Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent >>>>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor. >>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what >>>>> they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how >>>>> it gets interpreted.
Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious >>>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at >>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public >>>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school >>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to >>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the >>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless >>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks >>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the >>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone >>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch >>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any >>>>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and >>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do >>>>> not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
they
have to deny.
;
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer.
Like horse and carriage, love and marriage, you can't have one
without the other. Without any attributes of the designer
saying it was "designed" is the same as saying it was "flubbied". It may
sound like an explanation, but isn't one. But you sell yourself short!
By your own analysis from earlier posts, the evidence for design that
you gave allows us to say quite
a bit about the designer. The teacher could e.g. say that the evidence
that Ron Dean has unearthed, we can rule out
categorically the deity of the Abrahamic religions
But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
That's not evidence for design, that's a somewhat trivial recognition
that the further we go back in history, the less likely it is becomes
that remains were preserved, and at one point data will simply run out
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?
From earlier, simpler organisms. You have been given in the past
references to quite a number of them.
There is no direct linage back to any common ancestor for these Cambrian complex animals.
But to potential ancestorS of them. The ToE explains that find, yours
explains diddly squad, as usual
Since they were found in the fossil record, over a
period of (about 10KK years), there is no reason the direct links back
to some ancestors is not found.
There are lots of reasons. fossilization is rare to start with,
and then you need lots of luck to find those that fossilized.
Just for starters. But the ToE explains those that we do find,
in contrast to your ID that explains precisely nothing, and
is based solely on things NOT observed
Just another example of evidence that's
not observed. Of course. there are excuses.
There are observations. Observations NOW about fossils and
under what conditions they are formed. You've run away every
time from the simple challenge I gave you: We KNOW all
dog breeds According to you, we should therefore find finely
graduated dog fossils that demonstrate every step in the
transition from Wolf to Biewer Terrier. Please show me the
fossils that according to you should be there
The question still remains as to the origin of the DNA itself, as well
as the abrupt origin of the information required for the formation of
this myriad of complex Cambrian animals. The myriad of complex animals required a myriad of informational programs for these animals
so once again your entire argument is based on absence - here
the absence of a theory that explains something that happened a long
long tome ago on a very very small scale. And this absence is all
that you have,
If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)