Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Jose Fly]

That plus the actual evidence of design is there. So, me and the evidence is justification to teach it in class.

Because jose Fly does not have the evidence on his side like jollybear does.

Remember, we're talking about science curricula here. You say the evidence is there, I say it isn't. Who decides which one of us is right and puts or doesn't put it in the classroom?

 

[Jollybear]

Remember, we're talking about science curricula here. You say the evidence is there, I say it isn't. Who decides which one of us is right and puts or doesn't put it in the classroom?

Well, if i was in charge, i would decide to put it in the class. Unfortunately im not in charge.

So...the judge in the NOVA video he was in charge and he decided to not put it in the class. Unfortanately. That judge was a crazy man

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ok, so when naturalists infer DNA information did not come from intelligence and they infer the universe either came from nothing by chance and time or it was always existent, this is an argument from incredulity and not evidence too, yes, no?

Nope. naturalists don't make any claim about DNA coming from intelligence or not, they just study how it has changed through time. Science currently claims that intelligence is unnecessary for the development of DNA, and the actual extant evidence supports the claim, but no scientist makes any claim about intelligence definitively being involved or not.

Nor do naturtalists (or any other scientist) "infer the universe either came from nothing by chance and time or it was always existent"

If you're so unfamiliar with what science actually claims about these matters, it seems kind of silly to try to argue against them.

 

[Jose Fly]

So...the judge in the NOVA video he was in charge and he decided to not put it in the class.

So since ID creationists didn't convince a judge that their ideas should be taught in science classes, what should they do now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So since ID creationists didn't convince a judge that their ideas should be taught in science classes, what should they do now?

Ooh! Ooh! I know!! Form a testable hypothesis and see if it passes those tests.

 

[Jollybear]

Nope. naturalists don't make any claim about DNA coming from intelligence or not, they just study how it has changed through time. Science currently claims that intelligence is unnecessary for the development of DNA,

You just contradicted yourself. Now why did you go ahead and do such a silly thing like that? You see, when you contradict yourself to jollybear, he will expose it and that makes your argument appear silly. You dont want that to happen do you? Well, then, dont contradict yourself.

If science says an intelligence is UNNECESSARY for DNA, then thats an INFERENCE that intelligence was not behind DNA.

and the actual extant evidence supports the claim, but no scientist makes any claim about intelligence definitively being involved or not.

Oh, so the evidence shows intelligence did NOT make DNA? oh ok, tell me about it then.

Nor do naturtalists (or any other scientist) "infer the universe either came from nothing by chance and time or it was always existent"

Actually, there ARE some naturalist scientists that make this inference. Oh yes.

If you're so unfamiliar with what science actually claims about these matters, it seems kind of silly to try to argue against them.

Yawn.......why dont you educate me then, eh?

 

[Jose Fly]

Ooh! Ooh! I know!! Form a testable hypothesis and see if it passes those tests.

 

[Skwim]

No, its through bias and the absolute WANT for a naturalistic explanation that an intelligent cause has been rejected. The scientific method does not show intelligence is not behind the universe.

Good grief!!

Have a nice day.

 

[Jollybear]

So since ID creationists didn't convince a judge that their ideas should be taught in science classes, what should they do now?

They should either repeal. Or get trump to push it because trump is friendly to ID.

I dont know what else they could do. The world is controlled by stupid people in power. What can ya do?

 

[Jose Fly]

They should either repeal. Or get trump to push it because trump is friendly to ID.

Lol...the President can't overturn a court ruling.

I dont know what else they could do.

Well, looks like you're screwed then.

 

[Jollybear]

Good grief!!

Have a nice day.

Good grief is right!

Have a good........night. its night time here.

 

[Jollybear]

Lol...the President can't overturn a court ruling.

Ah, dang, that sucks, lol. Apeal then, with a different judge.

Well, looks like you're screwed then.

Yes, unless they appeal. Ive listened a good bit from stephen myer. He seams to make headway. No firm victories, but hes pressing the battle.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, dang, that sucks, lol. Apeal then, with a different judge.

But they didn't. Wonder why?

Ive listened a good bit from stephen myer. He seams to make headway. No firm victories, but hes pressing the battle.

Who is he making his case to?

 

[Altfish]

Ive seen this video before years ago. I did watch it again though as a refresher.

Few things about it id like to point out.

1, they say newton did not propose a supernatural cause.

This is false, newton in fact believed in God and did propose that intelligence was behind the ordering of the universe.

2, they and the judge really went after the motives of the people, the funders of ID and the ID scientists. They went after the motives more rather then the evidence for design.

Finding the motivation behind a theory or organization is fine and dandy, but the evidence needs to be adressed on its own merits.

Also, and this is a fact! That any religion can adhere to ID, not just christianity, not just fundamentalism, but also jews, muslims and others. In fact, even those who believe aliens made us can and DO adhere to ID. Theres a guy name salvador who comes on this forum and he believes aliens made us. So, thats a form of intelligent cause. Thats NOT religion. Seeing evidence of a intelligent cause is not religion in and of itself. If that wer the case then your post and my post, which comes from us (which us is intelligence) would be religion. And of course, to propose that is rediculious. Likewise, the evidence for design shows intelligence, that needs to be adressed on its own two feet. Thats not religion. The motives of people may or may not be religious, but ID has scientific evidence. Period.

3, the issue of the word "creationism" and "intelligent design" they say is the same.

This is a thing of samantics. Who cares if its called creation, design or even engineering. The evidence is there.

1. Newton did believe in God, a creator, he also believed in alchemy. Newton was not a biologist, he was a mathematician and scientist. He also lived and died over one hundred years before Darwin published his books that explained how life evolved on earth.
2. The judge was a Bush appointed judge with good conservative credentials. The case collapsed when the ID side realised that their case was built on lies and one by one pulled out and refused to give evidence.
The evidence presented was truly shown up for what it was ...unscientific rubbish.
3. It was proven in the drafts of the book "Of Pandas and People" that the ID side were being creative by changing the name. Needless to say, they initially denied this.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You just contradicted yourself. Now why did you go ahead and do such a silly thing like that? You see, when you contradict yourself to jollybear, he will expose it and that makes your argument appear silly. You dont want that to happen do you? Well, then, dont contradict yourself.

If science says an intelligence is UNNECESSARY for DNA, then thats an INFERENCE that intelligence was not behind DNA.

No, it's not.

Oh, so the evidence shows intelligence did NOT make DNA? oh ok, tell me about it then.

I didn't say that. The evidence shows intelligence is unnecessary to the development. It makes no claims about it's involvement.

Actually, there ARE some naturalist scientists that make this inference. Oh yes.

Name any?

Yawn.......why dont you educate me then, eh?

You can choose to remain ignorant all you like. Getting snbarky at me for trying to give you correct information isn't going to make you right.

 

[ecco]

They should either repeal. Or get trump to push it because trump is friendly to ID.

I dont know what else they could do. The world is controlled by stupid people in power. What can ya do?

Are you totally unaware of what you just wrote?

 

[Shad]

But they didn't. Wonder why?

There was a school board election which resulted in the IDer losing their seats. The new board was, at the time, against ID so declined to file an appeal. The case was against the school thus the school board not individual people. Without the associated board seat no one had a right to appeal be it former members or Behe

 

[Jose Fly]

There was a school board election which resulted in the IDer losing their seats. The new board was, at the time, against ID so declined to file an appeal. The case was against the school thus the school board not individual people. Without the associated board seat no one had a right to appeal be it former members or Behe

That's all very true. But if the ID creationists truly believed that their ideas warranted inclusion in public school science classes, they could have just tried again in another school district.

Even now, the ID creationist think tank, the Discovery Institute, no longer advocates for teaching ID creationism. They long ago moved on to "teaching the problems with evolution".

 

[Skwim]

That's all very true. But if the ID creationists truly believed that their ideas warranted inclusion in public school science classes, they could have just tried again in another school district.

Even now, the ID creationist think tank, the Discovery Institute, no longer advocates for teaching ID creationism. They long ago moved on to "teaching the problems with evolution".

And actually, "teaching the problems with evolution" is the only way they have of making a case for creationism---relying on a few verses in the Bible is hardly going to do it. So they posit the ridiculous presupposition that if evolution is wrong then, by default, creationism has to be right.

.

 

[Polymath257]

You just contradicted yourself. Now why did you go ahead and do such a silly thing like that? You see, when you contradict yourself to jollybear, he will expose it and that makes your argument appear silly. You dont want that to happen do you? Well, then, dont contradict yourself.

If science says an intelligence is UNNECESSARY for DNA, then thats an INFERENCE that intelligence was not behind DNA.

No, it is not. For example, intelligence isn't *necessary* to split a rock. But it is possible for an intelligence to split a rock. Do you see the difference?

So, if we see a rock that was split apart, we cannot say one way or the other whether an intelligence did the splitting. If intelligence *were* necessary, we would be able to make the inference that an intelligence did it. If intelligence was shown to not be able to split the rock, we could *infer* that no intelligence did it.

But, our current amount of information is that intelligence isn't *required* for DNA. If you want to claim that some DNA is the result of intelligence, you need to do more work.