Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des...

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible -- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

That was priceless lol

*nods*....nice.....

alot of truth in that piece of comedy....

Pretty well said...

Hehehe....

Nice, Nivek.....you need to come here more often!!!

indeed well done.

Nice.

Yay Nivek!!

haha. well summed.

http://meisterplanet.com/images/quartertothree/qt3-hypno-groupthink.gif

Originally posted by whobdamandog
http://meisterplanet.com/images/quartertothree/qt3-hypno-groupthink.gif


genius post

First off - good post.

Second off - The only rebuttal is an accusation of groupthink instead of actual reasonable arguemnts? That brings me back to my first point - good post.

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
genius post

Groupthinker

Darth Revan, don't you think you should acknowledge that this was a copy and paste job?

Ah, tis wonderful how the medium, the genre, of satire can so succinctly capture issues and display the absurdity that exists with in them. Jolly good post.

And though the absurd accusations of groupthink could be leveled against me I will say fine, but if the group's thinking is in line with my own I can do nothing less then agree.

I don't want to just add to the praise but that was well said...

An attempt to take credit for the work of another is known in the real world as 'plagiarism'.

I love how the only think Who can post is some childish remark about us being groupthinker's or whatever the hell the plural is. When the true irony is that all of it points right back to him and even though he will probably read what I am writing right now he wont take the time and effort to actually try and prove me wrong or dissuade me, just post some other pointless thing that has nothing to do with anything and doesn't have any bearing on what we are talking about...
Bring it on...

My word, that represents a new low for whob. If all he can do is turn around and try and make a serious accusation like that simplyt because just about everyone else see what he spwes as total gibberish... then that is truly feeble. It is sheer desperation.

The only self-deluded one here is whob, who abandons all logic and rationality when it comes to this subject to try and make it fit his skewed beliefs.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
My word, that represents a new low for whob. If all he can do is turn around and try and make a serious accusation like that simplyt because just about everyone else see what he spwes as total gibberish... then that is truly feeble. It is sheer desperation.

The only self-deluded one here is whob, who abandons all logic and rationality when it comes to this subject to try and make it fit his skewed beliefs.

It's easier to drop the "group think" bomb and leave, cry out that others can't think for themselves, or insult people and try and get a cheap laugh than to defend your belief system. Especially when the last time you defended it you had to resort to lies and misrepresentation of the truth to try and prove a point.

Too bad that no one found it funny and just found it highly pathetic - and sad - that he could not come up with anything better with which to defend his beliefs than to accuse all of us of groupthinking.

But then again, since we all agree on this, he's probably going to come in and accuse us of 'groupthink' again! Oh dear.

But then again, I see this groupthink logic works both ways -- never has he accused anyone who agrees with HIM of groupthink, I have noticed.

Originally posted by Lana
Too bad that no one found it funny and just found it highly pathetic - and sad - that he could not come up with anything better with which to defend his beliefs than to accuse all of us of groupthinking.


Instead of defending his beliefs I believe he started a new thread where people could defend their beliefs in how "Humanism/Neo Darwinism and their Manifestos..How have they benefited modern society? "

Maybe it is a valid attempt at understanding. But I have a feeling that it is more of an attempt to put those who believe in evolutionary theory on the defensive in order that their points can be attacked from the safe position of not having to defend creationism. But I could be wrong.

Rules 1,5, and 7 proven above....

(1) An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.(ie "Bring it on"..I'm ready for ya..lol)

(5) Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.

(7) A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgements conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).(ie He won't try to respond or prove me wrong..that means..I'm right!!!)




Rules 4 and 8 proven by above quote..

(4) Stereotyped views of rivals and enemies as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.(ie "new low for whob..he spews gibberish..etc"


(8) The emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information. that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

*note..The OP represents the "mindguard" in this particular scenario...




Rule 2 proven by above...

(2) Collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.

*in this case..the warning being..that the group embodies what is known as a group think process.


Originally posted by KharmaDog
Instead of defending his beliefs I believe he started a new thread where people could defend their beliefs in how "Humanism/Neo Darwinism and their Manifestos..How have they benefited modern society? "

Maybe it is a valid attempt at understanding. But I have a feeling that it is more of an attempt to put those who believe in evolutionary theory on the defensive in order that their points can be attacked from the safe position of not having to defend creationism. But I could be wrong.

Rules 3 and 6 proven....

3) An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

***note..Science is based on the "logical inference" that the evidence points too, not one's personal "belief."


(6) Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimise to himself the importance of his doubts and counter-arguments.

Ex of Rule 6 translated from K-dog's post..

K-Dog: Maybe he is trying to get an understanding..but wait...then again he's not..he's trying to challeng our Belief!!!

Perhaps you all should re-examine the content of what you've just posted..using the rules that I supplied to you in my previous post..

Moving on...K-Dog...why not just go to the thread that I've created..and discuss the the other topic. As of now..by giving no response to the subject of the "Humanism/Neo Darwinism" thread..I'm assuming you/others can not come up with any real benefits..I could be wrong however..but if I am...post your response in the correct thread, and I will be happy to disccuss..

so basicly instead of trying to find rational arguements as to why evolution is "faulty", whob is now dodging things even further by going on about groupthinking?

Funny since you can directly return it to the religion-nuts

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Ex of Rule 6 translated from K-dog's post..

K-Dog: Maybe he is trying to get an understanding..but wait...then again he's not..he's trying to challeng our Belief!!!

Perhaps you all should re-examine the content of what you've just posted..using the rules that I supplied to you in my previous post..

So we should all re-examine our posts to your standard? Compelling arguement.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Moving on...K-Dog...why not just go to the thread that I've created..and discuss the the other topic. As of now..by giving no response to the subject of the "Humanism/Neo Darwinism" thread..I'm assuming you/others can not come up with any real benefits..I could be wrong however..but if I am...post your response in the correct thread, and I will be happy to disccuss..

I have avoided going to your thread, other than that one post, because I have very little interest to hear what you have to say. This is for two reasons. First being that in the past you have proven to be a childish and irrational person who when things don't go their own way either complain that everyone is rallying agains them or posts childish rebuttles. Second reason being that you have been exposed as one who lies and distorts information to try prove your point. A debate with such a person is useless as nothing you say can be respected as it may all be based on a lie once again.

As for others not posting in your thread it may be ore because they see the futility of dealing with such a person also or the fact that you have lost alot of respect on this board with your behaviour or any number of reasons. Or they may see it as the trap that I think it may be, if that is the case, why bother with the childishness?

Whatever their reasons for not participating, I doubt it is because can not come up with any real benefits, but if that makes you feel better about yourself and your beliefs, then feel free to believe it.

whob, you are just going to take whatever we say and make it fit your crappy lazy attacks on us. It's truly contemptible.

If there are stereotypes here around you, then it is simply because you have created them by always acting the same way.

All anyone has to do is read your posts to see how much ill-0informed, irrational gibberish they contain. You condemn yourself further every time you speak.

All you can do in this thread, which contains a perfectly valid satiricial refutation of your views, is moan and whine like child crying out "Everyone is all against, me, waaaaaaaaaaaah...". As yerssot says, it is just an enormous dodge, it is very cowardly, and it has no redeeming value whatsoever.

And you expect anyone to take you seriously? You expect your silly little rules and throwaway uses of the word 'proof' to make any difference to how dumb you look or how poor your arguments are? You make out my comments to be some sort of evasive tactic. In fact, they are the simpler option- the shoe fits.

There is no value or sense or logic or purpose in anything you are posting. If you want to be negotiated with, post something worthy of negotiation and reason to comments made about it rationally and with proper use of logic. Crying into a thread like this with ridiculous comments like the ones you have made above serve only to prove why everything said about you here is, in fact, not the product of some crappy phenomenon that in the La-La land you like to inhabit is the reason everyone is against you...

... but is in fact simply the truth. Everyone is against you, whob (as opposed to being so much against plenty of other people who hold similar views to you around here) because you are being such a continuously unreasonable person. When so many people are against you like that- look at your own behaviour, not ours.

Do not just keep coming into threads quoting rules like that and expect them to be treated as intelligent posts, whob.

You are a dreadful ambassador for your views, and just by posting here in the way you are, you are turning people away from your views towards those of others. They all see how irrational, ridiculous and ineffectual you are, and the straightforward conclusion from that is that you are wrong. You are killing the idea of Intelligent Design as an acceptable concept simply by your conduct in defence of it. You are making it happen. Start engaging intelligently instead of with the posts you have made here, and that might stop, but there is little hope for you and your views otherwise

3/10 for trolling.

Once you have a documentation of evolution and a witnesses who have seen the origins of all things, then this post will have some merit.

That's also total gibberish. You do not need a witness to Evolution to make it a working theory.

Seriously, some people HAVE to make a proper effort to understand how science works. The entire point of what the original post was satirising was the idea that something can be seen as invalid simply because no-one can go back and observe it again. That is what it is saying- even though the effect that broke the kneecap is now unobservable, the evidence obviously points to such a breakage being the cause and to disbelief it on such grounds is ludicrous. That you missed that is a very bad statement on your ability to understand.

There is plentiful evidence for Evolution, from the fossil record to island biosphered. We are suffused in it. It is all around us. All behaviour we obsevre from animals is consistent with it. The scientific community is united in its acceptable of the broad idea- much as it mauls itself arguing over the details.

The lack of a time travel machine to direclty witness it is totally irrelevant. The theroy stands- by any measure of rational science, it is good.

Unlike ID, which is not scientific at all, simply a philisophival belief on the engine behind evolution.

The ignorance shown by some as to the nature of the scientific method astounds me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's also total gibberish. You do not need a witness to Evolution to make it a working theory.

Seriously, some people HAVE to make a proper effort to understand how science works. The entire point of what the original post was satirising was the idea that something can be seen as invalid simply because no-one can go back and observe it again. That is what it is saying- even though the effect that broke the kneecap is now unobservable, the evidence obviously points to such a breakage being the cause and to disbelief it on such grounds is ludicrous. That you missed that is a very bad statement on your ability to understand.

There is plentiful evidence for Evolution, from the fossil record to island biosphered. We are suffused in it. It is all around us. All behaviour we obsevre from animals is consistent with it. The scientific community is united in its acceptable of the broad idea- much as it mauls itself arguing over the details.

The lack of a time travel machine to direclty witness it is totally irrelevant. The theroy stands- by any measure of rational science, it is good.

Unlike ID, which is not scientific at all, simply a philisophival belief on the engine behind evolution.

The ignorance shown by some as to the nature of the scientific method astounds me.
The example presented has physical proof of an event with people who saw it. Not conjecture, not hypothesis, not ambiguous evidence that can be turned either which way depending on one's viewpoint, but actual, solid evidence.

My response was a criticism of the "wit" displayed by Darth Revan.

There is physical proof of the process of evolution in the examples I gave above. And what difference does the fact people saw it make? People are probably the most fallible of all sources as far as sicence is concerned.

The only proof after the kneecap breaking incident that it happened is the broken kneecap and the implement that obviously caused it. You ndon't need a witness to know what happened.

The same principle applies to evolution. The details are far more complex than a simple leg breaking, but the basic situation is identical. Everything we see and observe is consistent with evolution. It is also being continuously improved abd revised as more information comes to light, but never has the basic idea been contradicted. And if it ever was? Then if the science shows that, so be it. But as it stands... the science shows evolution.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is physical proof of the process of evolution in the examples I gave above. And what difference does the fact people saw it make? People are probably the most fallible of all sources as far as sicence is concerned.

The only proof after the kneecap breaking incident that it happened is the broken kneecap and the implement that obviously caused it. You ndon't need a witness to know what happened.

The same principle applies to evolution. The details are far more complex than a simple leg breaking, but the basic situation is identical. Everything we see and observe is consistent with evolution. It is also being continuously improved abd revised as more information comes to light, but never has the basic idea been contradicted. And if it ever was? Then if the science shows that, so be it. But as it stands... the science shows evolution.
Your point being? Yes, there is proof of evolution. But this "proof" can be construed as different things. CHON and the evolutionary thread...common ancestor, common designer, both? (Undoubtedly, you'll say common acestor only, but that is beside the point.)

What probably amuses me the most about this thread is that if whob had created a thread in this manner, there would be hell to pay. In fact, it, and he, would be bashed to no end and the thread would more likely than not be closed for trolling.

If whob gets negative reactions then it is because of the pointless and irrational way that he posts- his posts in this thread which have no value to them whatsoever are a case in point, That's why there would be a difference. As it is, the thread on Humanism he just opened started with a fair point and so long as he stays that way I'll debate in it in kind. But don't go thinbking that any difference in attitude is down to anything else other than the behaviour of whob himself.

All proof can be construed as different things, That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the best explanation of all observed evidence at this point is in Evolution- in one of many forms, Evolution being a broad sphere. Does that make it 100% perfect? No. It will be forever be revised and improved and no-one can say how much more we will know in, say, a century. One of the central tenets of science is to be always open to a superior explanation if it can be demonstrated to be so; this is what makes science different from faith, which believes in a single explanation regardless of where the evidence points. This is the largest fundamental difference between evolution and faith and why attempts to label evolution as a faith are futile.

But it IS science. It is following the exact scientific process, and that is why it is taught in science class.

ID is philosophy only. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, but it is an idea that does not follow the sceintific process. No evidence for it exists at all, only conjugation. It might be right, but then so might Descartes' idea of a Demon controlling everyone. Until evidence following the scientific process for them emerges, Descartes and ID don't belong in science.

So when comparing the two, on scientific terms, evolution wins, and that is the crux of the whole point. They are not altneraitve ideas- they are fundamentally different things.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If whob gets negative reactions then it is because of the pointless and irrational way that he posts- his posts in this thread which have no value to them whatsoever are a case in point, That's why there would be a difference. As it is, the thread on Humanism he just opened started with a fair point and so long as he stays that way I'll debate in it in kind. But don't go thinbking that any difference in attitude is down to anything else other than the behaviour of whob himself.
I never thought differently. However, the point is that even if he posted in a more...appropriate fashion, the thread (like this one) would receive a multitude of negative comments no matter what. This particular thread, on the other hand, will be lauded for its satire and perceived wit. If it were a thead making fun of the beliefs of Muslims, it would also be torched. But **** Christians and their crazy theories.

I'm sure you'll respond to that as "evolution has proof, intelligent design does not; it's entirely different when comparing that to the beliefs of Islam".

No, it is not. If the thread were on the beliefs of Muslims vs. evolution, the thread-starter would be flamed. You cannot deny this.

I'm not debating the relative merits of evolution and intelligent design (and, God--that is, if He even existed --forbid that I mention creationism). I'm sighing in exasperation at what our society has bred.

A. I liked that, made me laugh.
B. What are you talking about, FeceMan? Whob talks shit pretty consistently
C. I haven't seen many Muslim - Evolution debates, nor Muslim - ID debates. Not saying they're not out there, but I wouldn't find a satire of that nearly as funny because I haven't seen any Muslim arguments against evolution, to be honest.

Will someone explain to me how what I posted was trolling? I thought it was funny. Just because you didn't, and it made you angry, doesn't mean I was purposely trying to piss you off.

And as long as we're talking about Muslims, who's to say the ID Advocate in the joke wasn't a Muslim? You act as if people must think it's funny because they don't like Christians, when it never actually specified any religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Will someone explain to me how what I posted was trolling? I thought it was funny. Just because you didn't, and it made you angry, doesn't mean I was purposely trying to piss you off.

And as long as we're talking about Muslims, who's to say the ID Advocate in the joke wasn't a Muslim? You act as if people must think it's funny because they don't like Christians, when it never actually specified any religious beliefs.

It isn't, people just have a poor idea of what "trolling" actually is.

LOL to Intelligent Design.

On a different note, have you ever actually met one of those people who go door-to-door? Seeing them try to disprove science on a regular basis is some good old-fashioned real world comedy.

Originally posted by crazylozer
LOL to Intelligent Design.

On a different note, have you ever actually met one of those people who go door-to-door? Seeing them try to disprove science on a regular basis is some good old-fashioned real world comedy.

It is funny, but it's sad too. See, so many people here in the United States believe in this crap that they are getting together and trying to take us back 100 years. That's why I get so pissed about the debate, what it represents. I have no concern for what someone else believes, until it gets in the way of life in this country....in this world for that matter. And this argument reminds me of that, everytime I read a thread about it.

I don't care if you believe that Santa Claus created the world, or lightening striking primordial goo and then we showed up was how it all started. I certainly look down on the idea of creationism and intelligent design, but not on the people who feel it's how they want to explain this world to themselves. But, so often, people that lend it credibility take it so far that they think Louisiana was wiped out by Jesus because it was a sinful place...they don't want human beings in this country to have equal rights....they want Jesus rules to govern our way of life....they want god to sit on the supreme court

It makes me sick.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So we should all re-examine our posts to your standard? Compelling arguement.


My objective has been to get you all to look at your posts "objectively." The compelling part is your inability to recognize a common "subjectivity" within each of your posts, when compared to many others within the thread.




Avoidance is a sign of fear..and fear gives is usually a sign that one believes themselves already defeated.



Why continue to respond to those opinions you deem childish, and what does that say about your overall mentality? It completely baffles me as to how you cannot realize the irony behind what you have posted above. I implore you my friend to read what you write before you post, and make sure that you judge your own actions..before attempting to judge the actions of others.




The only distortion taking place is the "distortion" of reality. One that makes you believe that your opinion carries any merit and influence on the general public. Outside of the opinions of yourself and a few others within this forum, how do you come to the assertion that my credibility has been damaged? Your own opinion of my "credibility"...doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the general populace who read these posts K-dog. You are more foolish than I thought..if you truly believe that it does.




As I've stated twice already..within this thread and the other, I was not attempting to validate my beliefs...but rather..I was attempting to understand yours. Try to take time to reflect on the questions being posed in an objective way. You might find many things in life a lot more pleasing to you..and in many cases..you might also find that every opinion that posted that contrasts your own..doesn't demonstrate that one who is out to attack you.

-Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Avoidance is a sign of fear..and fear gives is usually a sign that one believes themselves already defeated.


-FIN

Once again, you saying you win doesn't mean you've actually won. And people avoid your posts because you lie a lot...not because they're scared of you. Seriously, it's like talking to a child.

And, why do you even use the "FIN" thing? 1st, you are never really FIN! and 2nd, you just have to waste time later by telling everybody why you couldn't resist saying more.

It's kinda silly.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Avoidance is a sign of fear..and fear gives is usually a sign that one believes themselves already defeated.

Avoidance is also a sign of annoyance. I find you sad and annoying. A little pathetic even.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why continue to respond to those opinions you deem childish, and what does that say about your overall mentality?

Boredom, that is my only excuse.


Originally posted by whobdamandog
The only distortion taking place is the "distortion" of reality. One that makes you believe that your opinion carries any merit and influence on the general public. Outside of the opinions of yourself and a few others within this forum, how do you come to the assertion that my credibility has been damaged? Your own opinion of my "credibility"...doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the general populace who read these posts K-dog. You are more foolish than I thought..if you truly believe that it does.

Are you going to make me post where you lied again? Remember all that grief that you got before? It would be in your best interest to let it lie. (get it? lie?)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Once again, you saying you win doesn't mean you've actually won. And people avoid your posts because you lie a lot...not because they're scared of you. Seriously, it's like talking to a child.

And, why do you even use the "FIN" thing? 1st, you are never really FIN! and 2nd, you just have to waste time later by telling everybody why you couldn't resist saying more.

It's kinda silly.

I agree.

Whob, don't bother trying to take the intellectual or moral highroad, it will only be a matter of time before the personal attacks and childish behaviour return. It seems to have become a pattern of yours.

If you feel compelled to respond to this, do so by PM, I'm sure the rest of this forum is as tired of reading this garbage as I have become.

Uh, sorry to break the routine of back and forth arguing but...

An amusing metaphor that many door-to-door ID's use is the house I'm in. Thing that seriously ticks them off is if you say that yes, in theory, the house COULD pop up like it is now out of the ground. Different colours come from the different types of wood, the metal just so happens to be shaped like that (as a huge universe exists, happenstance=infinite possibilities) and the architecture is as it is simply out of the tree's survival instinct.

Moral of the story: if they refuse to believe in science, do the same. Say that everything is by chance (it gets some amusing responses.)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
whob, you are just going to take whatever we say and make it fit your crappy lazy attacks on us. It's truly contemptible.

If there are stereotypes here around you, then it is simply because you have created them by always acting the same way.


I find it rather child-like and amusing that you are unable to take responsability for your own responses. Expressing my opinion, does not create the stereotype, however your response to my opinion does.



Let's take into account, that the opinion of my lack of knowledge is coming from an individual whom..

A) Stated that science contains no facts or constants.
B) Stated that Creationism is not a theory(grossly incorrect)
C) Has stated that by definition alone..a particularly field of study should be deemed as a valid/credible science.
D) Processes that exist within nature, but are induced by "man" should not be deemed as part of the natural sciences.
E) Countless other non-sensical ramblings



I apologize..I don't mean to laugh, but the hilarity and hypocrisy behind your assumptions is mind numbing. Take note..before you label someone as ill-informed..please make sure that you are generally more informed on the topic at hand. Thus far in the context of many of these debates..you continue to prove that this isn't the case. Particularly when you demonstrate difficulty understanding fundemental concepts which represent what's being discussed.



FYI..a satire is an exaggeration of something..and take note Ush..that an exaggeration of something doesn't represent truth...

lol.."valid(true) satire"

You don't even understand how "satire" should be used appropriately in a sentence..yet you consistently challenge my intellect and state that I speak gibberish..

....Again Ush..concentrate on the fundementals..such as knowing the terminolgy with which you use when discussing a subject, and demonstrating the ability to form "valid sentence" structures and using correct terminology when attempting to refute my arguments. Perhaps then I won't respond in the typical fashion..and you won't continually be labeled as one who fits withing a "stereotypical" mold.




Thus far..the only thing you've demonstrated within yet another post Ush, is you're inability to reason or think objectively, the inability to use correct terminology and understand the fundementals of the topics you discuss, and the overall arrogant attitude towards any opinion that doesn't reflect the "ignorance" that supports your close minded viewpoints.

Arrogance peppered with self delusion, ignorance, and authority is a deadly thing. For the sake of yourself and many others I can only hope that you do not gain a position of "authority" that extends beyond being a "Mod" in these forums, seeing as how it would have very detremental effect on yourself and many others in the real world.

-Fin

Woah! Look! I found a photo of whob:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/hmbn/creationism.jpg

Congratulations!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Woah! Look! I found a photo of whob:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/hmbn/creationism.jpg

Congratulations!

I'm missing both front teeth..moron..

Apart from that, the artist's rendition is uncannily accurate, wouldn't you say, Billy?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Avoidance is also a sign of annoyance. I find you sad and annoying. A little pathetic even.

Boredom, that is my only excuse.

I agree.




The shorter and less related the response is to the topic..the more whipped your arguments have become.

I once again feel comfortable leaving another debate.
keep the faith

Good Lord, whob, it is staggering how wrong you can be. Just how can one guy get something so very badly wrong?

"A) Stated that science contains no facts or constants.
B) Stated that Creationism is not a theory(grossly incorrect)
C) Has stated that by definition alone..a particularly field of study should be deemed as a valid/credible science.
D) Processes that exist within nature, but are induced by "man" should not be deemed as part of the natural sciences.
E) Countless other non-sensical ramblings"

A. Actually, I didn't state that, I was quoting someone else who did. And it is true. He was saying that Science is not Maths- it is not a collection of airtight proofs. It is the observation of phenomena the the creation of supportable theories to explain it, which are then tested and attacked to see if they withstand. YOU have a skewed view of science that gets it all wrong, assuming that a theory is just any idea you can come up with, and that science is always about finding out 100% accurate things (again, I'll use my example of gravity here), as you just demonstrated AGAIN. Seriously- go back to school and listen carefully this time.

b. Creationism is NOT a theory. There is no scientific backing behind the idea of creationism. It is not supported by evidence and does not fit the observed facts. Again, you have this crazy-ass idea of what a theory is. Creationism does not fit ANY of the hall marks if theory in science- it is not even a hypotheisis, it is simple belief and nothing else. By trying to seriously call Creationism a theory, you are again making yourself a laughing stock. Get with the real world, geez.

Creationism only becomes a theory by your own personal definition of a theory being any idea that you happen to like.

c. The criteria that that is decided on is whether something meets rational and logicial standards; your arguments do not.

d. If you cannot work out that things to do with man are aritificial then there is no hope for you. Science has a much wider scope than simply the world of nature.

e. Your 'e' is just a feeble attempt to get another letter in.

I guarantee you, whob- everyone is seeing YOU as the ignorant and ill-informed one. Your attempt to turn that around on me doesn't mean crap. It looks feeble to me, and to everyone. You can continue to run and hide in your own little world, pretending that I am somehow ignorant, or any other of the throwaway comments you made about me, simply because you cannot handle me shoving the truth under your nose- but it won't help you, and you still expose yourself to everyone else.


Next, I understand satire perfectly well. Where the heck did you learn these things? If you cannot work out that the opening post is indeed a satire of the ID argument then you have a serious problem with recognising things! That is absolutely dumb. Who the hell told you that satire can only be about things that are not true? Or even that it had to be exaggeration? Satire is simply:

"A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. "

Clear? Not the first time you have done this- are you simply ignorant, or once more lying to try and improve your argument? Either way, your fallacy is exposed once more.


You are still poisoning your own cause every time you post, whob. Everyone is growing more and more contemptuous of you as your obvious logical fallacies are exposed time and time again. You just did it again with your comments on my last post... shall we see if you do it again with this one? I am perfectly happy for you to do so, ebcause each time you do- giving myself and others another chance to knock your rotting arguments down- you make our side of the argument more and more convincing, as your arguments continue to consist of nothing but clear misconceptions or obvious lies.

Or you can just strut around saying that you are 'comfortable' to have left the debate and pretend that that denotes any form of superiority or victory- when once again, everyone will see you as the clear loser here.



Fece- the post was not about all Christians, but the attempt by some people to try and equate a certain belief with fact. That would be equally mockable from any religion. The fact that Christianity is the big deal around here simply evidences the cultural background of the boards. Muslim Creationists have similar views but nowhere right now is there a big deal about them trying to be equated with science.

I don't really know alot of the posters views clearly... I would hazard a guess that you all believe in evolution.... Cept whobdamandog...

What do you believe in whobdamandog??
I'm a little lost on the subject and would apreciate any and all info site you could send my way...

Whob is a supporter of the belief of Intelligent Design and that it is a valid scientific theory.

I don't 'believe' in evolution any more than I believe in tables; I accept that the process of science leads towards that being the most likely explanation of the development of life but, like any good scientist, I am open to the possiiblity of a superior explanation. As I have pointed out before, this is the biggest difference between accepting evolution and having a faith- faith remains constant regardless of new explanations or evidence. Science is only ever guided by the evidence.

The root of the debate is the idea that Intelligent Design should be taiught in science class. The opinionnof most most here is that it should not because it is a philisophical belief, not a piece of science- which by any objective definition of science is so. This is unlike Evolution, which regardless of your views of its details is a perfectly valid scientific theory, and hence absolutely belongs in science class.

No-one is actively deriding the basic idea of ID- though I am sure many do hold it in such scorn. The oibjection is to it being labelled as science.

God I wish there were pictures.....

There need not be any violence in the conveying of an idea to other people with different beliefs.

It is wrong of Evolutionists to force their ideas onto Creationists, and it is also just as wrong for Creationists to force their ideas onto Evolutionists.

I believe that nobody will ever have the true answer as to the 'what, where and how' of life. Such absolute existential questions are meaningless and will not afford you inner happiness and peace. We must rather be practical and realistic in our theories, in order to achieve enlightenment in our daily lives.

so... was everything created due to intelligent design.. cause When I look at a human body I see a lot of areas that could have some improvements made... Also were all virus and germs intelligent design... I can for the life of me understand the purpose behind Aids or cancer...

Originally posted by Wonderer
There need not be any violence in the conveying of an idea to other people with different beliefs.

It is wrong of Evolutionists to force their ideas onto Creationists, and it is also just as wrong for Creationists to force their ideas onto Evolutionists.

I believe that nobody will ever have the true answer as to the 'what, where and how' of life. Such absolute existential questions are meaningless and will not afford you inner happiness and peace. We must rather be practical and realistic in our theories, in order to achieve enlightenment in our daily lives.

No one is saying there's anything wrong with the idea of creationism/ID in itself. Trying to claim it as science, though, IS, as it's blatantly not and anyone who's gotten further than high school biology should know that.

Whob, I have a challenge for you. The one and ONLY way you could ever have evidence for ID is if you have evidence that such a higher being exists. Without staggering proof of this, ID holds no water whatsoever. So go and find this evidence.

And I find it quite ironic that you dare to tell other people that they are avoiding something when you yourself are probably the largest dodger this entire site has ever seen.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The shorter and less related the response is to the topic..the more whipped your arguments have become.

I once again feel comfortable leaving another debate.
keep the faith

By into your own delusions. Keep the dream alive.

I hate to beat a dead horse..but often times one finds that the horse wasn't quite as "dead" as it appeared to be. Unfortunately in some cases one must beat the horse many times..to guarantee its' demise.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, whob, it is staggering how wrong you can be. Just how can one guy get something so very badly wrong?


For one who proudly and dogmatically professes their atheistic beliefs, you certainly like to swear upon the name and title of "Christ" a lot.
Moving on...let's examine your responses Ush.



Do you make a concious effort to contradict yourself within your responses, or does this ability just come naturally? Regardless of who presented the argument, both yourself and the "scientist" who posted the erroneous argument continue to grossly contradict yourselves. The core contradiction within the argument lies within the following statements



How can you validate that what the speaker presented is true..if science offers no "airtight proofs" or truths?

Science is full of constants and absolutes. Without even having to reference any mathematical constants(ie such as pie), any scientific concept explored..must first make the "faithful" assumption that these 4 basic "philosophical" truths exist.



What you and the original speaker who presented the peice are attempting to do is force "Naturalistic Humanism" on science. "Relativism" is the belief that absolutes/facts do not exist within nature and life. This a philosophical belief system only!!! And it is a very false one at that.

If it were indeed true..we would live in a world full of chaos and contradictions. But as an rationale minded person can clearly view we do not.

Have you ever seen a clock..that was not created by a clockmaker? Or a clock..that didn't have the purpose of telling/gauging time. The physical world we inhabit is filled with order, design and purpose. From the things that we humans design with our own efforts,(Buildings, Computers, Cars, clocks etc)...to the constants that exist within nature...the very foundations that make up life are full of purpose/order/design.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
b. Creationism is NOT a theory. There is no scientific backing behind the idea of creationism. It is not supported by evidence and does not fit the observed facts. Again, you have this crazy-ass idea of what a theory is. Creationism does not fit ANY of the hall marks if theory in science- it is not even a hypotheisis, it is simple belief and nothing else. By trying to seriously call Creationism a theory, you are again making yourself a laughing stock. Get with the real world, geez.

Creationism only becomes a theory by your own personal definition of a theory being any idea that you happen to like.




Are you going to argue with the dictionary now Ush? They state that Creationsim is a theory as well..perhaps they to represent individuals who are "ill-informed about how the scientific process works...


Originally posted by Ushgarak
c. The criteria that that is decided on is whether something meets rational and logicial standards; your arguments do not.


Pretty weak response. So I take it that you are in agreement with me, about a concept not being deemed as a valid science, strictly by its definition alone. On another note..I would like to know by whose logical standards should mine/other arguments be evaluated by ..yours?
Perhaps "objective" standards should only be determined by those who support evolutionary theory...

Do you truly not realize the dogmatic and religious you come accross when presenting these types of views?


Originally posted by Ushgarak
d. If you cannot work out that things to do with man are aritificial then there is no hope for you. Science has a much wider scope than simply the world of nature.


You have no idea of what "artificial" means. As I've already stated multiple times...despite what you have been lead to believe..or to hard headed to admit..."man made" things are the result processes and elements that exist within the natural world. If you truly want to get into the "wider scope" of things..such as the metaphysical fantasies that embody cosmology..then perhaps you should take your own advice..and leave those types of belief's open to discussion in Philosophy class.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
e. Your 'e' is just a feeble attempt to get another letter in.
I guarantee you, whob- everyone is seeing YOU as the ignorant and ill-informed one. Your attempt to turn that around on me doesn't mean crap. It looks feeble to me, and to everyone. You can continue to run and hide in your own little world, pretending that I am somehow ignorant, or any other of the throwaway comments you made about me, simply because you cannot handle me shoving the truth under your nose- but it won't help you, and you still expose yourself to everyone else.


Perhaps you should read current statistics Ush.. which relate to what we are currently debating..many within the US..in fact a good majority of people(around 50%) agree that ID should be allowed to be taught in Science class..as opposed to this "illusionary" majority you believe you/others represent. Your followers only represent a select few dinks within this forum..as opposed to your idea of "everyone else."




Let me break this down as simple as I can...

A satire my friend..is a fictional/exaggerated scenario.

A fictional scenario is not true.

Something that is valid represents something that is true.

Thus your statement "valid satirical refutation"..is an illogical statement.

Some valid advice my friend..cut down on the length of your responses. Posting more, doesn't make your point anymore truthful.




You truly exist within a realm of illusionary grandeur Ush, and my sympathies go out to anyone who has to deal with you in the real world. Such arrogance can only be overshadowed by extreme ignorance..and in both cases my friends, anyone who attempts to stand up to the "gold standard" you've presented in both of these areas, will definately have some difficult shoes to fill.

If you would like to continue this debate on Humanism..please post any response there.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I don't really know alot of the posters views clearly... I would hazard a guess that you all believe in evolution.... Cept whobdamandog...

What do you believe in whobdamandog??
I'm a little lost on the subject and would apreciate any and all info site you could send my way...

Here's a rather informative site Hit.

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

It gives an In depth description of ID, Neo Darwinism, and a host of other scientific issues.

Hey! This is MY subject. I started it first! Moderator!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Here's a rather informative site Hit.

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

It gives an In depth description of ID, Neo Darwinism, and a host of other scientific issues.




great source. i have a better theory:
the dinosaurs all died out because they came up with a theory
of evolution, which angered the invisible man in the sky, so he
smited them, every one. amen

Originally posted by PVS

great source. i have a better theory:
the dinosaurs all died out because they came up with a theory
of evolution, which angered the invisible man in the sky, so he
smited them, every one. amen

so much anger

Intelligent Design is not intelligent.

How could a limited god create the universe?

The only dead horse here are your own views, whob. I see your 'staying away' form this thread lasted all of a day; which is neatly demonstrative of how wrong you always are!

Let's have a look at what you say:

"Science is full of constants and absolutes"

Lie. Science is the construction of theories that explain observed phenomena. Everything that science works on is based on theories- evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics... Scientific theories can never be 'fully' proven unless you somehow manage to observe and test every single conceptual thing in the Universe, in every way, in every place, in every tiny fraction of time. Nothing is 100% certain- it is conceptually impossible.

A theory CAN be contradticted, however, and this is the mechanic of science. Once you have established a workable theory with evidence to support it, an exhaustive effort is made to see if the theory is contradicted by any observed effect. if a theory is proposed, and it can withstand attempts to contradict, then it stands.

I hate to tell you this, whob, because you still labour under this massive misapprehension of what science is, but just about all modern advances in technology have been made on that basis alone. So if you want to disbelieve evolution on that basis, feel free to think that gravity is bull as well, simply because we cannot observe its formation. Which of course we never can- but we can observe its effects and discern its nature from there. That is the exact same process that evolution followed.

Again- go back to school, and pay attention in science class this time.

Incidentally, what the speaker says na be validated as true because the nature of the scientific method itself is NOT science. That is simply fact, like the rules of a football game. That is what it is; get used to it.

You once more make referenc to 'Naturalistic Humanism'. Once more, that is pure golden crap. For those who do not know, the term given above is one that Creationists use to label scientists to try and make out that scientists are following a belief system, as much a belief system as any religion.

It is, of course, the supremest bollocks to say that. As I continually say, science differs from a belief system funadmentally in the nature that it is continually open to revision and change- where faith is the exact opposite, it resists change regardless of presented evidence.

Secondly, science does not approach life from any pre-defined scientifc viewpoint. The four processes that whob refers to are NOT a prerequiste of the operation of science alone, it is the prerequisite of performing any rational action in this world; the same process early hunter gatheres used to select the best crops. The scientific method grwe up from that basis and it is the same basis all of us use to interact in life- religious or non religious. The sun rises evet day, people don't just fly off into space, and effect follows cause. Faith then lays down a set explanations for all this and refuses to differ. Science, in contrast, uses that same concept of rationality to try and discern the underlying mechanics behind those processes.

So despite the fact that every Human on Earth believes in those concepts, religious types like whob (who, incidentally, would have no reason to even try and argue if they thought the above concepts were not true, because argument is an intellectual process that depends on such things) try and shove them onto scientists alone and make out that they follow their own belief system. Utter crap, and to be continuously exposed as the rubbish it is. The scientif method is NOT a relativistic belief system- that is a lie. It is contrary to belief by its very nature. Belief is not a factor within it- only the collection of observable evidence.

You could, of course, try and bring in an argument of philisophical scpeticism, which boils down to NOTHING existing save yourself, but not only is that an intellectual dead end, it is also one that would simply have left modern civilisation... well, non-existant. As it is, common sense application of the rational scientific method has led to the (relatively) advanced culture we have today.

Odd that you mention clockmakers- I recommend you read the book "The Blind Watchmaker" to understand why evolution, in no way at all, implies chaos- quite the opposite. It is beautifully ordered, and fully automatic.


Interesting that you try and clock me for arguing with dictionaries, as you yourself have completely failed to grasp the meaning of satire. Let's have a look at what you said there:

"A satire my friend..is a fictional/exaggerated scenario.

A fictional scenario is not true.

Something that is valid represents something that is true.

Thus your statement "valid satirical refutation"..is an illogical statement.

Some valid advice my friend..cut down on the length of your responses. Posting more, doesn't make your point anymore truthful."

Put your hands up if you also spotted that no intelligence was behind this mad jumble of sentences?

One hardly knows where to begin in refuting the incredibly stupid non-sequiturs here. First of all, you say satire can be either fictional or exaggerated, and then continue your postulation on the fictional idea alone. But your secondmistake is the hugrst- you try and make out that I was saying that it was a TRUE event being used as satitr.

DUH!

I said that it was VALID SATIRE! As in something that qualifies as satire. Bloody hell, a five year old could have understood that. The statement was these two things:

1. A valid piece of satire- as in, not something purporting to be satire but actually not.

2. A refutation.

Hence, I called it a 'valid satirical refutation'. Now, have you got that, or shall I speak more slowly to you?

Meanwhile, anyone can look in a decent dictionary- rather than the crappy one you are using- and see how the opening post exactly fits the definition of satire, that I posted aboe, taken from a much better dictionary.

Because yes, the selective definitiion of Creationism you have quoted there is nonsense. Creationism is purely faith based. it is not based on observed, tested phenonena that are then attacked, it simply is, and nothing else. Hence, it does not meet the definition of 'theory'. It is just an idea and anothing more. There is no scientific process behind it, hence it cannot be put at ths same level as Evolution.

If there WAS such evidence for Creationism, scientists would accept it as a theory. That's the point- scientists don't have a pre-determined agenda. They simply make theories out of the available observable evidence.

Meanwhile...

No, I don't sound dogmatic or relgiious at all when putting my views across- only you think that. Others simply recognise the rationality and logic behind it all. Talking of rationality... try proving that the scientific study of economics has anything to do with nature at all. You can't, so you will then note that science does not automatically imply nature.


I don't care how many irrational fools think ID should be equated with Evolution. The world is full of such people; they used to think the world is flat, after all. I am talking about HERE, and people reading THIS argument. It is people here that you are totally failing to convince, and again and again and again are being totally slammed down upon in every argument you make.


So then. There are no illusions in what I speak of. Once mopre, I present the cold, hard facts, which are blowing your argument into tiny tiny peices, as anyone here can see. Meanwhile, you continue to make moronic statements like the one above about satire, and further destroy your own argumment.

You done yet? You going to calim to be done, but then come back anyway? Go ahead then. Like I say, the more you post, the more you sabotage your own views, and that suits me just fine. Continue to believe that I am this evil person you want me to be, but the truth is simply that the truth hurts, and all the intelligent people here know that when you try and cast me down like that, that is simply the desperate flailing of a beaten man.

"Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago. Some of these creatures survived and inhabited earth with man, until they too went extinct as man killed them for sport, safety, and expansion (like black bears in Florida and bison in the Western U.S)"

what cracks me up is it seems...according to that site whob provided...that the flintstones was actually sort of a historical documentary

looks like fred couldnt get enough of those brontoburgers

science is the DEVIL!!!! fear

now let us all bow our heads and pray for forgiveness for even discussing this

uh that was sarcasm right??

shhhh!!!!!!! i'm trying to pray here.

Thing is we now see a complete reversal - once sciebtists were mocked for their views now the religious are - At least by people like PVS. No I do not believe Biblical Intelligent design although like Eistein, Bohr etc I reconcile my faith with my science as best I can. I do not believe orthodox Jews should be mocked for banning Jurassic Park on release in Israel, although I do not agree with it. Some people like PVS need to become more tolerant, they will never convince people a view is right even if it is by berating them.

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Thing is we now see a complete reversal - once sciebtists were mocked for their views now the religious are - At least by people like PVS. No I do not believe Biblical Intelligent design although like Eistein, Bohr etc I reconcile my faith with my science as best I can. I do not believe orthodox Jews should be mocked for banning Jurassic Park on release in Israel, although I do not agree with it. Some people like PVS need to become more tolerant, they will never convince people a view is right even if it is by berating them.



and some obnoxious trolls need to find a new hobbie

not you of coarse...just saying

Originally posted by PVS
and some obnoxious trolls need to find a new hobbie

not you of coarse...just saying

















I'm glad your not telling me to find a new hobby, I woould not want to be another person who you argue with on here you, you seem to have so many

Your more relaxed today that's a good sign

I think PVS hacks more on people not so much for them being religious as much as them being either ignorant and religious or stupid and religious.

The religion seems to take a back seat to the personality, but that's just my take, I could be wrong, have been before, will be again.

so tell me, do you use smilies to mask the fact that you're angry and crying when you post, or do you think that they somehow validate a thoughtless and benign post like this:


Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Thing is we now see a complete reversal - once sciebtists were mocked for their views now the religious are - At least by people like PVS. No I do not believe Biblical Intelligent design although like Eistein, Bohr etc I reconcile my faith with my science as best I can. I do not believe orthodox Jews should be mocked for banning Jurassic Park on release in Israel, although I do not agree with it. Some people like PVS need to become more tolerant, they will never convince people a view is right even if it is by berating them.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I think PVS hacks more on people not so much for them being religious as much as them being either ignorant and religious or stupid and religious.

The religion seems to take a back seat to the personality, but that's just my take, I could be wrong, have been before, will be again.

He often hacks at AC who can be annoying but is not ignorant.
I don't think Whobd is either - I used to think PVS was OK, he just seems an angry guy these days

Originally posted by PVS
so tell me, do you use smilies to mask the fact that you're angry and crying when you post, or do you think that they somehow validate a thoughtless and benign post like this:






more anger and intolerance

Originally posted by Lana
Too bad that no one found it funny and just found it highly pathetic - and sad - that he could not come up with anything better with which to defend his beliefs than to accuse all of us of groupthinking.

But then again, since we all agree on this, he's probably going to come in and accuse us of 'groupthink' again! Oh dear.

But then again, I see this groupthink logic works both ways -- never has he accused anyone who agrees with HIM of groupthink, I have noticed. That's how I found the original post.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Here's a rather informative site Hit.

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

It gives an In depth description of ID, Neo Darwinism, and a host of other scientific issues.

The following is quoted from the "ABOUT US" section of that website.



"Our Mission

Our mission is to lead people to Jesus and help them grow in their relationship with Him. We strive to deliver compelling evidence for the Christian faith to seekers, believers, and a skeptical world. We seek to be non-threatening, practical and informative, using the technology of the Internet to answer tough questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Christianity."

This is obviously a website with a genuine bias and a specific cause that would lead them to only support creationism and any/all beliefs that fit into their view. Not a valid, sound, credible or reasonable source by any means.

This is a prime example of the Religious movement, with alterior motives, trying to push religious propaganda into the realm of science based on lies, deceptions and distorted ideas to help defend their actions.

I see what your saying but all religions and all pressue groups are always biased. By there very nature they have to be - Muslems have biased beliefs, Catholics have biased beliefs, Jews have biased beliefs etc, I could give specific examples but I don't want to insult your intellince. Something like The Last Three minutes by Paul Davies or the First three minutes the book that promted it provide a great deal of evidence in favour of the big bang "theory" e.g. microwave radiation traced back etc. The Blind Watchmaker or River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins provide high levels of evidence for post Darwinian evolution, however these still remain theories. They also have holes in and reputable scientists have put forward alternatives.

We risk by absolute disregard of alternatives finding metaphorically that "the world is flat".

'These remain theories' is a statement that again betrays ignorance of the scientific process.

There is nothing 'only' about a theory. Theory is about as good as it gets in science- as I pointed out, gravity is a theory.

As it is, what those scientists put forwards were hypotheses. They may possibly be considered theory but., as you say, they are still under attack and mjay have to be refined to avoid being contradicted.

But even if they did as well as they could possibly do, they would still never be 'more' then theories. There is no more to get to.

Science, as I also repeatedly pointed out, is very strongly about always being open to alternatives- if they can be evidenced.

Yes, all relgions are biased and that's exactly why this crap shouldn't be taught in science! All sources that claim that "there is valid scientific evidence for ID" are like the site whob referenced and have an agenda that they are desperately clinging too and trying to sneak past folk.

Actually theories are not as good as it gets proofs and laws are a slighly better kind of theory. Please I suspect my level of scientific education is as high as most on this board.

Well clearly there are some issues with it as that is incorrect.

As I have repeatedly said, science is not about absolute proof, it is about finding evidence for workable theories to explain observed phenomena. That's all science ever does, and it is all any idea trying to explain the development of life on this planet is ever going to get. Theory is the upper end.

It so happens that workable theories are very powerfulm;not airy-fairy things that are not really so, as people tend to have a habit of believing.

Laws are simply examples of observed phenomena; you still need a theory to explain why they are laws.

Sorry, but saying that these things 'remain theories' shows serious issue with understanding of science. You would have to discard most of mankind's scientific knowledge on that basis.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well clearly there are some issues with it as that is incorrect.

As I have repeatedly said, science is not about absolute proof, it is about finding evidence for workable theories to explain observed phenomena. That;s all science ever does, and it is all any idea trying to explain the development of life on this planet is ever going to get. Theory is the upper end.

It so happens that workable theories are very powerful; not airy-fairy things that are not really so, as people tend to have a habit of believing.

Laws are simply examples of observed phenomena; you still need a theory to explain why they are laws.

Sorry, but saying that these things 'remain theories' shows serious issue with understanding of science. You would have to discard most of mankind's scientific knowledge on that basis.

I don't disagree with you you cannot have absolute proof read my post again.
Post Darwinian evolution is only a theory and I am saying that as a Molecular Biologist with Degrees from Notts Poly, Southbank Uni and Uni of London.

Laws rely on theories I said that.
No Science is a tool giving us the best understanding with outr present level of knowledge.
If Albert and Issac could believe in God and reconcile their faith with science I can also.

I do not say disregard mans knowlege but Laws get revised look at the Law of conservation of Mass.

You do understand what "uncertainty" means in "broadest" terms Ush.

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Actually theories are not as good as it gets proofs and laws are a slighly better kind of theory. Please I suspect my level of scientific education is as high as most on this board.

But it takes a lot of time and refinement for a theory to become a law. Evolution needs hundreds of years of study before we can have a good enough understanding to determine any laws from it. We are talking about processes that take hundreds of millions of years, and to think we would have any real understand after such a short time. In hundreds of years we will have a truer understanding, if we are allowed to continue the process unabated and uncorrupted.

Again, you say 'only' a theory as if it could ever be anything better, which is still nonsense. Do you really think that things like gravity are 'only' theories? As I say, if you disregard something because it is 'only' a theory, you would lose all the basis for those laws as well. That WOULD be discarding man's knowledge. Scientific progress is based upon working theories.

I don't see what laws being revised has to do with it, that only goes along with what I say.

And the idea that a scientist can have faith is hardly an issue either- so long as that faith is not taught as science, as is the issue here.

whob and others keep asking for absolute proof of evolution, as if science depends on it and the absence of it dooms the theory. I am sure you at least agree that that is nonsense because there is no such thing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you say 'only' a theory as if it could ever be anything better, which is still nonsense. Do you really think that things like gravity are 'only' theories? As I say, if you disregard something because it is 'only' a theory, you would lose all the basis for those laws as well. That WOULD be discarding man's knowledge. Scientific progress is based upon working theories.

I don't see what laws being revised has to do with it, that only goes along with what I say.

And the idea that a scientist can have faith is hardly an issue either- so long as that faith is not taught as science, as is the issue here.

whob and others keep asking for absolute proof of evolution, as if science depends on it and the absence of it dooms the theory. I am sure you at least agree that that is nonsense because there is no such thing.

theories are models and open to change - The theories we have now are a "best fit" - The theories we have in the future will fit better.

They may involve a radical shift

I had to shortnen your posts..they take up way too much space, and I don't believe everyone wants to be forced to read them again..I've managed to keep the main points and replaced most of the rambling with "blah..blah" so that you'll believe that I truly am trying to respond to each of them..sigh..where to begin...


Originally posted by Ushgarak
blah..blah..

Scientific theories can never be 'fully' proven unless you somehow manage to observe and test every single conceptual thing in the Universe...

Nothing is 100% certain- it is conceptually impossible.


Everything in the Universe must be tested..for a theory to be fully proven?

Your rationale is clearly approaching the level of a childlike at this point.

So nothing in science is definitive or proven...lol..well answer these questions for me please Ush..Oh hell I'll answer them for you...

Can a physician determine whether or not an individual is dead?

Will you die someday?

Does force = mass * acceleration?

Does momentum = mass * velocity?

Is 2+2=4

Are you a moron?

These are all constants Ush..but wait..are you going to now tell me..there's no definitive way to tell if someone is dead, to determine momentum, or to prove that 2+2 = 4..? How did we technologically advance all these years..if we had no definitive ways of proving these things?

Think long and hard about your faith my friend, and the absurdity which you've just attested to believing in. Please end this discussion on constants and absolutes Ush..you only continue to make yourself look more pathetic.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
A theory CAN be contradticted, however, and this is the mechanic of science...blah..blah..


Of course a theory can be contradicted. A theory doesn't necessarily equate to being "truth" That's what has been pointed out about your "faith" the entire time within this thread. All a theory is essentially is an "explanation"..anyone can make up an explanation of something to support what they believe in. That's really common sense stuff Ush. You make things way too complex.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I hate to tell you this, whob, because you still labour under this massive misapprehension of what science is..blah..blah..


My disbelief in "Darwinian" Theory..ie life evolved from protoplasmic goo..doesn't mean that I disregard valid scientific concepts. The typical strategy of many who oppose Neo-Darwinist's like yourself..is the "Divide and Conquer" method. You automatically paint anyone who disagrees with your foolish pseudo scientific ramblings..as being an opponent of "science." This is simply not the case my friend. I'm not opposed to anyone teaching evolutionary theory...rather, I like many others just wish to have their "philosophical" viewpoints regarded with as much credo as Darwinian ones.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally, what the speaker says na be validated as true because the nature of the scientific method itself is NOT science. That is simply fact, like the rules of a football game. That is what it is; get used to it.


The nature of the scientific method is not science?...LMFAO

Please enlighten me Ush..if the SCIENTIFIC Method's nature is not based on SCIENTIFIC rationale..what is it based on? Thrill me Ush..I could use a couple more laughs...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You once more make referenc to 'Naturalistic Humanism'. Once more, that is pure golden crap. For those who do not know, the term given above is one that Creationists use to label scientists to try and make out that scientists are following a belief system, as much a belief system as any religion.


The argument is ID vs Science..it is ID vs Darwinism. Both are philosophical concepts. How many times must this be repeated to you?!!

And stop using the silly "They're attacking science!!" speel. It's getting old. It's just as easy for me to post.."Darwinism is a Religion..not science!!!" to counter. Why don't you attempt to attack the actual foundations of the theory. I'll post them for you..




Originally posted by Ushgarak

The four processes that whob refers to are NOT a prerequiste of the operation of science alone..blah..blah..

It is, of course, the supremest bollocks to say that. As I continually say, science differs from a belief system funadmentally in the nature that it is continually open to revision and change..blah..blah *10^10000


The worse your points get whipped..the more crap you post..I guess your attempting to minimize the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Basically what I got out of the statement above was this.



So to nail the hammer on the head. You agree that there are some things assumed to be "absolute truths" within science. Rationality, Intelligibility, Orderliness, and Uniformity..are all assumed to true, before administering any test. (**note this makes them absolutely 100% fact!!!) We can't test these things Ush..so we just assume that they are facts. This argument on absolutes is over, seeing as how you've just aided me in shooting down your own argument.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Odd that you mention clockmakers- I recommend you read the book "The Blind Watchmaker" to understand why evolution, in no way at all, implies chaos- quite the opposite. It is beautifully ordered, and fully automatic.


Blind watchmaker..haven't read it..but it sounds like a stupid book..with an oxymoronic title..only a dummy would allude system as complex as the universe being formed..by "blind chance"

Much of Einsteins "Theory of Relativity" and "Clockmaker" ideas, allude to something of intelligence creating the Universe. "Relativity" was really only meant to represent how the "Intelligent Designer" viewed the universe, not how we as human beings view it.

Think about it..if you had the ability to create time/space/reality etc..what the hell do those things mean to you? Answer: Nothing seeing as how you can take them away or do anything you want with them on a whim.

Case in point..What Einstein was trying to imply..is that we live in a world that is full of absolutes..but these absolutes are merely "relative" to the one who created the Universe..seeing as what he/she has created all things which embody it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I said that it was VALID SATIRE...blah..blah..I'm such a dink..

Hence, I called it a 'valid satirical refutation'. Now, have you got that, or shall I speak more slowly to you?


True satire...lol..give it up bud..a satire is not true statement, story, etc...by its very definition..it is not true...

It would be like if your were attempting to state he told a true fabricated story?..Does that make sense?..I don't think so my friend..Are you really that arrogant and foolish..to the point where you even begin to challenge the definition of words given in a dictionary? Please don't answer that question..its rhetorical. We already know the answer to that one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, anyone can look in a decent dictionary-

Because yes, the selective definitiion of Creationism you have quoted there is nonsense.


LMFAO!!

Meriam Webster is not a Descent dictionary?!!! Well it's only been around for the past 100 years or so..no further comment is necessary here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If there WAS such evidence for Creationism, scientists would accept it as a theory. That's the point- scientists don't have a pre-determined agenda. They simply make theories out of the available observable evidence.

Meanwhile...

No, I don't sound dogmatic or relgiious at all when putting my views across- only you think that.

blah..blah..

I don't care how many irrational fools think ID should be equated with Evolution.

So then. There are no illusions in what I speak of...(except the illusion of "victory"


Ush your challenging definitions given by the dictionary..

Stating that science has no facts to support it...

Stating that everything in the Universe must be proven to make sure that a scientific concept...

Among countless other foolish things...

Maybe you're right my friend you don't sound all that religious...now you simply are just coming across as stupid.




Perhaps..until you post some other moronic comment..I find it quite amusing putting your "scientific" cold hard facts down..(note..I thought science had no absolute proofs?)

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
theories are models and open to change - The theorries we have now are a "best fit" - The theories we have in the future will fit better.

They may involve a radical shift

But of course. As I continually say, all theories are open to change and re-interpretation as new evidence and appraoches come to light. That is the very essence of science.

Our understanding of the world around us continually changhes and shifts and improves- that's true of both gravity and evolution.

Wow whob, you're not only posting biased websites with an obvious agenda and claiming them to be "good sources" but now you're actually altering the quotes of Ush to try and help your side of the argument.

Yeah, Group think is indeed the reason why everyone disagrees with you. Couldn't just be that you present your arguements in a petty, flawed and pathetic manner.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But of course. As I continually say, all theories are open to change and re-interpretation as new evidence and appraoches come to light. That is the very essence of science.

Our understanding of the world around us continually changhes and shifts and improves- that's true of both gravity and evolution.

Then why are you disagreeing with me?

I think you need to reread my posts - Its the idea of absolutism that worries me, Originally when I went to University and I still believe it now, the "chemical soup" not disimilair to the orgaic compounds in hot springs in Iceland led to life on Earth. However since the Mars Rock some very reputable scientists postulate bacteria from Space could have led to life on Earth. I don't know which it was. It could have been God. Can any off us say for certain it was not.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I think PVS hacks more on people not so much for them being religious as much as them being either ignorant and religious or stupid and religious.

The religion seems to take a back seat to the personality, but that's just my take, I could be wrong, have been before, will be again.



Where Picador goes dodger follows... The more you guys post..the more you support my initial argument of "Groupthink." I have no idea why you all have so much angst towards those whose beliefs oppose your own. If this forum carries so much importance to yourself PMS, and few other dinks whom support you, then I truly pity you, and perhaps I should tone my arguments a bit..so as I don't offend those who are "tender" hearted.











I should start a new thread entitled Picador and Friends.

The Blindwatchmaker is a book about post Darwinian theory Ush - it maybe the most famous popularist science book of all - It actually supports the view of no creator hmmmm. You shouldn't just disregard things - sometimes people put things into posts for other reasons.

Its cool though.

Hang on, where is this coming from? Where did I ever say I disregarded it? Just a few posts ago I even recommended it to whob, before you mentioned it.

Are you confusing what whob said with what I did?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hang on, where is this coming from? Where did I ever say I disregarded it? Just a few posts ago I even recommended it to whob, before you mentioned it.

Are you confusing what whob said with what I did?

perhaps, i'll reread your post.

I admit the post is a mess. But the parts inside quote marks are whob's. Excewpt there is a missing " at the end of his comment about satire... which still defies belief.

(The comment, not the missing ", which is easy to believe).

I'm so confused...hi ush:-)

Hey Julie!

(waves)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I admit the post is a mess. But the parts inside quote marks are whob's. Excewpt there is a missing " at the end of his comment about satire... which still defies belief.

(The comment, not the missing ", which is easy to believe).

Yes it was my mistake - Have you read River out of Eden by Dawkins?

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Then why are you disagreeing with me?

I think you need to reread my posts - Its the idea of absolutism that worries me, Originally when I went to University and I still believe it now, the "chemical soup" not disimilair to the orgaic compounds in hot springs in Iceland led to life on Earth. However since the Mars Rock some very reputable scientists postulate bacteria from Space could have led to life on Earth. I don't know which it was. It could have been God. Can any off us say for certain it was not.

Well, it seems to me that we weren;t actually disagreeing at all, we just misinterpreted each other. Looking at us both having mentioned the same book and the same concepts, I think we are pretty much on the same side of the boat.

Holy ****ing shit.

I swear, the logic (or seeming lack thereof) of some people simply defies belief.

Two questions, whob, that you need to answer.

1) Where is your evidence that a higher intelligence exists, the one that supposedly created everything?
2) If everything was created by a higher intelligence, then why are there so many imperfections in this world in general, and humans in particular?

I note that you skipped over my post before asking for evidence of such a higher being. I suppose that you did so because you could produce no such thing.

And you say others avoid things.....

Originally posted by Lana
Holy ****ing shit.

I swear, the logic (or seeming lack thereof) of some people simply defies belief.

Two questions, whob, that you need to answer.

1) Where is your evidence that a higher intelligence exists, the one that supposedly created everything?
2) If everything was created by a higher intelligence, then why are there so many imperfections in this world in general, and humans in particular?

I note that you skipped over my post before asking for evidence of such a higher being. I suppose that you did so because you could produce no such thing.

And you say others avoid things.....

This is where people either have faith or do not.

Bohr, Albert, Issac, Feynman all had it and they were pretty good scientists imo

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
This is where people either have faith or do not.

Bohr, Albert, Issac, Feynman all had it and they were pretty good scientists imo

Yes, but did these scientists think that their religious beliefs should be taught as Science?

That's where the problem is arrising, not from simple religious beliefs.

Having Faith never made anyone a bad scientist.

But treating faith AS science is bad science. The two have clear distinctions.

Even scientists without faith have philisophical beliefs, and those should be separated also.

I am afraid that book slipped me by.

Having real faith means that it ought to affect your life....if you teach for a living, wanting to teach what you believe is natural.

Originally posted by Julie
Having real faith means that it ought to affect your life....if you teach for a living, wanting to teach what you believe is natural.

But it should be taught in the correct subject/context.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Where Picador goes dodger follows... The more you guys post..the more you support my initial argument of "Groupthink." I have no idea why you all have so much angst towards those whose beliefs oppose your own. If this forum carries so much importance to yourself PMS, and few other dinks whom support you, then I truly pity you, and perhaps I should tone my arguments a bit..so as I don't offend those who are "tender" hearted.











I should start a new thread entitled Picador and Friends.


I have been asked to point out that there is a misquote in this post by whob, which syas that Kharma says something, that in fact PVS did.

Do please be careful with the quote feature to make accurate attribution.

Originally posted by BackFire
But it should be taught in the correct subject/context.

Exactly - I'm sorry, but a religious belief with zero evidence to support it has no place in a science classroom.

Backfire, my point was that the "correct context" is everything if your faith is real...faith becomes your life.

Yes, but you wouldn't teach it in gym class, would you?

All things belong in their place.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Having Faith never made anyone a bd scientist.

But treating faith As science is bad science. The two have clear distinctions.

Even scientists without faith have philisophical beliefs, and those should be separated also.

I am afraid that book slipped me by.


Well worth a read Dawkins explains in it how evolution works. He gives a contemporary account of how the almost infinite variety of forms of life on Earth are explained by the powerful elegance of natural selection. He makes the point that never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions - That is the power of Darwins theory it is also ultimately its biggest weakness in the post Chaos world and something like Ian Stewarts "Natures Numbers" which looks at ordered systems and spontaneous organisation might be used to either support it or pick holes in it depending how far around it you have read. Unfortunately Darwins theory is outdated and I could get into Genetic Mosaics etc, but I am not sure if people are familiar with these ideas.

I agree that Dawrin's theory is outdated- it is somethihg I pointed out to whob above when he tried to claim that scientists were being baised by a 'belief' in 'Darwinism'.

Couldn't really be further from the truth, could it? They aren't biased, it's not a belief, and much of the work now goes into saying where he was wrong.

please do get into genetic mosaics I'd love to hear about it.

in gym class you're teaching how to play certain games/ sports and you don't lecture at the kids about evo or ID....but through your attitude and actions you demonstrate the wonders the human body is capable of....Yes, I know that's complicating ush's simple statement....I do understand your point ush....and you are correct, one would not outright teach "it" in a gym class:-)

If you force your beliefs upon others, and pass it off as fact is the same as discriminating against others with different beliefs. Even if you want to teach what you believe, it is not morally right to teach what should be offered as an option. Your beliefs are such that you believe it because you have a degree of faith, not because it has been taught to you as the only option. Schools may not teach intelligent design, but is certainly an option for anyone to know if they care enough to do research.

Ex. The curriculum may not cover matrix algebra, but if you choose to learn it, it is a viable alternative to factoring.

It is not neccessary for everyone to agree on a subject (it is impossible to rob a person of their belief), but if disagreements reach the point where personal attacks become the norm, well, that's where wars start.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I agree that Dawrin's theory is outdated- it is somethihg I pointed out to whob above when he tried to claim that scientists were being baised by a 'belief' in 'Darwinism'.

Couldn't really be further from the truth, could it? They aren't biased, it's not a belief, and much of the work now goes into saying where he was wrong.

Yes it does it would have been cool if Mendel a monk and later Abbott ( as I am sure you are aware) had been able to act more freely in his life and his work had been more accepted whilst he was alive. The constraints of Religion - Interestingly Mendel became a monk because it provided for him - although he did believe.

Mendel and Darwin were contemporaries of each other and Darwin was unaware of Mendels work. crazy huh.

Originally posted by Julie
please do get into genetic mosaics I'd love to hear about it.

in gym class you're teaching how to play certain games/ sports and you don't lecture at the kids about evo or ID....but through your attitude and actions you demonstrate the wonders the human body is capable of....Yes, I know that's complicating ush's simple statement....I do understand your point ush....and you are correct, one would not outright teach "it" in a gym class:-)

basically in simplest terms mosaics are where more than one gene complex affects how protein synthesis affects expression, it can lead to all sorts of unusual results including mottled skin. Mosaics can not be explained in simple natural selection principles and go beyond the ideas of Mendels work.

Originally posted by crazylozer
If you force your beliefs upon others, and pass it off as fact is the same as discriminating against others with different beliefs. Even if you want to teach what you believe, it is not morally right to teach what should be offered as an option. Your beliefs are such that you believe it because you have a degree of faith, not because it has been taught to you as the only option. Schools may not teach intelligent design, but is certainly an option for anyone to know if they care enough to do research.

Ex. The curriculum may not cover matrix algebra, but if you choose to learn it, it is a viable alternative to factoring.

It is not neccessary for everyone to agree on a subject (it is impossible to rob a person of their belief), but if disagreements reach the point where personal attacks become the norm, well, that's where wars start.

I think this is sakting around the point again- no-one is saying ID should not be taight. Only that it should not be taught in science class, because it has no scientific backing.

There are different classes where beliefs can be taught.

I believe the current school system works ok...

I learned Religious stuff in RE class...
I learned Science stuff in Science class...

Though cause I went to a Religious school both classes didn't want to answer questions with relation to sexual contraception or evolution cept what was stated in the books...

My RE teacher was quite "new age"... she called most of the teachings "examples" and most of the current rules "obsolete" in our current society..

so what should be taught in science class???

Science.

Uhh, science, hence the name. Things that are taken as scientific theories and are backed up with real evidence.

Creationism does not fall under this criteria.

Originally posted by Lana
Uhh, science, hence the name. Things that are taken as scientific theories and are backed up with real evidence.

Creationism does not fall under this criteria.

In the UK the entire curriculum for Science changes Sept 2006 - for most core becomes a Geography type thing, its really dumbing down for the sake of figures.

I think this whole debate is centered on what science is...if it's a collection of theories on how things work, change, begin...then creationism as a theory of how things began is valid.

It's not of scientific nature and thus doesn't belong in science.

Originally posted by Julie
I think this whole debate is centered on what science is...if it's a collection of theories on how things work, change, begin...then creationism as a theory of how things began is valid.

*sighs*

Creationism is not a theory. A theory is a scientific hypothesis that a large amount of evidence has been found to support it. Creationism HAS no evidence -- it is simply a belief. It is not scientific, it is not a theory, and it has no place in a science class.

Originally posted by Lana
*sighs*

Creationism is not a theory. A theory is a scientific hypothesis that a large amount of evidence has been found to support it. Creationism HAS no evidence -- it is simply a belief. It is not scientific, it is not a theory, and it has no place in a science class.

Time to get out the Descarte, he claims Epistemology is based on doubt.

First of all boy genius, learn to use the quotation feature correctly, or at least use the cut and paste correctly, I know you have difficulty with relaying info and not distorting it, but please try harder.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Where Picador goes dodger follows... The more you guys post..the more you support my initial argument of "Groupthink." I have no idea why you all have so much angst towards those whose beliefs oppose your own. If this forum carries so much importance to yourself PMS, and few other dinks whom support you, then I truly pity you, and perhaps I should tone my arguments a bit..so as I don't offend those who are "tender" hearted.

Instead of toning them down, keeping them focused and without deception would be a good start.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

I should start a new thread entitled Picador and Friends.

Claim a false victory and let it lie. Crawl into a whole for a while and let it lie. I know you know how to lie. Now you have to 'let it lie'.

However, if you are so compelled to start a thread about another member that would inevitably lead to a flame war, go right ahead. If you do, I look forward to your banning.

Originally posted by BackFire
The following is quoted from the "ABOUT US" section of that website.



"Our Mission

Our mission is to lead people to Jesus and help them grow in their relationship with Him. We strive to deliver compelling evidence for the Christian faith to seekers, believers, and a skeptical world. We seek to be non-threatening, practical and informative, using the technology of the Internet to answer tough questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Christianity."

This is obviously a website with a genuine bias and a specific cause that would lead them to only support creationism and any/all beliefs that fit into their view. Not a valid, sound, credible or reasonable source by any means.

This is a prime example of the Religious movement, with alterior motives, trying to push religious propaganda into the realm of science based on lies, deceptions and distorted ideas to help defend their actions.

Yeah, and whats even worse is that I pointed that exact same thing out last time he posted it. I told him that every internet search results that you try to find any sites that involve evolution and intelligent design, you can't find very many scientific fact-based pages...why? Because every bible-thumper site out there is ranting about it and it clogs the net with biased, unfounded crap posted by religious nuts.


I'm begining to think that he's mildly retarded for thinking that no one KNOWS HE MAKES SHIT UP!...OR GETS HIS INFORMATION FROM SITES THAT MAKE SHIT UP!

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Will someone explain to me how what I posted was trolling? I thought it was funny. Just because you didn't, and it made you angry, doesn't mean I was purposely trying to piss you off.

And as long as we're talking about Muslims, who's to say the ID Advocate in the joke wasn't a Muslim? You act as if people must think it's funny because they don't like Christians, when it never actually specified any religious beliefs.
It's trolling because this post adds nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design; its purpose is, quite obviously, to make fun of one group of people. Now, as I said, were whob to do something like this, it would be labeled as trolling.

Yup. Damn us extremists.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yup. Damn us extremists.

Absolutely, to the pits of your hell...

the nice thing about science and mathematical constants is that they are prone to change... When new/more accurate data comes about the constant changes to recognise this break though...

Such as in the ageing of the universe... theres a constant that changes almost yearly based on improvement in telescopes, so we get better readings...

Like alot of science theories, when its proven slightly wrong it changes...

the bible never changes nor do the views of the people who use it as the answer to everything... They either have a poor understanding of science or a very limited view on the world....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Absolutely, to the pits of your hell...
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

...To bring me forth a doughnut of the most delicious species. With sprinkles and frosting that would turn the lusts of flesh-craving zombies to it in desire.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's trolling because this post adds nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design; its purpose is, quite obviously, to make fun of one group of people. Now, as I said, were whob to do something like this, it would be labeled as trolling.

Yup. Damn us extremists.

Nooo.... I just thought it was clever and funny is all. If you feel I am making fun of Christians, or, God forbid, you specifically, then I'm sorry. You don't have to read it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I was purposely trying to make anybody mad.

Let me restate what I said earlier: it's about an ID proponant, not a Christian specifically. There are non-Christians (even *gasp* Muslims!) who believe that ID should be taught in science classes.

Besides which, it does add something. It is, to quote Ush, relevent satire.

Lighten up, for Christ sake.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Nooo.... I just thought it was clever and funny is all. If you feel I am making fun of Christians, or, God forbid, you specifically, then I'm sorry. You don't have to read it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I was purposely trying to make anybody mad.

Let me restate what I said earlier: it's about an ID proponant, not a Christian specifically. There are non-Christians (even *gasp* Muslims!) who believe that ID should be taught in science classes.

Besides which, it does add something. It is, to quote Ush, relevent satire.

Lighten up, for Christ sake.
I don't understand how this isn't making fun of proponents of intelligent design (Christians being among this group). This "relevant satire" would clearly be condemned and deemed as trolling, however, were it to target Muslims.

What makes you so certain? If somebody pointed out a genuine fallacy in Muslim practice (ie, women in Islamic countries shouldn't be required by law to wear those ridiculous garments that cover their entire body), I don't know that it would be frowned upon as you say.

I'll take this opportunity to point out that I object to being labelled as a Christian-hating, hypocritical, atheistic cad as much as you object to being labelled as a Bible-thumping, Muslim-hating, tebacky-chewin' redneck. I recognize, and I hope you do as well, that there are idiots on all sides of any debate.

Why are you attacking ME for posting this when your complaint is that the mods either didn't close this or would close a thread of your other description?

EDIT: that was in response to FeceMan, if it wasn't obvious...

Being as a number of mods (myself, Backfire, and Ush) have posted quite a bit in this thread, and there's been no reports on it...apparently people think it's fine.

I certainly don't think it's trolling or anything, I think you're just being a bit oversensitive, Fece. It's not at all attacking Christians or religious people at all. It's a satire commenting on how people think ID should be taught in science classes.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Hoboy..here we go...



Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!(and don't give me that damn fruit fly experiment..the fruit fly stayed a damn fruit fly!!)

How is the damn idea that life evolved from a few random mutations possible..if mutations are generally found to be degenerative within nature and the possiblity of a freaking beneficial mutation occuring in Nature over a billion year period is like a billion to 1?!!!

How the hell can you not see how irrational you sound?!!



A question, if you would: how different does something have to be before it is not the same. People have mutated before (six fingers, one eye, facial hair on females, etc.), but they are still considered human. However, each person is thought of as distinct due to their different genetic makeup (you aren't going to deny the existence of DNA are you?). So how different must someone be until they aren't considered of the same species? For a time, Africans were not considered human because they looked different, but they are of genus homo sapien. But the differences between, say, dogs are based on appearance and structure. But aforementioned dogs can cross-breed, so are humans all of one species that have a giant variation rate, or are we many different classes of homo sapien, because if we are, any time people of different races reproduced, a new species is created.

Oh, and how unlikely is it that things evolved over a billion years? About the same as how unlikely it is that you were created after a few thousand years. Think about it, genetic variation throughout time, with the millions of variables involved in the production of each and every one of your anscestors makes your existance highly unlikely. But you do exist, therefore, you overcame overwhelming odds in simply existing, as did every person alive right now. And just so you know, not everything was thought to be a beneficial mutation. Wolves were originally a marine mammal, and since 70% of the world is made of water, their possible habitable environments have been reduced since they came on land. Do you call that beneficial? Or how about something closer to home: homo erectus and the cro magnum men are thought to have been much stronger on average. If we only evolved, then we would be stronger, but also intelligent.

I hope you mean he's a scientist..because the man definately has no place being an English Teacher.



So you can now change the definitions of words in the Dictionary? lol..not only has your theory evolved..but now the terminology behind your arguments has evolved as well...

Synonyms for "valid"

accurate, attested, authentic, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, kosher, lawful, legal, legit, legitimate, logical, official, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, pure, right, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weighty, well-founded, well-grounded

Do you see relevance in there? Relevance means "of or relating to"..it does not denote something as being "true"

Why the hell am I even still arguing this? You guys are just continuing to look like a bunch of fools with this argument..trust me. Ush used the word wrong in the sentence. And now you've just demonstrated that you don't even know what relevant means. Have you not learned anything from our Buddhism is a religion argument..just let this particular argument die. You guys are clearly wrong about this particular point.






Well put Ush...

Math embodies absolutes..and facts.

Much of Scientific theory is based on mathemetical equations and Mathematical constants(NUMBERS).

A constant does not change, and represents something that is true.

Therefore..simply put..there are indeed facts/truths within science.

For the love of pete..was it that hard for you all to understand this.

The whole statement of "scientific fact" being an oxymoron is ridiculous..and demonstrates that the person who posted it..as well as those who believe what he posted..are completely exists within another world of logic/reason. Without anything being assumed to be constant/factual/or an absolute within science..there'd be no way of determining anything..simple common sense stuff guys..

Originally posted by crazylozer
A question, if you would: how different does something have to be before it is not the same. People have mutated before (six fingers, one eye, facial hair on females, etc.), but they are still considered human. However, each person is thought of as distinct due to their different genetic makeup (you aren't going to deny the existence of DNA are you?). So how different must someone be until they aren't considered of the same species? For a time, Africans were not considered human because they looked different, but they are of genus homo sapien. But the differences between, say, dogs are based on appearance and structure. But aforementioned dogs can cross-breed, so are humans all of one species that have a giant variation rate, or are we many different classes of homo sapien, because if we are, any time people of different races reproduced, a new species is created.


Do you believe there is a limit to the variation that occurs in nature?




Sigh..is it logical to assume..that a jigsaw puzzle could put itself together after a 100 years..how about a 1000? keep on adding the years on my friend..and tell me the likelyhood of this happening.

Now do you believe that there is a significantly greater chance..of a person putting the puzzle together after 100 years? Hell I don't even think we need to give it a hundered years..I believe 1 will be sufficient.

So you tell me..which one has the greater likelyhood of happening..the puzzle assembling itself..or someone coming and putting it together.

The things about Wolves being marine animals is conjecture my friend..unless you want to point me to some amphibian dog hybrid fossils.

Just wanted to add once again that the whole.."No facts in science" is related to the Humanstic concept "No absolutes..everything is shades of gray" speel..How the Hell can people not see this? It's as clear as day to me...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I hope you mean he's a scientist..because the man definately has no place being an English Teacher.

Whob, Allow me to point out that you have absolutely no right to be telling anybody else off for poor usage of the English language. It is extremely laughable that you said that on the same page in which you were quoted as saying this monstrosity of a sentence:

"Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!"

Now, I'm not sure if you were trying to say this:

Where are the testable hypotheses that prove mutations can form new species?!

Or this:

Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!

If the first example is what you were attempting to communicate, the plural of "hypothesis" is "hypotheses", not "hypothesii", and the verb tenses do not match up with the plural noun. If the second example is what you were trying to say, you merely made a typo. However, one should be extremely careful about typos when accusing others of being unfit for the title of English teacher. Either way, you made at least one hideous grammatical error, using three exclamation points in place of a question mark.

*cough*

Originally posted by Lana
Holy ****ing shit.

I swear, the logic (or seeming lack thereof) of some people simply defies belief.

Two questions, whob, that you need to answer.

1) Where is your evidence that a higher intelligence exists, the one that supposedly created everything?
2) If everything was created by a higher intelligence, then why are there so many imperfections in this world in general, and humans in particular?

I note that you skipped over my post before asking for evidence of such a higher being. I suppose that you did so because you could produce no such thing.

And you say others avoid things.....

Going to just skip this again?

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Whob, Allow me to point out that you have absolutely no right to be telling anybody else off for poor usage of the English language. It is extremely laughable that you said that on the same page in which you were quoted as saying this monstrosity of a sentence:

"Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!"

Now, I'm not sure if you were trying to say this:

Where are the testable hypotheses that prove mutations can form new species?!

Or this:

Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!

If the first example is what you were attempting to communicate, the plural of "hypothesis" is "hypotheses", not "hypothesii", and the verb tenses do not match up with the plural noun. If the second example is what you were trying to say, you merely made a typo. However, one should be extremely careful about typos when accusing others of being unfit for the title of English teacher. Either way, you made at least one hideous grammatical error, using three exclamation points in place of a question mark.

I never admitted to being a perfectionist when it comes to grammar when posting on these boards..and I have no problem admitting to a mistake when I post it..I just believe its funny when someone make an argument about something that been defined a certain way in a dictionary. Now with that being stated..the appropriate way the question should have been phrased is...

Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!

While we're on the topic..perhaps you can answer this question..thus far..your friends have been unable to do so...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
\
Sigh..is it logical to assume..that a jigsaw puzzle could put itself together after a 100 years..how about a 1000? keep on adding the years on my friend..and tell me the likelyhood of this happening.

Now do you believe that there is a significantly greater chance..of a person putting the puzzle together after 100 years? Hell I don't even think we need to give it a hundered years..I believe 1 will be sufficient.

So you tell me..which one has the greater likelyhood of happening..the puzzle assembling itself..or someone coming and putting it together.

The things about Wolves being marine animals is conjecture my friend..unless you want to point me to some amphibian dog hybrid fossils.
Jesus christ.
Do your self a favor, go down to your local library, ask where they keep the science textbooks. Read the chapter on evolution in a Biology one, and then come back to us. Because you have been spewing more shit than a broken toilet for pages now.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I never admitted to being a perfectionist when it comes to grammar when posting on these boards..and I have no problem admitting to a mistake when I post it..I just believe its funny when someone make an argument about something that been defined a certain way in a dictionary. Now with that being stated..the appropriate way the question should have been phrased is...

Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!

While we're on the topic..perhaps you can answer this question..thus far..your friends have been unable to do so...

I am only pointing out that one should not ***** about others' imperfections in a particular area when one is not perfect in that area themselves.

And whob, I'm afraid you missed the point of the original joke entirely. Go back and read the first post in the thread. Carefully. Try not to get angry; it may impair your judgement.

Then, you can tell me where the **** the testable hypothesis that proves the universe was created by one supreme being is.

Hmm, funny how your ridiculous attacks on Ush's grammar are equally as hypocritical as your views on the evolution/ID debate.