Skip to comments.
Revote today [Dover, PA school board]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^
| 03 January 2006
| TOM JOYCE
Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760, 761-780, 781-800 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
To: highball
"This dinosaur bone is x number of years old," for example. That's a fact."
Come on. There are always scientists who disagree with other scientists about everything. And haven't the ways they prove age changed over time?
761
posted on
01/05/2006 8:01:26 AM PST
by
mlc9852
To: highball; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe
...we have a school board who wanted to use the power of their office to enshrine their own faith in science classes to the exclusion of all others. Then they lied about it under oath, and they lied about the money trail. Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
762
posted on
01/05/2006 8:04:34 AM PST
by
betty boop
(Dominus illuminatio mea.)
To: betty boop
[ they figure they're gonna kill us in the end, by means of a daily saturation of pure, unadulterated, mean-spirited, slander-mongering, conspiracy-minded, hateful, despicable, jealous, deceitful, and ultimately irrational h*rs*sh*t. ]
Often thought that, but stiffled myself from actually saying it.. Cleaned out my clock actually repeating this verbally.. Thanks I needed that..
763
posted on
01/05/2006 8:05:20 AM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
To: mlc9852
I composed that entire reply in the hopes that you were serious about this conversation, and that's the best you can do?
764
posted on
01/05/2006 8:07:00 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: YHAOS
[ that no restoration of the concept will be possible, short of a Second Revolution. ]
As the founders provided for, and recommended I might add..
765
posted on
01/05/2006 8:07:42 AM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
To: highball
Look, no one is going to change their mind on this subject which should be obvious to you. Therefore I don't take it very seriously. If you do, fine.
766
posted on
01/05/2006 8:08:22 AM PST
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
And haven't the ways they prove age changed over time? Yes. They have become more accurate.
767
posted on
01/05/2006 8:10:39 AM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
And will probably become more accurate still, correct?
768
posted on
01/05/2006 8:11:27 AM PST
by
mlc9852
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe
Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
You'll have to take up your disagreement with ID's proponents, then - that's exactly what it is, by their own admission.
Additionally, in this very case the school board members were caught admitting that in bringing ID into the science class, they were specifically intending to introduce "creationism" and "Christianity."
The text book that the board wanted to direct students to was a Creation Science textbook with the words "creation science" cut out and replaced with the words "intelligent design."
I'll agree that not everybody who wants ID in the classroom does so because they're interested in pushing "a species of Christian creationism." But you cannot deny that the major players certainly are, the organizations behind it certainly are, and the people involved in this case certainly were.
769
posted on
01/05/2006 8:12:49 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: mlc9852
Look, no one is going to change their mind on this subject which should be obvious to you. Therefore I don't take it very seriously. If you do, fine.
Wait, you're not interested in actual evidence?
What exactly is the point of asking your questions, then?
770
posted on
01/05/2006 8:13:48 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: puroresu
Harvard makes its own rules. There is no major university that doesn't have a quota system for admissions.
I'm just pointing out that where quota systems exist, groups will push and shove for advantage. I don't see this as having anything to do with the establishment clause.
I rather doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn established precedents to allow teaching nonsense. The main outcome of the Dover decision is to make it clear that ID, as put forward by the Discover Institute and the "Pandas" book, is dishonest foolishness.
The best reason for oppose teaching ID in science class is it will put a religious claim on the dissecting table. When religion tries to play by the rules of science, it tends to lose. Whatever you believe about miracles, they are shy about leaving evidence. I don't think you want religious beliefs subjected to the requirement that they must be supported by evidence.
The Discovery Institute has this fantasy that they will change science. Fat chance. Science is bound by only one abiding requirement: ideas must produce or suggest research. Sterile ideas will never take hold, and ID is the granddaddy of sterile ideas. ID advocates, particularly on this forum, think that research should be stopped, because the goal is inherently immoral or destined to be futile.
771
posted on
01/05/2006 8:14:28 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Fester Chugabrew; js1138
[ And if I don't will you altogether disavow the fallibility of human reason, be only a slight believer, or set yourself up as its infallible king? ]
LoL.....
772
posted on
01/05/2006 8:18:49 AM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
To: highball; betty boop; hosepipe
As if it matters, whether by stealth or directly, that the scientific model of intelligent design controverts the atheistic assumptions of a handful of folks. It does not matter whether the people involved in this case try to make their point directly or indirectly. The reaction from those who prefer to see the government establish atheistic principles in the science classroom will be the same. As usual the issue is twisted into one of methodology vs. substance, much as democrats do when they whine about how the memo was obtained as opposed to what the memo says.
To: mlc9852
And will probably become more accurate still, correct? Radiometric dating (discovered in the first half of the last century) enabled the first measurements of the age of rocks with any viable degree of accuracy. Using different isoptic rates, statistical uncertainties of <0.1% in the age of rocks 100's of millions years old has been achieved in some circumstances.
Prior to the discovery of radioactivity, estimates of the age of the earth had little accuracy, and the practitioners of geology at the time knew that.
Science continually refines its results - it rarely (if ever) needs to dump them all and start from scratch.
774
posted on
01/05/2006 8:21:21 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Divination is NOT science.)
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
[ The Constitution must never again be treated as an etch a sketch by the Supremes. / From your lips to God's ear, Alamo-Girl! ]
Beautiful sound bite.. LoL..
775
posted on
01/05/2006 8:21:50 AM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
To: Fester Chugabrew; betty boop; hosepipe
Oh, please.
This isn't about "atheistic principles in the science classroom" unless your definition of "atheistic" is "anything not reinforcing my religious belief."
Science is no more atheistic than math. You may want to infer a Creator from the presence of both, and such is your right. Unless you have physical evidence, however, you're not dealing with science.
But you knew that. We've discussed this before. You just choose to redefine words to make them mean what you prefer they mean.
776
posted on
01/05/2006 8:24:14 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: js1138
The best reason for oppose teaching ID in science class is it will put a religious claim on the dissecting table.Poppycock. As if evolutionists at the operating table consult Charles Darwin. The operating table entails specific physical functions that are scientifically accessible regardless of religious persuasions. "Hey, before I slice you up, I just want to remind you the earth is 4.5 billion years old and your ancestors were apes." LOL!
To: highball
Science is no more atheistic than math.It is when it operates under the assumption that a supreme being is not, and will never be, under its purview.
To: Quark2005
Carbon-14 is only reliable back to what, 50,000 years? But that isn't always that they believed, right?
779
posted on
01/05/2006 8:27:55 AM PST
by
mlc9852
Comment #780 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760, 761-780, 781-800 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson