199
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 90:
Line 90: + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 03:13, April 10, 2008
, 03:13, April 10, 2008no edit summary
: As for claims of indoctrination, this is a case of when pointing the finger at someone, you have three pointing back at yourself. It's the evolutionists that have a stranglehold on the school system, with even efforts to tell students that they should keep an open mind about evolution being taken to court and stopped. When evolutionists prevent students being told that they should keep an open mind, they are indoctrinating. When they then accuse their opposition of indoctrination, they are being hypocrites. And Able806 has the gall to question the motives of ID proponents!
: As for claims of indoctrination, this is a case of when pointing the finger at someone, you have three pointing back at yourself. It's the evolutionists that have a stranglehold on the school system, with even efforts to tell students that they should keep an open mind about evolution being taken to court and stopped. When evolutionists prevent students being told that they should keep an open mind, they are indoctrinating. When they then accuse their opposition of indoctrination, they are being hypocrites. And Able806 has the gall to question the motives of ID proponents!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::'' Gulik5, can you unequivocally demonstrate that "Dig[ging] up a fossil of a Tyrannosaurus Rex that died from choking to death on a Homo Sapiens" ''would'' falsify evolution? Because I don't think it would. ''
::Yeah, it pretty well would. It would mean that modern science is '''dead wrong''' about fossil formation, sedimentation, the timeline of Earth's history, when humanity evolved, and about twenty other things. Alternately, it COULD just mean someone developed a time-machine and wasn't very cautious, which would be equally huge, but more a matter for physicists. But, since on Planet Conservapedia, scientists are just the High Priests of the First Atheistic Church of Darwin, I'm sure you just expect them to take a gravel-crusher to the evidence, and burn as heretics anyone who claims to have seen it fnord.
::Let me turn that around on you, Phil: What would it take for YOU to admit that Creationism/ID was '''wrong'''? Preferrably something scientists could conceivably come up with, short of God Himself coming down and saying "DON'T BLAME ME FOR YOUR BADLY DESIGNED CARCASSES, I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT."?
::If the IDers don't have any funding, who keeps bankrolling groups like the Creation Museum?
::If you want scientists to tolerate 'alternatiove theories', '''Come up with some'''. Velikovsky-style efforts to rewrite the laws of physics in order to treat the Book of Genesis as a science textbook don't convince anyone who isn't already a True Believer. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)