who don't have enough education to
critique anything, especially when it is patently obvious that the
sole purpose of such "critiquing" is to advance a religious viewpoint,
which the public schools are not allowed to do.
>Scientists get blacklisted for not even believing in it, let
>alone speaking out against it or critiquing it. "Expelled"
>documents several such cases, and that's only the tip of the
>iceberg.
"Expelled" is a religious farce.
>> > There really aren't as many scientists that support the
>> > fish to man version of evolution - many of them simply keep quiet
>> > about it out of fear of being fired, even when their jobs have
>> > nothing to do with believing that once upon a time fish evolved
>> > over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people. And so
>> > much for students being allowed to think for themselves -
>>
>> I don't know where you went but in my experience students were
>> encouraged to think for themselves. I even had a few classes where
>> you failed unless you learned to think.
>
>In most classes, indeed they are. But they are not allowed to
>question evolutionism
They aren't competent to do so.
>when it was suggested students be allowed to
>discuss strengths AND weaknesses of the theory,
Students don't have the competence for such discussion, any more than
they have the competence to discuss the implications of quantum
mechanics.
>So why did they want to boycott the entire state for merely
>mentioned the possibility of allowing students to think for
>themselves and critique fish to man evolution?
It isn't a question of "allowing". It is a question of wasting
precious limited class time on a particularly worthless form of
"critiquing".
>> > . . . fish to
>> > man evolution is nothing short of indoctrination: dishonestly
>> > passing off as science what is not observable and not able to be
>> > shown in a test case actually happening.
>>
>> We have no time machine.
>
>Doesn't excuse it from the fact that it's not observable,
But it is, as scientists define "observable".
>> > This is what happens when we give in to professing Christians
>> > that claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit that what Moses wrote in
>> > Genesis is not true.
>>
>> How does that follow from anything else?
>
>That God was there
No evidence of that.
>God knows what He did,
No evidence of that either.
>and gave knowledge to some on what He did
No evidence of that either.
>And Moses wrote not only about God creating,
No evidence that Moses even existed, much less wrote anything, much
less wrote the specific texts attributed to him, which texts do not
exist in any language that was spoken ca. 1500BC.
>and creating man and woman,
No evidence of that either.
>but about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.
No evidence of any Messiah either. That is a matter of faith, not
evidence.
>And it's no different today: professing Christians do not believe
>what Moses wrote.
Because Moses wrote nothing that we know of.
>Meanwhile meaningfully encoded instructions, and the ability for
>them to be decoded and acted upon for some clearly organized
>purpose (for example, to build machines) is proof of intelligent
>design.
No, it is not.
There is no evidence of intelligent design without evidence of an
intelligent designer.
>You didn't read carefully. The bill that wanted to allow students
>to think for themselves,
Nothing stops them from thinking for themselves. But in class, they
are supposed to learn what the teacher is teaching them, not what they
choose to think for themselves.
>to critique and review scientific theories,
No one who is not properly trained in the relevant science is equipped
to do so. As you repeatedly demonstrate.
>> > Of course, any language suggesting
>> > critical thinking or open discussion of any science sounds alarms
>> > among evolutionists, who want to keep all questions out of
>> > evolutionary indoctrination.
>>
>> Uh, no. Why do you paint it this way?
>
>Evolutionists did more than paint it that way when they boycotted
>the state for even considering this bill. Why did they boycott
>the state?
Because everyone knew that it was an attempt to promote a religious
viewpoint in the science classroom.
>> > Usually when a perceived �anti-evolution� bill passes in a state
>> > or community, evolutionists complain that the locale�s children
>> > will end up underprepared academically;
>>
>> It does hurt our ability to turn out competent scientists. And the US
>> standing among the world is quite poor as it is.
>
>Would help to turn out competent scientists
We have competent scientists.
>if scientist students were not forced to believe in
No one is forced to believe in anything.
>also known as actual science.
You are not competent to decide what is "actual science".
>> If you teach a child to abandon and denounce scientific methods how
>> are they going to unlearn this to discover how to be a microbiologist
>> as an adult? It seems like an extra step they would have to overcome.
>
>Actually you have it backwards. The scientific method is about
what scientists say it is. And they say YOU ARE WRONG.
>> However being a real scientist while embracing anti-
>> science is more of a problem.
>
>Actually real science is
what scientists say it is. And they say YOU ARE WRONG.
>> > But then again, evolutionists
>> > haven�t always waited on �evidence� anyway!
>>
>> The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
>
>No,
YOU ARE WRONG.
>Science shows that once a person's heart stops, and they are
>dead,
Hearts have stopped, and then been restarted.
>So, do you now follow what actually is scientific FACT and not
>believe that Christ rose from death three days later? Or do you
>instead have faith that God did what He said He did? Why or why
>not?
There is no evidence as to whether anyone's heart stopped and
restarted.
All there is, is faith.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
gabriel
<hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 3:20�pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:09:39 -0800 (PST), In My Fathers House
> >
> > <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Everyone is allowed to critique evolution. �However those critiques
> > > are usually tested for merit.
> >
> > Actually they're not. It's what this entire article is all about:
> > an *entire state* getting boycotted by evolutionists for merely
> > mentioning the *possibility* of allowing fish to man evolution to
> > be critiqued.
>
> You need to understand the meaning of science and the scientific
> method,
You're free to point out in detail exactly what's supposedly
wrong with what was written, with the specific details laid out
for you, rather than making a blanket statement without
supporting it and avoiding it, which only makes it look like you
really don't have any idea.
> why we have separation of Church and State,
Students being allowed to think for themselves has nothing to do
with Church and State.
Not to mention you don't seem to understand separation of Church
and State is about.
> why Intelligent Design is religious,
Actually it's not - they can believe an advanced alien
civilization did the designing if it allows them to sleep more
comfortably at night (although I suppose it would be
uncomfortable as well to think they might be accountable to said
civilization). As outlined in detail, it's undeniable fact we
were created. You're free to refute the details if you're able.
> appropriate venues for challenging scientific
> theory,
Starts in the classroom by being allowed to think for yourself
and question what you're told and critique what others claim,
instead of being forced to believe it or else. Disappointing you
don't agree.
> and why impressionable students shouldn't be confused.
By being *forced* to believe once upon a time populations of fish
eventually evolved over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
and people, let alone that it's even science, is what confuses
impressionable students. They are forced to believe science is
about that which is *not* observable and that which is *not* able
to be shown in any test case, which of course is false. It's why
our students become sub-par scientists. It's why they go on to
practice the "science" of silencing anyone that disagrees with
them with a mere hand-waving, while believing in that which
cannot be observed and cannot be shown in any repeatable test
case. Then when shown the details that refute the notion, they
dismiss it with a hand-wave and start attacking the reputation of
the person who pointed it out. =(
> Most
> of the things you mention just didn't happen.
You're not being truthful. The state was factually boycotted for
merely mentioning the *possibility* of allowing students to think
for themselves. Other sources were cited of scientists
blacklisted for daring to question evolutionism. To dismiss all
those sources is to not be truthful.
> People are pushing
> their religious agenda onto the public schools
It's clear by bullying tactics, boycotting entire states that
even consider allowing students to think for themselves, and
scientists getting blacklisted if they even dare mention they
have doubts about evolutionism, it's evolutionists pushing their
agenda and thought control onto the public schools and the entire
population. =(
> when they cannot refute science in a proper venue.
Actually they can and I showed you how they did. But you can't
refute it when you're busy being silenced, blacklisted and while
future scientists are being indoctrinated into not being allowed
to think for themselves where fish to man evolution is concerned.
Funny how actual science has nothing to fear from students
thinking for themselves, and critiquing actual theories, and
encourage if not demand it. But evolutionism, which is not
science as pointed out in detail, has everything to fear from
more and more people's eyes being opened to the truth, and hence
only there is there thought control, blacklisting of scientists,
and boycotting of entire states that dare allow students to think
for themselves and critique evolutionism.
Meanwhile I challenge you to point out a single observation
and/or single repeatable test case of evolutionism actually
happening. No one can.
The points you brought up were refuted in detail, and sources
were cited to back it up, and you ignored all of it and try to
dismiss it all with an untruthful hand wave, which only makes it
seem you weren't really interested in the truth to begin with. =(
You are, ironically, a perfect live example of exactly the sort
of behavior the entire article is about. So your behavior
actually proves that it does happen as you're doing the same
thing.
And you avoided the other question. Since I presume you believe
in God:
Science shows that once a person's heart stops, and they are
dead, it's impossible for such a person to be risen from death
hours later, let alone three days later. This is scientific fact:
observable, and repeatable in test cases.
So, do you now follow what actually is scientific FACT and not
believe that Christ rose from death three days later? Or do you
instead have faith that God did what He said He did? Why or why
not?
Do you now follow what actually is scientific FACT and not
believe that Christ rose others from death, and performed all His
other miracles? Or do you instead have faith that God did what He
said He did? Why or why not?
And finally, if you do rely on faith and reject what really IS
science to believe Christ rose from death, ask yourself why you
believe what is *not* observable, and is *not* able to be shown
in any test cases as actually happening (in other words, what is
NOT science) and reject what God said instead?
Such a double standard is not even logical, because if you're
gong to cling to what's *not* observable and *not* able to be
shown in any test cases to reject what God says, why then reject
what IS observable and IS able to be shown in actual test cases
to suddenly have faith in what God said? A glaring and illogical
contradiction in faith.
It brings us back to the words of Jesus:
John 5:45-47 KJV
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?
The real problem that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for, the most
ardent professing children of God, is that they did not believe
the words Moses wrote down - and Jesus rebuked them as still dead
in their trespasses and sins.. And even today there are still
professing Christians who do not believe what Moses wrote.
Jesus clearly pointed out how dangerous it is to be ashamed of
God's Word, and the words of Christ, and how such people still do
not know God.
Matthew 7:21-23 KJV
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and
in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:38:31 -0800 (PST), In My Fathers House
><hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 3:20�pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:09:39 -0800 (PST), In My Fathers House
>> >
>> > <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Everyone is allowed to critique evolution. �However those critiques
>> > > are usually tested for merit.
>> >
>> > Actually they're not. It's what this entire article is all about:
>> > an *entire state* getting boycotted by evolutionists for merely
>> > mentioning the *possibility* of allowing fish to man evolution to
>> > be critiqued.
>>
>> You need to understand the meaning of science and the scientific
>> method,
>
>You're free to point out in detail
An you are free to shut up. But you won't.
>which only makes it look like you really don't have any idea.
We already know that YOU have no idea, and no interest in learning
one.
>> why we have separation of Church and State,
>
>Students being allowed to think for themselves has nothing to do
>with Church and State.
Students are allowed to think for themselves.
But in class they are required to learn what the state has decided for
them to learn, regardless of what they may think about it.
We don't much care whether they think that 2+2=22. They are required
to learn that mathematicians say that 2+2=4 in standard arithmetic.
>Not to mention you don't seem to understand separation of Church
>and State is about.
Far better than you do.
>> why Intelligent Design is religious,
>
>Actually it's not
The courts have ruled otherwise.
>As outlined in detail, it's undeniable fact we were created.
It is quite deniable, until and unless you provide evidence of some
creator. And indeed, by your own nonsensical standard for evolution,
you need to replicate an intelligent designer creating us in order to
prove that one could do so.
>You're free to refute the details if you're able.
Nothing to refute. You have provided no details.
>> appropriate venues for challenging scientific theory,
>
>Starts in the classroom by being allowed to think for yourself
No one can stop you from thinking for yourself.
>and question what you're told and critique what others claim,
There is a time and a place for that. There is also a time and place
to learn what the school requires you to learn.
>instead of being forced to believe it or else.
Nobody cares what you "believe". You'd better have the correct answer
on the test, or you will flunk, whether you "believe" it or not.
>> and why impressionable students shouldn't be confused.
>
>By being *forced* to believe
No one is capable of forcing you to believe anything.
>once upon a time populations of fish
>eventually evolved over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
>and people, let alone that it's even science,
Your parody of reality is not science.
>is what confuses impressionable students.
If they are confused, then they need to study harder. And stop
listening to clueless idiots like you.
>They are forced to believe
Nothing.
>science is about that which is *not* observable
Sometimes.
>and that which is *not* able to be shown in any test case,
Test cases are allowed to be quite creative.
>which of course is false
YOU don't get to decide what science is. Real scientists get to
decide what science is. They have decided that YOU ARE WRONG.
>It's why our students become sub-par scientists.
You have no clue; you are a sub-par idiot.
>It's why they go on to
>practice the "science" of silencing anyone that disagrees with
>them with a mere hand-waving,
Odd that we haven't been able to silence you,no matter how much we
practice it.
>start attacking the reputation of the person who pointed it out. =(
Your reputation needs no attacking. You reinforce it with every
stupid and repetitive post.
>You're not being truthful. The state was factually boycotted for
>merely mentioning the *possibility* of allowing students to think
>for themselves.
The state was not boycotted for any such thing.
The state was boycotted for adopting curricular materials that
*encouraged* students to challenge one *particular* scientific
teaching, when there is no justifiable basis for such challenge, and
no non-religious justification to encourage it.
>Other sources were cited of scientists blacklisted for daring to question evolutionism.
There is a right way to question evolution, and a wrong way. If you
do it the wrong way, then you are not considered a scientist.
But of course questioning evolution makes as much sense as questioning
whether the sun rises every day.
>> People are pushing
>> their religious agenda onto the public schools
>
>It's clear by bullying tactics, boycotting entire states that
>even consider allowing students to think for themselves, and
>scientists getting blacklisted if they even dare mention they
>have doubts about evolutionism, it's evolutionists pushing their
>agenda and thought control onto the public schools and the entire
>population. =(
The job of the public schools is to teach science to students. And
science is what scientists have decided that science is, not what you
erroneously "believe".
Yes, it is the scientists' "agenda" to ensure that what is taught in
the science classroom is what scientists consider to be science.
>> when they cannot refute science in a proper venue.
>
>Actually they can and I showed you how they did.
You have never shown anything except how idiotic your position is.
>Funny how actual science has nothing to fear from students
>thinking for themselves, and critiquing actual theories, and
>encourage if not demand it.
Actual science does not demand any such thing, until the students have
learned enough to intelligently critique.
>But evolutionism,
is a figment of your imagination.
[repetitive religious irrelevancy deleted]