Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, October 21, 2010

What Evos Don't Want You to Know About the First Amendment

-
What don't evos want you to know about the first ammendment?

If applied evenly- you know the alleged "seperation of Church and State" then the theory of evolution would be banned from public schools as it is nothing more than a silly attempt tp indoctrinate kids with atheism.

IOW their cult would not be allowed into science classrooms.

My prediction- evotards will chime in and lie their asses off.

posted by Joe G @ 10:17 AM  

40 Comments:

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 1:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Exactly.

     

  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Indeed.

     

  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 2:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hey how about that Bill Dembski (father of ID) changing his mind and becomming a YEC?

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Hate to break the news to you but Dembski isn't the father of Intelligent Design.

    As for being a YEC- I guess that would depend on what you mean.

    You do realize- well most likely you don't because you appear ignorant as shit- that there are many Creationists who hold to the day-age position- that is one day in the Genesis 6 days of Creation = a long period in time. God's days are not 24 hour days.

    You don't have to believe me but it is a matter of record so you can look it up if you ever choose to do something more than spew your ignorance.

    And one more time- just because some or even most IDists are also Creationists that doesn't mean ID = Creation.

    Unless you want to go on record as saying that just because most evolutionists are atheists that makes the theory of evolution an atheistic theory and therefor should (also) be banned for public school science classrooms.

    However it is obvious that you are too much of a coward to ever go on record actually having to defend something positive.

     

  • At 5:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Who's the father of ID, Joe?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Who's the father of ID, Joe?

    It's ain't Wm Dembski.

    And it ain't Wm Paley.

    Most likely Aristotle or pre-Aristotle- way back then is when humans were discussing and debating this stuff.

    We had the teleogists on one hand- Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenis, et al. and the non-teleogists on the other- Democritus, Epicurus, Leucippis, et al.

    And there is a reason we remember Socrates , Plato, Aristotle and Diogenis more than the others- they won

     

  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What did they win, Joe?

     

  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The debate.

     

  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    which debate? Can you link to it please, I'm really interested.

     

  • At 5:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah it was on you tube-

    I'll see if I can find it...

    LoL!

    Rich, I am not here to educate the wilfully ignorant.

    If you are that stupid and don't know of those guys and what they discussed and debated then perhaps you should go to a library and start reading.

    But anyway- the theory of evolution is- according to your "logic- an atheistic theory.

    This thread isn't about Aristotle and what was settled news over 2000 years ago.

    However I am sure that will be brought up at the next hearing.

     

  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So "wilfully ignorant" woudl be someone who asks "Can you link to it please, I'm really interested".

     

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Rich - Ya see look at what you came bursting in here with-

    I easily shot that down only to have you come back with something else easily shot down.

    I then gave you the names of the main players and instead of taking some initiative you want to hold your hand- shoudl I tuck you in and read it to you- that is if I can find the stuff on the interwebs.

    But hey let me take a quick look but I am sure I will find references with big grown-up words.

    Are you going to be OK with that?

     

  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    While waiting for me you cabn get started by searching on "teleolgy"

    I bet wikipedia has something you can read...

     

  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    teleology

     

  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Okay, you don't havce anything specific. Thanks anyway.

    Shame about Dembski.

     

  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Rich lied, as usual, when he said he was really interested.

    Rich the shame is on you and your lying evotard brethren.

     

  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What I actually said:

    "Can you link to it please, I'm really interested".

    Joe couldn't. but he does bench 300 and has an IQ of 150.

     

  • At 2:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm Rich I gave you a link to teleology.

    Obviously you didn't read any of the articles there.

    But I understand- you, having an IQ of a rock needs, to be spoon fed.

    And if someone doesn't do so to your liking then tey are to blame for your ignorance.

    Pathetic...

     

  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Evolution is a scientific theory based on experimentation and research. Religion is more like a fairytale and not based on research or experimentation.

    One belongs in a science class, the other no where near one.

    Atheism, as you well know, is not a theory. It is a rejection of theism, sometimes called religion and usually coupled with a supreme being.

    And the phrase "church and state" is nowhere in the constitution. The idea of the separation, however, permeates the first amendment as do the subsequent court cases that uphold and reinforce the notion that the "state" will steer clear of the "church" and vice-versa.

     

  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT:
    Evolution is a scientific theory based on experimentation and research.

    Evolution has several meanings.

    IOW thanks for the meaningless equivocation.

    There isn't any experimentation nor research that demonstrates blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems- never mind account for the diversity of living organisms.

    TFT:
    Religion is more like a fairytale and not based on research or experimentation.

    The theory of evolution is a fairytale, complete with heavy reliance on Mother Nature, Father Time and magical mystery mutations.

    TFT:
    Atheism, as you well know, is not a theory.

    Yup it's just total nonsense.

    TFT:
    And the phrase "church and state" is nowhere in the constitution.

    I know- it was drummed up by some imbeciles to try to do something to religions.

    TFT:
    The idea of the separation, however, permeates the first amendment as do the subsequent court cases that uphold and reinforce the notion that the "state" will steer clear of the "church" and vice-versa.

    Pushing an atheistic agenda in punlic schoolrooms violates the First Amendment.

     

  • At 6:42 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You basically agreed with every point I made. You certainly didn't refute anything.

    Did I confuse you when I referred to "evolution" instead of the "theory of evolution?"

    Teachers do not push an atheistic agenda by virtue of not preaching. What you said is like saying if one isn't swimming then one must be flying. No, one could be sitting, walking, laying, running, sleeping, hanging, falling...

    Not doing thing A does not imply doing thing B which is viewed, erroneously in your false dichotomy, as thing A's opposite.

    "Church and state" was not dreamed up. It was merely a summary statement of the effect of the 1st amendment--it was simplified for dumbasses, dumbass.

     

  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT:
    You certainly didn't refute anything.

    I did point out that the theory doesn't have the experimental nor research supporting it.

    TFT:
    Teachers do not push an atheistic agenda by virtue of not preaching.

    The theory of evolution is an atheistic theory not grounded in science but philosophy.

    That has nothing to do with any teachers.

    As if it had to be said-


    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    …

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    …

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    ---

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    ---

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5


    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.


    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

    TFT:
    "Church and state" was not dreamed up.

    Yeah it was.

    TFT:
    It was merely a summary statement of the effect of the 1st amendment--

    It was/ is a bullshit interpretation of it- assface.

     

  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Evolution does not have several meanings, Joe. You have taught us that. In fact, just about every time that someone says the word "evolution" you go all ape shit about it meaning only one thing and no one else knows what they're talking about.

    Are you now of the opinion that words can have multiple meanings? And, if this is the case, can we look forward in a dramatic decline in JoeG comments concerning semantics?

    This could be the start of something cool.

     

  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Evolution does not have several meanings, Joe.

    Yes it does and I have posted just that many times:

    biological evolution what is bing debated revisted- from 2009 and the fist was from 2006:

    biological evolution what is being debated

    IOW once again Erik Pratt is a proven liar.

    blipey:
    In fact, just about every time that someone says the word "evolution" you go all ape shit about it meaning only one thing and no one else knows what they're talking about.

    You are a liar.

    Geez Erik if all you can do is lie why even bother posting?

     

  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And let' not forget my threads on equivocation and evolution:

    equivocation and evolution

    equivocation and evolution continued

    No need to post here again Erik- unless you want to provide more evidence for my defense-

     

  • At 9:00 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Evolution is a scientific theory. Many religious people adhere to it. Calling it atheistic doesn't make it so, it just makes you look desperate. Atheists don't have an agenda. They just don't believe in theism.

    There are lots of scientific data to support the theory of evolution, and most scientists, hell, most people, believe it is true based on the evidence.

    Only in America, and maybe some 3rd world impoverished nations, do people ignore scientific evidence in favor of nonsense. Folks like you are in the minority and get ridiculed for spouting such tripe. Have you noticed there are no serious people who agree with you?

    You have no evidence to support anything you say. Your "evidence" seems to be comprised of stupid things people say based on ideas not tested, or just plain silly--ideas based in religious belief, I might add.

    Joe, evolution is real.

     

  • At 10:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So the whole thing over on Corny's blog was a mistake? You didn't actually mean to argue that evolution only meant one thing (the one thing you wanted it to mean at the time)?

    Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure you'll rush right out and apologize to Derick and Zachriel. I mean, surely you didn't mean that evolution had only one meaning. Thanks for bucking up and apologizing for your misstatement.

    Of course, if your argument at Corny's is not a mistake, I'm sure you'll apologize here for stating that evolution can have multiple meanings.

     

  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik:
    So the whole thing over on Corny's blog was a mistake? You didn't actually mean to argue that evolution only meant one thing (the one thing you wanted it to mean at the time)?

    The mistake is all yours- as usual.

    DERICK was saying that evolution only meant one thing- I corrected him you dumbass.

    Learn how to read you ignorant freak.

     

  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT:
    Evolution is a scientific theory.

    The theory of evolution is not based on science.

    It is based on philosophy.

    TFT:
    Calling it atheistic doesn't make it so, it just makes you look desperate.

    Umm I'm not Will Provine you asshole.

    Ya see it is evos that call it atheistic.


    TFT:
    There are lots of scientific data to support the theory of evolution, and most scientists, hell, most people, believe it is true based on the evidence.

    Hey asshole there isn't even any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct a functional multi-part system.

    And that is why most people don't accept the ToE.

    It is all throwing deep time at small changes.

    TFT:
    You have no evidence to support anything you say.

    And yet I have- go figure.

    TFT:
    Joe, evolution is real.

    True but that doesn't mean the ToE is real- ya see evolution has several different meanings you equivocating evotard.

     

  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My first post on Hunter's blog:

    Cornelius,

    This is all about equivocation.

    "Evolution" hs several meanings.

    Evos love to take evidence for one meaning- say for a change in allele frequency within a population and use it for neo-darwinism/ modern synthesis.

    And that is the problem.

    They think that people like you, Eocene, Neal and myself are anti-evolution whe in fact we are just anti- the blind watchmaker evolution.

    to which Derick responded:
    "Joe, in almost every instance in which someone is asked "Do you accept evolution?" it's a shorter way of asking: "Do you accept the currently accepted consensus about the theory of evolution?" "

    And then I went ahead and corrected him.

     

  • At 1:18 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, you are throwing out a meaning in order to say that anyone asking a question about evolution only has one thing in mind. Thanks for confirming that.

    I'm sure you're now going to apologize for not allowing multiple meanings of "evolution" to be referred to.

     

  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Right, you are throwing out a meaning in order to say that anyone asking a question about evolution only has one thing in mind.

    That is a lie- that is what Derick said- that anyone asking the question only has one meaning in mind.

    IOW thanks for continuing to prove that you are a lying loser.

     

  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    To which your response was, "No they don't. They think what I do."

    But you're not a mind reader so how would you know?

     

  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Sweet- Erik gets caught in a big fat lie and then tries distraction...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home