Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Some people do think before they speak or write, that is a fact. So I stated a fact.
How odd that you would take it personally and think the comments were ad hominem....
Diatribe? Your opinion once again shining through.
Bruised Ego? Show me some evidence of bruising.
You seem to be in your imaginative mode once again...
Oh, and my argument doesn't need saving, it is not in danger....
How odd that you would take it personally and think the comments were ad hominem....
Diatribe? Your opinion once again shining through.
Bruised Ego? Show me some evidence of bruising.
You seem to be in your imaginative mode once again...
Oh, and my argument doesn't need saving, it is not in danger....
Is there a connection between creationism and some ID theories?
I think so.
Is there a connection between atheists and their atheism, and their dogmatic defense of Darwinism?
I think so.
I think a theory of design is as probable as chance, so I don't see the fairness in teaching chance, and not design.
A return to agnosticism in the scientific community would also be nice, where they would not speak of that which they do not know.
Dogmatic ferver is seen in their beliefs these days, and that type of funamentalism is never a healthy commodity in my opinion when it comes to influencing the youth of today and tomorrow.
I think so.
Is there a connection between atheists and their atheism, and their dogmatic defense of Darwinism?
I think so.
I think a theory of design is as probable as chance, so I don't see the fairness in teaching chance, and not design.
A return to agnosticism in the scientific community would also be nice, where they would not speak of that which they do not know.
Dogmatic ferver is seen in their beliefs these days, and that type of funamentalism is never a healthy commodity in my opinion when it comes to influencing the youth of today and tomorrow.
Quote from RobMc:
ZZZ
Just to be clear cos this thread seems to be disappearing up its own singularity
Do you think that ID theory has any connection with creationism that is beyond coincidence?
Do you think it should be taught in science at schools on an equal footing with, or maybe instead of(?), the theory of evolution?
And purleeease no Pat Buchanan quotes!
Now you position yourself as an argument coroner proclaiming life and death of arguments.
The folly continues.....
The folly continues.....
I could match you insult for insult, but it's a profound waste of energy. I'll simply restate the question for the 5th time in this thread:
What precisely do you propose to teach public school biology students as an alternative to the theory of evolution?
So far, your comments in this thread, suggest that your alternative is to teach children that the universe exactly the age determined by the Hindu Calendar, and that Man's appearance on Earth is the result of "Materialization from pure potentiality."
That is not a very scientific theory, in my opinion.
So you think you could match me insult for insult......
Where did I say that a Hindu calendar should be taught in schools to calculate the age of the Universe?
Will this misrepresentation ever end?
p.s. Vedic Hinduism suggests that the universe is eternal and eternally cycling within God, alternating between periods of active and inactive states, awake or asleep, between a manifest and unmanifest condition, so they would not teach an actual "age" of the universe, as the universe is not born and not created, and the universe cannot die, therefore it has no age. I think you are probably confusing the limited and calculated age of Brahma the Creator of this particular planetary system with the unlimited nature of the Universe which never actually ages.
Aging is for that which is born, which will die.....age is for the changing, not the changeless.....
Where did I say that a Hindu calendar should be taught in schools to calculate the age of the Universe?
Will this misrepresentation ever end?
p.s. Vedic Hinduism suggests that the universe is eternal and eternally cycling within God, alternating between periods of active and inactive states, awake or asleep, between a manifest and unmanifest condition, so they would not teach an actual "age" of the universe, as the universe is not born and not created, and the universe cannot die, therefore it has no age. I think you are probably confusing the limited and calculated age of Brahma the Creator of this particular planetary system with the unlimited nature of the Universe which never actually ages.
Aging is for that which is born, which will die.....age is for the changing, not the changeless.....
I haven't misrepresented anything. You are just dancing and dodging and refusing to answer the stated question.
If you decide to answer the question in some precise way that expresses what you would propose to teach biology students in public school as an alternative to evolution, I'll come back to the debate. If you retort with another vacuous "Design not random chance," excretion, I won't.