Creationism education bills

[nikki2200 4]

How blind are you to your own behaviour? Your first post here was an insult. Your second was an insult. And you think you have authority to chide over someone who insults in response to your insults?

 

When you insult first, you make it clear that you have nothing to talk about; nothing to say. You intend to screw around. So you get screwed with. Quit complaining about beds you make that you sleep in.

 

Prove me wrong - or STFU.

 

Imma go out on a limb her and assume that your use of the word f@ggot was where the small-minded comment came from.

 

WTF does that mean? I have very strong beliefs - but have you wavered in your views/strong beliefs either? At all? So what are you saying?

 

I don't have strong beliefs/views on this topic. I would be willing to learn and research and accept new scietific developments because I find it fascinating. I also think using the term "beliefs" is very telling here. We are talking about science, not "beliefs". I think this is the crux of the whole debate. You like to claim people are close-minded, however someone posts a documentary that was factual and unbiased presenting the facts of ID being put on trial and you refuse to watch it, declaring it is probably biased without even looking at it. I looked at all of your links and blogs and papers. I just don't see how they provide solid evidence of anything one way or the other. You are making claims that random mutation has been completely ruled out because of the findings of the two scientists you keep citing. The rest of the scientific community does not agree with that conclusion and I would venture to guess that you are reaching that conclusion based on your BELIEFS, not on facts or science. YOU are the one seeing what you want to see.

 

My comment, however, was pretty much the way political and religious discussions usually go when involving people that feel very strongly one way or the other. Nothing anyone says or does is going to sway the other person, which is usually why I stay out of this stuff. Because it's literally like arguing with a wall. And from everything I can tell, this is not a scientific discussion, it is a religious debate. And no one actually wins someone just ends up leaving because they are exhausted with the conversation. I'm not faulting you, it's just the way it is. I would feel the same way arguing with an extreme leftist wingnut who thinks Mumia Abu-Jamal should be freed.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Imma go out on a limb her and assume that your use of the word f@ggot was where the small-minded comment came from.

 

Then this poster doesn't know sh!t about the Geek Bored.

 

Let's be real: that poster is intentionally attempting to operate under a double standard - and one where he/she hasn't addressed a single poster who attacked me first. Not one. Including him/herself.

 

I don't have strong beliefs/views on this topic. I would be willing to learn and research and accept new scietific developments because I find it fascinating. I also think using the term "beliefs" is very telling here. We are talking about science, not "beliefs". I think this is the crux of the whole debate. You like to claim people are close-minded, however someone posts a documentary that was factual and unbiased presenting the facts of ID being put on trial and you refuse to watch it, declaring it is probably biased without even looking at it. I looked at all of your links and blogs and papers.

 

I've responded to that. I don't know how much more clear I can make the following:

 

1) I didn't watch the whole thing, because it's 2 freaking hours long. Complaining that I didn't watch the whole thing, while whining when I provide a long post to read is the pinnacle of asinine hypocrisy. Don't you agree?

 

2) The reason I didn't watch the whole thing is because I was already familiar with it; knew what would happen, and understood that what many of those IDers were saying was not something with which I agreed. ID is a broad area. I am only particularly interested in ID as a larger point of view to approaching Evolution - just as McClintock and Shapiro and Marshall have been saying.

 

That's why I posted their links!

 

3) What I am posting isn't based on "beliefs" or "faith" whatsoever. It's based upon specific scientific research.

 

I just don't see how they provide solid evidence of anything one way or the other. You are making claims that random mutation has been completely ruled out because of the findings of the two scientists you keep citing. The rest of the scientific community does not agree with that conclusion and I would venture to guess that you are reaching that conclusion based on your BELIEFS, not on facts or science. YOU are the one seeing what you want to see.

 

4) I have never ruled out the obvious fact that Random Mutations take place. I have only said that Random Mutation - based upon this new evidence - cannot be the mechanism by which we advance a species.

 

My comment, however, was pretty much the way political and religious discussions usually go when involving people that feel very strongly one way or the other. Nothing anyone says or does is going to sway the other person, which is usually why I stay out of this stuff. Because it's literally like arguing with a wall. And from everything I can tell, this is not a scientific discussion, it is a religious debate. And no one actually wins someone just ends up leaving because they are exhausted with the conversation. I'm not faulting you, it's just the way it is. I would feel the same way arguing with an extreme leftist wingnut who thinks Mumia Abu-Jamal should be freed.

 

Then you should have said this first, as what you said just sounded like a mild insult. The fact is that what derails conversations such as this are people hurling insults and/or glossing over what is said rather than carefully reading what is being offered. Many posters have written repeatedly mischaracterizations of what I said, including you. My words leave little to chance, which is why I take my time to express them.

 

People simply aren't reading. We're several pages in, and only now do I sense people actually starting to understand what I'm saying. They've been busy attempting to throw me into a radical Christian box, when I'm anything but. These prejudices and preconceptions and confirmation bias are poisonous to a constructive debate.

[Gepetto 1,454]

Maybe if people in this country wouldn't focus everything on making more money, and instead allow some thoughtful reflection and teaching of religion and spirituality we would have less people suffering from anxiety, depression, etc. and/or dependent on legal drugs, illegal drugs, and/or alcohol.

 

Plus creationsism sounds more plausible than what science has given us.

[nikki2200 4]

Then this poster doesn't know sh!t about the Geek Bored.

 

Let's be real: that poster is intentionally attempting to operate under a double standard - and one where he/she hasn't addressed a single poster who attacked me first. Not one. Including him/herself.

 

TBH.... I haven't seen that word throw around here that much.

 

 

I've responded to that. I don't know how much more clear I can make the following:

 

1) I didn't watch the whole thing, because it's 2 freaking hours long. Complaining that I didn't watch the whole thing, while whining when I provide a long post to read is the pinnacle of asinine hypocrisy. Don't you agree?

 

2) The reason I didn't watch the whole thing is because I was already familiar with it; knew what would happen, and understood that what many of those IDers were saying was not something with which I agreed. ID is a broad area. I am only particularly interested in ID as a larger point of view to approaching Evolution - just as McClintock and Shapiro and Marshall have been saying.

 

That's why I posted their links!

 

3) What I am posting isn't based on "beliefs" or "faith" whatsoever. It's based upon specific scientific research.

 

I'll address this one point. You are admitting ID is a broad area. Therefore, could you not concede that this is not a "science" at the moment and therefore should not be taught in a public school science class? Which textbook would be used? What exactly is the curriculum? If it's simply that there is an alternative unproven scientific hypothesis out there that there may be an intelligent designer out in the universe, will you concede that that is not science? If schools wish to teach students on the scientific research and results of McLintock and Shapiro, I have no problem with that and I'm not sure anyone would. However jumping to a conclusion that this proves there is a divine creator is not science. And while you are looking at it from this perspective, I'm fairly certain that a lot of the people who are pushing this ID movement are not.

 

4) I have never ruled out the obvious fact that Random Mutations take place. I have only said that Random Mutation - based upon this new evidence - cannot be the mechanism by which we advance a species.

 

There is also research that "proves" that it can. Why can you not accept that there may be an element of both at work? Emergent intelligence does not completely rule out random mutation. Which you continue to say is a complete impossibility based on the research of McLintock and Shapiro. This is my biggest problem in understanding your logic. I feel that you are making a huge leap and I don't draw the same conclusions from that research.

 

Then you should have said this first, as what you said just sounded like a mild insult. The fact is that what derails conversations such as this are people hurling insults and/or glossing over what is said rather than carefully reading what is being offered. Many posters have written repeatedly mischaracterizations of what I said, including you. My words leave little to chance, which is why I take my time to express them.

 

People simply aren't reading. We're several pages in, and only now do I sense people actually starting to understand what I'm saying. They've been busy attempting to throw me into a radical Christian box, when I'm anything but. These prejudices and preconceptions and confirmation bias are poisonous to a constructive debate.

 

I've read. I've seen a lot of other people that I'm pretty sure have read. Just because someone reads and does not agree or jump to the same conclusion does not mean they don't understand. I could post dozens of actual scientific studies that contradict the experiments you keep citing. FeelingMN posted a few. But people run out of energy. I have to give you that. You have a lot of energy.

 

And speaking of throwing you in a radical Christian box, I've seen several times in this thread where you've accused people of being atheists because they didn't agree with you. So we have a little pot.... meet kettle going on here.

 

Speaking of energy... I think I'm done now too. Literally this thread could go on for 8765786 pages and the outcome would be exactly the same.

 

I have to admit this has been a lot more fun than reading about someone's girlfriend's pvssy. And I think I've learned a little too, so that can't be a bad thing.

[Strike 6,023]

 

1) I didn't watch the whole thing, because it's 2 freaking hours long. Complaining that I didn't watch the whole thing, while whining when I provide a long post to read is the pinnacle of

 

2 hours? OMFG. You can't spare two hours to actually educate yourself? I guess that's telling. However......I also posted a link to the wikipedia entry on the same trial. Wouldn't take more than 15 minutes to go though the whole thing. But of course you haven't responded as to why you can't even spare that amount of time.......

[FeelingMN 273]

Shapiro is not stupid. I'm sure he's being extremely careful wrt choosing sides, as he understands just what stigma comes with doing so - on both sides.

 

 

 

ID researchers have already explained that they are seeing repeated patterns in microcellular level that indicate intentional design. In short, what they've said is exactly what Shapiro is corroborating.

 

The blind will not see.

 

James Shapiro e-mailed me a few years back, saying, "I hear that you are citing me in your talks as supporting ID." I replied, "Yes, I cite you. But I always make it very clear that you are not an intelligent design proponent." Indeed, it helps to show that evolutionary theory is in disarray by citing people like Shapiro who have no truck with ID.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=MjKkFG8qVjcC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=james+a.+shapiro+thoughts+on+intelligent+design&source=bl&ots=hFjqMzDK6y&sig=xJz2Er3AJh4bOpPIubeR_2sPUHY&hl=en&ei=d_WPTZebJI270QHQvbitCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

(At the bottom of page 18)

 

Looks like Shapiro is not arguing for ID, Mensa. And it appears, as I've been saying all along, that ID supporters simply hijack others' work to promote their own agenda...which is what you've done here.

 

Look, his work and ideas are awesome. They're changing evolutionary theory. They do not support ID. To think so clearly depends on biased interpretation.

[MedStudent 56]

2 hours? OMFG. You can't spare two hours to actually educate yourself? I guess that's telling. However......I also posted a link to the wikipedia entry on the same trial. Wouldn't take more than 15 minutes to go though the whole thing. But of course you haven't responded as to why you can't even spare that amount of time.......

 

I just finished watching that 5 minutes ago. Thanks for posting it. It was pretty interesting stuff.

[MDC 7,899]

Why am I not surprised that a birther thiinks intelligent design is science?

 

[nikki2200 4]

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

 

(At the bottom of page 18)

 

Looks like Shapiro is not arguing for ID, Mensa. And it appears, as I've been saying all along, that ID supporters simply hijack others' work to promote their own agenda...which is what you've done here.

 

Look, his work and ideas are awesome. They're changing evolutionary theory. They do not support ID. To think so clearly depends on biased interpretation.

 

Thank you for making me feel sane again. I completely could not make my brain correlate Shapiro's research with ID. Apparently he can't either....

[IMMensaMind 462]

TBH.... I haven't seen that word throw around here that much.

 

 

 

 

I'll address this one point. You are admitting ID is a broad area. Therefore, could you not concede that this is not a "science" at the moment and therefore should not be taught in a public school science class?

 

I'll say it again: Voltaire and I talked about this: what should be discussed in science classrooms is the notion that there are those who would like to pursue the field of ID, and that certain scientific discoveries have been made which support ID from the perspective of altering the Theory of Evolution to abandon Random Mutation as the vehicle for progressive Evolution, in favor of the theory that DNA is intentionally genetically programmed.

 

Because that is the only thing one can conclude as a result of the research of McClintock and Shapiro. I believe there are many in "ID" who aren't sufficiently qualified to be scientists - but I likewise believe that there are many secular scientists who are devoted to a secular agenda as well there.

 

It is the issue that Shapiro addresses in his paper.

 

Which textbook would be used? What exactly is the curriculum? If it's simply that there is an alternative unproven scientific hypothesis out there that there may be an intelligent designer out in the universe, will you concede that that is not science? If schools wish to teach students on the scientific research and results of McLintock and Shapiro, I have no problem with that and I'm not sure anyone would.

 

I bet you that you are wrong about that. I believe that there is much at stake here, and it is precisely those scientists who are worried that McClintock's and Shapiro's research will open a Pandora's Box that will not be reclosed that will stand in the way.

 

Along with the usual secular/atheist activist suspects. This is only what I suspect.

 

However jumping to a conclusion that this proves there is a divine creator is not science.

 

Who made this claim?

 

And while you are looking at it from this perspective, I'm fairly certain that a lot of the people who are pushing this ID movement are not.

 

I agree. I never disagreed. Pages of this thread have been wasted by people attempting to put those words in my mouth.

 

There is also research that "proves" that it can.

 

First of all, note the word "can". Use of that word means that it hasn't been proved - just that it's possible.

 

Regardless: where? I am unaware of such research. All that I'm aware of is that Random Mutation as the vehicle for Evolutionary advance is the standard belief in Secular Evolutionists, but they don't have any legs to stand on - which is why Perry Marshall has stated that in 5 years of asking for it, no one has produced anything which can raise that assertion beyond what it presently is: just an assertion.

 

Why can you not accept that there may be an element of both at work? Emergent intelligence does not completely rule out random mutation.

 

Nothing I have ever said condones stopping the pursuit of knowledge. If a scientist believes one way, let them secure funding via whatever means they wish to prove their hypothesis. Same goes for anyone else with any other belief. Like I said: I'm not a person who looks to quash research based upon ideology. I am a person, however, who is keenly aware when one side has a very compelling argument that is being quashed, and this is that argument.

 

This friggin information has been known for 60 focking years. Has it been taught in schools at all? Fock no.

 

That's because there are secular activists in power in our education and other systems - just like I said.

 

Which you continue to say is a complete impossibility based on the research of McLintock and Shapiro.

 

I've said that this information refutes Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution. That isn't the same thing as saying that it is impossible. Be careful with your words.

 

This is my biggest problem in understanding your logic. I feel that you are making a huge leap and I don't draw the same conclusions from that research.

 

My problem is the sheer number of people who project a conclusion from their own confirmation bias, and put words into my mouth that I didn't say. I am arguing for that position, yes - but only as someone who holds a strong opinion would. I have not anywhere in this thread that this proves anything...

 

...other than such pursuits are legitimate. It does prove that.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I've read. I've seen a lot of other people that I'm pretty sure have read. Just because someone reads and does not agree or jump to the same conclusion does not mean they don't understand. I could post dozens of actual scientific studies that contradict the experiments you keep citing. FeelingMN posted a few. But people run out of energy. I have to give you that. You have a lot of energy.

 

Contradict? There isn't one study which contradicts what Shapiro is saying in the present, or McClintock has said in the past. NOT ONE. Are you reading them correctly? Are you sure that your mistaken projection of my presumed argument has not also resulted in you projecting the incorrect conclusion you've drawn on what has been posted here which you believe refutes?

 

NOTHING refutes Shapiro's research at the moment. NOTHING.

 

And speaking of throwing you in a radical Christian box, I've seen several times in this thread where you've accused people of being atheists because they didn't agree with you. So we have a little pot.... meet kettle going on here.

 

Huh? What are you talking about? Who have I called an atheist that hasn't already called themselves an atheist? PenultimateStraw claimed that he wasn't an atheist - but I wasn't speaking to him. Strike has called himself an atheist. So who are you talking about?

 

*edit* what you're talking about is me confusing Strike with PenultimateStraw. Sorry. I'm having conversations with a freaking lot of people.

 

Speaking of energy... I think I'm done now too. Literally this thread could go on for 8765786 pages and the outcome would be exactly the same.

 

Which would be...what? That people refuse to grant that this research is stunning and groundbreaking and paradigm shifting?

 

If people cannot admit that, then they are boobs.

 

I have to admit this has been a lot more fun than reading about someone's girlfriend's pvssy. And I think I've learned a little too, so that can't be a bad thing.

 

And I have no interest in those threads. They're juvenile, beyond the brief wise-crack and moving on. This is obviously not the forearm for in-depth conversations; there are clearly far too many immature vandals who would rather post puff.

[FeelingMN 273]

Thank you for making me feel sane again. I completely could not make my brain correlate Shapiro's research with ID. Apparently he can't either....

 

The sad thing is, Mensa actually linked some pretty cool research....like actual scientific research. But it didn't say what he wanted it to say.....so now we're gonna have to argue semantics instead of ideas.

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

http://books.google.com/books?id=MjKkFG8qVjcC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=james+a.+shapiro+thoughts+on+intelligent+design&source=bl&ots=hFjqMzDK6y&sig=xJz2Er3AJh4bOpPIubeR_2sPUHY&hl=en&ei=d_WPTZebJI270QHQvbitCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

(At the bottom of page 18)

 

Looks like Shapiro is not arguing for ID, Mensa. And it appears, as I've been saying all along, that ID supporters simply hijack others' work to promote their own agenda...which is what you've done here.

 

Look, his work and ideas are awesome. They're changing evolutionary theory. They do not support ID. To think so clearly depends on biased interpretation.

 

Just as to think not clearly depends upon biased interpretation.

 

That Shapiro is neither an opponent nor proponent of ID is exactly what I said. Shapiro is being very intelligent about his approach here; he understands what is at stake, and he understands the polarization of this issue. However, you cannot read the words I bolded and not understand that what he is suggesting that this discovery may allow is insight into "is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species" (his words).

 

That cannot mean anything other than science itself taking on the question of Intelligent Design. Now I ask: how can Science take on this question, if the field that would be employed to research it not be Science?

 

I'm using only my definition of Intelligent Design here, btw: not the full basket of kooks that populate this like every basket gets populated.

[FeelingMN 273]

Which would be...what? That people refuse to grant that this research is stunning and groundbreaking and paradigm shifting?

 

If people cannot admit that, then they are boobs.

 

Absolutely. This stuff is cool....and it is taught. When I was in grad school I had to take many a molecular biology course. I can't remember everything that was presented in those courses....but a lot of what I've read makes sense. Though, they never mentioned anything about cellular intelligence. I'll dig around some another time, but I bet folks are investigating this line of research.

 

Having said all that....nothing you've presented supports intelligent design. Sorry.

[IMMensaMind 462]

The sad thing is, Mensa actually linked some pretty cool research....like actual scientific research. But it didn't say what he wanted it to say.....so now we're gonna have to argue semantics instead of ideas.

 

 

No. The Scientist didn't say what you think I wanted him to say - but I told you that right away, as did Perry Marshall's site! His research, however, did. Here's a truth: you cannot provide definitive research utterly contradicting the dogma of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolutionary advance, and not stick a knife in the heart of secularism. Cannot. You are trying to claim that this "intelligent adaptation" that Shapiro and McClintock have definitively determined is still random, but that is the opposite of random.

 

It's orchestrated. And until you wrap your mind around what that means, you'll not get where you need to be.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Absolutely. This stuff is cool....and it is taught. When I was in grad school I had to take many a molecular biology course. I can't remember everything that was presented in those courses....but a lot of what I've read makes sense. Though, they never mentioned anything about cellular intelligence. I'll dig around some another time, but I bet folks are investigating this line of research.

 

Having said all that....nothing you've presented supports intelligent design. Sorry.

 

You've just contradicted yourself in your own post. This stuff was NOT taught. It's new to you; it's new to every single last reader of this thread.

 

I am utterly baffled how someone can bat around the phrase "Cellular Intelligence" and not be absolutely compelled to link the subject to Intelligent Design. If something not sentient reacts with planned programming, it is absolutely compelling evidence of an Intelligent Design! This is why the notion of Random Mutation became the norm with which to begin - to AVOID THIS VERY ADMISSION!

 

This is simple facts in evidence!

[FeelingMN 273]

Just as to think not clearly depends upon biased interpretation.

 

 

That Shapiro is neither an opponent nor proponent of ID is exactly what I said. Shapiro is being very intelligent about his approach here; he understands what is at stake, and he understands the polarization of this issue. However, you cannot read the words I bolded and not understand that what he is suggesting that this discovery may allow is insight into "is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species" (his words).

 

So Shapiro is ballsy enough to take on Evolutionary dogma.....but he doesn't want to rock the boat too much?

 

When he speaks of intelligence, he does so of cellular intelligence....which is what is guiding evolution.....not random mutation. And not intelligent design.

 

Doesn't surprise me that you're so confident about attributing intent to his words and behavior. Y'all are already confident in doing that with god.

 

 

That cannot mean anything other than science itself taking on the question of Intelligent Design. Now I ask: how can Science take on this question, if the field that would be employed to research it not be Science?

 

I'm using only my definition of Intelligent Design here, btw: not the full basket of kooks that populate this like every basket gets populated.

 

 

This makes no sense to me. What the fock are you talking about?

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

Whaddya mean, ? Just as I believe that Shapiro believes that his research will bridge the gap between Christian and Secular Darwinist, I believe that it will. Just as I believe that Shapiro's research will allow inroads into the question ""is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species" (his words).

 

And you think it's crazy to look at those words and conclude that he's talking about something which legitimizes the study of Intelligent Design?

 

I think it's crazy not to - and that's the side you fall on. Hence my comment. Nothing about it.

 

 

So Shapiro is ballsy enough to take on Evolutionary dogma.....but he doesn't want to rock the boat too much?

 

"Ballsy" enough? I thought this was about Science! Science is supposed to be clinical and dispassionate; activist and agenda free! Are you tacitly admitting here that it is something else?

 

The fact is that Shapiro as well as I know that Science is laden with political activism. Secularism harnesses science as a vehicle to delegitimize faith-based belief. We all know it, I will cease talking to ANYONE who doesn't admit this.

 

In such an environment, the notion of ID has been bastardized, demonized and hated. Look at the vitriol in this thread for evidence of that fact. I am simply taking a guess when I say that Shapiro is staying neutral in this debate for the reasons I've stated, but my perception is that he understands just how marginalized he can become if he declares for ID.

 

But he didn't declare against it either, did he? Nope: so he has folks like you on the hook still, and is leading you some line. I think his strategy is remarkably intelligent, so let's see how this plays out.

 

When he speaks of intelligence, he does so of cellular intelligence....which is what is guiding evolution.....not random mutation. And not intelligent design.

 

So you say. That statement strikes me as ridiculous, quite frankly: the fact that intelligence exists at a cellular level is such powerful evidence of a Designer that I cannot believe you look at it any other way!

 

Tell me: where did this "intelligence" come from, FeelingMN? It is obviously a mechanism which was in place since the first spark of life, you know: we're now talking about basing the entirety of Evolution on this INTELLIGENCE, and away from the notion of "chance", so...

 

...just how did intelligence spring from ooze without being put there?

 

Is this where you frizz out and provide non-answers or insults? I truly hope not, as it is the critical question.

 

And remember: Shapiro's words weren't "Celllular Intelligence" in the manner you've rephrased to assist you in supporting your claim: his words were "is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species".

 

He is literally asking the question IS THERE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER?

 

Why are you incapable of admitting that?

 

Doesn't surprise me that you're so confident about attributing intent to his words and behavior. Y'all are already confident in doing that with god.

 

Wat? I'm attributing meaning to his words because he used words which mean what I believe they mean.

 

This makes no sense to me. What the fock are you talking about?

 

I'll say it again:

 

"is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species" (his words).

 

He's talking about "an intelligence at work in the origin of species". Clearly, his meaning is very broad here, and talking about something being "at work" and "guiding" means that there is sentience he's questioning.

 

How could you possibly interpret that any other way????

[GettnHuge 2]

Secularism harnesses science as a vehicle to delegitimize faith-based belief. We all know it, I will cease talking to ANYONE who doesn't admit this.

 

 

/thread

Winner.

There is not enough time in the day to fully discuss the brilliance of the above post - Anyone who has not had their mind properly opened

at this point - never will. They will continue to be useless slugs of human biped jello not knowing the magnificence of their own existence.

[FeelingMN 273]

No. The Scientist didn't say what you think I wanted him to say - but I told you that right away, as did Perry Marshall's site! His research, however, did. Here's a truth: you cannot provide definitive research utterly contradicting the dogma of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolutionary advance, and not stick a knife in the heart of secularism. Cannot. You are trying to claim that this "intelligent adaptation" that Shapiro and McClintock have definitively determined is still random, but that is the opposite of random.

 

It's orchestrated. And until you wrap your mind around what that means, you'll not get where you need to be.

 

Are you sure you don't have an agenda here? Sticking a knife in secularism?

 

I've brought up emergence several times so far in this thread. I'm content with calling cellular intelligence emergent. It's consonant with emergent phenomena seen in other aspects of nature. To say cellular intelligence was designed is to say everything was designed....which is theological. And if you say ONLY cellular intelligence was designed....then how can you make that claim?

 

Dunno man....seems like my interpretation is more parsimonious with accepted scientific evidence. Unlike you who's basically saying these experiments prove god exists. That's a pretty large leap....and not even the authors of this research wanna go there....not because they're politically savvy but because it's crazy to do so.

 

You've just contradicted yourself in your own post. This stuff was NOT taught. It's new to you; it's new to every single last reader of this thread.

 

I am utterly baffled how someone can bat around the phrase "Cellular Intelligence" and not be absolutely compelled to link the subject to Intelligent Design. If something not sentient reacts with planned programming, it is absolutely compelling evidence of an Intelligent Design! This is why the notion of Random Mutation became the norm with which to begin - to AVOID THIS VERY ADMISSION!

 

This is simple facts in evidence!

 

 

Can you provide a link about this stuff not being taught? You have some nebulous quote referring to McClintock...who was the victim of discrimination and didn't get the recognition she so rightly deserved for her work...not until much later.

 

Cellular intelligence is not taught....though to be fair, it hasn't exactly been proven yet....so why would it be taught? But I think it's an interesting idea...one that can be tested and re-tested.....it can be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. ID cannot. But transposition is definitely taught....and the cellular signaling networks Shapiro alluded to.....they're definitely taught. You would have known this if you had gone to Johns Hopkins.

 

And I'll re-visit the problem of free will again. If you really think "something not sentient reacts with planned programming, it is absolutely compelling evidence of an Intelligent Design!" then you have to apply that same 'logic' to a zygote. How is what you've said here different than the conditions seen very early in life? And if we're programmed...err, I mean designed, that basically means God has made us with a very specific role in mind. Of course you'll just say we were given Free Will....or Free Will was part of the design package...or some sh!t. You seem reluctant to expound on the ramifications of ID.

 

Maybe it's because you haven't found a blogger who's devoted enough cyberspace on the matter yet.

 

You scare me.

[IMMensaMind 462]

/thread

Winner.

There is not enough time in the day to fully discuss the brilliance of the above post - Anyone who has not had their mind properly opened

at this point - never will. They will continue to be useless slugs of human biped jello not knowing the magnificence of their own existence.

 

[GettnHuge 2]

 

Ok see, you have just proven how gullible you are. With just a few posts, I have completely sucked you in. You bought all of my BS hook line

and sinker. What does that say about these morons that have sucked you in? What does that say about you? Or perhaps you could just admit

that you are desperate to find someone, anyone, who will agree with this garbage.

You are the missing link, goodbye.

[nikki2200 4]

OK. Now we've moved into BOLDED mode. Things have gotten REALLY REALLY serious now.

[nikki2200 4]

Ok see, you have just proven how gullible you are. With just a few posts, I have completely sucked you in. You bought all of my BS hook line

and sinker. What does that say about these morons that have sucked you in? What does that say about you? Or perhaps you could just admit

that you are desperate to find someone, anyone, who will agree with this garbage.

You are the missing link, goodbye.

 

 

/thread

[FeelingMN 273]

Mensa, I'm getting tired....I'm not frizzing out or whatever. I'm not manic. I need sleep.

 

Dr. Shapiro has listed his e-mail address on his website. Ask him if you need clarification.

 

And quit playing innocent. You've condescended me a few different times....insuinating I'm blind or on the wrong side of the argument when I've at least attempted a civil, thoughtful discussion on this matter. You make it very hard.

 

As far as intelligence emerging from out of the ooze....take a look around....not everything you see was present at the beginning of life. So does this mean God put drobeski on earth? Puppy dogs? Lithium? These things didn't exist....just like intelligence didn't exist. Since you want to say intelligence was programmed by god...then you'll have to concede that everything was put on earth by god. That's theology...and it's something you said you were not arguing for.

 

And here's what Shapiro is saying:

 

I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution.

 

 

Not intelligent design....intelligent cellular action in evolution. Cellular intelligence drives evolution, not chance and necessity. Not ID.

[FeelingMN 273]

This thread's about done. In honor of ManicMind.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8

[IMMensaMind 462]

Are you sure you don't have an agenda here? Sticking a knife in secularism?

 

Who ever said I don't have an agenda? Of course I have an agenda! I'm trying to do my part to destroy the efforts of those who have engaged Science as a tool to delegitimize belief in God, and I will use any means necessary to attain that goal!

 

In this case, Science itself has provided evidence of something so utterly profound and paradigm crumbling, that it had to be brought to light, and nearly no one knows about this, or understands the implications.

 

Do you fully understand just how profound it is to have such powerful research that directly contradicts the dogma of Random Mutation as Evolutionary Progenitor? That's the cornerstone of Secularism, for crissakes.

 

I've brought up emergence several times so far in this thread. I'm content with calling cellular intelligence emergent. It's consonant with emergent phenomena seen in other aspects of nature. To say cellular intelligence was designed is to say everything was designed....which is theological.

 

Au contraire, mon frere: it was previously theological. What we have here is merging of theology and science - so science now appears capable of addressing this question (via ID, IMO). What's sad is that we knew this 60 years ago.

 

That speaks to the agenda of which I speak as loudly as anything could. If you read biographies of McClintock, you'll realize what hardship she endured for her discoveries. She was shunned. Do you not think Shapiro has learned a lesson from his predecessor?

 

You mention being content with defining "cellular intelligence" as emergent. I certainly hope you won't simply drop the ball there, as it isn't enough, as there is both weak emergence and Strong Emergence:

 

Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

 

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

 

This is how scientists absolutely struggle with a phenomena so powerful that they literally break their bones avoiding calling something God - just as Stephen Hawking did when he said that it was impossible to avoid considering a Creator when contemplating the Big Bang.

 

And yet atheists have no trouble with it. That utterly astounds me.

 

I think we've all known that - to this point - there are areas that Science seemed poorly suited to address. We didn't know if this was due to simple lack of knowledge, or limitations of the legitimacy of Science to Space/Time (which was itself created at the Big Bang, thus delegitimizing Science's ability to delve into questions of what preceded that) - or both.

 

It appears in this case that Science can provide clues that can at least begin to bridge the gap between disciplines - a sort of meta-physical abiogenesis if you will.

 

And if you say ONLY cellular intelligence was designed....then how can you make that claim?

 

Sorry...what? You lost me here. Shapiro's research seems to indicate that an intelligence exists at a cellular level, and that is the profound discovery, as that wasn't supposed to be true. Activities at that level were supposed to only advance through random mutation.

 

Dunno man....seems like my interpretation is more parsimonious with accepted scientific evidence. Unlike you who's basically saying these experiments prove god exists. That's a pretty large leap....and not even the authors of this research wanna go there....not because they're politically savvy but because it's crazy to do so.

 

No - I've said that it's great evidence of the case people like me have been making for years. It's not crazy whatsoever. Look where you've now been pulled: you wouldn't even consider that Science has anything like this to even approach the possibility prior to this.

 

This is huge.

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

Can you provide a link about this stuff not being taught? You have some nebulous quote referring to McClintock...who was the victim of discrimination and didn't get the recognition she so rightly deserved for her work...not until much later.

 

You want a link proving a negative? A priori evidence is all that you'll attain. Did you know this? No, you didn't! You were in graduate school in biology, for crissakes, and they didn't mention cellular intelligence - and you're actually questioning whether this sh!t was taught?

 

NO, it wasn't focking taught!

 

Cellular intelligence is not taught....though to be fair, it hasn't exactly been proven yet....so why would it be taught?

 

What is your standard of 'proven'?? Proven like Evolution? The reaction of protozoa to stressful environments is already proven. That is not a question for debate, nor is McClintock's now 60 year old data proving chromosome transposition. This is old sh!t. And you seem to gloss over that discrimination, without addressing why.

 

I think both you and I know why Barbara McClintock's research was quashed. They knew the ramifications to Secularism even then. You'll have a major task to convince me otherwise.

 

But I think it's an interesting idea...one that can be tested and re-tested.....it can be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. ID cannot.

 

Another baffling statement: by testing and re-testing, you are testing ID.

 

But transposition is definitely taught....and the cellular signaling networks Shapiro alluded to.....they're definitely taught. You would have known this if you had gone to Johns Hopkins.

 

But I didn't. And you clearly didn't know a thing about cellular intelligence. I would hope you're beyond trying to pull stupid digs like this.

 

And I'll re-visit the problem of free will again. If you really think "something not sentient reacts with planned programming, it is absolutely compelling evidence of an Intelligent Design!" then you have to apply that same 'logic' to a zygote. How is what you've said here different than the conditions seen very early in life? And if we're programmed...err, I mean designed, that basically means God has made us with a very specific role in mind. Of course you'll just say we were given Free Will....or Free Will was part of the design package...or some sh!t. You seem reluctant to expound on the ramifications of ID.

 

How have I shown reluctance? I cannot see what case you're trying to make! To me, Free Will comes with Sentience; Sentience was pre-programmed into the Evolutionary Mechanism via Cellular Intelligence, and Free Will matures with age. What's the conflict? God's plan would logically be to allow us to choose an eternity for ourselves.

 

Again: what's the conflict supposed to be?

 

Maybe it's because you haven't found a blogger who's devoted enough cyberspace on the matter yet.

 

You scare me.

 

Oh, shut the fuck up if you cannot stop yourself from impugning me.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Mensa, I'm getting tired....I'm not frizzing out or whatever. I'm not manic. I need sleep.

 

Dr. Shapiro has listed his e-mail address on his website. Ask him if you need clarification.

 

And quit playing innocent. You've condescended me a few different times....insuinating I'm blind or on the wrong side of the argument when I've at least attempted a civil, thoughtful discussion on this matter. You make it very hard.

 

As far as intelligence emerging from out of the ooze....take a look around....not everything you see was present at the beginning of life. So does this mean God put drobeski on earth? Puppy dogs? Lithium? These things didn't exist....just like intelligence didn't exist. Since you want to say intelligence was programmed by god...then you'll have to concede that everything was put on earth by god. That's theology...and it's something you said you were not arguing for.

 

Where did I never say that I wasn't arguing for that? That is the ultimate goal, naturally. I've never denied that: what I've said is that Science is capable of investigating for evidence to support that notion, and Shapiro's research is great evidence of that. That's all.

 

As for what I've bolded: intelligence didn't exist? Can you show me where you can logically conclude such a thing, if it is now discovered that cellular genetic programming - cellular intelligence - is true?

 

That would mean that it was ALWAYS there, because it explains all that Random Mutation Theory cannot! It explains punctuated equilibrium; it explains rapid emergence of bacterialogical strains...it fills the holes and corrects the misimpressions.

 

How could you so cavalierly conclude that intelligence at the cellular level wasn't there at the beginning, if you're willing to accept the notion that Shapiro has discovered it?

 

And here's what Shapiro is saying:

 

I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution.

 

Not intelligent design....intelligent cellular action in evolution. Cellular intelligence drives evolution, not chance and necessity. Not ID.

 

You are attempting to make a definitive case against when you have nothing to support it. I have words with meanings that I can point to. You have to contort meanings and torture definitions to think that Shapiro - or his research - means anything different than it means. He's questioning the notion of an Intelligent Designer. You cannot prove that he isn't; he's SAID that he's attempting to create the bridge between Christianity and Darwinism.

 

Just how is that supposed to happen if he ISN'T questioning the viability of scientifically establishing evidence of a Creator?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ok see, you have just proven how gullible you are. With just a few posts, I have completely sucked you in. You bought all of my BS hook line

and sinker. What does that say about these morons that have sucked you in? What does that say about you? Or perhaps you could just admit

that you are desperate to find someone, anyone, who will agree with this garbage.

You are the missing link, goodbye.

 

I noticed your other posts. Did you notice that I didn't respond? You haven't added a single thing to the thread. Offering you was being polite.

 

Morons who have sucked me in? Into what? A debate I feel is needed; that is one of my hot button topics? Just wtf was your point here at all then?

[nikki2200 4]

So far, only one person - GettnHuge - has acknowledged the ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries. These discoveries are not in question....the publicity of them is. Why is that?

 

 

Dude.... he recited a passage from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion and you were twitching so much like a ferret in heat to have someone agree with you you didn't even notice. And ironically never once did he mention anything about anything that you were talking about, including McClintock or Shapiro.

 

I think that kind of sums up this whole thing.

 

Again.... /thread

[Strike 6,023]

2 hours? OMFG. You can't spare two hours to actually educate yourself? I guess that's telling. However......I also posted a link to the wikipedia entry on the same trial. Wouldn't take more than 15 minutes to go though the whole thing. But of course you haven't responded as to why you can't even spare that amount of time.......

 

Crickets from ImmensaTorridMuhammad. Dude, you too busy to read a one page Wiki article?

 

[naomi 360]

Okay, let me try to wade through this a piece at a a time without my head exploding.

 

 

First, I'm not an atheist at all. I have beliefs of a spiritual nature, but I am in no way religious. And it's not a question of my beliefs being just or unjust. It's whether creationism should be given equal time in a SCIENCE classroom when the idea does not pass scientific muster in any way, shape, or form.

I appreciate it, especially because it was long. I wanted to bounce those thoughts off you, because unless I'm getting you mixed up with the other Frank, science is your field, and you have strong opinions about what should and shouldn't be taught in it.

 

When it comes to simply origins discussion, do you feel confident that some scientists believing intelligence must be involved with what exists shouldn't be mentioned at all? "Here's why many scientists believe a Big Bang happened...". During that same point in the curriculum, "here's why some scientists believe nature as we know it necessitates an intelligence behind it..." That shouldn't be allowed?

 

Using reasoning in a science class. Whod've thunk it!

 

What you believe is mutually exclusive with reason is a belief at the end of the day. (That doesn't mean it must be wrong, of course). You're appealing to your mind, the mind of others, and systems of interpretation. You're also saying the particular appeal you and those others have alone should be offered.

 

I'm not attacking that. Everyone feels that way about something. Do you figure people who intellectually respect theories in fundamental conflict with what you respect, have to be thinking inferior to you? Logical reconciliation within their system of interpretation doesn't make a difference.

 

You give me some examples of things in nature that can only be explained biblically, and we can talk about it.

 

I'm up for that later, but it may spawn a ton of back and forth. Also the way I would put it is "reconcile with what the bible reports."

 

It's the nature of science to test hypotheses and discard those that are proven wrong through experimentation, so of course that is possible. Evolution has withstood the rigors of such experimentation, though.

 

 

 

I prefer to believe in fact rather than supernatural.

 

If the facts left the door open to an intelligence behind nature to you...(the likelihood is challenged at the beginning because pivotal ideas directing how we interpret facts already recognize nothing but chance), the nature of what you're believing wouldn't be changing...only the substance.

 

Do you think it's possible that fundamental presuppositions that are held in significant theories (like evolution) that you regard could be incorrect?

 

I'm not going to pretend I could easily hang in with the science this scientist is referencing, but I was able to mostly understand how he got from point A-B, and it's one of the best papers I've ever read regarding the above:

 

Presuppositions of Science as Related to Origins

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

Crickets from ImmensaTorridMuhammad. Dude, you too busy to read a one page Wiki article?

 

 

 

I'd imagine he's spent 4 hours researching and typing up his posts in this thread.

[FeelingMN 273]

Where did I never say that I wasn't arguing for that? That is the ultimate goal, naturally. I've never denied that: what I've said is that Science is capable of investigating for evidence to support that notion, and Shapiro's research is great evidence of that. That's all.

 

As for what I've bolded: intelligence didn't exist? Can you show me where you can logically conclude such a thing, if it is now discovered that cellular genetic programming - cellular intelligence - is true?

 

That would mean that it was ALWAYS there, because it explains all that Random Mutation Theory cannot! It explains punctuated equilibrium; it explains rapid emergence of bacterialogical strains...it fills the holes and corrects the misimpressions.

 

How could you so cavalierly conclude that intelligence at the cellular level wasn't there at the beginning, if you're willing to accept the notion that Shapiro has discovered it?

 

 

 

You are attempting to make a definitive case against when you have nothing to support it. I have words with meanings that I can point to. You have to contort meanings and torture definitions to think that Shapiro - or his research - means anything different than it means. He's questioning the notion of an Intelligent Designer. You cannot prove that he isn't; he's SAID that he's attempting to create the bridge between Christianity and Darwinism.

 

Just how is that supposed to happen if he ISN'T questioning the viability of scientifically establishing evidence of a Creator?

 

* I misspoke about the beginning of life; substitute time instead.

* Where does Shapiro claim he's "attempting to create the bridge between Christianity and Dearwinism"?

* How can you continue to think Shapiro's work says what you think it does. Dude has said he's not a proponent of ID. He knows this stuff better than almost every other person on earth right now. He understands the implications of his research and has stated he is not a proponent of ID. That's pretty damning in my view....but you seem to be well acquainted with how the man's mind operates....well, his and god's. That's why you have a MensaMind.

* Johns Hopkins could have used a mind like yours.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Dude.... he recited a passage from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion and you were twitching so much like a ferret in heat to have someone agree with you you didn't even notice. And ironically never once did he mention anything about anything that you were talking about, including McClintock or Shapiro.

 

I think that kind of sums up this whole thing.

 

Again.... /thread

 

Only you - inside you - can really know if you think you're being intellectually dishonest. I didn't acknowledge GettnHuge at all in this thread, until he tried a third time to "heap praise". Lots of people read these threads. How exactly was I supposed to know that GettnHuge was being a pr!ck? And just exactly how was I "a ferret in heat", exactly? I posted one emoticon in response.

 

I also didn't even bother to google just wtf he wrote; it looked like psychobabble to me. Whatever - lots of people write lots of goofy stuff here.

 

And if you think this sums up the whole thread here, I really pity your intellectual capacity. There is lots of wondrous and insightful information here, and it does oppose the conventional Evolution thought. I brought that here. Not you. Not anyone else.

 

And if you want to laugh it off because you're simply part of the Geek Bored circle-jerk, do so. The facts are these: I debate earnestly, and I believe what I believe. Ignore the thread if you don't want to hear any more: but simply attempting to be part of this group that thinks little of you dimishes you; not me.

 

This morning, I watched the remainder of a Brendan Frasier movie: School Ties. In that movie, the school's honor code came into question, due to cheating of one of the students, played by Matt Damon. I honestly wonder how many of you have the integrity to do the right thing, considering just how much goes on here that I find pedantic, shallow and needy.

 

There is no respect for independent thought here; this forearm is more filled with intellectual vandals who would rather fock up a good conversation and personally attack someone with differing views than their own than respect and attempt to learn about those differing views.

 

The problems are yours. To the degree to which a poster responds respectfully, they get that returned. If you are not going to bother being respectful, you can damned well believe that I will respond in kind, and I will outlast you. There isn't poster in this forearm with the resolve or stubbornness of me, which means that I will continue to get things done and push for my beliefs long after you've walked away wondering what happened.

[OldMaid 2,135]

Ok see, you have just proven how gullible you are. With just a few posts, I have completely sucked you in. You bought all of my BS hook line

and sinker. What does that say about these morons that have sucked you in? What does that say about you? Or perhaps you could just admit

that you are desperate to find someone, anyone, who will agree with this garbage.

You are the missing link, goodbye.

[drobeski 3,061]

Hi I'm drobeski and I'm an alcoholic

[drobeski 3,061]

Only you - inside you - can really know if you think you're being intellectually dishonest. I didn't acknowledge GettnHuge at all in this thread, until he tried a third time to "heap praise". Lots of people read these threads. How exactly was I supposed to know that GettnHuge was being a pr!ck? And just exactly how was I "a ferret in heat", exactly? I posted one emoticon in response.

 

I also didn't even bother to google just wtf he wrote; it looked like psychobabble to me. Whatever - lots of people write lots of goofy stuff here.

 

And if you think this sums up the whole thread here, I really pity your intellectual capacity. There is lots of wondrous and insightful information here, and it does oppose the conventional Evolution thought. I brought that here. Not you. Not anyone else.

 

And if you want to laugh it off because you're simply part of the Geek Bored circle-jerk, do so. The facts are these: I debate earnestly, and I believe what I believe. Ignore the thread if you don't want to hear any more: but simply attempting to be part of this group that thinks little of you dimishes you; not me.

 

This morning, I watched the remainder of a Brendan Frasier movie: School Ties. In that movie, the school's honor code came into question, due to cheating of one of the students, played by Matt Damon. I honestly wonder how many of you have the integrity to do the right thing, considering just how much goes on here that I find pedantic, shallow and needy.

 

There is no respect for independent thought here; this forearm is more filled with intellectual vandals who would rather fock up a good conversation and personally attack someone with differing views than their own than respect and attempt to learn about those differing views.

 

The problems are yours. To the degree to which a poster responds respectfully, they get that returned. If you are not going to bother being respectful, you can damned well believe that I will respond in kind, and I will outlast you. There isn't poster in this forearm with the resolve or stubbornness of me, which means that I will continue to get things done and push for my beliefs long after you've walked away wondering what happened.

[drobeski 3,061]

Only you - inside you - can really know if you think you're being intellectually dishonest. I didn't acknowledge GettnHuge at all in this thread, until he tried a third time to "heap praise". Lots of people read these threads. How exactly was I supposed to know that GettnHuge was being a pr!ck? And just exactly how was I "a ferret in heat", exactly? I posted one emoticon in response.

 

I also didn't even bother to google just wtf he wrote; it looked like psychobabble to me. Whatever - lots of people write lots of goofy stuff here.

 

And if you think this sums up the whole thread here, I really pity your intellectual capacity. There is lots of wondrous and insightful information here, and it does oppose the conventional Evolution thought. I brought that here. Not you. Not anyone else.

 

And if you want to laugh it off because you're simply part of the Geek Bored circle-jerk, do so. The facts are these: I debate earnestly, and I believe what I believe. Ignore the thread if you don't want to hear any more: but simply attempting to be part of this group that thinks little of you dimishes you; not me.

 

This morning, I watched the remainder of a Brendan Frasier movie: School Ties. In that movie, the school's honor code came into question, due to cheating of one of the students, played by Matt Damon. I honestly wonder how many of you have the integrity to do the right thing, considering just how much goes on here that I find pedantic, shallow and needy.

 

There is no respect for independent thought here; this forearm is more filled with intellectual vandals who would rather fock up a good conversation and personally attack someone with differing views than their own than respect and attempt to learn about those differing views.

 

The problems are yours. To the degree to which a poster responds respectfully, they get that returned. If you are not going to bother being respectful, you can damned well believe that I will respond in kind, and I will outlast you. There isn't poster in this forearm with the resolve or stubbornness of me, which means that I will continue to get things done and push for my beliefs long after you've walked away wondering what happened.

Mensa ....I like you...you know your sh!t ...but you take this place too seriously....you need to lighten up...I understand you're passionate about your beliefs...but I cant speak for everyone here but I'm pretty sure most of us come here to laugh to break up the monotony of real life.

I'm probably considered an ###### by many here but who cares ??? I would still have a drink with any and everyone one of them....even mobdeep so I can make a move on his hot wife.

Anyway .... ....don't take it so seriously ....its never been that serious place you're expecting it to be....and I for one hope it never becomes it.