Evolutionary Debate by AnthonyT

So you're saying one shouldn't teach a scientific theory in science class? Since you're a graduate level scientist, I expect you know that a scientific theory is based on tons of evidence and can be regarded as fact, at least until conclusive evidence comes along that disproves it. So it should be taught, right?

I agree to a certain extent with respect to abiogenesis, that the different hypotheses should be taught as that, hypotheses, not theories. They should be discussed, but not be sold as proven fact. But evolution is different.

To be honest, I find your post quite disappointing. It shows that colleges and universities aren't doing a very good job in their science education if this is the sort of attitude the scienitists they produce have.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
frankly, im tired of butting heads with you- i get your point, just fine, thank you- i always have

Yes, so am I because all we're doing is butting heads. You've not said anything different from your first post on this thread, and repeating oneself while you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen is getting tiresome.

Quote:
i know God is metaphysical, but he designed us for the physical.

But God is Metaphysical, ergo God has NO place in physical Science, see how I'm having to repeat myself?

Quote:
i believe God created us, and that the evidence is within the DNA itself;

No because any evidence in DNA is going to be highly subjective, along the lines of "the smile on a babies face is proof of God!" No the smile on a babies face is proof of wind, anything more is wishful thinking. If you want the above to be science I suggest you tell us what this proof is, or at least what form it takes.

Quote:
call me an ignorant religious zealot and fool and all you need, but i disagree with you that man evolved from apes.

Anything I called you was born mostly out of extreme frustration because you just don't listen. All I asked was for you to back up your claims rather than just repeat yourself and instead you just repeat yourself over and over. It's very annoying and extremely frustrating and is just another symptom that this isn't a debate, it's a tactic, whether you realise it or not.

Quote:
maybe we can have a civil discussion around here once in awhile, without religion becoming the evil bad guy

That's really funny, we point out it's science that's being attacked and religion doing the attacking and rather than proving otherwise you jump up and down while standing in Sciences house saying "ohh I'm being oppressed!"

What would be nice is a civil discussion where you didn't make out Science to be the bad guy, made out science to be the spawn of "kabalistic allied governments under the control of the secret societies" and that the only good in the world is to be found in religion and the only people with any morals are Christians. That would be fantastic, but until that day you don't have a damn right to moan about religion being made out as the bad guy.

Quote:
all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned...

And of course if they don't come to the same conclusions as you they must be dupes or stupid or under the boot of the anti-christ or...

Quote:
once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented.

Kind of ironic when you're denying Evolution based on your own (lack of) understanding of the theory and your complete lack of compulsion to do any research outside of websites that proclaim it false.

Quote:
that doesnt make me schizophrenic.

Actually schizophrenics do come up with intricate conspiracy theories based on scant evidence involving great spans of time and people and show a real confusion as to why other people can't see what they do. But nevertheless I didn't say you were schizophrenic, I said you were schitotypal.

Quote:
despite what you say i dont hate science,

It's just that science is evil and working together with the secret societies to enslave us all, gotch ya.

Quote:
i hate unproven science sold as fact

And I hate people saying something is unproven because they don't like the conclusion.

Quote:
secondly, Citizen made a point of calling me a schitzo,

I said Schitzotypal, not schizophrenic.

Quote:
and extending the tirade about how im just a blind fundementalist freak

Quote me or retract this statement.

Quote:
conspiracy theorist;

You talk about the conspiracies behind everything all the time. Calling you a conspiracy theorist is like calling FireFly an ok TV show.

Quote:
because i mentioned the religious philosophy behind evolution(and its similarities to the occult golem concept).

No you want to shoe horn religious concepts into science where they don't belong because then you can attack it on religious grounds rather than scientific. Secondly the Golem is STILL a JEWISH concept. Nice to see you're still not backing up your claims and just repeating yourself over and over in the hope no one noticed. You're wrong, drop it already.

Quote:
im honostly a little baffled that people are so hostile towards these ideas though.. is this the wrong forum to contribute to?

Maybe because when we ask you to back up what you say you just say it again as if you saying it is proof.

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, February 11, 2007 4:44 AM

UNCOMPREHENDING

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
So you're saying one shouldn't teach a scientific theory in science class? Since you're a graduate level scientist, I expect you know that a scientific theory is based on tons of evidence and can be regarded as fact, at least until conclusive evidence comes along that disproves it. So it should be taught, right?

My point was that in the context of this thread, discussion of evolution is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. Should be taught, just in a different class. Also, due to time constraints in the classroom, we pick and choose what is important to invest time in. Intelligent design or evolution, we all agree that organisms change as their environments change, so why does it matter?

Quote:
[B/]It shows that colleges and universities aren't doing a very good job in their science education if this is the sort of attitude the scienitists they produce have.

I'd suggest not passing judgement on an entire educational system based on a single post in an internet thread. And my attitudes are shaped by more than the hours I spend in a classroom.

Man it takes a silly girl to lie about the dreams she has.
Lord it takes a lonely one to wish that she had never dreamed at all.
--Dashboard Confessional

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.

Look, I hate to sound harsh but science is a worldview... a phisosophy... and anyone who doesn't understand that is a just technician no matter how advanced their degree.

Science is not a set of 'proven facts' or even proveable theories. Science is about asking "how". The happiest day in science is when a long-held theory falls to a better one... when a paradigm changes that allows us to think more broadly and see more connections. In my view ALL theories are provisional, no matter how useful and predictive they may have been.

And science has no room for god. It is based on a set of a priori assumptions that exclude the answer "god done it" or "here be dragons". Rather than excluding the philosophy of science from science classes, it seems to me that should be the first thing that students learn.

Quote:
I'd suggest not passing judgement on an entire educational system based on a single post in an internet thread. And my attitudes are shaped by more than the hours I spend in a classroom.

Then your university is doing a poor job of training scientists and a great job of training tools.

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

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
first off, what would you know about secret societies? youve probably never even looked into the area- but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes). if God does exist, then all of this is related.

Anti- IF god exists... that's a pretty big gaping "if". I'm curious... do you ever wonder "IF" the universe exists?

And just as an aside, I'm absolutely certain that secret societies of the very powerful exist today, and that some of them are as evil as PN paints them. What I can't quite credit is that these societies go back hundreds- even thousands- of years in a unbroken string of understanding. The basis of power has changed radically since feudalism. In an agrarian society power rested in land, the peasants to work it and the soldiers to defend it. Once mercantilism and capitalism evolved, the nature of power shifted to trade and money. Once the basis of power shifted, one group of people was replaced by another. (My SO's grandfather was an impoverished nobleman who married a shopkeeper's daughter for the lucre that he needed to maintain the lifestyle.) That means that secret society membership shifted as well... they had different secrets to keep, different people to dupe, different information to share, different goals to attain, and most importantly a different source of power which the old elite could not tap into. The fact that they keep their affilliations secret simply means that they realize they'd be obliterated if the average person knew what they were about. If they bond through deviant practices, that is merely an outgrowth- a re-creation- of their sociopathic practices in a milieu of Xtian ethics.

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

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:34 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science is about asking "how". ...And science has no room for god.

Well said, Signy! Wow, that was quite eloquent.

I am religious. And trained as a scientist. I will argue til I turn blue that a person can be both religious and scientific at the same time, and that being one does not necessarily exclude being the other.

But religion itself does not belong in science. The scientific method has no room for God or any other ideas that cannot be tested empirically. ID is a religious philosophy and absolutely has no place in a science class.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:45 AM

FLETCH2

The reason that we have this problem is nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing at all about the existance or otherwise of God. The problem is to do with the primacy of the Bible and more specifically with the origins of political and cultural power. That battle, in one form or another, dates back in our history at least as far as the chief and the shaman.

Humans are pack animals, they are associative, be it in extended family groups, tribes or nations one thing that has always been true is that someone has to be in charge. The leader can get his authority for any number of reasons, his strength in arms, his previous success in providing for his tribe, his venerable age, or even his family history. What always remains true though is that he maintains that power ultimately through the consent of the people. To be clear "the people" in this case does not mean everyone his orders could effect, as in the democratic sense, but those people that were in a position to physically depose him. If the leader makes choices that the people agree with and which benefits them, then he continues to be leader. If by mistake or inaction he allows enough desent against his rule to amass, that disquiet will eventually find a rival to voice it. Thus political power is essentially "performance based."

The second string of power is religious. Humans are hardwired for some kind of religious expression and it forms part of us just as the pack instinct does. At some point in our social evolution a point was reached where we had enough food so that some individuals could investigate spiritual matters and be supported by the tribe as a whole. These are shaman, holy men and priests. Their primary objective is to connect to the universe and try to find the big picture, the big patterns that would let you foresee future events and therefore guard against them. Unlike the leaders, the priest gains his power from the belief and actions of the believers. As can be seen this is a parallel and competative power to the political power of the leader. There has always been conflict between the two, we have evidence that in ancient Egypt there was a religious coupe against the first fledging monotheastic religion, and the competition between church and state shaped most of European history.

If I am a leader, I get my authority from the people's willingness to accept my orders. Further, I am leader by results, if the key people that keep me in power do not like what I am doing then I will be out. A religious leader gets his authority from the belief of the faithfull that he is a legitimate spokesman for their diety. To put it crudely, a priest is a priest because they tell you that God said so. It is not a performance related job, nobody expects miracles as a means of proving your claims.

So here is the curent situation. Christians have a holy book called the Bible. Depending on the type of Christian you are the book represents either the teachings of the various prophets edited and mangled by many human hands or the absolute devinely inspired and complete word of God. It gives you a foretaste of where this debate is going that the second group doesn't even acknowledge the first to be Christian just on the basis of that distinction. Now if you are part of the group that believes that the Bible is literally the word of God then you can't allow any challenge to that "truth" to go unanswered. Remember the priest's power is only the belief of the faithful that he is a legitimate messenger, if any doubt exists then the priests power is weakened.

Any activity that challenges the absolute truth of the Bible is disputed. Evolution is one good case because it is so visable. It has to be challenged because if the Bible is not absolutely right, if it can be questioned, then other Bible based agendas the priest wants to push can also be questioned. A fundementalist of any religious stripe is basically the guy that says "I'm in charge because God says so" since we can't ask God directly then the fundementalist backs up his claim by quoting holy texts. For this to work there can be only one "true" interpretation of the text.... the fundementalists.... and any doubt as to the accuracy and theological origin of the text has to be challenged.

That's what we see here. It is a religious play for temporal authority.

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:56 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Uncomprehending:
As a graduate-level scientist, I think that most things that are relevant to what is happening on earth now affecting humanity can be explained in terms of adaptation, without bringing in evolutionary philosophy.

I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance.

As a graduate-level scientist, I respectfully disagree.

There is no topic about our natural and physical world that cannot be examined with the scientific method. Macro-evolution can be studied as a philosophical paradigm, but it can also be subject to empirical inquiry. Granted the actual evidence (fossils and such) is scant and difficult, and the conclusions should be interpreted cautiously. Maybe the origins of life will never be scientifically *proven.* But hypotheses about the possible origins of life can certainly be scientifically and empirically *tested.*

And who is to say that origins of life has no concrete relevance? If we were to discover that it is possible or likely that we evolved from semiconducting rocks instead of warm amino acid soup, wouldn't that be quite relevant to the way our bodies work (perhaps predominantly electromagnetically rather than chemically)? That is to say, relevance is a subjective determination.

I am a homeschooler, and my daughter wants to become a scientist (like her parents). You bet I am teaching her about evolution as part of her science curriculum. I teach her to distinguish between what can be observed and tested, and what cannot, between micro and macro-evolution. I teach her that macro-evolution is a debatable but exciting theory, and if we ever found out more about where we came from, we can find out more about where we are going. I teach her there are a lot of people who tout conjecture as fact, and it is important to know how we know what we know. Some of this is philosophy, but then epistemology is part of science as well.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
...a person can be both religious and scientific at the same time, and [...] being one does not necessarily exclude being the other.

Would more religious people have this sort of attitude, people like myself might not have turned from being simply atheistic to being somewhat antitheistic.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:09 AM

SASSALICIOUS

I like my evolution (both macro and micro), but I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I kind of stop there. I'm still on the fence about how I feel about a higher power and once I figure that out, it will possibly affect my specific thoughts on evolution (never banishing evolution though).

Your bio teacher probably said that viruses aren't alive per se because they are not considered organisms (i.e. cannot maintain there own existence and need to invade/destroy another cell to reproduce), but they are considered a microbe, which is a "living thing we can see". At leas that's what my bacteriology prof. says and I can accept that.

A book series that I think may interest you is "Ring", "Spiral", and "Loop". The books are translated from Japanese and were the basis for the Japanese movie "Ringu". They deal with viruses, mutation, cancer, and some other things addressed in this post. Go read them and love them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:16 AM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

It can be argued that the finches on the Galapagos Islands evolved into the different species found there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:01 PM

KANEMAN

Sass, No it can't. Well, at least not a serious argument.....

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:24 PM

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:34 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Oooh, I forgot about the cichlids in Lake Victoria!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

But God is Metaphysical, ergo God has NO place in physical Science, see how I'm having to repeat myself?

what were we supposed to debate about in this thread?

or was it a trap?

i remember DreamTrove saying you cant debate something that is 'proven', it would be like debating whether the sun would rise; it must have been to bait Creationists out into the open or something, and i bit! i wish i was the one who could prove a Creator exists, but im not really suited to this type of 'forum'.. im not a scientist, or even claimed to be particularly inclined either, and i admit that what i do know are things ive learned cross referencing the occult, and old world theology et all(which is my main focus). but it doesnt mean there isnt some debate going on out there about it all. it 'might' be possible to prove the existence of a Creator- we dont know that its impossible yet.. do we? techinically it would have to manifest things visibly somehow? i have to say that i appreciate this comment right here though

Quote:
UNCOMPREHENDING-
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.

atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate.. even if it happened millions of years ago(which i dont realy believe-admitedly out of bias). just from what i know of the ID view, they believe the creation itself indicates design, within nature, or DNA itself..its just possible we dont know what we're looking for yet

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
it 'might' be possible to prove the existence of a Creator- we dont know that its impossible yet.. do we? techinically it would have to manifest things visibly somehow?

Science is based off of natural rules and natural tools, if a scientist looks at a supernatural subject (god) using natural tools, since the supernatural ignores the natural the scientist can no longer trust their tools. Because of this any time that a scientist would attempt to verify the supernatural they would get incorrect results in their tests and the tests would be invalid.

Quote:
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate..

It is, but like I keep saying it has no bearing on evolution, regardless of how life started all the evidence points to evolution afterwards.

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:44 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

AP, Feb 13,2007.

Quote:

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.

The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate.. even if it happened millions of years ago(which i dont realy believe-admitedly out of bias). just from what i know of the ID view, they believe the creation itself indicates design, within nature, or DNA itself..its just possible we dont know what we're looking for yet

Science would be looking for answers that are (a) grounded in the observable and (b) consistent with our current models. If you think that science is going to find "proof" that god exists or suddenly jump tracks to the supernatural then you're sadly mistaken.

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

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
AP, Feb 13,2007.
Quote:

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.

The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.

I thought that was over with a long time ago.

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:45 PM

FLETCH2

Took time for the theory to evolve into practice.

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:13 PM

Pretty much what I learned in this thread is that anybody who has a hard stance on this issue either way is a great big asshole. I'm happy to say that I don't really care much one way or the other and I hope that you both manage to destroy each other.

Here's hoping that you both choke on each other's bullshit.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:51 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
AP, Feb 13,2007.
Quote:

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.

The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.

I thought that was over with a long time ago.

Fred, It's come and gone several times in Kansas. Someone was quoted in the AP piece as saying that students have had 5 different standards on Science Education in that state in the last 8 years.

I'm gonna simplify this, and try not to make value judgements- this is summarized from the AP story and reflects what I remember seeing reported.

Before 1999, evolution was part of the curriculum, like that mainstream scientific view above.

In 1999, religious conservatives got elected to the state school board, and put language in the curriculum supporting intelligent design, if not out and out creationism.

They got voted out of office in , I think it was, 2003, and replaced by some liberals. I think there was a court case in there somewhere, and the religious conservatives lost in court. The liberals took out the intelligent design stuff, and put evolution back in.

This is when, I think, you think it got over with.

In 2005, the religious conservatives, maybe a different bunch of folks, won the next election, and put intelligent design in, and all of the " teach the controversy" language, and all of the " evolution is an unproven theory " language.

I think they got sued again, and lost in court again. I think this was one of the cases that shot the legality out from under intelligent design.

Anyway, in the 2006 elections, a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans ( That's how the AP characterizes them. I make no value judgement, nor editorial comment.) won and threw the religious conservatives out. The new , liberal board of education are the guys who put evolution back in this latest time.

The conservative folks released a statement, quoted in the AP piece , saying that they weren't going to fight about it any more, but accept the decision.

Liberal folks released a statement saying the curriculum would remain mainstream at least until the next election.

More details , if ya need or want, 'em , can be found in the Associated Press piece, or by searching the web for news about the Kansas board of Education.

My apologies to anyone of either side who I might have offended here. I made an honest effort to not use any loaded term to describe any group or person, and to report what I remember of the facts and story without referencee documents at hand. It's also possible that in summarizing, I did not give one or the other side's argument its fully detailed, exactly accurate description. Further, I have tried not to express my own opinions, but to repeat the history as objectively as I know how to.
( Boy, I feel like one of those legal guys at the end of a car commercial. " This offer not valid on all models, some buyers may not qualify")

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:36 PM

6string, taking a stance and being able to defend it isn't a bad thing. Taking a stance and NOT being able to defend it is. No prizes for guessing which side is defendable and which one isn't in this debate.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

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

Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6string- There is a point in ideology where reality no longer matters. Total freedom is an articifical construct, and believing in it to the exclusion of everything else makes one a prisoner of one's own thoughts.

I think you have reached that point. If you REALLY want to be free, you have to open up to the influences around you, otherwise your course is as pre-determined as if you were hypnotized.

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

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

Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:22 PM

Whatever you say brother. Of course it's your opinion that is defendable here in your eyes because that's where you stand. I don't really think that an extreme here is right either way.

Hope you're right and you don't burn in hell one day. I'm not judgeing. If there is a hell, I'll probably be there waiting for you with a big fatty blunt we can smoke on and laugh about how bad we screwed up while we dance on the hot coals.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:24 PM

And from where I'm standing Signym, you suffer from this as much as you believe that I do, so I guess we're all just prisoners of whatever bullshit we happen to believe in.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:42 PM

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

There's no way to 'prove' reality. Everything can be assumed to be objective, or subjective. But personally, I'm not willing to step off the 21st floor or walk in front of a train to test how 'real' the world is.

Science assumes an objective real world that runs according to its own rules. It's just a way of trying to discover the rules. You have an idea of how something runs, you test it out. Either it worked, or it didn't and you go back to figure out where you went wrong.

Some people find that idea threatening. They'd rather think of themselves as totally free agents rather than as physical beings in a physical world of physical laws.

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

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:53 PM

I'm of the Elmer Fudd school of thought.

If you don't know that gravity exists, you won't fall off the cliff. Keep pushing and you people are going to find out a whole lot of things that you really don't want to know. Once you've learned it, you can't unlearn it. The warnings are out there.

I just wish that science wasn't something else that was up in my grill every damn day. Just leave me out of it.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm of the Elmer Fudd school of thought.

If you don't know that gravity exists, you won't fall off the cliff. Keep pushing and you people are going to find out a whole lot of things that you really don't want to know. Once you've learned it, you can't unlearn it. The warnings are out there.

Um...how do you explain how babies who have never heard of gravity stay down?...Just wondering.

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:14 AM

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

6-string

I know you claim to be not religious, but you do seem to keep up with the latest whacko claims. Someone at work told me about this and I didn't believe anything so stupid could be true - but it is:

"Intelligent falling". That seems to be your argument here.

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

""Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise."

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

And Burdett holds a degree in physics from Oral Roberts University (non-accredited) AND published in the 'International Journal of Science', so of course this is a valid challenge to the theory of gravity.

Right?

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:19 AM

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

I also have a mea culpa. Somewhere in one of these threads I indicated evolution is only controversial in fundamentalist societies - I may have used either Pakistan or Iran as examples, or both.

It turns out the example is Turkey.

""The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. " ...we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. (as) one-book religions.

"Fundamentalists in this country say everything you need to know is in the Bible, period. Islamists say everything you need to know is in the Koran, period," said Miller, a professor in political science."

My apologies to Pakistanis and Iranians.

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
""The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. " ...we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. (as) one-book religions.

w00t!!!

WE'RE NUMBER TWO!!!! WE'RE NUMBER TWO!!!!

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:06 AM

If current trends are anything to go by, you'll be number one soon enough.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Intelligent falling".

Actually intelligent falling first appeared in "The Onion" as a joke mocking Intelligent design.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I can't seem to find any mention of Rev. Gabriel Burdett or Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning out side of connections to this story originally posted by the Onion, the only 'news' site to provide us with the story of the A-Teams exoneration of all crimes by George W. Bush...

I think it's most likely that it's nothing more than a joke that some people have mistaken for real, not that I blame them, the brainless morons who mistake Intelligent Design for Science would likely have come up with Intelligent Falling eventually, along with intelligent seeing (light rays don't propegate via electromagnatism, they are pushed along by Gods toy train set), Intelligent Continental Drift, Intelligent Water...

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, February 18, 2007 9:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6String- science may not be in your face every day, but reality is. At least you're open to reality. Some aren't.

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

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:45 AM

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

Sadly, 'intelligent falling' now has a following in the US.

As to whether 6-string is open to reality, it depends on if he really believes what he calls the Elmer Fudd theory of gravity. If you keep on running and don't look down you won't fall.

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:49 AM

i personally think thats pretty lame to bring out the straw-man fundementalists, and accuse all ID as being Creationists; there is a difference. IDs say that evolution, and the theory of abiogenesis havent conclusively proven anything... and an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us. maybe at some point we will learn for sure whether intelligent, complex organisms, or all life on earth for that matter.. could have arisen naturally, on its own accord, or whether it needed an intelligence to seed it. ive heard IDs claim that you cant genetically reduce the smallest organism we know, beyond a certain number of strands, before you reach the hardware(the creation); which would also prove ID.

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i personally think thats pretty lame to bring out the straw-man fundementalists, and accuse all ID as being Creationists; there is a difference. IDs say that evolution, and the theory of abiogenesis havent conclusively proven anything... and an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us. maybe at some point we will learn for sure whether intelligent, complex organisms, or all life on earth for that matter.. could have arisen naturally, on its own accord, or whether it needed an intelligence to seed it. ive heard IDs claim that you cant genetically reduce the smallest organism we know, beyond a certain number of strands, before you reach the hardware(the creation); which would also prove ID.

ID is repackaged Creation, it's not science and your entire argument has been pretty lame and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge.

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, February 18, 2007 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sadly, 'intelligent falling' now has a following in the US

You shittin' me??? It was a parody!

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

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
... an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us.

And an honest layman will admit that theories that account for most of the data are better than hypotheses that account for none.

The process of science is this: If you don't like the current theory come up with a better one. It should have a nature-based explanation for all of the data at-hand.

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

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti- I've been trying to understand your position. I think you're hoping for the moment when scientists collectively say "By everything that we know about the natural universe 'X' should have never happened. Therefore there must have been a supernatural force involved."

For some people, "X" is evolution. For others, it's the origins of life, and for still others it's the universe itself. Which "X" are you?

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

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:50 PM

Citizen-
ID is repackaged Creation, it's not science and your entire argument has been pretty lame and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge.

you CAN make a distinction.. there are some who are not of any particular religious persuasion, but feel that evolution could not possibly account for all live on earth- i would consider them IDers. 'creationists' are usually christians who are IDers but have a specific religious belief. you can dispute the creationists all you want, its entirely possible they are basing their opinion potentially off of a prior bias(or maybe a post bias)- but there are such things as objective scientists, and ID is evidently not out of the range of possibility(especially if all life can evolve at random). what im hearing is that, whereas im saying science doesnt know every law yet, so we should be more willingly to entertain the possibility, some of you are certain you know every square inch of the universe already, and not only know God doesnt exist, but that such a Creator would leave no visible evidence of his higher intelligence at work(and i just dont think we can state that immutably)

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:53 PM

antimason:
ID is repackaged creation. And the creation myth was around long before christianity.

ID is repackaged creation. Not science, repackaged creation myth.

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, February 18, 2007 1:56 PM

so whats abiogenesis? are you gonna tell me its proven fact? but itll be drafted into the evolution debate as if we saw it all first hand....a few billion yrs ago..

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

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:58 PM

I've been over all this with you before. All the questions in your last post and this one, I'm not in the mood to repeat myself, if you want the answers read what I've already said because frankly your beginning to piss me off.

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, February 18, 2007 2:18 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so whats abiogenesis? are you gonna tell me its proven fact? but itll be drafted into the evolution debate as if we saw it all first hand....a few billion yrs ago..

There are no such things as facts - there are merely things that have been observed, and proven (to the best of our extent) countless times. Abiogenesis...

Y'know what, this does a better job than I do:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

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

Monday, February 19, 2007 5:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTI-

Quote:
you CAN make a distinction.. there are some who are not of any particular religious persuasion, but feel that evolution could not possibly account for all live on earth- i would consider them IDers.

This is a very unclear statement. Does this mean that IDers can account for SOME species but not others? Does this mean that IDers accept evolution but not abiogenisis? The reason why you're getting in a tangle is because you yourself have not presented a clear statement of ID. That's why I asked "Which 'X' are you?" I'm not sure YOU know which 'X' you are.

Quote:
'creationists' are usually christians who are IDers but have a specific religious belief. you can dispute the creationists all you want, its entirely possible they are basing their opinion potentially off of a prior bias(or maybe a post bias)

As far as I can tell, "Creationists" reject the theory of evolution. In their belief, God made all species as they exist today, and fossil records, carbon dating, geological evidence are "tests of faith".

Quote:
but there are such things as objective scientists, and ID is evidently not out of the range of possibility(especially if all life can evolve at random). what im hearing is that, whereas im saying science doesnt know every law yet, so we should be more willingly to entertain the possibility, some of you are certain you know every square inch of the universe already, and not only know God doesnt exist, but that such a Creator would leave no visible evidence of his higher intelligence at work(and i just dont think we can state that immutably)

ANTI- You have a terrible, fundamental misunderstanding of science. Any scientist who claims to understand the entire workings of the universe is NOT a scientist. The purpose of science is to ask "how". Please do not impute that belief to science or scientists.

HOWEVER- There are certain fundamental tenets of science, assumptions which underpin the workings of science which leave no room for 'super'natural.

(a) The first tenet is that we are part of a real, objective universe.

(b) The second is that our senses tell us something about it.

(c) The third is that it operates according to consistent laws or principles.

Up to that last point, I can imagine a 'super'natural universe parallel to ours. However, if a supernatural entity is fickle and messes with the workings of the universe at random then the universe is no longer repeatable, predictable, or capable of being studied. The notion of science goes out the window and we're back to propitiating the gods.

That doesn't mean that there is no mystery in the universe. Our limited human minds cannot possibly analogize everything there is to know. It's possible to stand in awe of the universe without resorting to the notion of god.

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

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

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:16 AM