Scylla said:
Funny, you just described my impression of Bush. But when Bush is dishonest, it’s just chalked up to his “dummy factor.”
Hasn’t that been done a time or two by now? Yet they still haven’t stopped – and you are planning to vote for a guy who would go against that very thing if he had a chance.
jmullaney - As I said earlier, I accept that “the verdict is still out” is in common usage. That doesn’t make it right. (I am decidedly a prescriptive grammarian.)
JAG - Occam’s razor. Others have pointed out the most obvious flaws in your “logic”, but the “how do you know the scientists are not making up evidence” bit cracked me up. Come on, man, at least read Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things” so you can avoid being such an easy target (it’s not that long, and he mostly uses small words).
Davidb:
I disagree. Bush clearly knows the difference between personal opinion, and public policy. It seems a key plank of his campaign that he looks to less government involvement, than more, and I support this. Creationism simply can’t win in the long run.
On the other hand if you would like to take what Gore what Gore wants to “give” you, then that leads to a paritcularly apropos image. 'Cause that’s exactly what he’s trying to do to this country.
Scylla said:
How do you figure? He admits that it should be up to the states – as in, the state governments. That’s still government involvement. And why does he want to do that? Because on a national level, he knows he loses on this issue. But on a state level, they may win on it in certain spots.
I really can’t believe you fall for this crap.
Tell them that.
Of course, if people vote for creationists into the highest office in the land, that’s sure not going to do anything to stem the tide…
DavidB:
I don’t think Bush is quite as Machiavellian in his strategies as you seem to.
Can you find a source that says it is wrong??
What should be the opposite of the verdict being in?
As for the rest of you who still think Bush is going to mandate creationism, perhaps you should read the full quote again from the first page.
Oh, pulease. Welcome to America David. Will you be staying long?
jmullaney
Perhaps you should reread the 10-31-2000 06:42 PM post from Cantrip where she quoted a Bush spokeswoman and my own post immediately thereafter quoting Bush himself. These words should make it clear that Bush is definitely in favor of teaching creationism in school. No one is debating your strawman that Bush will “mandate creationism”.
Scylla, you seem quite eager to give Bush a pass for his stand on creationism, but it begs the question – if Bush advocated teaching geocentrism, or flat-earth(ism), or the theory that magical fairies tugging on celestial bodies created gravity, would you still be so willing to vote for him?
hardcore:
As I’ve said there is a big difference between personal opinion and public policy.
To me, this is not the defining issue of the Presidential Race. As a matter of fact, it’s probably about 100 out of a list of 99.
Look at the debates. Gore breaks the rules. He thinks they don’t apply to him. He thinks what Government does is a personal gift from himself. He’s as slick and amoral as brother Billy. I vote for Bush not because I think he’s great, but becuase I think Gore is very very bad.
Doubleclick, glad I could make you laugh.
But, typical of some Evolutionists who use science as their religion, you have as much ‘proof’ as I do and refuse to even listen to the other theories because the hypothesis doesn’t match yours.
You see Doubleclick, there isn’t enough time in a public school system to teach all the little facts and evidence about the Theory of Evolution. If you can’t prove it, don’t teach it in a science class since science is supposedly exact.
I don’t tell you to read the Bible cover to cover before you can refute Creationism. Don’t believe yourself so superior, it weakens your position.
All other company accepted of course.
I have, however, upon reading something constructive, come to the conclusion, IMO, that Creation is not a scientific theory. Thank you Caldazar.
However, that said, believing the Bible is no different from believing what some scientists provided as evidence…
Example: The Big Bang Theory, noone can recreate 273 million degrees of heat, they only intelligently guess at what the results of 273 million degrees of heat would produce in the atmosphere. Also, this theory was being taught long before the recent additional ‘proof’ was gathered.
[sarcasm on]
How do we know that these scientists, a bunch of geniuses, usually with little social abilities because of their geekiness, didn’t just make all this up to laugh at us dumb people who would rather get laid than play with a microscope?
[/sarcasm off]
Example: Some species are now extinct thus they evolutionized into something new. According to Doubleclick, Evolution = survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest simply says that all species existed at the beginning of time and some lived, some didn’t. That supports creationism, not evolution. However, I think most Evolutionists do not see Evolution as simply survival of the fittest.
A boat shaped formation whose material component is not rock but petrified wood according to their ‘scientific’ study, thank you very much. Might want to read that cite one more time. You would think that scientists, being all pure and into scientific evidence, might go up there and so some more exploration to disprove that theory huh? But I don’t know that they could prove it is wood anymore than I know that they can put an age on skeletal remains or fossils. I’m not a scientist, nor is the majority of the population. How do you bridge that believability level? The purpose of the post was to disarm the illusion that the Theory of Creation is based solely upon the Bible. Lots of other religions believe in Creation. Other evidence exists to support the Bible.
There are documentations of some significant occurances in the Bible, outside of the Bible. But you would also have to allow that the best lies contain enough truth to make them believable, so who really knows? The scriptures were written my many different men and women over a span of thousands of years that were gathered together to create the Bible… it isn’t JUST a book as some of you heathens 
like to call it.
How do I know this? The problem with some science is that you have to be a scientist to understand it. Because a man/woman or group of men/women tell me that something is so, shall I accept it for a fact? You are saying that because a group of people wrote the Bible I should not accept that for a fact. touche
A better question would be where did it come from in the first place? I mean surely if He could create water, He could take it away.
Someone said something about the World being round, I know this to be true because I have been to the ocean and seen first hand how it was discovered in the first place to be round. I have also seen copies of photographs, back before there was computer imaging, showing the Earth from outer space.
If you accept that God created all animals and is all powerful, why could He not recreate these animals? Or perhaps Noah had giant aquariums on the ship for all fresh water creatures. Just some hypotheses.
Because God didn’t want them to. Maybe they are polarized?
Or maybe that is where some of the rain went, hmmmm.
Who would have lived to record it? Beyond Noah and his ilk that is and they did record it didn’t they? If the entire world were flooded, the bodies would have been strewn across the entire world. If the civilization were submerged for a significant period of time, during which the Earth changed it’s shape, the bits and pieces could be sitting at the bottom of an ocean for all we know.
Still, given the arguments of some and an inherent inability to prove Creationism, I personally conclude that it is not a scientific theory.
On the other hand, Evolution, as it was taught in my school and is likely taught in many other schools, is no more than provable than Creationism. It is Man’s 20th century mythological record of the beginning of the Earth, similar to Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, and Creationism as an unproven, unprovable theory.
If I can logically provide a counter hypothesis to the Theory of Evolution that supports each element of ‘proof’ then you cannot teach the Theory of Evolution as a scientific fact.
And before you go off about whether anything scientific is fact, yes it is. I remember proving almost every other theory of science that was taught in public school in a lab.
I believe it should be preceded by a disclaimer that it is the only theory offered by the scientific community and is an opposed theory by Creationists, possibly others if any other theories exist.
Interestingly, my wife’s exposure to the Theory of Evolution, (I asked her about it last night) was a student-researched debate in class with half the class arguing Evolution and the other half arguing Creationism. And according to her recollection, that was about it. Still, the basis of what she picked up in the class was that man comes from monkeys. And that is what most people are picking up from a public school education of the Theory of Evolution. (Which does lend to teaching it right or not at all)
Further, if I can disprove Evolution by what I can witness, it cannot be taught as a scientific fact.
Here is evidence against the Theory of Evolution, at least as it proposes that man evolved from something else.
There are multiple species of most every other animal in the world, only one for mankind. If man were broken down into separate species by race, size, etc., it might better support the Theory of Evolution. It might also piss alot of people off.
If evolution existed, it would be so gradual, you could barely, but definately witness it. Show me. Show me where a four toed, short toothed horse gradually, through fossils or skeletal changes and not through hypothesis, turns into a modern day horse. Otherwise my conclusion is that the four toed, short toothed horse simply suffered extinction. The other kind was there all along.
Noone has reconciled, to the best of my knowledge, how life began from nothing and why that process would ever stop. Not the process of evolution, but the process of life being created from matter.
To the best of my knowledge, in all the years that man has been recording events, noone has ever witnessed the birth of a new creature from existing and different creatures.
Since the Theory of Evolution directly refutes Creation and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt… if you are going to teach it in a science class, then Creationism should be explained as a counter-theory based outside of science. Otherwise, you are ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ at a federal level.
(more to Doubleclick than anyone else)
Evolutionists should understand that alot of Creationists see the Theory of Evolution as an atheist religious belief. Instead of priests, you use scientists. Laugh all you want, but that is where your opposition comes from. And since this country was founded upon religious freedom and is well based in Christianity, if you turn your nose up too high and laugh too hard, you will loose in the end.
I personally believe there can be reconciliation between the two, though I am still not convinced of Evolution, perhaps due to a religious upbringing that refutes any evidence to the contrary. But if you push anti-Christianity too hard, you turn it into a popularity contest that you will loose rather than a factual contest that you might be able to win. You can present and fight the theory of Creationism without the Bible or God. There are other religions besides Christianity that hold belief in a Creator. Tread lightly lest thy atheist agenda be discovered.
Because atheism is a religion and if the Theory of Evolution is linked to atheism, oh my how quickly and happily the courts will be to throw a First Amendment violation on you and you can look for Evolution next to the old Prayer Books and copies of the Ten Commandments, outside the public school system.
Scylla, you did everything but answer the question. I am not interested in your take on Gore. I am wondering if you would still vote for Bush if he advocated other positions so starkly antithetical to science. I assume you would based on your previous postings, but I am not sure.
Feel free to ignore the question if you think I am being obtuse.
a) I don’t care what some anonymously quoted spokesperson said.
For example, “Hardcore doesn’t understand the way media works,” an anonymous spokesperson for hardcore stated. “But I’m supporting him in this debate, since I’m an idiot too.”
Well that proves it hardcore. Don’t blame me – your own spokesperson said it.
b) The second quote is where Bush says creationist theories should be taught as part of an American history class. Why do you have a problem with that?
jmullaney:
I do not and have never had a problem with creationist theories in an American history class. Once again you are arguing with a strawman.
I contend that Bush supports allowing local school boards to decide whether to teach creationism in a science class. I presented a quote and referenced the quote noted from Cantrip that support this view. If you can show that Bush’s words were taken out of context, or that his spokesperson mistook his position, please do so.
Were are talking evidence here…and Creationizm has none save the Bible. You’re saying that I havn’t shown any either…not much point…you already said you don’t want to do much reading in order to learn about it. (But you know where to look if you really want it.)
Of course not there isn’t…what a stupid comment. People spend years learing the ToE. What proof are you looking for? “Show me something evolving!”? That would be called “Spontanious Evolution” and if I could show you that, I would actually be DISPROVING the ToE! (Not to mention that “Spontanious Evolution” is an oximoron…but then you would need to know what ‘evolution’ really means before one would notice that.)
Nor did I tell you to read every scientific text on the subject of evolution, but you obviously haven’t read any. (You yourself have addmitted that. “…I have skimmed…”
I on the other hand have read the Bible cover to cover. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic. It was manditory. No, I can’t quote from it off the top of my head, but at least I understood what I was reading…(When it wasn’t busy contradicting itself.)
Many section of the Bible took some rereading because of the way it was writen. A lot of self interpretation is involved. (IE: What does this passage mean? Or what does it mean to me.)
The Bible is a great book, don’t get me wrong. But I view it as a work of fiction, not fact. There aer too many things that are claimed, but not explained. (IE: How could an entire species come from only 2 beings? Was Lot’s wife REALLY turned into a pillar of salt? If so, how?)
Scientific texts will make clames and back it up with the evidence it has. Science also, as some one has mentioned, is self correcting. If soemthing is shown to be incorrect, the great! We have now advanced or scientific knowledge a bit.
I am not believeing myself to be ‘superior’ by any means. I am using logic in my arguments.(Well, I’m trying me best too.) You, on the other hand, are not.
Well, I can’t do anything else but laught at a statement like that. Scientist=Priest? Sheesh! Pretty weak arguments to support Creationizm…
I respect your belief that there can be reconciliation between the two…but I disagree with it.
No one here is pushing Anti-Christianity. We are discussing Evolution vs. Creationism. Not science vs. religion.
I have no problem with religion… but the difference between religion and science (Since you seem to want to head in that direction.) is that science is based on observed physical evidence, where as religion is based on belief and faith. And that’s fine with me…no problems at all.
But one needs to understand that the two are NOT interchangeable.
Therefore, if you feel you need to use science to justify your religion, then maybe you’re faith is not as strong as you thought. (You don’t see proper scientists using religion to back up their theories.)
(Now can we get back to the topic of Evolution Vs. Creationism?)
Scylla said:
Well, you’re partly right. I don’t think he, personally, is smart enough to be that Machiavellian. I wouldn’t rule out his “advisors,” however.
jmullaney said:
Did you have a point? Or was this the most intelligent thing you could think of?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
I don’t normally do this, but can those of you (such as JustAnotherGuy) who are actually arguing creation/evolution rather than Bush’s position on the issue, please move to a different thread? Lord knows we usually have enough c/e threads around here. I’d like to try to keep this one on-topic.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Good point…got a little caught up there. =)
Thanks 
hardcore:
Yeah, it does seem a little obtuse. I don’t think creationism is quite in the category of faeries making gravity. I have respect for religious faith, and I’ve interpreted Bush’s comments to mean that evolution, the big bang et-all, does not preclude the existence of a creator. He’s as much as said that faith shouldn’t direct scientific inquiry and knowledge. That this is at odds with his statement concerning creationism being taught in schools, is not all that troubling.
There is a legitimate concern that those of religious faith have, that teaching evolutionary theory in a purely scientific context is actually an endorsement of atheism, and as such would violate SOCAS. After spending some time at American Atheists and Robsherman.com, I am not all that sure that the desire to undermine religious faith is a paranoid standpoint.
Separitism does not mean favoritism, and if we are going to teach evolution (as I believe we should,) we need to do so in a context that does not infringe upon the rights of the religious. Does that mean we teach Creationism as an alternate theory? No. Perhaps a reconciliatory course should be available for those that have faith. I dunno, but the answer isn’t simple.
If Bush said Faeries make gravity I’d just assume he has having a psychedelic flashback
Funny you should mention Bush’s drug history – you complain about Gore but it doesn’t seem to bother you that Bush won’t discuss that. Hmmmm.
Anyway, more on-topic, you said:
You’re right. Faeries make more sense.
Maybe not to you. Obviously, others disagree. And, frankly, I don’t understand why it’s not troubling to you – except that you already decided that Bush is your man and you don’t want to change your mind or see his downsides.
There is a concern. It is not legitimate, though.
Oooh, good idea. Use the most extreme examples as your basis! C’mon, man, you should know better than that.
In other words, we teach it as science and don’t mention religion – leaving that subject as one for the home or church.
Scylla, perhaps we should heed David’s advice and continue this line of discussion in another thread. But let me try to weasel in the last word on this thread by addressing this point:
Teaching evolution is no more an endorsement of atheism than the current teachings of stars forming and planets orbiting because of gravity, atoms being held together by nuclear forces, or continental drift due to geological activity. All without invoking a deity. If these statements do not endorse atheism, why single out biology?