Creationist Bill Signed by Jindal

LGF ^ | June 27, 2008

[EveningStar]

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.

The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.

[humblegunner]

Why should the Darwinsim be taught as truth?

Because it makes more sense than "magic".

Hey.. how old do you suppose the world is?

[WVKayaker]

Do you believe in a God powerful enough to generate the fullness of the Universe, entirely from His will?

I do not subscribe to a flat-earth society. I beleive God CREATED what we have. IMHO, Evolution as a philosophy is trying to scientifically describe the things we see around us, and then trying to convince us that there is no God...

I have faith in gravity. I have faith in Math. I have faith in thermodynamics. I have faith in Astronomy. I have faith in many of the sciences. I see their validity being proved when I see a live picture from the surface of Mars. I see the study of the earth benefiting us in untold ways.

But, to every man is given but one opportunity to live here on earth. We have only one chance to get things right. I guess you could spend your time gazing at stars, but you better make sure of Whom, or what, you believe put them there!

I'm not going to argue theology here. I am arguing for my faith. I don't feel TOE devotees have the soap box to themselves, and I am more than willing to knock them out of the way, whenever I want to speak. We do have that RIGHT, don't we? Or, is it just that you don't want to hear about God?

I started into this thread with some posts from the founding documents. They still have effect today! Read them again, if you disagree, THEN get back to me...

Tagline applies!

My dog, Spot!

[Dinsdale]

Science doesn’t arbitrate Truth. It finds things (theories) that work for now...

Evolution is one of the key theories. It is central to our understanding of biology.

The fact you don’t like that doesn’t change science one bit. You are not qualified. Neither am I. I’m not trying to redefine science to include creationism. Hint a PhD in a closely related field is a prerequisite for being taken seriously in some circles (not always correctly, but it keeps the signal to noise ratio up, unlike these discussions).

Perhaps if you started studying now you could contribute to the discussion in 10 or 15 years.

[allmendream]

Yes, and your contention that the Sun moves around a motionless earth is as preposterous as contending that it is the Semi truck that is motionless while the entire city moves towards it at 60 mph. Both are equally valid as a mathematical model. But what force is moving the ENTIRE CITY while leaving the truck motionless? What force is moving the ENTIRE MASS of the SUN while leaving the Earth motionless.

Gravity shows that less massive objects are held in the sway of more massive objects and orbit them. Our Sun circles the galactic core, our planet circles the Sun along with the other planets, and small moons circle most of the planets.

Only in Bizzarro world do tiny objects hold massive objects in their orbits.

But it is fun seeing the intellectual caliber of those who deny Biology also has them rejecting Gravity, Astronomy, and Math.

Still no Bible quote to support your contention. Just your boundless ego that YOU must be at the center of the Universe. The Earth need not be at the center for God to see us or to love us.

[tacticalogic]

Do you believe in a God powerful enough to generate the fullness of the Universe, entirely from His will?

Sure. He could have created it exactly as we see it today. The testament of the evidence we find in his creation says he didn't. This is not a disagreement over beliefs about what God could have done, but a disagreement over beliefs about the specifics of exactly what he did, how he did it, and how long it took.

[tacticalogic]

IMHO, Evolution as a philosophy is trying to scientifically describe the things we see around us, and then trying to convince us that there is no God...

OK, that's your opinion. Are you willing to submit that opinion to a critical examination in a purely theological context, and in purely theological terms?

[tacticalogic]

I started into this thread with some posts from the founding documents. They still have effect today! Read them again, if you disagree, THEN get back to me...

If I simply disagree with the context you're trying to put them in, can I just tell you that now?

[WVKayaker]

...Hint a PhD in a closely related field is a prerequisite for being taken seriously in some circles...

I have plenty of experience with PhD's. "Piled higher and Deeper" comes to mind! I could care less what a bunch of theoreticians declare. Biology study predates TOEvolution, FRiend. TOE is trying to naturally explain what God has given us. There will always be adherents to anything anti-God.

You can lift your "signal to noise ratio up" crap right into the garbage can it belongs. Having eloquent discussions, and patti ng yourselves on the back, will make no difference in eternity...

In the Beginning, God... In the end, God! Always, and forever, God. Alpha and Omega, God. Eternal Creator, God. Savior, God. God is Love.

I'm pretty sure you hate to read that! It makes you livid to think how foolish we are... but it is your animosity toward God fueling that angst! It is the thought of God that disturbs you. Man is almighty, God is a figment, is the mantra you espouse. But, deep in your soul, you long to be reconciled back into His family. He knows your heart... and He is calling you home!

Call it science, call it whatever. It is all in your mind! I can paint spots on a pig. Believe it or not!

My dog, Spot!

[WVKayaker]

If I simply disagree with the context

The Framers didn't delineate any context that I read. Religion is your problem, not mine.

Don't bother to reply. I am sure you have nothing to add... especially since yo have added nothing yet!

[tacticalogic]

The Framers didn't delineate any context that I read.

Only someone using a quote out of context would submit that it doesn't have one.

[Fichori]

"Sure. He could have created it exactly as we see it today. The testament of the evidence we find in his creation says he didn't. This is not a disagreement over beliefs about what God could have done, but a disagreement over beliefs about the specifics of exactly what he did, how he did it, and how long it took."

I think The Parable of the Candle is a great demonstration of this issue.

[WVKayaker]

Do not reply to me any more, please. You are nothing but a contrarian, and I gave into your game long enough. You have added nothing to the conversation, but your continuous straw men and bent for antagonism..

I will agree to disagree. I know context. Good day.

[tacticalogic]

bent for antagonism..

You got answered in kind. I won't if you won't.

[tacticalogic]

I think The Parable of the Candle is a great demonstration of this issue.

I think trying to make that parable analagous is a fallacy of over-simplification.

[editor-surveyor]

Since you have zero understanding of physics, a ‘debate’ with you is like playing mash the mole.

You just keep coming back with the same ignorant strawmen.

[JamesP81]

Places to teach creationism / ID:

Home: YES

Church: YES

Parochial schools: YES

Public schools: NO

Institutions that have a positive impact on society:

The Home: YES
The Church: YES
Parochial schools: YES
Public schools: NO (and furthermore, HELL NO).

One has to wonder if this is all a coincidence.

[editor-surveyor]

Its the logical opposite of your silly examples; Its in ancient written texts that are unchanged for 3500 years.

Your examples are fantasies born in the early modern period, by the minds of the Bible haters.

I know that it is hard for one of your mind to accept, but the Bible is the sum total of all necessary and relevant information. That which is outside of the Bible is born suspect, and visibly unnessary for dignified human existence.

[editor-surveyor]

"One has to wonder if this is all a coincidence."

I hope that you don't waste too much time wondering if its a coincidence that the sun always rises in the east. ;o)

[GourmetDan]

"Now please show me where enough force is generated by any planetary or celestial body upon the earth to counteract the observed and calculated force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth. Should be easy enough, after all you claim to have Einstein on your side!"

Yeah, that would be the work done by Thirring as referred to in the following excerpt from Max Born that I had previously posted.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

George Ellis confirms that geocentrism can only be excluded on philosophical grounds.

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

That is what you do.

[GourmetDan]

"You do know the Big Bang was formulated by a priest."

Sorry but I don't accept something just because a priest formulated it.

"If the Catholic Church says the Big Bang is a-okay...I don’t see what the hubbub is about."

So was the Catholic Church correct when it supported geocentrism or is it correct now that it doesn't?