[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
… or are you going to continue to sling mud at me? I can always take a shower later, so sling away. This is supposed to be fun, ya know.[/quote]
Don’t take it as slinging mud. It is meant to point out the distinction that the rabid, macro-evolutionists are just as religious if not more so than the I.D. bunch. If that stings a bit, just confess it and deal with it.
(And this IS FUN!) 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Evolutionists brought us the microwave oven and the atomic bomb? You may fancy yourself as a scientist but surely you slept through history class.[/quote]
I slept through more than just history class!
Oooo!! Man, talk about the fucking pot calling the kettle black!! LOL
At least evolution has countless tons of evidence to show for it… you guys have one book about a crazy dude from Nazarus who thought he could heal the sick and come back to life after he died.
We don’t ask that you believe somebody walked on water, we would just appreciate a passing look at some fossils we dug up. Wow, if you line them all up, you can see how, over millions of years, one kind of lifeform slowly changed into a different one!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The cool thing about being in my religion …
When you’re in my cult, …"
A Hahahah! We got one!
Confession is the first step towards rehabilitation.[/quote]
LOL I confess that I will use terms that you find humorous/comfortable if you will stay on the hook and let me make you look silly.
If you want to say I’m in a cult, or a religion, or whatever, go right ahead! I’ll even help:
In Evolutionary Theory, and indeed, in all scientific discipline, advancements are often made on top of what the “old guard” has established years ago. What the modern scientists do is take it on faith that what the scientists did before was valid. In reality, scientific thought is a house of cards which, should one card be pulled from the bottom, will come crashing down around us.
Lothario, you know you can’t ever ‘win’ this discussion right? Wait, I just called this a discussion, as if there were two sides interacting on some meaningful level, silly me These folks you’re allowing to bait you have no intention of learning anything they’re here to troll. This repetition of the “Allah Akbar” comment is evidence of the kind of bigotry and close-mindedness you’re facing.
You know when you’re dealing with a brick wall when they start tossing out that tripe about how not believing in their particular God is just another form of religion. From that premise forward the logical fallacies fall like so many tears from Baby Mithras’ eyes.
This thread was started with clear, concise and logical dissection of the absurdity that is ID and thus far no one has actually adressed the inherant flaws in this faith based ‘challenge to evolution.’ It was sidelined by a little argument about eyes but no one has really come up with a valid defense of the tragically flawed foundation of ID theory. I mean the entire basis of the theory is “there’s stuff in the world I don’t understand, so it must follow that one of the gods of the hibru pantheon must have manufactured those things, now let’s prove my theory by counting how many things there are that I don’t understand.”
ID proponents are their own worst enemies in any debate, you’re downfall, lothario and sometimes my own, is allowing this kind of blatant disregard for anything resembling reasoned thought bait you into a less than civil response. Reasonable people, even those who think some form of ID is a possiblity (btw, I don’t totally rule it out, I just see no reason to believe barring any evidence) agree that ID Theory in it’s current form is not science and belongs in the purvue of philosophy/religious concerns. It’s best to just ingore the extremist fanatics unless of course their trying to force this drivel into the classroom, like they did in Kansas.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
Lothario, you know you can’t ever ‘win’ this discussion right?[/quote]
It’s not if you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. My responses were civil, weren’t they?
I might almost disagree with the first sentence here. If we can say that a religion is nothing more than a “belief system”, then it is only a very short hop to come to the conclusion that since a scientific endeavor is trying to define the world around us, which is another way of saying “what is this? what should I believe?”, then science is very similar to a religion. It’s another kind of belief system. The only difference is that we disregard the supernatural. That’s it.
If you take away the “Lord God” and supernatural stuff from the holy bible, for example, then it just reads like a history book. Of course, then it’s only a few pages long…
I understand where the arguement comes from, that atheists, for example, are ‘believers’ in their own right and I can see how the same pseudo logic could be applied to folks who are dogmatic about say, evolution. But I don’t see much rabid ‘atheism’ or ‘darwinism’ in these threads. I see people pointing out that ID as it exists today, is Christian Dogma thinly veiled as scientific theory that, unfortunately breaks down with even the slightest scrutiny.
All I know is that I know nothing. I am an atheist, small ‘a’ as in I am without belief in a God or gods, I don’t actively disbelieve in anything I just don’t see the point in basing my life on that for which there is no evidence. Same with ID theory, I don’t actively disblieve in an Intellegent Designer, I just don’t see any logical reason to think one exists and carrying that a step further I see no reason why, if there was some ‘creator’ it/he would have anything to do with some man made religion.
A true scientists, hell, a true intellectually honest being of any stripe is open to limitless possiblities. Provided there is some basis for that belief. Religions are based on faith, not evidence which of course lends itself to all sorts of trickery and dishonest behaviour. The Shroud of Turin is a perfect example. There are still people in the world who believe that it’s the burial shroud of Christ. Despite the fact that within the past year or so attemps to do DNA testing on the ‘blood’ in the shroud revealed that it was red ochre paint and that the image of Christ was a ‘photograph’ of a bas relief etched into the silver nitrate treated cloth with a camera obscura. ID, the way they want to teach it right now, is the same sort of trickery, lets take scientific sound terms and methods and twist them to ‘prove’ our predetirmined outcome.
Most of you folks know it works the other way 'round. Evolutionary Theory was some dogmatic doctrine crafted to thwart the Church, it’s the most logical and simple interpretation of the facts as we know them and it’s flexible, modern evolution bears only slight resemblance to ‘Darwinism’ which the ID folks like to bandy about. Straw Man, they create a false target the ‘rabid macro evolutionist’ and take pot shots at a person who doesn’t really exist.
Ugh, long posts, lol, tl;dr
And just for further chuckling:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
My favorite passage:
“It took over 200 years, but eventually the Catholic Church accepted the scientific evidence that the earth revolved around the sun. Eventually, most Fundamentalists will come to accept the theory of evolution as well–whether in 20 years or in 200 is hard to say. But it will happen. Facts are stubborn things.”
Shall we look for an historical Catholic society called “The Intelligent Orbiting Movement”?
I’ll add something actually pertinent to the thread now (imagine that!):
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/bentayou082605.html
Evidently, some concerned scientists want the new Pope’s stance on evolution, given the context of the times, and the whole ID goofiness going around.
And here is the screed from the cardinal which made the uproar:
http://www.edifyingspectacle.org/gullibility/blog/archives/catholic/pope_benedict_xvi_on_evol.php
"Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: ?We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.? "
So is this the catholic take? Are they switching to ID? I hope not, because then I will be laughing again. If you read the snippet carefully, it doesn’t say that evolution is wrong; in fact, it looks like the pope is using the context of the human existence within the framework of evolution to state that we are not insignificant. It sounds dangerously close to ID though.
Maybe he can get away with the “God has a plan for you” deal without accepting the BS science of ID? I don’t know.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
Wait, I just called this a discussion, as if there were two sides interacting on some meaningful level, silly me :)[/quote]
Exactly, silly you. Just don’t do it again, OK Xvim? Words like that just detract from the importance of waving our dicks around.
And it takes a lot concentration to swing these big babies through the air. (Although once you’ve got over the concentric phase of the first rep it gets easier.)
[quote]Miserere wrote:
Xvim wrote:
Wait, I just called this a discussion, as if there were two sides interacting on some meaningful level, silly me
Exactly, silly you. Just don’t do it again, OK Xvim? Words like that just detract from the importance of waving our dicks around.
And it takes a lot concentration to swing these big babies through the air. (Although once you’ve got over the concentric phase of the first rep it gets easier.)[/quote]
Funny post. Really!
Remember one thing. A “discussion”, with “two sides interacting on some meaningful level”, can include diametrically opposed view points and still be “meaningful”. Unless, your implying that we had better agree with you or therefore it is not “meaningful” and consequently it must be dick-waving. I get the reference to Shugart’s dick waving thread and to a certain extent he is dead on. But EVERYTIME two parties disagree on a subject does not necessarily constitute “dick-waving”.
I don’t necessarily think that has happened here. I did see implications of a condescending nature being leveled at I.D.'ers as if they were religious dupes/dummies that lack a sophisticated view of the scientific world. As Push stated earlier, there are numerous, well respected, well credentialed, intellectually honest scientists who DO believe in I.D.
Throttle and Push, my AW bretheren, I am not so much saying that anyone who believes in ID is stupid or ignorant. Nor do I think that is the point Loth and the others are trying to make.
The fact that very smart people also had faith and beleived in ID does not make ID science. It is still faith. All we are asking is that Faith based teachings remain in thier traditional setting, which is the church and possibly the home. I believe in ID to an extent, but like I said earlier, I think it was so intelligent that once things were created, no further manipulation was needed. I actually think instead of calling it intelligent design, it is actually more precicely depicted as intelligent manipulation. And in any event, I think they both belong in the church and not my public schools. Would you at least agree on that point?
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Throttle and Push, my AW bretheren, I am not so much saying that anyone who believes in ID is stupid or ignorant. Nor do I think that is the point Loth and the others are trying to make.
The fact that very smart people also had faith and beleived in ID does not make ID science. It is still faith. All we are asking is that Faith based teachings remain in thier traditional setting, which is the church and possibly the home. I believe in ID to an extent, but like I said earlier, I think it was so intelligent that once things were created, no further manipulation was needed. I actually think instead of calling it intelligent design, it is actually more precicely depicted as intelligent manipulation. And in any event, I think they both belong in the church and not my public schools. Would you at least agree on that point?
V[/quote]
However, that is not the only point being made. If that was all there was to it, everyone in this thread would be in agreement. It goes beyond that to the very condescending voices that Throttle was writing about…as if everyone who believes in God is a dumbass and everyone who doesn’t is on some higher plain of thought. From what I’ve seen, their “higher plain” is non-existent.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
However, that is not the only point being made. If that was all there was to it, everyone in this thread would be in agreement. It goes beyond that to the very condescending voices that Throttle was writing about…as if everyone who believes in God is a dumbass and everyone who doesn’t is on some higher plain of thought. From what I’ve seen, their “higher plain” is non-existent.
[/quote]
I don’t think ID people are stupid. I think that they are goofy. There’s a difference. The main idea of the thread was to first of all, define/educate for some folks who might think that ID is creationism verbatim from the bible. It isn’t. It is saying that a designer actively and supernaturally manipulated (thanks Veg) the laws of nature or molecules or whatever to create order where there shouldn’t be any. If you are a “bible literalist” like haney or some other guys here on the forums, you should be against ID as well.
Second of all, I wanted to show that ID is NOT a scientific theory in a very specific way. We’ve had threads on here already about this, but if memory serves me, no one has actually taken the ID argument itself and said “here’s the problem”.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to say that I think that a lot of religious folks have an inferiority complex or something about their beliefs, because every time we get going on something even quasi-religious and I poke a little fun at y’all, it turns into you guys saying that I’m calling you stupid.
Let’s be honest here. You believe that a guy rose from the dead after being nailed to a cross. He walked on water, healed lepers, brought other dudes back to life, created food out of the fucking air, turned water into wine… come on. I don’t care who you are, that’s goofy to take seriously. Goofy. Nobody is calling your education or intellect into question here. Maybe your sanity?
Seriously, lighten up. Or you’ll go to hell. 
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=AXXXjo5ntcZL44v7UuCsbH%3D%3D
Great analysis of the background to the current ID disagreement. ID proponents might not agree with its take on ID, though.
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence… Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Perfectly reasonable to me.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence… Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Perfectly reasonable to me.[/quote]
If that is what it entails, that sounds completely reasonable to me as well. What is the issue?
[quote]Gregus wrote:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence… Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Perfectly reasonable to me.[/quote]
You still miss the whole point. Darwins “theory” involves evidence. Quite a lot of it I might add. Are there gaps? Sure, the nature of the decaying of old things makes this so. ID is not science, it is religion. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Yes teach it, but teach it at a church or in a religion class, why is this so hard for you to all accept? Do you actually think you are gonna teach ID and some kid is somehow gonna see the light and convert to your religion?
Either address the crux of the issue or stop wasting our time.
V
Evolution should be taught in science class. I don’t think there is any question about this.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming that man evolved from previous hominids.
However there are gaps. It is quite a stretch to say that because man evolved from similar creatures that these similar creatures evolved from an amino acid bath “primordial soup” into single cell organisms into hominids over millions of years.
Is there evidence of this? This appears to be mostly guess work at this point.
I am not sure how this is taught in school today, but I believe the word theory cannot be emphasised enough on this point.
I read the “Origin of Species” about 20 years ago. I don’t remember that Darwin addressed the primordial soup theory. I think Darwin was on the right track with the evolution of species.
ID requires faith in a higher power. I do not think it should be taught in science class. God is often used to fill in the gaps of our understanding.
Perhaps we should just say we don’t know yet.
As a side note, the atheists always amuse me. They have just as much blind faith in something that they have zero evidence of as do the religious people.
At least the religious people understand it is blind faith. The atheists actually think they are smart enough to know the truth.
I understand all the atheists arguments, yet I come to a different conclusion. I have no idea if there is a god or not. I think atheists let their passions get in the way of their reason just as religious zealots often do.