Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 462]

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 bullsh*t and cover their ears.

 

That is not something unique to Buddhism. As a Christian, I can absolutely say with complete earnestness that if something was discovered that directly conflicted my religious views (as simple as they really are), I would have no trouble whatsoever adapting my beliefs to account for this new information.

 

Do you believe that most people would not? Fact is: no major religion could survive a discovery which definitively refutes it unless the religion is adapted.

 

All of that is ancillary to the point made, though: Frank M is pompously claiming to "just believe in the facts" while simultaneously claiming to be spiritual. Sorry: that makes him as 'wingnut' as anyone else he's calling a wingnut.

 

It reminds me of the Dave Chappelle blind black KKK character.

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

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?

 

Why wouldn't emergent phenomena be consistent with the hypothesis of top-down based information (ie: algorithmic programming)? Information can be corrupted; it's not any different than viruses or other dysfunctions that arise as a result of mistakes in binary code, etc.

 

So where is the conflict?

 

And why would the "highest order of info" conflict with the concept of "Free Will"?

[drobeski 3,061]

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.

Oh that's not why she is a wingnut .....gotcha frank

[Voltaire 5,491]

That is not something unique to Buddhism. As a Christian, I can absolutely say with complete earnestness that if something was discovered that directly conflicted my religious views (as simple as they really are), I would have no trouble whatsoever adapting my beliefs to account for this new information.

 

Do you believe that most people would not?

Fundamentalist Christians absolutely do not. Everyone that clings to a literal interpretation of the Bible does this. And so, these are the people that scare me when they start talking about infusing their beliefs into science because they aren't willing to inject science into their own beliefs.

 

As for you, you either dismiss evolution or you want to raise Intelligent Design to the same level. Now, since Strike posted the link showing that Intelligent Design does not hold up under close scrutiny and the ID advocates getting their asses handed to them by real scientist, ID should either be discarded and a new and improved redesigned Creationism 3.0 should be thought up. Yet you charge on to defending ID anyways.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, has been put through the crucible and survived every challenge for 150 years since it was presented. Further, it has been used to predict certain things and then, those things have later been shown to be true as well. Consequently, I doubt it'll ever be refuted and so I accept it as true.

 

I would be happy to discard evolution if a better explanation comes along. ID doesn't come close. ID is putting a patchwork over a fairy tale.

[drobeski 3,061]

It would be interesting to know if the same group of people crying about ID are the same focks trying to force the unproven religion of global warming down our throats

[Frank M 181]

Oh that's not why she is a wingnut .....gotcha frank

 

Have you read her posts? She makes about as much sense as you, only she uses more words.

[Voltaire 5,491]

It would be interesting to know if the same group of people crying about ID are the same focks trying to force the unproven religion of global warming down our throats

No. They're very different. But global warming is a tangent that would need another thread.

[MedStudent 56]

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?

 

Look out for the internet toughguy!!!!!!! Whoa he's gonna beat up Frank!

[jerryskids 7,091]

Look out for the internet toughguy!!!!!!! Whoa he's gonna beat up Frank!

 

I used to be able to piss people off like this. Guess I'm gittin' old.

[Voltaire 5,491]

I used to be able to piss people off like this. Guess I'm gittin' old.

I also use to fish frequently and now I seldom do. I don't know if it's because I'm older and don't enjoy it as much or if it's because all the guppies got smarter.

 

I do know that some things will always be able to rile me up. Trying to inject creationism into public school is one of those things.

 

---

Off on my own tangent again...Science Education has it's own problems (the nanny state liberals took all the fun and excitement out of chemistry classes with their safety-beyond-safety paranoia bullsh*t so now the experiments are all boring) to be diluted down worse with the fantasies of anti-science religious people with a political agenda.

 

You want kids interested in science? Put your glossy 2011 High School chemistry lab book in the shredder and get your hands an old textbook from the 50s or 60s. Explosions, stink, stuff you can do with household cleaning supplies ... they have all sorts of great sh*t in there.

 

But you've got to get the religion a$$holes out of the science classroom too. They hate science and have no desire to see it taught properly either.

[drobeski 3,061]

Look out for the internet toughguy!!!!!!! Whoa he's gonna beat up Frank!

 

For a feeble pip squeak frank was sounding pretty internet tough too.

[Frank M 181]

For a feeble pip squeak frank was sounding pretty internet tough too.

 

I'll squash you, too.

 

Without breaking a sweat.

[Frank M 181]

I used to be able to piss people off like this. Guess I'm gittin' old.

 

Immensa is in love with me. You always get more angry at the people you love.

[Frank M 181]

I also use to fish frequently and now I seldom do. I don't know if it's because I'm older and don't enjoy it as much or if it's because all the guppies got smarter.

 

I do know that some things will always be able to rile me up. Trying to inject creationism into public school is one of those things.

 

I wasn't even fishing. He burst in with guns blazing to defend naomi's honor and ended up a steaming mess of rage and spittle.

 

 

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Fundamentalist Christians absolutely do not. Everyone that clings to a literal interpretation of the Bible does this. And so, these are the people that scare me when they start talking about infusing their beliefs into science because they aren't willing to inject science into their own beliefs.

 

Scare you, eh? Just how easily scared are you?

 

Science is peer-reviewed. Just how would such a belief - whacked out or otherwise - actually do harm? Can you explain that? Scientists who get no results obtain no funding. All sorts of people hold all sorts of whacked out views. You're jousting windmills, and uttering hyperbole as though such people could actually do damage. Nonsense.

 

Regardless: how tiny a box must you create to believe that you're making a substantial enough point? I'm talking about the majority of Christians. I cannot believe that I'd be anything but the rule: anything that definitively is proven - and absolutely refutes a religious tenet - would force modification. That's as simple as that.

 

Meanwhile, though: are you simply talking about those who believe that the Earth is 5000 years old? Just how many of those do you think there are?

 

As for you, you either dismiss evolution or you want to raise Intelligent Design to the same level.

 

You should be more careful jumping to conclusions. I have already said that I believe that they are complementary. In fact, I would be satisfied to have classrooms instructed on the opinion held by IDers that evolution is not a bottom-up process, but - rather - a top-down algorithmically programmed mechanism (which makes far more sense to me personally). Teaching that such an opinion exists is absolutely harmless.

 

And has nothing to do with either dismissing evolution or making ID some sort of adversary. You haven't been hearing.

 

Now, since Strike posted the link showing that Intelligent Design does not hold up under close scrutiny and the ID advocates getting their asses handed to them by real scientist, ID should either be discarded and a new and improved redesigned Creationism 3.0 should be thought up. Yet you charge on to defending ID anyways.

 

You're extremely quick to attempt condemnation of an infant science, are you not? You sound, in fact, a whole lot like Catholic Popes, who were looking to smash the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. Has the worm turned here? I'm so impressed that one 2 hour video has had that effect on you.

 

Alsonotreally.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, has been put through the crucible and survived every challenge for 150 years since it was presented. Further, it has been used to predict certain things and then, those things have later been shown to be true as well. Consequently, I doubt it'll ever be refuted and so I accept it as true.

 

Pay attention; I'll only say this one more time: I'm not a proponent of dismissing evolution.

 

I would be happy to discard evolution if a better explanation comes along. ID doesn't come close. ID is putting a patchwork over a fairy tale.

 

Just how does ID "put patchwork over a fairy tale"? You're attempting to throw all people who are interested in some facet of ID in the same box. How inherently close-minded!

 

You - and others - claim that "it's ok to question everything". Yet, here are the first paragraphs from the link I provided:

 

A New Theory of Evolution

I invite you to consider…

 

What if evolution were true, but it wasn't quite like Darwin said?

 

What if there were a new evolutionary model that could explain why fossils show almost no change for millions of years…. then suddenly the Cambrian Explosion: Thousands of new species emerge intact, virtually overnight.

 

What if this new theory pointed the way to new innovations in artificial intelligence and adaptive computer programs?

 

What if “Evolution vs. Design” wasn’t an either/or proposition - but both+and?

 

What if, instead of arguing endlessly about fossils, we could precisely track evolutionary history with the precision of 1’s and 0’s?

 

What if science and faith were no longer at war?

 

All these things are not only possible, but a present reality.

 

I know that’s a pretty bold statement. But by now you’re probably used to that from me. Once again I invite you to relax, hear what I have to say, and consider the information that is presented. See if this makes sense for you.

 

I really do have a new theory of evolution.

 

Not only that, in future installments I will use this new theory of evolution to make predictions about what we will discover in the next 3-20 years.

 

And: after today, you may never think about this question the same way again.

 

Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a gradual and steady progression from simple to complex forms of life. It’s now well known that what we see instead is long periods of stability interrupted by sudden leaps forward.

 

Stephen Jay Gould called this “punctuated equilibrium.” He was at a loss to explain exactly how this worked at the time. But today we have many clues pointing to the answer.

 

Darwin said that evolution is driven by random variation combined with natural selection.

 

Today I invite you to consider:

 

Darwin was half right.

 

And Darwin was half wrong.

 

Darwin was definitely right about natural selection.

....

 

 

Here's a guy providing you questions - questions which science at the present time cannot refute - and you're trying to squash the legitimacy of the question!

 

So...are you really about questioning everything, or are there some questions which are off limits?

 

Quit jousting windmills by attempting to make something an enemy which is not.

[IMMensaMind 462]

But you've got to get the religion a$$holes out of the science classroom too. They hate science and have no desire to see it taught properly either.

 

How elitist and bigoted: but you cannot see the evidence of that beyond your own nose. Just who exactly can you identify who are "religion assholes who hate science and have no desire to see it taught properly"?

 

Utter pap. People who believe in God are just as interested in Science as people who are not. What a ridiculously bigoted statement with no basis in reality.

[drobeski 3,061]

I'll squash you, too.

 

Without breaking a sweat.

never played that faggity sport

[IMMensaMind 462]

I wasn't even fishing. He burst in with guns blazing to defend naomi's honor and ended up a steaming mess of rage and spittle.

 

Naomi was just a great example of what an asshole you are to anyone with whom you disagree. The fact is that nothing naomi said in her post justified you being a prick. You were being a prick to me, and you nearly always are.

[Frank M 181]

Naomi was just a great example of what an asshole you are to anyone with whom you disagree. The fact is that nothing naomi said in her post justified you being a prick. You were being a prick to me, and you nearly always are.

 

You deserve it nearly every time. And I'll continue if I deem it necessary. Being an arrogant, right-wing Christian Teabagger Birther troll, you should expect much more.

 

I don't give a flying fock about you or naomi, so I'll say whatever I want whenever I want. She and you are tiresome and pedantic.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You deserve it nearly every time. And I'll continue if I deem it necessary. Being an arrogant, right-wing Christian Teabagger Birther troll, you should expect much more.

 

I don't give a flying fock about you or naomi, so I'll say whatever I want whenever I want. She and you are tiresome and pedantic.

 

We're both polite and reasonable with those who are the same. You are not. The problem is with you. Arrogance is best described the people with the latter trait; not the former. Look in the mirror, dickhead.

 

There is no value in tolerance if it merely reserved for those with whom you agree, or don't put up an objection.

[Frank M 181]

We're both polite and reasonable with those who are the same. You are not. The problem is with you. Arrogance is best described the people with the latter trait; not the former. Look in the mirror, dickhead.

 

There is no value in tolerance if it merely reserved for those with whom you agree, or don't put up an objection.

 

What a load of sh1t. The minute someone disagrees with you, you become a tool. I've tried to have civil conversations with you in the past, and the instant you feel threatened, you start whining about being insulted, then you lash out. It's not worth it to even try with you. I'd rather just point out how much of an assh0le you are now. It's quicker than going through twenty multiple paragraph posts trying to glean some useful information from you before I realize it's useless and that you're just being a dooshbag.

 

I have no tolerance for you. On that score, you are correct.

 

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Perhaps your plan, Frank - as a caveman leftist - is to simply drag people or things that offend or challenge your sensibilities into the mud, so that nothing actually gets talked about. Lost in the mire of insults and stupidity. Is that your plan?

 

Let's try to get this on course, partially to see if you're really interested in an actual discussion with someone of another viewpoint. Tell me how you would counter the following excerpt:

 

A New Theory of Evolution: Cellular Genetic Engineering

 

Its only new to those who are hearing it for the first time.

 

Its not just a wild hypothesis, either. It was discovered by geneticist Dr. Barbara McClintock in 1944.

 

She was decades ahead of her time and she received the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1983. Her picture is now on a U.S. Postage Stamp and shes one of the greatest scientists in the history of biology.

 

But even now, people ask me, Why didnt they ever teach this to me in biology class?

 

Maybe Barbara McClintock could answer that question.

 

Her discoveries were so radical, so contrary to Darwin, that for most of her career she kept this to herself. She she described the reception of her research as puzzlement, even hostility. Based on the reactions of other scientists to her work, McClintock felt she risked alienating the scientific mainstream, and from 1953 stopped publishing accounts of her research.

 

Why dont they teach this in most biology classes now?

 

Ill just say, its not because her findings havent been verified.

 

I'll just stop here for a moment. For those of you who yammer on and on about "only teaching science in the classroom"...

 

THIS IS SCIENCE. AND IT PUTS A .50cal HOLE IN THE SECULAR SCIENCE CONVENTIONS. THE REVELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF Dr. Barbara McClintock FORCE the notion of studying INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS LINK.

 

So how come it isn't taught in the classroom?

 

And its also not because the random mutation model works. You may or may not have noticed, but it actually doesnt work at all. Ive been publicly debating this online for 5 years and I have yet to have one person send me a link or refer to a book that says, Here is the actual experiment that proves random mutations drive evolution.

 

There is no such paper or book, so far as I know. The random mutation theory, sadly, is an urban legend.

 

INTERESTING FACTOID: This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.

 

Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is one of the leading researchers in this field. Let me share with you about what hes discovered about protozoa.

 

What Im about to pass along is profound, almost miraculous. I want you to read and re-read this a few times before you go on:

 

A cell under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and then re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved cell.

 

Again I ask you to re-read that short paragraph and really consider the significance of it. A protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves. Intelligently.

 

The research of Dr. Shapiro indicates that Random Mutation is FALSE. What the protozoa does IS. NOT. RANDOM.

 

This type of investigation falls under the perview of Intelligent Design. And this is irrefutable fact.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What a load of sh1t. The minute someone disagrees with you, you become a tool.

 

Bullshit! You post a link where I am the one who became a tool; where I am the one who first threw the insult. GO.

 

 

Here's the problem, Frank: you get offended at what I say and believe, and you emote that into a hatred for me, and what I say and stand for, and you take it personally. YOU CONTRIVE your offense. CONTRIVE.

 

You make a claim, now PROVE IT. Let's see if you can link a conversation we've had where I was an asshole to you unprovoked.

 

In fact, I remember a conversation we had a while ago where you were an asshole, and I fired back at you, and then you backed off and said something nice like "and I can tell that you're a nice person behind all that" and I then immediately reverted to being respectful!

 

So prove your claim, FRANK.

[Frank M 181]

Perhaps your plan, Frank - as a caveman leftist - is to simply drag people or things that offend or challenge your sensibilities into the mud, so that nothing actually gets talked about. Lost in the mire of insults and stupidity. Is that your plan?

 

Let's try to get this on course, partially to see if you're really interested in an actual discussion with someone of another viewpoint. Tell me how you would counter the following excerpt:

 

 

 

I'll just stop here for a moment. For those of you who yammer on and on about "only teaching science in the classroom"...

 

THIS IS SCIENCE. AND IT PUTS A .50cal HOLE IN THE SECULAR SCIENCE CONVENTIONS. THE REVELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF Dr. Barbara McClintock FORCE the notion that studying INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS LINK.

 

So how come it isn't taught in the classroom?

 

 

 

The research of Dr. Shapiro indicates that Random Mutation is FALSE. What the protozoa does IS. NOT. RANDOM.

 

This type of investigation falls under the perview of Intelligent Design. And this is irrefutable fact.

 

You didn't provide a link.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You didn't provide a link.

 

It's the same link we've been talking about that I posted repeatedly!

[GettnHuge 2]

Perhaps your plan, Frank - as a caveman leftist - is to simply drag people or things that offend or challenge your sensibilities into the mud, so that nothing actually gets talked about. Lost in the mire of insults and stupidity. Is that your plan?

 

Let's try to get this on course, partially to see if you're really interested in an actual discussion with someone of another viewpoint. Tell me how you would counter the following excerpt:

 

 

 

I'll just stop here for a moment. For those of you who yammer on and on about "only teaching science in the classroom"...

 

THIS IS SCIENCE. AND IT PUTS A .50cal HOLE IN THE SECULAR SCIENCE CONVENTIONS. THE REVELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF Dr. Barbara McClintock FORCE the notion that studying INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS LINK.

 

So how come it isn't taught in the classroom?

 

 

 

The research of Dr. Shapiro indicates that Random Mutation is FALSE. What the protozoa does IS. NOT. RANDOM.

 

This type of investigation falls under the perview of Intelligent Design. And this is irrefutable fact.

 

I have been - well - scouring these many pages for some truths - some wisdom - and here, finally, my attention is, shall I say - aroused. I do hope that this thread is never locked,

never forgotten, and the above post saved forever. Undoubtedly and undeniably I say - right now, that the above information should be posted on every message board -

forum - chat - blog imaginable. So rarely is a subject like this, served so clearly to all. Huzzah indeed.

[Frank M 181]

Bullshit! You post a link where I am the one who became a tool; where I am the one who first threw the insult. GO.

 

 

Here's the problem, Frank: you get offended at what I say and believe, and you emote that into a hatred for me, and what I say and stand for, and you take it personally. YOU CONTRIVE your offense. CONTRIVE.

 

You make a claim, now PROVE IT. Let's see if you can link a conversation we've had where I was an asshole to you unprovoked.

 

In fact, I remember a conversation we had a while ago where you were an asshole, and I fired back at you, and then you backed off and said something nice like "and I can tell that you're a nice person behind all that" and I then immediately reverted to being respectful!

 

So prove your claim, FRANK.

 

No. I could care less. Certainly not enough to dig through your voluminous bullshiot to find any conversations we've had.

 

You and your ideas don't offend me. I don't hate you. I did say that, I remember it. Since then, I've come to the conclusion that you're just a d1ck.

 

 

 

[Frank M 181]

It's the same link we've been talking about that I posted repeatedly!

 

I'll look at it.

[nikki2200 4]

I have been - well - scouring these many pages for some truths - some wisdom - and here, finally, my attention is, shall I say - aroused. I do hope that this thread is never locked,

never forgotten, and the above post saved forever. Undoubtedly and undeniably I say - right now, that the above information should be posted on every message board -

forum - chat - blog imaginable. So rarely is a subject like this, served so clearly to all. Huzzah indeed.

 

 

Nah. That one doesn't have enough semi-colons in it. Surely there must be a better one somewhere.

[IMMensaMind 462]

No. I could care less. Certainly not enough to dig through your voluminous bullshiot to find any conversations we've had.

 

You and your ideas don't offend me. I don't hate you. I did say that, I remember it. Since then, I've come to the conclusion that you're just a d1ck.

 

Like so many things leftist, Frank, you just know so much which isn't so. I'm one of the nicest guys you will ever, ever meet. If you get on my bad side, however, I will GO OUT OF MY WAY TO ENSURE MAKING YOU PAY FOR IT.

 

You are not correct. You are backing DOWN right now using an EXCUSE because THERE ISN'T AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CLAIMED.

 

Regardless: I'm willing to let it go, because it's fruitless. What I'm interested in is if you have a worthwhile counter to what I provided in that link, particularly with regard to the research of Drs. Barbara McClintock and James Shapiro.

 

Do you?

[GettnHuge 2]

Like so many things leftist, Frank, you just know so much which isn't so. I'm one of the nicest guys you will ever, ever meet. If you get on my bad side, however, I will GO OUT OF MY WAY TO ENSURE MAKING YOU PAY FOR IT.

 

You are not correct. You are backing DOWN right now using an EXCUSE because THERE ISN'T AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CLAIMED.

 

Regardless: I'm willing to let it go, because it's fruitless. What I'm interested in is if you have a worthwhile counter to what I provided in that link, particularly with regard to the research of Drs. Barbara McClintock and James Shapiro.

 

Do you?

 

I think this game is over now. What can Frank possibly, shall I say - do?

Incontestably accomplished, sir.

[nikki2200 4]

You know things have gotten serious when we've moved into CAPS LOCK mode.

 

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

You know things have gotten serious when we've moved into CAPS LOCK mode.

 

I'm going to DL an app into Frank's phone that punches him in the sack when he's a tool to me.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I think this game is over now. What can Frank possibly, shall I say - do?

Incontestably accomplished, sir.

 

That guy's site has fascinating stuff in it; stuff we should have all been taught, but stuff that has been repressed. Perry Marshall is his name, and he has it footnoted beyond the ability to reproach it.

 

Repressed information by the supposed "scientists" are are just after the truth. And only the truth.

 

I would invite you to look through that whole site. Fascinating.

 

Another field I find really interesting that begins to breach the gap between secular science and metaphyics is Noetics. That too is fascinating.

 

But - of course - I'm just a Christian, who absolutely hates science, and does not want it taught. Yes. Definitely.

 

[GettnHuge 2]

That guy's site has fascinating stuff in it; stuff we should have all been taught, but stuff that has been repressed. Perry Marshall is his name, and he has it footnoted beyond the ability to reproach it.

 

Repressed information by the supposed "scientists" are are just after the truth. And only the truth.

 

I would invite you to look through that whole site. Fascinating.

 

Another field I find really interesting that begins to breach the gap between secular science and metaphyics is Noetics. That too is fascinating.

 

But - of course - I'm just a Christian, who absolutely hates science, and does not want it taught. Yes. Definitely.

 

 

Eye opening. The one had leaves of dark green that beneath were as shining silver, and from each of his countless flowers a dew of silver light was ever

falling, and the earth was dappled with the shadows of his fluttering leaves. The other bore leaves of a young green like the new-opened beech - their edges

were of glittering gold. Flowers swung upon her branches in clusters of yellow flame, formed each to a glowing horn that spilled a golden rain upon the ground -

and from the blossom of that tree there came forth warmth - and a great light.

 

do you understand the meaning of my words here?

Thank you

[nikki2200 4]

It's the same link we've been talking about that I posted repeatedly!

 

Dude.... that is some guys blog. It's a blog. It's a blog that likens evolutionary theory to MS-DOS programming, Swiss Army knives, and Six Sigma manufacturing process.

 

Really?

[Voltaire 5,491]

Scare you, eh? Just how easily scared are you?

 

Science is peer-reviewed. Just how would such a belief - whacked out or otherwise - actually do harm? Can you explain that? Scientists who get no results obtain no funding. All sorts of people hold all sorts of whacked out views. You're jousting windmills, and uttering hyperbole as though such people could actually do damage. Nonsense.

 

Regardless: how tiny a box must you create to believe that you're making a substantial enough point? I'm talking about the majority of Christians. I cannot believe that I'd be anything but the rule: anything that definitively is proven - and absolutely refutes a religious tenet - would force modification. That's as simple as that.

 

Meanwhile, though: are you simply talking about those who believe that the Earth is 5000 years old? Just how many of those do you think there are?

 

 

 

You should be more careful jumping to conclusions. I have already said that I believe that they are complementary. In fact, I would be satisfied to have classrooms instructed on the opinion held by IDers that evolution is not a bottom-up process, but - rather - a top-down algorithmically programmed mechanism (which makes far more sense to me personally). Teaching that such an opinion exists is absolutely harmless.

 

And has nothing to do with either dismissing evolution or making ID some sort of adversary. You haven't been hearing.

 

 

 

You're extremely quick to attempt condemnation of an infant science, are you not? You sound, in fact, a whole lot like Catholic Popes, who were looking to smash the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. Has the worm turned here? I'm so impressed that one 2 hour video has had that effect on you.

 

Alsonotreally.

 

 

 

Pay attention; I'll only say this one more time: I'm not a proponent of dismissing evolution.

 

 

 

Just how does ID "put patchwork over a fairy tale"? You're attempting to throw all people who are interested in some facet of ID in the same box. How inherently close-minded!

 

You - and others - claim that "it's ok to question everything". Yet, here are the first paragraphs from the link I provided:

 

 

 

 

Here's a guy providing you questions - questions which science at the present time cannot refute - and you're trying to squash the legitimacy of the question!

 

So...are you really about questioning everything, or are there some questions which are off limits?

 

Quit jousting windmills by attempting to make something an enemy which is not.

Scare you, eh? Just how easily scared are you?

 

Science is peer-reviewed. Just how would such a belief - whacked out or otherwise - actually do harm? Can you explain that? Scientists who get no results obtain no funding. All sorts of people hold all sorts of whacked out views. You're jousting windmills, and uttering hyperbole as though such people could actually do damage. Nonsense.

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

People who have whacked out beliefs have never gotten their messages forced into the classroom. Well, not in the US anyways. When Creationism theory was discredited and discarded, it rightfully was taken out. But the proponents were never happy about it. Teaching the lie, and presenting it as fact alongside real science, simply because the lie has the political power to force it's way into the school curriculum is scary.

 

That monster had to be slain before but the non-scientific dolts who like it, never accepted defeat. If they can actually come up with a retrenched, modified, and improved theory -one that can pass peer reviewed muster, they're welcome back. The newest version of this turd is the one destroyed in Strike's video.

 

Clearly it's false. You can see that right? So the folks who like creationism need to take this retarded ass theory and flush it or try to fix all the problems again and comeback with real science. Instead they try to run around the end and force it in with political muscle. That's the problem.

 

You want something complimentary, not trying to toss evolution... I'm saying it's all nonsense. There isn't any need for it, it adds nothing but confusion to the explanations, has zero beneficial side effects. It's as welcome as a hemorrhoid.

 

Well that's not true, I take it back. Hemorrhoids can be discussed in a science class; ID cannot.

----

 

"anything that definitively is proven - and absolutely refutes a religious tenet - would force modification. That's as simple as that."

-----

This is extremely, extremely, frustrating. Since you obviously don't consider evolution proven (you say they are complimentary, which is the Catholic Church's position too so I've seen it before and am familiar with it, but they are not because things can't occur both top-down and bottom-up and the bottom up position doesn't have any need fora top down co-position) -and furthermore, sadly, you be right because it's the nature of science that you can never fully prove any theory- there will not ever be anything that ever reaches your level of proof to do anything about this.

 

Evolution had to account for every bit of evidence ever discovered 130 years ago when it was presented. Despite 130 years of efforts to discredit it, not a single shred of evidence has ever been found to do so. What has been found has instead modified the theory because it needed to be accounted for and thus had refined and strengthened and perfected it. And that process is ongoing.

 

So since religious people can't beat it, and have gone 0 fer 50,000 in their attempts, the recourse is to ignore evolution, be obstinate, then repackage their already dis-proven theory, refuse to put it under scrutiny, then use political clout to try to force everybody to put it on par with real science.

 

But to be considered on equal footing, ID has to also account for all the evidence as well and has to withstand challenges. It's not about trying to crush it. If they put out a real indisputable theory and can defend it, and not get embarrassed by real scientists like they did in Strike's video, well then go ahead please. As a matter of fact, if they can actually succeed at it, I'd be happy to see it taught in the classroom. Until then, it's no better than Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

 

----

Meanwhile, though: are you simply talking about those who believe that the Earth is 5000 years old? Just how many of those do you think there are?

-----

 

They are the most fun ones to pick on because they are truly retarded but in fact, no. Evolution is not compatible with, not complimented by or not anything to do with Creationism that I have seen. Evolution contradicts creationism and there's no middle ground. Yet. You know what, maybe there is, I highly doubt it and I'm not looking for it, but if you think so, go ahead and knock yourself out, keep trying to find it and come back with a Creationism 4.0 and 5.0 that passes the muster. Don't cover the gapping holes apparent in Strike's video with band-aids and expect to impress anybody. Try harder to fix the problems.

 

-----

In fact, I would be satisfied to have classrooms instructed on the opinion held by IDers that evolution is not a bottom-up process, but - rather - a top-down algorithmically programmed mechanism (which makes far more sense to me personally). Teaching that such an opinion exists is absolutely harmless.

------

Make your theory airtight and on par with evolution and I'll be happy to see it included. Anyone who wants to promote the version we saw in Strike's video, should die of embarrassment or at least run into a hole and take up knitting. Unless and until a decent version of ID exists, presenting a lie as fact is not harmless. Are you willing to admit that that Intelligent Design as we saw in Strike's video is bullsh*t and we don't want that one?

 

Since I haven't seen an updated version of ID, I conclude it is useless.

------

You're extremely quick to attempt condemnation of an infant science, are you not? You sound, in fact, a whole lot like Catholic Popes, who were looking to smash the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. Has the worm turned here? I'm so impressed that one 2 hour video has had that effect on you.

---------

 

Irony. Galileo and Copernicus are my heroes, not yours, so please stop.

 

At least the Catholics admitted their error and so now are slow to make the same ones. On evolution, they are, in fact, much smarter than most Protestant denominations and very similar if not identical to you. Isn't that funny? But since it is/was the churches that have always tried drown out evolution as they tried to drown out heliocentricm, you are in fact IDENTICAL to them in every way becuse you are the spiritual heirs to their [edit out].

 

Now if you have decent version of creationism go ahead and present it. What I'm seeing, I find a complete joke who's only value is as entertainment laughing at foolishness. I have to give the psuedo-scientists in Strike's video at least credit for the effort. Feel free to dig up some real ones and try again, I'm not stopping your guys from looking, just from spreading falsehoods and buying you time to get it right. If/when you can get guys that can present your side armed with dependable facts who don't come across as complete fools, you'll have a real honest to goodness Science Class worthy theory. I'll be happy to hold open the school door for them myself.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Dude.... that is some guys blog. It's a blog. It's a blog that likens evolutionary theory to MS-DOS programming, Swiss Army knives, and Six Sigma manufacturing process.

 

Really?

 

The blog simply makes you aware of the information. What matters is the information itself.

 

You can most certainly choose to dismiss the information in a blog if you wish. Have you been paying attention to the reasons that the power of blogs has exploded?

 

Because of the information contained therein. For instance, the information you've never been exposed to before about the research of Dr. McClintock and Shapiro. Very critical research; research that strikes the core of the study of evolution and random mutation.

 

Are you aware of the ramifications of that research? Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the blog from which you pulled awareness of that research?

[Voltaire 5,491]

I'll take a closer look at your link and the Barbara McClintock thing as well. I took a long time to do my last post.

[nikki2200 4]

The blog simply makes you aware of the information. What matters is the information itself.

 

You can most certainly choose to dismiss the information in a blog if you wish. Have you been paying attention to the reasons that the power of blogs has exploded?

 

Because of the information contained therein. For instance, the information you've never been exposed to before about the research of Dr. McClintock and Shapiro. Very critical research; research that strikes the core of the study of evolution and random mutation.

 

Are you aware of the ramifications of that research? Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the blog from which you pulled awareness of that research?

 

 

Everything I saw in that blog was unproven theories and opinions by some engineer that claims to have figured out the secrets of the universe because he knows MS-DOS.

 

I'm not going to write a 4 page post to pick it apart because I really don't care enough. When I see something like that it gets forced into the same place of my brain that I put information learned from TV shows such as Flava of Love.