The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='100612' dateline='1287691788']Attacking a source doesn't do anything to discredit the information at hand, and it's a pretty lame way of debating. That's why I want to move away from it, you guys can use your sources (youtube and wiki) and I can use mine (AIG, CMI, and ICR). Fair is fair.

I like to pretend we still live in a country that alwyers and judges do not decide what is and is not science, apparently you don't live in that country. The Evolutionists lost the Scopes Monkey Trials mind you, so can I use that to attack the validity of Evolutionary education? I would not stoop to this level and you should not either.

I'm sorry, but what?
Evolutionists lost the John Scopes "The Monkey Trial"? The case of an attempt to stifle the teaching of evolution was dismissed, although it wasn't a trial that was brought before the supreme court to determine its constitutionality, as some hoped, it didnt' end favorably for anti-evolutionists in the sense that it didn't make teaching evolution against the constitution, illegal, or any action that would result in legal action and it allowed the theory to be taught in all of the schools where the legality of the action was questioned, except in Arkansas and Mississippi.

Don't talk about your sources as though we're avoiding the scientific subjects they bring up. Not only are those sources in the business of spreading misinformation and ignorance about the related topics in favor of their literalist interpretation of the bible or other religions, but the reason these sources are not credible is precisely because the information they spread is consistently not credible.

And don't pretend as though we've only been attacking AIG, ICR, and CMI's credibility - we're attacking their credibility based on their claims while refuting those as well.

[/hide]

Well somebody has been watching "Inherit The Wind" too much. The trial was not even dealing with whether or not you can teach evolution in the classroom. Rather it was on whether the use of a certain Evolutionary Textbook (one that even viewed whites as the superior race) violated the Butler Act. Scopes' lawyer pleaded with the Jury on the final day to actually find his client guilty, only so he (the lawyer) would not have to take the witness stand. Scopes was found guilty by the court for violating the Butler Act (So they did lose this trial like I said). He was later aquitted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee on a technicality. You shouldn't always look to Hollywood for your information on historical matters. I stand by my original position that judges should never decide what is and is not Science.

You actually have not argued against the material in my sources. You just post links to sources of your own. I suggest you point out where my sources supposedly mess up their science rather than just calling them non-scientific, or claim they are dishonest. You can start by addressing the article by Dr. Jason Lisle. Thanks