22 Jul 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat about the idea of separation of church and state?
What about the idea of separation of church and state? It looks to me a whole lot like the state pushing religious dogma onto a science course. How can you even suggest it to be worthy of comparison to science? It belongs in a religious study group. What exactly is wrong with doing religion in a religion class and doing science in a science class? I'll tell ...[text shortened]... news supporting ID. Any other outcome is scoffed at, CONSPIRACY is what they screech.
What about it? Religion deals with food, sex, dress, family, keeping
your word, and more than a few other topics. So you have a complaint
that those lines get crossed from time to time?
Kelly
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayNo thanks, I get enough preaching.
If you want to discuss what it does say I suggest you start a thread in
the spiritual forum and I'll answer your questions.
Kelly
You consistently refuse to answer any questions here, why should that change just because it's in the spirituality forum?
I'm asking you for scientific evidence that the bible is true. That is appropriate in the science forum.
Is there any actual, objective evidence?
The problem is, the facts on the ground are not consistent with the bible being literally true.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIn this case the posters point of view is relevant to all academic teaching, it is not purely because they disagree that makes it bad.
Yep, anything that disagrees with your point of view is that bad!
Kelly
Teaching non science in a science class is bad.
Teaching japanese in a french class is bad.
Teaching fiction in a history class is bad.
Do I need go on or do you get the point?
The posters disagreement is purely highlighting that a good education system teaches relevant material in the appropriate class, but hey KJ we've been over this before and you continually fail to grasp the concept.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by timebombtedHe grasps the concept just fine. He is just his usual obtuse self about intellectual honesty and the motives for such activity. He cannot admit to himself even, the fact the reason for forcing ID and creationism in science class is a religiopolitical agenda having nothing to do with science. That is about as intellectually dishonest as you can get.
In this case the posters point of view is relevant to all academic teaching, it is not purely because they disagree that makes it bad.
Teaching non science in a science class is bad.
Teaching japanese in a french class is bad.
Teaching fiction in a history class is bad.
Do I need go on or do you get the point?
The posters disagreement is purel ...[text shortened]... te class, but hey KJ we've been over this before and you continually fail to grasp the concept.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySo now we are sliding into ad hominem attacks again? Hypocrite?
You are such a hypocrite, do you see the title of this post? The thread
deals with someone questioning evolution having a bias. Did you see
how I initially responded to the thread? With just pointing out that
everyone brings to the table bias, assumptions and so on. The point
of this thread was to question someone because of their beliefs,
before the p ...[text shortened]... on evolution
should be questioned because of their bias and not their arguments
alone.
Kelly
When religious scientists try to force religious doctrine into science class?
The official name for such activity is called having an agenda. And you know full well what that agenda is: to destroy evolution, not simply to raise alternate issues. The religious right started off with ad hominem attacks having nothing to do with science coming right out of the starting gate with such attacks 100 years ago. Now they are just a bit more subtle. I point out evidence: That movie "expelled' used NOTHING but ad homiem attacks, scoffing sincere scientists in public so what else is new? The answer is nothing. ID'ers have nothing of value in the scientific front so it's back to personal attacks as usual.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayErm, yes.
[b]What about the idea of separation of church and state?
What about it? Religion deals with food, sex, dress, family, keeping
your word, and more than a few other topics. So you have a complaint
that those lines get crossed from time to time?
Kelly[/b]
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, mixing science and religion is like mixing Israel and Palestine! Like mixing classical and Usher! Like mixing the Sicilian with the Caro-Kann! Like mixing - um - which forums haven't I covered?
Please, stop religious ranting!
This is Science Forum, for heavens sake!
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI don't refuse to answer questions here, my answers may not be to
No thanks, I get enough preaching.
You consistently refuse to answer any questions here, why should that change just because it's in the spirituality forum?
I'm asking you for scientific evidence that the bible is true. That is appropriate in the science forum.
Is there any actual, objective evidence?
The problem is, the facts on the ground are not consistent with the bible being literally true.
your liking, but the same can be said when I ask others here to answer
my questions too, many times they go unanswered as well. It is easier
to miss it when it happens to me since I'm normally talking to several
and so many complain about me.
Kelly
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou just did refuse to answer questions here.
I don't refuse to answer questions here, my answers may not be to
your liking, but the same can be said when I ask others here to answer
my questions too, many times they go unanswered as well. It is easier
to miss it when it happens to me since I'm normally talking to several
and so many complain about me.
Kelly
I have seen many questions of others go unanswered by you and many fewer of yours go unanswered. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but that is definitely my impression and I'm pretty confident that it would bear out if it did.
I don't feel a need to go start a new thread when I've already asked the question.
You can feel free to PM me the answers if you want or start your own thread in the spirituality forum with the answer if you want. I can live without the answer.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI get plenty of yours and others "impressions" here, and I'm sure the
You just did refuse to answer questions here.
I have seen many questions of others go unanswered by you and many fewer of yours go unanswered. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but that is definitely my impression and I'm pretty confident that it would bear out if it did.
I don't feel a need to go start a new thread when I've already asked t ...[text shortened]... thread in the spirituality forum with the answer if you want. I can live without the answer.
numbers are slanted against me since I seem to have more than a
few attempting to get me into a discussion verses me trying to get
them into one. Point is still once in a discussion I have been left
wanting as well, you want to claim it just me attempting to hide or
avoid it, that is fine with me. I very seldom complain about that since
there are several reasons why that can happen, if I really want my
question answered I'll ask it again.
Kelly
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are on very shakey ground here. You dont like it when "you on one hand you allow things to occur in people of science that you scream about whenn people of faith do the same exact thing" but you do this to a MUCH larger extent.
Dogma, please define that word for me so I do not accuse you of
something you do not mean to say. If people in science start to move
into area of faith you will see comparisons, it is bound to happen.
The issue I have with you is that you on one hand you allow things to
occur in people of science that you scream about whenn people of faith
do the same exact thing.
Kelly
You refuse to accept scentific theory, even though you dont understand the subjects enougth to possibly understand the evidence. You want ridiculas levels of proof for scientific theories, 100% accuracty is required for you to accept them. Yet you do not hold your religous belifes up to the same tests.
You do not ask for reproducable observable tests for your religous views. You simply accept them even when the overwhelming evidence suggests they are not correct.
On the one hand you are asking for 100% accuracty from science, but on the other hand religion does not need to be proved at all.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI get plenty of yours and others "impressions" here, and I'm sure the
I get plenty of yours and others "impressions" here, and I'm sure the
numbers are slanted against me since I seem to have more than a
few attempting to get me into a discussion verses me trying to get
them into one. Point is still once in a discussion I have been left
wanting as well, you want to claim it just me attempting to hide or
avoid it, that is ...[text shortened]... easons why that can happen, if I really want my
question answered I'll ask it again.
Kelly
numbers are slanted against me since I seem to have more than a
few attempting to get me into a discussion verses me trying to get
them into one.
They may be. That's one of the reasons why we ask you questions though.
I'm not sure whay you're talking about when you say people are attempting to get you into a discussion versus you trying to get them into one. Aren't you both trying to get into a discussion?
Point is still once in a discussion I have been left
wanting as well, you want to claim it just me attempting to hide or
avoid it, that is fine with me.
I don't think every case is you avoiding the questions deliberately. I don't and never did expect you to answer EVERY question asked.
I won't expect my questions to be answered though.