On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that >>>>>> conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized
religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion
created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Your alternative, of course, is atheistic evolution. Comparing evolution to
physics and gravity is so outrageous, it is hard to consider you as being >>>> sane.

It was sarcasm. Apparently creationism reduces one's ability to see it.

My impression is, your analogy was a reductio ad absurdum, to
illustrate the absurdity of Glenn's comments. Even if you were being
snarky, you made a legitimate point.

Actually it was Jonathan Dahlin's analogy, I was merely adding a touch of explanation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that >>>>>>> conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion
created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Nope. ID is pseudoscientific claptrap.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jan 1, 2023, Ron Dean wrote
(in article <1uhsL.166394$iU59.44289@fx14.iad>):

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd"<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious
discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that
conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very
obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really
angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it
falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you
say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching
physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false!

Nope.

ID is strictly scientific,

Nope.

based on scientific discoveries!

Name three.

And why did you bother to zombifie a year-old nerothread just to babble bullshit?

Your alternative, of course, is atheistic evolution. Comparing evolution
to
physics and gravity is so outrageous, it is hard to consider you as being
sane.

It was sarcasm. Apparently creationism reduces one's ability to see it.

My impression is, your analogy was a reductio ad absurdum, to
illustrate the absurdity of Glenn's comments. Even if you were being snarky, you made a legitimate point.

Actually it was Jonathan Dahlin's analogy, I was merely adding a touch of explanation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that
conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion
created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Based on scientific discoveries does not make something scientific.
One could apply numerology to data obtained by science but that would
not make the claims of numerology applied to scientific data "scientific".
One could recast astrology to use updated planetary, lunar, and stellar locations that are measured with heightened scientific rigour, but that
won't rescue astrology to be "strictly scientific".

You need to use scientific methodology, not just use scientific data.
This is so foundational, and frankly so basic. It sure would be nice
of you to admit to this foundational point.

I will concede that many have tried to lead you astray on this point.
Behe occasionally admits that he's not doing design research when
he gathers together facts about things like the clotting cascade and
says, "gee whiz, I don't know how that evolved".

Minnich used to admit he wasn't doing design research as he was
doing essentially the same research to understand the function of
biological systems before he ever considered thinking about them
being "intelligently designed". And after he started thinking about
them being intelligently designed, he isn't really doing anything
significantly different than other biochemists do, and have done before
he ever got going, mainly reductionist knock out mutations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-01-01 15:41:06 +0000, WolfFan said:

On Jan 1, 2023, Ron Dean wrote
(in article <1uhsL.166394$iU59.44289@fx14.iad>):

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd"<invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>> Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that
conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion >>>>>>> created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false!

Nope.

ID is strictly scientific,

Nope.

based on scientific discoveries!

Name three.

He'd be lucky to find one, let alone three.

And why did you bother to zombifie a year-old nerothread just to babble bullshit?

Your alternative, of course, is atheistic evolution. Comparing evolution >>>>>> to
physics and gravity is so outrageous, it is hard to consider you as being
sane.

It was sarcasm. Apparently creationism reduces one's ability to see it. >>>>

My impression is, your analogy was a reductio ad absurdum, to
illustrate the absurdity of Glenn's comments. Even if you were being
snarky, you made a legitimate point.

Actually it was Jonathan Dahlin's analogy, I was merely adding a touch of >>> explanation.

--
Athel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/1/2023 9:17 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that >>>>>>> conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion
created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

It took you a year to come up with this trollish line? Why do you think
that you could never get other IDiots to help you understand why they
all ran from the Top Six evidences for IDiocy that the ID perps put up
in 2017? No IDiots ever explained to you why they couldn't deal with
the best evidence that the ID perps had when they were placed in their
order of occurrence. Even you finally admitted that you didn't want to
use the junk to understand your religious beliefs so, you should know
why the ID perps did not call the Top Six "scientific" evidence. All
they claim is that it is the best evidence, but it isn't even that.
They are just gaps in our scientific knowledge that the ID perps claim
their designer could fill, but most IDiot creationists in existence
don't want to believe in the designer that fills those gaps. That
designer isn't biblical enough for the IDiot rubes that fell for the ID
scam.

The degeneration of the ID prep's Top Six: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as they were
initially presented. Sewell had to put them up as disembodied parts and
drop out the Cambrian explosion and the Behe's IC claptrap, and Miller
dropped out your Big Bang god-of-the-gaps scenario. The majority of
IDiot creationist rubes are YEC and the Big Bang is one of the bits of
science that they want dropped out of their kid's science education
along with biological evolution. They don't want their designer to fill
that gap.

It should be no mystery to you why no IDiots can stand the Top Six as
the IDiotic Top Six best evidence for IDiocy. IDiot creationist rubes
were only happy lapping up the denial, and were never interested in the
actual science.

Why don't you want to use the Top Six to better understand your
religious beliefs, when your religious beliefs are the main reason you
want to defend the creationist ID scam?

Ron Okimoto

Your alternative, of course, is atheistic evolution. Comparing evolution to
physics and gravity is so outrageous, it is hard to consider you as being >>>>> sane.

It was sarcasm. Apparently creationism reduces one's ability to see it. >>>

My impression is, your analogy was a reductio ad absurdum, to
illustrate the absurdity of Glenn's comments. Even if you were being
snarky, you made a legitimate point.

Actually it was Jonathan Dahlin's analogy, I was merely adding a touch of
explanation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:23:55 AM EST, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>> Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that
conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion >>>>>>> created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Nope. ID is pseudoscientific claptrap.

Opinions or worth what they cost!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:13:21 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:23:55 AM EST, "*Hemidactylus*" ><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>>> Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that
conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion >>>>>>>> created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Nope. ID is pseudoscientific claptrap.

Opinions or worth what they cost!

Based on your comments above, you "absolutely" don't apply that to
your own opinions.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/1/23 7:17 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that >>>>>>> conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion
created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Science is supposed to pay attention to physical evidence, isn't it?
But the evidence from the living world shows evidence incompatible with
design (unless the designer deliberately made life look undesigned).
Perhaps by "strictly scientific" you mean "disproved by science"?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ron Dean wrote:

On Jan 28, 2021 at 11:49:00 PM EST, "Pro Plyd" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:57:01 -0700, Pro Plyd <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

Jonathan Dahlin wrote:

Requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools is religious >>>>>>> discrimination because it requires the teaching of children things that >>>>>>> conflicts with what their parents teach them based on recognized >>>>>>> religious teachings (book of Genesis which teaches things that very >>>>>>> obviously obviously clash with evolution).

If I declare that my religion teaches that gravity is an illusion
created by the devil, and that what you think gravity does is really >>>>>> angels and demons fighting it out over control of an object, and if it >>>>>> falls down the demon won, and if it rises up the angel won, would you >>>>>> say that I should be allowed to force schools either to stop teaching >>>>>> physics, or at least also teach my version as an alternative?

Apparently that is an attempted analogy to Intelligent Design.

Absolutely false! ID is strictly scientific, based on scientific discoveries!

Discoveries such as ->

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)