Clarence Page: Who’s afraid of critical race theory? Those who don’t know what it is

[annabenedetti]

not going to go into this point by point as there's enough already and anna's probably fed up of the tangents that this thread has gone in as it is.

I admire your fortitude, it can get tiring when things get parsed to death, but if you're enjoying yourself have at it, I don't mind at all.

Evolution does not mean that there isn't a creator so it's moot. Remember Alate One & Barbarian?

Excellent posters, both. So knowledgeable.

 

[marke]

Lon, I'm not going to go into this point by point as there's enough already and anna's probably fed up of the tangents that this thread has gone in as it is. Evolution does not mean that there isn't a creator so it's moot. Remember Alate One & Barbarian?

EVolution means that mutations are beneficial instead of deleterious, which is contradicted by science. Evolution means that biological information is constantly being added to genomes by random undesigned forces of some sort, all of which is science fiction, not science. And so forth.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not that there's a lack of evidence, Arty. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for it. Only interpretations of evidence in favor of evolution. Big difference.



Except that it is.



There's that nasty appeal to authority again.

You really need to just stop making that fallacy.



Except that it does bias people away from God, because evolution is inconsistent with God's word.



Which has no bearing on this subject whatsoever.

What I'm saying, even if I didn't exist, would still be true.



Is exactly true.

Because what I'm telling you IS, in fact, what the Bible says.

Don't believe me, just go buy a Bible and read it.



You can assert that as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.



You keep pointing it out as if it makes a difference. Get a hint: IT DOESN'T.



Still waiting for you to realize that there are those who have failed and gotten back up, and there are those who have failed and refused to get up, and that those two groups are completely different from each other, AND that I'm referring to the latter, while you seem to completely ignore the latter in favor of the former, and argue as if I'm talking about the former, rather than the latter.



That wasn't what I was responding to.

You REALLY SHOULD pay attention.



Of course you won't.



Evolution tries to take the place of the Creator. That there are people who (wrongly) try to fit evolution into the Bible doesn't change that.

Um, okay, if you're going to suggest that there's no evidence for evolution then that's just flat out silly JR, of course there is. Scientific theories don't come about on some sort of whim, anything but.

"Evolutionary biologists have continued to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses as well as constructing theories based on evidence from the field or laboratory and on data generated by the methods of mathematical and theoretical biology. Their discoveries have influenced not just the development of biology but numerous other scientific and industrial fields, including agriculture, medicine andcomputer science.[21]"

Evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Read the entire article or don't but you can't claim that there's no evidence for it. You do understand how the scientific method works and how theories become formulated and established in science, right?

Creationism isn't science. It's actually the antithesis of the scientific method. In science, there is no pre-set conclusion to begin with. There's no 'appeal to authority' going on either no matter how much you seem to conflate such with fact. Okay, you think that conservatives who accept evolution and have faith are wrong, so?

Once again, you're just one guy who says he's telling me what the Bible says and what it supports. Calvinists have told me their version too, Presbyterian's, Pentecostals, etc etc. I've read the Bible thanks and I sure don't get what you glean from it or from the aforementioned.

Where it comes to conservatives who accept evolution then it actually does make a difference in regards to Enyart's subjective chart. It undermines the notion that evolution is some sort of 'liberal' ideology.

Where it comes to homeless people there's some sort of gradient now? There never used to be with you on the subject, you effectively bracketed all those in such a position as reaping the consequences of bad decisions or bums. So, where does Lazarus fit in with this? He didn't 'get up' as you so put it. Shortly after he begged for some scraps of food he died. Where it comes to people who are in such a dire situation then I'm not their judge JR and neither are you. The important and loving thing to do is for these people to have support and help.

You'll find that PTSD most certainly was part of what you were 'responding' to if you care to scroll back so try and pay some more attention yourself.

Oh, and where it comes to my response to Lon then I explained as to why and he didn't seem to have a problem with it. Evolution is no more trying to take the place of God than any other scientific theory.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I admire your fortitude, it can get tiring when things get parsed to death, but if you're enjoying yourself have at it, I don't mind at all.



Excellent posters, both. So knowledgeable.

They were indeed, a pleasure to read.

 

[ok doser]

EVolution means that mutations are beneficial instead of deleterious, which is contradicted by science. Evolution means that biological information is constantly being added to genomes by random undesigned forces of some sort, all of which is science fiction, not science.

Of course. The very concept violates the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Arthur Brain]

EVolution means that mutations are beneficial instead of deleterious, which is contradicted by science. Evolution means that biological information is constantly being added to genomes by random undesigned forces of some sort, all of which is science fiction, not science. And so forth.

Um, nope.

 

[Idolater]

Of course. The very concept violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It violates incredulity. Imagine infinite improbability. Now raise that to the power of infinity. And then that expression, raise to the power of infinity. And then keep doing that, forever.

That's about how likely that impersonal forces could have produced this earth, this universe, which is absolutely perfect for us; along with of course, us, and all the other species that exist today. This is all way too perfect to have all happened by nothing but randomness and chance, and it's absolutely nonsense and preposterous to seriously claim otherwise.

 

[marke]

It violates incredulity. Imagine infinite improbability. Now raise that to the power of infinity. And then that expression, raise to the power of infinity. And then keep doing that, forever.

That's about how likely that impersonal forces could have produced this earth, this universe, which is absolutely perfect for us; along with of course, us, and all the other species that exist today. This is all way too perfect to have all happened by nothing but randomness and chance, and it's absolutely nonsense and preposterous to seriously claim otherwise.

George Wald explained it this way:

George Wald Quotes

[Attributing the origin of life to spontaneous generation.] However improbable we regard this event, it will almost certainly happen at least once…. The time… is of the order of two billion years.… Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

In other words, evolution requires massive expanses of time in order to perform the miracles that science insists cannot be performed.

 

[Lon]

Sorry Lon but that isn't true:

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to...

theologyonline.com

What isn't? It doesn't matter how many you find believing something. What is true, is what I said: "evolution-did-it" is not, in fact, a good observation of Galapagos finch differences. What is incredibly better is describing finch differences and rightly describing why there are differences. Again, 'breeding' and preference are more accurate answers. You simply cannot post 'that isn't true.' It is true. It is demonstrable. "evolution-did-it" is not only an assumption, it is trying to bin the difference in finches to a system of ideas. Much more importantly to science, is the detailed observation of why finches have different kinds of beaks. We'd not say, for instance, that mulatto (mixed) is 'evolution.' Politics/acceptance are actually the purposeful impetus behind changes in the human race. "Evolution" or evolution-did-it aren't the best explanations since 'evolution' carries a mindless tenor and conveyance. Race changes are anything but without a mind and purpose.

 

[Lon]

Creationism isn't science. It's actually the antithesis of the scientific method. In science, there is no pre-set conclusion to begin with. There's no 'appeal to authority' going on either no matter how much you seem to conflate such with fact. Okay, you think that conservatives who accept evolution and have faith are wrong, so?

I've taught science in public schools: "Evolution" and "Creation" are summaries. They are bin words. In and of themselves, you simply cannot say one is science and the other is not. You may be meaning that classroom evolution or classroom-church creation education, aren't doing science. That'd be correct. We here? Also not 'doing' science. Neither address in detail my need to find a cure to cancer in my lab. I don't have to know the age of the earth to test chemical affects on cells, don't have to know "evolution-did-it" or "God-did-it" BUT as a Christian, I could pray, believing and expecting God to help me and guide me in my efforts to address a cure for cancer.

 

[Lon]

George Wald explained it this way:

George Wald Quotes

[Attributing the origin of life to spontaneous generation.] However improbable we regard this event, it will almost certainly happen at least once…. The time… is of the order of two billion years.… Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

In other words, evolution requires massive expanses of time in order to perform the miracles that science insists cannot be performed.

In some senses, we creationists agree with evolutionists: God spoke, and the universe was formed of nothing. Scientists believe it was eternal matter. Deists believe it didn't exist. From there, we all agree that something, whether a 'big bang' or a power spoken word: Genesis records the hand of God separating it all out and forming everything. Evolution does too. The problem is like you give above: that one assumes time, the other assumes God. From my understanding of Romans 1, all men necessarily must, in themselves, assume God. God said "He-did-it" thus we take either on an ability to rationally explain why it is so, or by faith, that Romans 1 cannot be wrong: That all men see God when viewing creation. It means literally, that anyone describing the physical, without acknowledging what they are seeing is designed and points to God, are lying, first to themselves, then to others.

Part of this discussion goes back to what is happening with separation of church and state: The courts are trying to take God out of everything and creating a secular state. In much the same way, any observations of creation without god, are secularized. In the end, both the Constitution and Declaration will have to have "Endowed by Creator" out in order to accomplish their purpose. There is no such thing as a godless government and there is no such thing as a godless science. Both are purposefully overlooking 'God-given.'

 

[Arthur Brain]

What isn't? It doesn't matter how many you find believing something. What is true, is what I said: "evolution-did-it" is not, in fact, a good observation of Galapagos finch differences. What is incredibly better is describing finch differences and rightly describing why there are differences. Again, 'breeding' and preference are more accurate answers. You simply cannot post 'that isn't true.' It is true. It is demonstrable. "evolution-did-it" is not only an assumption, it is trying to bin the difference in finches to a system of ideas. Much more importantly to science, is the detailed observation of why finches have different kinds of beaks. We'd not say, for instance, that mulatto (mixed) is 'evolution.' Politics/acceptance are actually the purposeful impetus behind changes in the human race. "Evolution" or evolution-did-it aren't the best explanations since 'evolution' carries a mindless tenor and conveyance. Race changes are anything but without a mind and purpose.

Lon, Alate went into painstaking detail on the score throughout that thread. She showed that there isn't any need for cognitive dissonance in accepting evolution and having faith and she even described her own crisis of faith on the matter having once been a YEC-er herself. Thankfully she threw away the shackles of such a restrictive belief system and she knows her stuff. She should do, she is a professor of biology after all. She's still a 'creationist' in the sense that she believes that evolution is part of God's design.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've taught science in public schools: "Evolution" and "Creation" are summaries. They are bin words. In and of themselves, you simply cannot say one is science and the other is not. You may be meaning that classroom evolution or classroom-church creation education, aren't doing science. That'd be correct. We here? Also not 'doing' science. Neither address in detail my need to find a cure to cancer in my lab. I don't have to know the age of the earth to test chemical affects on cells, don't have to know "evolution-did-it" or "God-did-it" BUT as a Christian, I could pray, believing and expecting God to help me and guide me in my efforts to address a cure for cancer.

I reckon everyone sane would support there being a cure for cancer along with dementia and other horrid diseases. It's not an 'either/or' as Alate was trying to point out in her thread. Where it comes to 'creationism' then it's not science. It flies in the face of how the scientific method actually operates, by starting with an immutable conclusion instead of formulating theories based on the collation of evidence.

 

[marke]

In some senses, we creationists agree with evolutionists: God spoke, and the universe was formed of nothing. Scientists believe it was eternal matter. Deists believe it didn't exist. From there, we all agree that something, whether a 'big bang' or a power spoken word: Genesis records the hand of God separating it all out and forming everything. Evolution does too. The problem is like you give above: that one assumes time, the other assumes God. From my understanding of Romans 1, all men necessarily must, in themselves, assume God. God said "He-did-it" thus we take either on an ability to rationally explain why it is so, or by faith, that Romans 1 cannot be wrong: That all men see God when viewing creation. It means literally, that anyone describing the physical, without acknowledging what they are seeing is designed and points to God, are lying, first to themselves, then to others.

Part of this discussion goes back to what is happening with separation of church and state: The courts are trying to take God out of everything and creating a secular state. In much the same way, any observations of creation without god, are secularized. In the end, both the Constitution and Declaration will have to have "Endowed by Creator" out in order to accomplish their purpose. There is no such thing as a godless government and there is no such thing as a godless science. Both are purposefully overlooking 'God-given.

The origin of the universe is something that science cannot explain apart from the fact that the catalyst had to have been something very powerful, very intelligent, and existing before matter originated. God was that catalyst. There is no other possibility.

 

[Lon]

Lon, Alate went into painstaking detail on the score throughout that thread. She showed that there isn't any need for cognitive dissonance in accepting evolution and having faith and she even described her own crisis of faith on the matter having once been a YEC-er herself. Thankfully she threw away the shackles of such a restrictive belief system and she knows her stuff. She should do, she is a professor of biology after all. She's still a 'creationist' in the sense that she believes that evolution is part of God's design.

I've a master's degree and have taught science and my bachelor's is in Bible. It means briefly: Don't just settle for any one idea, especially when some of these have no bible education at all (barbarian and alate-one).

I reckon everyone sane would support there being a cure for cancer along with dementia and other horrid diseases. It's not an 'either/or' as Alate was trying to point out in her thread. Where it comes to 'creationism' then it's not science. It flies in the face of how the scientific method actually operates, by starting with an immutable conclusion instead of formulating theories based on the collation of evidence.

She is talking less broadly in those 'creation' terms. I don't always agree with other 'creationists' either but Alate_One and Barbarian, as those who believe in God's existence, are by my definition "Creationists" and necessarily have to be. Having talked a bit with you, I'd say you also have to be one.

Next: Whatever describes the difference in finch beaks is much better than bin-words. Creationism and Evolution are simply observation words, usually disconnected (thus unnecessary in all but Creation or evolution discussions most often). Neither term ever needs to come up very often in science discussion or theology discussion because they are so broad as to be intangible to immediate contexts of instruction. Schools don't have to repeat 'evolution' or 'creation' in order to be good science direction, involvement, education, and discussion. -Lon

 

[marke]

“Critical race theory,” or CRT, has become a trigger term for politicians, activists and media voices, particularly on the right wing where it’s competing with “cancel culture” on the hit parade of things we are all supposed to be angry about or afraid of — or both.

But the political allure of the term is understandable, considering how often it has been appearing in the fevered narratives of conservative media and Red State politicians. Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Idaho, Arkansas and Arizona have either passed or are working on bills that would drop CRT or anything that looks like it from public schools curricula.

That’s a lot of agitation over an esoteric school of thought found mostly in graduate schools and law schools.

CRT has emerged gradually since the 1970s as an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.

Among other pioneers of the CRT movement, legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw has called it an evolving practice that questions how race, as a social construct, perpetuates a caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers.

What does critical race theory do to those brainwashed by its lying leftist narratives? It turns American citizens into enemies of America.

Democrat Cori Bush slams the Fourth of July, claims 'Black people still aren't free'

Left-wing activists and Congress members promoted various controversial statements on the Fourth of July.

www.foxnews.com

One Democratic lawmaker and several left-wing figures used the Fourth of July to share controversial statements or disparage the founding of the United States.
Democrat Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo, tweeted out "When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom they’re referring to is for White people. This land is stolen land and Black people still aren’t free."

 

[ok doser]

Democrat Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo, tweeted out ...

Twitter is for retards

"When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom they’re referring to is for White people.

Yeah baby!

This land is stolen land

Which land, specifically?

Stolen from who, specifically?

and Black people still aren’t free."

 

[marke]

Twitter is for retards

Yeah baby!

Which land, specifically?

Stolen from who, specifically?



View attachment 1310

Politicians say some of the stupidest things in order to get the votes of the disgruntled anti-American Marxists and devoted democrat crooked elections officials.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've a master's degree and have taught science and my bachelor's is in Bible. It means briefly: Don't just settle for any one idea, especially when some of these have no bible education at all (barbarian and alate-one).


She is talking less broadly in those 'creation' terms. I don't always agree with other 'creationists' either but Alate_One and Barbarian, as those who believe in God's existence, are by my definition "Creationists" and necessarily have to be. Having talked a bit with you, I'd say you also have to be one.

Next: Whatever describes the difference in finch beaks is much better than bin-words. Creationism and Evolution are simply observation words, usually disconnected (thus unnecessary in all but Creation or evolution discussions most often). Neither term ever needs to come up very often in science discussion or theology discussion because they are so broad as to be intangible to immediate contexts of instruction. Schools don't have to repeat 'evolution' or 'creation' in order to be good science direction, involvement, education, and discussion. -Lon

Good on you for your qualifications but who are you to say that Alate & Barb have no Bible education?

 

[ok doser]

Democrat Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo, tweeted out "... Black people still aren’t free."

They're free to go back to Africa or Haiti or virtually anywhere in the world.