Creationism education bills

[Strike 6,023]

So what is your and the OP's objection to even ID in science class, or wherever the fock any given school chooses to put it?

 

Are you focking retarded? Go to page 3 or 4 of this thread. Pretty much all of us are ok with ID being discussed in an appropriate class such as philosophy. The objection is to it being taught in science class until if/when there is SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it. You really can't be this focking stupid can you?

[Gepetto 1,454]

In public/government places? Interesting! So what is your and the OP's objection to even ID in science class, or wherever the fock any given school chooses to put it?

 

I don't have an objection to it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You're a lieing sack of sh*t. Bring it. I doubt you even viewed the video but I'm certain you haven't read the transcript. Heck, I doubt you even open up a book unless it has big pictures in it. I'm not gonna quiz you. Your answers are idiotic. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to have an intelligent debate with you. You're not capable. I enjoy mocking your idiocy, as I've said before. I'll continue to do so when you present the opportunity.

 

More backing down because you sling sh!t you cannot back. The transcript, moron, was posted here.

[GettnHuge 2]

Teaching creation in schools does not violate separation of church and state because separation of church and state is not a law nor is it in the constitution.

 

you aren't this dense are you... :rolleyes:

[IMMensaMind 462]

Are you focking retarded? Go to page 3 or 4 of this thread. Pretty much all of us are ok with ID being discussed in an appropriate class such as philosophy. The objection is to it being taught in science class until if/when there is SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it. You really can't be this focking stupid can you?

 

O RLY?

 

 

That's priceless. Now you're claiming that it has nothing to do with religion. Hoo hoo! That's rich!

 

You wouldn't know scientific evidence if it hit you in your diminuitive dink.

[Strike 6,023]

More backing down because you sling sh!t you cannot back. The transcript, moron, was posted here.

 

Here on this forum? The ENTIRE transcript?

[Frank M 181]

Let me see if you can produce something that the attorney did not. Let's see your proof that the immune system evolved itself from something else.

 

 

Here's a Pub Med link to 8719 articles that came up when "evolution of the immune system" was searched for. Peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, not blogs, not books written with no peer review.

 

 

 

Here's a pub Med link to 21 articles that came up when "intelligent design of the immune system" was searched for. Unfortunately, the one article with "intelligent design" in the title has absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design as Michael Behe preaches.

 

 

Deny the evidence all you want, but a simple search comes up 8719 to zero. Take away 9/10ths of those articles because they probably only peripherally have anything to do with the topic, and you still have almost 900 to zero in favor of evidence for the evolution of the immune system from something else.

 

You look like a fool, dude.

[Strike 6,023]

O RLY?

 

 

That's priceless. Now you're claiming that it has nothing to do with religion. Hoo hoo! That's rich!

 

You wouldn't know scientific evidence if it hit you in your diminuitive dink.

 

I'm claiming that most people here who have objected only object to it being taught in science class. You're welcome to reread the thread if you think differently. You REALLY ARE this STUPID, aren't you? You do remind me of Muhammad though. Round and round, spin and spin. It's sad actually.

[Gepetto 1,454]

you aren't this dense are you... :rolleyes:

 

What do you mean...explain.

[Frank M 181]

I'm claiming that most people here who have objected only object to it being taught in science class. You're welcome to reread the thread if you think differently. You REALLY ARE this STUPID, aren't you? You do remind me of Muhammad though. Round and round, spin and spin. It's sad actually.

 

He doesn't even know what he's arguing for anymore. You don't see him arguing that the bacterial flagellum is intelligently designed since we blew that one out of the water. Now it's the human immune system and how people want to suppress ID when everyone has said they don't care if it's taught in the appropriate venue, just not as a scientific theory.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Here's a Pub Med link to 8719 articles that came up when "evolution of the immune system" was searched for. Peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, not blogs, not books written with no peer review.

 

 

 

Here's a pub Med link to 21 articles that came up when "intelligent design of the immune system" was searched for. Unfortunately, the one article with "intelligent design" in the title has absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design as Michael Behe preaches.

 

 

Deny the evidence all you want, but a simple search comes up 8719 to zero. Take away 9/10ths of those articles because they probably only peripherally have anything to do with the topic, and you still have almost 900 to zero in favor of evidence for the evolution of the immune system from something else.

 

You look like fool, dude.

 

What? You post a virtual LMGTFY and you think that establishes your case? You know that is not what I asked for from you. As I've already explained: I'm not talking about mutative changes observed in immune system response to stimuli, or anything even close to that. Put yet another way: I asked you to quote where any scientific publication definitively refutes Behe's statement - under oath - that nowhere has science established proof of the progeny of an immune system.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm claiming that most people here who have objected only object to it being taught in science class. You're welcome to reread the thread if you think differently. You REALLY ARE this STUPID, aren't you? You do remind me of Muhammad though. Round and round, spin and spin. It's sad actually.

 

The objections in this room have flown far beyond that ridiculous claim. They have varied from ridiculing the evidence portrayed by Shapiro meaning anything having to do with support of an ideal which opposes Darwinian Secularism, to ridicule that ID isn't creationism in disguise, etc.

 

You're ignorant.

[IMMensaMind 462]

He doesn't even know what he's arguing for anymore. You don't see him arguing that the bacterial flagellum is intelligently designed since we blew that one out of the water. Now it's the human immune system and how people want to suppress ID when everyone has said they don't care if it's taught in the appropriate venue, just not as a scientific theory.

 

You think you've refuted the claim that the bacterial flagellum isn't intelligently designed? You focking did not. You posted a guy who thinks that Dembski is wrong, and Dembski refuted his complaints. That's what you did; nothing more.

 

There is no more evidence that the flagellum isn't IC than there is that the immune system isn't IC. You're clinging to scientific research revolving around both that doesn't say what you so desperately want it to say. Science doesn't know; that's a fact.

[GettnHuge 2]

What do you mean...explain.

 

You aren't this dense, are you?

[GettnHuge 2]

Science doesn't know; that's a fact.

 

Science couldn't tell me right now what brand of underwear you're sporting. So am I forced to assume the most reasonable answer would be

that they were made by God and not by Hanes or Fruit o the Loom?

 

See I can play this mushamind game too.

[Gepetto 1,454]

 

 

WTF? English, motherfocker!

[GettnHuge 2]

WTF? English, motherfocker!

 

le sigh

I ask something

avoidtheanswermind simply calls me dense

you ask the same thing

I figured I'd sarcastically call you dense too

get it now?

[Gepetto 1,454]

le sigh

I ask something

avoidtheanswermind simply calls me dense

you ask the same thing

I figured I'd sarcastically call you dense too

get it now?

 

OK. Not sure how I was suppose to know that was sarcasm though.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Science couldn't tell me right now what brand of underwear you're sporting. So am I forced to assume the most reasonable answer would be

that they were made by God and not by Hanes or Fruit o the Loom?

 

See I can play this mushamind game too.

 

That you think that is an apropos analogy is testament to just how over your head you are here. ID states that is both a reasonable and mathematically supportable conclusion to draw that organisms which possess the specified complexity of those things which are man-made, can also be asserted to be Intelligently Designed. If someone wants to refute that logical working theory which is testable (and has been), you knock yourself out. So far, it stands as a legitimate theory, based upon correlative data and mathematical probability about which Dembski has written a whole lot.

 

If science would research my underwear, science would have the answer. You're a dolt.

[GettnHuge 2]

OK. Not sure how I was suppose to know that was sarcasm though.

 

:rolleyes: <-------- it's a tip

[GettnHuge 2]

That you think that is an apropos analogy is testament to just how over your head you are here. ID states that is both a reasonable and mathematically supportable conclusion to draw that organisms which possess the specified complexity of those things which are man-made, we can assume that they are Intelligently Designed. If someone wants to refute that logical working theory which is testable (and has been), you knock yourself out. So far, it stands as a legitimate theory, based upon correlative data and mathematical probability about which Dembski has written a whole lot.

 

If science would research my underwear, science would have the answer. You're a dolt.

 

really now? after pages of your absurd analogies, anecdotes, and flippant remarks as the typical response to what seem very reasonable questions...

one would think you'd actually respect that strategy as it mirrors your own, assuming you are the intellectual you constantly boast to be.

 

Since you are accusing me of having weak claims, I have a simple question here Mensa. Doesn't require thesaurus.com or a 20 page response.

 

Did Dr. Jim Shapiro ever utter those words?

 

[Strike 6,023]

 

You're ignorant.

 

 

Ooh, an MJ impersonation.

[IMMensaMind 462]

really now? after pages of your absurd analogies, anecdotes, and flippant remarks as the typical response to what seem very reasonable questions...

one would think you'd actually respect that strategy as it mirrors your own, assuming you are the intellectual you constantly boast to be.

 

 

 

 

So you're equating your attempt to what you claim is a dishonest attempt? And you think you're better?

 

As for nikki's post: I didn't even see it. What words is she talking about? The sentence I put together which used "" instead of ''?

[Me_2006 14]

Here comes the start of the next cycle.

 

 

Called it. He's so pathetically predictable it's losing its fun. And he STILL hasn't answered my question, because he actually cares so much what people think of him that he'll behave in humiliating fashion in order to protect that self-image yet can't realize it's making him look even worse, despite constantly masquerading in an attempt to seem intelligent.

[Frank M 181]

You think you've refuted the claim that the bacterial flagellum isn't intelligently designed? You focking did not. You posted a guy who thinks that Dembski is wrong, and Dembski refuted his complaints. That's what you did; nothing more.

 

There is no more evidence that the flagellum isn't IC than there is that the immune system isn't IC. You're clinging to scientific research revolving around both that doesn't say what you so desperately want it to say. Science doesn't know; that's a fact.

 

Actually, science does know. Both the immune system and the bacterial flagellum are products of evolution, and continue to evolve, as is evidenced by published scientific fact that neither of them are irreducibly complex. Science has asked that question and answered it with science, not in books by a mathematician and a disgraced scientist who have done no work to prove their ideas.

 

I don't want it to say anything. That's what it says! I posted a paper from a science journal that is a review of dozens of papers that prove that the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. I posted a link with hundreds of papers discussing the evolution of the immune system. I posted Behe's own words saying he does not read the latest research into the very topic he is supposed to be an expert in.

 

You have nothing except two guys whose scientific prowess has been rightly questioned. They, and you, are presented with evidence and you cover your ears and eyes and think that because you can't see or hear it, that it doesn't exist.

 

 

[Frank M 181]

The objections in this room have flown far beyond that ridiculous claim. They have varied from ridiculing the evidence portrayed by Shapiro meaning anything having to do with support of an ideal which opposes Darwinian Secularism, to ridicule that ID isn't creationism in disguise, etc.

 

You're ignorant.

 

You still haven't provided anyone with a link that shows Shapiro saying that his research bridges the gap between darwinists and creationists yet. You should probably shut up about him since you have no idea what his research means, he doesn't think it means what you think it means, and you made up quotes and attributed them to him, proving yourself to be a liar and a hypocrite while portraying yourself as the only honest debater here.

 

Talk about ignorant. Look in the focking mirror sometime.

[nikki2200 4]

You

And - because you all are also evading the tough questions I have asked, I'm going to start repeating them:

 

If your understanding of original intent is correct, how is it that the Founding Fathers began each session of Congress with a Christian prayer?

 

Incapable of answering that?

 

We're evading questions surely you can't be serious!!!!!! As for trying to argue that there shouldn't be separation of church and state I personally am not going to get into that. It doesn't matter. It is reality you cannot teach Christianity in a public school. Deal with it. And that is not what this discussion us about.

[nikki2200 4]

wait.... Since Mensa is bringing up separation of church and state, is he finally admitting that ID is religion, not science?????

 

Also I made a long post pages ago that I would be a supporter of having a religion class in school that takes about all the world's religions. Don't have a problem with that in the least. But all the religious parents would probably freak out at their kids learning other religions.

[nikki2200 4]

I'm also coming to the conclusion that Mensa doesn't actually read any of our posts or links. He just skims through them and applies what he assumes what we or they say. It's starting to make sense as the reason why little of what he says makes any sense. Like the flagellum is IC for instance.

[Frank M 181]

I'm also coming to the conclusion that Mensa doesn't actually read any of our posts or links. He just skims through them and applies what he assumes what we or they say. It's starting to make sense as the reason why little of what he says makes any sense. Like the flagellum is IC for instance.

 

Yeah, it's kind of like a guy who walks around with a blindfold on saying "Yep, don't see anything here!"

 

Or the toddler who closes his eyes thinking you can't see him.

 

I'll bet he's the bane of his fantasy league. A pompous doosh like him would last in my league about five minutes before someone would punch him in his face.

[Frank M 181]

This stuff just cracks me up. Mensa doesn't even know anything about his heroes or their pseudoscience. Again, from the Dover trial:

 

[/url]

 

Lawyer - And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

 

Behe - That is correct, yes.

 

 

 

[nikki2200 4]

Wait.... something just occurred to me. Mensa claims he read the entire transcript from the trial. It was a six week long trial. Reading the entire transcript would take quite a bit of time, no? When was it posted?

[penultimatestraw 473]

And - because you all are also evading the tough questions I have asked, I'm going to start repeating them:

 

If your understanding of original intent is correct, how is it that the Founding Fathers began each session of Congress with a Christian prayer?

 

Incapable of answering that?

Like many Christians, the founding fathers were hypocrites?

 

Seriously though, what Gepetto said his first post on page 20 (before he transformed into Recliner Pilot) - there wasn't a law making the prayer mandatory, unlike the laws attempting to teach ID in public school science class, as an alternative to evolution. ID is not a religion-neutral concept, nor is it science. I have a problem with both.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Called it. He's so pathetically predictable it's losing its fun. And he STILL hasn't answered my question, because he actually cares so much what people think of him that he'll behave in humiliating fashion in order to protect that self-image yet can't realize it's making him look even worse, despite constantly masquerading in an attempt to seem intelligent.

 

 

Since you've deluded yourself into thinking what you want, no one has the power to reverse it but you. That's the irrational path you've led yourself on. Have fun with it; I know I will!

 

Meanwhile, some light reading explaining why theism is so much more meaningful than atheism.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Since you've deluded yourself into thinking what you want, no one has the power to reverse it but you. That's the irrational path you've led yourself on. Have fun with it; I know I will!

 

Meanwhile, some light reading explaining why theism is so much more meaningful than atheism.

MMIAFN: Me_2006 is a Christian. I am the only admitted atheist in the thread, I think. Maybe Voltaire, too.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Actually, science does know. Both the immune system and the bacterial flagellum are products of evolution, and continue to evolve, as is evidenced by published scientific fact that neither of them are irreducibly complex. Science has asked that question and answered it with science, not in books by a mathematician and a disgraced scientist who have done no work to prove their ideas.

 

No. Sorry. Science has not tested such a claim; science cannot reproduce a flagellum employing the means which it claims took place to create such things. This is the product of your wishful thinking, and that places you - ironically - right where you disparage me for being.

 

I don't want it to say anything. That's what it says! I posted a paper from a science journal that is a review of dozens of papers that prove that the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. I posted a link with hundreds of papers discussing the evolution of the immune system. I posted Behe's own words saying he does not read the latest research into the very topic he is supposed to be an expert in.

 

And you haven't posted one word from a single paper, because there are no words which support this incredibly heady claim you're making. You're far over-reaching the limits of Science in attempting to link it to an abiogenetic root. You will continue to sit here and claim otherwise, but there is no science which establishes anything more than migratory mutation (read: adaptation) of any component of the immune system, and the flagellum. I've already established that I believe that Evolution works insofar as adapting organisms in a changing environment. I've also gone so far as to say that I've always believed that these adaptations aren't random or accidental, but in fact programmed cellular functions. Shapiro and McClintock have been immense help in providing scientific foundation for these beliefs of mine, and they are beliefs which stand in stark contrast to the story that Darwinists have been peddling for well over 100 years.

 

You have nothing except two guys whose scientific prowess has been rightly questioned. They, and you, are presented with evidence and you cover your ears and eyes and think that because you can't see or hear it, that it doesn't exist.

 

I have no problem with their scientific prowess being questioned: what I have a problem with is people like you claiming you've proved them wrong, when you absolutely have focking not.

 

And you will not be allowed to get away with the claim.

[IMMensaMind 462]

MMIAFN: Me_2006 is a Christian. I am the only admitted atheist in the thread, I think. Maybe Voltaire, too.

 

What does him being Christian - or whatever he claims to be - have to do with my response?

[IMMensaMind 462]

You still haven't provided anyone with a link that shows Shapiro saying that his research bridges the gap between darwinists and creationists yet. You should probably shut up about him since you have no idea what his research means, he doesn't think it means what you think it means, and you made up quotes and attributed them to him, proving yourself to be a liar and a hypocrite while portraying yourself as the only honest debater here.

 

Talk about ignorant. Look in the focking mirror sometime.

 

Again you make claims that aren't true. I've used the phrase "bridging the gap" because I believe it fits what Shapiro's research actually means. Anytime you refute a core ideology of Darwinism - the one which puts it at odds with Creationism - but you do it without impugning the concept of Evolution still as a viable process, you've bridged the gap between the two ideologies.

 

This is extremely plain; it's laughable that you continue to try to contest that merely because Shapiro himself didn't use the words. It doesn't matter to me what Shapiro chooses to say beyond his Scientific stricture. I'm not even sure it's worth attempting to prove that I'm right about the ramifications of this research, but I'll at least take a wave at it with you:

 

What gap exists between Creationism and Darwinism as you understand them?

[IMMensaMind 462]

This stuff just cracks me up. Mensa doesn't even know anything about his heroes or their pseudoscience. Again, from the Dover trial:

 

 

 

You think this actually disqualifies an attempt - you are redefining what is legitimate research. ID, and the theories within ID, are two different concepts. You're mixing concepts because it suits your rather base needs right now. It doesn't matter that a theory hasn't been established to the level of peer-review to this point. That a science requires time to mature doesn't disqualify it as science.

 

This is just a political move to attempt to shut down a threat.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Wait.... something just occurred to me. Mensa claims he read the entire transcript from the trial. It was a six week long trial. Reading the entire transcript would take quite a bit of time, no? When was it posted?

 

It is a long transcript; many pages. The talkorigins link that was posted contains it.