Conservative Political Forum

If you support this, please justify it.

Beforehand, be sure to understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the layman's usage of the term.

And you know some alien race didn't create life on this planet because?
and you know what happened one nanosecond BEFORE the Big Bang how?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
If you support this, please justify it.

Beforehand, be sure to understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the layman's usage of the term.

Thanks for the kind warning. We'll all study up and be on our best behavior. Just for you.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 12, 2012, 11:06:48 AM
And you know some alien race didn't create life on this planet because?
and you know what happened one nanosecond BEFORE the Big Bang how?

So not knowing that giant monkeys from Mars didn't create you and alter your "parents' " memories to make it seem as though you were biologically born is an excuse to teach it in public science schools now?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 11:21:44 AM
So not knowing that giant monkeys from Mars didn't create you and alter your "parents' " memories to make it seem as though you were biologically born is an excuse to teach it in public science schools now?

I have no idea of first causes, and neither do you. I notice that you ridiculed my questions, but you didn't answer them.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 12, 2012, 11:23:36 AM
I have no idea of first causes, and neither do you.

That's bullshit.  Evolutionary theory is accepted as both a theory and a fact in the scientific community.  There is mountains of evidence supporting it; fossil records, genetic links, related vestigial organs, scientifically induced evolution, etc.

Similarly, there is a slightly smaller mountain of evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology.

There isn't even the slightest bit of scientific proof or even common sense behind a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.

QuoteI notice that you ridiculed my questions, but you didn't answer them.

Actually, I did.  Your argument is basically "we don't know if this idea isn't true...so let's teach it in school!'  First off, this isn't scientific in the slightest, which doesn't mesh with the desire to teach it in a Science classroom.  Second, this can be applied to every ridiculous conspiracy theorist's wet dream.  After all, we don't know if Abraham Lincoln wasn't a vampire hunter; should we teach it in public history classes?

The biggest problem with this argument will always be the uncomfortable -- to some unthinkable -- mingling of church and state. In the society we've constructed, the education establishment is overwhelmingly state-run and/or taxpayer-funded. And the subject of creation vs. evolution is just chock full of religion, which is, of course, the exercise of faith, even in the absence of proof.

Teaching the theory of Intelligent Design (and I'm sure, SFF, you're rushing to the keyboard to instruct me that it's not a proper scientific theory) presents a problem to those who worship what is falsely referred to as the "Separation Clause." (No such clause has ever existed.) Teaching the theory of evolution -- as lib/progs want to do it -- is a direct affront to Christians, Jews, even Muslims because accepting the theory -- again, as lib/progs want to present it -- necessarily requires the rejection of Genesis, and by extension the rejection of God as Creator. There could hardly be a more direct assault on Christianity, among other faiths, and it's easy to argue that teaching evolution in government-controlled schools is a textbook in-your-face violation of the literal wording and proven intent of the First Amendment, much more direct than any so-called "Separation Clause" issue.

As an aside, I've always yearned for a logical explanation of how the theory of evolution can explain the development of a species -- mankind -- that could (in some cases can and has done so) counter the very operation of the theory. Profoundly retarded humans, dogs with two legs, eagles with broken wings, and so many more beings that evolution would automatically and ruthlessly remove from the planet live successfully to a ripe old age and in many cases even reproduce.

There's little doubt, I think, that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is a seminal cause for the rise of home schooling, voucher systems, and parochial schools. Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 11:54:50 AM
The biggest problem with this argument will always be the uncomfortable -- to some unthinkable -- mingling of church and state. In the society we've constructed, the education establishment is overwhelmingly state-run and/or taxpayer-funded. And the subject of creation vs. evolution is just chock full of religion, which is, of course, the exercise of faith, even in the absence of proof. 

Evolution is not a religion.  Evolution is a science.  Genesis is not a science.  It is a religion.  You do not teach evolution in bible study.  You should not teach the Genesis in Science class.

Quote
Teaching the theory of Intelligent Design (and I'm sure, SFF, you're rushing to the keyboard to instruct me that it's not a proper scientific theory) presents a problem to those who worship what is falsely referred to as the "Separation Clause." (No such clause has ever existed.) Teaching the theory of evolution -- as lib/progs want to do it -- is a direct affront to Christians, Jews, even Muslims because accepting the theory -- again, as lib/progs want to present it -- necessarily requires the rejection of Genesis, and by extension the rejection of God as Creator. There could hardly be a more direct assault on Christianity, among other faiths, and it's easy to argue that teaching evolution in government-controlled schools is a textbook in-your-face violation of the literal wording and proven intent of the First Amendment, much more direct than any so-called "Separation Clause" issue.

1. You can be Christian without accepting intelligent design.  The Vatican, for example, has done this.  You just can't be a fundie.

2. Mormons believe something about there being some sort of civilization in central America and Christ preaching there...history textbooks explicitly contradict this.  Should we teach an alternative theory just to placate the mormons? 

But wait!  How about various Native American religions that believe X and Y?  Or the followers of the ancient Greek gods?

Quote

As an aside, I've always yearned for a logical explanation of how the theory of evolution can explain the development of a species -- mankind -- that could (in some cases can and has done so) counter the very operation of the theory. Profoundly retarded humans, dogs with two legs, eagles with broken wings, and so many more beings that evolution would automatically and ruthlessly remove from the planet live successfully to a ripe old age and in many cases even reproduce.

???

It's rather unusual for one to argue against Evolutionary theory on the basis of natural selection being bunk.  I mean, this is just common sense, for pete's sake; if you lack the tools to survive in real life, you will die.  Conservatives love to apply this to business, I fail to see why it would not apply to the even more inhospitable nature.

Quote
There's little doubt, I think, that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is a seminal cause for the rise of home schooling, voucher systems, and parochial schools. Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place.

In a Science classroom, you teach science.  Evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  You therefore teach it, just as you would teach gravity, which a large percentage of Americans still believe is god's hand pushing you down to the Earth.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Evolution is not a religion.  Evolution is a science.  Genesis is not a science.  It is a religion.  You do not teach evolution in bible study.  You should not teach the Genesis in Science class.

1. You can be Christian without accepting intelligent design.  The Vatican, for example, has done this.  You just can't be a fundie.

2. Mormons believe something about there being some sort of civilization in central America and Christ preaching there...history textbooks explicitly contradict this.  Should we teach an alternative theory just to placate the mormons? 

But wait!  How about various Native American religions that believe X and Y?  Or the followers of the ancient Greek gods?

???

It's rather unusual for one to argue against Evolutionary theory on the basis of natural selection being bunk.  I mean, this is just common sense, for pete's sake; if you lack the tools to survive in real life, you will die.  Conservatives love to apply this to business, I fail to see why it would not apply to the even more inhospitable nature.

In a Science classroom, you teach science.  Evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  You therefore teach it, just as you would teach gravity, which a large percentage of Americans still believe is god's hand pushing you down to the Earth.

While some fundamentalists Christians may be conservatives (and not all are...especially in the Hispanic population), the vast majority of conservatives are not fundamentalists.  If you live in an area where such groups are the majority then (to borrow a phrase from evolutionists) ADAPT.  Tell your kids that it is not your belief, school them to pay attention to the evoutionary portion of the curricula and move on.  The same goes, btw, when man-made global warming is presented.  If you wish (and I do) tell them to take such "proven scientific fact" with a massive grain of salt.  Stop trying to bend everybody to your way of thinking.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Evolution is not a religion.  Evolution is a science.  Genesis is not a science.  It is a religion.  You do not teach evolution in bible study.  You should not teach the Genesis in Science class.

I think I said that, but thanks for beating us over the head with it.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM1. You can be Christian without accepting intelligent design.  The Vatican, for example, has done this.  You just can't be a fundie.

"Fundie" is a pejorative slur, and you know it. I am not a fundamental Christian, but I take offense because the term is offensive to fundamental Christians, who have every right, legal and moral, to their beliefs, and are as entitled as anyone to basic respect. I'm also not black, but I would still be revolted if you referred to someone as a "nigger." I'm not gay either, but I take reflexive offense when anyone uses the term "faggot" or "fag." Yep, I'm aware that it's used on this board. Many things are said on this board that offend me. I don't have the right to be never offended, but I do have the right to tell you that your use of the word "fundie" offends me.

My point was that the way lib/progs want to present evolution requires the rejection of the concept of God as Creator. Full acceptance of evolution completely negates even the possibility of creation; the two completely cancel one another out, at least as the public schools teach on the subject today.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM2. Mormons believe something about there being some sort of civilization in central America and Christ preaching there...history textbooks explicitly contradict this.  Should we teach an alternative theory just to placate the mormons? 

But wait!  How about various Native American religions that believe X and Y?  Or the followers of the ancient Greek gods?

???

I love hyperbole! Hyperbole is cool! I wax hyperbolic every now and then. It's useful when I can't come up with a sensible thing to say. Explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
It's rather unusual for one to argue against Evolutionary theory on the basis of natural selection being bunk.  I mean, this is just common sense, for pete's sake; if you lack the tools to survive in real life, you will die.  Conservatives love to apply this to business, I fail to see why it would not apply to the even more inhospitable nature.

I made no argument whatsoever, either way. My commentary was meant to illustrate the natural, inescapable conflicts that arise in any debate on this subject. I think that it's interesting that evolved humans have reached the point where they can effectively stop the natural effects of evolution. Eventually, perhaps, mankind can control evolution completely. If a particular species can accomplish that, then evolution is by definition controllable and, further, subject to elimination and... (get ready) CREATION.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
In a Science classroom, you teach science.  Evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  You therefore teach it, just as you would teach gravity, which a large percentage of Americans still believe is god's hand pushing you down to the Earth.

We wax hyperbolic again. In all my years walking the earth, I have never met a human being who thought gravity was God's hand. My late father was a Baptist fundamentalist, and my mom still worships in that church. My religious beliefs are not relevant at this point, but I can tell you that in the 57 years I've known those people, I never heard gravity described as God's hand.

Yes, in a science class you teach science. Duh. But it's simply not possible to avoid conflict when a scientific theory diametrically opposes a basic premise of Christianity. I don't think there's much doubt that evolution occurs; my appendix is a pretty good chunk of evidence that species evolve over time. But again, explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze. Please show me in precise, provable terms, how evolution -- or any other theory -- can be extended back in time beyond fossil records.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 12:59:40 PM
I think I said that, but thanks for beating us over the head with it.

"us" and "I" is the key distinction here.

Quote
"Fundie" is a pejorative slur, and you know it. I am not a fundamental Christian, but I take offense because the term is offensive to fundamental Christians, who have every right, legal and moral, to their beliefs, and are as entitled as anyone to basic respect. I'm also not black, but I would still be revolted if you referred to someone as a "nigger." I'm not gay either, but I take reflexive offense when anyone uses the term "faggot" or "fag." Yep, I'm aware that it's used on this board. Many things are said on this board that offend me. I don't have the right to be never offended, but I do have the right to tell you that your use of the word "fundie" offends me.

Sorry.  Fundamentalist Christianity and Evolutionary Theory are incompatible.  That doesn't mean the latter, supported by facts, isn't true.

Quote
My point was that the way lib/progs want to present evolution requires the rejection of the concept of God as Creator. Full acceptance of evolution completely negates even the possibility of creation; the two completely cancel one another out, at least as the public schools teach on the subject today.

That isn't necessarily true.  Just interpret the bible in a more allegorical manner.

Furthermore, it's really too bad.  Science isn't a matter of reaching the "truth" that is convenient for the largest amount of people.  The universe does not alter its history based on the desires of humans.

Quote
I love hyperbole! Hyperbole is cool! I wax hyperbolic every now and then. It's useful when I can't come up with a sensible thing to say. Explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze.

The very fact that you find my analogy to be hyperbole proves my point; you don't apply this "let's teach everything in Science class, just as a compromise!" view consistently, only when it is convenient.

Quote
I made no argument whatsoever, either way. My commentary was meant to illustrate the natural, inescapable conflicts that arise in any debate on this subject. I think that it's interesting that evolved humans have reached the point where they can effectively stop the natural effects of evolution. Eventually, perhaps, mankind can control evolution completely. If a particular species can accomplish that, then evolution is by definition controllable and, further, subject to elimination and... (get ready) CREATION.

Congratulations!  You can play word games.   :smile:

Although I would point out that past evolution, and most of modern evolution, is not yet controlled by humans, and is therefore not yet intelligent creation.

Quote
We wax hyperbolic again. In all my years walking the earth, I have never met a human being who thought gravity was God's hand. My late father was a Baptist fundamentalist, and my mom still worships in that church. My religious beliefs are not relevant at this point, but I can tell you that in the 57 years I've known those people, I never heard gravity described as God's hand.

Well, I've also never met an American who can't identify the US on a world map, but Miss South Carolina told us that it was true.  Polls aren't entirely accurate, but this doesn't affect my argument in the slightest.

Quote
Yes, in a science class you teach science. Duh. But it's simply not possible to avoid conflict when a scientific theory diametrically opposes a basic premise of Christianity.

Of course it will create conflict.  It already has.

QuoteI don't think there's much doubt that evolution occurs; my appendix is a pretty good chunk of evidence that species evolve over time. But again, explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze. Please show me in precise, provable terms, how evolution -- or any other theory -- can be extended back in time beyond fossil records.

...if you don't mind me asking, why?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Sorry.  Fundamentalist Christianity and Evolutionary Theory are incompatible.  That doesn't mean the latter, supported by facts, isn't true.

Apology accepted. Yes, they're incompatible. That's what I said. I did not even try to allude that evolutionary theory is not true, and actually stated the opposite. Do you read these posts all the way through before you start picking them apart?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
That isn't necessarily true.  Just interpret the bible in a more allegorical manner.

What if I don't want to, or what if my religious belief means that I can't without violating my faith? Are you saying that I should have to anyway? Is that what secular state-funded education is all about? (I already know the answer to that one.)

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMFurthermore, it's really too bad.  Science isn't a matter of reaching the "truth" that is convenient for the largest amount of people.  The universe does not alter its history based on the desires of humans.

The universe also does not conveniently dispense its history in every detail. There was a time when Roman gods and Greek gods and even Aesop's fables were used to explain things. Today we have backers of the evolution theory presenting it as yet another "truth." Maybe, maybe not. Again, trace my lineage back to primordial ooze and prove it.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMThe very fact that you find my analogy to be hyperbole proves my point; you don't apply this "let's teach everything in Science class, just as a compromise!" view consistently, only when it is convenient.

I didn't advocate any such approach. I specifically opined that perhaps it's a matter best not addressed at all in public schools. In a previous post in this thread, I said this: "Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place." I have not presented or advocated any other position.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMCongratulations!  You can play word games.   :smile:

Yep. Explain to me how, if a given species can modify or negate evolution, the same species or a different one could not promote -- or create -- the same process.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Although I would point out that past evolution, and most of modern evolution, is not yet controlled by humans, and is therefore not yet intelligent creation.

Let's not be silly; evolution of the past, like all things of the past, are beyond our control. Are you admitting that there is the possibility that Intelligent Design exists? Are you saying that human control of the process of species development is possible? It is, demonstrably, but are you saying so?

The concept of God is the mind of man writ large. The concept of evolution completely deletes the mind of man and the existence of God. It's not hard to see why one has the appeal of traditional religion, and why the second requires the rejection of traditional religion -- to be replaced with the secular version. Evolution may be the history of mankind. I don't know and neither do you. But it's a rather demeaning version of reality, don't you think?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Well, I've also never met an American who can't identify the US on a world map, but Miss South Carolina told us that it was true.  Polls aren't entirely accurate, but this doesn't affect my argument in the slightest.

I'm not sure what you gain by referring to the current Miss Teen USA candidate from South Carolina -- an obvious airhead. You'll note that she didn't mention -- as hundreds of millions of Americans don't mention -- the "hand of God" as being responsible for gravity. Newton proposed that gravity was proof that God exists, but that was in 1692. Newer theories are available, and most make better sense, hence my characterization of your comment as "hyperbole."

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMOf course it will create conflict.  It already has.

As you say, it already has, and it always will. I merely attempted to explain why.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM

...if you don't mind me asking, why?

Because unless and until you can provide me with a clear, irrefutable explanation of how I morphed from a single-cell critter in a mud puddle a few million years ago to the accomplished and talented typist I am today, I'm going to tell you every day that you're full of shit. And of course, eventually we'll get to a discussion of who created the evolution process... or is it just the law of the universe? And who created the law of the universe?

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 02:17:12 PM
Apology accepted. Yes, they're incompatible. That's what I said. I did not even try to allude that evolutionary theory is not true, and actually stated the opposite. Do you read these posts all the way through before you start picking them apart?

Really?  Every time I quote a section of your post that contradicts the above, I'll put a * at the front.

Quote
What if I don't want to, or what if my religious belief means that I can't without violating my faith? Are you saying that I should have to anyway? Is that what secular state-funded education is all about? (I already know the answer to that one.)

Science does not cater to what you really wish were true.

Quote
The universe also does not conveniently dispense its history in every detail. There was a time when Roman gods and Greek gods and even Aesop's fables were used to explain things. Today we have backers of the evolution theory presenting it as yet another "truth." Maybe, maybe not. Again, trace my lineage back to primordial ooze and prove it.

* Your analogy applies more to intelligent design than evolution.  Both ID and your stated examples cater to the "god of the gaps" fallacy.  Evolution doesn't do that; evolution features mounds of scientific evidence and support.  Do any of your examples feature this quality?

The "Science isn't always right!" tautology is commonly used by those who perpetuate pseudo-scientific beliefs.  Yes, scientists can be wrong.  But they are proven wrong by detailed analysis, not by waving the possibility that they may be incorrect around and hoping it will happen to be true.

Quote
I didn't advocate any such approach. I specifically opined that perhaps it's a matter best not addressed at all in public schools. In a previous post in this thread, I said this: "Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place." I have not presented or advocated any other position.

So we should just keep kids ignorant, and in the dark, of what by your own (inconsistent) admission is the truth, simply do appease those who believe in something that is demonstrably false?

Like, this is precisely why our education system is failing, and precisely how liberty dies; when you censor truths you don't like.

Quote
Yep. Explain to me how, if a given species can modify or negate evolution, the same species or a different one could not promote -- or create -- the same process.

I never said that we couldn't.  In fact, we already have for a long time, in the form of cross breeding.

Quote
Let's not be silly; evolution of the past, like all things of the past, are beyond our control. Are you admitting that there is the possibility that Intelligent Design exists? Are you saying that human control of the process of species development is possible? It is, demonstrably, but are you saying so?

:huh:  No, I was indicating precisely the opposite. 

Wait; you're contradicting yourself again.  You say that evolution and religion are irreconcilable, yet you yourself are attempting precisely this right now.

Quote
The concept of God is the mind of man writ large. The concept of evolution completely deletes the mind of man and the existence of God. It's not hard to see why one has the appeal of traditional religion, and why the second requires the rejection of traditional religion -- to be replaced with the secular version. Evolution may be the history of mankind. I don't know and neither do you. But it's a rather demeaning version of reality, don't you think?

* Firstly, one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.  Secondly, I don't find evolution much demeaning at all.  Thirdly, the universe doesn't care if you find reality inconvenient.

<snip; analogy to hand of god was merely referring to fallacy of appealing to popularity>

QuoteAs you say, it already has, and it always will. I merely attempted to explain why.

I don't disagree on you with this.  But I still hold that we shouldn't teach our children something that, by your own admission, is false.

Quote
Because unless and until you can provide me with a clear, irrefutable explanation of how I morphed from a single-cell critter in a mud puddle a few million years ago to the accomplished and talented typist I am today, I'm going to tell you every day that you're full of shit. And of course, eventually we'll get to a discussion of who created the evolution process... or is it just the law of the universe? And who created the law of the universe?

* Appealing to your own incredulity isn't an argument.  And nobody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic; more successful species will survive (duh), and some will learn to reproduce (duh), and those that reproduce will survive, and somewhere along the line sexual reproduction for many organisms became favorable and they survived, etc.  There is no intelligence needed here.

And I don't see how "who created the law of the universe" is relevant to the origin of life.

Perhaps Sci-Fi-Fan should take his own advice and read up on what the nature of a theory actually is..

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

-Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on June 12, 2012, 06:53:49 PM
Perhaps Sci-Fi-Fan should take his own advice and read up on what the nature of a theory actually is..

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

-Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time

-Dr Watt

Dude, the appeal to ignorance argument has been made millions of times before, and it's stupid as fuck.  Clearly, you don't understand what Dr. Hawking meant; he does not imply that a lack of absolute certainty gives one the mandate to regard every possible "theory" with equal weight, but rather to always be open to modification and consideration of a current theory if new evidence gives light to holes in it.

By your line of reasoning, we should teach Ancient Greek creation theory in schools as well.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 06:58:46 PM
Dude, the appeal to ignorance argument has been made millions of times before, and it's stupid as fuck.  Clearly, you don't understand what Dr. Hawking meant; he does not imply that a lack of absolute certainty gives one the mandate to regard every possible "theory" with equal weight, but rather to always be open to modification and consideration of a current theory if new evidence gives light to holes in it.

By your line of reasoning, we should teach Ancient Greek creation theory in schools as well.

Actually, when I went to school, they did. Not in science class, but in Greek Mythology.

Dude, it's  clear from your post that it is you, not I who didn't understand the scientific principle which Hawkins was explaining.

QuoteEvolutionary theory is accepted as both a theory and a fact in the scientific community.  There is mountains of evidence supporting it; fossil records, genetic links, related vestigial organs, scientifically induced evolution, etc.

It was you who warned about confusing the layman's use of the word theory with the scientific definition of it. And yet, here you are blurring the two to suit your own agenda.

The Theory of Evolution is, currently, the most viable theory to explain the origin of life on this planet. HOWEVER, there are certainly enough "holes" (missing links in the fossil record, the fact that mutation has not been observed in nature, etc, etc)  in that theory that no scientist worth his salt would accept it as "fact".

If you are going to throw down the gauntlet and present yourself as some sort of scientific intellectual, you damned well better be able to live up to it!

Right now, you just sound like someone who has seen a few too many Star Trek re-runs!

And just for the record, no, I don't believe "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science class. However, I don't feel it should be altogether banned from school curriculum - perhaps social science class would be a good place to discuss it?

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
Really?  Every time I quote a section of your post that contradicts the above, I'll put a * at the front.

Oh, Christ, I'm being attacked with punctuation. Give me a second or two to piss my pants. Okay, moving on...

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PMScience does not cater to what you really wish were true.

That's deep, my friend, deep. Science, being a construct of man, and not some metaphysical universal truth that you'd like it to be, is just that -- a construct of man. Man made the rules of science, and it is therefore just as fallible as man.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
* Your analogy applies more to intelligent design than evolution.  Both ID and your stated examples cater to the "god of the gaps" fallacy.  Evolution doesn't do that; evolution features mounds of scientific evidence and support.  Do any of your examples feature this quality?

I presented no analogy, so your first asterisk misses. (Whew!) I did present valid examples of schools of thought, all of which offered "mounds of scientific evidence" in the fashion of their time.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
The "Science isn't always right!" tautology is commonly used by those who perpetuate pseudo-scientific beliefs.  Yes, scientists can be wrong.  But they are proven wrong by detailed analysis, not by waving the possibility that they may be incorrect around and hoping it will happen to be true.

Nope, sorry. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to present "science" as a thing so clearly and undeniably superior to "faith" or "belief," then the burden is on you to PROVE IT. If you're going to present it that way, and base the education of our children on that premise to the exclusion of any other premise, the "science" must be absolutely right 100% of the time AND YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IT to uphold your stance that the science is superior. Once again, prove to me that I'm evolved from a single-cell critter in a prehistoric pond. I note that you have declined a number of invitations to do that.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
So we should just keep kids ignorant, and in the dark, of what by your own (inconsistent) admission is the truth, simply do appease those who believe in something that is demonstrably false?

Like, this is precisely why our education system is failing, and precisely how liberty dies; when you censor truths you don't like.

This is your idea of education, not mine, as a review of my remarks will show you. You're the one who believes that pure "science," actually a construct of man, and its evolution theory is the only thing our children should even be exposed to. At no time, with no word, not in any way, have I advocated censorship of any idea, including most especially the theory of evolution.

And I take offense again -- seems to be a pattern here -- at your characterization of my "inconsistent" version of the truth. Surely you read better than that.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM

I never said that we couldn't.  In fact, we already have for a long time, in the form of cross breeding.

Well, if we can control evolution, how is it the immutable law of the universe? If you'll notice, I haven't made a single argument that creation is the correct theory; I also haven't argued against it. But I haven't seen a single argument from you that makes any sense at all that anything else is the correct theory. You keep yelping about "mounds of evidence" for evolution, but I don't see a single scrap.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM:huh:  No, I was indicating precisely the opposite.

AGAIN, you contradict yourself. You just got done telling me that evolution is a process that can be controlled by humans, then you come back and say it ain't so. ::sigh::

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM

Wait; you're contradicting yourself again.  You say that evolution and religion are irreconcilable, yet you yourself are attempting precisely this right now.

Again, you misquote me. What I said was that the theory of evolution -- as it is presented and taught in the public schools -- is antithetical to Christian religion, as well as to the Jewish faith, and to Muslims, and to many others. It is presented precisely as you present it, as a take-it-all-right-now principle that excludes the very possibility of any other solution. I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. (You'll pardon, I'm sure, my lack of capitalization for what can hardly be called a holy concept.) I have a HUGE problem with lib/progs who want to shove evolution theory down my throat and down the throats of my children.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM* Firstly, one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.  Secondly, I don't find evolution much demeaning at all.  Thirdly, the universe doesn't care if you find reality inconvenient.

Oh, God. (Shit, should I lowercase that?) Another flaming asterisk! Horrors!

Finally. I've met someone who knows for a fact what the universe cares about AND is comfy with the concept of being descended directly from pond scum. Under different circumstances -- a LOT different -- I might ask you to marry me.  :love:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
<snip; analogy to hand of god was merely referring to fallacy of appealing to popularity>

I think I just have to pass on this nonsense.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM

I don't disagree on you with this.  But I still hold that we shouldn't teach our children something that, by your own admission, is false.

"I don't disagree on you with this." Did I copy that correctly? I have, as you well know, admitted that nothing is false. It is a source of never-ending incredulity for me to watch a knee-jerk lib/prog dance and jig and skip to avoid being "hoist on his own petard."

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
* Appealing to your own incredulity isn't an argument.  And nobody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic; more successful species will survive (duh), and some will learn to reproduce (duh), and those that reproduce will survive, and somewhere along the line sexual reproduction for many organisms became favorable and they survived, etc.  There is no intelligence needed here.

And I don't see how "who created the law of the universe" is relevant to the origin of life.

Ah, the final bolt from the punctuation quiver. Zing. Ouch. Just two sentences with any meat in them:

"[N]obody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic."

Um, whose logic would that be? What would that logic, without mankind, be based on? Are you suggesting that the alleged progression from ape to man was a "natural result of logic?" Are you saying that the universe itself was founded on what we call -- or what you call -- logic?

Are you really, truly, absolutely positive you want to sail under that flag?

Quote from: bluelieu on June 12, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
While some fundamentalists Christians may be conservatives (and not all are...especially in the Hispanic population), the vast majority of conservatives are not fundamentalists.  If you live in an area where such groups are the majority then (to borrow a phrase from evolutionists) ADAPT.  Tell your kids that it is not your belief, school them to pay attention to the evoutionary portion of the curricula and move on.  The same goes, btw, when man-made global warming is presented.  If you wish (and I do) tell them to take such "proven scientific fact" with a massive grain of salt.  Stop trying to bend everybody to your way of thinking.

That's pretty much my view. It's how I pulled one of the highest grades in my college sociology class even though much of what was covered in the curriculum was BS, particularly when we got to covering economic systems.

Quote from: Dr_Watt on June 12, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
Actually, when I went to school, they did. Not in science class, but in Greek Mythology.

I and have no issues with teaching the Genesis in bible study.  They did not teach you Greek Mythology in science class, so don't teach that god created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, OK?

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 08:46:52 PM

That's deep, my friend, deep. Science, being a construct of man, and not some metaphysical universal truth that you'd like it to be, is just that -- a construct of man. Man made the rules of science, and it is therefore just as fallible as man.

So your argument is that Evolution *could* be wrong, so we shouldn't teach it, just to be sure.  Even though plenty of what we teach (read: everything) also suffers from this tautological statement.

Quote
I presented no analogy, so your first asterisk misses. (Whew!) I did present valid examples of schools of thought, all of which offered "mounds of scientific evidence" in the fashion of their time.

Please, point me to the mounds of scientific evidence that exists or existed to give any reasonable basis for the Greek creation myth.  This should be fun.

Quote
Nope, sorry. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to present "science" as a thing so clearly and undeniably superior to "faith" or "belief," then the burden is on you to PROVE IT.

Faith is the willful suspension of critical thinking to believe in something without evidence.  This is the antithesis of logical thought.  The scientific method is a systematic, logical analysis of the universe through observation and experimentation.

So, if by "superior" we are referring to the ability to deduce fact, then yes, an openly logical method of analysis is superior to a method that prides itself on relying on emotion rather than truth.  Do you utilize faith when judging a suspected criminal?

Quote
If you're going to present it that way, and base the education of our children on that premise to the exclusion of any other premise, the "science" must be absolutely right 100% of the time AND YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IT to uphold your stance that the science is superior.

I suppose that we should not teach gravitational theory, because it is incomplete.

After all, history is not "absolutely right 100% of the time", so by this line of reasoning we should not teach any of it.  For all we know, the conspiracy theorists were right, and aliens really did construct the pyramids.

Now, explain why evolution is held to such higher levels of scrutiny than any of these accepted facts.

QuoteOnce again, prove to me that I'm evolved from a single-cell critter in a prehistoric pond. I note that you have declined a number of invitations to do that.

Because you already agree with me that evolution is correct, so I fail to see your motivation here.

Quote
This is your idea of education, not mine, as a review of my remarks will show you. You're the one who believes that pure "science," actually a construct of man, and its evolution theory is the only thing our children should even be exposed to. At no time, with no word, not in any way, have I advocated censorship of any idea, including most especially the theory of evolution.

I never said that science is the only thing our children should be exposed to.  But in Science classrooms of course it should be. 

And you are arguing censorship of ideas, whether or you realize it or not.  You are proposing that we not teach evolution or ID simply because it is controversial.  That is the definition of censorship; look it up.  It would establish a precedent that whining about inconvenient facts will prompt the government to ban teaching of it.

In fact, how exactly do we go about by your suggestion of not teaching evolution in schooling?  You would you enforce it?  Jail those who do not comply? 

Quote
And I take offense again -- seems to be a pattern here -- at your characterization of my "inconsistent" version of the truth. Surely you read better than that.

I take offense at your disturbing inability to consistently portray your own stance on the issue.

Quote
Well, if we can control evolution, how is it the immutable law of the universe?

*sigh*.

You don't understand evolution.  You're thinking of it from a religious standpoint.  Evolution is not a scientific law.  It is simply a model of how life developed.  Similarly, that the Earth slowly cooled over billions of years is not a scientific law, there are no equations for this, and in theory it could very well have not happened at all.  In a way, you could argue that evolution closely resembles history; and that the Roman Empire fell was not an immutable law of the universe.

QuoteIf you'll notice, I haven't made a single argument that creation is the correct theory; I also haven't argued against it.

Yes, you have.  You've stated that evolution is probably correct.  Ergo, creation theory must probably be wrong, unless if the two can overlap, but you've made your position clear that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

QuoteBut I haven't seen a single argument from you that makes any sense at all that anything else is the correct theory. You keep yelping about "mounds of evidence" for evolution, but I don't see a single scrap.

Stop contradicting yourself.  You've admitted that you "believe" in evolution already, and yet you continue to formulate ridiculous and cliché arguments against it.

Quote
AGAIN, you contradict yourself. You just got done telling me that evolution is a process that can be controlled by humans, then you come back and say it ain't so. ::sigh:: 

Dude, this isn't that difficult to decipher.  I'm not speaking in fucking morse code.  Humans can theoretically control the evolutionary process, and we have, on a smaller level.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the billions of years of evolution existing before humans evolved surely cannot be the result of human guidance.

Quote
Again, you misquote me. What I said was that the theory of evolution -- as it is presented and taught in the public schools -- is antithetical to Christian religion, as well as to the Jewish faith, and to Muslims, and to many others. It is presented precisely as you present it, as a take-it-all-right-now principle that excludes the very possibility of any other solution.

This argument is tedious and old as dirt.  No scientist presents the evolutionary model as perfect or complete.  Similarly, no scientist presents gravitational theory as perfect or complete.  What you seem to want is for schools to constantly push it down the childrens' throats that evolution (and only evolution) is incomplete and could be wrong.

Let me turn this around for a second: show me where the Roman Catholic Mob applies this level of scrutiny to its own beliefs.  Have you EVER heard a priest imply anything other than that what he says is the complete, undeniable, irrefutable truth?

Quote

I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. (You'll pardon, I'm sure, my lack of capitalization for what can hardly be called a holy concept.) I have a HUGE problem with lib/progs who want to shove evolution theory down my throat and down the throats of my children.

We "shove" evolution theory down your throat in the same manner that we "shove" gravitational theory and the history of the Roman Empire down your throat.  If you find facts to be inconvenient, just admit it and quit the smokescreen.

Quote
Oh, God. (Shit, should I lowercase that?) Another flaming asterisk! Horrors!

Finally. I've met someone who knows for a fact what the universe cares about AND is comfy with the concept of being descended directly from pond scum. Under different circumstances -- a LOT different -- I might ask you to marry me.  :love:

Really, shoving this down your throat isn't going to work.  I'm going to have to drill it through your skull.

That the laws of physics are impersonal is hardly a fringe concept.  All of them are purely mathematical constructs.  There is no variable for the kinetic object of a body in motion that takes into account your personal emotions.  This is why creationists are not scientists; they openly allow emotional prejudices to influence their deductions, and this is really, really bad.

I also find it funny that you think evolution is depressing, even though you yourself grew from a sack of proteins in your mommy's uterus.

Quote
I think I just have to pass on this nonsense.
"I don't disagree on you with this." Did I copy that correctly? I have, as you well know, admitted that nothing is false. It is a source of never-ending incredulity for me to watch a knee-jerk lib/prog dance and jig and skip to avoid being "hoist on his own petard."

Spare me the ad hominems, and just admit that your deduction of history is based on your own wish of what reality is, rather than logical analysis of facts.  Do you think the sun cares if you found its eventual demise depressing?

Quote
Ah, the final bolt from the punctuation quiver. Zing. Ouch. Just two sentences with any meat in them:

"[N]obody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic."

Um, whose logic would that be? What would that logic, without mankind, be based on? Are you suggesting that the alleged progression from ape to man was a "natural result of logic?" Are you saying that the universe itself was founded on what we call -- or what you call -- logic?

I...this isn't rocket science.  Really, it isn't.  I explained it before and I'll explain it again; no hole exists in the evolutionary theory that requires or would be fixed by the presence of an intelligent designer.  But you are free to believe this on the basis of faith (although, by your account this is impossible to reconcile).  Faith that will not be taught in science class.

Quote
Are you really, truly, absolutely positive you want to sail under that flag?

Why do you confuse evolution with the universe's physical laws?

I think we've pretty well worn this one out. Time to move on.

I'll be sure to wear my asterisk-resistant vest in the future, just in case you decide to start shooting at me with punctuation again.  :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 13, 2012, 08:58:30 AM
I and have no issues with teaching the Genesis in bible study.  They did not teach you Greek Mythology in science class, so don't teach that god created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, OK?

Before you answer, how about reading my entire post!

Since you obviously missed it, here it is again!

And just for the record, no, I don't believe "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science class. However, I don't feel it should be altogether banned from school curriculum - perhaps social science class would be a good place to discuss it?


Got it?

I agree with t-bone. Time to move on!

-Dr Watt

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 13, 2012, 06:37:40 PM
I think we've pretty well worn this one out. Time to move on.

I'll be sure to wear my asterisk-resistant vest in the future, just in case you decide to start shooting at me with punctuation again.  :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

For your sake, I just hope he doesn't resort to !!!!, or the all dreaded YELLING IN ALL CAPS, that's when you know you're losing the debate. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Solar on June 13, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
For your sake, I just hope he doesn't resort to !!!!, or the all dreaded YELLING IN ALL CAPS, that's when you know you're losing the debate. :rolleyes:

I don't have to worry about that. He tells me immediately when I'm losing the debate. Don't you, Big Boy?

Aw, c'mon, toss me an asterisk or a semicolon or something...  :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 13, 2012, 07:04:14 PM
I don't have to worry about that. He tells me immediately when I'm losing the debate. Don't you, Big Boy?

Aw, c'mon, toss me an asterisk or a semicolon or something...  :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
He's such a gentleman.*********

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
If you support this, please justify it.

Beforehand, be sure to understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the layman's usage of the term.

For an uneducated person, you are sure snarky...

I love how, when I respond to your posts paragraph by paragraph, present my arguments, provide factual analysis, and wait for a reply, the response is ignore any semblance of a logical discussion, and just resort to ridiculous name calling.   :rolleyes:

I especially like how taxed calls me an "uneducated person", and then leaves it at that.  No need to actually posit an argument, with facts...that's just overrated.

Or how me using asterisks is somehow relevant to the empirical validity of my points.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
I love how, when I respond to your posts paragraph by paragraph, present my arguments, provide factual analysis, and wait for a reply, the response is ignore any semblance of a logical discussion, and just resort to ridiculous name calling.   :rolleyes:

I especially like how taxed calls me an "uneducated person", and then leaves it at that.  No need to actually posit an argument, with facts...that's just overrated.

Or how me using asterisks is somehow relevant to the empirical validity of my points.

A degree is not evidence of an education.
It merely means they passed what was expected of them.
Some of the most successful people in the country never attended college.
I'd take the advice of a person that excelled in their field, over that of a college professor that only read about the field in which he teaches.

Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2012, 09:20:26 AM
A degree is not evidence of an education.
It merely means they passed what was expected of them.
Some of the most successful people in the country never attended college.
I'd take the advice of a person that excelled in their field, over that of a college professor that only read about the field in which he teaches.

Firstly, what is your position on the issue here, just so that I don't commit accidental strawmans?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 10:14:10 AM
Firstly, what is your position on the issue here, just so that I don't commit accidental strawmans?

Aside from hard sciences, college is for those that need to further their education for one reason or another.
But for most people, it's a waste of time, they are successful in their own right.
Getting a degree has become a state sponsored scam, to get a civil service position, college is a requirement, this puts the state in a position of dictating what college courses exist, in turn it has become a symbiotic relationship between the two, one that needs to be abolished.
Granted this is my opinion, but 70% of college is fluff and completely unnecessary.
If you really want to succeed in any particular field other than hard science, then go to a specialized school.
You know, the ones that will change the face of higher learning in this country for good.

Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2012, 10:53:07 AM
Aside from hard sciences, college is for those that need to further their education for one reason or another.
But for most people, it's a waste of time, they are successful in their own right.

...I think you're confusing threads here.  We're discussing the teaching of intelligent design in public classrooms; ie, middle schools and high schools.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
I love how, when I respond to your posts paragraph by paragraph, present my arguments, provide factual analysis, and wait for a reply, the response is ignore any semblance of a logical discussion, and just resort to ridiculous name calling.   :rolleyes:

I especially like how taxed calls me an "uneducated person", and then leaves it at that.  No need to actually posit an argument, with facts...that's just overrated.

Or how me using asterisks is somehow relevant to the empirical validity of my points.

I don't mean it as an insult, Sci Fi.  The fact is, you are discussing topics you are very uneducated on.  I understand you want to dispute that, but the fact is, like the minimum wage thread for example, you don't understand supply and demand, and have no idea about business.  In the EPA thread, you mentioned "rapidly depleting resources", but didn't back it up, despite multiple requests.  You are at a disadvantage, since you are repeating liberal propaganda, but liberalism has to compete with knowledge and experience.  Sci Fi, the members on this board have real world experience.  As evident in the minimum wage thread, despite you saying I don't argue with facts, I address every point you have with facts.  Please start to do the same.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
...I think you're confusing threads here.  We're discussing the teaching of intelligent design in public classrooms; ie, middle schools and high schools.

They don't teach anything in public classrooms, so the OP is moot.

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
They don't teach anything in public classrooms, so the OP is moot.

Yet there are many influential factions in the right that want intelligent design to be taught in public classrooms.  And this isn't a vocal minority of religious fanatics; plenty of mainstream republican candidates have advocated for intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

As for my level of experience on this issue, unless you majored in the sciences, your business credentials are entirely irrelevant to the topic.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
Yet there are many influential factions in the right that want intelligent design to be taught in public classrooms.  And this isn't a vocal minority of religious fanatics; plenty of mainstream republican candidates have advocated for intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

You tie intelligent design to religion.  I am not religious, and I believe we were created.  You are advocating for teaching something we don't know about, and against teaching something we don't know about?

Quote
As for my level of experience on this issue, unless you majored in the sciences, your business credentials are entirely irrelevant to the topic.

Sorry dude.  No one knows how the hell we got here.  Stephen Hawking has no idea how we got here.  You can have faith with how we got here, which I agree with, or throw your hands up and say "I have no idea", which I also agree with.

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 11:57:06 AM
You tie intelligent design to religion.  I am not religious, and I believe we were created.  You are advocating for teaching something we don't know about, and against teaching something we don't know about?
Sorry dude.  No one knows how the hell we got here.  Stephen Hawking has no idea how we got here.  You can have faith with how we got here, which I agree with, or throw your hands up and say "I have no idea", which I also agree with.

Appeal to ignorance.  Evolution is a well accepted, researched and peer reviewed scientific theory with mounds of evidence supporting it.  To say that we cannot teach it just because we don't know for absolute, 100% certainty is the equivalent of arguing that we cannot teach that the Egyptians built the pyramids because we technically cannot know, for absolutely certainty, that the alien conspiracy theorists are right, and extraterrestrial beings actually built it.

And you're wrong in saying that someone like Hawking has "no idea how we got here".  He will, of course, admit, that in science there is technically no *absolute* certainty, and that nobody can say in good conscience that the certainty level of any theory, including gravitational theory, is 100%.  Yet no idea?  Does this posit that theories with massive amounts of evidences supporting them are incorrect, simply because the certainty level must always approach 100% but never reach it?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 12:06:41 PM
Appeal to ignorance.  Evolution is a well accepted, researched and peer reviewed scientific theory with mounds of evidence supporting it.

Same with intelligent design.

Quote
To say that we cannot teach it just because we don't know for absolute, 100% certainty is the equivalent of arguing that we cannot teach that the Egyptians built the pyramids because we technically cannot know, for absolutely certainty, that the alien conspiracy theorists are right, and extraterrestrial beings actually built it.

Yet, you don't want to allow teaching of intelligent design?

Quote
And you're wrong in saying that someone like Hawking has "no idea how we got here".  He will, of course, admit, that in science there is technically no *absolute* certainty, and that nobody can say in good conscience that the certainty level of any theory, including gravitational theory, is 100%.  Yet no idea?  Does this posit that theories with massive amounts of evidences supporting them are incorrect, simply because the certainty level must always approach 100% but never reach it?

This is where liberals start getting into trouble (see hockey stick global warming).  Yes, I have no idea how we got here.  I have theories.  Am I up to speed on the space and time like Hawking?  Of course not.  Unlike you, I don't pretend we have the meaning of life figured out, so am open to all points of view.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 12:06:41 PM
Appeal to ignorance.  Evolution is a well accepted, researched and peer reviewed scientific theory with mounds of evidence supporting it.  To say that we cannot teach it just because we don't know for absolute, 100% certainty is the equivalent of arguing that we cannot teach that the Egyptians built the pyramids because we technically cannot know, for absolutely certainty, that the alien conspiracy theorists are right, and extraterrestrial beings actually built it.

And you're wrong in saying that someone like Hawking has "no idea how we got here".  He will, of course, admit, that in science there is technically no *absolute* certainty, and that nobody can say in good conscience that the certainty level of any theory, including gravitational theory, is 100%.  Yet no idea?  Does this posit that theories with massive amounts of evidences supporting them are incorrect, simply because the certainty level must always approach 100% but never reach it?

Consensus is not proof, and you don't seem to understand that ALL truly scientific theories must be subject to disproof. For it to really be science we must understand that a theory only lasts until abetter theory comes along. And we must consider all new theories and never dismiss them out of hand because they contradict a theory which is generally accepted. Remember, they laughed and Wegener when he purposed that continents move.

And I think the answer to what should and shouldn't be taught in public schools, is to get away from our current idea of public schools, and go to a voucher system. You send your kids to the school that only teaches consensus, "accepted" science. I'll send my kids to the school that brings all theories into the classroom, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of eachl of them.

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 12:17:53 PM
Same with intelligent design.

No.  There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  No nationally recognized scientific community endorses intelligent design "theory".  There is one "peer reviewed" creationist journal in the entire United States that I can find.

Quote
Yet, you don't want to allow teaching of intelligent design?

Because you also cannot turn this argument around and say "we should teach every proposed alternative, no matter how lacking in evidence the hypothesis is."  If this were the case, we would have to teach ancient Greek creation "theory" alongside Hindu creation myth and 911 conspiracy theories.  None of this applies to Evolution theory, which has been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt by centuries of accumulated evidence.

Quote
This is where liberals start getting into trouble (see hockey stick global warming).  Yes, I have no idea how we got here.  I have theories.

Are these theories based on faith or science?  If the former, you certainly would not advocate teaching this is public schooling.  Why would one want to teach intelligent design for the same reason?

QuoteAm I up to speed on the space and time like Hawking?  Of course not.  Unlike you, I don't pretend we have the meaning of life figured out,

No science curriculum posits that Evolution theory is complete.  But similarly, gravitational theory is not complete either; this inherent fact of science does not mean that we should not teach what we know.

Additionally, I would mention that all intelligent design proponents who are religious (which is practically everyone, except you) believe that their theory on Earth's creation is complete, divinely inspired and 100%, unequivocally correct.  That comes with basing theories solely on religious beliefs.

Quote

so am open to all points of view.

Yes, but being open to all points of views does not mean that you should accept them all as equally possible.  You're appealing to a golden mean fallacy here; without reading their minds, you cannot know for certain if George W Bush did not know about the September 11 attacks, so should we teach it as an equally possible theory in history class?

QuoteNo.  There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  No nationally recognized scientific community endorses intelligent design "theory".  There is one "peer reviewed" creationist journal in the entire United States that I can find.

Couple of points, you keep conflating intelligent design and creationism. They are actually two different theories. Something someone who purports to be as intelligent as you do, should understand. And again you appeal to consensus. I guess that's understandable in an AGW true believer like you, but again consensus isn't proof. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 12:29:15 PM
No.  There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  No nationally recognized scientific community endorses intelligent design "theory".  There is one "peer reviewed" creationist journal in the entire United States that I can find.

Sci Fi, to say there is no credible theory that humans were placed on Earth is not correct.  You are too busy fighting against what liberals put in your brain as a belief by 'uneducated bible-thumping rednecks'.  I am pretty facinated on this topic, and because I have done so much reading on theology, and how it can tie into the universe, I know enough to say that I have no idea.  You go ahead and shut your brain off after you have been told evolution is the only accepted theory.  Meanwhile, the oceans are still populated.

Quote
Because you also cannot turn this argument around and say "we should teach every proposed alternative, no matter how lacking in evidence the hypothesis is."  If this were the case, we would have to teach ancient Greek creation "theory" alongside Hindu creation myth and 911 conspiracy theories.  None of this applies to Evolution theory, which has been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt by centuries of accumulated evidence.

Not sure where 911 came into this (but libs tend to go off the rails and shift the subject), but if a science class is to teach the subject, first I would be amazed that kids would learn something, but I would have no problem with the teacher getting the kids to think and open their mind about possibilities.  If some kids believe God put us here, then great.  If others think the oceans were a lesser environment than land, and decided to migrate to land (and not land to the oceans), then great.  I don't have a problem with an educated teacher teaching different theories.

Quote
Are these theories based on faith or science?  If the former, you certainly would not advocate teaching this is public schooling.  Why would one want to teach intelligent design for the same reason?

How can you teach what you don't know?  I know liberals do that, but what about for us thinking people?

Quote
No science curriculum posits that Evolution theory is complete.  But similarly, gravitational theory is not complete either; this inherent fact of science does not mean that we should not teach what we know.

We don't know how we got here.  We know there is gravity.  Teaching physics is quite all right.  I wish schools would teach physics.

Quote
Additionally, I would mention that all intelligent design proponents who are religious (which is practically everyone, except you) believe that their theory on Earth's creation is complete, divinely inspired and 100%, unequivocally correct.  That comes with basing theories solely on religious beliefs.

Wrong.  You really need to push through your misconceptions and educate yourself.

Quote
Yes, but being open to all points of views does not mean that you should accept them all as equally possible.  You're appealing to a golden mean fallacy here; without reading their minds, you cannot know for certain if George W Bush did not know about the September 11 attacks, so should we teach it as an equally possible theory in history class?

Ahhh.  You couldn't help yourself, I know.

No, don't be a moron.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
...I think you're confusing threads here.  We're discussing the teaching of intelligent design in public classrooms; ie, middle schools and high schools.

Nope, just expanding on education, considering this is about classrooms, right?

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 12:55:48 PM
Sci Fi, to say there is no credible theory that humans were placed on Earth is not correct. 

Fine then.  Show me the evidence.

Quote

Not sure where 911 came into this (but libs tend to go off the rails and shift the subject),

Simple; you suggest that we should teach all alternative theories in school, just because they exist.  So explain to me why we do not teach 911 conspiracy theories in history classes.

Oh, wait, it's because they aren't supported by any evidence, isn't it?  Kind of applies here as well.   :rolleyes:

Quotebut if a science class is to teach the subject, first I would be amazed that kids would learn something, but I would have no problem with the teacher getting the kids to think and open their mind about possibilities.  If some kids believe God put us here, then great.  If others think the oceans were a lesser environment than land, and decided to migrate to land (and not land to the oceans), then great.  I don't have a problem with an educated teacher teaching different theories.

It's fallacious thinking to say that all theories hold equal weight to one another.  For example, conventional current flow is not taught as being a possible alternative to electron flow in science classrooms because it isn't real.  Similarly, we do not teach that aliens may have built the Egyptian pyramids, because it isn't a very credible theory.

Quote
How can you teach what you don't know?  I know liberals do that, but what about for us thinking people?

Because we do know* Evolution theory.  It has been substantiated by a very large collection of evidence.  The same does not apply to ID.

*"know" beyond a reasonable doubt.  Your continuous insistence that we don't know for *sure* also applies to whether or not Julius Caesar ever existed.  We're pretty darn sure he did; we have evidence (just like evolution) and records (just like evolution), but it's always possible that all of this is false.  Who knows?

Based on your criteria (we must know for certain to teach something), we would not be able to teach anything in the sciences, economics or history.

Quote
We don't know how we got here.

Yes, we do.  That you don't know doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

I know you think that not accepting a well supported theory just because you "don't know!" for certain if it's true or not is being "open minded".  It is not.  It is being intellectually lazy.  Not all theories are equally plausible; some are objectively wrong, and others are more supportable with evidence.  To treat them all equally regardless of their merits is strangely Marxist of you.

QuoteWe know there is gravity.

But the theory is far from complete; for example, we do not know why gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces.  Does this mean we should not teach it?

Furthermore, quantum mechanics are significantly sketchier than evolution theory, and the holes between the two are not even remotely comparable in size, so why is there no controversy over teaching the former?

Quote

  Teaching physics is quite all right.  I wish schools would teach physics.

So do I...

Quote
Wrong.  You really need to push through your misconceptions and educate yourself.

Your high sounding rhetoric doesn't change the fact that the bible is infallible according to the church's dogma; that they believe this is not a disputed fact.

Quote
Ahhh.  You couldn't help yourself, I know.

No, don't be a moron.

I love how your simplistic thought process just sees the word "George W Bush" and assumes that I am smearing him, without bothering to read context, and without realizing that I was defending him.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Fine then.  Show me the evidence.

Do your own research.  Start with structures on Cydonia on Mars, and how they mirror the Giza pyramids, and how they scale perfectly with the belt of Orion.  Or how the monolith on Phobos got there.  Or any of the many unexplained stuff on Earth and the planets.  As you are researching, start asking yourself how the fish crawled out of the oceans, built the pyramids, traveled to different planets, then made it back in time to invent the iPhone.  There is plenty of material for you to research.

Quote
Simple; you suggest that we should teach all alternative theories in school, just because they exist.  So explain to me why we do not teach 911 conspiracy theories in history classes.

Because that would be stupid.

Quote
Oh, wait, it's because they aren't supported by any evidence, isn't it?  Kind of applies here as well.   :rolleyes:

It's not my fault you aren't well read.

Quote
It's fallacious thinking to say that all theories hold equal weight to one another.  For example, conventional current flow is not taught as being a possible alternative to electron flow in science classrooms because it isn't real.  Similarly, we do not teach that aliens may have built the Egyptian pyramids, because it isn't a very credible theory.

You should probably listen to this kid.  Good advice.

TEDxTeen - Jacob Barnett: Forget What You Know (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE#ws)

Quote
Because we do know* Evolution theory.  It has been substantiated by a very large collection of evidence.  The same does not apply to ID.

*"know" beyond a reasonable doubt.  Your continuous insistence that we don't know for *sure* also applies to whether or not Julius Caesar ever existed.  We're pretty darn sure he did; we have evidence (just like evolution) and records (just like evolution), but it's always possible that all of this is false.  Who knows?

Wrong.  We know more about Julius Caesar than the theory of evolution.  Think, son, think!

Quote
Based on your criteria (we must know for certain to teach something), we would not be able to teach anything in the sciences, economics or history.

You really are having a very hard time with this whole "thinking" thing.

Quote
Yes, we do.  That you don't know doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

You don't know.  You are choosing to cement in your brain what someone else came up with and concluded from evidence.

Quote
I know you think that not accepting a well supported theory just because you "don't know!" for certain if it's true or not is being "open minded".  It is not.  It is being intellectually lazy.  Not all theories are equally plausible; some are objectively wrong, and others are more supportable with evidence.  To treat them all equally regardless of their merits is strangely Marxist of you.

I am smart enough to know what I don't know.  That doesn't prevent me from learning and thinking.  I can receive input into my brain and process the data.  Me being able to say I don't know how we got here allows me to continue learning and thinking.  Meanwhile, you are set on what you think you know, hence why your brain shuts down and is incapable of thinking.

Quote
But the theory is far from complete; for example, we do not know why gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces.

Very good!  I knew I could teach you a new trick.

Quote
Does this mean we should not teach it?

Not at all.  We can teach what we think we know.  Teach what we know, then let the thinking take flight!

Quote
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are significantly sketchier than evolution theory, and the holes between the two are not even remotely comparable in size, so why is there no controversy over teaching the former?

Because someone like Sci Fi Fan thinks the science is settled.  For example, your quip in the other thread about "rapidly depleting resources".  Where did you get that from?  You don't think, yet you parrot.

Quote
So do I...

I doubt that.  You can't be pro-union and pro-teaching at the same time.

Quote
Your high sounding rhetoric doesn't change the fact that the bible is infallible according to the church's dogma; that they believe this is not a disputed fact.

That upsets you why?

Quote
I love how your simplistic thought process just sees the word "George W Bush" and assumes that I am smearing him, without bothering to read context, and without realizing that I was defending him.   :rolleyes:

I did read it, and you were ambiguous.

Fascinating. Because you find a theory isn't in line with conventional wisdom, instead of bringing it into the open classroom - where it can either be supported or demolished - you would prefer that we "banish" it from polite society, and never speak of it again. So you think the Pope should have punished Galileo, after all his theory of a heliocentric solar system did go against the consensus science of the day.

Alright, Taxed.  How do I put this.



You correctly point out that Evolution theory is incomplete. 


What you do not understand is that this isn't an either/or proposition.  No theory is ever considered entirely unchallengeable and complete.  You're assuming that, because both Evolution and ID are not 100% conclusive, both should be carried with equal weight. 

Once again, it is not an either/or.  If you were to scale the level of completeness:


[basic] Laws of Thermodynamics
Obama's life
Lincoln's life
Caesar's life
Evolution theory / gravitational theory

911
Quantum Theory


The Mayans


.....



....


...


Intelligent Design
Spontaneous Combustion



Do you see why your logic falls flat?

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 04:55:24 PM
Do your own research.  Start with structures on Cydonia on Mars, and how they mirror the Giza pyramids, and how they scale perfectly with the belt of Orion.  Or how the monolith on Phobos got there.  Or any of the many unexplained stuff on Earth and the planets.

And these random curiosities compare to a mountain of fossil records, genetic links and observable similarities between multitudes of alive and extinct species...how?

Quote

As you are researching, start asking yourself how the fish crawled out of the oceans, built the pyramids, traveled to different planets, then made it back in time to invent the iPhone.  There is plenty of material for you to research.

Now you're just appealing to your own incredulity.  Over billions of years, this isn't at all implausible.  And there is real evidence supporting Evolution theory, not curious photographs.

Ask yourself how you came from being a fertilized egg to typing on a computer today. 

Quote

Because that would be stupid.

Care to elaborate more?

Quote
It's not my fault you aren't well read.

ROFLAMO.  Knowing about the Cydonia isn't being "well read", Taxed.  It's watching too much popular news.

Quote
You should probably listen to this kid.  Good advice.

TEDxTeen - Jacob Barnett: Forget What You Know (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE#ws)

You're appealing to the Golden Mean fallacy.  Explain why we should not teach ancient Greek creation myths, then.  Or that John Wilkes Booth really escaped and is related to Harry Oswald.

Quote
Wrong.  We know more about Julius Caesar than the theory of evolution.  Think, son, think!

Whoop!  So you admit that there are varying levels of uncertainty.  We don't know for certain who Caesar was; but that doesn't mean that it is equally incomplete with everything else that is uncertain (which is everything).

Apply this to evolution.

To try another analogy, explain why we should teach the existence of dinosaurs and their suspected habits in public schools.

Quote
You really are having a very hard time with this whole "thinking" thing.

Do you really think that your complete lack of knowledge on the subject isn't showing through?

Quote
You don't know.  You are choosing to cement in your brain what someone else came up with and concluded from evidence.

You see, that's the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Evolution has evidence.  Intelligent design does not; and no, one curious looking structure on an entire planet does not constitute as any more than a sensationalistic newspaper headline.  You do not conclude anything from the above.

Quote

I am smart enough to know what I don't know.  That doesn't prevent me from learning and thinking. 

But you aren't thinking.  You look at intelligent design and evolution, conclude that neither are absolutely certain, and therefore conclude that it's a wash, and that both theories are equally inconclusive.  You think that it's an either/or proposition, of either being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or being equally skeptical.

Quote
I can receive input into my brain and process the data.  Me being able to say I don't know how we got here allows me to continue learning and thinking.  Meanwhile, you are set on what you think you know, hence why your brain shuts down and is incapable of thinking.

You do not know whether or not 911 was planned by the government.  The evidence quite conclusively suggests that it was not, but there's always the possibility, and I'll be the first to admit that I do not know.

Should we teach it in history class?

Quote
Very good!  I knew I could teach you a new trick.

So by your logic, we cannot teach general relativity.  It has yet to be reconciled with quantum theory; so, but all accounts, it could be (probably is) incomplete. 

But we still teach it.

In fact, gravitational theory is significantly less complete than Evolution.  Should we not teach it?

Quote
Not at all.  We can teach what we think we know.  Teach what we know, then let the thinking take flight!

I think you're committing a massive strawman across your entire argument; you're assuming that I think Evolution theory is complete.  It is not.  It is, however, significantly more complete than ID.  Do you think that all theories are equally plausible?

Quote
Because someone like Sci Fi Fan thinks the science is settled.  For example, your quip in the other thread about "rapidly depleting resources".  Where did you get that from?  You don't think, yet you parrot.

Nope.  You never answered the question: explain why we teach quantum mechanics in class, without any controversy, when it is significantly less complete than evolution.

Quote
I doubt that.  You can't be pro-union and pro-teaching at the same time.

I'm not very pro-union in your interpretation of the word.

Quote
That upsets you why?

Because you [falsely] accuse me of believing Evolution, a theory that scientists constantly revise and evolve, without any room for doubt, even when ID has not evolved in the past five thousand years?

QuoteBecause you [falsely] accuse me of believing Evolution, a theory that scientists constantly revise and evolve, without any room for doubt, even when ID has not evolved in the past five thousand years?

Once again, I should point out that you are conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism. That - and your little aside about "five thousand years" - immediate tells me that it isn't either theory that you find "disagreeable", but Creationism's association with religion. I could point out that according to Intelligent Design, evolution might be some superior beings way of organizing what ever they wanted to create on this world, and of course Intelligent Design deals with first causes which evolution doesn't.  But then again, why should I attempt to introduce a new idea into your closed mind.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 08:46:52 PM
Oh, Christ, I'm being attacked with punctuation. Give me a second or two to piss my pants. Okay, moving on...

I apologize for calling you T-Bone in another thread. It was heartless punctuation on my part, for which I am deeply remorseful.

:blink:

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 09:11:35 AM
Once again, I should point out that you are conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism.

Even their supporters use the two interchangeably.  Show me any difference between the two other than semantics.

QuoteThat - and your little aside about "five thousand years" - immediate tells me that it isn't either theory that you find "disagreeable", but Creationism's association with religion.

Your ad hominem falls flat.  My issue with creationism/ID is that there is no scientifically quantifiable evidence supporting it.

QuoteI could point out that according to Intelligent Design, evolution might be some superior beings way of organizing what ever they wanted to create on this world,

This is not the mainstream definition of ID.  This is not what they want taught in public classrooms.

Quote
and of course Intelligent Design deals with first causes which evolution doesn't.

Nope.  Explain where the intelligent designer came from.  The theory bends Occam's Razor over and violates it anally; in order to explain the existence of a finitely complex entity, you insert in a sapient, omnipotent, infinitely complex entity and fail to explain it.  You replace one unknown with a ridiculously larger one.

And your objection is irrelevant to Evolution theory.  There is no first cause needed for it.  You're confusing it with Big Bang cosmology.

Quote
  But then again, why should I attempt to introduce a new idea into your closed mind.

You know, creationism/ID has remained unchanged for 5000 years, and operates under a book they believe is unchangeable, immutable and perfect, and you accuse me of having a close mind?   :laugh:

Evolution evolves.  Scientists find new data and modify their theory to fit the facts.  Creationists come up with a theory, and then keep it the same forever.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 15, 2012, 08:53:52 AM
Alright, Taxed.  How do I put this.



You correctly point out that Evolution theory is incomplete. 


What you do not understand is that this isn't an either/or proposition.  No theory is ever considered entirely unchallengeable and complete.  You're assuming that, because both Evolution and ID are not 100% conclusive, both should be carried with equal weight. 

Once again, it is not an either/or.  If you were to scale the level of completeness:


[basic] Laws of Thermodynamics
Obama's life
Lincoln's life
Caesar's life
Evolution theory / gravitational theory

911
Quantum Theory


The Mayans


.....



....


...


Intelligent Design
Spontaneous Combustion



Do you see why your logic falls flat?

I see why your logic falls flat. You think you know enough to rank theories, and apples and oranges at that.  Lincoln's life to Thermodynamics?  Do you even know what you are talking about??

Quote
And these random curiosities compare to a mountain of fossil records, genetic links and observable similarities between multitudes of alive and extinct species...how?

Do your own thinking.  You can do it...

Quote
Now you're just appealing to your own incredulity.  Over billions of years, this isn't at all implausible.  And there is real evidence supporting Evolution theory, not curious photographs.

If that is where you limit yourself, then that's your business.

Quote
Ask yourself how you came from being a fertilized egg to typing on a computer today. 

It isn't circumstantial.  Try harder...

Quote
Care to elaborate more?

Sure.  Bush/911 isn't teaching history.  The event, sure.  Introducing conspiracy theory, no.

Quote
ROFLAMO.  Knowing about the Cydonia isn't being "well read", Taxed.  It's watching too much popular news.

That's correct, that in itself isn't.  Very good!

Quote
You're appealing to the Golden Mean fallacy.  Explain why we should not teach ancient Greek creation myths, then.

In a scope of a class that teaches it, of course it can be.

Quote
Or that John Wilkes Booth really escaped and is related to Harry Oswald.

Wow.  If the teacher chooses to touch on it, then who cares?

Quote
Whoop!  So you admit that there are varying levels of uncertainty.  We don't know for certain who Caesar was; but that doesn't mean that it is equally incomplete with everything else that is uncertain (which is everything).

Apply this to evolution.

See how you are busy trying to "prove" evolution?  You are looking silly because you just don't get it.

Quote
To try another analogy, explain why we should teach the existence of dinosaurs and their suspected habits in public schools.

For a class that teaches it, of course you can teach it.

Quote
Do you really think that your complete lack of knowledge on the subject isn't showing through?

We haven't even discussed any subject.  You are busy trying to show how smart you think you are while I laugh.  Remember, you make statments and then run, like "rapidly depleting resources" you made in another thread, your attempt to argue against supply and demand.  These show how dumb you are, and why I posted the video about why you should start thinking.

Quote
You see, that's the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Evolution has evidence.  Intelligent design does not; and no, one curious looking structure on an entire planet does not constitute as any more than a sensationalistic newspaper headline.  You do not conclude anything from the above.

You are so far behind that it is funny.

Quote
But you aren't thinking.  You look at intelligent design and evolution, conclude that neither are absolutely certain, and therefore conclude that it's a wash, and that both theories are equally inconclusive.  You think that it's an either/or proposition, of either being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or being equally skeptical.

You have no idea what I know about the subject, because I haven't discussed it.  Maybe I think evolution and intelligent design can both happen.  You don't know.

Quote
You do not know whether or not 911 was planned by the government.  The evidence quite conclusively suggests that it was not, but there's always the possibility, and I'll be the first to admit that I do not know.

Should we teach it in history class?

Why would you? What would the kids learn?

Quote
So by your logic, we cannot teach general relativity.  It has yet to be reconciled with quantum theory; so, but all accounts, it could be (probably is) incomplete. 

But we still teach it.

In fact, gravitational theory is significantly less complete than Evolution.  Should we not teach it?

I don't pretend to know the depths of general relativity compared with others, beyond what my laymen mind has put together.  If I started to pretend that I know what I don't know about, then I start saying stupid shit like the planet's resources are rapidly depleting, and arguing against supply and demand.  I would find people smarter than I on the subjects and have them dictate a curriculum.

Quote
I think you're committing a massive strawman across your entire argument; you're assuming that I think Evolution theory is complete.  It is not.  It is, however, significantly more complete than ID.  Do you think that all theories are equally plausible?

Yet you think you know what should/shouldn't be taught.  For me to intelligently assert its plausibility means I know what I don't know about it.  You are trying to assert one is more complete than the other, when you have no idea.

Quote
Nope.  You never answered the question: explain why we teach quantum mechanics in class, without any controversy, when it is significantly less complete than evolution.

Quit pretending you are a physicist and are qualified to determine what should or shouldn't be taught. 

Quote
I'm not very pro-union in your interpretation of the word.

Sure.

Quote
Because you [falsely] accuse me of believing Evolution, a theory that scientists constantly revise and evolve, without any room for doubt, even when ID has not evolved in the past five thousand years?

Topics you know very little about, yet continue to assert how valid they are.  Very sad.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 15, 2012, 09:48:00 AM
Even their supporters use the two interchangeably.  Show me any difference between the two other than semantics.

No  youngster, if you're attempting to use two distinct theories interchangeably, YOU have to show where they are the same. Saying it's "all semantics" is just a cheap attempt on your part to conflate the two, and disprove one by arguing the other. That crap my work over on KOS, but we know better here.

QuoteYour ad hominem falls flat.  My issue with creationism/ID is that there is no scientifically quantifiable evidence supporting it.

And there you go again attempting to join the two so you can attack one with the other.

QuoteThis is not the mainstream definition of ID.  This is not what they want taught in public classrooms.

And there you go again, attempting an argument from consensus.

QuoteNope.  Explain where the intelligent designer came from.  The theory bends Occam's Razor over and violates it anally; in order to explain the existence of a finitely complex entity, you insert in a sapient, omnipotent, infinitely complex entity and fail to explain it.  You replace one unknown with a ridiculously larger one.

Can you tell me what happened ONE NANOSECOND BEFORE THE BIG BANG? If you can't, then ALL theories as to FIRST CAUSES are valid. Basically you're saying that it can't be a transcendental cause, because a lot of people don't like the idea of a transcendental cause.

QuoteAnd your objection is irrelevant to Evolution theory.  There is no first cause needed for it.  You're confusing it with Big Bang cosmology.

Your argument is the one that is irrelevant. If you'd paid attention. you would have seen that many theories of intelligent design accept evolution as the simplest way for a superior being to arrive at a result with out having to oversee the process, every where personally. As I said it's only your prejudice against religion, that demands that we banish it from the public square.

QuoteYou know, creationism/ID has remained unchanged for 5000 years, and operates under a book they believe is unchangeable, immutable and perfect, and you accuse me of having a close mind?   :laugh:

Are you actually that stupid? You can't fight intelligent design by attempting to bring into the conversation Creationism. Argument by False Similarity is also illogical. And if you go back to the title of this thread, you see that it's about INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Continual attempts to bring up Creationism to muddy the waters, won't work.

QuoteEvolution evolves.  Scientists find new data and modify their theory to fit the facts.  Creationists come up with a theory, and then keep it the same forever.

Actually the various Theories of Evolution evolve, evolution itself remains the same. But why would I expect you to understand the difference between the fact of evolution and the various theories to explain that fact. That would require that you actually have some idea what you're talking about, as opposed to simply spouting cant.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 11:18:46 AM
No  youngster, if you're attempting to use two distinct theories interchangeably, YOU have to show where they are the same. Saying it's "all semantics" is just a cheap attempt on your part to conflate the two, and disprove one by arguing the other.

Alright then.

Establish which precise definition of ID we are referring to here.  Define your theory and its mechanism.  Because, like you say, there are so many variations of it that we need to decide which one we'll discuss.

Quote
Can you tell me what happened ONE NANOSECOND BEFORE THE BIG BANG?

No, you're using god of the gaps here.  ID's can't answer the question either.  They just scream "well, it must have been an intelligent designer because we don't know!"  Let's see if you can detect the irony here.

Quote
If you can't, then ALL theories as to FIRST CAUSES are valid.

My god...this has got to be the most asinine thing I've ever heard you say, and that's certainly saying something.

How can "all" theories of first cause be valid if many are mutually self contradicting?  What if my ID theory is that space monkeys made the universe, and yours is that a giant flying monster did?  Are both theories valid?

QuoteBasically you're saying that it can't be a transcendental cause, because a lot of people don't like the idea of a transcendental cause.

Nope.  That's not how the scientific method works; there is not valid theory that argues a transcendental cause because no evidence exists for it.

Quote
Your argument is the one that is irrelevant. If you'd paid attention. you would have seen that many theories of intelligent design accept evolution as the simplest way for a superior being to arrive at a result with out having to oversee the process, every where personally. As I said it's only your prejudice against religion, that demands that we banish it from the public square.

You're rambling.  This rebuttal hasn't the slightest connection to the part of my post you quoted:

Evolution has no "first clause" dilemma; Big Bang cosmology does.  You're confusing the two.

So don't get all riled up about me inducing religion into the debate; evolution and the B.B theory are only related in their religious implications.  That you confuse the two at all is just evidence of your inability to think of this from a secular standpoint.

Maybe some intelligent being created the "Big Bang."  Maybe evolution is actually a "God" creating the earth, solar system, galaxy, universe, etc.  Maybe the billions of years it took for a one-celled organism creeping out of a mudhole to evolve into a human being, as well as all other life, are in reality only seven days "God time." 

Christopher Hitchens, (RIP) said in his book, "God is Not Great," that "Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."  I suppose that he, being dead, now knows the secrets of the universe.  Unfortunately, he can't tell us.  Nor can we tell others once we have joined Christopher in the great beyond, whatever and wherever it might be. Voltaire said, "If God didn't exist, man would have invented him," or words to that effect.  Maybe that's the case.

I wonder what exists beyond our universe.  Are there other universes, or universi, as the case may be? Think of it.  And were they created, if they exist, by ID, or another big bang, or the same big bang?

I don't know.  No one knows.  IMO the evidence for evolution far exceeds the evidence for ID, but to each his own.   

QuoteMaybe some intelligent being created the "Big Bang."  Maybe evolution is actually a "God" creating the earth, solar system, galaxy, universe, etc.  Maybe the billions of years it took for a one-celled organism creeping out of a mudhole to evolve into a human being, as well as all other life, are in reality only seven days "God time." 

Odd you should mention that. I've always considered it hubris on the part of humanity, to assume that an almighty, omniscient, omnipotent being would have to work on human time scales. Or that to this being, a "day" would mean the same thing that it means to us.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Odd you should mention that. I've always considered it hubris on the part of humanity, to assume that an almighty, omniscient, omnipotent being would have to work on human time scales. Or that to this being, a "day" would mean the same thing that it means to us.

I'd consider it hubris to think that the creator of ten thousand quintillion cubic kilometers of space, hundreds of billions of stars and an unimaginable amount of matter and energy would be concerned about whether or not a bipedal being on some insignificant speck of space gets a pay raise.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 15, 2012, 02:44:18 PM
I'd consider it hubris to think that the creator of ten thousand quintillion cubic kilometers of space, hundreds of billions of stars and an unimaginable amount of matter and energy would be concerned about whether or not a bipedal being on some insignificant speck of space gets a pay raise.

And HE shouldn't because? Do you feel that you're unworthy of notice?

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
And HE shouldn't because? Do you feel that you're unworthy of notice?

If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

Furthermore, why wait for nearly 14 billion years before creating us?

-----------------

It seems as though intelligent supporters of intelligent design (or whatever you wish to call it) simply fail to understand the level of burden of proof required to make a valid scientific theory.  They use the fallacious reasoning that even the slightest of a whim is equally valid to a theory that has been supported by mounds and mounds of scientific evidence simply because the certainty of both is less than 100%.  The logic here is terrible enough that whoever uses it is either an idiot, or subconsciously lying to himself.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

Furthermore, why wait for nearly 14 billion years before creating us?

-----------------

It seems as though intelligent supporters of intelligent design (or whatever you wish to call it) simply fail to understand the level of burden of proof required to make a valid scientific theory.  They use the fallacious reasoning that even the slightest of a whim is equally valid to a theory that has been supported by mounds and mounds of scientific evidence simply because the certainty of both is less than 100%.  The logic here is terrible enough that whoever uses it is either an idiot, or subconsciously lying to himself.

You've never heard "God created the earth in seven days"?

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 04:12:36 PM
You've never heard "God created the earth in seven days"?

If you interpret this figuratively, then I don't see your point here.  If you interpret this literally...well, there's so much stupidity in this hypothesis, perhaps you should clarify your position before I waste space.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 04:15:08 PM
If you interpret this figuratively, then I don't see your point here.  If you interpret this literally...well, there's so much stupidity in this hypothesis, perhaps you should clarify your position before I waste space.

Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.
Does that clear it up?

Question, what do you think created the universe?

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.

Actually, if god created space-time, and existed prior to it, he would have to exist outside of time itself and would by no means take time to do anything.

Which would beg the question as to why god would take six "days" to create the universe, rather than just doing it instantaneously.  Time implies fallibility.

Quote
Does that clear it up?

No.  It still must be figurative, because it took significantly longer for the stars to form than for man to come into being.

----

Indeed, parroting off that question, how would creationists explain why man's ancestors' (homo erectus, habilis, etc)  fossils predate homo sapiens' by millions of years, and then mysteriously vanish.  Then, homo sapiens do not appear until significantly after said ancestors appeared; how does this fit with the notion that god created us all at the same time?

Quote
Question, what do you think created the universe?

Clearly, your scientific knowledge on the matter is such that you find evolution and big bang cosmology to be even remotely related to one another.

Either way, since the big bang involved an expansion of both time and space, it requires no causation, since time did not exist before it (unless if we go down the multiple-universes route, in which case you simply get a circle; still no causation needed).

It sounds counter-intuitive, because our human nature demands that everything have a causation; but then we'd get into the question who or what created god.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 05:06:48 PM
Actually, if god created space-time, and existed prior to it, he would have to exist outside of time itself and would by no means take time to do anything.

Which would beg the question as to why god would take six "days" to create the universe, rather than just doing it instantaneously.  Time implies fallibility.

No.  It still must be figurative, because it took significantly longer for the stars to form than for man to come into being.

----

Indeed, parroting off that question, how would creationists explain why man's ancestors' (homo erectus, habilis, etc)  fossils predate homo sapiens' by millions of years, and then mysteriously vanish.  Then, homo sapiens do not appear until significantly after said ancestors appeared; how does this fit with the notion that god created us all at the same time?

Clearly, your scientific knowledge on the matter is such that you find evolution and big bang cosmology to be even remotely related to one another.

Either way, since the big bang involved an expansion of both time and space, it requires no causation, since time did not exist before it (unless if we go down the multiple-universes route, in which case you simply get a circle; still no causation needed).

It sounds counter-intuitive, because our human nature demands that everything have a causation; but then we'd get into the question who or what created god.

You aren't much of a philosopher, are you?
You seem to see God as a being. Did it ever occur to you, that we the collective human soul are God?

Life is all around us, it's always looking for a place to be, whether it's a single cell , or a complex network of cells, it is life.

Think about it.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 05:42:55 PM
You aren't much of a philosopher, are you?
You seem to see God as a being. Did it ever occur to you, that we the collective human soul are God?

Present scientific evidence supporting this notion.

Quote
Life is all around us, it's always looking for a place to be, whether it's a single cell , or a complex network of cells, it is life.

Now you're just pulling bullshit out of your ass; at no point does your spiritual rhetoric have anything to do with the thread topic, or the tangent you went on.  You've shifted from defending Genesis to coming up with a complete un-Christian definition of god, given that the Christian god existed in the absence of the universe and therefore cannot possibly be the collection of human souls.

Of course, such a theory is even easier to disprove, from a logical and scientific perspective.

Quote
Think about it.

I have.  Now, why don't you either a) stay on topic, b) present evidence to support your personal, spiritual beliefs or do both?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 06:01:33 PM
Present scientific evidence supporting this notion.

Present evidence refuting it.

QuoteNow you're just pulling bullshit out of your ass; at no point does your spiritual rhetoric have anything to do with the thread topic, or the tangent you went on.  You've shifted from defending Genesis to coming up with a complete un-Christian definition of god, given that the Christian god existed in the absence of the universe and therefore cannot possibly be the collection of human souls.

LOL!!!
You think I give a damn what you want?
I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in Religion, though I have great respect for those that do.
Religion is a creation of man.

Here is my take on the issue, we are a collective of souls, think omnipotent if you will.
We as a collective, (God) for lack of a better term, were pretty much bored with a fluid existence, so we created the expanse know as the universe.
We wanted the tangible, the ability to feel, smell, love hate, all of which is nonexistent as a fluid soul.
In reality, we are living in a non-reality, one of our very own making.
When you die, time is no longer of consequence, in fact, all that ever was no longer exists, we made a kind of hole in time, if you will, something, again, of our creation.
When you die, those that came before you, including the first human, to those of the future will all cease to exist in the very same moment you ceased to exist, the time equation will no longer exist.
Our entire existence took place on a grand scale far less than one fraction of a second.
Of course, such a theory is even easier to disprove, from a logical and scientific perspective.

QuoteI have.  Now, why don't you either a) stay on topic, b) present evidence to support your personal, spiritual beliefs or do both?

Apparently you don't think beyond the realm of the box you're trapped in.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 07:08:50 PM
Present evidence refuting it.

Not only is your ignorance of basic scientific principles comparable to that of a high school dropout, you are also entirely ignorant on the fundamental logical principle that burden of proof resides on the person who makes the claim.

This should be quite self evident, but since I need to explain the most basic scientific and logical concepts to you, let me present to you this request:

Present evidence refuting the notion that magical monkeys that can breathe in space live on mars and watch our every move.

Good luck.

QuoteLOL!!!
You think I give a damn what you want?
I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in Religion, though I have great respect for those that do.
Religion is a creation of man.

Regardless, you were still acting as an apologist for the religion.  It's intellectually dishonest of you to suddenly drop the issue without so much as a reason or concession.

Quote
Here is my take on the issue, we are a collective of souls, think omnipotent if you will.

Then explain why, prior to active exploration of the Americas, those in Europe were entirely incapable of feeling, sensing or otherwise deducing the existence of native americans.

Explain why all life is completely helpless against a sufficiently close supernova if it is omnipotent.

Quote
We as a collective, (God) for lack of a better term, were pretty much bored with a fluid existence, so we created the expanse know as the universe.

You argue that god = collection of souls.  Presumably, souls exist as a product of living organisms; yet the universe, without a shadow of a doubt, predates life.  How can we have created the universe?

Or are you arguing that living organisms are merely a product of a collective soul or group of souls that created us because it was "bored"?

Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.

And if our creator(s) is/are omnipotent, why did it/they create sea creatures that can drown?

Quote
We wanted the tangible, the ability to feel, smell, love hate, all of which is nonexistent as a fluid soul.
In reality, we are living in a non-reality, one of our very own making.
When you die, time is no longer of consequence, in fact, all that ever was no longer exists, we made a kind of hole in time, if you will, something, again, of our creation.
When you die, those that came before you, including the first human, to those of the future will all cease to exist in the very same moment you ceased to exist, the time equation will no longer exist.
Our entire existence took place on a grand scale far less than one fraction of a second.

I hate to break it to you, but life is simply an arbitrary distinction of something capable of replication that excretes waste and reacts to stimuli.  We are made of the same elementary building blocks as everything else, so there is no conceivable physical mechanism from which we would be ruled by a fundamentally separate, omnipotent being.

Additionally, absolutely no evidence of telepathic communication or remote connection between organisms exist, so there is no possible manner in which we could all be "connected" in anything other than symbolic terms.

Quote
Apparently you don't think beyond the realm of the box you're trapped in.

You mean the box of logical thought?  You mean the realm of not believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever?

It's not open minded to believe in the ridiculous, in spite of contradicting evidence and a complete absence of evidence in the affirmative; it's simply idiocy.  Furthermore, it's incredibly close minded to refuse to submit your beliefs to intense scrutiny and logical analysis; it implies that you are unwilling to consider that your ideas may be wrong.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 07:30:52 PM
Not only is your ignorance of basic scientific principles comparable to that of a high school dropout, you are also entirely ignorant on the fundamental logical principle that burden of proof resides on the person who makes the claim.

This should be quite self evident, but since I need to explain the most basic scientific and logical concepts to you, let me present to you this request:

Present evidence refuting the notion that magical monkeys that can breathe in space live on mars and watch our every move.

Good luck.

Again, what part of "I don't give a damn what you want" do you not get?

QuoteRegardless, you were still acting as an apologist for the religion.  It's intellectually dishonest of you to suddenly drop the issue without so much as a reason or concession.

I have no idea what you are talking about, quote my post for reference.

QuoteThen explain why, prior to active exploration of the Americas, those in Europe were entirely incapable of feeling, sensing or otherwise deducing the existence of native americans.

Did you think that up all by yourself? :rolleyes:
Now maybe you'd like to reread it and figure what in the Hell you are yammering on about.

Quote
Explain why all life is completely helpless against a sufficiently close supernova if it is omnipotent.

When did one hit, I must have missed it.

QuoteYou argue that god = collection of souls.  Presumably, souls exist as a product of living organisms; yet the universe, without a shadow of a doubt, predates life.  How can we have created the universe?

I see you're still stuck on that time thing, aren't you?

QuoteOr are you arguing that living organisms are merely a product of a collective soul or group of souls that created us because it was "bored"?

Yes, but instead of the term bored, we were looking for new experiences.
You really are stuck in a very small world, or rather box.
What do you think happens when you die? Do completely cease to exist, or does your human vessel cease to exist, but the entity that makes up Scifiman continues on.
But on to where? The answer is, back to where you were before your human experience.
Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.

QuoteAnd if our creator(s) is/are omnipotent, why did it/they create sea creatures that can drown?

Try and keep up, we are the creator, and like it or not, life is meant to be a series of hurdles and we are completely at the mercy of random action.
Did you really think life was meant to be a breeze? :lol:

QuoteI hate to break it to you, but life is simply an arbitrary distinction of something capable of replication that excretes waste and reacts to stimuli.  We are made of the same elementary building blocks as everything else, so there is no conceivable physical mechanism from which we would be ruled by a fundamentally separate, omnipotent being.

Well you're close, but who said anything about being ruled?
Think about it, life is actually an insult, we are not as independent as you may like to think, were slaves to plants, we need to care for them for our meager existence.
So who is the smart one, humans, or plants?

QuoteAdditionally, absolutely no evidence of telepathic communication or remote connection between organisms exist, so there is no possible manner in which we could all be "connected" in anything other than symbolic terms.

So because we are limited by our ignorance, your arrogance claims otherwise?
Do you even see just how stupid your statement was? Because we don't have the answer, therefore it does not exist? :lol:

QuoteYou mean the box of logical thought?  You mean the realm of not believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever?

This, from the being that is slave to plants?
You're a riot!

Quote
It's not open minded to believe in the ridiculous, in spite of contradicting evidence and a complete absence of evidence in the affirmative; it's simply idiocy.  Furthermore, it's incredibly close minded to refuse to submit your beliefs to intense scrutiny and logical analysis; it implies that you are unwilling to consider that your ideas may be wrong.

I'll get the last laugh, you'll see. :wink:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

Furthermore, why wait for nearly 14 billion years before creating us?

Better yet, why did it take you over a month to think of this answer?  :confused:

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 08:10:15 PM
Again, what part of "I don't give a damn what you want" do you not get?

I requested empirical evidence and you publicly REFUSED to do this.

In other words, you have a belief system that you openly believe in the absence of evidence.

And if you think wanting proof of a claim is silly, you clearly possess not the slightest ability for flexible thought.

Quote
I have no idea what you are talking about, quote my post for reference.

You:
Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.
Does that clear it up?

Question, what do you think created the universe?

Quote
Did you think that up all by yourself? :rolleyes:
Now maybe you'd like to reread it and figure what in the Hell you are yammering on about.

Nothing I said was in any manner pedantic or difficult to understand.  You simply can't understand that, if we are spiritually connected together, yet cannot feel it, cannot detect it, act in blatant contradiction to the notion and are not affected by it at all, we might as well not be connected.  You are effectively saying that the animal we see is a duck, except that it does not look, walk, quack or in any way resemble a duck.

Quote
When did one hit, I must have missed it.

This is a perfect example of your criminal inability to formulate a logical argument: by this line of reasoning, I cannot correctly state that, if you are hit by a truck, you may die, because you haven't ever been hit by a truck before.

Quote
I see you're still stuck on that time thing, aren't you?

Science is, yes.  Living beings are highly dependent on time, and no evidence exists to suggests that any portion of us exists outside of it.

QuoteYes, but instead of the term bored, we were looking for new experiences.

Before we existed?  So this is our 'soul', right?

But wait; what physical process allows this whatever-you-call-it to be sentient?  Our mental processes are a result of neurological processes involving chemical reactions and the electrical impulses between neurons in our brain; how does this abstract entity think?  How would such a complex being come into existence, and how could it encompass the entire universe, given that the fastest stimuli would only travel at C?

Quote
You really are stuck in a very small world, or rather box.

It's incredible: you are obsessed with cultural superiority; believing that your subjective culture is superior to that of others, yet you believe in the relativity of facts, which are inherently objective.

Your outright refusal to provide evidence to substantiate your whim is proof of your close minded thought processes; you refuse to criticize your own beliefs through rational thought, and just assume it to be true.

Quote
What do you think happens when you die? Do completely cease to exist, or does your human vessel cease to exist, but the entity that makes up Scifiman continues on.

You're speaking mumbo jumbo here; the "entity" that is me is my brain.  When I die, my brain stops functioning and slowly decomposes.  At no point as any evidence suggested the existence of an extradimensional soul, and no rational mechanism for why it would arbitrarily exist in organisms subjectively defined as "sentient" exists.

Quote
But on to where? The answer is, back to where you were before your human experience.

Newsflash: there is conservation of energy.  There is conservation of momentum.  There is no conservation of consciousness.  You're just making up premises that suit your convenience and presuming that the universe has to follow your imaginary fantasies.  Sort of like the child who makes up rules to a game so that he always wins.

Quote
Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.

Hey; you've quite clearly admitted to having no proof of your whim, so this is basically your own imaginary friend.  Feel free to make up whatever you want.

Quote
Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.
Try and keep up, we are the creator, and like it or not, life is meant to be a series of hurdles and we are completely at the mercy of random action.
Did you really think life was meant to be a breeze? :lol:

Wait, so "the creator" would create sea creatures that can drown...to challenge these creatures and put them through hurdles?

Does he/she/it/they deem it important that whales are properly challenged in life?  That would imply that animals are really important unto themselves, and therefore must have rights.

QuoteWell you're close, but who said anything about being ruled?
Think about it, life is actually an insult, we are not as independent as you may like to think, were slaves to plants, we need to care for them for our meager existence.
So who is the smart one, humans, or plants?So because we are limited by our ignorance, your arrogance claims otherwise?

You're mixing philosophy and science here.  We can debate all day about the ignorance of the human race and exactly how much free will we possess; it is not a precedent from which to presume that an imaginary, undetectable entity encompassing all life exists.  It's one thing to believe in this symbolically; that you actually believe it literally exists is quite unsettling.

Quote
Do you even see just how stupid your statement was? Because we don't have the answer, therefore it does not exist? :lol:

Substitute "the answer" for "any empirical evidence, or mechanism from which it could exist".  Ergo, the level of evidence supporting it is precisely equal to the evidence supporting the existence of monkeys on mars.

Quote
This, from the being that is slave to plants?
You're a riot!

OK, now I'm beginning to believe that you've really just made this entire fiasco up to mess with me, and you are trolling your own board.  Someone who claims to have an intelligence quotient of over 160, yet believes in imaginary life-encircling spiritual forces clearly isn't thinking straight.

QuoteI'll get the last laugh, you'll see. :wink:

Okay, you either need clinical help, or are just a fucking moron.  Take your pick.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

At its most basic, Intelligent Design doesn't claim that the Universe was created just for us - just that it was created.

As to the Universe being "impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore...", just because we are incapable of traveling between stars now (actually some one with the handle Sci-Fi-Fan should know better than that!*) doesn't mean we won't be able to do so in the future.

*Multi-generational starships are within the capability of current or at very least not-too-distant-future technology. The trinary system of Alpha, Beta and Proxima Centaur is only about 4.5 light years away. Travelling only at 10% the speed of light the voyage would only take a couple of generations.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 20, 2012, 08:39:21 PM
At its most basic, Intelligent Design doesn't claim that the Universe was created just for us - just that it was created.

That's its politically correct facade.  Given that >99.99% of its ardent supporters are openly religious fundamentalists or at the very least Christian, how could you possibly believe they don't believe it was created by god, for us?

Quote
As to the Universe being "impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore...", just because we are incapable of traveling between stars now (actually some one with the handle Sci-Fi-Fan should know better than that!*) doesn't mean we won't be able to do so in the future.

We can travel the stars, if we survive long enough as a species and have the motive to do so.  However, by not even the wildest imaginations could we noticeably affect, colonize or visit even a dismal fraction of a fraction of the observable universe, so we once again get back to the fact that it's needlessly large.

Quote
*Multi-generational starships are within the capability of current or at very least not-too-distant-future technology. The trinary system of Alpha, Beta and Proxima Centaur is only about 4.5 light years away. Travelling only at 10% the speed of light the voyage would only take a couple of generations.

Wait; you have not the slightest sense of scale, do you?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:43:34 PM
That's its politically correct facade.  Given that >99.99% of its ardent supporters are openly religious fundamentalists or at the very least Christian, how could you possibly believe they don't believe it was created by god, for us?

For argument sake, let's say that one day it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is valid. How could the fact that some people believed the right thing for the wrong reason change that?

It wouldn't.

QuoteWe can travel the stars, if we survive long enough as a species and have the motive to do so.  However, by not even the wildest imaginations could we noticeably affect, colonize or visit even a dismal fraction of a fraction of the observable universe, so we once again get back to the fact that it's needlessly large.

Only if you go under the assumption that it was created soley for mankind - an assumption which is not part of Intelligent Design Theory.

QuoteWait; you have not the slightest sense of scale, do you?

Why? Just because I believe in the ability of man's ability to overcome obstacles, which to earlier ages, seemed insurmountable?

Or are you talking about the fact that if the Sun were the size of a tennis ball, Alpha Centauri would be roughly 1400 miles away?

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 20, 2012, 09:02:17 PM
For argument sake, let's say that one day it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is valid. How could the fact that some people believed the right thing for the wrong reason change that?

It wouldn't.

Firstly, the intelligent design theory you speak of is somewhat more sane than creationism, but still riddled with holes.  In attempting to explain an entity (the universe), one brings in a vastly more complex entity (a sentient being with the power and resources to create a universe) and the question of how that entity came into existence, where the resources came from, etc, etc.  It bends Occam's Razor over.

Secondly, remember the OP; if creationists get intelligent design taught in public science classrooms, they will not settle for nondenominational deism [which is still full of shit], something that several influential members have openly made clear. 

Quote
Only if you go under the assumption that it was created soley for mankind - an assumption which is not part of Intelligent Design Theory.

Now you're shifting goalposts.  You first defend the notion that such a large universe was created just for us, and now you're simply claiming that ID doesn't hold the position at all.

Quote
Why? Just because I believe in the ability of man's ability to overcome obstacles, which to earlier ages, seemed insurmountable?

Or are you talking about the fact that if the Sun were the size of a tennis ball, Alpha Centauri would be roughly 1400 miles away?

-Dr Watt

Perhaps you would notice the discussion is about the size of the universe, not our closest star.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:33:27 PM
I requested empirical evidence and you publicly REFUSED to do this.

In other words, you have a belief system that you openly believe in the absence of evidence.

And if you think wanting proof of a claim is silly, you clearly possess not the slightest ability for flexible thought.

First, just because you demand proof of something, is m=no more than the equivalent of a child stamping their feet and holding their breath.
Again, I don't fuckin care what in the Hell you demand.

Quote You:
Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.
Does that clear it up?

Question, what do you think created the universe?

HELLO!!! Is this thing on, have you even been paying attention?
We Created It!
But what you consider tangible, is in reality nothing but an illusion.

Quote
Nothing I said was in any manner pedantic or difficult to understand.  You simply can't understand that, if we are spiritually connected together, yet cannot feel it, cannot detect it, act in blatant contradiction to the notion and are not affected by it at all, we might as well not be connected.  You are effectively saying that the animal we see is a duck, except that it does not look, walk, quack or in any way resemble a duck.

This is a perfect example of your criminal inability to formulate a logical argument: by this line of reasoning, I cannot correctly state that, if you are hit by a truck, you may die, because you haven't ever been hit by a truck before.

Look, if this conversation is beyond your ability to keep up, then just stop posting, I will not entertain ignorance.

QuoteScience is, yes.  Living beings are highly dependent on time, and no evidence exists to suggests that any portion of us exists outside of it.

Before we existed?  So this is our 'soul', right?

Yes.

Quote
But wait; what physical process allows this whatever-you-call-it to be sentient?  Our mental processes are a result of neurological processes involving chemical reactions and the electrical impulses between neurons in our brain; how does this abstract entity think?  How would such a complex being come into existence, and how could it encompass the entire universe, given that the fastest stimuli would only travel at C?

You are trying to understand your existence from the human POV, this is an impossibility.
We purposefully made our existence ignorant of the ability to comprehend our very existence.
If you actually knew the answer, would you really see any point in living?

QuoteIt's incredible: you are obsessed with cultural superiority; believing that your subjective culture is superior to that of others, yet you believe in the relativity of facts, which are inherently objective.

Your outright refusal to provide evidence to substantiate your whim is proof of your close minded thought processes; you refuse to criticize your own beliefs through rational thought, and just assume it to be true.

LOL! You want proof that God exists? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

QuoteYou're speaking mumbo jumbo here; the "entity" that is me is my brain.  When I die, my brain stops functioning and slowly decomposes.  At no point as any evidence suggested the existence of an extradimensional soul, and no rational mechanism for why it would arbitrarily exist in organisms subjectively defined as "sentient" exists.

I take it you've never died before?
I have, several times, and it's no cake walk, believe me.
But what I remember from every experience, was I didn't want to rejoin the living.

QuoteNewsflash: there is conservation of energy.  There is conservation of momentum.  There is no conservation of consciousness.  You're just making up premises that suit your convenience and presuming that the universe has to follow your imaginary fantasies.  Sort of like the child who makes up rules to a game so that he always wins.

Prove it! Prove there is no after life!

QuoteHey; you've quite clearly admitted to having no proof of your whim, so this is basically your own imaginary friend.  Feel free to make up whatever you want.

And I can say the same about your lack of understanding and belief.

QuoteWait, so "the creator" would create sea creatures that can drown...to challenge these creatures and put them through hurdles?

Wow, fish drown? Do they smell fishy to other fish?
Get serious.

QuoteDoes he/she/it/they deem it important that whales are properly challenged in life?  That would imply that animals are really important unto themselves, and therefore must have rights.

You'll have to ask the whales, I do not speak on their behalf.

QuoteYou're mixing philosophy and science here.  We can debate all day about the ignorance of the human race and exactly how much free will we possess; it is not a precedent from which to presume that an imaginary, undetectable entity encompassing all life exists.  It's one thing to believe in this symbolically; that you actually believe it literally exists is quite unsettling.

Grass hoppa, do you posses a soul?

QuoteSubstitute "the answer" for "any empirical evidence, or mechanism from which it could exist".  Ergo, the level of evidence supporting it is precisely equal to the evidence supporting the existence of monkeys on mars.

Lots of words, to simply say nothing.

QuoteOK, now I'm beginning to believe that you've really just made this entire fiasco up to mess with me, and you are trolling your own board.  Someone who claims to have an intelligence quotient of over 160, yet believes in imaginary life-encircling spiritual forces clearly isn't thinking straight.

I'm not the one trapped in a box here. :rolleyes:

QuoteOkay, you either need clinical help, or are just a fucking moron.  Take your pick.

No son, it's your inability to understand things beyond your control.

But am I to take it, you are so arrogant/ignorant as to believe this life you lead, is all there ever was, is or ever will be?

Think about it, if you have no belief beyond what you can see, feel or think, then what is the point of developing as a person, if when it's all over, you have nothing to take forward.

Your outburst in ending with an insult speaks volumes about what little you do know, and it really pisses you off that you can't even begin to conceptualize the meaning of life.

You have a long hard path ahead of you.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 09:19:53 PM
First, just because you demand proof of something, is m=no more than the equivalent of a child stamping their feet and holding their breath.
Again, I don't fuckin care what in the Hell you demand.

This is the most ridiculous comment you've made, ever.

You just refused to prove your assertion.  You think demanding empirical evidence that your hypothesis is true is childish?  Are all scientists children now?

Did you establish a precedent that we can make any proof we desire, without proof?

Quote
HELLO!!! Is this thing on, have you even been paying attention?
We Created It!

The irony here is delicious, given that you don't realize I was quoting you.    :lol:

Quote
But what you consider tangible, is in reality nothing but an illusion.

Because you say so, of course.  Do you think repeating the most cliched philosophical musings constitutes as a scientific theory?

QuoteLook, if this conversation is beyond your ability to keep up, then just stop posting, I will not entertain ignorance.

Dramatic irony at its finest.

Hint: when your response to an argument is to post a vague deflection-ad hominem and entirely fail to even attempt to address the actual point, you're full of shit.

Quote
Yes.You are trying to understand your existence from the human POV, this is an impossibility.

You did not understand a word I said.  You don't understand that Science is perfectly capable of understanding our own existence through logical thought, and that no amount of appeals to ignorance will change the facts.

Your response to every objection I bring up is "I can't possibly know the answer...but it still must be true!

You see, I know that Obama really is the messiah, sent down by the Almighty to save us from the satanist republicans.  Don't ask me for proof; I'll just laugh at you and call you a child.   :lol:

Quote
We purposefully made our existence ignorant of the ability to comprehend our very existence.

Because you say so. 

Your logic is that we are all a part of this magical entity that cannot be perceived, cannot be detected, does not tangibly affect us and whose existence of I present no proof...but if you don't believe in it, you're ignorant!

QuoteIf you actually knew the answer, would you really see any point in living?

How is this relevant to whether or not it is real?

Quote
LOL! You want proof that God exists? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep.  When we apply for a driver's license, we need proof of lawful residence.  When a lawyer makes a claim in a case, proof is typically asked for.  When I tell you that magical monkeys live on mars, you will require proof.  God is no exception.  That everybody adamantly refuses to actually provide proof of his existence is simply because none exists.

QuoteI take it you've never died before?
I have, several times, and it's no cake walk, believe me.

Correct.  And there is no afterlife, and there is no magical oneness with reality.  Deal with it.

Quote
But what I remember from every experience, was I didn't want to rejoin the living.

Then why are you here?

QuoteProve it! Prove there is no after life!

Burden of proof fallacy.

QuoteAnd I can say the same about your lack of understanding and belief.

Lack of understanding?  You believe that fishes are the only sea creatures!

Lack of belief?  Sure; "belief", ie faith here, is the willful suspension of disbelief to believe in something without evidence.  Does this sound logical to you?

QuoteWow, fish drown? Do they smell fishy to other fish?
Get serious.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Clearly, whales are fish.  :lol:

QuoteYou'll have to ask the whales, I do not speak on their behalf.

You see, a scientist would actually use methods from which to derive an answer, using a logical method of analysis and experimentation.  You just assume that you cannot know, so you make up a bullshit story to tell of it.

Quote
Grass hoppa, do you posses a soul?

Red herring.

Quote
Lots of words, to simply say nothing.

Given that my response made an argument and your response fails to even attempt to address it, I win by default.

Quote
I'm not the one trapped in a box here. :rolleyes:

Do you talk with your spirits for advice?

Quote
No son, it's your inability to understand things beyond your control.

By understand, do you mean figure out through deduction and experimentation, or make up a tale and refuse to substantiate it?

Quote
But am I to take it, you are so arrogant/ignorant as to believe this life you lead, is all there ever was, is or ever will be?

Arrogant?  Precisely the opposite is what believing that this is the only life you've got does; it gives humility, rather than making up a fairy tale to keep away the dark.

Ignorant?  I'm not the one who thinks all sea creatures are fish.   :lol:

Quote
Think about it, if you have no belief beyond what you can see, feel or think, then what is the point of developing as a person, if when it's all over, you have nothing to take forward.

I have moral beliefs.  I have standards; these are all abstract, subjective values.  I do not use faith to explain factual phenomena, any more than you would use faith to elect a leader.

Quote
Your outburst in ending with an insult speaks volumes about what little you do know, and it really pisses you off that you can't even begin to conceptualize the meaning of life.

Hey; I've refrained from insulting you until you brought out the guns yourself.  Even now, I only present the possibility that you are a moron.

Quote
You have a long hard path ahead of you.

You know, I'm doing this all with the assumption that you're just trolling around with me; the joke is still on you, given that you fail to realize that your made-up fantasy is hardly more ridiculous than creationism at all.

As we have no idea what existed before the Big Bang arguing for, or against, Intelligent Design - as a first cause - makes no logical sense.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
Firstly, the intelligent design theory you speak of is somewhat more sane than creationism, but still riddled with holes.  In attempting to explain an entity (the universe), one brings in a vastly more complex entity (a sentient being with the power and resources to create a universe) and the question of how that entity came into existence, where the resources came from, etc, etc.  It bends Occam's Razor over.

Intelligent Design is the epitome of Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation (that which makes the fewest assumptions) is most likely.

Look at all of the assumptions which need to be believed to support the so-called Big Bang Theory - all the mass of the universe was collected into a single ball the size of a small sun (I'm exaggerating for effect here). No one knows where all of this mass came from in the first place, nor can they explain why or how it coalesced into a single sphere. Then, all of a sudden through a process no one really understands, that ball exploded!

Assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions!

Intelligent Design, however, makes only one real assumption. It assumes that some "being" (for lack of a better term) created the Universe - for its own purpose.

QuoteSecondly, remember the OP; if creationists get intelligent design taught in public science classrooms, they will not settle for nondenominational deism [which is still full of shit], something that several influential members have openly made clear.

And this disturbs you?

The fact that you children (if you have any) might be taught things in school which undermine the belief system you, as a parent, have been trying to instill in them since they were born, bothers you?

Welcome to my world!    :rolleyes:

QuoteNow you're shifting goalposts.  You first defend the notion that such a large universe was created just for us...

I did nothing of the sort. All I did was point out that just because someone believes in something for the wrong reason, doesn't make what they believe in any less valid.

Quote...and now you're simply claiming that ID doesn't hold the position at all.

You, yourself said admitted as much! That's its politically correct facade. You just go on to say that those rascally Christians (strange, you never mention Muslims!) will try to use it as a toe hold to convert our impressionable youths to become tithes paying Born Again Christians!

QuotePerhaps you would notice the discussion is about the size of the universe, not our closest star.

Oh, so I was right... You were talking out your ass about .

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 09:40:58 PM
This is the most ridiculous comment you've made, ever.

You just refused to prove your assertion.  You think demanding empirical evidence that your hypothesis is true is childish?  Are all scientists children now?

Did you establish a precedent that we can make any proof we desire, without proof?

You do realize by asking me to prove the possibility, of which no one has the tools to effect, you are coming off as a complete moron.

My proof is the fact that I breathe and I can spin your ass in circles and you seem to enjoy the abuse.
God gave me the ability of self gratification, in which I glean from your suffering.

Your turn, Prove beyond empirical doubt that God does not exist.

QuoteThe irony here is delicious, given that you don't realize I was quoting you.    :lol:

So your entire response was to ignore the question and repeat mine.
Do you know the definition of insanity?

To which I'll ask again, who do you think created the universe?

QuoteBecause you say so, of course.  Do you think repeating the most cliched philosophical musings constitutes as a scientific theory?

Translation: I already heard that on, tell me something new.
Try learning on your own for a change.

QuoteDramatic irony at its finest.

Hint: when your response to an argument is to post a vague deflection-ad hominem and entirely fail to even attempt to address the actual point, you're full of shit.

No, it's what happens when a teacher spends an entire class time, only to have the student come and ask him to explain the entire session.
Let me give you a bit of proof that a soul does exist in all living creatures.
Look up the Soviet scientist Kirlian and his work.

QuoteYou did not understand a word I said.  You don't understand that Science is perfectly capable of understanding our own existence through logical thought, and that no amount of appeals to ignorance will change the facts.

Man, you really are an arrogant little piss. If science can't prove it, it does not exist? :lol:

Quote
Your response to every objection I bring up is "I can't possibly know the answer...but it still must be true!

You see, I know that Obama really is the messiah, sent down by the Almighty to save us from the satanist republicans.  Don't ask me for proof; I'll just laugh at you and call you a child.   :lol:

Because you say so. 

What part of "finding your own path" do you not get?
Life did not come with a map, for a very good reason, it would spoil the journey, if you knew where you were going, let alone came from.
Life is a treasure hunt, and if and when you find the treasure, your journey is complete.
Myself, I have found that treasure and I'm enjoying it immensely, you on the other hand got off the path because of your hatred for all Religions has soured you from finding your own answers.

QuoteYour logic is that we are all a part of this magical entity that cannot be perceived, cannot be detected, does not tangibly affect us and whose existence of I present no proof...but if you don't believe in it, you're ignorant!

Yes, not just you, but all of us, were all ignorant for a good reason, which I've already explained.

QuoteHow is this relevant to whether or not it is real?

Try and keep up, I won't repeat it again.

QuoteYep.  When we apply for a driver's license, we need proof of lawful residence.  When a lawyer makes a claim in a case, proof is typically asked for.  When I tell you that magical monkeys live on mars, you will require proof.  God is no exception.  That everybody adamantly refuses to actually provide proof of his existence is simply because none exists.

Did your parents ask for proof of your existence when you entered the world?
Your mere existence was proof enough for them, as is mine, I'm here, and therefore I thank Good for my existence.

QuoteCorrect.  And there is no afterlife, and there is no magical oneness with reality.  Deal with it.

:laugh:
You're a riot! Since I have never seen it, therefore is my proof, it does not exist.? :lol:

Apparently my journey wasn't over yet and I have been given proof of that since those days.

QuoteBurden of proof fallacy.

Oh I see how it works, your belief is the correct one and everyone else has to prove theirs.
What are you, ten years old?

QuoteLack of understanding?  You believe that fishes are the only sea creatures!

This doesn't even warrant this much of a response.

Quote
Lack of belief?  Sure; "belief", ie faith here, is the willful suspension of disbelief to believe in something without evidence.  Does this sound logical to you?

It's like trying to prove emotion, love and hate, not everyone experiences emotion the same, some not at all.
To a person born of blindness, could you explain sight to them?

Quote:lol: :lol: :lol: Clearly, whales are fish.  :lol:

O....Kkkkk :rolleyes:

QuoteYou see, a scientist would actually use methods from which to derive an answer, using a logical method of analysis and experimentation.  You just assume that you cannot know, so you make up a bullshit story to tell of it.

And science is limited, but yet most scientists have some belief in a higher power.

QuoteRed herring.

Because you didn't like your faith questioned, or lack thereof?

QuoteGiven that my response made an argument and your response fails to even attempt to address it, I win by default.

:biggrin:
You say nothing that makes sense, then claim victory when no answer is possible? :lol:

QuoteDo you talk with your spirits for advice?

You can call it whatever you like, but whether you talk to it or not, is irrelevant, it's the connection that is important.
Do you seriously beleiev this is it< that that you are completely alone here, that everyone around you is wandering lost and when it's over, are gone from all existence?
Or is there just an inkling of a possibility that there might be more after this?

QuoteBy understand, do you mean figure out through deduction and experimentation, or make up a tale and refuse to substantiate it?

Or is it your arrogance blocking your understanding, Grrass Hoppa?

QuoteArrogant?  Precisely the opposite is what believing that this is the only life you've got does; it gives humility, rather than making up a fairy tale to keep away the dark.

As well as ignorance, but your arrogance gets in the way of your understanding.
Yes, this is most likely the only human life you'll experience, anyway I hope so, I wouldn't want to repeat this experience for the world.

QuoteI have moral beliefs.  I have standards; these are all abstract, subjective values.  I do not use faith to explain factual phenomena, any more than you would use faith to elect a leader.

And what builds the basis of your morals, or holds you to them?
What is stopping you from doing as you please, a false set of belief that it is wrong, or is there an unseen entity that set these standards long before your existence?

QuoteHey; I've refrained from insulting you until you brought out the guns yourself.  Even now, I only present the possibility that you are a moron.

I look at you, as I do a child, one with a long path ahead of them, but pity you, because your time is running out.

QuoteYou know, I'm doing this all with the assumption that you're just trolling around with me; the joke is still on you, given that you fail to realize that your made-up fantasy is hardly more ridiculous than creationism at all.

I can understand your hatred of Religion, I empathize a bit as well, but you really need to overcome this hatred, it is a roadblock to expanding your understanding of your place and purpose here.
When I discovered part of my purpose, it was very freeing to find I had a place, belonged, if you will.

Screw Religion, take up meditation as a starting place, that is merely looking within to find answers to more questions that will help you understand your place.

You see, I have something you don't, and your inability to conceive of what I have, frustrates you.
The fact that I have found answers to my questions only completes me.
Take your own journey, you won't regret it, there is far more to life than merely existing.
The fact that you follow a very narrow path through is evidence enough.
That path being pretty much a boring American standard of living. Believe me, there is far more out there, seek it out, I did.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 07:28:02 AM
As we have no idea what existed before the Big Bang arguing for, or against, Intelligent Design - as a first cause - makes no logical sense.

This argument is akin to proclaiming that, because we cannot know for sure whether or not Julius Caesar really existed, we cannot, through examination of the evidence, come to a very reasonable conclusion that he actually did.  Your anti-intellectual and lazy "we can't know for absolute certainty, so all theories are equally likely to be true, no matter how supportable through solid evidence" attitude is, fortunately, not shared by all of history's greatest scientists and philosophers.

Are you under the impression that certainty is an either/or proposition; that, if one cannot prove beyond any ludicrous doubt that something is true (which applies to everything), all theories must be equally plausible?  Is it equally viable to trust the rigorously examined conclusions drawn by 99% of the scientific community based on thousands of fossil records and DNA testing, or a belief system that prides itself on believing in shit on the basis of faith? 

I support both because they re interesting, spark debate and critical thinking.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on July 29, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
I support both because they re interesting, spark debate and critical thinking.

So you support scientific theories not based on whether or not they are correct, but whether or not they are "interesting"?  And how does raising our kids with the belief that god creating Eve from Adam's rib is a plausible scientific theory "spark debate and critical thinking"? 

This is what happens when morons try to legislate science with a religious mindset.  Creationism was already widely discredited in the scientific community four hundred years ago, and you still think it's anything different than the Greek creation myth.

"to that Undescovered Country, from whose bourn no traveller returns."

I think Shakepeare had it right.  The hereafter shall forever remain that undescovered country.  And no one ever returns to tell us about it.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 11:57:01 AM
So you support scientific theories not based on whether or not they are correct, but whether or not they are "interesting"?  And how does raising our kids with the belief that god creating Eve from Adam's rib is a plausible scientific theory "spark debate and critical thinking"? 

This is what happens when morons try to legislate science with a religious mindset.  Creationism was already widely discredited in the scientific community four hundred years ago, and you still think it's anything different than the Greek creation myth.

I support the DISCUSSION of both.

I thought that would have been obvious.

But it wasn't so I will repost it in a manner the training wheels crew will understand.

I support elective classes on both theories because they will invite discussion and critical thinking.

I'll have to respectfully disagree.  It's great to present different cultural viewpoints and let the kids decide, when they're old enough, based on the merits of each choice.  But when it comes to facts, there should be no candering to the golden mean.  We don't teach kids to "consider" the flat earth theory by holding it as an elective.

You don't have to believe in GOD.  He believes in you.

Quote from: rich_t on August 01, 2012, 02:34:53 PM
You don't have to believe in GOD.  He believes in you.

Does he believe in holocaust victims?