Creationism education bills

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So you got nothing.

 

FeelingMN asked the same question you did in post 103.

 

I answered it in post 109.

 

You're a little late to the party.

[Frank M 181]

FeelingMN asked the same question you did in post 103.

 

I answered it in post 109.

 

You're a little late to the party.

 

Omnipotence should cover it.

 

So your answer to a biblical explanation for atomic fusion, synaptogenesis, anaerobic respiration, protein synthesis, laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics, genetics, and quantum physics is omnipotence.

 

That's what you're saying?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

For those who are religious, the belief that God is omnipotent is a cornerstone belief. So, the religious explanation for those events can easily be explained by His omnipotence.

 

I guess what you are asking for is a religious explanation for those events that a non-believer would believe. Kind of a loaded scenario you have set up.

[Frank M 181]

For those who are religious, the belief that God is omnipotent is a cornerstone belief. So, the religious explanation for those events can easily be explained by His omnipotence.

 

I guess what you are asking for is a religious explanation for those events that a non-believer would believe. Kind of a loaded scenario you have set up.

 

When we know for certain the mechanisms behind a certain phenomenon, the need for explaining it by God's omnipotence is cancelled. It's not a loaded scenario, it's an impossible scenario. You haven't been able to come up with one example.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

When we know for certain the mechanisms behind a certain phenomenon, the need for explaining it by God's omnipotence is cancelled. It's not a loaded scenario, it's an impossible scenario. You haven't been able to come up with one example.

 

How do you know God didn't put in place those "mechanisms behind a certain phenomenon"?

 

As I said before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You seem to think so, and as such have put forth a scenario whereby if someone fails to convince a non-believer to believe this proves the believer to be incorrect. You have unfairly stacked the deck in your favor using all 52 cards before the game begins.

[Frank M 181]

How do you know God didn't put in place those "mechanisms behind a certain phenomenon"?

 

As I said before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You seem to think so, and as such have put forth a scenario whereby if someone fails to convince a non-believer to believe this proves the believer to be incorrect. You have unfairly stacked the deck in your favor using all 52 cards before the game begins.

 

Saying God puts the mechanisms in place for natural phenomenon is not an explanation.

 

You are not talking about science, you are talking about faith. And they are mutually exclusive. In fact, they are two different things altogether.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Saying God puts the mechanisms in place for natural phenomenon is not an explanation.

 

Sure it is. But like I said, unless the explanation converts you to religion this is the only response you will come up with.

 

You are not talking about science, you are talking about faith. And they are mutually exclusive. In fact, they are two different things altogether.

 

 

Of course I'm talking about faith, that's what you asked for. Don't ask me for what the explanation would be from someone of faith, and then whine when I bring an explanation based on faith and not science.

 

Look up "mutually exclusive". Just because two things are different they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Frank M 181]

Don't ask me for what the explanation would be from someone of faith, and then whine when I bring an explanation based on faith and not science.

And we finally get the answer to the question at hand. Creationism is faith, not science, and as such, does not belong in science curricula of public schools.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And we finally get the answer to the question at hand. Creationism is faith, not science, and as such, does not belong in science curricula of public schools.

 

I've never said it should be taught in science corricula in public school.

[Frank M 181]

I've never said it should be taught in science corricula in public school.

 

I never said you did.

[drobeski 3,061]

I get this funny feeling that this is going to be the thread where finally everyone is going to be able to convince the other guy to change their minds and we will all happily agree forever and ever and ever

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I get this funny feeling that this is going to be the thread where finally everyone is going to be able to convince the other guy to change their minds and we will all happily agree forever and ever and ever

 

 

I disagree with everything you said here.

[Frank M 181]

I get this funny feeling that this is going to be the thread where finally everyone is going to be able to convince the other guy to change their minds and we will all happily agree forever and ever and ever

 

Probably not, but at least RP and I were having a civil discussion.

 

The only explanation for that is some sort of supernatural intervention.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Probably not, but at least RP and I were having a civil discussion.

 

The only explanation for that is some sort of supernatural intervention.

 

Keep the faith, Brutha.

[Frank M 181]

Keep the faith, Brutha.

 

[IMMensaMind 459]

I've got no internal conflicts on this subject at all. And by this time, it's obvious you find everything I say disagreeable, so you'll just have to deal with it. It's not my problem.

 

No: I find you disagreeable. It was you who came at me first, and you continue to do so, while smarmily complaining that other people are those things which you in are yourself.

 

That makes a lot of sense. When you point out anything I've said that indicates that you cannot be spiritual and still prefer scientific explanations of natural phenomenon, we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass.

 

I did, you imbecile: you love to come in here and try to pile on to people who have faith-based beliefs - and you attempt to whine about ID and make it into some boogeyman that you pvssy fraidy cat lefties think you can defeat - all while lording over others with this superiority complex. There isn't a more polite poster on this bored than naomi, and you act towards her like you do everyone else, you loudass fockhead gasbag. Wade through a post without your head exploding. FOCK YOU, you pissant.

 

WTF are you talking about? You make absolutely no sense, since I never have said that you cannot believe in some sort of higher power and still believe in evolution.

 

Because you said this, you ridiculously shallow backtracker:

 

I prefer to believe in fact rather than supernatural.

 

Now, you're focking stuck with your own hypocritical words, so you're attempting to deny that they even exist.

 

Tell me: what is "factual" about spirituality? You have your own religion as well - you just call it "spirituality" - but you love to lampoon the beliefs of others as though they're invalid. You're a rank and vile hypocrite who is incredibly intolerant and disagreeable.

 

And I'll say anything to anyone in any way I choose and you can kiss my ass if you don't like it.

 

Boy, I would beat the sh!t out of you if you even looked at me sideways in person. I live to destroy rude and inconsiderate blowhards, and you are MOST DEFINITELY that.

[Frank M 181]

 

Boy, I would beat the sh!t out of you if you even looked at me sideways in person. I live to destroy rude and inconsiderate blowhards, and you are MOST DEFINITELY that.

 

 

Really? How many people have you beaten the sh1t out of that looked at you sideways? How many rude and inconsiderate blowhards have you destroyed in your life?

 

 

If we ever met, you'd be sucking my balls within five minutes. You'd be my b1tch, just like you are here. I'd punch you in the face right in front of your wife and kids, then your wife would be all over me in five seconds, proclaiming that it's about time a real man entered her life.

 

What do you say to that, you focking fatass f@ggot?

 

[Frank M 181]

And by the way, naomi is a wingnut. So are you.

[IMMensaMind 459]

:disappointed:

 

 

 

Doesn't surprise me. A whole bunch of words....and no proof. It's par for the course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see where FrankM is coming from....I tend to have the same beliefs. I don't adhere to any religion because of the inherent dogma. It's too limiting for me not to be able to question....and religion does not provide a vehicle to question.....anything.

 

That's what science is good for. Questioning. Incorporating new facts.....ways of thinking into your worldview. And yet, armed with all these facts, you're still left feeling pretty empty in the grand scheme of things. If you combine factual knowledge with a feeling of reverence and awe for the order of things....that could be a scientific spirituality. Does that make sense?

 

Science and Religion don't have to be orthogonal in nature....at least in how any individual can apply those respective approaches to their own lives in search of meaning.

 

 

How do you "understand" where Frank M is coming from, even though what he said stands in stark opposition to ideological consistency? One cannot be both "spiritual" and claim to only believe "in the facts". Yet, here he is, trying to rip posters like naomi for expressing belief based in faith - and being a general purpose d0uchebag in the process, while holding a positively untenable position.

 

The fact is that I know exactly what you're talking about. I believe those who rely on science - and science alone (secularists) are empty, hollow people. There is so much more our minds are built to contain, and they speak to things like spiritualism and mysticism and things unempirical. There is nothing whatever wrong with entertaining the notion of scientific research in the ID space, and - in fact - the author of the link I posted demonstrates a testable hypothesis.

 

What he speaks of is quite interesting. Strike posted a 2 hour video aired by PBS which attempts to assassinate the notion of ID as combative to evolution. As other posters have mentioned, I do not see a conflict, nor does the author of the piece I posted. What is plain and obvious is just how petrified atheists are of even the notion of an Intelligent Design.

 

Because it offends their religion.

 

They've created quite the nifty paradigm, these rabid atheists: they're instituting their religious ideologies everywhere they can - claiming it's the absence of religion - while wiping out any manifestation of other religions in their path, and erasing anything that they believe threatens the notion that Nature is Natural, and not created or designed.

[Cdub100 3,380]

Focking stupid

[Voltaire 4,559]

How do you know God didn't put in place those "mechanisms behind a certain phenomenon"?

 

As I said before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You seem to think so, and as such have put forth a scenario whereby if someone fails to convince a non-believer to believe this proves the believer to be incorrect. You have unfairly stacked the deck in your favor using all 52 cards before the game begins.

I can't prove that there wasn't some ultra-powerful being that wrote the rules of physics, chemistry, biology, etc 13.75 billion years ago. But I can prove that the story put forward in the Bible is not true. Please challenge me to do that. Thanks.

 

It seems to me that if there was an all powerful entity that put the laws of the universe together, he/she/it would be more impressed with and respect the people that are trying to figure out how he/she/it did it rather than the charlatan that pulled a story out of his ass and the uncritical morons who have use the charlatan's story to control and manipulate people for the last 5000 years.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Really? How many people have you beaten the sh1t out of that looked at you sideways? How many rude and inconsiderate blowhards have you destroyed in your life?

 

 

If we ever met, you'd be sucking my balls within five minutes. You'd be my b1tch, just like you are here. I'd punch you in the face right in front of your wife and kids, then your wife would be all over me in five seconds, proclaiming that it's about time a real man entered her life.

 

What do you say to that, you focking fatass f@ggot?

 

You POS - you are a pustule on the ass of this forum, and I would beat you to death with your own large focking puss nose. Try me, punk. That IS a challenge.

[Frank M 181]

The fact is that I know exactly what you're talking about. I believe those who rely on science - and science alone (secularists) are empty, hollow people. There is so much more our minds are built to contain, and they speak to things like spiritualism and mysticism and things unempirical. There is nothing whatever wrong with entertaining the notion of scientific research in the ID space, and - in fact - the author of the link I posted demonstrates a testable hypothesis.

 

Bullshit. He proposes an untestable hypothesis. Do you even read the pablum you post?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IMMensaMind 459]

And by the way, naomi is a wingnut. So are you.

 

Naomi is a sweet poster with religious beliefs, you sad sack of dog sh!t. There is nothing wingnut about that, you vile intolerant loser bigot.

[FeelingMN 273]

pvssy fraidy cat lefties think you can defeat

 

Just show us some ID experiments. It shouldn't be that hard. I found like 4-5 legit evolution experiments on the first page of a google search. Even RP pretty much conceded that they don't exist, otherwise he would have linked a couple.

 

- all while lording over others with this superiority complex.

 

[IMMensaMind 459]

Bullshit. He proposes an untestable hypothesis. Do you even read the pablum you post?

 

He writes 4 pages on PRECISELY the testability, you MORON: it's PREDICTIVE. It's EXACTLY as testable as the science of MacroEvolution. GOD DAMN are you STUPID and ASININE.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Just show us some ID experiments. It shouldn't be that hard. I found like 4-5 legit evolution experiments on the first page of a google search. Even RP pretty much conceded that they don't exist, otherwise he would have linked a couple.

 

 

Sigh. What evolutionary experiments are there that aren't comparable to the ID hypotheses he mentions in the link?

[Frank M 181]

You POS - you are a pustule on the ass of this forum, and I would beat you to death with your own large focking puss nose. Try me, punk. That IS a challenge.

 

Bring it, internet tough guy.

 

Are you going to be a "weapon of destruction" like you claimed you would be in some earlier rant about how badass you are?

 

You're a b1tch. Accept it.

[Frank M 181]

He writes 4 pages on PRECISELY the testability, you MORON: it's PREDICTIVE. It's EXACTLY as testable as the science of MacroEvolution. GOD DAMN are you STUPID and ASININE.

 

I read it all. You interpreted it wrong.

 

HTH

[Frank M 181]

Naomi is a sweet poster with religious beliefs, you sad sack of dog sh!t. There is nothing wingnut about that, you vile intolerant loser bigot.

 

No, she's cuckoo for cocoa puffs, just like you.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Bring it, internet tough guy.

 

Are you going to be a "weapon of destruction" like you claimed you would be in some earlier rant about how badass you are?

 

You're a b1tch. Accept it.

 

I would flat punk you. I'm bigger than you; in better shape than you, and I'm meaner than you. And you're the one trying to intimidate people who are sharing their beliefs in this forearm, you faggoty faggot.

[IMMensaMind 459]

No, she's cuckoo for cocoa puffs, just like you.

 

And what's cuckoo about her, grapenuts? That she's a Christian? You focking urine soaked bigot.

[Frank M 181]

I would flat punk you. I'm bigger than you; in better shape than you, and I'm meaner than you. And you're the one trying to intimidate people who are sharing their beliefs in this forearm, you faggoty faggot.

 

No you wouldn't. You're fat and stupid. I'd have you begging for mercy inside of three minutes. And that's after toying with you for two and a half.

 

You're the one who's intimidated, otherwise your tough guy persona wouldn't have come out.

[drobeski 3,061]

And by the way, naomi is a wingnut. So are you.

Yet you'll defend mooslims ....interesting ..do you let them know how nutty it is to believe a guy talked to a cave ?

[Frank M 181]

And what's cuckoo about her, grapenuts? That she's a Christian? You focking urine soaked bigot.

 

Grapenuts? Urine soaked bigot?

 

 

 

The fact that she or you are Christian is incidental to the nuttiness. It's quality and content of posts that I go on, and the two of you are a few bricks short of a full load.

[Voltaire 4,559]

How do you "understand" where Frank M is coming from, even though what he said stands in stark opposition to ideological consistency? One cannot be both "spiritual" and claim to only believe "in the facts". Yet, here he is, trying to rip posters like naomi for expressing belief based in faith - and being a general purpose d0uchebag in the process, while holding a positively untenable position.

 

I'm not spiritual at all but here's something I remember from one of Carl Sagan's books about when he met the Dali Lama.

 

The Dali Lama told him that in Tibetan Buddhism, all knowledge is universal. Any human scientific knowledge discovered is incorporated in with spiritual knowledge so there is no conflict. And he gave examples of how they adapted their religious beliefs in response to discoveries in science which I don't remember anything about that. So Sagan challenges him on this. What if it was a really big discovery that fundamentally undermines the entire metaphysical principles of your religion? Like if we prove reincarnation doesn't happen?

 

And the Dali Lama's response was telling and he earned huge respect points for his religion and impressed me enough to remember this story. He told Sagan that they would incorporate even this into their beliefs as well. Then he added, "you'll have a hard time proving that reincarnation doesn't exist."

 

Now, I'm not into religion at all, and I think Buddhism is bullsh*t as well, but not all religions obviously are equally stoopid. I have to hand it to those guys for having a clean, honest religion. It makes me think that of all the world's major religions, these Buddhists must be closer to the truth than anybody else because they are willing to discard the bullsh*t when confronted with new data rather cling to the prescribed doctrine and cover their ears.

[IMMensaMind 459]

No you wouldn't. You're fat and stupid. I'd have you begging for mercy inside of three minutes. And that's after toying with you for two and a half.

 

You're the one who's intimidated, otherwise your tough guy persona wouldn't have come out.

 

What I am is MAD AS HELL at the fockhead who is FRANK M right now. And TRUST me, cupcake, you WOULD NOT STAND A CHANCE. How about I buy you a plane ticket so that you come here to find out, faggot?

[Frank M 181]

Yet you'll defend mooslims ....interesting ..do you let them know how nutty it is to believe a guy talked to a cave ?

 

When you or Mensadouche can tell me where I said she was nutty because she was a christian, we'll talk.

 

Actually, we won't.

[FeelingMN 273]

Sigh.

 

all while lording over others with this superiority complex

 

 

Also, Mensa....how would you reconcile emergent phenomena with a top-down based flow of information? And if intent is the highest order of info, how does this jibe with Free Will?

[Frank M 181]

What I am is MAD AS HELL at the fockhead who is FRANK M right now. And TRUST me, cupcake, you WOULD NOT STAND A CHANCE. How about I buy you a plane ticket so that you come here to find out, faggot?

 

 

Cool. My information can be found on www.immensasadouche.com. I want first class tickets.