Looks like it's a done deal

[firstpusk]

ScoutParent,

 

Back to bad habits again. I am sure that you have read all of those quotes in original context, right? Or are you simply quote-mining again at your favorite creationist web site? Did you grab that one from Answers in Genesis site, or did you actually read the publication it came from? By gosh it matches AIG right down to the commas. I thought maybe you would check two sources and go to ICR, but you obviously didn't cut and paste from there.

 

Did you know that there are college profs that would flunk you for doing your research like that? So howlong would it take a room full of monkeys at internet terminals to produce one of ScoutParent's cut and paste quote mining posts?

 

You of course have the honesty to check all of these publication to ensure that Ken Hamm finally quoted someone correctly and in context, right? Oh wait, I am talking to ScoutParent, IQ Queen who has yet to provide me a scientifically viable alternative to evolution she claimed I might not know about months ago. Yes, she is credible and honest.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

[ScoutParent]

FirstPusk, you lose credibility when you attack me on a personal level. I challenged YOU to an IQ test as well as a biology and theology test when you questioned my understanding of the subjects. Are you the reigning king of IQ? Otherwise I don't see where you are drawing that supposition from. Now I do find it endearing that you are concerned about my college grades but you needn't be. Thanks for your concern and your unbiased answer as always.

[firstpusk]

ScoutParent,

 

"FirstPusk, you lose credibility when you attack me on a personal level. I challenged YOU to an IQ test as well as a biology and theology test when you questioned my understanding of the subjects. Are you the reigning king of IQ? Otherwise I don't see where you are drawing that supposition from."

 

Am I playing hardball with you? You bet. I asked you a question that you have never responded to. Your flippant response on Sept. 24 was, "And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers." I have asked for that theory, no response, ever. Instead, you raise your IQ challenge. It seems you think that if you can only prove you are somehow smarter, you don't have to provide a response. You may have a higer GPA, income and IQ. I don't care. You still have not answered the question or acknowledged you were wrong.

 

Instead, a stream of ever more strident unfounded arguements came from you.

 

"Now I do find it endearing that you are concerned about my college grades but you needn't be. Thanks for your concern and your unbiased answer as always."

 

I wasn't questioning your grades, but your integrity. Is that clear enough for you.

 

You have put forward arguments that are scurrilous. I have corrected you repeatedly. I was quesioning your methods. I asked you a question. Have you read any of the original source documents? If not, that is unethical. Perhaps were you went to school that was acceptable. Everywhere I have gone, that is a good way to buy a one way ticket out. For keeps.

[ScoutParent]

Oh now it's my integrity that you question...lol. Anyone can read any of our posts and see what are positions are and who has maintained integrity throughout. Now since I provided the references for each quote cited, anyone is also welcome to read any of the original sources. Now as to your misquoting me numerous times, thanks for correcting that and if you reread it you will see it requires no answer. It's simple logic if there are scientic theories we aren't aware of yet, then I can't list them. Now that wasn't so hard was it? Finally it wasn't an attempt to prove I was smarter so much as an opportunity to lay to rest your assertions that those that disagree with you don't understand the subject matter and the abilities of each contender. I can see that you are sensitive on the subject of intelligence and I apologize if I offended you.

[sctmom]

Rooster writes

"So what exactly does this mean in regards to the founding fathers who established the U.S. government some 100 to 150 years later. Did you know of a specific Declaration of Independence signer who wanted to put similar laws in the Constitution? My point is Your history may be correct (there were some laws that discriminated against people of various faiths), but your conclusion is wrong (the signers at least collectively did not want this kind of discrimination perpetuated in the new government). In short, I think your comment is an unfair and damning generalization that defames the character of some our greatest and most moral leaders. "

 

Rooster, I said "forefathers" which includes many people other than just those that signed the Declaration of Independence and those that signed the Constitution.

 

[sctmom]

Scoutparent writes:

"Of course evolution is not science but a form of religion or anti religion. Don't kid yourself. "

 

You're joking right? Evolution is a form of religion or anti religion???? ::::shaking my head in disbelief:::::

 

Evolution is science theory. YOU are the one making it out to be a bigger thing than it is.

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

Thank you. It took nearly two months, but you finally admit that there is no viable scientific alternative to evolution.

 

You might laugh out loud, but posting quotes without ensuring they represent the original source is unethical. The last time you did this, you posted six quotes. Only one had the correct source information.

 

Your track record is not exactly sterling.

[ScoutParent]

Again, people can always read our posts and make their own determinations on any subject on this board. I really am not too concerned about your opinions of me, FirstPusk or Sctmom, we have very different ideologies and our ideas on many topics will be very different as a consequence. It could be any topic from religion, constitutional issues, child rearing, scouting projects etc because each individual's beliefs influence what types of decisions they make. You are entitled to shake your head in disbelief Sctmom and I am entitled to shake mine in disbelief of your naivete. Have a great evening.

[littlebillie]

"The Constitution should not be reinterpreted by each new generation so to accommodate the political whims of the day..." nor by those who, supposing some religious siblinghood with the Founding Fathers, claim extraConstitutional knowledge of their intent in penning both that document and the Bill of Rights, and declare that their trance-channeled insight should supercede that whichis written...

[Rooster7]

What is science? Is it not a search, and the processes utilized to accomplish the same, to find ultimate truth? People make observations about reality, and from studying these observations they draw conclusions about what is true. Some scientists (or most, it doesnt really matter how many), based on some observations (or many, again it doesnt really matter how many) have drawn the conclusion that the theory of evolution is likely to be true. Yet, even they acknowledge that it is just a theory because there are some missing pieces to the puzzle. Creationists have an account of history (the Bible), which has been handed down for thousands of years. They believe the story to be true. Some folks automatically discount the story as being false - because it is rooted in a religious faith. These folks can hardly call themselves scientists because they are making assumptions not observations. Faith does not necessarily equate to fiction. Granted, not all religious faiths can be true, because many contradict one another. Regardless, it is poor logic to assume all religious beliefs to be false. Whether those beliefs deal with the spiritual or the physical world, it matters not. In order for one to declare a scientific theory to be false, there must be indisputable evidence to verify that conclusion. Creationists can point to facts to support their belief just like evolutionists. But, just like the evolutionists, they have not found all the pieces to the puzzle. So, one has to ask what separates these two theories? They are both theories. One has a religious orientation. The other does not. One is labeled religious hogwash, while the other is upheld as science. Where is the irrefutable evidence that enables folks to make these assertions? That evidence does not exist. Consequently, I have to agree with ScoutParent. Perhaps, not all evolutionists are so narrow-minded. However, those that suggest that evolution is truth (scientifically proven) and literal creation is merely the babble of religious fanatics have no business calling themselves scientists. Reasonable, unbiased scientists need to either prove beyond a doubt that evolution is valid (to the exclusion of creationism) - or acquiesce that creationism has the same the right to claim its validity as a theory. You cant have your cake and eat it too Although, Im sure Ill be told otherwise. In short, folks that use the theory of evolution to deny creationism - have distorted the claims of science and consequently have created an anti-religion. ScoutParents remarks were right on the mark!

[littlebillie]

"Granted, not all religious faiths can be true, because many contradict one another."

 

The Sufis say that Allah makes Himself known in time and manner and place appropriate to each people...

[littlebillie]

"Reasonable, unbiased scientists need to either prove beyond a doubt that evolution is valid (to the exclusion of creationism) - or acquiesce that [LITERAL]creationism has the same the right to claim its validity as a theory."

 

The word in brackets seems necessary to the statment I'm assuming you intend? Please remember that there are many scientists of great faith who take the story of Genesis allegorically.

 

The corollary for your statement must needs be "Reasonable, unbiased [LITERAL] Creationists need to either prove beyond a doubt that all English texts have been properly translated and that the seeming contradictions, impossible animals and other puzzling issues in Genesis have been resolved - or acquiesce that Evolution has the same the right to claim validity as a theory."

 

Once again, those can who see Genesis as allegory need stand off to one side here, it seems...

 

[Rooster7]

The corollary for your statement must needs be "Reasonable, unbiased [LITERAL] Creationists need to either prove beyond a doubt that all English texts have been properly translated and that the seeming contradictions, impossible animals and other puzzling issues in Genesis have been resolved - or acquiesce that Evolution has the same the right to claim validity as a theory."

 

Bottom Line - From the world's perspective, both are just theories. The Creationists' claim of validity depends no more on these answers (seeming contradictions, impossible animals [?], other puzzling issues) than evolutionist' claim of validity depends on finding the "missing link." Actually, I disagree that these issues exist - concerning creationism, but I'm not going to debate the Bible with you. The point isn't whose interpretation is correct. The point is Creationists has the same claim to validity. Consequently, if evolution is taught in public schools (even though it contains much conjecture) and creationism is not, a double standard is being employed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see - one theory is favored over the other because one recognizes God (a supernatural being) and the other does not. Evolutionists cry, "God is religion" and therefore it should be excluded from public teaching. This is extremely hypercritical. Especially when one considers the fact, evolutionists have no irrefutable proof to make the theory anything other than just a theory. Both require an element of faith. The only difference is - one requires a belief in God and the other doesn't. While you may be able to argue against creationism being taught in the public schools - from a constitutional perspective, to argue against it from a purely scientific standpoint is hypercritical. You might as well post a sign in every school - 'Godless Theories Only'. That being said, to allow evolutional theory to be taught is just as unconstitutional. Theories that contradict God should not be introduced in the public school. They are anti-religion. If you permit them to be taught, than reason and fairness dictates that the religious perspective should be introduced as well. The solution is simple. The origins of man - until irrefutable evidence can be claimed - should not be taught in the public schools. The government has a constitutional obligation to remain neutral.

[RobK]

firstpusk and littlebillie,

 

I would suggest that you improve your reading comprehension skills. You are obviously incapable of understanding what I have written. Where did I ever write that my religous beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution? In fact, I expressly stated the opposite! Nor did I say that evolution is "de facto religion", nor that the theory of evolution is atheistic. Little wonder that you misinterpret and misconstrue what is clearly written in the Constitution. It becomes increasingly obvious that your beliefs are simply reactionary against those who disagree with forcing the teaching of evolution on others.

 

I think your understanding of evolution comes from creationist sources and not scientific ones.

 

No, in fact I have never read from any creationist sources. My understanding of evolution comes from the public schools I attended and the writings of Isaac Asimov.

Let me try to restate my point for you in a simple way using simple words: Some church teaches that God created the Earth and everything else in six days of twenty four hours, and if you don't believe it, you're going to hell. The public school teaches that man evolved over millions of years. These teachings conflict. The public school is teaching something that contradicts what that church is teaching. Can you agree that what the school teaches contradicts what the church teaches?

 

[firstpusk]

"firstpusk and littlebillie,

 

I would suggest that you improve your reading comprehension skills." RobK

 

"Nor did I say that evolution is "de facto religion"... RobK

 

"I am amazed at your inablity to see that evolution, while not a teaching of any religion, because it directly contradicts the teachings of certain religions, is de facto a religous teaching." RobK

 

I really enjoy your sense of humor. Are you trying to make creationists look silly, kind of an Andy Kaufman thing?(This message has been edited by firstpusk)