E
edwest
Guest
Dodge and weave. Dodge and weave. The fact that a flower is designed is paramount. Cars are very simple by comparison.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
edwest
Guest
I’m sure he wasn’t at the Dover trial. By the way, was the judge a scientist?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Can you let me know what scale you use to indicate complexity?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Buff wasn’t at Dover, I’m sure. But he seemed to be unaware that people have already cottoned on to the fact that, despite ID’s claims that the designer is unknown, it really means God. Gosh, it was such a surprise.
But having confirmed that in the trial and despite the DI lying about it, the judge came to the conclusion that they wanted to promote God via science classes. As Buffalo just stated himself.
So it wasn’t a decision based on science, but that fact above.
B
buffalo
Guest
ID the science cannot say who the designer is. Science is not done in the courtroom.
B
buffalo
Guest
If ID, the science, is not allowed in science class neither can evolution since it is not empirical. Now design can be observed, is repeatable and predictable.
Evolution is philosophy and should be in the philosophy class.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
We should just teach partial truths to our children. Nice.
Should God be allowed to be taught in public school philosophy class?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Those who promote ID the science that says there is a designer. And those who promote ID the philosphical claim that the designer is God are the same people. You stated exactly that above.You cannot, and didn’t above, separate the two. Hence you were thrown out on your ear in Dover. The judge came to the conclusion that matches exactly what you just said earlier.Bradskii:
ID the science cannot say who the designer is.
If you were there, you would have been a witness for the school board. You do realise that don’t you? You have a habit of letting off that .45 when it is pointing towards your lower leg, but this is exceptional even foryou.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am and was fully aware of this joke of a trial.
Why would a judge interested in science stop science from being taught just because he does not like the direction or conclusions that can be reached from it. Sure, let’s just keep indoctrinating kids with evo, just so we never have to confront God.
B
Bradskii
Guest
It seems you are not aware of the trial as regards its decision. Which wasn’t to prevent science being taught, but to prevent creationism being taught. See the constitution for further details (first amendment).Bradskii:
I am and was fully aware of this joke of a trial.
Why would a judge interested in science stop science from being taught just because he does not like the direction or conclusions that can be reached from it. Sure, let’s just keep indoctrinating kids with evo, just so we never have to confront God.
A decision that would seem to back up your statement that the DI promotes ID and that the creator was God.
PS: It’s only a joke if you lose.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
So?
Sure, loaded questions like “Are you a Catholic” would certainly disqualify me. It was a joke. The judge could not possibly accept that I would be interested in teaching truth. And then he rejects IR because it refutes evolution? No bias there.
In any case, even though he blocks it from the public school, children still can learn about philosophy and design. Things that are true stand the test of time. Evo won’t.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You would have been a great witness:
Mr. Buffalo, could you explain your position?
Mr. Buffalo, could you explain your position?
Council for the Design Institute: Objection, m’lud!
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
And ID, the science, does not. You really are afraid of the implications and it is not honest to prevent kids rom learning about ID, the science. However, it seems Darwinist’s will do anything to not teach anything that does not glowingly affirm the theory.
E
edwest
Guest
Right, and right. ID is obvious. Scientists are making bio-inspired devices, and have been for decades.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yet, that is exactly the position the Judge took in his decision. Remember, we have to keep God out of the schools.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I said you didn’t know the details of the case but I didn’t expect you to prove it so succinctly.
He didn’t reject IR (sic). He wasn’t asked to comment on it. He had no expertise in the subject. All he had to do was make a decision if the DI was promoting creationism. It was. Even by your own admission (see umpteen previous posts).
If you knew about the case then you would know this. Go Google it…
B
Bradskii
Guest
No, you don’t. I appear to know more about your own constitiution then you do.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Atheism must be taught. As in, no one made you. You are a mobile sack of chemicals. You can do whatever you want. And you die to nothing.
I’m obligated to tell everyone reading: after you die, there will be a judgement.
I’m obligated to tell everyone reading: after you die, there will be a judgement.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Straw man. Nobody must teach atheism and no-one is denying God by teaching evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
He actually followed Miller’s claim which was wrong. Jones was upset that ID was an attack on evo. He thought Miller refuted ID and therefore it was not science, which is entirely wrong. After all, evolution is wrong but so many still consider it science.
- Status