7 School Board candidates would oppose teaching creationism

Stillwater Gazette ^ | 10/28/03 | Greg Huff

[metacognative]

see Cobalt blue/ jennyp exchange...besides Marx was an fervent materialistic atheistic evolutionist

[metacognative]

Pay attention. The sun IS running down. Without maintenance, your car WIll run down. Maybe you have a maid, so you don't realize that orderliness runs down...not up!

[Dimensio]

Pay attention. The sun IS running down.

Bait and switch. You said that the "world is running down", not the sun. The sun is, in fact, running down, however before it runs its course it will continue to direct the same amount of energy toward this planet for a few more million years. So long as that keeps happening, the world won't run down. Yes, the world will run down once the sun runs its course (actually, it will probably be incinerated in the resulting red giant), but for now there is no "running down" of the world.

Without maintenance, your car WIll run down.

Non-sequitur. The planet is not a car.

[Dimensio]

besides Marx was an fervent materialistic atheistic evolutionist

Therefore what?

Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to turn to Christ after he was caught. Should I conclude that all Christians were cannibal serial killers before their conversion?

[Ogmios]

As long as the earth recieves more energy then it uses, it will not run down.

The sun is not running down, it is only a middle aged star.

It will last for another 4 billion years at least, then it will probably expand and destroy the earth and Possibly Mars, and if it does go supernova, everything within the solar system will be destroyed.

In the meantime, the earth is getting more energy from the sun then it uses, this is why when it is clear at night, the heat escapes to space, this is why plants grow, this is why storms rage, this is why the surface of the earth stays warm, etc, etc, etc.

The sun does, still does, and will continue to, give the earth more energy then it can possibly use, and as long as that continues, evolution, weather patterns, etc, will continue to occur, when the sun finally fades, in another 3-4 billion years, then the 2nd law will kick in with a vengeance, until then, the earth will continue to do what it has done for the last 4 1/2 billion years.

Life itself is the result of all this energy from the sun, life is the battery that keeps a percentage of that energy here on earth, the earth itself also holds some of that energy, and releases it, this is what causes weather, hurricanes, snow storms, rain. It is, all of it, powered by the sun.

When storms quit raging, when snow stops falling, when plants stop growing, when night is 24 hours a day, then we can talk about the earth running down, until then, nothing of that sort is occurring.

[Dales]

Amazing.

Four threads up in two days. Over 400 replies made on them.

Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse. Not a single email about abuse.

You know what that tells me?

It tells me that there was never a reason for all the crap that usually goes on in these threads. Good. Let's keep it this way.

[metacognative]

OK, I give up. There is no Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now can I be a Darwinite too?

[metacognative]

If you're silly. Sure. Go right ahead.

[Ogmios]

Of course there is a 2nd law, but it applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system, and until the sun dies, it will not be.

When the sun finally fades and dies, the 2nd law will kick in with a vengeance, but until then, it does not apply to the earth biospheric system. If it ever gets the chance to kick in, because when the sun finally does die, it will expand and swallow all of the inner planets, thus destroying them, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and possibly Mars will be consumed.

[metacognative]

The Darwinite Myth is our Liberal Elite Creation Story. Atoms pop out of nowhere and do impossible things...culminating in ecosystems and intelligence.
If you accept it, you get promoted in Academia's priesthood. Otherwise You're an ignorant heretic. Scientific evidence points to Mind before Matter, but you must not speak this truth.

[Ogmios]

Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more.

If it threatens your religious viewpoint, I believe that it is a personal problem.

I have no problem with evolution, the evidence is mounting up as we speak, and it has been mounting up for the last 150 years.

As I said, I have no problem with evolution, then again, I do not take Genesis literally.

Also, evolution is science, and creationism is Religion.

Beleive one or the other, or believe both, because neither of them actually contradict the other. One is science, one is religion, they can't contradict, because they are 2 different things.

[whattajoke]

The Darwinite Myth is our Liberal Elite Creation Story.

Actually, the term, "Darwinite Myth," is a false construct of bible literalists and has no real weight or meaning. Also, Darwin's works were published long before the liberal elite became a distinct "force," for lack of a better term.

Atoms pop out of nowhere...

Actually, Darwin never once mentioned "The beginning of life" in all his work, to my knowledge, and evolutionary theory does not touch on such things. Darwin was also not aware of atoms, so the "Darwinite Myth," has once again proven to be a false costruct of bible literalists. Oh, and Darwin also believed in the Christian God and happened to have a theology degree.

...and do impossible things...

I assure you that atoms have never once done impossible things. That's the nature of science. That is, if we observe it, it is therefore not impossible. If you have some cites to back up your statement that atoms have done the impossible (aside from Genesis 1-5), please educate me.

If you accept it, you get promoted in Academia's priesthood.

Not to be nitpicky, but there is no such thing as a "priesthood," in Academia. The "priesthood" is reserved for Catholicism and some of its various offshoots.

Scientific evidence points to Mind before Matter, but you must not speak this truth.

I am very excited to see this evidence of which you speak. I promise not to steal it, and will give you full credit for it. You surely do realize that this evidence will turn the scientific establishment on its head, garner you all sorts of awards and recognition, and propel your name to historically stand beside the Newtons, Pascals, and Einsteins for all eternity. Congrats.

[Dimensio]

I believe that metacognative has made it clear that he's not interested in intelligent discussion. He's just here to spout stupid, trite one-liners that have nothing to do with real science since he's either too lazy to do any real research or he's too afraid that his fragile worldview will be shattered if he learns that the facts are stacked against him.

[metacognative]

You are nitpicky and humorless. And I am not a biblical literalist. Read Luke anyway.

[metacognative]

Why do you darwinites always want to talk religion?

[whattajoke]

You are nitpicky and humorless.

Thank you. The mark of a good scientist. (Though, I am most assuredly not "humorless," if you must know).

Read Luke anyway.

I have. Maybe I will revisit it, thanks for the suggestion. You then posted to Ogmios,

"Why do you darwinites always want to talk religion?"

Getting past the fact that there is no such thing as a "Darwinite," as I previously made very clear to you, why would you suggest I read Luke and than get snippy when someone else wishes to discuss a related topic?

That's just odd.

[PatrickHenry]

Marx was an fervent materialistic atheistic evolutionist

Oh? How could that be? Yes, Marx was an atheist (which Darwin was not), but was Marx an evolutionist too? Most of Marx's written work was published before Darwin published Origin of Species, so evolution couldn't have influenced Marx at all. Marx's final work, Das Capital, was published later, and mentioned nothing about Darwin or evolution.

[whattajoke]

Oh, and btw, I never once said you were a bible literalist, just that some of your phrasing was borrowed from those who are, that's all.

Also, in light of my post # 72, as well as PatrickHenry's post # 77, will you be retracting posts #61 and #70 at the very least?

[metacognative]

Luke is believable isn't he? Much more so than old evolutionary ideas. By the way, I think I'm a Bergsonian-Lamarckist still searching the evidence.

[metacognative]

Please quote 'bible-literalist'. Retract what for why?