Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

ALL beliefs are "religous"?

You mean to say that there are NO beliefs that are secular in nature?

If thats so then there would be no escaping a 'religous bias'.

I could apply for a job that I have no qualifications for, and when they fail to hire me I could claim 'religous descrimination' because the company that refused to hire me because they didnt "believe" that I would work out- and that 'belief' conflicts with my own 'belief' that I would excel in the job- and since all beliefs are "religous"- its religous descrimination!

And then when they force the company to hire me against its will- they wouldnt be able to fire me because their 'belief' that I am incompetent in the job is just 'religous conjecture' that conflicts with my 'belief' that I deserve a raise and promotion. So firing me would be religous descrimination!


ROTFLMFAO!

leejosepho, there is a big difference between accepting as fact something that is supported by literally tons of evidence and falsified by none, versus "believing" something that is falsified by the evidence and has no evidence supporting it. And you seriously want to give "equal time" to both sides in a science classroom?

If you claim your side has the same evidence as the evolution side only looked at from a different worldview, then consider that in the past fifty years there have been more than a dozen major court cases in the USA challenging the teaching of evolution in public schools. Creationists have had multiple opportunities to present scientific evidence that either supports their view or falsifies evolution. Guess what? In a fair fight in a court of law creationists come out looking like fools (and LIARS too as Judge Jones observed in his decision in the 2005 Dover trial) because they cannot produce ANY scientific evidence that either supports their position or falsifies evolution. Consider that please. Of course reality is not determined by a court of law, but just think a little bit about this. If there were any scientific evidence to support the creationist viewpoint, don't you think it would have been presented by now? The world is still waiting...

I agree that the idea of creationism or intelligent design can be discussed in public schools, but in a philosophy or sociology class, NOT science. The reason grants are not given for intelligent design research has nothing to do with atheists. It is because there is NO WAY TO TEST THEIR IDEAS SO THEY ARE NOT, REPEAT NOT, SCIENCE. And the claims of intelligent design advocates about complexity have been debunked. The bacterial flagellum could quite easily been an adaptation of other parts (this has happened a LOT in the history of life on earth). Same with the human eye (and creationists quite frequently quote-mine Darwin without including the rest of what he says about this). Quote mining is blatantly dishonest because it deliberately misrepresents what the person said actually meant.

All intelligent design has for arguments are God of the Gaps and the Watchmaker analogy, both of which have been debunked. All young earth creationists have for arguments is their interpretation of a Bronze Age story, and that interpretation has been falsified by all the evidence we can observe and measure and is not supported by any evidence we can observe and measure. So, is your God a trickster playing a prank on us to deceive us when the cost of our being fooled by this ultimate prankster could be eternal damnation (if you believe in hell)?

And by the way, have you checked out yet how much of an egregious liar and fraud Kent Hovind is?

^ You do realise that Lee isn't the least bit interested in the facts or in learning about them. All he does it ignore them, stick his fingers in his ears and say "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you. It was God wot dun it."

Talking to Lee is like talking to a brick wall. His world view is so heavily invested in his belief in God he will ignore anything and everything that disagrees with it (his world view). I gave up discussing this with him several pages back. You are similarly just wasting your time on him. It is like trying to teach calculus to a baboon.

It is quite obvious that leejosepho has no honest interest in truth or he would check out some of these facts. It doesn't take more than a few minutes with a search engine to find out how dishonest the creationist and intelligent design people are.

Most of the time when I make a post on this subject, the person I am debating is committed to wallowing in their ignorance. But my answers are mainly directed at those who read the threads, not necessarily those who start them. I hate to see lies go unchallenged.

For some people, sources such as Kent Hovind are the only information they have about evolution. While some people like leejosepho may be content to wallow in their ignorance and continue to spread false information about this subject, there may be other people who read these posts and are intrigued enough to take the time to investigate the facts for themselves instead of blindly believing creationist BS.

You're right that discussing this with leejosepho is useless. Not everyone has such a closed mind to truth though.

and leejosepho, if you're reading this, don't think I am targeting you. I am battling ignorance mainly, because there's not much I can do to battle stupidity, insanity or wickedness. OTOH I like to think I am fighting the good fight in this controversy even though debunking creationist arguments is like playing whack-a-mole: the same debunked arguments keep popping up again and again.

If you knew what I know about the evidence for evolution and the dishonest practices of the creationist and intelligent design sources, then I don't see how you would be able to continue saying what you say about this subject. It is quite obvious though you do not know very much about this subject, and most (if not all) of what you think you know is false because people like Kent Hovind LIED to you (and you believed them!)

And I'm not asking you to "believe" me either. Check it out for yourself. Be sure to check some non-creationist web sites if you want honest information about this subject. Creationist and intelligent design web sites are notorious for ignoring some of the strongest evidence for evolution and for denying or distorting what they do not ignore (besides other blatantly dishonest practices such as "quote mining" -- look it up!)

I'm locking this thread now as it only being kept going by Lee continually bumping and posting the same rubbish; which then gets debunked, then he posts another version of the same rubbish which gets debunked again and so on and so on and so on.