Freethought & Rationalism Archive

caravelair · 04-07-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
They aren't dumb, not by a long shot.

KC

yes they are, and apparantly you are too.

Abacus · 04-07-2003, 02:06 PM

I think that was uncalled for.

RufusAtticus · 04-07-2003, 02:22 PM

Hey guy's lets keep this thread on the issue at hand.

Mageth · 04-07-2003, 02:23 PM

I think "ignorant" is a better term than "dumb" (for the creationists, that is).

Bubba · 04-07-2003, 02:26 PM

I don't know that they are dumb...they just have never been exposed toi the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including human evolution.

Just my two cents

Bubba

caravelair · 04-07-2003, 02:30 PM

sorry if that was too harsh. i am new here, and perhaps the etiquette of this board is different from the boards i am used to. i withdraw my harshness.

has everyone seen "voices for evolution"?

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Elindsa...ces/index.html

i think that this resource would prove valuable in any such legal battle.

caravelair · 04-07-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubba
I don't know that they are dumb...they just have never been exposed toi the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including human evolution.

Just my two cents

Bubba

that's not the only issue at hand though. the fact is that creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious theory. therefore it is inappropriate for creationism to be taught in any science classroom.

Mageth · 04-07-2003, 02:36 PM

I think applying the term "theory" to creationism is a stretch in and of itself, whether scientific or religious.

caravelair · 04-07-2003, 02:39 PM

you're right. my mistake.

Abacus · 04-07-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I think applying the term "theory" to creationism is a stretch in and of itself, whether scientific or religious.

Would it be appropriate to refer to creationism as a hypothesis?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2003, 02:06 PM	#12
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	I think that was uncalled for.

04-07-2003, 02:22 PM	#13
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Hey guy's lets keep this thread on the issue at hand.

04-07-2003, 02:23 PM	#14
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I think "ignorant" is a better term than "dumb" (for the creationists, that is).

04-07-2003, 02:26 PM	#15
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	I don't know that they are dumb...they just have never been exposed toi the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including human evolution. Just my two cents Bubba

04-07-2003, 02:30 PM	#16
caravelair Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: toronto Posts: 420	sorry if that was too harsh. i am new here, and perhaps the etiquette of this board is different from the boards i am used to. i withdraw my harshness. has everyone seen "voices for evolution"? http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Elindsa...ces/index.html i think that this resource would prove valuable in any such legal battle.

04-07-2003, 02:36 PM	#18
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I think applying the term "theory" to creationism is a stretch in and of itself, whether scientific or religious.

04-07-2003, 02:39 PM	#19
caravelair Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: toronto Posts: 420	you're right. my mistake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.