Infidel

Poster Children for Insanity

▼

Poster Children for Insanity

from JoeUser Forums

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters

Hendren et al. v. Campbell et al. was a 1977 ruling by an Indiana state superior court that the young-earth creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, published by the Creation Research Society and promoted through the Institute for Creation Research, could not be used in Indiana public schools. The ruling declared: "The question is whether a text obviously designed to present only the view of Biblical Creationism in a favorable light is constitutionally acceptable in the public schools of Indiana. Two hundred years of constitutional government demand that the answer be no." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendren_v._Campbell

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982), was a 1981 legal case in Arkansas which ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge, William Overton, handed down his decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that “creation science” is religion and is simply not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life."The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

religion
48,078 views 201 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

willful ignorance

I don't know how willful it really is.

I really think she honestly doesn't understand how science works.

Many people don't, but few are so vocal about wanting to put science right. :-)

It's a general problem when people get their knowledge from dictionaries.

 

Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 116




How is creationism any less tautological? How isn't it more tautological? All you have to support your claim is the propaganda put out by the church! Give me a trillion dollars and the technology to extend my life to at least 1100 years old, and I can provide proof that evolution happens. Could you say the same about creationism?





You are making several mistakes.

Creatioism is tautological, evolution isn't. Creationism cannot be disproven, evolution can (but hasn't been).

Evolution can already be observed, we do not need 1100 years for that. There is no need to prove evolution, there is only a need to disprove it. In 1100 years you might have a chance to observe something that disproves evolution. But 20 people who grow to be 60 each have the same chance, so we won't need the 1100 year methusalem to do it.

As for proving Creationism, it's simple. I gave instructions for an experiment here:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/314483/Experimental_Creationism

Note that this would not actually "prove" Creationism either, since it's possible that G-d only created those fruit flies but not anything else. By demonstrating the mechanism, however, Creationism would be half-way towards becoming a scientific theory.

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't see evolution as tautological at all, but I was resonding directly to the Ann Coulter quote, and was thus using her view on evolution. The 1100 years would be to use a base stock of one species and perform a long term experiment that separates the inital population into two distinctly different contained, self-sustaining environments. Ideally over that short a period, one would use a species with a rapid breeding cycle, but one with a 5 year birth to breeding age cycle would still provide at least 220 generations, which in theory would be enough to have enough genetic mutations to distinguish the two populations as different species.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

You don't even know what evolution is yet you feel competent to judge it? What an arrogance!

What Evolution is..is clearly defined in dictionaries, on the Internet and in biology textbooks.  And you claiming yourself as a descendant of ape-like creatures proves you believe this definition of evolution as true. Now, this claim of yours must be believed by faith because evolutionists have offered not one scintilla of factual evidence that you descended from apes.

On Evolutionist's word, you believe Evolution by faith.

 

 

 

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doombringer90

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't see evolution as tautological at all, but I was resonding directly to the Ann Coulter quote, and was thus using her view on evolution. The 1100 years would be to use a base stock of one species and perform a long term experiment that separates the inital population into two distinctly different contained, self-sustaining environments. Ideally over that short a period, one would use a species with a rapid breeding cycle, but one with a 5 year birth to breeding age cycle would still provide at least 220 generations, which in theory would be enough to have enough genetic mutations to distinguish the two populations as different species.

There is no evidence for Evolution here in this scenario.

Race formation is very well documented. All it requires is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations, the isolated population will lose some of its genes and thus, as long as the isolation continues, it will be different in some features from the original population from which it was isolated.

This is merely a reduction in the gene pool and that does not get evolution. Evolution  means construction of new genes. It means an increase in the amount of genetic information not a reduction of it. Evolution means the emergence of a new species. Evolution means making new things, not more differences of what already exists.  Start with ape-kind, you'll end with ape-kind. human-kind....you will end with human-kind. Start with fruit flies...you will end with fruit flies.

   

 

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top

willful ignorance

Leauki posts:


I don't know how willful it really is.

I really think she honestly doesn't understand how science works.

You all think that a 150 year old make-believe story called evolution is science. I don't. I think evolution is a lie being masqueraded as science.  

All theories that purport to be scientific must be compared and tested with observations and experiments. That's been done over and over with ET and no true evidence has been found to support evolutionary theory. Rather, evidence from science itself, particularly in the molecular and genetic fields, conflicts with or contradicts ET. It's time for scientists to abandon ET.  

 

Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top

I really think she honestly doesn't understand how science works.

lula appears to agree with you:

All theories that purport to be scientific must be compared and tested with observations and experiments. That's been done over and over with ET and no true evidence has been found to support evolutionary theory. Rather, evidence from science itself, particularly in the molecular and genetic fields, conflicts with or contradicts ET. It's time for scientists to abandon ET.

Reply #132 from Stardock Forums Top

lula, do you know why human babies grab onto a person's long hair? Because that's how baby apes hang onto their mothers.

Reply #133 from Stardock Forums Top

lula, do you know why human babies grab onto a person's long hair? Because that's how baby apes hang onto their mothers.

Thanks for proving that Evolution isn't even compatible with common sense. |-)

Reply #134 from Stardock Forums Top

leauki posts:

No, I believe that because of the evidence I have seen. I believe in G-d because of faith but I believe that (other) apes and we descend from the same animals because we look similar.

You don't even know what evolution is yet you feel competent to judge it?

I judge, in fact, I condemn the big lie of evolution that over mythical millions of years man-kind evolved from slime through ape-like creatures to what he is today.  

In contrast to other theories, we have not yet found evidence that evolution is wrong. We found plenty of evidence that it is true.

What is the plenty of evidence that ape-evolved to-man evolution is true?  

Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top

I judge, in fact, I condemn the big lie of evolution that over mythical millions of years man-kind evolved from slime through ape-like creatures to what he is today.

I think we can safely say 'willful' now.

Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top

leauki posts: No, I believe that because of the evidence I have seen. I believe in G-d because of faith but I believe that (other) apes and we descend from the same animals because we look similar.

Yes, there is some similarity between ape-kind  and man-kind. But similarity doesn't mean that man-kind descended from ape-kind....that would exclude God from creation. From the moment of creation, we are each given a unique soul which elevates us (human-kind) above all animals even those that are similiar to us. According to Genesis, man-kind was the pinnacle of God's Creation and each was created according to its own kind.  That means no way did ape-kind evolve into man-kind.

 

Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula, man-kind didn't descend from ape-kind. Evolution says that both descended from a common ancestor.

What's your explanation for why the species are so similar? G-d made it so? Why? That's where Creationism breaks down.

You shoudn't judge what you don't understand.

 

Reply #138 from Stardock Forums Top

Lula, man-kind didn't descend from ape-kind.

I agree they didn't....so, have you changed your mind from when you posted:

 

leauki posts 74 Yes, our descendants were ape-like. We are ape-like too. In fact, we are apes.

Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree they didn't....so, have you changed your mind from when you posted:

No, I stand by what I said. We are not the same species as ape-kind but both they and we descended from an ape-lile species.

 

Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Biology textbook definition of EVOLUTION is: a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestor.

The Dictionary definition of EVOLUTION is: Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The World Book Dictionary definition of EVOLUTION is: something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile and ultimately all forms are traced back  to a simple, perhaps single celled, organism.

leauki posts 74 Yes, our descendants were ape-like. We are ape-like too. In fact, we are apes.

We are not the same species as ape-kind but both they and we descended from an ape-lile species.

Evolution says that both descended from a common ancestor.

A few  points.

First .....Your statement proves you believe in the hypothetical process of EVOLUTION as per these definitions as fact.

Second..... yes, as per these definitions above, evolutionists have repeated ad nauseum that both apes and humans descended through a common ancestor, however, after 150 years of searching, to date no positive evidence has been found.

All this shows you are deluded by Evolutionists' incessant propaganda of an untenable theory.

 

Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Biology textbook definition of EVOLUTION is: a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestor.

 Get a better biology textbook. The word "higher" is completely inappropriate.

 

First .....Your statement proves you believe in the hypothetical process of EVOLUTION as per these definitions as fact.

No. I merely acknowledge facts and the best explanation for them.

If you have a better explanation for why humans and apes look so similar, I am all eyes.

Note that by "better explanation" I mean one that can be disproven, not a tautology.

 

Second..... yes, as per these definitions above, evolutionists have repeated ad nauseum that both apes and humans descended through a common ancestor, however, after 150 years of searching, to date no positive evidence has been found.

Except similarites in body and behaviour and later confirmation of similar genetic makeup.

What hasn't been found was evidence that disproves the theory that humans and apes descended from the same species.

You still don't understand what science is about. It's not about teaching something that is proven (because no scientific theory was ever proven or could ever be proven), it's about teaching something that can be disproven but hasn't been disproven yet. Even scientific theories that have been disproven are still useful and are still taught, like Newton's gravity or General Relativity.

Darwin's theory made the prediction that apes and humans would show to be very similar if a way was found to look at inherited information. And when that information was found, Darwin's predictions held true. No Creationist ever predicted something that turned out to be true and could have been wrong.

 

All this shows you are deluded by Evolutionists' incessant propaganda of an untenable theory.

No. It shows that I can read and understand science while you still (not even) struggle to understand evolution.

Why the heck don't you learn about stuff before you discuss it?

Are you afraid that if you learn about evolution, you'd change your mind and embrace it?

(And don't tell me that you understand evolution. From everything you say it is very obvious that you don't to anyone who knows just a sixth grade worth about it.)

 

 

Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'd be interested to know what biology textbook you quoted from. And what schools use it.
I bet it's something akin to "Of Pandas and People."

Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Biology textbook definition of EVOLUTION is: a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestor.

Get a better biology textbook. The word "higher" is completely inappropriate.

From the time scale under drawings of the supposed evolutonary molecules-to-man transformation, I would say by "higher", they mean the development of more complex creatures. According to it, 600 million years ago, Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes appeared..570 million years ago, ocean species, primitive fish, mollusks and corals appear...then insects appear...240 million reptiles appear...dinosaurs, mammals and marine reptiles appear....65 million years ago, dinosaurs die out and birds appear...40 million years ago, primates appear in the Tertiary period and humans in the Quaternary period through the present.

I found the entire 3 chapters on evolution completely inappropriate and I tried to get the school to use a different biology book.

 

 

 

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top

Radiocarbon dating, plate tectonics, black holes - you either believe in them or not, so there ya go, all are just religions.  Since everything is a matter of faith and not science, it makes perfect sense to teach Creationism in sciencereligion class.

Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

What hasn't been found was evidence that disproves the theory that humans and apes descended from the same species.

Where have you been? The empirical sciences of Biological, molecular genetics HAS FOUND EVIDENCES THAT DISPROVES EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THAT HUMANS AND APES DESCENDED FROM THE SAME SPECIES.

More correctly restated.....What hasn't been found is evidence that proves the theory that humans and apes descended from the same species (for if they did evolution would no longer be a theory).

Under close scrutiny, evolution isn't even at the hypothesis stage, let alone called a scientific theory. At least according to the biology textbook.

Here are direct quotes....

Pg. 6....In practice, the scientific method consists of several steps:

* observing and stating a problem

* Forming a hypothesis

* Testing the hypothesis

* Recording and analyzing data

* Forming a conclusion

* Replicating the work

Pg. 10...when a hypothesis is tested and confirmed often enough that it is unlikely to be disproved by future tests, it may become worthy of being called a theory. Scientific theories are not just hunches or pypotheses. They are powerful time-tested concepts.

For over 150 years, Evolution according to these definitions has not ever been observed by natural science.

For over 150 years, Evolution according to these definitions has not ever been tested by natural science.

For over 150 years, Evolution according to these definitons has not ever been replicated by natural science...and therefore evolution according to these definitions is dead and should be abandoned.

For over 150 years, scientific endeavor has been wasted searching for a phantom.  

   

 

 

 

Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top

Darwin's theory made the prediction that apes and humans would show to be very similar if a way was found to look at inherited information. And when that information was found, Darwin's predictions held true.

The problem is Darwin and his followers took his work one step further in developing evolutionary theory....they prioritized "change" as the basis of existence and made the origin of man a term appearing at the end of an evolutionary process. This is the Big Lie. By excluding God from Creation they created a dogma for the new world religion, atheism.

His dogma, Darwinian Evolution, is being preached as true in every public school. Children are taught the big lie that they evolved from apes.  

Evolution is a big lie embedded in a little truth. By this I mean evolution means first...all processes unfolding in time...but second to this (we know as per the textbook, web, and dictionary definitions of evolution), evolutionists include progress or development of species that results in a new, "higher" (more complex) species. This second part is contrary to the truth.

  

 

 

Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top

leauki posts: No, I believe that because of the evidence I have seen. I believe in G-d because of faith but I believe that (other) apes and we descend from the same animals because we look similar.

It can't be both...for Almighty God in Genesis is clear that all mankind is a special creation, and so from that alone, you could not have descended from apes or ape-like creatures.

lula posts:

Yes, there is some similarity between ape-kind and man-kind. But similarity doesn't mean that man-kind descended from ape-kind....that would exclude God from creation. From the moment of creation, we are each given a unique soul which elevates us (human-kind) above all animals even those that are similiar to us. According to Genesis, man-kind was the pinnacle of God's Creation and each was created according to its own kind. That means no way did ape-kind evolve into man-kind.

leauki posts:

What's your explanation for why the species are so similar?

Leauki,

All Evolutionists claim that similiarities between apes and humans are evidence for Evolution and proof that they evolved from common ancestors. But similiarity is of no consequence to the lack of logic  in their argument.

Similarity goes to unity of God's Creation and testifies to the one true God who made it all.  If we humans were entirely biochemically different from other creatures, then what would we eat? How could we digest them and use the amino acids, sugars, etc.? These similarities are necessary for us to eat.

there are other points to make but it's time for dinner.

 

Reply #148 from Stardock Forums Top

Similarity goes to unity of God's Creation and testifies to the one true God who made it all. If we humans were entirely biochemically different from other creatures, then what would we eat? How could we digest them and use the amino acids, sugars, etc.? These similarities are necessary for us to eat.

That's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. "Other creatures"? We're discussing the similarities between humans and only one other creature. I guess we're as similar to all the other animals as we are to apes. We don't have to eat apes.

You hoped no one would notice your attempt to confuse and fool us. I seriously think you need an exorcism.

Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top

All Evolutionists claim that similiarities between apes and humans are evidence for Evolution and proof that they evolved from common ancestors. 

No.

It's evidence for evolution but not proof.

The point os that it isn't evidence for anything else that can be disproven but hasn't been disproven yet.

 

Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

If we humans were entirely biochemically different from other creatures, then what would we eat? How could we digest them and use the amino acids, sugars, etc.?

We tend to eat those lifeforms that are more distantly related to us, not those that are more closely related to us. I don't eat apes. I eat chicken.

In fact it is healthier to eat only what is more distantly related to us. I.e. vegetables are better than chicken. Chicken is better than mammals. But I figure this is coincidence.

I can digest salt which isn't even carbon-based.

 

These similarities are necessary for us to eat.

So you are saying now that G-d had a limit He had to work around?

If that were true, you would just have given Creationism a real boost. It would be scientific.

If you can honestly say that similarities between species are due to a need to make them similar because they have to eat each other, you would have found evidence for Creationism. However, it would be evidence for Creation by a non-all-powerful god, since the god faced limitations of his power and had to work around them.

The great similarity between some species and general similarity between all species is plain evidence (but not proof) for common descent. It might be considered evidence (but not proof) for a common creator too. It is also evidence for the idea that all animals will eventually interbreed and become one big final species.

The difference is that the first can be disproven but hasn't yet, the second cannot be disproven, and the third has been disproven (we know that species become more different over time, not more similar).