Creationism education bills

[Voltaire 5,491]

Still a religion.

You're wrong but I don't want to argue semantics.

[nikki2200 4]

It is illegitimate of Science to claim "we do not know", when what we do know is that when comparing IC organisms (flagella) to known intelligently designed items, the high CSI indicates a priori evidence of a design, and a purpose, and the flaggelum itself cannot be reduced to more basic forms that indicate some form of evolutionary advance; mistake or otherwise. It exists as a very basic machine, logically incapable of being explained as having evolved from anything else.

 

Nope. The flagella was very prominent in that case; actually it was the defense's whole case. And the real scientists were able to provide enough evidence to convince the judge that they were.... um... reducible? Hence the ass raping I previously discussed.

 

But you are familiar with the case so you already know that.

 

First of all, it had nothing to do with me. I didn't know a thing about ID when that case was tried. I also didn't particularly like the approach/ideologies of some of the participants. I told you what my variety of ID means.

 

Nonetheless, it was part bad defense, and bad reasoning on the part of the court. This is the argument that should have been presented. Additionally, the court holding that teaching of ID in class violates the Establishment Clause is a canard; the words within the Clause have been warped and meanings and intent altered to forward an activist agenda: that is, to alter the public's original understanding of the Clause as a law written to prevent the State from forcing a specific religion on the public into the incorrect (and now popularly understood) perception that it prohibits the discussion or celebration of religions in general in any form. There are plenty of people who would be otherwise described as Conservatives - or even Christians - who fundamentally misunderstand this. Even judges.

 

In Jones' ruling, he claims (incorrectly) that ID is creationism - when it fails the test of the criteria - and makes the additional critical error of claiming that because ID is creationism, it violates the First Amendment because it establishes religion. I have asked this before, and it is appropriate to ask it again here: how could this be a correct interpretation of intent, when the Founding Fathers themselves opened sessions of Congress with prayer?

<br style="">

 

The reason he declared that ID was creationism because the plaintiffs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the text book they were trying to promote in the Dover school district did a massive "find and replace" and replaced the word "creationism" with "intelligent design".

 

 

But you are familiar with the case so you already know that.

 

 

Also, Judge Jones:

 

 

"In an era where we are trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math on the cutting edge in the US, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. You know garbage in, garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."

 

 

 

It doesn't have to be. He has already accomplished what any IDer would want accomplished: he has established innate intelligent programming within cellular genetics.

 

In addition, how his research is now used is completely beyond his control since it's been published.

 

Ummmm… how exactly has he established INTELLIGENT PROGRAMMING? He's merely established that cells can behave intelligently. It's up to the IDers to establish this means "PROGRAMMING". But oh yea. You have Perry Marshall to fight that battle for you with his magnificent comprehension of MS-DOS and how it relates to molecular biology.

 

To those with the capacity to understand it, it is nothing of the sort.

 

I have no idea what this means. But if you are saying only people of a higher level of intelligence are religious, I implore you to watch this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5FIMpHbgU&feature=related

 

OK that's kind of extreme, but for the love of Entity MensaMind, it doesn't take a smart person to believe in the existence of a creator.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Still a religion.

religion

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

 

If you google "atheism and religion" you'll see debates on both sides of this matter. A good rebuttal for some of the main points, semantic and otherwise: BlogNotScience

 

ETA: I approached this thread wrong. I should have started with the ID belief that cells evolve using programming, and went on and on about it - but without posting Shapiro's and McClintock's research. Once the usual suspects would have let out sufficient rope to hang themselves (via heckling a "Creationist" on his "unfounded unscientific ideas"), pulling the verified research would have been a hoot.

 

Good arguments don't rely on "tricking" the opposition; they rely on logic and evidence.

 

Speaking of evidence, the global warming video is interesting: it refers to the data corruption I alluded to earlier. I'm sure you noted the disclaimer at the beginning that states the speaker believes in CO2's role in global warming, right?

 

Holy carp, I just noted the date on your posts! Looks like the joke is on me after all. Good one, Mensa

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

You stopped being honest about your role in this discussion quite a while ago. Anyone tool understands that referencing "a God" does not identify Christianity. Get real.

[IMMensaMind 462]

religion

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

 

If you google "atheism and religion" you'll see debates on both sides of this matter. A good rebuttal for some of the main points, semantic and otherwise: BlogNotScience

 

 

 

Good arguments don't rely on "tricking" the opposition; they rely on logic and evidence.

 

Speaking of evidence, the global warming video is interesting: it refers to the data corruption I alluded to earlier. I'm sure you noted the disclaimer at the beginning that states the speaker believes in CO2's role in global warming, right?

 

Holy carp, I just noted the date on your posts! Looks like the joke is on me after all. Good one, Mensa

 

Since we're big on court rulings in this thread, I'll throw you one of my own:

 

Court rules Atheism a Religion.

 

As for relying on trickery: I think your response here is enlightening. It's like interviewing a hostile witness: one resorts to forcing such a witness into admitting statements of fact.

 

Something can trick you into revealing your true feelings without being dishonest. Such a strategy would have done that.

 

That it would be capable of doing that (and you seem to tacitly understand that) indicates that the people with whom I'm arguing aren't being honest in their responses in this debate.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Nope. The flagella was very prominent in that case; actually it was the defense's whole case. And the real scientists were able to provide enough evidence to convince the judge that they were.... um... reducible? Hence the ass raping I previously discussed.

 

Ah! So now it's not proof, but evidence? You require proof when it suits your argument, and simple evidence when it doesn't.

 

No scientist has established that the flagellum evolved from something else, and if you believe they did, you're delusional.

 

But you are familiar with the case so you already know that.

 

<br style="">

 

What's clear is that you don't know the case, or what the basic ruling was about.

 

The reason he declared that ID was creationism because the plaintiffs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the text book they were trying to promote in the Dover school district did a massive "find and replace" and replaced the word "creationism" with "intelligent design".

 

"Shadow of a doubt"? Hardly. As I've posted, ID doesn't reach the criterium necessary to be considered Creationism, and Creeationism itself has multiple meanings.

 

But you are familiar with the case so you already know that.

 

What I see you trying very hard to do is make this something that it wasn't.

 

Also, Judge Jones:

 

[/b][/size]

 

Interesting how you cling to one guy's opinion on the matter. This isn't bad science; he was responsible for a bad ruling. Either way, you continue to attempt to have me defend a court case, when my brand of ID differs enough to have me say much earlier in this thread that I wasn't here to defend the entire ideology presented by those defendants.

 

Ummmm… how exactly has he established INTELLIGENT PROGRAMMING? He's merely established that cells can behave intelligently. It's up to the IDers to establish this means "PROGRAMMING". But oh yea. You have Perry Marshall to fight that battle for you with his magnificent comprehension of MS-DOS and how it relates to molecular biology.

 

You are (myopically) attempting to claim that the concept of Intelligent programming hasn't been established here? McClintock called such cellular behaviour wisdom.

 

I'm fascinated to see how you'll respond to this statement: when something exhibits intelligent behavior, it is either:

 

1) Programmed

 

2) Sentient

 

I'm tickled to hear you explain it another way. Or are you saying that intelligent behaviour is itself accidental?

 

 

I have no idea what this means. But if you are saying only people of a higher level of intelligence are religious, I implore you to watch this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5FIMpHbgU&feature=related

 

OK that's kind of extreme, but for the love of Entity MensaMind, it doesn't take a smart person to believe in the existence of a creator.

 

It is very apparent to me that some people cannot expand their mind to see the possibilities here, as all I've said is this evidence strengthens my own personal beliefs. You've continually demanded that I do not hold the belief unless it's proven, which is an immensely hypocritical stance to hold, as everyone employs belief in their lives. There is a difference between what I would say as a Scientist, and what I can say as an individual.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Since we're big on court rulings in this thread, I'll throw you one of my own:

 

Court rules Atheism a Religion.

 

As for relying on trickery: I think your response here is enlightening. It's like interviewing a hostile witness: one resorts to forcing such a witness into admitting statements of fact.

 

Something can trick you into revealing your true feelings without being dishonest. Such a strategy would have done that.

 

That it would be capable of doing that (and you seem to tacitly understand that) indicates that the people with whom I'm arguing aren't being honest in their responses in this debate.

I suspected the Atheism court ruling would be in the cards, considering it is Google hit number 1 for "atheism is religion". Do I agree with the ruling? No. And it certainly has no basis in science, unlike many of the ID cases. The Dover case in particular. Because I think that case has scientific merit germane to this discussion (courtesy of Strike), am I being inconsistent in disagreeing with another court's interpretation of the establishment clause? And I'm OK with atheism NOT being taught in public school. It would be great if it were presented as a credible alternative to theism in church, however.

 

I've been honest throughout this thread; you've admitted deceit on an least one occasion and remorse that you didn't resort to trickery to attempt to prove your point. Perhaps you waited 5 pages to introduce the McClintock/Shapiro's "support" for ID because you didn't know about it until then, after the initial computer programmer's example was lambasted? Or were you saving your big guns until you lured the dimwitted opposition into your trap?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm fascinated to see how you'll respond to this statement: when something exhibits intelligent behavior, it is either:

 

1) Programmed

 

2) Sentient

 

I'm tickled to hear you explain it another way. Or are you saying that intelligent behaviour is itself accidental?

 

Sentience can exist without our understanding why it does. Science seeks to logically understand such mysteries, religion relies upon the default deity in the sky. Because science has not completely explained this concept does not leave a creator as the only explanation for its existence.

[Drizzay 746]

Saying everything was put here by a "creator", and then just leaving the argument at that, is lazy.

 

What creator(s)?

What is the evidence of such a creator? (a book)

Who wrote the book?

When?

Why?

What evidence did they have in writing the book?

How many times has their story changed?

Are there multiple variations of the story?

Which one is more plausible?

 

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

It may be a Sisyphean quest for ultimate truth, but it is a quest that needs to be undertaken in a more advanced scientific arena than grade school/high school.

 

There are too many "creationism" theories/stories/myths to teach.

[nikki2200 4]

It is very apparent to me that some people cannot expand their mind to see the possibilities here, as all I've said is this evidence strengthens my own personal beliefs. You've continually demanded that I do not hold the belief unless it's proven, which is an immensely hypocritical stance to hold, as everyone employs belief in their lives. There is a difference between what I would say as a Scientist, and what I can say as an individual.

 

Oh my Entity. Thank focking entity. You've hit the nail on the head.

 

It is your own personal belief that there is a God that created us all. NO ONE. Not one person in this thread has tried to argue with you that there is no God. No one has said that you are not allowed to believe in him. No one said that in order for you to believe in God that you had to prove that he existed. That is not the point of this thread, nor is it what anyone has been arguing. I would venture to guess that most of your "antagonists" believe in God as well.

 

We are arguing whether or not this belief, i.e. Intelligent Design, can be taught as a legitimate scientific theory to counter Darwinism.

 

I guess you said it best:

There is a difference between what I would say as a Scientist, and what I can say as an individual.

 

Intelligent Design, as of now, has not lived up to the criteria that is required for it to be a scientific theory. Period. That is all anyone has been trying to argue. And if you go into a classroom claiming that it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that counters Darwinism, it is a lie. And I, for one, have a personal problem with lying to our kids about science. I kind of want them to spend all of their time learning the real thing, especially having a close family member with a terminal illness that hopefully breakthroughs in microbiology can cure in the next 10 years.

 

This whole debate was not about you.

[FeelingMN 273]

You stopped being honest about your role in this discussion quite a while ago. Anyone tool understands that referencing "a God" does not identify Christianity. Get real.

 

Actually, I was being quite honest throughout this discussion....and you tried to use it against me to score points for your argument.

 

So a Christian who references "a God"....and has tried to argue that Nature has been "designed"....is not arguing one of the tennets of Christianity?

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

I suspected the Atheism court ruling would be in the cards, considering it is Google hit number 1 for "atheism is religion". Do I agree with the ruling? No. And it certainly has no basis in science, unlike many of the ID cases. The Dover case in particular. Because I think that case has scientific merit germane to this discussion (courtesy of Strike), am I being inconsistent in disagreeing with another court's interpretation of the establishment clause? And I'm OK with atheism NOT being taught in public school. It would be great if it were presented as a credible alternative to theism in church, however.

 

I've known that Atheism was a religion before a court proclaimed it so. It takes equal faith to believe there is no God as to believe there is, considering proof either way does not exist.

 

I've been honest throughout this thread; you've admitted deceit on an least one occasion and remorse that you didn't resort to trickery to attempt to prove your point.

 

You, like so many others, have to resort to mischaracterization. I haven't admitted deceit anywhere. A simple mistake or misimpression =/= deceit.

 

As for remorse for not presenting the ID view that cells contain genetic programming before presenting the scientific evidence of that claim, the only people who would be hurt by such a strategy are those who are dishonest. It's painfully evident that this is a sensitive area for you, as you cannot let go of such a claim, as though it makes me look bad when it's fact that the only people who would look bad are those who would have to BACKTRACK.

 

This is about agenda - but you make the mistake of tacitly attempting to claim that the agenda is only on one side. It isn't. You protest far too much here.

 

Perhaps you waited 5 pages to introduce the McClintock/Shapiro's "support" for ID because you didn't know about it until then, after the initial computer programmer's example was lambasted? Or were you saving your big guns until you lured the dimwitted opposition into your trap?

 

 

Are you literally just lashing out with completely unsubstantiated bullsh!t because you know you're losing this debate? Since - if you were really paying attention - it was the same website that was responsible for both bringing McClintock's and Shapiro's research to this thread, as well as the MS-DOS analogy?

 

There was no trap here. There should have been, because there is doubt in my mind that you would have been among those sputtering and backtracking like a snake encountering a mongoose.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Sentience can exist without our understanding why it does.

 

This has nothing to do with the point I made, which was to rebut Nikki's ridiculous attempt to contest intelligence in cells as programmed into them. They are either programmed, or they are themselves sentient. There is no work-around here, and as such Nikki's "argument for the sake of argument" fails.

 

Science seeks to logically understand such mysteries, religion relies upon the default deity in the sky.

 

This too has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

Neither Science or Religion are individuals. The people that seek answers to these questions can very often have characteristics of both. I am one such person. You act as though I have ever talked about or defended those who would simply be happy to believe that "the default entity in the sky" is responsible for all mysteries, and leave it at all.

 

In fact, that statement simply belies that you think far less of people who believe in "God" than those who do, and you use this statement to foster continued prejudice against such people.

 

Most people who believe in God are also proponents of Science. This is not an either/or proposition. In fact, I do not know of a single person who believes in God who also isn't very interested to see what Science continues to discover about our reality. Not a single person.

 

And none in this forearm that I've seen either. So what is this claim, exactly? It's wrong, is what it is.

 

Those who love Science, and also believe in God, simply have a starting point - their own hypothesis if you will - that there is a God. This has not-a-focking-thing to so with exploring and investigating the nature of God's Creation, however, and - as such - Scientists who also happen to be religious aren't handicapped by this view in the least.

 

Which explains why there are and have been so many prominent and important Scientists who are just that.

 

Because science has not completely explained this concept does not leave a creator as the only explanation for its existence.

 

No one here has made this assertion. I have said repeatedly that it is simple evidence, and it is evidence which strengthens the theory. What matters here is that this discovery hasn't eliminated the concept of an Intelligent Designer; not by a long shot.

 

This research is Intelligent Design research, regardless what it was called - or not called - by Shapiro. To him, it is merely a fascinating discovery which casts heavy doubt on neo-Darwinist Chaos theory.

 

And it should.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Actually, I was being quite honest throughout this discussion....and you tried to use it against me to score points for your argument.

 

I pointed out a couple of different times where you were blatantly dishonest, including in the comment which generated your response here. I did use your admission to score points, because what I'm saying was the truth: Shapiro's research does speak to Intelligent Design research, and - in fact - I could see an ID scientist continuing such research as more a priori evidence of Intelligence at the Design level.

 

So a Christian who references "a God"....and has tried to argue that Nature has been "designed"....is not arguing one of the tennets of Christianity?

 

 

Red Herring - and one which those who cannot separate ID from Creationism use. Claiming that Christianity has as one of its basic tenets "a God" is not a sufficient standard to justify applying the same criteria to mention of "a God" as having to equal Christianity.

 

Anyone knows that. See penultimate's thread linking to wiki fallacies. I'll let you pick out which one it is.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Oh my Entity. Thank focking entity. You've hit the nail on the head.

 

It is your own personal belief that there is a God that created us all. NO ONE. Not one person in this thread has tried to argue with you that there is no God. No one has said that you are not allowed to believe in him. No one said that in order for you to believe in God that you had to prove that he existed. That is not the point of this thread, nor is it what anyone has been arguing. I would venture to guess that most of your "antagonists" believe in God as well.

 

We are arguing whether or not this belief, i.e. Intelligent Design, can be taught as a legitimate scientific theory to counter Darwinism.

 

Yes; we are arguing that. There has been a whole lot of talking past people in this thread. I've made my position extremely clear: this is about evidence, and whether this particular evidence strengthens or weakens certain beliefs.

 

This discovery does not weaken the ID position that life was designed. That is an ID position, you know. It is the antithesis of the Darwinist position - a position which Shapiro himself attacks.

 

I guess you said it best:

There is a difference between what I would say as a Scientist, and what I can say as an individual.

 

This is because I have had various conversations with various people in this thread who have at times discussed what can be said as a Scientist, and what others can speculate that it means. Regardless of what Shapiro really things in his own heart of hearts, he can publicly only comment upon what his research means as it relates to other research, and it's clear from his comments that he is not a fan of neo-Darwinism.

 

Intelligent Design, as of now, has not lived up to the criteria that is required for it to be a scientific theory.

 

I think you're mixing terms, and as such demanding standards which are unrealistic.

 

What type of criteria would you think ID would require? To me, a science does not have to have a theory. That putting the cart in front of the horse. Physics, for instance, is a science, but it doesn't have a "theory", per se.

 

Period. That is all anyone has been trying to argue.

 

No, far more is being argued than that. People are attempting to mock my own argument that Shapiro's research supports ID, just because Shapiro refuses to endorse attempts of people do link them. That is a central argument in this thread.

 

And if you go into a classroom claiming that it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that counters Darwinism, it is a lie.

 

Huh? Shapiro is in the midst of building his own theory, and his does counter Darwinism. Do you think that Shapiro's research should be taught? To do so injects direct contradiction into Science - and contradictions aren't supposed to exist in Science.

 

And I, for one, have a personal problem with lying to our kids about science. I kind of want them to spend all of their time learning the real thing, especially having a close family member with a terminal illness that hopefully breakthroughs in microbiology can cure in the next 10 years.

 

Appeal to emotion aside, this has little to nothing to do with that wish.

 

This whole debate was not about you.

 

In point of fact, nearly everyone who has argued with me has attempted to make it exactly that.

[FeelingMN 273]

I pointed out a couple of different times where you were blatantly dishonest, including in the comment which generated your response here.

 

I'm not being dishonest. I'm making fun of you for contradicting yourself. I think you're so busy developing "strategies" to win threads you just say sh!t without thinking it through. Like I said before....you're more interested in being right than engaging in an intellectually honest debate. You're all about appearances, IM9%BodyFat.

 

Red Herring - and one which those who cannot separate ID from Creationism use. Claiming that Christianity has as one of its basic tenets "a God" is not a sufficient standard to justify applying the same criteria to mention of "a God" as having to equal Christianity.

 

Anyone knows that. See penultimate's thread linking to wiki fallacies. I'll let you pick out which one it is.

 

So the God of ID is different than your Christian God?

 

Or there is no God in ID, just Designers....of which you know nothing about except they're not God.

 

Or ID is just creationism in a different guise?

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm not being dishonest. I'm making fun of you for contradicting yourself. I think you're so busy developing "strategies" to win threads you just say sh!t without thinking it through. Like I said before....you're more interested in being right than engaging in an intellectually honest debate. You're all about appearances, IM9%BodyFat.

 

You do realize that you're fatter - with tinier arms - than I've ever been, right? Hell: the largest waist size I've ever had was 36 - and I'm close to 6'4" - and that was about 6 years ago. I've seen your pics now, Chubbs O'Malley (you actually look like a very good friend of mine).

 

So the God of ID is different than your Christian God?

 

ID doesn't identify a God. It postulates an Intelligent Designer, which could simply be an older/more advanced alien race (or even a previous terrestrial race), for all we know.

 

Is this so tough to understand about ID? This is part of my charge directed towards you of being dishonest with your debate. It shouldn't be necessary to answer such a basic (read: misdirected) question: if you even had rudimentary understanding of ID theory, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

Or there is no God in ID, just Designers....of which you know nothing about except they're not God.

 

Exactly.

 

Or ID is just creationism in a different guise?

 

I suppose to Creationists, it could be - but the fact that the science of ID could serve their purposes doesn't disqualify the pursuit of the research, any more than pursuing Darwinism simply because it has served the purposes of Atheists should disqualify it.

 

 

Dunno either.

[nikki2200 4]

Word.

[penultimatestraw 473]

if you even had rudimentary understanding of ID theory, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

Keep focking that chicken!

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

There was no trap here. There should have been, because there is doubt in my mind that you would have been among those sputtering and backtracking like a snake encountering a mongoose.

 

 

Is this what you meant? Great proof you can find anything on the internet, too.

 

[FeelingMN 273]

You do realize that you're fatter - with tinier arms - than I've ever been, right? Hell: the largest waist size I've ever had was 36 - and I'm close to 6'4" - and that was about 6 years ago. I've seen your pics now, Chubbs O'Malley (you actually look like a very good friend of mine).

 

Meh....6'2" 200lbs is a lil' hefty. At this point though I feel I can file a grievance with the Designer. Know how I can reach Him? The only reason I stuck my pics on this place was to be fair to Newbie. That dude caught a lot of flack from me, and I didn't think it was completely fair to lob insults from absolute anonymity.

 

I still think it's funny that you try so hard to impress internet strangers with your claims of 9% body fat....among other things. Nobody cares.

 

 

ID doesn't identify a God. It postulates an Intelligent Designer, which could simply be an older/more advanced alien race (or even a previous terrestrial race), for all we know.

 

Is this so tough to understand about ID? This is part of my charge directed towards you of being dishonest with your debate. It shouldn't be necessary to answer such a basic (read: misdirected) question: if you even had rudimentary understanding of ID theory, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!"

 

Your words man. Like you said, maybe you should have approached this thread differently. Better luck next time.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Meh....6'2" 200lbs is a lil' hefty. At this point though I feel I can file a grievance with the Designer. Know how I can reach Him? The only reason I stuck my pics on this place was to be fair to Newbie. That dude caught a lot of flack from me, and I didn't think it was completely fair to lob insults from absolute anonymity.

 

I still think it's funny that you try so hard to impress internet strangers with your claims of 9% body fat....among other things. Nobody cares.

 

Actually, I didn't. I posted my dieting/exercise success story in a thread where someone asked for it. It's the nasty envy of the libs which did the rest. That's on them; not me.

 

 

I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!"

 

Your words man. Like you said, maybe you should have approached this thread differently. Better luck next time.

 

Are you taking what I wrote intentionally out of context? My statement clearly means that ID doesn't identify a particular God. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Notice that I didn't say God - which would indicate that I'm referencing my God? I said a God.

 

This whole thread has been one misconstruction after another of what I've said and meant, and it's where most of the argumentation has been derived.

[Me_2006 14]

Oh my Entity. Thank focking entity. You've hit the nail on the head.

 

It is your own personal belief that there is a God that created us all. NO ONE. Not one person in this thread has tried to argue with you that there is no God. No one has said that you are not allowed to believe in him. No one said that in order for you to believe in God that you had to prove that he existed. That is not the point of this thread, nor is it what anyone has been arguing. I would venture to guess that most of your "antagonists" believe in God as well.

 

We are arguing whether or not this belief, i.e. Intelligent Design, can be taught as a legitimate scientific theory to counter Darwinism.

 

I guess you said it best:

There is a difference between what I would say as a Scientist, and what I can say as an individual.

 

Intelligent Design, as of now, has not lived up to the criteria that is required for it to be a scientific theory. Period. That is all anyone has been trying to argue. And if you go into a classroom claiming that it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that counters Darwinism, it is a lie. And I, for one, have a personal problem with lying to our kids about science. I kind of want them to spend all of their time learning the real thing, especially having a close family member with a terminal illness that hopefully breakthroughs in microbiology can cure in the next 10 years.

 

This whole debate was not about you.

 

 

Good post.

 

 

As a guy who believes in God, if one of my professors (or high school teachers--which would have been a disaster) had come in and said that we were going to study ID, the entire class would have looked at them and laughed before realizing they were serious and looking around to one another wondering how on earth we were going to study God.

 

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to examine and study and understand God. There will likely always be holes in the studies because of the nature of God/man. It's admirable to try and do so, I guess, but you have to acknowledge where those gaps are and because so much is based on assumption and individual definitions and explanations of what "God" is, I'd be surprised if any tangible progress was made anytime soon.

 

I'm sure that we've all been trying to prove/disprove God since the beginning of time and that isn't going to change in my lifetime. But at some point, I expect every scientific study is going to reach the point where 'God did it' is the answer, and that simply isn't an explanation in scientific terms. Progress and new technology and such will get us closer as time goes on, but I believe the end result is going to beyond any explanation beyond God. And as people have been saying for 16 pages, that just isn't a scientific theory that you can support.

[penultimatestraw 473]

But at some point, I expect every scientific study is going to reach the point where 'God did it' is the answer, and that simply isn't an explanation in scientific terms. Progress and new technology and such will get us closer as time goes on, but I believe the end result is going to beyond any explanation beyond God. And as people have been saying for 16 pages, that just isn't a scientific theory that you can support.

I hope science never relents to the idea that "God did it" to explain the unexplainable. That view works if you are religious, but uncertainty doesn't equate to god (or aliens, as some have suggested) for those who aren't. And it is incompatible with the scientific method. But it is irrefutable.

 

What is the problem with clearly stating the limits of what is and isn't known scientifically rather than interjecting a higher power into the equation?

 

Now if you can give proof of God's existence, I'm all for it. Why do you think the creator is so shy? He seemed a lot more accessible in Biblical times.

[FeelingMN 273]

Are you taking what I wrote intentionally out of context? My statement clearly means that ID doesn't identify a particular God. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Notice that I didn't say God - which would indicate that I'm referencing my God? I said a God.

 

This whole thread has been one misconstruction after another of what I've said and meant, and it's where most of the argumentation has been derived.

 

Provide the context then. If I misquoted you, you wouldn't be so quick to defend the use of a God versus just plain old God. You're backtracking. You're a polytheistic backtracker.

[Frank M 181]

Provide the context then. If I misquoted you, you wouldn't be so quick to defend the use of a God versus just plain old God. You're backtracking. You're a polytheistic backtracker.

 

I've become convinced over the course of this thread that he's just a focking loon. The desire to win an unwinnable argument is so strong that he'll say anything to try to bolster his claims. The absolute ridiculousness of citing research not intended to support ID as proof of it, the reliance on blogs, not scientific journals, the complete and utter lack of understanding of the scientific method, the rampant misinterpretation not only of one particular scientist's work, but his directly quoted words as well, the Charlie Sheen-esque claims of winning after being thoroughly embarrassed throughout the entire thread, all of it points to one inescapable conclusion.

 

The boy is batshi1t crazy.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I've become convinced over the course of this thread that he's just a focking loon. The desire to win an unwinnable argument is so strong that he'll say anything to try to bolster his claims. The absolute ridiculousness of citing research not intended to support ID as proof of it, the reliance on blogs, not scientific journals, the complete and utter lack of understanding of the scientific method, the rampant misinterpretation not only of one particular scientist's work, but his directly quoted words as well, the Charlie Sheen-esque claims of winning after being thoroughly embarrassed throughout the entire thread, all of it points to one inescapable conclusion.

 

The boy is batshi1t crazy.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You clowns can rationalize all you want. I just did post where you took what I said out of context: I said A God. Not "God".

 

Only an idiot doesn't know the difference - and the importance of the difference - particularly after having it EXPLAINED to you.

[Frank M 181]

And just for sh1ts and giggles, here is a review article from Current Opinion in Cell Biology from February of 2010 on the reducibilty of the prokaryotic flagellum, the basis of the whole ID argument:

 

My link

 

 

The argument of 'irreducible complexity' is based upon the notion that if only one of the 40 different proteins is removed from the flagellum, the system no longer functions. This is in general true if one starts with a bacterium such as Salmonella typhimurium where such genetic studies have been done and were used to define the genes involved in bacterial motility. The argument is then made that such a system could not have evolved from a simpler predecessor, since the predecessor would have been non-functional. However, detailed studies of the S. typhimurium flagellar system have shown that 'indispensable elements' can be eliminated under certain conditions. By combining mutations of various flagellar components, it was found that the rod (a polymer that spans the periplasmic space in the flagellum) can substitute for the hook (a universal joint that is external to the cell and at the base of the long flagellar filament) and the subsequent hookless filaments are functional (e.g. they rotate). But when one looks at many other bacteria, there is an incredible diversity of flagellar systems, with various components 'missing' or in different places. In spirochetes, the flagellar filaments are not even external to the cell, but located in the periplasm, and play not only a role in cell motility, but also form part of the cytoskeleton essential for maintaining cell shape. Mutations in one of the S. typhimurium rod proteins have been shown to produce flagella within the S. typhimurium periplasmic space, providing a simple mechanism for how extracellular filaments might have evolved to be intracellular within spirochetes.

 

And this article cites 63 sources, the vast majority of them peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, not blogs.

 

Now sit back and watch as Mensa twists this to somehow prove that he is right and the hundreds of scientists that published articles that this review paper is based on are wrong.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Wow, I haven't seen a beat down this bad in a long time. Great job MensaMind!

[MedStudent 56]

Wow, I haven't seen a beat down this bad in a long time. Great job MensaMind!

 

mensa got a beat down from his own source. lol.

[Frank M 181]

mensa got a beat down from his own source. lol.

 

And now he's got KSB sticking up for him.

 

That right there is the kiss of death.

[nikki2200 4]

And just for sh1ts and giggles, here is a review article from Current Opinion in Cell Biology from February of 2010 on the reducibilty of the prokaryotic flagellum, the basis of the whole ID argument:

 

My link

 

 

 

 

And this article cites 63 sources, the vast majority of them peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, not blogs.

 

Now sit back and watch as Mensa twists this to somehow prove that he is right and the hundreds of scientists that published articles that this review paper is based on are wrong.

 

In that court case in Dover they presented the irreducibly complex flagellum and got completely destroyed by the real scientists based on these studies you posted. I tried to explain that to him a few pages back but of course he came back and said the judge was wrong or sumthin. I also tried to explain how the judge ruled that ID was Creationism, because the plaintiffs were able to prove that they took the text book they touted as teaching ID and did a massive "find and replace" to replace the word Creationism with Intelligent Design. This was proven because they made some boo boos. Like the "crintelligent designsm." But again he just said the judge was wrong. And the defense was wrong. And basically everyone in the world is wrong on this topic except for MensaMind.

[Frank M 181]

In that court case in Dover they presented the irreducibly complex flagellum and got completely destroyed by the real scientists based on these studies you posted. I tried to explain that to him a few pages back but of course he came back and said the judge was wrong or sumthin. I also tried to explain how the judge ruled that ID was Creationism, because the plaintiffs were able to prove that they took the text book they touted as teaching ID and did a massive "find and replace" to replace the word Creationism with Intelligent Design. This was proven because they made some boo boos. Like the "crintelligent designsm." But again he just said the judge was wrong. And the defense was wrong. And basically everyone in the world is wrong on this topic except for MensaMind.

 

I know. I wonder if he ever read any journal articles on the subject, as it seems he's incapable of linking to anything except ID blogs. In that spirit, I posted the link so that perhaps he could see what real science is like.

[MedStudent 56]

In that court case in Dover they presented the irreducibly complex flagellum and got completely destroyed by the real scientists based on these studies you posted. I tried to explain that to him a few pages back but of course he came back and said the judge was wrong or sumthin. I also tried to explain how the judge ruled that ID was Creationism, because the plaintiffs were able to prove that they took the text book they touted as teaching ID and did a massive "find and replace" to replace the word Creationism with Intelligent Design. This was proven because they made some boo boos. Like the "crintelligent designsm." But again he just said the judge was wrong. And the defense was wrong. And basically everyone in the world is wrong on this topic except for MensaMind.

 

Anyone who doesn't think id isn't just creationism in disguise is not worth arguing with.

[Strike 6,023]

Anyone who doesn't think id isn't just creationism in disguise is not worth arguing with.

 

Psssttttt......If you guys would just quit responding to Immensa in this thread it would die.

[Frank M 181]

Psssttttt......If you guys would just quit responding to Immensa in this thread it would die.

 

Why? This thread has been the best entertainment around here in months!

[Strike 6,023]

Why? This thread has been the best entertainment around here in months!

 

You probably used to beat up the retarded kid in school too.

 

[nikki2200 4]

You probably used to beat up the retarded kid in school too.

 

 

Good times.... good times....

[Frank M 181]

You probably used to beat up the retarded kid in school too.

 

 

Naturally.

 

Unless they were those big ones that you knew had that superhuman retard strength.