PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dallas Local News
       ICR sues Texas

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationist group says state rejection of degree plan violates its civil rights
The Institute for Creation Research has taken its fight to train future science teachers to the federal courthouse.

The Dallas-based group alleges that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board violated its civil rights by denying the institute's request to offer a master's degree in science education.

The board said the program did not meet state academic standards.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Dallas, alleges that the higher-education agency rejected the degree program because of the institute's claim that scientific evidence shows the earth is only 6,000 years old.


This will be interesting to watch.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:39 PM on April 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What would creationist degrees be like?

-Who made the Giraffes?
-God. He also made everything else.
-Sir, you've answered that, and the rest of our questions (all correctly, by the way). Aapproved.

Actually, i have no clue about North American tests on any level. xD



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:13 AM on April 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This would be a Master of Science in Education.  It would allow the holder to teach science in any high school. -- If they could get hired.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:08 AM on April 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is an example of the main reason I so vehemently oppose Creationism - it simply has NO place in a public science classroom.  

I have seen ample evidence from Creationists on this forum (Lester, Timbrx, gluteus, etc) that they simply do not understand why Creationism is not a science.  Indeed, they show very little evidence that they understand what science is!

Let me ask Creationists this:

Would you teach mysticsim in medical school?  Would you teach astrology in an astronomy class?  Would you teach alchemy in a chemistry class?  

If not, then why not?

Well, Creationism is in the same boat as mysticism, astrology, and alchemy.  None of these things is science.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:06 AM on April 22, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:08 AM on April 22, 2009 :
This would be a Master of Science in Education.  It would allow the holder to teach science in any high school. -- If they could get hired.


Not exactly, they can technically teach what they want already, because they aren't government funded, but the problem is, they can't slap a recognized masters degree to their program, so this means they have near no power in the work market.

Recognized meaning a state approved degree that condones to the states science curriculum for a masters degree.
the ICR obviously isn't doing this and has been trying for a while to get this certification to give out masters degrees, if they manage it, well, that would be funny for us europeans but in reality it would be horrible for texas.

Correction, it would be laughable.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:54 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ruling came down firmly against ICR, you can find it HERE.

Keeping these principles in mind, the Court finds § 1.001(a) does not limit the applicability of
the Education Code only to institutions supported by state tax funds. The Legislature clearly intended to regulate the offering of degrees by private postsecondary educational institutions in enacting subchapter G, and therefore ICRGS is not exempt from the Board’s authority under subchapter G. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on this issue is accordingly DENIED.
Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGS’s causes
of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them. It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.


I feel his pain.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:01 PM on June 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reminds me of the Dover ruling...

Hmmm....  Seems to be a trend....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:57 PM on June 24, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Let me ask Creationists this:

Would you teach mysticsim in medical school?  Would you teach astrology in an astronomy class?  Would you teach alchemy in a chemistry class?  


You want to teach alchemy in the science class – how dead chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves into life. The only problem is that you only want the evidence for your kind of naturalistic spontaneous transformation to be taught and you want to be sure that nobody is allowed to show any evidence to the contrary.

Well, Creationism is in the same boat as mysticism, astrology, and alchemy. None of these things is science.


If creation fits then I’m afraid you’ll have to throw evolution in there too.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:55 AM on June 26, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

nobody is allowed to show any evidence to the contrary.
Just a soon as you come up with evidence Lester, feel free to post it. (pssst. Quoting the bible ain't evidence)


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:06 AM on June 26, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
You want to teach alchemy in the science class – how dead chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves into life.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Literally.

What's "life"?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:11 AM on June 26, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JimIrvine
Just a soon as you come up with evidence Lester, feel free to post it. (pssst. Quoting the bible ain't evidence)


I don't believe I have ever used the Bible as evidence for anything, JimIrvine.

I have posted my evidence for why I believe that random mutations and natural selection do not lead to the origin of new and innovative organs and systems. (Remember those E.Coli and fruit fly experiments that never led to the production of anything new?)
 
Please feel free to post YOUR evidence for why you believe that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:37 AM on June 27, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:37 AM on June 27, 2010 :
JimIrvine
Just a soon as you come up with evidence Lester, feel free to post it. (pssst. Quoting the bible ain't evidence)


I don't believe I have ever used the Bible as evidence for anything, JimIrvine.

I have posted my evidence for why I believe that random mutations and natural selection do not lead to the origin of new and innovative organs and systems. (Remember those E.Coli and fruit fly experiments that never led to the production of anything new?)


So, if one presents evidence for how YEC is not true, it will count as evidence for evolution?

Remember the fact that nobody has been able to blow on dirt and get a fully formed man to pop out?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:51 PM on June 27, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
I have posted my evidence for why I believe that random mutations and natural selection do not lead to the origin of new and innovative organs and systems.
Lester, you disapprove of our language when we speak about plausible evolutionary paths (which is the language of prudence, the language of Science), and then you say things like "my evidence for why I believe" (which is the language of Science illiteracy) without any trace of shame...



Oh, by the way, i'm still waiting for you to define "life".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:26 PM on June 27, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:37 AM on June 27, 2010 :
JimIrvine
Just a soon as you come up with evidence Lester, feel free to post it. (pssst. Quoting the bible ain't evidence)


I don't believe I have ever used the Bible as evidence for anything, JimIrvine.


Oh?

Quote from Lester10 at 01:42 AM on November 22, 2009 :
We take the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, not a story that men can theorize about and change if they feel like it. There are no millions of years in the Bible as the comprehensive genealogies clearly show.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:25 PM on June 27, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
So, if one presents evidence for how YEC is not true, it will count as evidence for evolution?


What I said was:
Please feel free to post YOUR evidence for why you believe that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.

Please don’t change the topic.  

Wisp
Lester, you disapprove of our language when we speak about plausible evolutionary paths (which is the language of prudence, the language of Science), and then you say things like "my evidence for why I believe" (which is the language of Science illiteracy) without any trace of shame...


I don’t think that plausible pathways pass for evidence in the absence of evidence leading us to accept that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.

Please post YOUR evidence for why you accept that random mutations and natural selection might lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.

Lester
I don't believe I have ever used the Bible as evidence for anything, JimIrvine.
Apoapsis
Oh?
Lester We take the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, not a story that men can theorize about and change if they feel like it. There are no millions of years in the Bible as the comprehensive genealogies clearly show.


That is what I believe but that’s not my evidence. You also have a worldview but your worldview is not your evidence.

Could you show me the evidence which led you to accept that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems?

I really think that this evidence is essential for the support of your philosophy or I wouldn’t be asking for it.









-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:23 AM on June 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Derwood
So, if one presents evidence for how YEC is not true, it will count as evidence for evolution?
What I said was:
Please feel free to post YOUR evidence for why you believe that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.

Please don’t change the topic.
Dallas local news?
Lester, you disapprove of our language when we speak about plausible evolutionary paths (which is the language of prudence, the language of Science), and then you say things like "my evidence for why I believe" (which is the language of Science illiteracy) without any trace of shame...
I don’t think that plausible pathways pass for evidence in the absence of evidence leading us to accept that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.
And who says it does?

I'm not denying it. I just don't know about it.

Can you enlighten me?

Please post YOUR evidence for why you accept that random mutations and natural selection might lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.
You mean... Me??
Did i ever say that??

Could you show me the evidence which led you to accept that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems?

I really think that this evidence is essential for the support of your philosophy or I wouldn’t be asking for it.
Oh... We're obliged to present it because YOU really think it's essential...

Go figure.

In any case, "new and innovative" is something quite unclear to me.

I'm sure nothing would ever please you. "No cigar", you'll say.

What about nylonase? Not new, or not innovative?
If it's not new because it was the product of a frameshift mutation of something that was already there, then i have two things to say (at least):
  • 1 Why would you think Evolution needs something different than that?

  • 2 How is this compatible with your statement that DNA is intelligent code, like a language, with semantics and everything?


(Edited by wisp 6/28/2010 at 06:28 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:25 AM on June 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

  2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
         * the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
         * adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
         * the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
         * evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
         * modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
         * evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

     There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
         * Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

     Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)

  3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were.

Source
Not all of them were. Especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

Booyah!


(Edited by wisp 6/28/2010 at 06:43 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:39 AM on June 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The ICR is giving up, probably due to their inability to find a lawyer that could write an intelligible filing.

ICR giving up the fight:  Please send money

How can you help? First and foremost, ICR needs your intercessory prayer for strength to engage the Enemy and for open doors to present the unwavering message of the Creator. We also need your financial support as never before. God has opened many doors for us in the past year--but those doors require significant funding to follow through on the opportunities. Pray with us. Support as you can. God will "make the increase."


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:05 AM on September 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:23 AM on June 28, 2010 :
Derwood
So, if one presents evidence for how YEC is not true, it will count as evidence for evolution?


What I said was:
Please feel free to post YOUR evidence for why you believe that random mutations and natural selection do lead to the origin of new and innovative functional organs and systems.

Please don’t change the topic.  


Ah, so when people like YOU, upon being asked to present evidence FOR YECism, and you vomit nonsense about how radiometric dating is all wrong, or what good is half a wing, etc., you are changing the topic.

Thanks for admitting that one of YOUR most common antics is, in fact, a form of fallacious argument.

I will definitely be remembering this tacit admission and will gleefully remind you and any other YEC that engages in that standard YEC maneuver that you have declared it to be changing the topic.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:03 AM on September 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

George Carlin
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:06 PM on September 7, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.