Creationism education bills

[Me_2006 14]

 

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.

 

 

And yet you still can't answer three simple questions. How is it that you can't answer the simple questions I asked you, but can wrongfully assume I'm an atheist? Are you intentionally being wrong to give us all the enjoyment of making fun of you?

 

 

And why can't you answer my questions?

[nikki2200 4]

Shapiro:

 

 

 

 

Are you a Darwin advocate, Frank?

 

 

OMG. Awesome!!! LMAO. He left off the first part of the quote:

 

However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

Mensa.... you left out the part where he slams the Creationists. I know you didn't do that intentionally to mislead anyone, so I fixorated it for you. Because I can read things objectively, what I interpret here is that Shapiro is frustrated with staunch Darwinists, because he is having difficulty getting his findings accepted. He says he EXPECTS this from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. I love that quote. LOVE IT. But it seems he expected more from his scientific peers and he feels they are validating the Creationists' claims, which he doesn't seem to appreciate so much.

Not one person here has refuted Shapiro's work. What we have refuted over and over and over again is that his findings of intelligent cell behavior mean they must have been designed by something/someone. This is also the view of Shapiro himself. So can you stop talking about Shapiro? He doesn't agree with you and quite frankly, if I were him I would be pissed off at people using my years of hard work to deceive others. He's also probably regretting even mentioning Creationists in his paper.

There may be other reasons that his findings are not being accepted with wide open arms. Maybe his experiments were faulty? Who the hell knows? We surely don't. One thing that can be said for sure though, in no way does Shapiro's scientific research prove there is an Intelligent Designer. Period. And if you somehow see that in his research, you are not looking at this objectively at all.

[Me_2006 14]

I'm waiting.

 

I'll poke you in the eye further: you will deflect and run away from this direct challenge to you because this claim of yours IS NOT SUPPORTABLE.

 

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

 

Why can't you answer me and admit you jumped the shark because you're so enthralled with playing the martyr, victim role once people have proven you to be a liar and STILL wrong even when you make up the facts and quotes to suit you? Your ego is so large you can't see your own idiocy and that makes you look like an even bigger idiot.

 

If your image and intelligence is so important to you, take the first step in repairing it and admit you've acted a fool and were too stubborn to back off even when proven wrong.

[Me_2006 14]

OMG. Awesome!!! LMAO. He left off the first part of the quote:

 

[/font][/left]

Mensa.... you left out the part where he slams the Creationists. I know you didn't do that intentionally to mislead anyone, so I fixorated it for you. Because I can read things objectively, what I interpret here is that Shapiro is frustrated with staunch Darwinists, because he is having difficulty getting his findings accepted. He says he EXPECTS this from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. I love that quote. LOVE IT. But it seems he expected more from his scientific peers and he feels they are validating the Creationists' claims, which he doesn't seem to appreciate so much.

Not one person here has refuted Shapiro's work. What we have refuted over and over and over again is that his findings of intelligent cell behavior mean they must have been designed by something/someone. This is also the view of Shapiro himself. So can you stop talking about Shapiro? He doesn't agree with you and quite frankly, if I were him I would be pissed off at people using my years of hard work to deceive others. He's also probably regretting even mentioning Creationists in his paper.

There may be other reasons that his findings are not being accepted with wide open arms. Maybe his experiments were faulty? Who the hell knows? We surely don't. One thing that can be said for sure though, in no way does Shapiro's scientific research prove there is an Intelligent Designer. Period. And if you somehow see that in his research, you are not looking at this objectively at all.

 

 

Internet nerd fight rule #1: Never, EVER, intentionally misquote from your own link to make it say what you want.

 

 

But here comes another cycle of semantics and spin. "I never explicitly said that meant blah blah blah. Can you refute such a claim as posited by Bob Smith? You are merely afraid of accepting such a position or are too simple-minded to comprehend how I'm not a total assfaced, scrotum sucking liar."

[Frank M 181]

The story on this William Dembski character that Mensaddosh is calling brilliant is almost as funny as the other genius, Behe.

 

Set up a think tank at Baylor for ID study, but once it got going, the faculty decided that it was too embarrassing to support that kind of nonsense so they dissolved it.

 

Fired from Baylor for continuing to push ID. Of course, that's probably because they are too afraid of the truth.

 

Was supposed to be an expert witness at the Dover trial but pulled out shortly before, writing on his blog "I'm waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won't come off looking well." You mean they'd come off looking like Michael Behe did? At least that dumbass had the balls to try to stick up for his cokamamie views! Great faith in your ideas, there, chickensh1t!

 

Was invited to come back to Baylor by a faculty member as a "post-doc" to do work in intelligent design, but as soon as the university got wind of it, they canned him. Again.

 

In 2008, abandoned his ID blog, Uncommon Descent, to focus on ID research and promised significant, peer reviewed papers would follow. That was almost three years ago. No papers yet.

 

But he's supposedly brilliant, according to Mensa.

 

[OldMaid 2,135]

We've upped the ante to include scrotum sucking! I can't wait to see how he responds to that!

 

Anyone else want popcorn?

[MedStudent 56]

OMG. Awesome!!! LMAO. He left off the first part of the quote:

 

[/font][/left]

Mensa.... you left out the part where he slams the Creationists. I know you didn't do that intentionally to mislead anyone, so I fixorated it for you. Because I can read things objectively, what I interpret here is that Shapiro is frustrated with staunch Darwinists, because he is having difficulty getting his findings accepted. He says he EXPECTS this from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. I love that quote. LOVE IT. But it seems he expected more from his scientific peers and he feels they are validating the Creationists' claims, which he doesn't seem to appreciate so much.

Not one person here has refuted Shapiro's work. What we have refuted over and over and over again is that his findings of intelligent cell behavior mean they must have been designed by something/someone. This is also the view of Shapiro himself. So can you stop talking about Shapiro? He doesn't agree with you and quite frankly, if I were him I would be pissed off at people using my years of hard work to deceive others. He's also probably regretting even mentioning Creationists in his paper.

There may be other reasons that his findings are not being accepted with wide open arms. Maybe his experiments were faulty? Who the hell knows? We surely don't. One thing that can be said for sure though, in no way does Shapiro's scientific research prove there is an Intelligent Designer. Period. And if you somehow see that in his research, you are not looking at this objectively at all.

 

I basically said the same thing to him about 400 or so posts ago. He just doesn't get it. Shapiro's ideas would not negate darwin's theory. It would negate theories that were developed to support darwins theory and replace them with a new theory that would support darwins's theory. Random cell mutation was not part of Darwin's original theory. refuting random cell mutation does not disprove Darwin's theory and does nothing to support ID.

[nikki2200 4]

I basically said the same thing to him about 400 or so posts ago. He just doesn't get it. Shapiro's ideas would not negate darwin's theory. It would negate theories that were developed to support darwins theory and replace them with a new theory that would support darwins's theory. Random cell mutation was not part of Darwin's original theory. refuting random cell mutation does not disprove Darwin's theory and does nothing to support ID.

 

 

Yea. We've been going round and round and round and whenever he gets stuck he just changes the argument. Apparently we are back on shapiro again. you should come back. it's really fun. Every once in a while he flies into a Charlie Sheen rant. Good stuff.

[Frank M 181]

Yea. We've been going round and round and round and whenever he gets stuck he just changes the argument. Apparently we are back on shapiro again. you should come back. it's really fun. Every once in a while he flies into a Charlie Sheen rant. Good stuff.

 

He does have stamina, I'll give him that much. Unfortunately for him, he's got himself so discombobulated and each post is so easily refuted that it's almost not fun anymore. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[MedStudent 56]

Yea. We've been going round and round and round and whenever he gets stuck he just changes the argument. Apparently we are back on shapiro again. you should come back. it's really fun. Every once in a while he flies into a Charlie Sheen rant. Good stuff.

 

I kind of took a step back from this thread when he started using some matthew mcconaughey/jodie foster love story movie for his argument. I poke in every once in a while just to see how this thread could get so long. Its already 2 pages longer than the Tiger woods thread and that thread was continually updated as more and more sluts came forward. This one has grown just by the sheer force of immensa's bombastidy.

[Frank M 181]

Yea. We've been going round and round and round and whenever he gets stuck he just changes the argument. Apparently we are back on shapiro again. you should come back. it's really fun. Every once in a while he flies into a Charlie Sheen rant. Good stuff.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, he doesn't really even change the argument. He just says the same things over and over, as if sheer repetition will make them true. You know, like going back to the empty fridge a hundred times, thinking "This time, they'll be a ham sammich in there!"

[Frank M 181]

Watch out, I see him down there! Be prepared for the onslaught!

 

[JackARoot 2]

Actually, now that I think about it, he doesn't really even change the argument. He just says the same things over and over, as if sheer repetition will make them true. You know, like going back to the empty fridge a hundred times, thinking "This time, they'll be a ham sammich in there!"

 

The light actually stays on when you close the door

[IMMensaMind 462]

Oh it was dumb alright. I understood it. I just thought his leap from cells behaving intelligently to the obvious conclusion that there must be a designer ludicrous and indicative of the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of science.

 

The misunderstanding is with you. Science doesn't disqualify a Designer. Know that. His MS-DOS analogy was correct: he used it to have the reader imagine a program that could self-adjust based upon environmental criteria.

 

Do you know what level of programming is needed to achieve such a thing? It would be like an MS-DOS routine written which never required upgrades or virus software. His point was good...because that's exactly what Shapiro established takes place at the cellular level.

 

Perhaps your mind isn't expansive enough to comprehend the implications of the discovery. I've found many atheists/agnostics are missing the circuitry to absorb things like that. Being leftist just makes it worse. There's no medicine for you.

 

And his use of MS-DOS to prove it had me giggling for at least a few days every time you brought up that stupid ass blog.

 

How as his MS-DOS analogy anything more than an analogy?

 

I think McClintock is dead or I would e-mail her too, but Shapiro does not even see his own work as providing evidence for intelligent design. Will you stop focking misquoting him and putting thoughts in his head and words in his mouth?

 

Speaking of "putting words in his mouth", he actually didn't say that.

 

If I remember correctly.... you couldn't figure out the "basic" TV either you window licking caveman. A real man came over and helped me with it. You're really grasping now. These meltdowns make it so much worth it to keep on trucking.

 

You're not teh schmaht.

[Strike 6,023]

:popcorn:

[OldMaid 2,135]

Is the scrotum sucking about to begin?

[nikki2200 4]

Waiting for the rest and laughing. Do you guys sit here and watch the posting frenzy like I do and burst into hysterics?

[IMMensaMind 462]

The Flagellum Unspun

The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity

 

The link is in page 18.

 

 

 

 

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex IMMushforBrains. It is a scientific fact. STOP SAYING IT IS.

 

 

Nature is filled with precursors - that they then do not mention wrt the flagellum. Keep trying. Simply claiming that the flagella is not IC is not the same thing as acually proving that it is not irreducably complex. You're not wrapping your mind around this question, and instead - literally - settling for science books written to rebut ID with the "it's not because we say it isn't".

 

As Behe pointed out under oath: these books are not saying what you think they're saying. There is no research on this topic that does anything more than speculate via wishful thinking components of a flagella that were somewhere else/something else before merging into a flagella.

 

Or any number of other irreducably complex mechanisms found organically.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Internet nerd fight rule #1: Never, EVER, intentionally misquote from your own link to make it say what you want.

 

 

But here comes another cycle of semantics and spin. "I never explicitly said that meant blah blah blah. Can you refute such a claim as posited by Bob Smith? You are merely afraid of accepting such a position or are too simple-minded to comprehend how I'm not a total assfaced, scrotum sucking liar."

 

WTF are you talking about? I've already posted the comment about Creationists not accepting scientific advance, and have already explained that since that is not a description that fits me, it isn't germane to this discussion. What does the quote that Nikki breathlessly felt necessary to add to this conversation?

 

And since you resemble a hobbit much more than a man, I'd play it close to the vest with insults, Frodo.

[IMMensaMind 462]

OMG. Awesome!!! LMAO. He left off the first part of the quote:

 

[/font][/left]

Mensa.... you left out the part where he slams the Creationists. I know you didn't do that intentionally to mislead anyone, so I fixorated it for you. Because I can read things objectively, what I interpret here is that Shapiro is frustrated with staunch Darwinists, because he is having difficulty getting his findings accepted. He says he EXPECTS this from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. I love that quote. LOVE IT. But it seems he expected more from his scientific peers and he feels they are validating the Creationists' claims, which he doesn't seem to appreciate so much.

Not one person here has refuted Shapiro's work. What we have refuted over and over and over again is that his findings of intelligent cell behavior mean they must have been designed by something/someone. This is also the view of Shapiro himself. So can you stop talking about Shapiro? He doesn't agree with you and quite frankly, if I were him I would be pissed off at people using my years of hard work to deceive others. He's also probably regretting even mentioning Creationists in his paper.

There may be other reasons that his findings are not being accepted with wide open arms. Maybe his experiments were faulty? Who the hell knows? We surely don't. One thing that can be said for sure though, in no way does Shapiro's scientific research prove there is an Intelligent Designer. Period. And if you somehow see that in his research, you are not looking at this objectively at all.

 

NO WHERE in this entire thread did I assert what you claim - and you're not the only one to claim this. There is a monstrous difference between saying that this research provides evidence of something, and this research proves something.

 

Darwinism is built around the concept of random/chance/accident. Shapiro's research decimates that claim; he's proven that there is organized intelligence at the cellular level; not random accidents which create adaptation and transformation.

 

Other than that, I have no idea why you think you're making a point which supports your arguments, since I am a Creationist who loves his research. In fact, can you pull out of the sky for me a single Creationist who wouldn't?

 

I think you may need to regroup and really ask yourself just wtf you're arguing here. If ID isn't scientific, neither is SETI.

[Voltaire 5,491]

 

Apparently we all are.

 

Actually, the one thing I'm afraid of is that Mensa might eat a bullet after this 20 + page flogging. He even had to pull out the godless liberal card because nothing else was working. Even KSB deserted him.

 

IMM's singlehandedly taking on the whole board for page after page is an endurance competition that -we may have to call The Guiness Book- but may possibly have even bypassed torridjoe's "being here illegally isn't a crime."

[nikki2200 4]

The misunderstanding is with you. Science doesn't disqualify a Designer. Know that. His MS-DOS analogy was correct: he used it to have the reader imagine a program that could self-adjust based upon environmental criteria.

 

Do you know what level of programming is needed to achieve such a thing? It would be like an MS-DOS routine written which never required upgrades or virus software. His point was good...because that's exactly what Shapiro established takes place at the cellular level.

 

Perhaps your mind isn't expansive enough to comprehend the implications of the discovery. I've found many atheists/agnostics are missing the circuitry to absorb things like that. Being leftist just makes it worse. There's no medicine for you.

 

Not even worth responding to. That blog was a joke. Anyone who could see value in that is the one who needs medicine.

 

 

Speaking of "putting words in his mouth", he actually didn't say that.

 

OK. Let's see. Dr. Shapiro has publicly declared he is not a proponent of ID. OK. That's pretty clear.

 

Proponent

–noun 1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal.2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate.3. a personwho supports a cause or doctrine; adherent.

 

So I think it's safe to say that Dr. Jim Shapiro does not propose ID is legitimate, does not argue in favor of ID, does not support the cause of ID, nor is he an advocate of ID. OK. hmmmmm..... Let's examine this further.

 

In Dr. Shapiro's own words:

 

I am a scientist and deal only in natural causes. So supernatural explanations of the type proposed by many ID proponents are excluded. However, there is a lot of information processing and decision making going on in living cells and organisms. And I have no problem with theories about how they may fit into the process of evolution so long as they can be tested experimentally.

 

So Dr. Shapiro has no problem with theories about how his work may fit into the process of evolution as long as they can be tested experimentally. I think it's safe to say that the opposite of this statement would be true: Dr. Shapiro DOES have a problem with theories about how his work may fit into the process of evolution if they CANNOT be tested experimentally. Even you have admitted that ID cannot be tested. Therefore, could we not reach the conclusion that Dr. Shapiro has a problem with using his work to support ID, which cannot be tested experimentally? Seems pretty logical to me.

 

Haven't we already discussed this a few hundred times? I feel like I'm arguing with Corky.

 

You're not teh schmaht.

 

Actually, I am. But unlike you, I don't go posting about it all over public message boards in an attempt to gain intellectual respect from everyone else.

[nikki2200 4]

Nature is filled with precursors - that they then do not mention wrt the flagellum. Keep trying. Simply claiming that the flagella is not IC is not the same thing as acually proving that it is not irreducably complex. You're not wrapping your mind around this question, and instead - literally - settling for science books written to rebut ID with the "it's not because we say it isn't".

 

As Behe pointed out under oath: these books are not saying what you think they're saying. There is no research on this topic that does anything more than speculate via wishful thinking components of a flagella that were somewhere else/something else before merging into a flagella.

 

Or any number of other irreducably complex mechanisms found organically.

 

Medstudent... can you take this one? I literally do not understand what he is saying and you did all the research. Organisms with the same makeup of the flagellum can be found in nature, with less parts, and fully functioning. I'm so confused. I am in the Twilight Zone.

[nikki2200 4]

WTF are you talking about? I've already posted the comment about Creationists not accepting scientific advance, and have already explained that since that is not a description that fits me, it isn't germane to this discussion. What does the quote that Nikki breathlessly felt necessary to add to this conversation?

 

And since you resemble a hobbit much more than a man, I'd play it close to the vest with insults, Frodo.

 

Me_2006 is about 1000 times hotter than you. So shut it chubs.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Not even worth responding to. That blog was a joke. Anyone who could see value in that is the one who needs medicine.

 

Okay, free clinic. Since Marshall is just analogizing what Shapiro's research describes, you're simply being obtuse.

 

OK. Let's see. Dr. Shapiro has publicly declared he is not a proponent of ID. OK. That's pretty clear.

 

Proponent

–noun 1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal.2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate.3. a personwho supports a cause or doctrine; adherent.

 

So I think it's safe to say that Dr. Jim Shapiro does not propose ID is legitimate, does not argue in favor of ID, does not support the cause of ID, nor is he an advocate of ID. OK. hmmmmm..... Let's examine this further.

 

In Dr. Shapiro's own words:

 

 

 

So Dr. Shapiro has no problem with theories about how his work may fit into the process of evolution as long as they can be tested experimentally. I think it's safe to say that the opposite of this statement would be true: Dr. Shapiro DOES have a problem with theories about how his work may fit into the process of evolution if they CANNOT be tested experimentally. Even you have admitted that ID cannot be tested. Therefore, could we not reach the conclusion that Dr. Shapiro has a problem with using his work to support ID, which cannot be tested experimentally? Seems pretty logical to me.

 

Haven't we already discussed this a few hundred times? I feel like I'm arguing with Corky.

 

And you're accusing me of misstating what Shapiro has said?

 

He's not said that "he's not a proponent of ID"; he used the word "excluded". Excluded does not mean "rejected" or "disagred with"; it means "cannot be considered". There is a serious difference there; one that addresses what one can express as a Scientist, and what one can believe privately.

 

You're trying to get those two to cross.

 

Actually, I am. But unlike you, I don't go posting about it all over public message boards in an attempt to gain intellectual respect from everyone else.

 

Sure you are. You're doing it right now. But good luck with that, as half this crowd thinks you're a man, and the other half thinks you keep GlaxoSmithKline in business by yourself.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Me_2006 is about 1000 times hotter than you. So shut it chubs.

 

Um....no. Of course, you think a doorknob is hot, so I'm not sure why you think your voice carries any weight in fact.

[IMMensaMind 462]

IMM's singlehandedly taking on the whole board for page after page is an endurance competition that -we may have to call The Guiness Book- but may possibly have even bypassed torridjoe's "being here illegally isn't a crime."

 

It's effortless. These schlubs have no chance.

[nikki2200 4]

Shapiro must believe it bridges gaps as well, as he mentioned the problem that exists with the duality of Creationism and Darwinism. You're just far too dense to discern what is being said. There is no other reason for Shapiro to bring up Creationism unless something in his research speaks to that ideology.

 

You posted this. You then proceeded to hack up Dr. Shapiro's quote from A Third Way in several other posts to show he was not a fan of neo-Darwinists.

 

NO WHERE in this entire thread did I assert what you claim - and you're not the only one to claim this. There is a monstrous difference between saying that this research provides evidence of something, and this research proves something.

 

Darwinism is built around the concept of random/chance/accident. Shapiro's research decimates that claim; he's proven that there is organized intelligence at the cellular level; not random accidents which create adaptation and transformation.

 

Other than that, I have no idea why you think you're making a point which supports your arguments, since I am a Creationist who loves his research. In fact, can you pull out of the sky for me a single Creationist who wouldn't?

 

I think you may need to regroup and really ask yourself just wtf you're arguing here. If ID isn't scientific, neither is SETI.

 

I corrected your quote by adding back in how he was actually slamming Creationists in his statement as well and moreso, and provided a logical interpretation for what he was saying, which wouldn't have existed because you hacked it up and only posted half of it out of context. I was helping you.

 

And you have no idea why I would have posted that? You're asking me what I'm arguing? You can't even remember what you type from page to page. The situation is worse than I originally thought.

 

Are they teaching SETI in science classes as valid scientific theory? If they are, you won't get any arguments from me that that is wrong. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[nikki2200 4]

 

He's not said that "he's not a proponent of ID"; he used the word "excluded". Excluded does not mean "rejected" or "disagred with"; it means "cannot be considered". There is a serious difference there; one that addresses what one can express as a Scientist, and what one can believe privately.

 

You're trying to get those two to cross.

 

 

Jesus H. Christentity. FeelingMN posted like 19 pages ago a quote from Shapiro saying he wasn't a proponent of ID.

 

Round and round we go.... where we stop nobody knows.

[nikki2200 4]

Sure you are. You're doing it right now. But good luck with that, as half this crowd thinks you're a man, and the other half thinks you keep GlaxoSmithKline in business by yourself.

 

You have no idea about the nature of my relationship with anyone on this board or the people you are talking about that post those things. Unlike you I can take a joke and give it right back. That's why I like it here.

[nikki2200 4]

Um....no. Of course, you think a doorknob is hot, so I'm not sure why you think your voice carries any weight in fact.

 

And you get that information from where? Retard meter hitting danger zone.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I seriously think we broke him... Even his insults are losing ground.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You posted this. You then proceeded to hack up Dr. Shapiro's quote from A Third Way in several other posts to show he was not a fan of neo-Darwinists.

 

Shapiro isn't a fan of neo-Darwinism. Even FeelingMN acknowledged that. WTF.

 

I corrected your quote by adding back in how he was actually slamming Creationists in his statement as well and moreso, and provided a logical interpretation for what he was saying, which wouldn't have existed because you hacked it up and only posted half of it out of context. I was helping you.

 

You're not correcting my quote; you added to it - and added a part which wasn't germane to the statement I was making. Shapiro is not a fan of Creationists who do not accept the importance of scientific endeavors. Since no one in this thread is attempting to defend such a myopic view, just why did you think it was important to add?

 

And you have no idea why I would have posted that? You're asking me what I'm arguing? You can't even remember what you type from page to page. The situation is worse than I originally thought.

 

You don't know what's going on, and you're blindly adding crap that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Are they teaching SETI in science classes as valid scientific theory? If they are, you won't get any arguments from me that that is wrong. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

SETI isn't a "scientific theory". It's a scientific pursuit, and it is using as its scientific criteria for establishing the existence of Intelligence patterns which it hopes to pick up via radio waves. They are seeking specified complexity - and say as much - in the signal patterns of radio signals which would emanate from extraterrestrial sources.

 

What's highly ironic is that it's OK for the Science community for the SETI program to establish proof of Intelligence in that way, but not ID.

 

And that's the point of bringing that up.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You have no idea about the nature of my relationship with everyone on this board or the people you are talking about that post those things. Unlike you I can take a joke and give it right back. That's why I like it here.

 

fixsed.

[nikki2200 4]

Shapiro isn't a fan of neo-Darwinism. Even FeelingMN acknowledged that. WTF.

 

Where did I say he was? I think I spelled it out pretty clearly what his point was in my previous post.

 

You're not correcting my quote; you added to it - and added a part which wasn't germane to the statement I was making. Shapiro is not a fan of Creationists who do not accept the importance of scientific endeavors. Since no one in this thread is attempting to defend such a myopic view, just why did you think it was important to add?

 

It was important to add because as I previously stated, YOU brought up Shapiro discussing Creationists and thereby lending some value to your statements and provided quotes that were not in context of his complete thought and skewed the point by chopping it up. I posted the entire quote so everyone else could see the true context of what he was saying.

 

You don't know what's going on, and you're blindly adding crap that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

That's kind of a slam on yourself because you are the one that brought this whole topic up in the first place. I'm just trying to keep up with your schizophrenia.

 

SETI isn't a "scientific theory". It's a scientific pursuit, and it is using as its scientific criteria for establishing the existence of Intelligence patterns which it hopes to pick up via radio waves. They are seeking specified complexity - and say as much - in the signal patterns of radio signals which would emanate from extraterrestrial sources.

 

What's highly ironic is that it's OK for the Science community for the SETI program to establish proof of Intelligence in that way, but not ID.

 

And that's the point of bringing that up.

 

You missed my question. Let me try again. ARE SCHOOLS TRYING TO TEACH SETI AS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY? If so, I have an issue with this. If not, it has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

 

And I guess I will say this again, because it didn't sink in the first dozen times I said it. NO ONE is stopping IDers from proving it exists. GO. DO IT.

 

The rest or your point makes no sense. So if they are looking for intelligence in the universe, and find it, thereby proving there is intelligence, this is the same thing you are talking about? Um no. No one here has denied the concept that cells may be behaving intelligently. Still none of this leads to a conclusion that there is a God/Creator/Designer. And I really don't understand WTF this has to do with anything we are talking about.

[nikki2200 4]

Of course, but that trout smell is another thing entirely!

 

Yea..... like you wouldn't kill to get a piece of my trout.

[GettnHuge 2]

Shapiro isn't a fan of neo-Darwinism. Even FeelingMN acknowledged that. WTF.

 

 

 

You're not correcting my quote; you added to it - and added a part which wasn't germane to the statement I was making. Shapiro is not a fan of Creationists who do not accept the importance of scientific endeavors. Since no one in this thread is attempting to defend such a myopic view, just why did you think it was important to add?

 

 

 

You don't know what's going on, and you're blindly adding crap that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

 

 

SETI isn't a "scientific theory". It's a scientific pursuit, and it is using as its scientific criteria for establishing the existence of Intelligence patterns which it hopes to pick up via radio waves. They are seeking specified complexity - and say as much - in the signal patterns of radio signals which would emanate from extraterrestrial sources.

 

What's highly ironic is that it's OK for the Science community for the SETI program to establish proof of Intelligence in that way, but not ID.

 

And that's the point of bringing that up.

 

it's not frustrating to watch you squirm and avoid answering anything, it's funny. It's sad.

You are the last page of a checkbook.

[penultimatestraw 473]

1) Do you think a Christian cannot enjoy/gain from such a reading?

 

2) Do you think such a link is only read by the person to whom the response is written?

I don't think anyone can gain much from reading that drivel, but the way you introduced it suggested Me might benefit in particular. As a Christian, he has already signed up for the eternal life contest, so he doesn't need convincing that atheism isn't for him. Unless he wants to present it to deride or convert atheists. The former isn't a very Christian activity, while the latter is highly unlikely to happen.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I wonder if you're so closed-minded as to be unable to see that the display of pride is actually one not being willing to accept the Nature of a God that he not only knows nothing about, but rejects the very existence of regardless, calling the chances "very slim".

 

Your God...is you.

 

Don't ever call anyone prideful again unless you lose that perspective.

Lacking faith <> pride. If there were some tangible evidence of God's existence, I'd become a believer. I am not a strong atheist because I realize I cannot disprove God's existence.

 

Human suffering and differential exposure to the world's religions around the planet (if we believe there is only one 'true' faith) are two big problems I have with religion. It also seems like a convenient, easy explanation for our ignorance, much like irreducible complexity. Christianity in particular is too anthropocentric, a theme repeatedly disproven by science.

 

And no I don't think I created everything, am all-knowing or all-powerful.

[Frank M 181]

Does anyone think the people who have been privately PMing Mensa to thank him for fighting the good fight are regretting it about now?