Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[noguru]

I really would like to answer Dialogos, but his posts are just too long and would take so long to whittle down to what I find fault with.

I got you covered. His diatribes are easy work for someone who has studied this subject matter for over 40 years. Yes I started when I was about 8, with the same stumbling blocks that Dialogos is just wrestling with now.

 

[Kdall]

I got you covered. His diatribes are easy work for someone who has studied this subject matter for over 40 years. Yes I started when I was about 8, with the same stumbling blocks that Dialogos is just wrestling with now.

Lol thanks

 

[6days]

My agreement also leads me to question why you (and others) advocate for the suppression of empirical evidence of design in biological life forms in public school classrooms?

Granted there are alternate hypotheses, so teach both.

Great comments, *but most are not even advocating that "both" be taught. *Simply teachers and students should have the freedom to present both sides of an issue. For example if in teaching evolution homolgy is used as evidence, then the then the classroom should also have the freedom to discuss that homology is not necessarily an evidence of common descent.*

As you said...why suppress evidence or alternative explanations from qualified scientists....unless you wish to indoctrinate.*

 

[Kdall]

Great comments, *but most are not even advocating that "both" be taught. *Simply teachers and students should have the freedom to present both sides of an issue. For example if in teaching evolution homolgy is used as evidence, then the then the classroom should also have the freedom to discuss that homology is not necessarily an evidence of common descent.*

As you said...why suppress evidence or alternative explanations from qualified scientists....unless you wish to indoctrinate.*

When you present evidence of lions being vegetarian, we'll talk

 

[noguru]

When you present evidence of lions being vegetarian, we'll talk

They will not present the many absurdities that are implied by their model of origins, and yet they have the audacity to claim they want equal treatment. If you do bring them up however, they can always say "It was a miracle". That is why they try to dress it up as "sciency" sounding words like "intelligent design" and leave out the idea that it really means "supernaturally intelligent design". They are certainly a bunch of snake oils salesmen, who lack the intestinal fortitude to be honest with themselves.

6days is clueless about reality, by the way. Any reasonable person can see that his elevator does not go to the top floor.

 

[6days]

Correct!

Yes...I am

Now quit trying to say that young Earth creationism based on a narrow interpretation of the Christian Bible belongs in a public school science class

Your post got off to a great start acknowledging I was correct. However you quickly went off the rails fabricating a position I don't hold...strawman fallacy..

 

[6days]

When you present evidence of lions being vegetarian, we'll talk

Oh dear.... what does that have to do with the topic? That is a belief based on scripture and not science.
I think you are confused and frustrated.

 

[Kdall]

Oh dear.... what does that have to do with the topic? That is a belief based on scripture and not science.
I think you are confused and frustrated.

Explain to me how you get to the conclusion of a 6000 year old Earth based off of science alone, and disregarding religion?


6000 years comes purely from the sum of the lineages in Genesis. Where is the science suggesting that a man can live for 900 years?

 

[noguru]

Explain to me how you get to the conclusion of a 6000 year old Earth based off of science alone, and disregarding religion?


6000 years comes purely from the sum of the lineages in Genesis. Where is the science suggesting that a man can live for 900 years?

You can't. Given the current vast amount of compiled evidence, one has to make the YEC model a presupposition that is admitted as a philosophical foundation of the scientific method (and still also allow more supernatural miracles when empirical evidence contradicts the model) in order to conclude that the YEC model is accurate.

You did see how Dialogos was trying to roast me on my admitted limitation of not using the theological concepts of the "virgin birth" and "resurrection" as a door stop, that would allow all other potential "supernatural miracles" into the science classroom, right? That is all part of their dirty little game. They are dishonest, then they have the audacity to try and make other Christians feel guilty about being honest.

A lot of them think that if they can get a captive audience. And show up in numbers that are great enough to intimidate certain individuals, then such is a reasonable way to convince one or a few in the midst of many. That is part of the reason they keep this bias going on this site. They would like their numbers to be greater, at any given time, than the people who oppose their non sense.

These guys are deceitful little wretches who, since they cannot even be honest with themselves, stand no chance of being honest with others.

 

[6days]

Explain to me how you get to the conclusion of a 6000 year old Earth based off of science alone, and disregarding religion?


6000 years comes purely from the sum of the lineages in Genesis. Where is the science suggesting that a man can live for 900 years?

I will repeat..... you seem very confused and frustrated. You are off topic. You either don't understand the issue, or, do undetstand but trying to create distraction. Biblical lineages are not science. Why do you want to discuss that in science class?*

 

[noguru]

I will repeat..... you seem very confused and frustrated. You are off topic. You either don't understand the issue, or, do undetstand but trying to create distraction. Biblical lineages are not science. Why do you want to discuss that in science class?*

You obviously do not know your history. At one point in time, Biblical lineages were cutting edge science. That was when Bishop Ussher published his chronology. That was the model many scientists looked at as a foundation. Because they did not know any better, and Ussher had produced the most comprehensive research available at the time. A few decades later however, they had compiled enough evidence to falsify the historical possibility of that model.

Nowadays you still see people trying to bring in "supernatural miracles" when discussing their YEC model. You see that especially with the flood story. Since that is part of the model added by Ellen G White, when the geological evidence had been compiled that falsified the historical possibility of the YEC model.

PS kdall, 6days ignores my posts, because "he can't handle the truth". So you might want to alert the poor fellow.

 

[Kdall]

I will repeat..... you seem very confused and frustrated. You are off topic. You either don't understand the issue, or, do undetstand but trying to create distraction. Biblical lineages are not science. Why do you want to discuss that in science class?*

Because that's how you get 6000 years as the Earth's age. If I'm wrong, show me evidence that points to the Earth specifically being 6000 years old. Literally 6000 years. Not "less than millions." I mean show me where the young Earth creationist idea of 6000 years is directly supported by evidence.


From noguru who you seem to ignore:
"You obviously do not know your history. At one point in time, Biblical lineages were cutting edge science. That was when Bishop Ussher published his chronology. That was the model many scientists looked at as a foundation. Because they did not know any better, and Ussher had produced the most comprehensive research available at the time. A few decades later however, they had compiled enough evidence to falsify the historical possibility of that model.

Nowadays you still see people trying to bring in "supernatural miracles" when discussing their YEC model. You see that especially with the flood story. Since that is part of the model added by Ellen G White, when the geological evidence had been compiled that falsified the historical possibility of the YEC model."

 

[6days]

You are off topic. You either don't understand the issue, or, do undetstand but trying to create distraction. Biblical lineages are not science. Why do you want to discuss that in science class?

Because that's how you get 6000 years as the Earth's age. If I'm wrong, show me evidence that points to the Earth specifically being 6000 years old. Literally 6000 years. Not "less than millions." I mean show me where the young Earth creationist idea of 6000 years is directly supported by evidence.

And, I'm asking you how that applies to the topic?

How...or why do you imagine that the Biblical lineages tied to the age of the earth is going to come up in science class?

From the OP....
"The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course"

 

[aikido7]

Traditional believers are suspicious of "academic freedom."

Whenever they deem that an academic, a liberal or an intellectual is talking to them, they immediately believe they are being "talked down to" and they put themselves into a stance of "victimhood."

Their suspicion of science works the same way.

 

[Kdall]

And, I'm asking you how that applies to the topic?

How...or why do you imagine that the Biblical lineages tied to the age of the earth is going to come up in science class?

From the OP....
"The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course"

BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCIENCE CLASS, AND IT'S ALL BASED ON A RIDICULOUS TIMESCALE TAKEN FROM THE LINEAGES IN GENESIS

There is NO strength of a theory based on jibberish!

 

[6days]

BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCIENCE CLASS, AND IT'S ALL BASED ON A RIDICULOUS TIMESCALE TAKEN FROM THE LINEAGES IN GENESIS[!

Wow...all caps!
You are clueless or the topic. Most creationists I know would be opposed to teaching creationism in secular schools. Likewise we would be opposed to teaching Hinduism, Islam or Veganism.

 

[Kdall]

Wow...all caps!
You are clueless or the topic. Most creationists I know would be opposed to teaching creationism in secular schools. Likewise we would be opposed to teaching Hinduism, Islam or Veganism.

As I am not clueless, I must be the topic.


Then what the heck do you want? Previous failures of evolutionary theory are already taught in schools. They serve as examples of previous ideas that have since been abandoned (like Lamarkism), and to show how science's peer scrutiny system always weeds out the weaker ideas and "discoveries."

What are you advocating for?


PS: do you think Veganism is a religion?

 

[6days]

What are you advocating for?

Simply what the OP says.

Example....
I see you saying there are hundreds of transitionals.
If that is allowed to be taught, then statements that would oppose, that by qualified scientists should also be allowed. (By both secular and religious scientists.)

 

[The Barbarian]

I see you saying there are hundreds of transitionals.

Demonstrated fact. As you notice, no creationist has so far succeeded in showing us any two major groups without a transitional.

If that is allowed to be taught, then statements that would oppose, that by qualified scientists should also be allowed. (By both secular and religious scientists.)

Sorry, but science isn't done by quote-mining. You have to have evidence. That must seem terribly unfair to creationists, but there it is.

 

[6days]

If (transitionals) is allowed to be taught, then statements that would oppose that, by qualified scientists should also be allowed. (By both secular and religious scientists.)

Sorry, but science isn't done by quote-mining. You have to have evidence.

We agree... science isn't done by quote mining. As it says in the OP...*public schools should create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.