Victory for evolution in Texas

[ElNono]

http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/victory-evolution-texas-006802

[boutons_deux]

a blind (ignorant, anti-scientific asshole) squirrel find a nut! :lol

[jack sommerset]

"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers,"

That's not true. People generally could careless. Dr. Eugenie Scott sounds like a real fucking douchebag if you ask me.

[boutons_deux]

Rational, scientific taxpayers mustn't relax.

These assholes will definitely be back.

[ChumpDumper]

"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers,"

That's not true. People generally could careless.You're pretty stupid. I can see how you wouldn't care.
Dr. Eugenie Scott sounds like a real fucking douchebag if you ask me.Why?

I'm asking you.

[Winehole23]

Is evolution the core of biology? I'll take my answer off-air.

[spursncowboys]

Has evolution been proven true? The theory sounds like a great idea to teach. As well as the idea that a spagetti monster combined two meatballs and out we came. I think a victory for any school anywhere in America should be that they aren't just teaching to pass a test.

[boutons_deux]

"Is evolution the core of biology"

I'd say yes, since life is NEVER static.

It's constantly changing, and sometimes permanently in one generation in response to environment (change in food, water, weather, predators, cleaving/colliding of tectonic plates, air/sea migration, etc). Over 1000s of generations, "it adds up", including new speciation.

Believing that God created the universe and Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago in 144 hours proves these Bible-thumpers are ignorant, duped jerks.

[fyatuk]

Believing that God created the universe and Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago in 144 hours proves these Bible-thumpers are ignorant, duped jerks.

I might agree with you on hard-core Bible literalists, but most Christians I know do not believe in a literal Bible, and take the "evolution as the method of Intelligent Design" approach. They don't try to suppress science, don't try to force their beliefs on anyone, but otherwise are intense about their religious beliefs.

Although I did get a kick out of a paper I read trying to use Relativistic time-perception as a basis for accepting a literal Bible.

Hard-core Bible literalists are in the same class as hard-core atheists who want to kill religion anywhere outside of a church (and sometimes even in a church) and think anyone religious is an idiot.

[Blake]

Has evolution been proven true? The theory sounds like a great idea to teach. As well as the idea that a spagetti monster combined two meatballs and out we came. I think a victory for any school anywhere in America should be that they aren't just teaching to pass a test.

Agree that the theory of evolution does sound like a great idea to teach, but disagree that teaching about a spaghetti moster is just as great.

[boutons_deux]

"most Christians I know do not believe in a literal Bible"

Something like 30-40% of Americans poll as Bible literalists and not believing in evolution. They're stupid fucks, just as intended and needed by the huckster preachers and corporations to sucker them into parting with their money for shitty "products".

[Blake]

Hard-core Bible literalists are in the same class as hard-core atheists who want to kill religion anywhere outside of a church (and sometimes even in a church) and think anyone religious is an idiot.

neh, it's not in the same class at all, tbh.

[fyatuk]

"most Christians I know do not believe in a literal Bible"

Something like 30-40% of Americans poll as Bible literalists and not believing in evolution. They're stupid fucks, just as intended and needed by the huckster preachers and corporations to sucker them into parting with their money for shitty "products".

I don't disagree with you about literalists. I'm just saying you often lump all religious people into your condemnations, when it's not the case. The US is about 75% Christian, so while literalists are a significant portion, it's not an overwhelming majority justifying the denegration of the entire class of people.

[boutons_deux]

"you often lump all religious people"

link?

I even write "Christian" meaning that special group of "Christian" extremists/supremacists who mostly ignore Christ's hippy message of "love and peace and inclusiveness for all" and the entire NT in favor of the weird-ass crazy shit in the OT, which they cherry-pick aggressively, just like they say they adore the Constitution, while violating it when it suits them, and even wanting to rewrite it to include the 10 Commandments.

[Blake]

I don't disagree with you about literalists. I'm just saying you often lump all religious people into your condemnations, when it's not the case. The US is about 75% Christian, so while literalists are a significant portion, it's not an overwhelming majority justifying the denegration of the entire class of people.

what percent of the Bible do non-literal Christians believe to be true?

[Cane]

Thomas Jefferson approves :downspin:

[spursncowboys]

I don't believe in evolution. And I called and asked my mom if I'm a stupid fuck and she said no.

[spursncowboys]

what percent of the Bible do non-literal Christians believe to be true?

Me fitting in that wide general category would answer with John 3:16

[Blake]

I don't believe in evolution. And I called and asked my mom if I'm a stupid fuck and she said no.

you need to check with mom if you are stupid or not?

that would make you an insecure fuck.

[Blake]

Me fitting in that wide general category would answer with John 3:16

so you literally believe in John 3:16 but not Genesis?

[spursncowboys]

seriously blake...

[spursncowboys]

smh

[fyatuk]

what percent of the Bible do non-literal Christians believe to be true?

In my experience, 100% of the message while allowing that the Bible is written in literary prose.

[Winehole23]

Good one, fyatuk.

[101A]

Has evolution been proven true? The theory sounds like a great idea to teach. As well as the idea that a spagetti monster combined two meatballs and out we came. I think a victory for any school anywhere in America should be that they aren't just teaching to pass a test.


THAT evolution happens is not theory.

HOW evolution happens (natural selection) is Darwin's (as yet undefeated) theory.

[DarrinS]

I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive.


We don't teach the bible in public schools genious.. I wonder what Islam has to say about how the world was created. Should we include that possibilty as well?

[Winehole23]

I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive.Are they?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Now thinking about it..evolution theory has holes ..so I wonder if aliens created the earth? why can't that be taught in schools? There's a lot we don't know...so let's just teach that aliens could have possibly done it..:rolleyes

[ElNono]

I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive.

Because one is a falsifiable scientific theory and the other is not?

[DarrinS]

We don't teach the bible in public schools genious.. I wonder what Islam has to say about how the world was created. Should we include that possibilty as well?

Genious? Lol

And intelligent design is not religion-specific.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive.

They don't have to be but there is absolutely zero proof of intelligent design. You can definitely believe in ID and evolution concurrently but only one has scientific proof behind it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Genious? Lol

And intelligent design is not religion-specific.

so it's possible that Allah created the earth.. and it's well documented that you don't care for muslims.... I guess you'd have some essplaining to do when judgement day comes..

[ElNono]

Why restrict Intelligent Design to just explaining evolution? We could explain pretty much anything we don't know (yet) about with it.

[DarrinS]

Are they?

I don't know. Seems to me that the ability to evolve is pretty ingenious.

[boutons_deux]

"don't understand why evolution and intelligent design"

ID is a renaming, aka a lie, a deception, of (Biblical) creationism. By any name, there's no evidence for it, aka, a religious fairy tale intended to for primitive, ignorant people 1000s of year ago.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why restrict Intelligent Design to just explaining evolution? We could explain pretty much anything we don't know (yet) about with it.

he's not smart enough to get it..

[DarrinS]

so it's possible that Allah created the earth.. and it's well documented that you don't care for muslims.... I guess you'd have some essplaining to do when judgement day comes..

Sigh

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess we could include an ID page in all educational materials... we could then refer everyone back to page 179 whenever there are other possible explanations..

"one believes that some pre historic sea creatures evolved to land animals"... " (see page 179 for other possibility)


" Volcanoes have been around for millions of years" (see page 179 for other possibility)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sigh

:lmao

[DarrinS]

"don't understand why evolution and intelligent design"

ID is a renaming, aka a lie, a deception, of (Biblical) creationism. By any name, there's no evidence for it, aka, a religious fairy tale intended to for primitive, ignorant people 1000s of year ago.

How does a person distinguish an arrowhead from an ordinary rock? Hint: one of them has evidence of something.

[George Gervin's Afro]

How does a person distinguish an arrowhead from an ordinary rock? Hint: one of them has evidence of something.

sigh

[MannyIsGod]

How does a person distinguish an arrowhead from an ordinary rock? Hint: one of them has evidence of something.

Whats the evidence for ID?

[DarrinS]

Whats the evidence for ID?

Seems to me that it is all around us. I suppose we can have faith that life spontaneously generated, which is no more provable than creation.

[MannyIsGod]

Seems to me that it is all around us. I suppose we can have faith that life spontaneously generated, which is no more provable than creation.

All around us? Can you specify? As far as I know, its not considered fact at all that life spontaneously generated. Its just that we don't know.

Sometimes its ok to say you don't know something as opposed to making things up, IMO.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Seems to me that it is all around us. I suppose we can have faith that life spontaneously generated, which is no more provable than creation.

so why teach science at all? because by your definition anything could have happened spontaneously...

[DarrinS]

All around us? Can you specify? As far as I know, its not considered fact at all that life spontaneously generated. Its just that we don't know.

Sometimes its ok to say you don't know something as opposed to making things up, IMO.


Evolution can't explain the origins of life and it cannot explain why human's brains are hard-wired for music. Human babies dance to music. Baby chimps don't.

[boutons_deux]

Creationism says God created the universe 6000 years ago, with man and all other life popping into existence then just as it is now.

They swallow that fairy tale but refuse to believe in life spontaneously evolved over Bs of years? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Evolution can't explain the origins of life and it cannot explain why human's brains are hard-wired for music. Human babies dance to music. Baby chimps don't.

None of that is evidence for ID. No one ever said evolution is a complete theory for everything having to do with life. It doesn't explain everything nor does it claim to.

[ElNono]

Seems to me that it is all around us.

There's a lot of scientifically proven things around us. A lot of the stuff that surrounds us every day is built upon solid science. There's also a lot of things we don't know about yet.

The problem with ID and such line of thinking is that it's 'intellectually lazy', IMO. If humans would've assigned everything we don't understand or know about at some point in time to merely faith or some higher being (and that 'the evidence is all around us'), then what's the point of actually taking the time to do science and verify things, and build upon that? Why Einstein would take the time and effort of a lifetime to try to explain anything about time, space, etc if everything can easily be explained by this higher being.

That is the reason why things such as ID and science are mutually exclusive. One offers claims that can be tested and falsified. The other offers claims that simply are not testable.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Intelligent design final exam:

Why do we exist?

Because it is God's plan.

Correct.

Why is the sky blue?

Because it is God's plan.

Correct.

Why is the grass green?

Because it is God's plan.

Correct.

Why don't baby chimps dance to music whereas human babies do?

Because it is God's plan.

Correct.

[ElNono]

Evolution can't explain the origins of life and it cannot explain why human's brains are hard-wired for music. Human babies dance to music. Baby chimps don't.

Evolution doesn't attempt to. You would have to look at the "Primordial soup" theory and such. There's plenty of things we don't understand about the human brain, but we're lightyears ahead of what we knew 4000 years ago about it. ID doesn't even attempt to explain why any of that happens either.

[DarrinS]

If humans would've assigned everything we don't understand or know about at some point in time to merely faith or some higher being ..


If you find some ancient tool or machine and you attribute it's design to some intelligent being, is that somehow unscientific? Why can't that same principle be applied to biology?

[DarrinS]

I don't know anything about Intelligent design.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I wonder if all those brainiacs in their ivory towers know about this non-dancing baby chimp discovery of darrin's? I'd say that little tidbit settles the matter once-and-for-all: evolution don't make no damn sense. If it did, I should be able to youtube some dancing baby chimps.

[ElNono]

If you find some ancient tool or machine and you attribute it's design to some intelligent being, is that somehow unscientific? Why can't that same principle be applied to biology?

It's completely unscientific. You're offering an explanation that's not falsifiable. You would attribute it to, say, humans in certain time period. There might be no way to test right now (ie: carbon dating might not go far back enough), but you're offering something that eventually could be tested and ruled as true or false. When your argument is about a being which itself cannot be scientifically proven to even exist, you're jumping to a completely different realm that's entirely non-scientific.

We've found tools and artifacts (i.e.: Pyramids) that we thought were fairly advanced for when they were built. But the scientific theories surrounding them (and some historical evidence found have proven and dismissed some of them) are entirely falsifiable. They're not attributed to gods or higher beings. Merely to fairly intelligent mortals.

[clambake]

why are there chimps at all?

[fyatuk]

That is the reason why things such as ID and science are mutually exclusive. One offers claims that can be tested and falsified. The other offers claims that simply are not testable.

This is not really true. The only thing ID allows for that isn't testable is God and his ultimate plan. It doesn't say don't look into it, in fact many ID believers think that continuing to study science and revealing more of the "mysteries" of the universe will ultimately prove the existence of God.

Science is the medium through which God reveals himself, etc.

It's usually strict creationists/literalists that oppose and suppress science.

[clambake]

i thought the bible was where god revealed himself.

[ElNono]

This is not really true. The only thing ID allows for that isn't testable is God and his ultimate plan. It doesn't say don't look into it, in fact many ID believers think that continuing to study science and revealing more of the "mysteries" of the universe will ultimately prove the existence of God.

Then it's not scientific. Science, or should I say, the scientific method is entirely based on testable (falsifiable) theories.

[ElNono]

BTW, there's a reason for that. Otherwise you would have a 'everything falls back here if we can't get it yet' wildcard. Science prefers to say they don't know yet, rather than attribute it to something that cannot ever be tested and proven/disproven.

[ElNono]

Also, if you had a God whose presence could be proven or not, then you would have something Science as we know it could work with. Not what we have today by any meaningful definition of God.

[spursncowboys]

They don't have to be but there is absolutely zero proof of intelligent design. You can definitely believe in ID and evolution concurrently but only one has scientific proof behind it.

Really there is scientific proof of evolution? I didn't know that.

[spursncowboys]

THAT evolution happens is not theory.

HOW evolution happens (natural selection) is Darwin's (as yet undefeated) theory.
It is absolutely a theory. There is no scientific proof that evolution ever happened. it is based on theory and faith. much like christianity. or just the idea of intelligent design.

[clambake]

man was created by faith....even before man was created.

[Wild Cobra]

"don't understand why evolution and intelligent design"

ID is a renaming, aka a lie, a deception, of (Biblical) creationism. By any name, there's no evidence for it, aka, a religious fairy tale intended to for primitive, ignorant people 1000s of year ago.
It's a hypothesis to accepting both science and the Bible.

Sorry that you may be soulless.

[DarrinS]

BTW, there's a reason for that. Otherwise you would have a 'everything falls back here if we can't get it yet' wildcard.

You keep repeating this "everything we can't explain must be intelligent design" mantra.

It's actually because we know so much about the complexity of a single cell, for example, that suggests a design that's hard to believe occured by chance.

Science never attempts to discover "why" only "how".

[DMX7]

"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers,"

That's not true. People generally could careless. Dr. Eugenie Scott sounds like a real fucking douchebag if you ask me.

You sound butthurt.

[ElNono]

It is absolutely a theory. There is no scientific proof that evolution ever happened. it is based on theory and faith. much like christianity. or just the idea of intelligent design.

You seem to be misinformed/confused. There's Evolution the event, and Evolution the theory (two different things). Evolution the event has been scientifically proven to happen. You can go back to geological strata containing evolutionary sequence of fossils that scientifically proves Evolution the event happens.

Evolution the theory (as 101A pointed out, aka natural selection) tries to explain why and how Evolution the event happens. So far what it proposes has not been proven false. It also has not been proven entirely true (and I remark entirely, because some portions has been proven true, just not all of it).

It really has nothing to do with religion or some grand creator.

[Wild Cobra]

Creationism says God created the universe 6000 years ago, with man and all other life popping into existence then just as it is now.

They swallow that fairy tale but refuse to believe in life spontaneously evolved over Bs of years? :lol
Not all believe that. Yes, before more were willing too accept modern science, and that is based of the genealogy following Adam. There are creationists today who realize there is more. That realize translations are incorrect also. Just to start with Adam, if we use the genealogy, Adam and Eve where created about 4,000 BC. However, this is when that story starts. Adam is a proper name in the story after the beginning, but during the story of creation, Adam was a different word that meant "mankind." The Bible gives us no indication how long the day (cycle) was during the creation, or how long mankind was on the earth before Adam was changed to a modern man.

The word used for day means cycle. Not necessarily a solar day.

[Wild Cobra]

None of that is evidence for ID. No one ever said evolution is a complete theory for everything having to do with life. It doesn't explain everything nor does it claim to.
It's called faith.

[Wild Cobra]

That is the reason why things such as ID and science are mutually exclusive. One offers claims that can be tested and falsified. The other offers claims that simply are not testable.
So just call it a hypothesis.

Sorry you have no faith. Why should the atheist point of view prevail? Is there no room for diversity?

[ElNono]

You keep repeating this "everything we can't explain must be intelligent design" mantra.

Because that's what it is. An half-assed explanation for the unexplainable.


It's actually because we know so much about the complexity of a single cell, for example, that suggests a design that's hard to believe occured by chance.

Suggestions you can't test are meaningless from a scientific optic. They're not really worth seriously entertaining.


Science never attempts to discover "why" only "how".

When you rule out the paranormal, as science does, they're the same question.

[Wild Cobra]

man was created by faith....even before man was created.
I think it's safe to say man evolved, until the missing link.

[ChumpDumper]

Who said evolution theory was necessarily atheist?

[GoodOdor]

Can we please stop pretending ID is anything else than a wedge tactic created by the same people who push for creationism? They just figured they would need to get ID in first, to open up the door for creationism.

IF anyone recalls the big trial a while back about teaching ID, they brought the book the ID's wanted thought, I think it was called Panda's and people. Anyway, the evolutionists brought in a 1987 version of the book, and the big difference was.....the creationists simply changed the word "creationism" tp "intelligent design"....

It's really tiring seeing some home schooled dumbfuck ask stupid questions like "evolution is a THEORY!!111" and "IT DOESNT PROVE THE ORIGIN OF LIFEEE!!!"

[ElNono]

So just call it a hypothesis.

Sorry you have no faith. Why should the atheist point of view prevail? Is there no room for diversity?

I have no problem with parents teaching religion, or parochial schools, etc.
However, if you're going to teach science, I expect it to be science. Religion isn't part of science.

[Wild Cobra]

You seem to be misinformed/confused. There's Evolution the event, and Evolution the theory (two different things). Evolution the event has been scientifically proven to happen. You can go back to geological strata containing evolutionary sequence of fossils that scientifically proves Evolution the event happens.

Evolution the theory (as 101A pointed out, aka natural selection) tries to explain why and how Evolution the event happens. So far what it proposes has not been proven false. It also has not been proven entirely true (and I remark entirely, because some portions has been proven true, just not all of it).

It really has nothing to do with religion or some grand creator.
Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with the event. However, the idea that all forms of life today had no engineered help along the way is what ID people disagree with.

If you believe in aliens, is there no room to believe in ID?

[fyatuk]

Then it's not scientific. Science, or should I say, the scientific method is entirely based on testable (falsifiable) theories.

No, I agree. ID isn't science. It's something better covered in Philosophy class. I'm just saying you're wrong in that ID is diametrically opposed to science. ID, as a belief system, typically embraces science.


BTW, there's a reason for that. Otherwise you would have a 'everything falls back here if we can't get it yet' wildcard. Science prefers to say they don't know yet, rather than attribute it to something that cannot ever be tested and proven/disproven.

Most IDers I've met would never stop researching and just say "It's the way it is because of God." Like was said above, ID covers the "why" not the "how." Science explains the "how" not the "why." If you figure out enough "how"s you might find the "why."

As Einstein is credited with saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Martin Noway, director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and well respected scientist focusing on evolution and biology is a Roman Catholic and has said "Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach."

Many people view the 2 as intrinsically linked, and it doesn't interfere with their research.

[GoodOdor]

It's not surprising someone who thinks we should flood death valley believes in ID.....

[Wild Cobra]

Who said evolution theory was necessarily atheist?
Excluding ID is atheist. ID is evolution, being helped.

[spursncowboys]

You seem to be misinformed/confused. There's Evolution the event, and Evolution the theory (two different things). Evolution the event has been scientifically proven to happen. You can go back to geological strata containing evolutionary sequence of fossils that scientifically proves Evolution the event happens.

Evolution the theory (as 101A pointed out, aka natural selection) tries to explain why and how Evolution the event happens. So far what it proposes has not been proven false. It also has not been proven entirely true (and I remark entirely, because some portions has been proven true, just not all of it).

It really has nothing to do with religion or some grand creator.

No it doesn't have anything to do with religion. However, no neither were scientifically. Also it seems like you are confusing evolution with adaptation.

[Wild Cobra]

I have no problem with parents teaching religion, or parochial schools, etc.
However, if you're going to teach science, I expect it to be science. Religion isn't part of science.
Then stop teaching that evolution is the way everything came to be. At least add how GM crops are made. That is a form of ID.

How can someone not believe in ID who believes GM exists?

[ElNono]

Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with the event. However, the idea that all forms of life today had no engineered help along the way is what ID people disagree with.

If you believe in aliens, is there no room to believe in ID?

You can propose any alternative theory you want. At the same time, be prepared to get laughed at and ignored when your theory is non-testable.
Your flood theory is testable, even if ridiculous.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not surprising someone who thinks we should flood death valley believes in ID.....
That was a random though. Now that I know there wouldn't be enough surface area, I gave the idea up.

I don't need Ankle Biters like you criticizing just to criticize, like a dumb dog barks and bites at just anything.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then stop teaching that evolution is the way everything came to be. At least add how GM crops are made. That is a form of ID.

How can someone not believe in ID who believes GM exists?

thank God we have smarter people educating our young than the morons on this board..

[clambake]

I think it's safe to say man evolved, until the missing link.

how can you call that "missing"?

[GoodOdor]

That was a random though. Now that I know there wouldn't be enough surface area, I gave the idea up.

I don't need Ankle Biters like you criticizing just to criticize, like a dumb dog barks and bites at just anything.

Like I said, not surprising someone who believes in ID comes up with such a retarded "thought".

There's a saying for people like you: it's better to stay quiet and make people wonder if you're stupid, or open your mouth and remove all doubt.

In your case, there's definitively no doubt left.

[clambake]

thank God we have smarter people educating our young than the morons on this board..

did you forget? he used to be a farmer.

[GoodOdor]

how can you call that "missing"?

WC is a missing link himself - stuck somewhere between man and chimp.

[ChumpDumper]

Excluding ID is atheist. ID is evolution, being helped.Why does ID have to be done by a God?

[Wild Cobra]

You can propose any alternative theory you want. At the same time, be prepared to get laughed at and ignored when your theory is non-testable.
Your flood theory is testable, even if ridiculous.

Non testable today. That doesn't mean the idea should be laughed at. One of the first understanding of science everyone needs to realize for themselves is "I don't know." I you summarily throw an untested idea out, you could miss something important.

Yes, my though, hypothesis not theory, turned out not to be what I was hoping for. If you wish to class all untested hypothesis as questionable, ridiculing the people with some creativity, then science would never advance.

[Winehole23]

I don't need Ankle Biters like you criticizing just to criticize, like a dumb dog barks and bites at just anything.Posting your random thoughts in a public forum assures that random jackasses will reply. Cope.

Also, keeping more of them to yourself is an option. Discretion is the soul of valor etc..

[GoodOdor]

Non testable today. That doesn't mean the idea should be laughed at. One of the first understanding of science everyone needs to realize for themselves is "I don't know." I you summarily throw an untested idea out, you could miss something important.

Yes, my though, hypothesis not theory, turned out not to be what I was hoping for. If you wish to class all untested hypothesis as questionable, ridiculing the people with some creativity, then science would never advance.

I agree, the Zeus-creation theory is an untested hypothesis we should seriously consider and research before dismissing it.

[Wild Cobra]

Why does ID have to be done by a God?
I never claimed it had to be "God." However, the Gods would be of such intelligence to do like we are starting to learn in genetic engineering.

[ElNono]

No, I agree. ID isn't science. It's something better covered in Philosophy class. I'm just saying you're wrong in that ID is diametrically opposed to science. ID, as a belief system, typically embraces science.

I'm not saying ID is opposed to science. I'm saying that science can't fit ID as proposed. The problem here is the attempts to teach science next to non-science, and call the whole thing science.


Most IDers I've met would never stop researching and just say "It's the way it is because of God." Like was said above, ID covers the "why" not the "how." Science explains the "how" not the "why." If you figure out enough "how"s you might find the "why."

As Einstein is credited with saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Martin Noway, director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and well respected scientist focusing on evolution and biology is a Roman Catholic and has said "Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach."

Many people view the 2 as intrinsically linked, and it doesn't interfere with their research.

FWIW, every 'faction' out there has a Einstein quote handy... he said a lot of things throughout his life :lol

A lot of religious people do science, so I'm not surprised about certain comments. We had this conversation before with Phenomenaul IIRC a while ago. Also, I'm not opposed to teaching Religion under religion class.

The problem here is when people try to equate this as a science. It isn't and it shouldn't be taught as such.

[Wild Cobra]

Posting your random thoughts in a public forum assures that random jackasses will reply. Cope.

Also, keeping more of them to yourself is an option. Discretion is the soul of valor etc..
Yes I know that. Sometimes those yapping ankle biters are more than I expect though.

[ElNono]

Then stop teaching that evolution is the way everything came to be. At least add how GM crops are made. That is a form of ID.

Not sure who taught you evolution, but that's not what evolution tries to explain.


How can someone not believe in ID who believes GM exists?

The ID we know as proposed has nothing to do with human engineering.

[Winehole23]

Yes I know that. Sometimes those yapping ankle biters are more than I expect though.Pause. Take a deep breath. Think about where you're posting.

Now, what were you saying about expectations?

[ElNono]

No it doesn't have anything to do with religion. However, no neither were scientifically. Also it seems like you are confusing evolution with adaptation.

No confusion here. Evolution has a variety of parts and theories. Natural selection is one of them. Genetic mutations is another one (one that's been tested and proven over time). I'm sure a biology book or Google can do a better job explaining the intricacies better than I can in one post.

[Blake]

seriously blake...

seriously, you shouldn't have to get confirmation from your mother about whether or not you are a stupid fuck.

[Blake]

In my experience, 100% of the message while allowing that the Bible is written in literary prose.

so the part where Jesus died on a cross and came back to life again in 3 days is just literary prose?

In my experience exactly 0% of the Christians I know believe that to be just "literary prose".

[ElNono]

Non testable today. That doesn't mean the idea should be laughed at.

The currently proposed ID theory includes a non-testable entity/being/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. If you want to propose an alternate ID theory that includes a testable being, there's nothing stopping you.

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure who taught you evolution, but that's not what evolution tries to explain.
Evolution I learned says every life evolved. I'm OK with that. I just believe it did have help along the way instead of being purely mutations, natural hybrids, selection, etc.

The ID we know as proposed has nothing to do with human engineering.
You think that level of capability isn't in the thoughts of many scientists? The Bible in essence says in the future, we will be like gods.

[Blake]

We had this conversation before with Phenomenaul IIRC a while ago. Also, I'm not opposed to teaching Religion under religion class.

or even some kind of philosophy class, imo.


The problem here is when people try to equate this as a science. It isn't and it shouldn't be taught as such.

Even Michael Behe ended up admitting as much in court.

[Winehole23]

Did a bird shit in your coffee this morning, or was that just "top o the mornin to ye?"

[Wild Cobra]

The currently proposed ID theory includes a non-testable entity/being/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. If you want to propose an alternate ID theory that includes a testable being, there's nothing stopping you.
There is not one single ID idea. I would agree that some are outrageous. However, I believe ID exists in some form in our past history by some more advanced intelligence. It could be Jehovah, it could be the aliens described in a Sumerian story, could be other extra terrestrials, or a more advance civilization like the fables Atlantis, etc.

As for testing it... Maybe when I'm older, we will have the means.

[Blake]

I just believe it did have help along the way instead of being purely mutations, natural hybrids, selection, etc.


great, just keep your belief system out of science books.

[ElNono]

Evolution I learned says every life evolved. I'm OK with that. I just believe it did have help along the way instead of being purely mutations, natural hybrids, selection, etc.

You should present your theory then. Unfortunately, it's going to be tough to compete with a 150 years old theory that you can't prove false.


You think that level of capability isn't in the thoughts of many scientists? The Bible in essence says in the future, we will be like gods.

Again, ID as proposed today has nothing to do with human engineering.

[Winehole23]

In my experience exactly 0% of the Christians I know believe that to be just "literary prose".You probably don't have much experience with Wesleyans.

[fyatuk]

I'm not saying ID is opposed to science. I'm saying that science can't fit ID as proposed. The problem here is the attempts to teach science next to non-science, and call the whole thing science.

A lot of religious people do science, so I'm not surprised about certain comments. We had this conversation before with Phenomenaul IIRC a while ago. Also, I'm not opposed to teaching Religion under religion class.

The problem here is when people try to equate this as a science. It isn't and it shouldn't be taught as such.

I agree with all that. ID should not be taught as science, not just because it's an unfalsifiable proposition (under current testing capabilities, at least, and most likely ever), but because it doesn't directly relate to any science.

Sure, there may or may not be a plan, but it doesn't change whether primordial soup works, whether evolution happens or is induced by natural selection, what the constants c, e, pi, etc represent, or anything else. ID doesn't relate to the particulars of science, and I agree has no place in science class.

I just have issues with people who claim that religion in any form stiffles scientific study, or that believing ID somehow diminishes your thought process or intelligence.


FWIW, every 'faction' out there has a Einstein quote handy... he said a lot of things throughout his life :lol

Quite true. He was a bit crazy. That's just one of my favorites.

[Wild Cobra]

Did a bird shit in your coffee this morning, or was that just "top o the mornin to ye?"
Asking me?

Funny... I did sleep in on this day off. I'm on my second cup of coffee now!

I wasn't referring to you as one of the ankle biters. At least you usually have some pretty intelligent thoughts, even if at times you are putting someone down.

[Wild Cobra]

great, just keep your belief system out of science books.
And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

[GoodOdor]

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

And that's why uneducated parts changers don't get a say in the education curriculum.

[ElNono]

There is not one single ID idea. I would agree that some are outrageous.

Again, because this seems to still escape you: We're discussing a contemporary version (mainstream, whatever you want to call it) of ID that some people want to include in science class. Wether evolution is right or wrong, there's no doubt that it is science, using the scientific-method, whereas the proposed ID theory is not.

If you want to write to Nature about your alternate ID theories, including aliens, please by all means do so.

[Winehole23]

@WC: I was asking Blake. He played the stupid fuck card.

[Blake]

You probably don't have much experience with Wesleyans.

Not at all, tbh.

Does Wikipedia not have it right?:


In addition, they [Wesleyans] believe in the following articles of religion:

.....This article indicates the following beliefs

Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Conceived by the Holy Spirit
born of the Virgin Mary
Truly God and truly man
He died on the cross and was buried
He rose bodily from the dead
He ascended into heaven
He intercedes at the Father's right hand
Until he returns
to judge all humanity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Church#Beliefs

[ElNono]

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

But we know that life evolved. We have actual evidence of that. We might not know specifically how it happened, but we know it did.

[fyatuk]

so the part where Jesus died on a cross and came back to life again in 3 days is just literary prose?

In my experience exactly 0% of the Christians I know believe that to be just "literary prose".

I know quite a few. They view it as an interpretation of the Romans/Jews attempting to kill Christ's teachings, but Christ's teachings not only surviving, but growing stronger.

Most believe that part is quite literal, however.

But it's also semi-justified, since there are plenty of examples of people being legally dead for hours before suddenly waking up, and that's with modern science and machines to determine.

[Blake]

@WC: I was asking Blake. He played the stupid fuck card.

no I didn't. I was responding to the one who did.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, because this seems to still escape you: We're discussing a contemporary version (mainstream, whatever you want to call it) of ID that some people want to include in science class. Wether evolution is right or wrong, there's no doubt that it is science, using the scientific-method, whereas the proposed ID theory is not.

If you want to write to Nature about your alternate ID theories, including aliens, please by all means do so.
I agree from the viewpoint that one is theory and the other a hypothesis. However, being a theory, it needs to leave room for other possibilities. I have a problem with teachers who make a student question their faith by saying evolution is the only answer.

[Winehole23]

I was being facetious, but I have been to a Wesleyan reading group and this whole privileging of message over literal text is a well-established style it seems to me.

[Wild Cobra]

@WC: I was asking Blake. He played the stupid fuck card.
Didn't think you were responding to me, but if there is a "threaded mode" in this forum, I don't use it. Too often, your responses come out as not knowing that post or who you are referring to.

[baseline bum]

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

Fucking nihilism, the calling card of the creationists.

[Blake]

I know quite a few. They view it as an interpretation of the Romans/Jews attempting to kill Christ's teachings, but Christ's teachings not only surviving, but growing stronger.

Most believe that part is quite literal, however.

But it's also semi-justified, since there are plenty of examples of people being legally dead for hours before suddenly waking up, and that's with modern science and machines to determine.

so these same people also have explanations for the magic tricks that Jesus pulled off as well?

point is, if you are allowed to pick and choose what is literal and what is not, then the whole thing is bullshit.....

you're either all in or you're all out, imo.

[Wild Cobra]

But we know that life evolved. We have actual evidence of that. We might not know specifically how it happened, but we know it did.
Then why is it still theory, and not fact?

I'm saying at least make sure students know a theory isn't always 100% correct.

[baseline bum]

Then why is it still theory, and not fact?

I'm saying at least make sure students know a theory isn't always 100% correct.

So snakes like you can slither in and teach the 0% version?

[Winehole23]

no I didn't. I was responding to the one who did.Didn't mean to interfere, just enquired about your mood. Carry on.

[Wild Cobra]

Fucking nihilism, the calling card of the creationists.
I lost your meaning. Elaborate please since a theist wouldn't be a nihilist.

[boutons_deux]

"is it still theory"

In your and other creationists' mouth, "evolution is only a theory" that's pejorative, a slander, because you don't understand science.

Very little in science is facts, just theories with Ks or Ms of data that confirm the theory, and predictions made from the theory that came true.

[ElNono]

I agree from the viewpoint that one is theory and the other a hypothesis. However, being a theory, it needs to leave room for other possibilities.

Scientifically speaking, no. A theory has to leave no doubt and has to have at least one testable component. That's what differentiates a theory (or scientific hypothesis) and a hypothesis. There's nothing in science that disallows you to have multiple theories for the same phenomena. What science doesn't allow is to have a non-testable hypothesis.


I have a problem with teachers who make a student question their faith by saying evolution is the only answer.

Well, I don't know such teacher. However, I can see how a science teacher would teach established science, including contemporary theories. Frankly, any science teacher that I've known teaches the scientific method, including differentiation between theory and scientific law.

[baseline bum]

I lost your meaning. Elaborate please since a theist wouldn't be a nihilist.

You make nihilist arguments about 100% certainty in an attempt to bring a scientific theory down to the level of your creationist pure conjecture.

[GoodOdor]

Then why is it still theory, and not fact?

I'm saying at least make sure students know a theory isn't always 100% correct.

Unsurprisingly, this creationist dumbstruck needs an explanation of what a "theory" means in scientific terms.

Gravity is a theory.

Not surprising someone who never went to college doesn't know such basic stuff tbh.

[baseline bum]

And gravity is a hell of a lot more controversial than natural selection.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I don't know such teacher. However, I can see how a science teacher would teach established science, including contemporary theories. Frankly, any science teacher that I've known teaches the scientific method, including differentiation between theory and scientific law.
Well, growing up with religious friends, I remember some turmoil about science and faith collided. In early science classes, the scientific method isn't taught. That comes later. The schools should be careful about anything that pushes hard against one's faith.

[GoodOdor]

Gravity is a hell of a lot more controversial than natural selection.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on our lovable dumbfuck. A lot of people have a problem understanding that in scientific terms, a "theory" is about as good as it gets. They probably think a theory means something like hypothesis. There is no "proof" in any scientific field(other than math, and even that's not really a proper scientific field per say).

It's tiring seeing people who know absolutely nothing about science fail to understand what a theory means.

[baseline bum]

Well, growing up with religious friends, I remember some turmoil about science and faith collided. In early science classes, the scientific method isn't taught. That comes later. The schools should be careful about anything that pushes hard against one's faith.

Why the fuck should schools censor science just to placate those who believe in magic?

[Spurminator]

I'm saying at least make sure students know a theory isn't always 100% correct.

They do. Teachers don't need to teach religion in order to get across what "theory" means.

You guys would have no problem with evolution if you didn't see it as contradictory to Christianity. No one ever complains about the hundreds of other scientific theories taught in public schools, but for some reason you can't mess with Adam and Eve.

[ElNono]

Then why is it still theory, and not fact?

Evolution the event is a scientifically proven fact. Evolution encompasses many aspects. One is the evolutionary event, another is DNA mutation, etc. Some parts have been proven factually, some parts are still in the process of being tested and proven.


I'm saying at least make sure students know a theory isn't always 100% correct.

Students know. Part of learning the scientific method is knowing the difference between theory and law. What science won't do is teach that non-testable hypothesis are science.

[Wild Cobra]

Gravity is a theory.

The fact of gravity as we experience it isn't theory. Just how it words.

[Blake]

Didn't mean to interfere, just enquired about your mood. Carry on.

my mood is fine. :tu

I thought snc talking about calling his mom and asking about his intelligence level was pretty funny. I was just poking a bit more to see if he would say something even funnier.

[GoodOdor]

The fact of gravity as we experience it isn't theory. Just how it words.

The fact of evolution as we experience it isn't a theory. Just how it words.

Crofl creationist dumbfuck.

[ElNono]

Well, growing up with religious friends, I remember some turmoil about science and faith collided. In early science classes, the scientific method isn't taught. That comes later. The schools should be careful about anything that pushes hard against one's faith.

I don't think they should be careful at all. I think in the proper context, diversity is a great thing. Let the kids decide for themselves what they should believe.

[Oh, Gee!!]

As a liberal, I hope science teachers give F minuses to any kid brazen enough to identify himself as a christian within the walls of a public school. That violates my rights to be free from religion.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Saw this in SourCandy's sig, while reading other threads:

http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/christian_art_anime/farside-creator-god.jpg

[Winehole23]

No one ever complains about the hundreds of other scientific theories taught in public schools....Most people can't name 5 scientific theories. I'm not sure I could. :lol

[Winehole23]

my mood is fine. :tu

I thought snc talking about calling his mom and asking about his intelligence level was pretty funny. I was just poking a bit more to see if he would say something even funnier.Good luck.

[DarrinS]

As a liberal, I hope science teachers give F minuses to any kid brazen enough to identify himself as a christian within the walls of a public school. That violates my rights to be free from religion.

You are wise.

[fyatuk]

so these same people also have explanations for the magic tricks that Jesus pulled off as well?

My wiccan friends do ;)


point is, if you are allowed to pick and choose what is literal and what is not, then the whole thing is bullshit.....

you're either all in or you're all out, imo.

Except that's exactly how the Bible was created anyway. You have multiple authors all writing parts of the Bible in their own interpretation (even with the same divine inspiration, individual accounts would vary). Even if you view the whole as a literary prose, parts of the Bible can be thought of as accurate depictions.

It's like a movie "inspired by true events." Some things are very close to accurate, while others are very far apart and done to make the story work. You don't have to believe the entirety is literal to believe parts of it are.

There's also the fact that the Bible most people read has gone through 2 major revisions, and parts have gone through up to 6 or 7 translations. Hard to keep the accuracy through all that.

Personally, I view the entire Bible as a series of parables, and therefore none of it is literal, but I also don't consider myself Christian, so my opinion doesn't realy matter.

[Wild Cobra]

There's also the fact that the Bible most people read has gone through 2 major revisions, and parts have gone through up to 6 or 7 translations. Hard to keep the accuracy through all that.

I think this is the key to the problem. I do not believe the entire Bible in any current English form. None stray too far away from the King James version, which in my view, was clearly written to control the people.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

Saw this in SourCandy's sig, while reading other threads:

http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/christian_art_anime/farside-creator-god.jpg

LOL thats pretty good.

[ElNono]

I think this is the key to the problem. I do not believe the entire Bible in any current English form. None stray too far away from the King James version, which in my view, was clearly written to control the people.

So you're telling me you don't really know that the 'true, original Bible' really said, but you do believe in it...

[DarrinS]

There are too many simpletons in this thread that think you fall into one of two buckets: the atheist evolutionist bucket or the bat-shit crazy Bible-thumping literalist bucket

If you believe in evolution, that doesn't make you an athiest. If you believe in some form of a "higher power", that doesn't mean you think the world is only a few thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, I can understand your desire to take the beauty and functionality of the universe and seek a more orderly explanation that science can provide right now. From a pure mathematics point of view the Universe is absolutely amazing in its functionality to me. Its hard not to see an order that must have been laid down to create that.

That being said, thats simply not scientific. That desire to make sense of things and the beauty behind them isn't wrong by any means, its just not scientific.

[MannyIsGod]

If you believe in evolution, that doesn't make you an athiest. If you believe in some form of a "higher power", that doesn't mean you think the world is only a few thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, etc.

Agree with this 100%.

[DarrinS]

Darrin, I can understand your desire to take the beauty and functionality of the universe and seek a more orderly explanation that science can provide right now. From a pure mathematics point of view the Universe is absolutely amazing in its functionality to me. Its hard not to see an order that must have been laid down to create that.

That being said, thats simply not scientific. That desire to make sense of things and the beauty behind them isn't wrong by any means, its just not scientific.


They are not even questions that science attempts to address, so I agree that they are not scientific.

[fyatuk]

I think this is the key to the problem. I do not believe the entire Bible in any current English form. None stray too far away from the King James version, which in my view, was clearly written to control the people.

The bigger issue to me is that there's probably not many Bible's in any form that aren't descended from the Constantine Bible, which stemmed from Constantine's need to perfect the Bible.

[spursncowboys]

seriously, you shouldn't have to get confirmation from your mother about whether or not you are a stupid fuck.

This post definitely confirms that you are.

[spursncowboys]

As a liberal, I hope science teachers give F minuses to any kid brazen enough to identify himself as a christian within the walls of a public school. That violates my rights to be free from religion.

absolutely!

[ElNono]

I don't think it's a matter of science not trying to address them. Science has certain parameters that it abides by. Outside that realm you're looking at a different specialty, such as theology, philosophy, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

They are not even questions that science attempts to address, so I agree that they are not scientific.

I don't think that is true. Modern day physics is addressing many of these questions at their core. Biologists are definitely trying to find the origin of life but its a pretty difficult question to answer.

I'm not incredibly well versed at all, but the reason I find so much modern day physics interesting is because of its potential to unlock so many huge answers for humanity.

[Wild Cobra]

So you're telling me you don't really know that the 'true, original Bible' really said, but you do believe in it...
I've read some translations from the original scripts we know of. Many of the words mean different things, like my recount of Adam coming from two different words. One meaning mankind, the other a proper name. The earlier definition "mankind" indicates a race of humans on the planet, before the story of Cain and Abel.

Besides, who did Cain marry?

[Blake]

Good luck.

I'm betting I won't need much luck.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think it's a matter of science not trying to address them. Science has certain parameters that it abides by. Outside that realm you're looking at a different specialty, such as theology, philosophy, etc.

Not all philosophies can be solved by science by any means. I don't think physics can tell us much about morality (although I'm sure some neurologists and behavior psychologists would disagree - and probably rightfully so) but I do think that science can one day answer a lot of the origin of the universe. At least, I hope it can. And hopefully in my lifetime!

[Wild Cobra]

The bigger issue to me is that there's probably not many Bible's in any form that aren't descended from the Constantine Bible, which stemmed from Constantine's need to perfect the Bible.
You mean the Roman emperor after 300 AD?

Perhaps, but what was his understanding of it then, and how much did it reflect cultural belief and understanding of the time, or even his desire to control the populous?

Isn't that about the time the false Christmas holiday was started? Is he the reason Christmas started, or was that someone else using religion to conquer an enemy?

[Blake]

Except that's exactly how the Bible was created anyway. You have multiple authors all writing parts of the Bible in their own interpretation (even with the same divine inspiration, individual accounts would vary).

so the divine inspiration wasn't very divine in some instances.

doesn't inspire much confidence in the omnipotent.


Even if you view the whole as a literary prose, parts of the Bible can be thought of as accurate depictions.

historically? sure, why not.

magically? no. It's either all true magic or all BS.


It's like a movie "inspired by true events." Some things are very close to accurate, while others are very far apart and done to make the story work. You don't have to believe the entirety is literal to believe parts of it are.

Right. People pick and choose out of it what fits their belief system.

It's financially beautiful that way.


There's also the fact that the Bible most people read has gone through 2 major revisions, and parts have gone through up to 6 or 7 translations. Hard to keep the accuracy through all that.

Nothing is too hard for God.

It says so in the original Hebrew text.


Personally, I view the entire Bible as a series of parables, and therefore none of it is literal, but I also don't consider myself Christian, so my opinion doesn't realy matter.

Personally, I wish the Bible would stay away from the science classroom once and for all.

[ElNono]

I've read some translations from the original scripts we know of. Many of the words mean different things, like my recount of Adam coming from two different words. One meaning mankind, the other a proper name. The earlier definition "mankind" indicates a race of humans on the planet, before the story of Cain and Abel.

So you only believe in those translations?


Besides, who did Cain marry?

I really couldn't care less.

[Blake]

This post definitely confirms that you are.

no it doesn't.

but seriously, if you have to call mom and ask her if you are a stupid fuck because you don't believe in evolution, chances are you are one.

[Blake]

Besides, who did Cain marry?

Adam lived for 930 years. That's a lot of sex.

My Biblical guess is that Cain married his sister.

[Wild Cobra]

So you only believe in those translations?
I believe what I read. There isn't any one single way it can be translated. Like our language, there are some words that have more than one meaning. If we believe both science and religion, there are some ways of translating it that cannot be, but there is the other meanings that can still apply. By eliminating the impossible, the Bible still has meaning. Your question is too general for a simple answer. There is still wide latitude in the way the original languages can be interpreted.

I really couldn't care less.
Why not? It shows the Creationists who believe the earth is only 6,000 years or so old, are wrong.

[fyatuk]

so the divine inspiration wasn't very divine in some instances.

doesn't inspire much confidence in the omnipotent.

Just because you can control everything doesn't mean you do. Most people believe "in His own image" meant free will.


historically? sure, why not.

magically? no. It's either all true magic or all BS.

Just shows how limited you view the world, there.


Nothing is too hard for God.

It says so in the original Hebrew text.

Hard for Man. See above. God gave his Word, and has left it to Man to figure out what to do with it.


Personally, I wish the Bible would stay away from the science classroom once and for all.

Not going to argue that. I agree the Bible should not be in any class except Philosphy, Religion, and maybe History.

[ElNono]

Not all philosophies can be solved by science by any means.

I don't think science strives to solve anything but scientific problems. What has happened in the past is that theology and philosophy have attributed themselves the explanation of certain testable phenomena that eventually science was able to explain with mere reproducible scientific facts.

[Blake]

Why not? It shows the Creationists who believe the earth is only 6,000 years or so old, are wrong.

:lmao don't need Cain to prove that theory wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Adam lived for 930 years. That's a lot of sex.

My Biblical guess is that Cain married his sister.
Then you forget the story.

He found a wife in another land.

[Spurminator]

Most people believe "in His own image" meant free will.

Gotta disagree with that. In my experience, most people believe "in His own image" means God is a dude.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao don't need Cain to prove that theory wrong.
Yes you do, to convince them. From their own source. They aren't going to believe science.

[boutons_deux]

Evolution Right Under Our Noses

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/science/26evolve.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[Blake]

Just because you can control everything doesn't mean you do.

It's either divine inspiration or it's not.


Most people believe "in His own image" meant free will.

Most people?

I think that's the first time Ive heard that line.

I'm going to call b.s. on "most people"


Just shows how limited you view the world, there.

No it doesn't at all. It shows how I view the Bible.

Either all the magic in it is true, or it's all shit.


Hard for Man. See above. God gave his Word, and has left it to Man to figure out what to do with it.

Says you. The Bible says different.

Frankly, I think both of you are wrong.

[ElNono]

I believe what I read. There isn't any one single way it can be translated. Like our language, there are some words that have more than one meaning. If we believe both science and religion, there are some ways of translating it that cannot be, but there is the other meanings that can still apply. By eliminating the impossible, the Bible still has meaning. Your question is too general for a simple answer. There is still wide latitude in the way the original languages can be interpreted.

Science isn't something you believe in, it's not a matter of faith. You simply can't pack together Science with Religion, as they're two different things. Science is something you or somebody else tests and proves true or false, or that you propose and wait for you or other people to test in order to prove true or false. Once you've been tested, it either holds or not. There can be expectations, but you can never go around the fact that your proposal will be tested.


Why not? It shows the Creationists who believe the earth is only 6,000 years or so old, are wrong.

Because I'm not interested in theology.

[Blake]

Then you forget the story.

He found a wife in another land.

So you think it might be a distant cousin?

[Blake]

Yes you do, to convince them. From their own source. They aren't going to believe science.

Who the hell cares what they believe?

I just want them to keep it to themselves.

[fyatuk]

It's either divine inspiration or it's not.

Divine inspiration is not the same as divinely written.


Most people?

I think that's the first time Ive heard that line.

I'm going to call b.s. on "most people"

Okay, perhaps I should say every Christian I've ever talked to and every study Bible I've ever owned.


Says you. The Bible says different.

Frankly, I think both of you are wrong.

Never seen anything in the Bible that contradicts that, although granted it could depend on which Bible you are looking at. One Bible I have basically says that God = Satan.

[Wild Cobra]

So you think it might be a distant cousin?
Very distant, past being a descendant of Adam.

[Wild Cobra]

Who the hell cares what they believe?

I just want them to keep it to themselves.
How many other people are you bigoted against?

[Blake]

Divine inspiration is not the same as divinely written.

in this case it is.

an omniscient God would not inspire a dumbass to write an inaccurate version of the Bible.


Okay, perhaps I should say every Christian I've ever talked to and every study Bible I've ever owned.

shows how limited your view of Christianity is, tbh.

[Blake]

Very distant, past being a descendant of Adam.

great. It really is irrelevant though.

[Blake]

How many other people are you bigoted against?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you are calling me a bigot, just do so.

I'm prejudiced against ignorant, stupid people pushing selfish, stupid agendas on the general populace. Intelligent design is just such an agenda.

[fyatuk]

in this case it is.

an omniscient God would not inspire a dumbass to write an inaccurate version of the Bible.

Not really. God is known to test His creations, so it's perfectly reasonably that he would allow people to be inaccurate. Plus, like I said before, what most of the world reads as the Bible is the work of 10 or more men, only the first of which would necessarily have truly been divinely inspired.


shows how limited your view of Christianity is, tbh.

Meh. I've talked to a wide variety of flavors of Christians, and it's been unanimous that "His own image" means free will and reasoning capability.

Granted, few people I've talked to about it have been literalists, and those few I did talk to changed their minds about literalism.

[CosmicCowboy]

an omniscient God would not inspire a dumbass to write an inaccurate version of the Bible.




Anyone that pays attention would understand that if there is really a god, he is definitely not a micro-manager.

[fyatuk]

Gotta disagree with that. In my experience, most people believe "in His own image" means God is a dude.

The majority I've met don't assign a gender to God. They speak of Him in the masculine because the convention (as descended from a patriarchal society) is that an unknown gender is treated as male.

Granted, that's very different than in the past, where the belief of God as male played a role in creating the patriarchal society. That probably had a lot to do with basically every preceeding religion the Hebrews had interacted with had a masculine head deity, and not just a few words in the Bible.

[Blake]

Not really. God is known to test His creations, so it's perfectly reasonably that he would allow people to be inaccurate.

No, it's not reasonable at all to assume that a perfect, loving God would allow for inaccuracies in such an important life and death message.


Plus, like I said before, what most of the world reads as the Bible is the work of 10 or more men, only the first of which would necessarily have truly been divinely inspired.

the first of 10 men?

that makes no sense.


Meh. I've talked to a wide variety of flavors of Christians, and it's been unanimous that "His own image" means free will and reasoning capability.


K, I know of nobody like that myself and a google entry of "god own image" pulls up all physical characteristic references on the first page.

There is also nothing in the Bible anywhere that would directly relate "own image" to the horrible Biblical paradox of "free will".

[fyatuk]

No, it's not reasonable at all to assume that a perfect, loving God would allow for inaccuracies in such an important life and death message.

Except that God, per the Old Testament, is known to be a rather sadistic deity ;)


the first of 10 men?

that makes no sense.

See previous post about how many times the Bible has been adapted and translated from the original source...


K, I know of nobody like that myself and a google entry of "god own image" pulls up all physical characteristic references on the first page.

There is also nothing in the Bible anywhere that would directly relate "own image" to the horrible Biblical paradox of "free will".

lol. You actually googled? I'd never take you seriously enough to google.

[Blake]

Except that God, per the Old Testament, is known to be a rather sadistic deity ;)

Zephaniah 3:17
King James Version (KJV)

17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.

18 lol j/k #God


See previous post about how many times the Bible has been adapted and translated from the original source...

the 10th person claiming divine inspiration in translation has exactly the same amount of believability as the 1st.


lol. You actually googled? I'd never take you seriously enough to google.

lol, I google all the time. It's a quick and easy way to expose bullshit.

[clambake]

Except that God, per the Old Testament, is known to be a rather sadistic deity ;)

then why worship him?

[Proxy]

You have developed all of your emotions through evolution. Each one proves some sort of evolutionary advantage. Superstition is one of them.

To believe in 'God,' as some sort of thing that doesn't assume the pattern of physics as we know it, and that this omnipotent being is concerned with a planet so insignificant, is really a sign of close-mindedness.

To believe in ID over evolution can only be based on a lack of knowledge in science. To believe in ID, is another sign of close-mindedness, in that you're so far in denial, that you refuse to accept fact. The Theory of Evolution is fact. It is supported by evidence.

The basis of science in general, is to make educated theories based on evidence and testing. That theory, then becomes what we abide by until proven wrong by other evidence.

[Drachen]

To believe in ID over evolution can only be based on a lack of knowledge in science. To believe in ID, is another sign of close-mindedness, in that you're so far in denial, that you refuse to accept fact. The Theory of Evolution is fact. It is supported by evidence.


I have to point this out before everyone else jumps on it. It is still a theory and has not been elevated to "law" status.

[Proxy]

I have to point this out before everyone else jumps on it. It is still a theory and has not been elevated to "law" status.

"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) "

[Proxy]

"What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[DarrinS]

You have developed all of your emotions through evolution. Each one proves some sort of evolutionary advantage. Superstition is one of them.

To believe in 'God,' as some sort of thing that doesn't assume the pattern of physics as we know it, and that this omnipotent being is concerned with a planet so insignificant, is really a sign of close-mindedness.

To believe in ID over evolution can only be based on a lack of knowledge in science. To believe in ID, is another sign of close-mindedness, in that you're so far in denial, that you refuse to accept fact. The Theory of Evolution is fact. It is supported by evidence.

The basis of science in general, is to make educated theories based on evidence and testing. That theory, then becomes what we abide by until proven wrong by other evidence.

Who said it was an either-or proposition? My mind is open to both being true. you don't need to lecture anyone else about open-mindedness since you've already closed your mind to one possibility.

[Proxy]

Let me say it again. Evolution is fact.

[Proxy]

Who said it was an either-or proposition? My mind is open to both being true. you don't need to lecture anyone else about open-mindedness since you've already closed your mind to one possibility.

How have I closed my mind? And to what possibility? God? I gave "God" an honest chance long ago. I'm sure I know more about your religion, as an Atheist, than you do as a "Christian."

I took the side that has evidence, among other things.

[Proxy]

I think it's safe for me to do this

/thread

[DarrinS]

How have I closed my mind? And to what possibility? God? I gave "God" an honest chance long ago. I'm sure I know more about your religion, as an Atheist, than you do as a "Christian."

I took the side that has evidence, among other things.

Belief in God doesn't make someone a Christian.

[Proxy]

Belief in God doesn't make someone a Christian.

what is your definition of God?

[DarrinS]

what is your definition of God?

Its evolving as I grow older.

[Proxy]

Its evolving as I grow older.

You're avoiding any real response. It's okay to admit you're wrong, and embrace science.

[DarrinS]

You're avoiding any real response. It's okay to admit you're wrong, and embrace science.

What do you think about famous scientists who believe in God?

[DarrinS]

By the way, I consider athiests about as intellectually curious as the young-earth creationists they openly mock.

[Proxy]

What do you think about famous scientists who believe in God?

I think they have a different definition of the word god, or they're lying, or they're idiots. Being famous is an irrelevant variable in this question.

If I were to call myself a God-believing Scientist, I may become famous too... among Christians. "Scientists" who want to say that religion can coexist, are playing upon the people who don't know anything about science and evolution anyways, imho.



By the way, I consider athiests about as intellectually curious as the young-earth creationists they openly mock.

I could agree on a curiosity level, but not on an intellectual level.

intellect
a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge

b : the capacity for rational or intelligent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent) thought especially when highly developed

an atheist, usually, bases their lifestyle on fact, while a creationist usually bases their lifestyle on feeling and emotion.

[LnGrrrR]

Not really. God is known to test His creations, so it's perfectly reasonably that he would allow people to be inaccurate. Plus, like I said before, what most of the world reads as the Bible is the work of 10 or more men, only the first of which would necessarily have truly been divinely inspired.

God's never wrong unless he's wrong on purpose!

I still think the only Christianity that really stood up was Calvinism. The unfortunate side effect is that it turns God into a real psychopath.

[DarrinS]

I think they have a different definition of the word god, or they're lying, or they're idiots. Being famous is an irrelevant variable in this question.

If I were to call myself a God-believing Scientist, I may become famous too... among Christians. "Scientists" who want to say that religion can coexist, are playing upon the people who don't know anything about science and evolution anyways, imho.

How about the guy who was head of the human genome project? During the course of that project, he converted from atheist to Christianity.

[LnGrrrR]

By the way, I consider athiests about as intellectually curious as the young-earth creationists they openly mock.

I find a good amount of atheists tend to have read more about religion than those who believe. *shrug*

[LnGrrrR]

How about the guy who was head of the human genome project? During the course of that project, he converted from atheist to Christianity.

You could point out a hundred million cases where some person converted from atheism to Christianity, and it wouldn't prove/disprove God's existence in the slightest.

I'm pretty sure His existence (or lack thereof) isn't based off popularity polls.

[ElNono]

How about the guy who was head of the human genome project? During the course of that project, he converted from atheist to Christianity.

You just proved his contention:


If I were to call myself a God-believing Scientist, I may become famous too... among Christians

[DarrinS]

You just proved his contention:

What's his name?

[ElNono]

What's his name?

I have no idea, but you seem to know a thing or two about him...

[Proxy]

Head of the human genome project.... I would want to know why he converted, and what his definition of "god" is.

Like I previously stated, it depends on their definition of the word. Even with him being a true christian... it doesn't make god any more real, like LnGrrrR (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14319) said.

[Wild Cobra]

the first of 10 men?

that makes no sense.

Sure it does.

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Some or all of his writings were what Jehovah had given him. Not all writers had a direct connection with Jehovah.This is the first writing we know of the previous details before him. For all we know, the genealogy of Adam is passed down by memory, which could be very incomplete. There are some similar stories in other cultures. I think a few predate Moses, but they are not part of the Bible.

King David...

I believe he was often drunk, perhaps high on some native weed in his day. Does Psalms make much sense?

[Wild Cobra]

Let me say it again. Evolution is fact.

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

[DarrinS]

You could point out a hundred million cases where some person converted from atheism to Christianity, and it wouldn't prove/disprove God's existence in the slightest.

I'm pretty sure His existence (or lack thereof) isn't based off popularity polls.

This is true. Merely pointing out that some scientists who have studied the minutiae of life's building blocks, have found faith (for whatever reason)).

[Proxy]

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

Like what? I don't think you understand evolution or science to a capacity high enough to make that kind of claim.

[ElNono]

This is true. Merely pointing out that some scientists who have studied the minutiae of life's building blocks, have found faith (for whatever reason)).

More than one person 'studied the minutiae of life's building blocks', but so far you only pointed out one that adopted some form of faith. I'm sure there's more that went that route, and I'm sure there's scientists that went the opposite way (faith->non faith). I don't think you can really draw any conclusions from it, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Let me say it again. Evolution is fact.Is it the core of biology as claimed upstream, and how so, please?

[Winehole23]

boutons tried, I must give credit, but it was pitiful.

[boutons_deux]

Give your own pitiful try, WH.

[mingus]

Religion shouldnt exist without science and science shouldn't exist without religion. Einstein said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. I think it's true. I think a lot of Americas problems today like false idolatry, excessive materialism, 50% divorce rate can be blamed at least in part on the systematic eradication of Judeo-Christian philosophy in our society.

[boutons_deux]

"systematic eradication of Judeo-Christian philosophy"

who has eradicated it?

The last thing we need is the "Christian" supremacists/Dominionists wet dream of a God-centered society controlled by a "Christian" govt, aka, the (un-
Enlightened) Dark Ages, where the tandem, cooperating power centers of King + Church oppressed the bottom 90% for a 1000 years, keeping them devil-mongered, impoverished, uneducated, aka, controllable.

[Blake]

Sure it does.

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Some or all of his writings were what Jehovah had given him. Not all writers had a direct connection with Jehovah.This is the first writing we know of the previous details before him. For all we know, the genealogy of Adam is passed down by memory, which could be very incomplete. There are some similar stories in other cultures. I think a few predate Moses, but they are not part of the Bible.

King David...

I believe he was often drunk, perhaps high on some native weed in his day. Does Psalms make much sense?

I believe you might be high on some native weed.

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (3 members and 2 guests)
Blake, clambake, Phenomanul

lol just itching to jump in

[Blake]

science shouldn't exist without religion.

absolutely it should

[fyatuk]

the 10th person claiming divine inspiration in translation has exactly the same amount of believability as the 1st.

Who said the translators claimed divine inspiration? Constantine and King James both did, but they also made major changes trying to "fix" it.


lol, I google all the time. It's a quick and easy way to expose bullshit.

Not really. It's not what google finds, but the quality of the sites it points you to. I can find just about anything I want on google, even if I know it's wrong. It's all about the search text you use.

Like I said, I wouldn't bother googling anything you post because I already know the few times you actually post something substantive, it's BS :p

You're useful for time-wasting, though.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

The mechanisms of evolution, especially the genetic mechanisms of mutation, are very well understood.

I got to audit my wife's class on evolution a couple of times and they went into very great detail on those mechanisms, a good deal of which was past my ability to follow along, because I had not taken the prerequisite genetics class.

Evolution is quite possible without any "help", so your assertion of "statistical impossibility" is quite actively refuted by the amount of actual science done on the subject of genetics.

Depending on the stregth of some advantagous/disadvantagous trait, organisms can evolve quite quickly.

[RandomGuy]

Is it the core of biology as claimed upstream, and how so, please?

Yes.

Morphology, the definition of what a "species" is, and genetics are tied rather inextricably to the predictions and concepts of this theory.

We have moved beyond simple biological classification of the 17th and 18th centuries to understand the underlying nature of, well, nature.

[RandomGuy]

Religion shouldnt exist without science and science shouldn't exist without religion. Einstein said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. I think it's true. I think a lot of Americas problems today like false idolatry, excessive materialism, 50% divorce rate can be blamed at least in part on the systematic eradication of Judeo-Christian philosophy in our society.

The problem with this thesis are the churches and the general Protestant belief that God rewards faith with money and material wealth.

Also FWIW:

"false idolatry" is bad grammar. The word idolatry encompasses the concept of "false", so putting that word in front of it is redundant. It is a pretty common mistake.

[Blake]

Not really. It's not what google finds, but the quality of the sites it points you to. I can find just about anything I want on google, even if I know it's wrong. It's all about the search text you use.

The search text I used on google pretty much confirmed that your statement was bullshit. It really was quick and easy.


Like I said, I wouldn't bother googling anything you post because I already know the few times you actually post something substantive, it's BS :p

You're useful for time-wasting, though.

I wouldn't make that conclusion about anyone, even Wild Cobra. That's why google is great.

It's funny though that after you get caught with your pants down that you try to flip it by calling all of my substantive posts "BS".

lol

[DarkReign]

18th century arguments migrating their way into the 21st century.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Clearly, an existence without God in the role religion has taught the masses to expect is just plain inconceivable for some (most?) to this day.

Truly, we are lost.

[RandomGuy]

lol [Phenomanul is]just itching to jump in



Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.

TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a mutation.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.


:p:

[Phenomanul]

lol just itching to jump in

What do you care? :shootme

I don't need your approval for anything... bitter fool... :lol


Religion shouldnt exist without science and science shouldn't exist without religion. Einstein said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. I think it's true. I think a lot of Americas problems today like false idolatry, excessive materialism, 50% divorce rate can be blamed at least in part on the systematic eradication of Judeo-Christian philosophy in our society.

Yet if you ask our forum agnostics... most of them likely consider the depravation of our society's 'moral fabric' as progress... They are blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society... not that they care, because they seem to be content with a society that harbors and condones unnecessary abortions, the legitimizing of the homosexual lifestyle, rampant drug use, the increase in the spread of STDs, an increasing suicidal rate, the loss of innocence at far younger ages, an increasing disdain for authority, vulgar and crass vocabulary, and the general lack of respect for others, etc... To them America is better off this way, the 'American Dream' is "all about the Benjamins" all about "me, me, me..." and not about building each other up...

This thread has many of the same players as other threads but the new users simply don't know these topics have been discussed ad infinitum...

Microevolution = adaptation ~ micro-speciation... <-- These processes can be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence we find to support them is rather extensive...

Macroevolution = Class Speciation... <-- These processes cannot be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence to support them is built on speculative and observational conjecture...

Few experiments (such as Richard Lenski's) are structured to look for proof that the derivation of new genetic code can provide biological advantage, but even his experiments start and end with the same species (no speciation observed)... Furthermore, his findings cannot conclusively state that new code (and a new function) was not already hard-wired within the genome of the E.coli strains he was reproducing... in other words, the premise that new, advantageous code can be developed from mutation alone cannot be conclusively stated until he can trace the exact mechanism which produced the new code... fortunately for his team, he still has the E.coli cultures prior, during and after the genotypical change (i.e. the 'mutation') so that he can identify, isolate, and retrace the mechanism... the scientific world will wait until he does...

Most Christians, whether they believe in Evolution or not, will still believe that life was created with divine purpose and design.

But no... Evolution in the Macroevolution sense is far from proven.

Evolutionists still have to contend with the little problem of abiogenesis from which life itself began in their GOD-less universe (considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise)... of course, short of contemplating a multiverse with infinite probability (using the constants in Drake's equation) can they overcome the infinitely low probability that the ad-hoc creation of life's genetic molecules (DNA/RNA precursors) could occur from scratch... they resort to working with undefineds in order to justify their beliefs... I would liken that approach to faith... yet they will always deny that this is the case...

Folks here can flaunt their intellectual independence all they want... they can claim that they have it all figured out... they can exclude and mock GOD in the process...

Don't you all tire of rehashing this tired subject once a quarter?

Whatever... to each their own... I'm out.

[RandomGuy]

18th century arguments migrating their way into the 21st century.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Clearly, an existence without God in the role religion has taught the masses to expect is just plain inconceivable for some (most?) to this day.

Truly, we are lost.

18th century or earlier.

At some point, some form of Pascal's wager usually rears its head as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Hell, there are even some bumper stickers based on the premise, although I doubt the people who buy the "you had better be right" stickers have ever heard of Mr. Pascal.

All that is old...

[RandomGuy]

Few experiments (such as Richard Lenski's) are structured to look for proof that the derivation of new genetic code can provide biological advantage, but even his experiments start and end with the same species (no speciation observed)... Furthermore, his findings cannot conclusively state that new code (and a new function) was not already hard-wired within the genome of the E.coli strains he was reproducing... in other words, the premise that new, advantageous code can be developed from mutation alone cannot be conclusively stated until he can trace the exact mechanism which produced the new code... fortunately for his team, he still has the E.coli cultures prior, during and after the genotypical change (i.e. the 'mutation') so that he can identify, isolate, and retrace the mechanism... the scientific world will wait until he does...

Debunked already.

Lenski did observe speciation, and it was not the only case of observed speciation in the lab or in nature, since we have started to look.

He ended up with an entirely new species.

He traced the exact mechanism through rather painstakingly cataloguing every step in the evolution from his original strain to the ending strain he published about.

For those who care:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

Repeating lies the 999,999th time does not make them any more true than they were the 1st time.

Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Evolutionists still have to contend with the little problem of abiogenesis from which life itself began in their GOD-less universe (considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise)...

Strawman in the very classic sense.

Evolution, as it is currently understood, does not *require* a God, as you would conceive Him, but it is not central to the theory that there *is* no God.

That is a construct entirely of your own.

The rest of it, is the same tired "God in the gaps" bit where the goalposts are constantly moved in yet another exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Abiogenesis is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but is not central to the idea that organisms change over time.

Strawman logical fallacies, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty are not the ways to debate science, and although people like you don't generally see that, it is fairly obvious to anybody with some common sense and sense of fairness.

[fyatuk]

The search text I used on google pretty much confirmed that your statement was bullshit. It really was quick and easy.

And like I said, I could put a search string in and in 2 minutes find thousands of sites supporting my statement. I choose not to because it's meaningless, and in this particular case I have no interest in seriously discussing religion.

There's also the fact that I had already reduced my statement from a generalization I admittedly had no business making to a statement of personal experience, which unless there's a lot more information about me on google than anyone else, you aren't going to prove true or false.


I wouldn't make that conclusion about anyone, even Wild Cobra. That's why google is great.

It's funny though that after you get caught with your pants down that you try to flip it by calling all of my substantive posts "BS".

Sorry man, but Buttons adds more to a discussion than you. That and I don't take anything on here seriously. RandomGuy, and occassionally LnGrrr, are about the only people I'll read with real interest because this place is more about flame wars and insulting each other than real discussion.

And I've been saying the rare instances of you posting anything subtantive are BS for quite a while, so it's not really a flip.

[ElNono]

Yet if you ask our forum agnostics... most of them likely consider the depravation of our society's 'moral fabric' as progress... They are blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society... not that they care, because they seem to be content with a society that harbors and condones unnecessary abortions, the legitimizing of the homosexual lifestyle, rampant drug use, the increase in the spread of STDs, an increasing suicidal rate, the loss of innocence at far younger ages, an increasing disdain for authority, vulgar and crass vocabulary, and the general lack of respect for others, etc... To them America is better off this way, the 'American Dream' is "all about the Benjamins" all about "me, me, me..." and not about building each other up...

Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest. :lol

I actually disagree with a lot of that. I'm not 'blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society'. As a matter of fact, I ranted as much in other posts/threads about the lack of such family values. The problem here is that you don't need to be a religious person to have such values. Even some domesticated and/or wild animals have similar concepts of family (protection, loyalty, etc) and have no concept at all of religion/deity/etc.

I also disagree with that rant about how people live their lives. My biggest issue with 'family values' has to do with people that seemingly claim to subscribe to them, but then take a royal dump on them when the going gets tough. If a person chooses not to live by those values, then why is that a problem? You know who you're dealing with, you know what the priorities for that person are, and so you can work your interaction accordingly, and you know what to expect or not expect.

[Blake]

What do you care? :shootme

I don't need your approval for anything... bitter fool... :lol

:lol I'm not giving my approval, but if you ask, I do approve.... butthurt idiot...



Don't you all tire of rehashing this tired subject once a quarter?

Whatever... to each their own... I'm out.

Obviously you aren't quite tired enough.

lol see you next quarter.....or sooner

[Blake]

And like I said, I could put a search string in and in 2 minutes find thousands of sites supporting my statement. I choose not to because it's meaningless, and in this particular case I have no interest in seriously discussing religion.

great, if you choose not to back up your statement, then I choose to believe your statement is bullshit. pretty simple.


There's also the fact that I had already reduced my statement from a generalization I admittedly had no business making to a statement of personal experience, which unless there's a lot more information about me on google than anyone else, you aren't going to prove true or false.

Right, and as soon as you reduced it to a statement of personal experience, I made an observation and conclusion that your personal viewpoint about Christianity is limited.

I can't prove your personal experience to be true. That's on you if you feel the need to do so. If not, then meh......opinions will be what they will be.


Sorry man, but Buttons adds more to a discussion than you. That and I don't take anything on here seriously. RandomGuy, and occassionally LnGrrr, are about the only people I'll read with real interest because this place is more about flame wars and insulting each other than real discussion.

I don't care about your personal feelings. I only cared enough to call out the bullshit you posted when I saw it.


And I've been saying the rare instances of you posting anything subtantive are BS for quite a while, so it's not really a flip.

I'm not saying you flipped your stance. I'm saying you flipped the conversation.

I agree that you have been spouting BS about me posting BS. :tu

[fyatuk]

great, if you choose not to back up your statement, then I choose to believe your statement is bullshit. pretty simple.

Fine with me. Don't particularly care.


Right, and as soon as you reduced it to a statement of personal experience, I made an observation and conclusion that your personal viewpoint about Christianity is limited.

Which is an incorrect conclusion, but whatever.


I can't prove your personal experience to be true. That's on you if you feel the need to do so. If not, then meh......opinions will be what they will be.

Considering your viewpoint, you would be trying to prove it false, not true....

Which is about as impossible as me proving my experience in true. Considering that would require testimony from everyone I ever had a conversation about it with, etc.


I don't care about your personal feelings. I only cared enough to call out the bullshit you posted when I saw it.

Yep, call my BS with yours. We do this a lot. Always entertaining waste of time, since neither of us traditionally post supporting information.


I'm not saying you flipped your stance. I'm saying you flipped the conversation.

I agree that you have been spouting BS about me posting BS. :tu

Not really. I laughed about you googling because after our previous exchanges, I would never have thought you would bother to google anything I said and just always assume its BS. Wasn't an intentional derailing like we've both been known to do in the past.

[spursncowboys]

no it doesn't.

but seriously, if you have to call mom and ask her if you are a stupid fuck because you don't believe in evolution, chances are you are one.

You're that guy that called up Jim Rome to tell him that you disagree with the fact that every father dreams that their daughter grows up to be a stripper.

[Blake]

Fine with me. Don't particularly care.

Your detailed response clearly shows how little you care.


Which is an incorrect conclusion, but whatever.

based on the fact that you post BS and don't care, I'm good with that conclusion.


Considering your viewpoint, you would be trying to prove it false, not true....

Which is about as impossible as me proving my experience in true. Considering that would require testimony from everyone I ever had a conversation about it with, etc.

Considering I've never heard it myself and google doesn't readily pull up anything to back your original assertation, I have no problem agreeing that it would be nearly impossible for you to prove.


Yep, call my BS with yours. We do this a lot. Always entertaining waste of time, since neither of us traditionally post supporting information.

I called out your blatant BS out using Google. You are too lazy to back it up any further so it stands as BS in my opinion.

I also myself have not posted any BS. You are most likely to lazy to back up the BS about me posting BS as well.


Not really. I laughed about you googling because after our previous exchanges, I would never have thought you would bother to google anything I said and just always assume its BS. Wasn't an intentional derailing like we've both been known to do in the past.

I use google all the time to source information. I guess if you would have used google too, you wouldn't look so stupid in your assumptions.

[Blake]

You're that guy that called up Jim Rome to tell him that you disagree with the fact that every father dreams that their daughter grows up to be a stripper.

/left field

[fyatuk]

I use google all the time to source information. I guess if you would have used google too, you wouldn't look so stupid in your assumptions.

lol. I think I've seen you provide and source information a grand total of once, but whatever. We've had that discussion enough.