A debate about debates by dreamtrove

Casual is right

its not that we're ingnorant and havent seen the 'facts' as you say; it is that we've seen these facts and are not sufficiently swayed by them; while that does not make our(creationist) view any more or less credible, it does make us more openminded for our willingness to contemplate a transcendence of life from this physical plane. i dont belittle people for disagreeing with my personal wordlview, because i realise that i do not encapsulate the sum of universal knowledge, and am willing to consider variables that exist beyond the measurable material world

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But you haven't seen 'the facts'. Until you take a lot of biochemistry and read the research, you're not even close to 'the facts'. A hand-waving gloss is neither honest nor fair.

For example, another poster on another thread keeps maintaining that you can't 'add' new DNA. This after I posted how indeed you can add 'new DNA', not only through repeats and insertions but also by incorporating whole viral genomes - that in fact most of human DNA IS viral DNA. (The current estimate is roughly 80%.) How is that not adding new DNA? Even the process of repeats and insertions of normal DNA causes a genetic change. (One common example - Down's syndrome, which is normal but extra genetic material cascading down through the entire development.)

Until you do the science you can't evaluate its state.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:10 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Casual is right

i dont belittle people for disagreeing with my personal wordlview,

Are the masons not people, 'cause you belittle them often enough. Are Satanists not people, because you also belittle them.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:17 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Well said, DT.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:53 PM

Casual,

You know I don't care about sounding arrogant, true. But you're still not getting it. There is no debate here. I have no points because all of evolution is the point. It's like a flat earth debate. If you had actually travelled around the world, the theoretical elements of the flat earth argument would have no meaning at all. What would you do? Spend all of your time constructing a theoretical argument to shoot down the flat earth argument? Or would you simply say "Sail west, and tell me what you see"

And this is my point. This is NOT a debate. Attempts to make it a debate are just some twisted form of trickery. There is not evidence stacked up on one side and also on the other. I'm trying to shake you and say: wake up, we're not folks who disagree, we're talking about hard cold fact which you didn't bother to study. We don't hold it against you, just study it, and come back to us, knowing that.

Here's the thing. If you knew evolution, and you said, this wasn't natural selection, but there was an engineer here, and I can show you this happening, then, *maybe*, you would have a debate. But to say 'your facts are real' is just a perposterous position. I actually think I can make a better creationist argument than I've seen here, but no amount of creation fact is going to undo the fundamental reality that evolution is an inescapable conclusion of the science of logic and statistics.

I'm not silencing opinion, I'm trying to redirect those who think that they have an opinion toward the correct path, which is that actually, they have a lack of knowledge, and rather than argue it out and essentially ask us to educate them, to go and study the subject.

Antimason

It's as I said, not a debate, not meaning I'm silencing opposition, I mean, a debate has certain characteristics. Intelligent design isn't a science, it's a mass hysteria masquerading as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a failure to accept reality. There's a whole bunch of debate left in evolution, including whether or not there's a hand of God, but reality isn't anywhere near the question of whether or not there is such a thing of evolution every bit as much as it is whether or not there is such a thing as math.

Edit:

Just so you get where I'm coming from: Here's a few other things that this debate would be like if it was a debate:

1. If you drop a nuclear bomb, it will cause life to spread rapidly at ground zero, within minutes of detonation, as opposed to the "firestorm theory."

2. materials which make up organic and inorganic matter are all made of a uniform substance called "god goo" as opposed to the "theory of chemistry."

Evolution is not a theory. Even if people say "theory of evolution." Even natural selection is not a theory. It's possible to say that random mutation is not the guiding principle in the natural selection of evolution, and there are people with that theory, that's a theory, and it opposes the other, and between them can be a debate. But unlike politics and social science, in the hard sciences, or physical sciences, someone is ultimately right, and someone else is wrong. You *can* have a debate about whether it is the radiation or the firestorm which will kill people when you drop a nuke on them, and two sides could present cases, and one could be right. But ultimately, probably one will be right in at least the majority of cases. But you don't have a debate if someone comes in and says "it won't kill people, it will make them healthier." That person just does not yet understand about what we are talking.

So, I re-iterate,
"Sail west, and tell me what you see"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:24 PM

Rue,

I actually think you have to read a fair amount, but I think that you don't have to get all that far into it before you realize that there is no debate here. Sure, you can do DNA experiments and prove that someone can add DNA to a live host, but you can also see or read about someone else doing the experiments, and with no reason to doubt it other than 'it's all a huge conspiracy' that every 9th grader is in on, you can accept it as possible. I think the intelligent apporoach is to accept the fact that the balance of evidence is learning toward until you have reason to suspect otherwise. This is not whatn the christians are doing. They've fallen into a common logical fallacy of "I want this to be true, so I will find any way on Earth to rationalize it."

This sort of thing fails when anyone tries it. The facts are whatever they are, regardless of what someone wants them to be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:

Are the masons not people, 'cause you belittle them often enough. Are Satanists not people, because you also belittle them.

you have a point... but at the same time, no one here admittedly subscribes to occult theology(that being the ancient 'pagan' mysteries of the old world). unless im wrong.. are their any luciferians out there? i dont go out of my way to try and debunk atheists, even if it were possible to prove a transcendant force exists... but because personally its none of my business

but i do object to occultism, because it has at its roots diception and secrecy, and seeks to establish a global government unbeknownst to the masses; that i do find objectionable

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:38 PM

Antimason,

This is a thread jump, but the answer to what guides the creation of organic and inorganic matter out energy is also evolution by natural selection. It's not a biological evolution, but it follows the same principle. In addition, Chaos Theory helps describe that interaction. Chaos theory, like quantum mechanical theory, though speculative, is also not really theoretical. What the specific laws of Chaos and Fractal Geometry are is something we are only beginning to understand, but their existance is not in question.

The evolution 'debate' is not saying it's white not black, it's like say the thing which is either black or white doesn't exist. That's not like saying God doesn't exist, it's like saying religion doesn't exist. It's an absurd position, from any sane perspective.

I am someone who is certain about virtually nothing. I'm not even certain that socialism is unworkable, I just view the balance of evidence and say it's unworkable because it seems to universally fail in its purest form, and fails pretty often in hybrid forms. There are other ideas which fail less often. This doesn't mean more evidence wouldn't change my mind. But evolution is like math, chemistry, language, chaos, and music. I'm aware that they exist. I find it exceedingly unlikely that anything will come up to convince me that they do not exist.

You will have a better chance of convincing me that God exists, and that Jesus is actually his son, and that He has a place for me in heaven than you are of ever convincing me that there is no such thing as evolution. In fact, if you manage to prove #'s 1, 2 and 3, you still will have made little headway on evolution.

If you can put intelligent design into the framework of evolution somehow, you might have a chance, but you cannot deny its existance and expect educated intelligent people to be won over to you position. (But, if you do create some hybrid theory, as always, be wary of what you *want* to be true, because facts don't tend to bend to your wishes)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:00 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

To be fair, facts are something that have yet to be disproven. They are not set in stone. They are used because they have been proven useful. The theory of evolution has proven pretty useful I think.

Competing theories can be a good thing, but creationism is not a competing theory. It isn't a theory at all. It uses no observable evidence.

What I don't understand is why such a desperate need to debunk evolution? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't Science and spirituality coexist? Aren't there plenty of scientists who are also Christians?

Wouldn't even those of you who are creationists agree that however God must have created the Earth, its way too complex for us to write it out? Couldn't you accept at least the possibility then that the Bible's Genesis is metaphor? A simple way of covering a vastly complex topic so as to get to the point?

Why is there such an insistance on ruling out evolution that you would go to such lengths as to outright ignore empirical evidence?

there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:24 PM

I honestly don't understand why we're giving it time of day.

Cartoon, a religious nut case that would happilly kill all non-believers starts a BS thread about how evolution is wrong because a physicist wrote the foreword for a book that has nothing to do with evolution (i.e. he flat out lies). Another one is started by a defacto troll (who gets on well with Cartoon, that should tell you something) and people are trying to talk to them in a sane and rational way.

Ignore them, ones a troll and the others too stupid to tie his own shoelaces, why bother?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Thank you Cit, for expressing in just four plain sentences, more good sense than I have seen all day.

Bout time some of ya figured it out.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:32 PM

DARKJESTER

DT, I have only one or two things to pitch in here.

First, it's my understanding that evolution is indeed a theory. A theory is (in layman's terms) a explanation for a series of observed facts. Then, if there are further facts discovered (by experiment or observation or whatever) they either fit the existing theory, or cause the theory to change to fit the new sum total of the facts. Evolution has been tweaked and fiddled with since it's inception. So the original theory has been disproved, and the current theory will be disproved, and the theory which comes from the new facts will eventually be disproved, but always leading to a new, more complete theory. Extremely (perhaps overly) simplified, but my understanding of the process.

Second, we are not talking about ultimate reality here, only about our perceptions of reality. As I've said before, arguing about whether ID or Creationism or Evolution or Spontaneous Generation is "Truth" is like arguing about the constellations. Are Greek constellations or Chinese constellations real? The stars don't care one whit how we arrange them. It is patterns of perception we are choosing to adopt. The patterns we use to interpret our reality.

You appear to have decided that the scientific method is the best (or only?) way to form these patterns. For Western civilization, that works best 99.99% of the time, if not more. But it's not the only pattern that works.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:41 PM

Citizen,

Normally, I would agree, but the problem is that people have made this into a debate, which itself is a tremendous corruption of the concept of debate.

Allow me to illustrate. We could have a debate about who was King of England in 1374. The Historinazis would say it was Edward III, but I choose to say it was Mickey Mouse. Hence, there is a debate. Now both sides can provide evidence, and be built up to equal levels and given equal weight. Ultimately, if I fail in my stubborn conviction that it was Mickey Mouse, by yielding no ground, I may instead decide to compromise, and eventually we may all agree that Mickey Mouse was at least Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for my concession than he was not actually King of England. If I have a large number of unquestioning followers, I may even get the rest of you to move from you position that it was Edward III in favor of Richard II.

If we allow this kind of corruption of the concept of debate, then suddenly there are no facts, and everything is simply a matter of opinion.

Which is not the case.

X number of people died in Iraq as the result of the US invasion. There is a truth out there, a fact, which we are seeking, it's not a matter of opinion. We may have different evidence and estimates based on those. People who are > half a million right now are looking pretty close. People < hundred thousand are looking not so close. But the guy who says "FIVE!" is nuts, as is the person who is sticking to their estimate of "ONE BILLION!" But ultimately, there is a right answer. Sure, a little grey area what is *because of* the war, but what is *in* Iraq, and what is *death* are not really up to debate, so somewhere there's a real number.

Whether Bush is morally justified is a matter of opinion. But while we have differing opinions on the total casualties, we all realize that there is a number, as the evidence rolls in, eventually someone is correct.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a label for an observed change. Natural selection is a theory that is pretty seriously proven. I don't think there is any room for debate.

DJ,

You're taking the soft argument here, the sort of thing that I think makes the democrats look weak and lose, ie the "We must win the war on terror" position of Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and HR Clinton. I think if the democrats said "There is no War on Terror" they'd be about 100% ahead of where they are now in earning the confidence of their own voters. This is basically why I bothered to make this post, because I think if we allow this kind of time wasting debate which is based on elaborately constructed misleading information, then we are essentially endorsing the idea that "the existance of evolution is an opinion which we choose to support" rather than reality, which is "evolution is a force of nature"

See, the democrats, from taking their weak position, have essentially validated the idea that "there is a war on terror" when in reality, war on terror is something Bush made up, and they go further to validate "war on terror is worth winning, hence, also, worth figthing."

Ergo, it's not always best to give the soft conflict-avoidance argument, because you may be allowing your opponent to redefine the rules in a way which does not conform to reality.

It's not that "the current models of evolution are carved in stone and will never be altered" I'm sure they will be altered. But this is a far cry from "evolution does not exist." Just like when Columbus said "the earth is 8000 miles around," didn't mesh with the final result of "the earth is 25000 miles around" but that alteration did not make the flat earth crowd any more right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

What I don't understand is why such a desperate need to debunk evolution? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't Science and spirituality coexist? Aren't there plenty of scientists who are also Christians?

certainly they do.. i dont think any creationist would argue that they exist seperately; but i think evolutionists hold scientific law supreme, and neglect what unseen force formed the law in the first place, which we have no way of knowing from our vantage point

Quote:
Wouldn't even those of you who are creationists agree that however God must have created the Earth, its way too complex for us to write it out? Couldn't you accept at least the possibility then that the Bible's Genesis is metaphor? A simple way of covering a vastly complex topic so as to get to the point?

well yah, but that should be obvious. when the bible says God spoke something into existence, that doesnt imply automatically that God has a tongue and voice box

Quote:
Why is there such an insistance on ruling out evolution that you would go to such lengths as to outright ignore empirical evidence?

we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant

Quote:
there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?

look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti: occultism= science?
If that's your opinion then you REALLY don't undertsand science!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant

If you're trying to apply "evolution" to the entire universe then you're applying the word in a way that SCIENTISTS don't use! No wonder you're confused!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 3:11 AM

Signym,

Yes, they do. Evolution is a statistical principle and it is used to describe how signals come out of noise. It can easily be used to describe the the nature of the universe, and frequently is done by scientists describing things like "the evolution of galaxies" or "the evolution of subatomic particles" and when they do so, it is not a misnomer. They are using the same principles of natural selection to guide their theories of creation. I happen to think they are correct. But whether they are or not, does not change the immutability of either the historical fact of the evolution of species, or the existance of the law of evolution as a statistical principle.

When it comes to galaxies, we really don't know. It's entirely possible that galaxies have actually existed forever, or at least far far longer than we think, and such static state theories are sometimes proposed and imho meet the existing data about as well as the expansionist theories. It's really anybody's guess.

Antimason.

Quote:
Antimason:

certainly they do.. i dont think any creationist would argue that they exist seperately; but i think evolutionists hold scientific law supreme, and neglect what unseen force formed the law in the first place, which we have no way of knowing from our vantage point

I think Christians and new age mystics alike greatly exaggerate what is unknown. It's not that we have a wild speculation about science. That's like saying there's a lot of speculation about the existance of language. I think it's pretty well known that language exists, not everything is really up to debate.

I agree, however, that scientists are often wrong, and often pig-headedly stubborn when they are wrong. Often they are even pigheadedly wrong about evolution.

Quote:
well yah, but that should be obvious. when the bible says God spoke something into existence, that doesnt imply automatically that God has a tongue and voice box

This is reasonable. But I think us on the evolution side run into a lot of folks who say "yeah, God literally spoke, becaue God is a man-like being because he made us in our image" (which imho sounds a little arrogant.)

Quote:
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant

This is also a reasonable argument. I think this is not the argument we are typically presented with. The "evolution didn't happen" argument, I hope you'll grant is a denial.

Why evolution happened, and why it has taken us to this point, is, sure, by all means, open to debate. That evolution happened is a matter of historical record. Or, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Quote:
look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator

That's not so. It's the other way around. Christians, other than you, are asking us to throw out what really happened in exchange for an elaborately constructed fantasy, an idea to which we are naturally resistant.

Personally, I don't believe there is a creator and a design, because if there is such, it's beyond my perception, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, it's just a speculation. But saying that there is - is not the argument which is causing so much trouble. The argument "evolution didn't happen" is one of "this event didn't happen because it's inconvenient for me, it doesn't match my world view," which is also why, godwin aside, "holocaust didn't happen" is such a problem. I would agree, however, that europes new law which says essentially "you can't question the holocaust" is wrong. For instance, during the early years of the war the Soviets ran extermination camps in Poland killing hundreds of thousands of Poles. The people who originally said "the soviets did this" we branded as holocaust deniers. Later the Soviet Union said "yes, yes, we did this," making their defenders look foolish. Sure, the germans also later ran extermination camps in poland, no one reasonable questions that., but you can't outlaw dissent because it's always possible that you have the story wrong. For instance, I think it's highly unlikely that "humans are descended from apes" will be disproven, but someday it may, and be replaced with something which would explain the same things we see, and such a new theory might read "humans are descended from an ape-like being which is now extinct, but has no close relation to present day apes." That would be very similar to what is happening now in the dolphin dog debate. Recently someone said "a dolphin is not a dog, it's a dog-like being descended from a dog which is no longer extant, but is not closely related to a dog." The dog in question would still most likely be more related to a dog than it is to other things, like, say, a fish, or probably even other mammals, such as a mouse, but maybe not much more closely than a cat.

Aldous Huxley: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 3:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Now for a cogent answer...

Creating controversy about settled topics is a well-known rhetorical tactic. If I said (to use your example) 2+2=4 and that answer was not to someone's liking, he would then say "No it's not! 2+2=22!" and consistently refer to 2+2=4 as "the controversial equation", creating a controversy where none exists and generating a rabid (if small) following who would thereafter challenge math at every turn. After all, there IS the "Flat Earth Society"... SOME people are willing to believe the most damn-fool things imaginable.

What to do?

GENERALLY, I'd say "Ignore them". and create your own discussion. In real-life politics it's difficult because (for a variety of reasons) people tend to avoid serious and complex discussions. But it's not impossible. The Civil Rights movement, environmentalism, women's rights... even animal rights... were "created discussions". It was done before, it can be done again.

But this is a discussion board. People here have passionate views, and SOME people have true emotional problems... issues that drive their viewpoints that have nothing to do with rationality. So for that reason I don't care WHAT view people bring to the board.

I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.

THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 3:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- the word "evolution" can be applied to many situations, but if you're talking about the "Theory of Evolution" there is only one application. "Natural selection" is not a general feature of cosmology, for example.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 4:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.

THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.

Hey SignyM, I keep forgetting. Are you the pot or the kettle?

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Hey SignyM, I keep forgetting. Are you the pot or the kettle?

You know, BDNothi.. Nobody

I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.

Go there at your peril.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT,

I thought about your post.

I agree, debating phony topics takes a lot of time and energy. To that extent it distracts from the larger goals.

OTOH, it's a dirty job that I feel someone MUST do. The problem with letting bogus assertions go unrefuted is two fold: 1) over time, by sheer repetition, they acquire credibility; and 2) if you don't refute them, you lose standing to reply to the things that matter.

Two real-world examples:
1) When I was going through university the radical Christian movement was just getting started (Campus Crusaders for Christ). I and pretty much everyone else blew them off as a small lunatic fringe. Which they were, but it didn't make them unimportant. Over time, by repetition, the message(s) has(have) acquired a substantial following. At this point it's too well established to do much about.

2) After 9/11 the democrats were running scared of Bush's 97% popularity. They did the political thing and went along - with the USPATRIOT Act, Iraq and everything else. By not speaking up then, they lost their credibility to speak up now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.

Go there at your peril.

There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.

If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24439#394105

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.

BDN- I generally discuss issues. Occasionally I descend to lobbing hand-grenades. What about you? If you think I'm being hypocritical in the other thread, bring that up in detail there. Quote me, and we'll talk about it there. I love nothing better than a substantive discussion! Then we can let others gauge our debate style. How's that?

See you there.

PS

Quote:
There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken

Feel free... contact Haken. He'll tell you what I already know.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 6:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BDN,

No I don't get notified. But please, feel free to contact Haken. You'll find out there is nothing to your insinuations. And when you do find out, I hope you have the balls to post your retraction AND an apology. My guess is you won't contact him. That's not your style. You do your work with insinuations, not with actual facts.

As to SignyM's 'hypocracy', I'd certainly like some quotes. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, you're just doing your standard smear job with your standard non-existant 'facts'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 8:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
BDN- I generally discuss issues. Occasionally I descend to lobbing hand-grenades. What about you? If you think I'm being hypocritical in the other thread, bring that up in detail there. Quote me, and we'll talk about it there. I love nothing better than a substantive discussion! Then we can let others gauge our debate style. How's that?

See you there.

I enjoy a good debate as well and I did engage you at least once in that thread. I'm posting to you in this thread because after a couple of topic changes and some ad hominems to boot in the other thread, you posted the following in this thread.

Quote:

I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.

THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.

And now to address this.

Quote:

Feel free... contact Haken. He'll tell you what I already know.

Some people will see a conspiracy in everything, whether it's there or not. I was simply wondering why Rue always deems it necessary to race to your defense. Perhaps Rue thinks you are unable to defend your own posts when they come under scrutiny.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm posting to you in this thread because after a couple of topic changes and some ad hominems to boot in the other thread, you posted the following in this thread

I bumped up the other thread up so that you quote me in detail. I'll meet you there. Just to let you know, if you don't engage me in the discussion (after accusing me of hypocracy) you lose 10 cerdibility points out of 100. Keep doing that, and eventually you get to zero and I'll ignore you, because by then you will have proven yourself uninterested in rational discussion.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Rue always deems it necessary to race to your defense"

BDN - no, when I am on this board I respond to any kind of underhanded rhetorical attack posted by you and several others. It is YOU I concern myself with.

It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:08 AM

MINK

I totally disagree with the OP's point. Nothing is unassailable.

Signed,

A Lawyer

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:08 AM

MINK

I totally disagree with the OP's point. Nothing is unassailable.

Signed,

A Lawyer

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S'wenyways DT,

I realize you're probably busy and that my reply to you got lost in the shuffle (above), but I was curious what you thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, and BDN -

First you insinuate that I am SignyM -
"Rue - Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.

Then you weasel -
"I was simply wondering ..."

Oh, you mean you really weren't going to contact Haken to see if Signy and I are one and the same. So you really DO know we're not, right?

OK - I'll be waiting for that retraction AND apology.

The question is - do you have the balls?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Oh, and BDN -

First you insinuate that I am SignyM -
"Rue - Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.
Then you weasel -
"I was simply wondering ..."

Oh, you mean you really weren't going to contact Haken to see if Signy and I are one and the same. So you really DO know we're not, right?

OK - I'll be waiting for that retraction AND apology.

The question is - do you have the balls?

I can honestly say that it never crossed my mind that you and SignyM were the same. You both have similar political views and a hate for Bush, but there are many differences between the two of you as well.
The quip about contacting Haken was my obviously far too subtle 'quit sticking your nose in other people's business' to you.
So neither apology nor retraction are needed in this case IMHO.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 10:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I didn't think you had any. Thanks for confirming it.

And, YOU are my business.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And, YOU are my business.

Then get thee to the PN and child porn thread and give me what for.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:53 PM

Signym,

I went to a lecture about natural selection in cosmology a couple years back. it was real quite an eye opener, and seriously, there is such a thing. it's not the same as the biological evolution, but it follows similar logic to explain how energies compete, and how the dominant ones create dimensional interactions and ultimately subatomic particles.

I agree, evolution is selecting creationists for intellectual extinction.

Quote:

Hey SignyM, I keep forgetting. Are you the pot or the kettle?

Posting to stir stuff up.

Not to nitpick, but Signy is one of the moderate member of the forum.

Rue,

1) I think by arguing this point we validate their idea that evolution needs to match their theoretical argument with its own theoretical argument and win, as if there were no such thing as factual evidence, which is a corruption of the concept of debate. I think that if there was going to be a debate, we would have to open with "Oh yeah? Show us the Ark."

2) I'm certainly not the last word on the democrats, but you're theory sounds about right. Honestly, this sickness is infecting the GOP too, just not in as high %s. Unfortunately, it seems the dems are still running scared somewhat, with "let's win the war on terror" and "we were right to take out saddam" (sure, well we would have been right to take out saddam if it didn't kill 650,000 people, oh yeah that happened afterwords, which was why exactly? I'm still not clear on this. We fought a war, won, and then failed to negotiate with the other parties. Mind boggling.)

Anyway, Most often the thing the dems seem strongest on is raising taxes on the wealthy. Not being one of them, and not seeing it as a big job creator, I don't care that much, but I do think that the federal govt. has to show that it can spend money both *efficiently* and towards *something* worth having before raising federal revenue by any means is going to get a lot of support.

My gut feeling, IMHO, is that the dems should be reaching out to disaffected conservatives with a smaller govt. package and a more pro-business job creation plan, not because i think it's the right way to go, though i do, but because i think it would increase their voter base. The republicans have dropped the ball on sound fiscal policy. unfortunately I haven't seen a lot of good fiscal democrats, maybe one or two. Curiously, the formerly socialist greens have been putting up some people with more fiscally feasible plans and more libertarian govt. notions than the democrats. Normally I think the greens are hopelessly disorganized and internally corrupt (back in '04 their chair rigged their own primaries,) but still I tend to vote for the guy who says the right things, regardless, and at the moment that's looking like the green for senate, and i'm on the fence green or republican for congress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 6:14 PM

BTW, for any BDN that it may concern, IMHO, they aren't the same person. They may now each other offline, I don't know. They were here before I got here, but I try to judge where on the political spectrum to place them, and though I may be mistaken, I place Signy in the political center with Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs and Chrisisall, and some of the other folk on the forum. (frem, 7%, etc.)
Rue, I tend to think of as a lefty somewhere the Steven Colbert/Keith Olbermann area, Moderate left, still defaulting to pulling the blue level, but not having her own shrine to HR. Clinton.

Just been my sort of general impression. It's hard to place everyone on a one dimensional perspective, I'm not sure where you are, but I suspect you are somewhere on my side, as you seem to spend a fair amount of time trolling liberals.

Lately I find I find myself agreeing a lot with Geezer, Casual, Antimason and honestly, Pirate News. I think that the whole situation is a mess, which confuses the whole issue. The Bush/Clinton thing is like some political plague, and it's not particularly left or right. There's nothing particularly conservative about Bush, and I'm getting that there's nothing particularly liberal about Bill or Hillary Clinton. If we were to put this on some other scale, I guess it would begin to make more sense, but many such debates would also be pretty narrow (such as who do you think would make a good secretary of the treasury karl marx or adam smith? actually, either one would be a vast improvement over our current economic policy, but i of course would favor smith.)

Similarly, the war complicates things. I've gotten into a number of political arguments recently with people who seem to more or less take the position of "america is always wrong" which is just as unwieldy as "america is always right" the baffling one I just had was agains the position of "america was wrong to go into cambodia and wrong not to go into rwanda" which seems self-contradictory to me.

BTW, Madeline Albright veto'ed that rwanda resolution for those who care, but i have to assume that it was Clinton's decision. Still, Albright is on my list of most shady characters of the Clinton admin, along with Reno. Now that sounds sexist, but it just comes out that way, I think probably honest women don't know Bill Clinton. Anyway, I dug that up, thought I'd pass it along. I also hear she's baking cookies for terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
BTW, for any BDN that it may concern, IMHO, they aren't the same person. They may now each other offline, I don't know. They were here before I got here, but I try to judge where on the political spectrum to place them, and though I may be mistaken, I place Signy in the political center with Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs and Chrisisall, and some of the other folk on the forum. (frem, 7%, etc.)
Rue, I tend to think of as a lefty somewhere the Steven Colbert/Keith Olbermann area, Moderate left, still defaulting to pulling the blue level, but not having her own shrine to HR. Clinton.

Just been my sort of general impression. It's hard to place everyone on a one dimensional perspective, I'm not sure where you are, but I suspect you are somewhere on my side, as you seem to spend a fair amount of time trolling liberals.

You need to catagorize the different Posters based on what you perceive to be their political leanings, that is how you like to work. I'm of the impression that catagorizing Posters is counter-productive. IMHO it leads to responses to the Poster rather than the post. Good non-partisan arguments are dismissed out of hand simply because of the name at the top of the post. I may spend a fair amount of time engaging (not trolling) those you consider liberals. I think it has more to do with personalities than politics though.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:37 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Casual,

You know I don't care about sounding arrogant, true. But you're still not getting it. There is no debate here. I have no points because all of evolution is the point. It's like a flat earth debate. If you had actually travelled around the world, the theoretical elements of the flat earth argument would have no meaning at all. What would you do? Spend all of your time constructing a theoretical argument to shoot down the flat earth argument? Or would you simply say "Sail west, and tell me what you see"

And this is my point. This is NOT a debate. Attempts to make it a debate are just some twisted form of trickery. There is not evidence stacked up on one side and also on the other. I'm trying to shake you and say: wake up, we're not folks who disagree, we're talking about hard cold fact which you didn't bother to study. We don't hold it against you, just study it, and come back to us, knowing that.

Here's the thing. If you knew evolution, and you said, this wasn't natural selection, but there was an engineer here, and I can show you this happening, then, *maybe*, you would have a debate. But to say 'your facts are real' is just a perposterous position. I actually think I can make a better creationist argument than I've seen here, but no amount of creation fact is going to undo the fundamental reality that evolution is an inescapable conclusion of the science of logic and statistics.

I'm not silencing opinion, I'm trying to redirect those who think that they have an opinion toward the correct path, which is that actually, they have a lack of knowledge, and rather than argue it out and essentially ask us to educate them, to go and study the subject.

DT, characteristic response of yours: calm, well-spoken, and relevant. Thanks for keeping the tone done. This could turn into a shouting match fast.

That said, I have to reiterate something I said above: I'm not contradicting any of the "closed cases" you mentioned above. I do not deny the increase in number and diversity of species owing to evolutionary activity; I don't deny that the earth is getting warmer; I don't advocate a flat earth; in fact, I wasn't trying to open any of the "closed cases" for discussion (and I think that if you take a fair look at my initial post, you'll see that that's the case). Please don't lump me into the group of folks who want to debate those things: I'm not one. My sole point was that I think it's a dangerous proposition to ever say, "this is fact, about which there can be no debating". That kind of thinking is antithetical to scientific progress. It was the "fact" of the static-eternal universe that led Einstein to introduce the "fudge factor" to his theory of relativity, a move that he later called the greatest mistake of his career. I'm not saying that the earth is flat; I'm not saying that the earth is 10,000 years old (which is obviously preposterous); I'm not saying that a world-wide deluge altered the geologic record (ridiculous). I am however arguing that it's never a good idea to simply say, "I won't talk about this, because it's beyond disproof." You're absolutely right: mountains of evidence over against dogmatism surely makes the evolution (or whatever other doctrine) the more reasonable view. But I would rather ignore those with whose opinions I disagree than begin to demarcate territory over which no discussion is allowed. That is what I am advocating, not the theories which you have so ably debunked.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

Normally, I would agree, but the problem is that people have made this into a debate, which itself is a tremendous corruption of the concept of debate.

Allow me to illustrate. We could have a debate about who was King of England in 1374. The Historinazis would say it was Edward III, but I choose to say it was Mickey Mouse. Hence, there is a debate. Now both sides can provide evidence, and be built up to equal levels and given equal weight. Ultimately, if I fail in my stubborn conviction that it was Mickey Mouse, by yielding no ground, I may instead decide to compromise, and eventually we may all agree that Mickey Mouse was at least Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for my concession than he was not actually King of England. If I have a large number of unquestioning followers, I may even get the rest of you to move from you position that it was Edward III in favor of Richard II.

Oh I get what they're doing, they're kind of trying to destroy Science and critical thought from within so to speak.

But we let them put creationism on a scientific par with Evolution by not ignoring them.

You won't get a concession out of them, you won't get anything out of them by debating. They aren't interested in anything you have to say, the people trying to make this a "Creationism vs Evolution" aren't interested in debate or truth.

People like Cartoon are merely interested in forcing they're religion down everyones throat, they're interested in destroying science.

"He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:11 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you haven't seen 'the facts'. Until you take a lot of biochemistry and read the research, you're not even close to 'the facts'. A hand-waving gloss is neither honest nor fair.

For example, another poster on another thread keeps maintaining that you can't 'add' new DNA. This after I posted how indeed you can add 'new DNA', not only through repeats and insertions but also by incorporating whole viral genomes - that in fact most of human DNA IS viral DNA. (The current estimate is roughly 80%.) How is that not adding new DNA? Even the process of repeats and insertions of normal DNA causes a genetic change. (One common example - Down's syndrome, which is normal but extra genetic material cascading down through the entire development.)

Until you do the science you can't evaluate its state.

What that poster is typing is you can't add new data into a genome. I've said nothing about segments on a gene or adding DNA. In that, there is a huge difference and you know it. Evolution has as much of a scientific basis as believing in the Bermuda triangle, big foot, aliens, exorcisms, global warming, or oil being a fossil fuel. You have the right to believe in any of that baseless crap without questioning the proof all you want.Have fun....Well, it's true

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:23 PM

Actually it's very easy to add DNA to a DNA strand. Retro Viruses and Bacteria do it all the time.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA

imma moderate ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Someone's been wresting those 10ft tall Taliban reinforcements, methinks.

Anarchists are *not* moderates, by definition we're a form of extremists, and individually different from each other as well - I represent my variation of the belief in wanting to be left the hell alone, but don't take that for a moderate viewpoint, it is most certainly not.

Being a realist, I acknowledge some interferance is gonna happen regardless, and so my primary focus is limiting how much and how often, which might appear to be a moderate viewpoint, but that is a matter of scale of useful effectiveness rather than desire, for it would not bother me very much if our entire gov imploded and collapsed.

Moderate... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:57 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.

Go there at your peril.

There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.

If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24439#394105

Posting to stir stuff up.

OK, went there, read it. Don't see any hipocracy. At least on SignyM's part.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:32 PM

TPAGE

Something I found a while back which may help differeniate between fact and opinion is A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:

http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:

But we let them put creationism on a scientific par with Evolution by not ignoring them.

we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground. in the bible it says that God layed the foundations of the heavens, but it doesnt bother to specificy beause it wasnt meant to be a collection of scientific jargon. it was meant to appeal spiritually to everday common people, and in that way i think Jesus' spiritual messages are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago; whereas scientific theories historically have come and gone like the seasons. sometimes, we're just holding out for better theories, thats all

Quote:
You won't get a concession out of them, you won't get anything out of them by debating. They aren't interested in anything you have to say, the people trying to make this a "Creationism vs Evolution" aren't interested in debate or truth.

like i said, all we are saying is that we may not have the whole story yet

Quote:
People like Cartoon are merely interested in forcing they're religion down everyones throat, they're interested in destroying science.

come on, destroy science? we are not a threat to you because we believe in a supreme intelligence(like a central processor); there are a lot of dimensions and planets and planes that we havent measured yet, we're just being cautious about what we state as ultimate truths. i feel obliged to consider what the ancients believed about our origins and see how it may all tie together with modern discoveries

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground. in the bible it says that God layed the foundations of the heavens, but it doesnt bother to specificy beause it wasnt meant to be a collection of scientific jargon. it was meant to appeal spiritually to everday common people, and in that way i think Jesus' spiritual messages are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago; whereas scientific theories historically have come and gone like the seasons. sometimes, we're just holding out for better theories, thats all

Well, yeah, the creationists are when they expect Intelligent Design and other Creation myths to be taught as a science along side a rigorously tested scientific theory, or frankly in the case of Evolution proven natural law.

Because Evolution is a proven natural law. Survival of the fittest we see everyday, we know that species change, we know species adapt to new surroundings via survival of the fittest. We've used the Evolutionary mechanism artificially, you think those huge tasty black and white beasts are Cows? They are not, Cows are those skinny scrawny things you see holding up traffic in India. What we have is an animal that has been artificially bred by Humans deciding what characteristics were desirable, Humans deciding which animals were fittest and letting Evolution take over. Artificial Survival of the Fittest.

No Science and Religion don't have to be in conflict, but it's not Science causing this conflict. Some people are demanding that Creationism should be taught as a Science when it isn't a Science. Scientists aren't telling the Church that they should teach Quantum Mechanics at the pulpit. No one is telling anyone that preachers must give equal time to sermons preaching the non-existence of God.

So why is there a conflict? Because Science is attacking Religion? When was the last time you heard a Scientific theory for the non-existence of God? Science has nothing to do with God, neither does it want anything to do with God. Science isn't attacking any Religion in anyway, it's just doing what it does. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians WANT this conflict because some of these Fanatical Christians WANT absolute control. They want a war on Science and at the end of the day they want a return to the good old days of Dark Age Europe.

Quote:
like i said, all we are saying is that we may not have the whole story yet

We are well aware that we don't have the story yet, but there's a big difference between knowing we don't have the whole story and saying "God did it, we can stop looking now" is valid Science.

But this is the fundamental difference between Religion and Science. Science recognises that it doesn't yet know, that's it's trying to find out and it's constantly refining it's view.

Religion says we're right you're wrong get over it. That's the end of the story.

Think about it. A Scientist has a theory, that theory doesn't fit the evidence it's abandoned. In religion they say "God moves in mysterious ways". That's fine for religion but it's not Science by any stretch of the Imagination, Science and Religion are not the same thing, Science is not a Religion.

Quote:
come on, destroy science? we are not a threat to you because we believe in a supreme intelligence(like a central processor); there are a lot of dimensions and planets and planes that we havent measured yet, we're just being cautious about what we state as ultimate truths. i feel obliged to consider what the ancients believed about our origins and see how it may all tie together with modern discoveries

Yes destroy Science, that's exactly what those on the Intelligent Design side want. I don't think all 'believers' want that, not even most, but the ones that want Intelligent Design taught as a Science, you bet.

Think about it. We accept the Intelligent Design is on a Scientific par with Evolution. Intelligent Design being entirely based at it's very core on something that is unprovable. Now Scientific theories that have been rigorously tested taking years of hard work to formulate are on a par with something someone made up and can't be disproved because it's based on something that can not be tested. Sooner or later we'll end up with Science merely being a fancy extension of Evangelical Christianity. Where does the Universe come from? There's not absolute evidence and thus doubt for the Big Bang, but we don't need evidence for God because you can't disprove Gods existance, therefore God is the best Scientific explination. Where did all the species of the world come from? Not enough evidence for evolution, so god must have done it. What makes the Sun rise? Well no one's actually been to the Sun to prove it's a ball of Burning Plasma at the centre of the Solar System, So God must do it.

Well finally science has found all the answers, it turns out it has bugger all to do with Quarks and Mesons, God did it. Right we can close science down now we don't need it any more it's just confirmed what the Evangelists set out to prove, Hallelujah welcome the second dark age.

This is exactly what the people who came up with Intelligent Design want. They're sitting round a table saying "So how do we destroy Science and Freedom of Speech so we can impose our will and religion on all, after all it is what God wants."

At the end of the day there is no debate between Evolution Vs Creationism. It's like saying there's a debate with “Butter Vs The Bolivian Navy, what's better on toast”. Sure the Bolivian Navy has it's place, but not on Bloody toast.

Frankly Science recognises that Religion is eminently more qualified to talk on matters of God and Faith, it's about bloody time Religion learned that Science is eminently more qualified to talk on matters of the Physical material world and stop trying to muscle in where it doesn't belong.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 15, 2006 4:15 AM

KANEMAN

Ciizen wrote..."Because Evolution is a proven natural law. Survival of the fittest we see everyday, we know that species change, we know species adapt to new surroundings via survival of the fittest. We've used the Evolutionary mechanism artificially, you think those huge tasty black and white beasts are Cows? They are not, Cows are those skinny scrawny things you see holding up traffic in India. What we have is an animal that has been artificially bred by Humans deciding what characteristics were desirable, Humans deciding which animals were fittest and letting Evolution take over. Artificial Survival of the Fittest."

What you have so "citizenly-like" described as "the proven natural law of evolution" is in fact natural selection. Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all. It is one of those widespread fallacies attributed to having children taught bogus science(Global warming, evolution) by teachers with Liberal arts degrees. And aren't those cows..Well,..still cows. Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here. Yes, there are processes at work that makes one phenotype more visible than another at any given time. But to be here it had to be in the genome of a species to begin with. Yes, there was a study on the moth that's dominantly expressed light color was replaced by the darker phenotype because of natural selection. What you have to understand is that the dark phenotype was already present in the genome. It just became the dominantly expressed phenotype. No evolution was involved. In fact nothing has ever been proven to evolve.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 15, 2006 5:11 AM