Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
Facts? I have yet to see you post a single "fact" ~ lots of invective and condemnation of others, and a general stream of abusive language, but never facts.
That whole "If Brett Favre throws a pass and the reciever doesn't see it, does it count" philosphical musing from before?
That wasn't scientific refutation, it was just some moonshine cogatin'
I put it to you: Please provide scientific refutation of TToE as documented in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.
It is a very easy and straightforward request. No musings, no flute-playing bongo-pounding. Links with the information.
I love you dearly, dear PH. But you seem to be a hopeless case. I pray not. God bless.
Please provide a reference for which I have not provided facts and I will provide them now.
Except that their arrogance will not lead them to care about who they are talking to. They are right because they say they are right - end of discussion for them.
Thanks for the information...I like your Screenname, and your tagline...a fine sense of humor...often, thats needed here...thanks...
You are hopeless.
"A statement in which you accuse someone of having an uneducated opinion without any knowledge of them is the epitome of arrogance, self-righteousness, and extreme smugness."
We can only make conclusions about a poster based on their posting history.
The subject at hand is very specific. Those that have knowledge within this narrow field express that knowledge through the words they use, intentional or not. When I speak to a microbiologist I can expect to see language that exhibits confidence in the subject matter when speaking about microbiology. When I speak with an archaeologist I can expect to see a level of information and confidence when discussing archeology different than when discussing a less familiar subject.
When I speak to someone who is highly opinionated but has little real information about a subject I tend to see opinion buttressed by bravado.
Although the written word does not convey the same information about the author as direct face to face speech does about the speaker, the written word, as on this board, is not information free.
If the poster I originally addressed is educated in the subject at hand, evolution, or some part of it, let him put his knowledge on the line and address comments made to him about evolution. So far all that has been expressed by that poster has been notably information free.
If the poster starts including information in his/her posts then I was wrong, I will apologize and we can have a rational discussion.
If the poster continues to make nothing but smug remarks completely free of any science then I can only communicate with him as though he has no information.
This is not equivalent to saying he is generally uneducated, but that he is uneducated in the subject under discussion.
If my image of the poster based on his/her posting history makes me smug, so be it. That does not mean the other poster is any less smug. If you are attempting to fairly remind us to place our attitude at the door then speak to that poster as well.
YEP!!!
Thanks so much for writing, dear hosepipe!
Science and evolution are opposites.
"I put it to you: Please provide scientific refutation of TToE as documented in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals."
You cannot refute that which is junk science. The circular logic (or rather lack of) doesn't permit a cogent discussion, let alone refutation. If I say anything, you'll find some fault (as evidenced in your inability to answer the earlier questions I raised and instead engaged in an ad hominen attack against my position). Therefore, I cannot refute what you refuse anything as you refuse to look at another possibilities.
Make him angry? - What a laugh, he designed DNA to prevent evolution, you'll make him proud!
For one thing they use a period of time almost a thousand years shorter. And then the vast majority of "Biblical Creationists" argue from an entirely different base than you and your friends in the "young Earth" society.
Hmmm -- thought they got it from Numbers or the heredity of Jesus. But 1K years one way or the other is pretty meaningless given the 2-4 Billion Years the earth has been around (and it is a youngling in the Galaxy to boot).
You must understand that NO religious person accepts your interpretation of what the Bible does or does not say ~ you are not, as it happens, a trustworthy witness.
Do you REALLY want me to go back and post links to the YECers who use the 6K number?
Your additional argument on behalf of mysterious, unseeable, invisible demigods also casts doubt on your claims to "knowledge".
Huh? I am starting to think you have misfired this post.
Like to point out further that the overwhelming majority of religious people who believe God created the universe also accept the idea that "evolution" may well have been created by God.
And I am one of them.
My beliefs on these matters are a bit different, but that's neither here nor there. It's just that I cannot stomach the degree of ignorance about religion expressed by so many of the Evos who glom onto these threads. With the internet available, there's simply no excuse for you to continue your ignorance. It'd improve your arguments if you could understand who you are talking to.
OK -- put down the bottle and step away from the keyboard.
Ah, but knowing which is which is the important thing. But how do you know? How do you know?
When an elder tells you one, are you going to say its false?
From Nazis to idolaters to Islamic terrorists.
It just keeps getting better.
Guess I shouldn't be surprised to find a animist hanging with them eh?!
IOW, you cannot refute that which is irrefutable.
That is all I wanted -- an admission that you are blowing smoke out your butt.
You bring up the alleged "ad hominem" argument a little late. Next time, use it right away (/Debate Coach Advice).
See how easy I am to please?
Next time bring your "A" game.
No attempt was made to supress science, only evolution, which is a godless philosophy masquerading as 'science.'
Evolution, the religion of socialism.
Tell us again, O wise one, how Western medicine is unable to cure anything. That'll rake in the votes, for sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.