RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 5
by 4
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Which religion should we censor?
Dennis Clayson
Earth is an almost perfect dwelling for humans. It is the correct distance from a stable star, which means water can be found in its three states, often as a liquid.
Earth has a tilt relative to its plane of orbit that allows us to have seasons, but not too much of a tilt. The planet has a liquid core that creates a magnetic field that shields us from radiation from space.
Earth has a large moon. It creates tides and is a source of light on otherwise dark nights. The moon also collects space debris, which decreases the number of times the earth would be hit by meteors. Even though it is a large moon relative to Earth, it is much less dense so it doesn't create the large changes in orbits found in most double systems.
All in all, we have a very nice world that fits us almost perfectly.
The probability of all this happening by chance is so small that one could argue that there was a guiding hand involved. Or to put it in the modern parlance, there was "intelligent design" at work.
But the fact that Earth currently is in a certain state is not proof of intelligent design. The earth exists as it currently exists. What is � is. The probability of its present state is, in fact, one.
To say that the current state is improbable is only to say that replicating the current state is improbable; an argument that would be accepted by almost everyone.
Attributing intelligent design as the "cause" of this current state is a leap of faith.
On the other hand, to say that the current state of our existence is NOT the result of an intelligent design also is a leap of faith.
I was reminded of this recently while reading through the latest edition of the Scientific American, which dedicated its entire issue to the "evolution of evolution."
There was an article warning readers of the dangers that creationists pose to American education. The writers were being less than scientific when they characterized the ideas of their opposition thus, "� there is no scientifically credible challenge to evolution, only long-ago debunked creationist claptrap."
The article suggests that those with the correct view "rebut assertions" that it is fair to debate both sides of the issue, and that they should work to get out the vote in local elections.
In other words, a call for censorship and political intervention.
Evolution is an observable fact. It is understood enough to make predictions about future change.
This doesn't mean that the current understanding of the evolutionary process won't be refined and changed in the future, it most assuredly will be.
Does this mean then that intelligent design is wrong?
Not at all.
In fact, for a scientist to make that claim is a leap of faith. In this case, not in a god, but in consensus, and in a methodological philosophy.
Loren Eiseley, who did not believe in the god of the creationists, put it beautifully. "In the world there is nothing below a certain depth that is truly explanatory. It is as if matter dreamed and muttered in its sleep. Buy why, and for what reason, there is not evidence."
This is why I find the debate between scientists and the intelligent design people so hard to understand. It would seem reasonable for a school to teach what we know about evolution, but it makes no sense for both groups to ban their opponents' next conclusion about the "whys."
Scientists act as if a teacher who would tell her students that one explanation of the results of evolution is God-given or a result of a higher-purpose design will produce barbarians who, if left unchecked, will storm the gates of reason and burn down the city on the hill created by obedience to the scientific method.
On the other hand, the intelligent design people act as if the explanation of evolution as one based on chance (restrained by a very complicated set of rules), will produce students hell-bent on destroying all vestiges of their parents' faiths.
Why this drive to censor the opposition? Any scientist who wishes not to debate an opposing idea is operating within a faith system just as compelling as that of any religionist. When it comes to the "whys," both sides are operating within a faith system.
Earth is an almost perfect dwelling for humans. It is the correct distance from a stable star, which means water can be found in its three states, often as a liquid.
Earth has a tilt relative to its plane of orbit that allows us to have seasons, but not too much of a tilt. The planet has a liquid core that creates a magnetic field that shields us from radiation from space.
Earth has a large moon. It creates tides and is a source of light on otherwise dark nights. The moon also collects space debris, which decreases the number of times the earth would be hit by meteors. Even though it is a large moon relative to Earth, it is much less dense so it doesn't create the large changes in orbits found in most double systems.
All in all, we have a very nice world that fits us almost perfectly.
The probability of all this happening by chance is so small that one could argue that there was a guiding hand involved. Or to put it in the modern parlance, there was "intelligent design" at work.
But the fact that Earth currently is in a certain state is not proof of intelligent design. The earth exists as it currently exists. What is � is. The probability of its present state is, in fact, one.
To say that the current state is improbable is only to say that replicating the current state is improbable; an argument that would be accepted by almost everyone.
Attributing intelligent design as the "cause" of this current state is a leap of faith.
On the other hand, to say that the current state of our existence is NOT the result of an intelligent design also is a leap of faith.
I was reminded of this recently while reading through the latest edition of the Scientific American, which dedicated its entire issue to the "evolution of evolution."
There was an article warning readers of the dangers that creationists pose to American education. The writers were being less than scientific when they characterized the ideas of their opposition thus, "� there is no scientifically credible challenge to evolution, only long-ago debunked creationist claptrap."
The article suggests that those with the correct view "rebut assertions" that it is fair to debate both sides of the issue, and that they should work to get out the vote in local elections.
In other words, a call for censorship and political intervention.
Evolution is an observable fact. It is understood enough to make predictions about future change.
This doesn't mean that the current understanding of the evolutionary process won't be refined and changed in the future, it most assuredly will be.
Does this mean then that intelligent design is wrong?
Not at all.
In fact, for a scientist to make that claim is a leap of faith. In this case, not in a god, but in consensus, and in a methodological philosophy.
Loren Eiseley, who did not believe in the god of the creationists, put it beautifully. "In the world there is nothing below a certain depth that is truly explanatory. It is as if matter dreamed and muttered in its sleep. Buy why, and for what reason, there is not evidence."
This is why I find the debate between scientists and the intelligent design people so hard to understand. It would seem reasonable for a school to teach what we know about evolution, but it makes no sense for both groups to ban their opponents' next conclusion about the "whys."
Scientists act as if a teacher who would tell her students that one explanation of the results of evolution is God-given or a result of a higher-purpose design will produce barbarians who, if left unchecked, will storm the gates of reason and burn down the city on the hill created by obedience to the scientific method.
On the other hand, the intelligent design people act as if the explanation of evolution as one based on chance (restrained by a very complicated set of rules), will produce students hell-bent on destroying all vestiges of their parents' faiths.
Why this drive to censor the opposition? Any scientist who wishes not to debate an opposing idea is operating within a faith system just as compelling as that of any religionist. When it comes to the "whys," both sides are operating within a faith system.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
cloudsrider wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:42 AM:
" When the creIDiots offer something, anything, like evidence, a single useful paper, ANY actual research, then we can talk. So far they have NOTHING but marketing fluff from the God industry. Everything theety have presented so far is just "Its too complicated for me to understand, so Goddidit" "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:48 PM:
" This week’s column by Prof. Clayson sounds like the voice of sweet reason on the dispute between creationists and evolutionists. It’s actually just creationist pap.
Prof. Clayson says, “to say that the current state of our existence is NOT the result of an intelligent design also is a leap of faith.”
Yes, it is. Creationism is religion. Evolution is science. (And, by the way “intelligent design” and “creationism” are the same thing. Its proponents used different names trying to get around Supreme Court decisions.) So, the essence of creationism is faith. The essence of science is proving facts, or trying to, through the scientific method. Saying that there is “faith” in science is just baloney by Prof. Clayson. And, as a Ph.D. he should know better.
Prof. Clayson says, “The article suggests that those with the correct view ‘rebut assertions’ that it is fair to debate both sides of the issue, and that they should work to get out the vote in local elections. In other words, a call for censorship and political intervention.”
No it isn’t. It’s just trying to prevent censorship by the believers in creationism. Court cases and elections on evolution/creationism occur ONLY because the creationists are trying to mandate a change from evolution to creationism in a curriculum or trying to get it, at least, equal time. Thus, scientists go to court or an election to show that evolution is science. Prof. Clayson’s assertion that scientists are for censorship actually sets the facts on their heads.
Prof. Clayson says, “but it makes no sense for both groups to ban their opponents' next conclusion about the ‘whys’."
Just more baloney. Anyone who has taken a high school or college course is familiar with “labs.” They are where the rubber meets the road for science. Students aren’t just presented with scientific facts and told to memorize them. They are asked to get messy and go through the actual scientific proof for many different questions.
And, even the creationists can have their day – provided it’s in a course that teaches “about” religion rather that selling the students on a particular religion. In such a course, the “why” of creationism is a valid topic of discussion.
What Prof. Clayson is ultimately doing is saying “teach the controversy.” But, there is no “controversy.” There is science and baloney and they are not in the same league.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Prof. Clayson says, “to say that the current state of our existence is NOT the result of an intelligent design also is a leap of faith.”
Yes, it is. Creationism is religion. Evolution is science. (And, by the way “intelligent design” and “creationism” are the same thing. Its proponents used different names trying to get around Supreme Court decisions.) So, the essence of creationism is faith. The essence of science is proving facts, or trying to, through the scientific method. Saying that there is “faith” in science is just baloney by Prof. Clayson. And, as a Ph.D. he should know better.
Prof. Clayson says, “The article suggests that those with the correct view ‘rebut assertions’ that it is fair to debate both sides of the issue, and that they should work to get out the vote in local elections. In other words, a call for censorship and political intervention.”
No it isn’t. It’s just trying to prevent censorship by the believers in creationism. Court cases and elections on evolution/creationism occur ONLY because the creationists are trying to mandate a change from evolution to creationism in a curriculum or trying to get it, at least, equal time. Thus, scientists go to court or an election to show that evolution is science. Prof. Clayson’s assertion that scientists are for censorship actually sets the facts on their heads.
Prof. Clayson says, “but it makes no sense for both groups to ban their opponents' next conclusion about the ‘whys’."
Just more baloney. Anyone who has taken a high school or college course is familiar with “labs.” They are where the rubber meets the road for science. Students aren’t just presented with scientific facts and told to memorize them. They are asked to get messy and go through the actual scientific proof for many different questions.
And, even the creationists can have their day – provided it’s in a course that teaches “about” religion rather that selling the students on a particular religion. In such a course, the “why” of creationism is a valid topic of discussion.
What Prof. Clayson is ultimately doing is saying “teach the controversy.” But, there is no “controversy.” There is science and baloney and they are not in the same league.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Chad wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:51 PM:
" Cloudsrider, millions of pieces of information can be stored on a tiny thumb-drive. You go ahead and believe that two little fish crawled out of the water and evolved into something that could create a thumb-drive. Also, many of the top scientific minds believe that there has to be a higher power of some kind. "
ann11 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:14 PM:
" I recommend to anyone with an open mind to read the book "Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel. You will see some fantastic scientific evidence for intelligent design. There are many credible scientists (not all are Christians) who make the case for a Creator. It is not just a religion issue, and it takes an open mind to see it that way. It also helps when you've read lots of research on both sides of the debate. "
fatman2 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:33 PM:
" Another Sunday, another Clayson article that gets under Cross's skin. Cross, I don't know what you have against Clayson. Maybe he wronged you in this or a previous life, but he owns you. He's really into your head. Is Clayson's stuff any worse than the liberal claptrap written by Thompson, Wood and Abraham? No way! At least Clayson makes sense most of the time. Wood and Thompson are lost in some liberal la-la land. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:12 PM:
" I don't believe this myself....I believe the "same" as chester11 and timbrackett on this article. Do you believe it?!?!?!?
This was an excellent article by Professor Clayson. Not that I whole-heartedly agree, but I can fully understand, appreciate, and respect where his motives come from.
Cross, your evaluation of the Professor's article is much too shallow. You need to read into it deeper. Try reading it again. The message of Professor Clayson's article is tolerence of the other side of the isle/issues, and patience for Conservatives into the next election cycle. He painted it well by mixing in common divisions of science and religion, but that was NOT to be taken literally. I can see where you could have easily taken it that way, however. It was almost as though Professor Clayson was writing in code to fellow Conservatives, and how we may need to "evolve" with changing circumstances and with time.
It is definately a master piece by Professor Clayson whether you agree with it or not.
I'm curious though, cross? Was the Professor's writing better this week?
Any more critiques of his use of MMMM's? Don't bother answering these questions...I could care less, nor probably anyone else.
-hfrmack "
This was an excellent article by Professor Clayson. Not that I whole-heartedly agree, but I can fully understand, appreciate, and respect where his motives come from.
Cross, your evaluation of the Professor's article is much too shallow. You need to read into it deeper. Try reading it again. The message of Professor Clayson's article is tolerence of the other side of the isle/issues, and patience for Conservatives into the next election cycle. He painted it well by mixing in common divisions of science and religion, but that was NOT to be taken literally. I can see where you could have easily taken it that way, however. It was almost as though Professor Clayson was writing in code to fellow Conservatives, and how we may need to "evolve" with changing circumstances and with time.
It is definately a master piece by Professor Clayson whether you agree with it or not.
I'm curious though, cross? Was the Professor's writing better this week?
Any more critiques of his use of MMMM's? Don't bother answering these questions...I could care less, nor probably anyone else.
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:49 PM:
" cloudsrider,
You don't have to believe in a higher being, but you don't have to force your dis-belief on the rest of us either. Us Christians know that we don't have to see to believe. Miracles happen in mysterious ways among people who believe and in nature. We also believe that one day we will all have to atone for our actions and in-actions in this world.
I for one will pray for you, that when that day of atonement comes for you, that the Lord will show mercy on you.
If it is evidence you crave, look to the Bible and attend a local church for a few Sundays. Seek and ye shall receive.
-hfrmack "
You don't have to believe in a higher being, but you don't have to force your dis-belief on the rest of us either. Us Christians know that we don't have to see to believe. Miracles happen in mysterious ways among people who believe and in nature. We also believe that one day we will all have to atone for our actions and in-actions in this world.
I for one will pray for you, that when that day of atonement comes for you, that the Lord will show mercy on you.
If it is evidence you crave, look to the Bible and attend a local church for a few Sundays. Seek and ye shall receive.
-hfrmack "
Adversary wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:02 PM:
" Clayson is being naive . . .
It's funny how people often want to "teach the controversy" in Science classes, and then whine about how religion is censored . . . How many scientists are begging for equal time at the pulpit? Nobody is censoring Creationism -- they are simply keeping it out of Science classrooms, just as clergy would ask scientists not to try and teach evolution in a church.
It's really that simple.
Those who would argue that Creationism (Under the new name of Intelligent Design) is a science, do not know the definition of science. In science, you have to look for evidence and then form a conclusion -- with Creationism/ID, they already have their conclusion (which will never change, no matter what evidence emerges) and then try to use quasi-scientific method to back up their conclusion.
And as for the tired old argument that Earth is too perfect for humans to be an accident . . . Well, apparently people don't understand odds. Even the odds were 1 in a billion that a planet could have all the right conditions to sustain life (as we know it), there are billions and billions of galaxies, each with billions of billions of stars. Stars go nova, and solar systems die, and then new ones form all the time. In astronomical terms, the odds of the formation of a life-sustaining planet are not that hard to believe.
Then again, they try to tell us that the universe is only 6,000 years old. What ever. "
It's funny how people often want to "teach the controversy" in Science classes, and then whine about how religion is censored . . . How many scientists are begging for equal time at the pulpit? Nobody is censoring Creationism -- they are simply keeping it out of Science classrooms, just as clergy would ask scientists not to try and teach evolution in a church.
It's really that simple.
Those who would argue that Creationism (Under the new name of Intelligent Design) is a science, do not know the definition of science. In science, you have to look for evidence and then form a conclusion -- with Creationism/ID, they already have their conclusion (which will never change, no matter what evidence emerges) and then try to use quasi-scientific method to back up their conclusion.
And as for the tired old argument that Earth is too perfect for humans to be an accident . . . Well, apparently people don't understand odds. Even the odds were 1 in a billion that a planet could have all the right conditions to sustain life (as we know it), there are billions and billions of galaxies, each with billions of billions of stars. Stars go nova, and solar systems die, and then new ones form all the time. In astronomical terms, the odds of the formation of a life-sustaining planet are not that hard to believe.
Then again, they try to tell us that the universe is only 6,000 years old. What ever. "
Newswatcher wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:20 PM:
" cloudsrider,
You can't scientifically prove the love of a mother or father for their child either.
You cannot see it, touch it, measure it, smell it, pour it, cut it, hear it or kill it.
Yet it is there.
And yes, It is real!
There is no physical evidence that it exists, so it cannot be proven, but that doesn't dissolve it's existance.
You have a very weak argument that all things have to be proven with evidence or you won't open your mind to it. There are the aspects of our spiritual selves, such as thoughts, emotions, feelings and the like and when these untouchable yet existing phenoms leave the body at death, they go with the breath. Have you ever seen a body in a casket? You can run that body through all kinds of tests, but you can't run the love, the empathy, the feelings, the memories, or the fear through tests, can you?
With your dis-belief in anything that cannot be scientifically proven to exist, you are denying they can exist at all.
I feel sad for people that think like you. You must live a life quite void of joy, love, happiness, empathy and kindness, since their existence cannot be scientifically proven.
Perhaps you just have not embraced an acceptable way of understanding things beyond science. Your spirit is there, you just haven't had the right opportunity to deal with learning about it.
Good luck, I wish you well in finding inner peace and happiness, but don't look for it in a science lab, I doubt you'll find it there. Where you'll find it? I don't know. But I think you should look for it with your eyes closed. "
You can't scientifically prove the love of a mother or father for their child either.
You cannot see it, touch it, measure it, smell it, pour it, cut it, hear it or kill it.
Yet it is there.
And yes, It is real!
There is no physical evidence that it exists, so it cannot be proven, but that doesn't dissolve it's existance.
You have a very weak argument that all things have to be proven with evidence or you won't open your mind to it. There are the aspects of our spiritual selves, such as thoughts, emotions, feelings and the like and when these untouchable yet existing phenoms leave the body at death, they go with the breath. Have you ever seen a body in a casket? You can run that body through all kinds of tests, but you can't run the love, the empathy, the feelings, the memories, or the fear through tests, can you?
With your dis-belief in anything that cannot be scientifically proven to exist, you are denying they can exist at all.
I feel sad for people that think like you. You must live a life quite void of joy, love, happiness, empathy and kindness, since their existence cannot be scientifically proven.
Perhaps you just have not embraced an acceptable way of understanding things beyond science. Your spirit is there, you just haven't had the right opportunity to deal with learning about it.
Good luck, I wish you well in finding inner peace and happiness, but don't look for it in a science lab, I doubt you'll find it there. Where you'll find it? I don't know. But I think you should look for it with your eyes closed. "
Newswatcher wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:31 PM:
" cloudsrider,
I couldn't sign off without mentioning this:
After my last post, I went to cnn.com for a peek at the headlines and came across a piece on the tragedy of John Travolta and Kelly Prestons sons death at the age of 16.
How do you scientifically prove their grief? Not the tears, the feeling of desperation.
I just cannot believe that people don't realize that we're more than just a physical being.
It boggles my mind when a person can't believe in our spiritual lives because it cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
Just adding the word 'grief' to this conversation. How do you measure it's intensity? How do you prove when it begins? How do you prove when or if it ever ends?
btw, prayer doesn't have to be learned-by-rote and memorized since childhood. Spirituality also doesn't have to be construed as one limited theological belief or there is none at all.
Just a thought. "
I couldn't sign off without mentioning this:
After my last post, I went to cnn.com for a peek at the headlines and came across a piece on the tragedy of John Travolta and Kelly Prestons sons death at the age of 16.
How do you scientifically prove their grief? Not the tears, the feeling of desperation.
I just cannot believe that people don't realize that we're more than just a physical being.
It boggles my mind when a person can't believe in our spiritual lives because it cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
Just adding the word 'grief' to this conversation. How do you measure it's intensity? How do you prove when it begins? How do you prove when or if it ever ends?
btw, prayer doesn't have to be learned-by-rote and memorized since childhood. Spirituality also doesn't have to be construed as one limited theological belief or there is none at all.
Just a thought. "
jeroze wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:59 PM:
" The title question is, "Which Religion Should We Censor?" The answer is none. Censorship is Un-American.
Which religion should be taught as fact? None.
The Bible is not a scientific fact book. It's language is often metaphoric not scientific.
The Scientist should not teach one religion as more truthful than another. The scientist should teach the findings that have been discovered by scientific method and along with the findings they should admit there are interpretation of findings which are not in agreement.
The Liberal mind should be tolerant to let all opinions be taught as opinions. All faith should be taught as faith not as facts. True scientists teach scientific theory as scientific theory.
Censorship is UnAmerican in the United States because it is Unconstitutional.
So is Theocracy. I am afraid that Conservatives don't believe theocracy is unconstitutional. This is probably because they don't understand the Constitution. But his is taking us on to another subject which is also in the my way or the highway approach to reason and democracy.
Long live the Constitution. Down with Censorship and Theocracy. Let Freedom Ring. And let all people praise their Creator. "
Which religion should be taught as fact? None.
The Bible is not a scientific fact book. It's language is often metaphoric not scientific.
The Scientist should not teach one religion as more truthful than another. The scientist should teach the findings that have been discovered by scientific method and along with the findings they should admit there are interpretation of findings which are not in agreement.
The Liberal mind should be tolerant to let all opinions be taught as opinions. All faith should be taught as faith not as facts. True scientists teach scientific theory as scientific theory.
Censorship is UnAmerican in the United States because it is Unconstitutional.
So is Theocracy. I am afraid that Conservatives don't believe theocracy is unconstitutional. This is probably because they don't understand the Constitution. But his is taking us on to another subject which is also in the my way or the highway approach to reason and democracy.
Long live the Constitution. Down with Censorship and Theocracy. Let Freedom Ring. And let all people praise their Creator. "
Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:51 AM:
" Mr. Clayson, I don't know of any scientist that wants to censor creationists, they simply want them to keep their so-called theories out of our public schools.
Teach whatever you want in your homes or Sunday school classes, but not with our taxpayer dollars in our schools.
And if that means you want to believe that when your life has ended on this earth that you will still be able to see when you no longer have eyes, hear when you no longer have ears, speak when you no longer have have vocal cords or a mouth, touch when you no longer have hands, and think when you no longer have a brain, then that is certainly your right.
As to whether or not there was intelligent design involved when this earth and the life on it was created, I am not sure. It is really hard for many of our little human brains to understand what may or may not happen over the course of billions of years. I do know this though, if there was some sort of otherworldly involvement, either: a) they no longer have any significant influence over our current situation; or b) they long ago moved onto other worlds far away from here. "
Teach whatever you want in your homes or Sunday school classes, but not with our taxpayer dollars in our schools.
And if that means you want to believe that when your life has ended on this earth that you will still be able to see when you no longer have eyes, hear when you no longer have ears, speak when you no longer have have vocal cords or a mouth, touch when you no longer have hands, and think when you no longer have a brain, then that is certainly your right.
As to whether or not there was intelligent design involved when this earth and the life on it was created, I am not sure. It is really hard for many of our little human brains to understand what may or may not happen over the course of billions of years. I do know this though, if there was some sort of otherworldly involvement, either: a) they no longer have any significant influence over our current situation; or b) they long ago moved onto other worlds far away from here. "
Leo46 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:44 AM:
" All you who say "Evolutionists" are not trying to censor "Creationism" have not seen Ben Stein's movie "Expelled"
Even "Creationists" believe in "Micro Evolution". The problem starts when you try to prove "Macro-evolution" and "how life began". Neither of those two can be proven. So they are a Theory. Not scientific fact. "
Even "Creationists" believe in "Micro Evolution". The problem starts when you try to prove "Macro-evolution" and "how life began". Neither of those two can be proven. So they are a Theory. Not scientific fact. "
Independent wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:52 AM:
" WOWOWEE!
Clayson must be getting tired, so I guess he is trying to rally the troops for some support? "
Clayson must be getting tired, so I guess he is trying to rally the troops for some support? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:55 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:51 AM:
" Mr. Clayson, I don't know of any scientist that wants to censor creationists, they simply want them to keep their so-called theories out of our public schools...." Phil just described academic censorship. And he uses his ignorance of what's been happening as proof.
Checkout Ben Stein's documentary http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Excellent article by the good professor this week. The THEORY of evolution has so many holes in it, that the secularists are afraid to discuss it it. Hence the censorship. But evolution is just a THEORY, isn't it? Evolution cannot explain how life started. And for evolution to actually work, the characteristics have to exist in order for the Darwinian process to choose one. Where did the charachteristics come from? What drove life from the seas? It could not have been evolution, or there would be no fish. "
" Mr. Clayson, I don't know of any scientist that wants to censor creationists, they simply want them to keep their so-called theories out of our public schools...." Phil just described academic censorship. And he uses his ignorance of what's been happening as proof.
Checkout Ben Stein's documentary http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Excellent article by the good professor this week. The THEORY of evolution has so many holes in it, that the secularists are afraid to discuss it it. Hence the censorship. But evolution is just a THEORY, isn't it? Evolution cannot explain how life started. And for evolution to actually work, the characteristics have to exist in order for the Darwinian process to choose one. Where did the charachteristics come from? What drove life from the seas? It could not have been evolution, or there would be no fish. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:00 AM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:02 PM:
" Clayson is being naive . . .
It's funny how people often want to "teach the controversy" in Science classes, and then whine about how religion is censored . . . How many scientists are begging for equal time at the pulpit? Nobody is censoring Creationism -- they are simply keeping it out of Science classrooms, just as clergy would ask scientists not to try and teach evolution in a church.
It's really that simple.
Those who would argue that Creationism (Under the new name of Intelligent Design) is a science, do not know the definition of science. In science, you have to look for evidence and then form a conclusion -- with Creationism/ID, they already have their conclusion (which will never change, no matter what evidence emerges) and then try to use quasi-scientific method to back up their conclusion...."
Then why is the THEORY of evolution just a THEORY? "
" Clayson is being naive . . .
It's funny how people often want to "teach the controversy" in Science classes, and then whine about how religion is censored . . . How many scientists are begging for equal time at the pulpit? Nobody is censoring Creationism -- they are simply keeping it out of Science classrooms, just as clergy would ask scientists not to try and teach evolution in a church.
It's really that simple.
Those who would argue that Creationism (Under the new name of Intelligent Design) is a science, do not know the definition of science. In science, you have to look for evidence and then form a conclusion -- with Creationism/ID, they already have their conclusion (which will never change, no matter what evidence emerges) and then try to use quasi-scientific method to back up their conclusion...."
Then why is the THEORY of evolution just a THEORY? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:01 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:12 PM:
" I don't believe this myself....I believe the "same" as chester11 and timbrackett on this article. Do you believe it?!?!?!?
I'm in the same boat.
Happy New Year to all. "
" I don't believe this myself....I believe the "same" as chester11 and timbrackett on this article. Do you believe it?!?!?!?
I'm in the same boat.
Happy New Year to all. "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:01 AM:
" One of the oddities about those opposing evolution is that they believe that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism. Creationists sould get past the feeling that science is attacking their religion.
/s/ Steve Cross "
/s/ Steve Cross "
Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:44 AM:
" xdfred - of course the THEORY of evolution has holes in it - every theory does.
But the story of the creationists has even more holes in it - whose version of creationism should be believed? Or doesn't it matter?
The theory of evolution is important because it still affects the world and its biological species today. It needs to be taught as part of any science curriculum.
Creationism on the other hand, is meaningful in what way? A so-called "Christian" has us invade Iraq and devastate its people, culture, and infrastructure. A country founded on a religion, Judism, performs acts of terrorism and calls it self-defense. Six billion humans exist and one billion live in dire poverty and hunger. Another 2 billion live on very low incomes with no real health care and lack many of the basics we take for granted.
If there are lessons to be learned from a supreme being, and I don't doubt there are, mankind seems to have forgotten or abandoned them long ago.
Creationists need to spend less time worrying about how the world was created and more time getting themselves and their leaders to live up to the fundamental beliefs of their supreme beings. "
But the story of the creationists has even more holes in it - whose version of creationism should be believed? Or doesn't it matter?
The theory of evolution is important because it still affects the world and its biological species today. It needs to be taught as part of any science curriculum.
Creationism on the other hand, is meaningful in what way? A so-called "Christian" has us invade Iraq and devastate its people, culture, and infrastructure. A country founded on a religion, Judism, performs acts of terrorism and calls it self-defense. Six billion humans exist and one billion live in dire poverty and hunger. Another 2 billion live on very low incomes with no real health care and lack many of the basics we take for granted.
If there are lessons to be learned from a supreme being, and I don't doubt there are, mankind seems to have forgotten or abandoned them long ago.
Creationists need to spend less time worrying about how the world was created and more time getting themselves and their leaders to live up to the fundamental beliefs of their supreme beings. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:16 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:01 AM:
" One of the oddities about those opposing evolution is that they believe that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism. Creationists sould get past the feeling that science is attacking their religion.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Nobody is opposing evolution as you put it, oh great twister of words, we're just opposing the censorship of creationisn/intelligent design. Again, check out Stein's documentary.
However, Darwin's motives were exactly what you describe. "
" One of the oddities about those opposing evolution is that they believe that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism. Creationists sould get past the feeling that science is attacking their religion.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Nobody is opposing evolution as you put it, oh great twister of words, we're just opposing the censorship of creationisn/intelligent design. Again, check out Stein's documentary.
However, Darwin's motives were exactly what you describe. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:35 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:01 AM:
" One of the oddities about those opposing evolution is that they believe that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism. Creationists sould get past the feeling that science is attacking their religion.
/s/ Steve Cross "
I beleive the reverse is true, cross. I don't beleive science is attacking any religion. But any athiest will site science in their dis-beleifs and cry foul of any creationalism being taught in schools.
-hfrmack "
" One of the oddities about those opposing evolution is that they believe that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism. Creationists sould get past the feeling that science is attacking their religion.
/s/ Steve Cross "
I beleive the reverse is true, cross. I don't beleive science is attacking any religion. But any athiest will site science in their dis-beleifs and cry foul of any creationalism being taught in schools.
-hfrmack "
Leo46 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:37 AM:
" Cross wrote: One of the oddities about those opposing evolution is that they believe that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism.
Not at all, some of the best arguments I have heard against "macro" evolution have been from atheists.
Of course I already know what your respnose to that is. "I don't believe you!" "
Not at all, some of the best arguments I have heard against "macro" evolution have been from atheists.
Of course I already know what your respnose to that is. "I don't believe you!" "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:59 AM:
" newswatcher, while you are correct that you can't scientifically prove a parent's love for their child or that you can't scientifically prove grief i will say that in all of my science classes we never studied love or grief or any other emotion for that matter. we never sat in a lab, put love in a beaker mixed it with nacl, let it sit under a heat lamp for a week or two and then tested the results to see if love (or any other emotion) did in fact exist. "
Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:08 PM:
" Newswatcher . . . Your argument that something must exist, because it can not be seen or disproven, is very weak. This always seems to translate to Christianity that its faith must be real because it can not be disproven.
Can you disprove any other religion? No.
Xdfred, yes, evolution is just a theory. Unlike religion, no scientist claims to know everything about evolution -- there are many questions that they are still trying to answer. It is simply the best scientific model that we have . . . Like any other piece of science, it will grow and change and become more accurate as we learn more. It is not a rigid, unchanging universal truth, like religion claims to be. "
Can you disprove any other religion? No.
Xdfred, yes, evolution is just a theory. Unlike religion, no scientist claims to know everything about evolution -- there are many questions that they are still trying to answer. It is simply the best scientific model that we have . . . Like any other piece of science, it will grow and change and become more accurate as we learn more. It is not a rigid, unchanging universal truth, like religion claims to be. "
JonL wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:26 PM:
" The idea that creationism is simply a "theory", and not an agenda, is ludicrous. The problem with creationism in school is that creationists would not be happy witha small blurb about the possibiltiy of a creator; it would have to be a specific Creator, with only a certain strain of mythology to support it. Science class is not the place to put forth ideas garnered solely from religious books and teachigns; it's a place for our best understanding of the topic at hand (in this case biology, the study of life). I don't think anyone finds evolution in its current state perfect, but it's our best understanding as put forth by decades and decades of research and study, not simply an idea ripped from 2,000 year-old documents. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:56 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:08 PM:
"Xdfred, yes, evolution is just a theory. Unlike religion, no scientist claims to know everything about evolution -- ..." Then why the attempts to sensor opposing theories?
"...there are many questions that they are still trying to answer. It is simply the best scientific model that we have . . ." Again, then why the censorship for such a weak model.
"Like any other piece of science, it will grow and change and become more accurate as we learn more..." Unfortunatley, evolution is a "science" that has actually gotten less accurate.
"..It is not a rigid, unchanging universal truth, like religion claims to be. " Yet, which gets us back to Prof Clayson's point, secularists cling to evolution in just that manner.
JonL wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:26 PM:
" The idea that creationism is simply a "theory", and not an agenda, is ludicrous."
I feel the same way about the THEORY of evolustion and the THEORY of man made global warming.
"...The problem with creationism in school is that creationists would not be happy witha small blurb about the possibiltiy of a creator; it would have to be a specific Creator, with only a certain strain of mythology to support it...."
And you know this because....
"Science class is not the place to put forth ideas garnered solely from religious books and teachigns;"
OK, who says it has to be science class?
"..it's a place for our best understanding of the topic at hand (in this case biology, the study of life)..." See, here you are defining what the "best" theory is. Why not give them all equal weight in discussion?
"I don't think anyone finds evolution in its current state perfect,..."
Correct. Way too many holes.
"...but it's our best understanding as put forth by decades and decades of research and study, not simply an idea ripped from 2,000 year-old documents. " Again with the best. There's lot's of research and study, by scientists, refuting evolution and with no agenda. But why discuss what we can censor, right? "
"Xdfred, yes, evolution is just a theory. Unlike religion, no scientist claims to know everything about evolution -- ..." Then why the attempts to sensor opposing theories?
"...there are many questions that they are still trying to answer. It is simply the best scientific model that we have . . ." Again, then why the censorship for such a weak model.
"Like any other piece of science, it will grow and change and become more accurate as we learn more..." Unfortunatley, evolution is a "science" that has actually gotten less accurate.
"..It is not a rigid, unchanging universal truth, like religion claims to be. " Yet, which gets us back to Prof Clayson's point, secularists cling to evolution in just that manner.
JonL wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:26 PM:
" The idea that creationism is simply a "theory", and not an agenda, is ludicrous."
I feel the same way about the THEORY of evolustion and the THEORY of man made global warming.
"...The problem with creationism in school is that creationists would not be happy witha small blurb about the possibiltiy of a creator; it would have to be a specific Creator, with only a certain strain of mythology to support it...."
And you know this because....
"Science class is not the place to put forth ideas garnered solely from religious books and teachigns;"
OK, who says it has to be science class?
"..it's a place for our best understanding of the topic at hand (in this case biology, the study of life)..." See, here you are defining what the "best" theory is. Why not give them all equal weight in discussion?
"I don't think anyone finds evolution in its current state perfect,..."
Correct. Way too many holes.
"...but it's our best understanding as put forth by decades and decades of research and study, not simply an idea ripped from 2,000 year-old documents. " Again with the best. There's lot's of research and study, by scientists, refuting evolution and with no agenda. But why discuss what we can censor, right? "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:05 PM:
" xdfred @ Jan 5, 2009 10:16 AM said, "we're just opposing the censorship of creationisn/intelligent design."
xdfred, nobody is trying to censor the teaching of creationism/intelligent design. It CAN be taught in the schools when it teaches ABOUT religion. C/ID is religion and not science. You don't teach calculus in a political science course. You teach it where it belongs -- in a math course.
/s/ Steve Cross "
xdfred, nobody is trying to censor the teaching of creationism/intelligent design. It CAN be taught in the schools when it teaches ABOUT religion. C/ID is religion and not science. You don't teach calculus in a political science course. You teach it where it belongs -- in a math course.
/s/ Steve Cross "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:18 PM:
" hfrmack @ Jan 5, 2009 10:35 AM said, "But any athiest will site science in their dis-beleifs and cry foul of any creationalism being taught in schools."
As I recall, it's the creationists who are trying to force their ideology into the schools as part of the science curriculum. They get opposition from people who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says about freedom of religion. The people who bring suit against the creationists may or may not be atheists. But, the point of the lawsuits is whether creationism is a religion and can't be taught as a science. Although I haven't read all the cases, I can assure you that the issue is NEVER that it can't be taught because god doesn't exist.
The whole matter of trying to censor creationism is bogus. Creationism isn't science. It and intelligent design were specifically invented to try to get around court rulings that you can't include religion in public school curriculum.
You can teach ABOUT religion in school, why not just keep teaching about ID, or whatever, in those kinds of courses. (I suppose that's a rhetorical question. People who like ID also don't like the teaching of religion that is devoid of any judgment on which is the right religion. So they don't favor courses about religions.)
/s/ Steve Cross "
As I recall, it's the creationists who are trying to force their ideology into the schools as part of the science curriculum. They get opposition from people who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says about freedom of religion. The people who bring suit against the creationists may or may not be atheists. But, the point of the lawsuits is whether creationism is a religion and can't be taught as a science. Although I haven't read all the cases, I can assure you that the issue is NEVER that it can't be taught because god doesn't exist.
The whole matter of trying to censor creationism is bogus. Creationism isn't science. It and intelligent design were specifically invented to try to get around court rulings that you can't include religion in public school curriculum.
You can teach ABOUT religion in school, why not just keep teaching about ID, or whatever, in those kinds of courses. (I suppose that's a rhetorical question. People who like ID also don't like the teaching of religion that is devoid of any judgment on which is the right religion. So they don't favor courses about religions.)
/s/ Steve Cross "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:24 PM:
" fatman2 @ Jan 4, 2009 7:33 PM said, "Another Sunday, another Clayson article that gets under Cross's skin. Cross, I don't know what you have against Clayson."
I'll tell you. What finally got under my skin was that Sunday after Sunday, Clayson wrote his hard-right baloney and no one ever said, "This is hard-right baloney" and set out to show that it was hard-right baloney. So, I decided to try myself.
And, I put something here every Sunday, and sometimes in print, because Clayson is pushing his baloney every week. Don't blame me for complaining about what he says so often. Blame Clayson for spouting baloney so often.
/s/ Steve Cross "
I'll tell you. What finally got under my skin was that Sunday after Sunday, Clayson wrote his hard-right baloney and no one ever said, "This is hard-right baloney" and set out to show that it was hard-right baloney. So, I decided to try myself.
And, I put something here every Sunday, and sometimes in print, because Clayson is pushing his baloney every week. Don't blame me for complaining about what he says so often. Blame Clayson for spouting baloney so often.
/s/ Steve Cross "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:31 PM:
" Those who look at the word "theory" and say, "Holly mackerel! Even the scientists say that it's a "theory" and not a "fact."
Maybe they're on to something. I've found a rebuttal of the "theory of gravity." It's at:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
/s/ Steve Cross "
Maybe they're on to something. I've found a rebuttal of the "theory of gravity." It's at:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
/s/ Steve Cross "
(return of) joe wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:34 PM:
" I'm all for prayer in school and the endorsement of religion in school. When my son takes a class with his Muslim teacher, followed by his Jewish teach next year, I will be thrilled to see that he is being told to believe in a specific religion. How about the rest of you? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:38 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:05 PM:
" xdfred @ Jan 5, 2009 10:16 AM said, "we're just opposing the censorship of creationisn/intelligent design."
xdfred, nobody is trying to censor the teaching of creationism/intelligent design. It CAN be taught in the schools when it teaches ABOUT religion. C/ID is religion and not science. You don't teach calculus in a political science course. You teach it where it belongs -- in a math course.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Really? Why don't you ask the professors who got the boot just for bringing it up. See the Ben Stein movie for starters.
And where are the theories on the origin of life taught? In biology classes, for starters. So why not bring up ID then? Because it doesn't follow the old tried and tested rules you just made up. "
" xdfred @ Jan 5, 2009 10:16 AM said, "we're just opposing the censorship of creationisn/intelligent design."
xdfred, nobody is trying to censor the teaching of creationism/intelligent design. It CAN be taught in the schools when it teaches ABOUT religion. C/ID is religion and not science. You don't teach calculus in a political science course. You teach it where it belongs -- in a math course.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Really? Why don't you ask the professors who got the boot just for bringing it up. See the Ben Stein movie for starters.
And where are the theories on the origin of life taught? In biology classes, for starters. So why not bring up ID then? Because it doesn't follow the old tried and tested rules you just made up. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:39 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:31 PM:
" Those who look at the word "theory" and say, "Holly mackerel! Even the scientists say that it's a "theory" and not a "fact."
Maybe they're on to something. I've found a rebuttal of the "theory of gravity." It's at:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
/s/ Steve Cross "
Trying to change the subject, counselor? That would get you a contempt charge. "
" Those who look at the word "theory" and say, "Holly mackerel! Even the scientists say that it's a "theory" and not a "fact."
Maybe they're on to something. I've found a rebuttal of the "theory of gravity." It's at:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
/s/ Steve Cross "
Trying to change the subject, counselor? That would get you a contempt charge. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:41 PM:
" (return of) joe wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:34 PM:
" I'm all for prayer in school and the endorsement of religion in school. When my son takes a class with his Muslim teacher, followed by his Jewish teach next year, I will be thrilled to see that he is being told to believe in a specific religion. How about the rest of you? "
Wow! You've taken question the THEORY of evolution and suggesting intelligent design to being told what religion to believe in. In case you haven't noticed, we are at war with those who would do just that. Shove a specific religion down your throat. No, all that the professor writes is to not censor either side. That's it. Pure and simple. "
" I'm all for prayer in school and the endorsement of religion in school. When my son takes a class with his Muslim teacher, followed by his Jewish teach next year, I will be thrilled to see that he is being told to believe in a specific religion. How about the rest of you? "
Wow! You've taken question the THEORY of evolution and suggesting intelligent design to being told what religion to believe in. In case you haven't noticed, we are at war with those who would do just that. Shove a specific religion down your throat. No, all that the professor writes is to not censor either side. That's it. Pure and simple. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:43 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:24 PM:
" fatman2 @ Jan 4, 2009 7:33 PM said, "Another Sunday, another Clayson article that gets under Cross's skin. Cross, I don't know what you have against Clayson."
I'm guessing the good professor handed Cross his lunch in some litigation somewhere, or flunked him. What else explains the hate. "
" fatman2 @ Jan 4, 2009 7:33 PM said, "Another Sunday, another Clayson article that gets under Cross's skin. Cross, I don't know what you have against Clayson."
I'm guessing the good professor handed Cross his lunch in some litigation somewhere, or flunked him. What else explains the hate. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:48 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:18 PM:
"As I recall, it's the creationists who are trying to force their ideology into the schools as part of the science curriculum...." vs forcing evolution only?
"..They get opposition from people who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says about freedom of religion...."
This part is really funny.
"The people who bring suit against the creationists may or may not be atheists...." Nope, just socialists, maoists, whatever. People who belive that the state is the highest power.
"But, the point of the lawsuits is whether creationism is a religion and can't be taught as a science. Although I haven't read all the cases, I can assure you that the issue is NEVER that it can't be taught because god doesn't exist." Your assurances are very reassuring.
"The whole matter of trying to censor creationism is bogus."
Again, see Ben Stein's movie.
"Creationism isn't science." Neither is evolution.
"It and intelligent design were specifically invented to try to get around court rulings that you can't include religion in public school curriculum." Or as a way to explain the numerous holes in the THEORY of evolution. "
"As I recall, it's the creationists who are trying to force their ideology into the schools as part of the science curriculum...." vs forcing evolution only?
"..They get opposition from people who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says about freedom of religion...."
This part is really funny.
"The people who bring suit against the creationists may or may not be atheists...." Nope, just socialists, maoists, whatever. People who belive that the state is the highest power.
"But, the point of the lawsuits is whether creationism is a religion and can't be taught as a science. Although I haven't read all the cases, I can assure you that the issue is NEVER that it can't be taught because god doesn't exist." Your assurances are very reassuring.
"The whole matter of trying to censor creationism is bogus."
Again, see Ben Stein's movie.
"Creationism isn't science." Neither is evolution.
"It and intelligent design were specifically invented to try to get around court rulings that you can't include religion in public school curriculum." Or as a way to explain the numerous holes in the THEORY of evolution. "
Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:50 PM:
" Xdfred, you are making no sense.
You ask, why the censorship over such a weak model (evolution). This "censorship" is not done in FAVOR of evolution. Even if evolution was never theorized, that still does not make Creationism science. It is not science, and has no place in a science classroom. Period.
You also say that evolutionists cling to evolution in such a manner. Seriously, fred, think. How many scientists do you think have the zeal to die for their theory? How many believe that their theory will judge, or punish them? How many celebrate their theories on special holidays (scidays?). There have been no theory wars, and no scientist has ever done a suicide bombing so that Darwin will give them 72 microscopes.
You are seriously deranged if you try to compare the two. Science is merely a growing method for understanding (which changes, and points out its own mistakes as they are discovered). It is simply a process. Religion is a matter of morality, belief, and a way of life. It judges people as good or bad. It gives some people hope, and others it gives hate.
The two are nothing alike, and do not belong in the same kind of class.
Or would you like evolution to have equal time at the pulpit in your churches? "
You ask, why the censorship over such a weak model (evolution). This "censorship" is not done in FAVOR of evolution. Even if evolution was never theorized, that still does not make Creationism science. It is not science, and has no place in a science classroom. Period.
You also say that evolutionists cling to evolution in such a manner. Seriously, fred, think. How many scientists do you think have the zeal to die for their theory? How many believe that their theory will judge, or punish them? How many celebrate their theories on special holidays (scidays?). There have been no theory wars, and no scientist has ever done a suicide bombing so that Darwin will give them 72 microscopes.
You are seriously deranged if you try to compare the two. Science is merely a growing method for understanding (which changes, and points out its own mistakes as they are discovered). It is simply a process. Religion is a matter of morality, belief, and a way of life. It judges people as good or bad. It gives some people hope, and others it gives hate.
The two are nothing alike, and do not belong in the same kind of class.
Or would you like evolution to have equal time at the pulpit in your churches? "
Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:52 PM:
" Exactly, Joe. Exactly.
The creationists try to call Creationism/ID a theory . . . but it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing. They only wish to teach of the Christian creation myth . . .
I wonder how they would feel about Hindu teachings about the origins of the universe. "
The creationists try to call Creationism/ID a theory . . . but it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing. They only wish to teach of the Christian creation myth . . .
I wonder how they would feel about Hindu teachings about the origins of the universe. "
Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:03 PM:
" xdfred - I guess you comprehend the difference between free speech and teaching curriculum.
No one is censoring creationism/ID.
Not teaching it in science classrooms is not censorship - it is upholding scientific findings.
While evolution is a theory, parts of it are scientific fact that are documented and can be recreated and demonstrated.
Nothing in creationism can be proved, demonstrated, or recreated in a labratory setting.
Rent a hall and speak about creationism all you want - no scientist will censor you. "
No one is censoring creationism/ID.
Not teaching it in science classrooms is not censorship - it is upholding scientific findings.
While evolution is a theory, parts of it are scientific fact that are documented and can be recreated and demonstrated.
Nothing in creationism can be proved, demonstrated, or recreated in a labratory setting.
Rent a hall and speak about creationism all you want - no scientist will censor you. "
Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:06 PM:
" (return of) joe - where is this school? I might want to enroll some students there. Do they have Buddhist and Wiccan teachers too?
Does it get crowded up there (or where ever) with all those supreme beings looking over us? "
Does it get crowded up there (or where ever) with all those supreme beings looking over us? "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:21 PM:
" xdfred @ Jan 5, 2009 1:48 PM said, "Nope, just socialists, maoists, whatever. People who belive that the state is the highest power."
Actually, it's just people who believe in the Bill of Rights who will fight for it.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Actually, it's just people who believe in the Bill of Rights who will fight for it.
/s/ Steve Cross "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:22 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:52 PM:
" Exactly, Joe. Exactly.
The creationists try to call Creationism/ID a theory . . . but it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing. They only wish to teach of the Christian creation myth . . . " What insight you have. Or are you actually afraid that we're right?
"I wonder how they would feel about Hindu teachings about the origins of the universe. " If you and your ilk keep getting your way, we'll never know, will we. Only Darwin, according to his accolytes. "
" Exactly, Joe. Exactly.
The creationists try to call Creationism/ID a theory . . . but it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing. They only wish to teach of the Christian creation myth . . . " What insight you have. Or are you actually afraid that we're right?
"I wonder how they would feel about Hindu teachings about the origins of the universe. " If you and your ilk keep getting your way, we'll never know, will we. Only Darwin, according to his accolytes. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:28 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:03 PM:
" xdfred - I guess you comprehend the difference between free speech and teaching curriculum.
No one is censoring creationism/ID.' Talk to the teachers that have suffered.
"Not teaching it in science classrooms is not censorship - it is upholding scientific findings." Then the holes in the theory of evolution should be discussed, but they aren't. Today evolution is taught as gospel.
"While evolution is a theory, parts of it are scientific fact that are documented and can be recreated and demonstrated..." Please name one.
"Nothing in creationism can be proved, demonstrated, or recreated in a labratory setting." And ditto for evolution. The crackpot theory of life beginning when lighteneing hit ocean water was attempted in the lab, and failed every time. And the hoaxes. Totally bogus studies, like the one involving moths, that was a total fabrication. Keep going. You're on to something.
"Rent a hall and speak about creationism all you want - no scientist will censor you. " Gee, thanks. But I'll bet there are some that would want to. "
" xdfred - I guess you comprehend the difference between free speech and teaching curriculum.
No one is censoring creationism/ID.' Talk to the teachers that have suffered.
"Not teaching it in science classrooms is not censorship - it is upholding scientific findings." Then the holes in the theory of evolution should be discussed, but they aren't. Today evolution is taught as gospel.
"While evolution is a theory, parts of it are scientific fact that are documented and can be recreated and demonstrated..." Please name one.
"Nothing in creationism can be proved, demonstrated, or recreated in a labratory setting." And ditto for evolution. The crackpot theory of life beginning when lighteneing hit ocean water was attempted in the lab, and failed every time. And the hoaxes. Totally bogus studies, like the one involving moths, that was a total fabrication. Keep going. You're on to something.
"Rent a hall and speak about creationism all you want - no scientist will censor you. " Gee, thanks. But I'll bet there are some that would want to. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:37 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:50 PM:
" Xdfred, you are making no sense...." According to you, maybe.
"You ask, why the censorship over such a weak model (evolution). This "censorship" is not done in FAVOR of evolution. Even if evolution was never theorized, that still does not make Creationism science. It is not science, and has no place in a science classroom. Period." And that is censorship.
"You also say that evolutionists cling to evolution in such a manner." I'm glad you're catching on.
"Seriously, fred, think. How many scientists do you think have the zeal to die for their theory? How many believe that their theory will judge, or punish them? How many celebrate their theories on special holidays (scidays?). There have been no theory wars, and no scientist has ever done a suicide bombing so that Darwin will give them 72 microscopes." Dumb questions. All of them. All pseudo scientists and socialist hacks have to do is have anyone that brings up any counter to the THEORY of evolution harassed, ridiculed, ostracized, or academically punished to meet their goals. And they are doing it.
"You are seriously deranged if you try to compare the two." Oh well. You and your opinions.
"Science is merely a growing method for understanding (which changes, and points out its own mistakes as they are discovered). It is simply a process." So, today's science can be wrong.
"Religion is a matter of morality, belief, and a way of life. It judges people as good or bad..." No it doesn't
"It gives some people hope, and others it gives hate...." What does this have to do with evolution or ID? Oh, you're trying to come up with reasons to censor the discussion.
"The two are nothing alike, and do not belong in the same kind of class." So?
"Or would you like evolution to have equal time at the pulpit in your churches? " Wouldn't bother me, becuase the people at those churches are not captive audiences that have to believe what they are told or else, unlike students in a classroom. We believe because we want to. Wouldn't bother me one bit. And it would be a good debate, too. But I don't think there's any evolutionist with the academic courage to do it. "
" Xdfred, you are making no sense...." According to you, maybe.
"You ask, why the censorship over such a weak model (evolution). This "censorship" is not done in FAVOR of evolution. Even if evolution was never theorized, that still does not make Creationism science. It is not science, and has no place in a science classroom. Period." And that is censorship.
"You also say that evolutionists cling to evolution in such a manner." I'm glad you're catching on.
"Seriously, fred, think. How many scientists do you think have the zeal to die for their theory? How many believe that their theory will judge, or punish them? How many celebrate their theories on special holidays (scidays?). There have been no theory wars, and no scientist has ever done a suicide bombing so that Darwin will give them 72 microscopes." Dumb questions. All of them. All pseudo scientists and socialist hacks have to do is have anyone that brings up any counter to the THEORY of evolution harassed, ridiculed, ostracized, or academically punished to meet their goals. And they are doing it.
"You are seriously deranged if you try to compare the two." Oh well. You and your opinions.
"Science is merely a growing method for understanding (which changes, and points out its own mistakes as they are discovered). It is simply a process." So, today's science can be wrong.
"Religion is a matter of morality, belief, and a way of life. It judges people as good or bad..." No it doesn't
"It gives some people hope, and others it gives hate...." What does this have to do with evolution or ID? Oh, you're trying to come up with reasons to censor the discussion.
"The two are nothing alike, and do not belong in the same kind of class." So?
"Or would you like evolution to have equal time at the pulpit in your churches? " Wouldn't bother me, becuase the people at those churches are not captive audiences that have to believe what they are told or else, unlike students in a classroom. We believe because we want to. Wouldn't bother me one bit. And it would be a good debate, too. But I don't think there's any evolutionist with the academic courage to do it. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:44 PM:
" Thank GOD we have xrfred to tell us what is fact and what is not.(because you know he is the one who decides what is and what isn't) "
Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:06 PM:
" No, Xdfred, that is still not censorship. Just like teaching social studies during science class is not censorship, and teaching computer programming in gym class is not censorship.
Once again . . . Creationists are trying to nose their way into the science class. Scientists are not trying to nose their way into the Church. Neither side is currently censored . . . they just have seperate places in which they are taught.
Yes, parts of evolution are still unknown and may be found to be inaccurate. This is part of what is taught in schools. Today, this is our best model. Tomorrow, it will (no pun intended) evolve into something different. In a mere 100 years, look how much science has changed. In another hundred, it will be far different than it is now.
The difference in this and creationism is that Creationists have already made up their mind. No matter what new evidence comes out, they have their answer already. Their conclusion is set in stone. It can not be proven, or disproven. Ergo, it is not science. 100 years ago, Creationists knew the world was 6,000 years old. Today they know it is 6,000 years old, and in a hundred years they will know it is 6,000 years old.
Using ancient texts written by a Nomadic tribe of dessert people as a model for the universe is simply not science. If it works for you, then great.
And yes, you hit the nail on the head -- the worst that can happen if a person argues with evolution is that they might be ridiculed or academically unaccepted. Do you want to weigh that against what has always happened when people disagree with religion?
And bollocks -- religion does too judge people. How can you say that it doesn't? Where have you been? "
Once again . . . Creationists are trying to nose their way into the science class. Scientists are not trying to nose their way into the Church. Neither side is currently censored . . . they just have seperate places in which they are taught.
Yes, parts of evolution are still unknown and may be found to be inaccurate. This is part of what is taught in schools. Today, this is our best model. Tomorrow, it will (no pun intended) evolve into something different. In a mere 100 years, look how much science has changed. In another hundred, it will be far different than it is now.
The difference in this and creationism is that Creationists have already made up their mind. No matter what new evidence comes out, they have their answer already. Their conclusion is set in stone. It can not be proven, or disproven. Ergo, it is not science. 100 years ago, Creationists knew the world was 6,000 years old. Today they know it is 6,000 years old, and in a hundred years they will know it is 6,000 years old.
Using ancient texts written by a Nomadic tribe of dessert people as a model for the universe is simply not science. If it works for you, then great.
And yes, you hit the nail on the head -- the worst that can happen if a person argues with evolution is that they might be ridiculed or academically unaccepted. Do you want to weigh that against what has always happened when people disagree with religion?
And bollocks -- religion does too judge people. How can you say that it doesn't? Where have you been? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:27 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:03 PM:
While evolution is a theory, parts of it are scientific fact that are documented and can be recreated and demonstrated.
Phil,
Where can I find the parts of scientific evolution that are documented fact that can be recreated and demonstrated? Without this, we don't even have "theory", we have a "hypothisis".
We already know that science is as corrupt as politics. Certain scientist are already being influenced by polititians in "theories" of "global warming" being mostly man made. (Gore-bal warming). Many other scientist have debunked this "theory" which makes more sense to me. Any idea how many more damaging emmissions goes into our atmosphere from volcanos (alone) annually than from our tail pipes? Man made "global warming" isn't theory at all, they are hypothosises.
I think the same could be said for evolution, unless you can prove to me otherwise.
-hfrmack "
While evolution is a theory, parts of it are scientific fact that are documented and can be recreated and demonstrated.
Phil,
Where can I find the parts of scientific evolution that are documented fact that can be recreated and demonstrated? Without this, we don't even have "theory", we have a "hypothisis".
We already know that science is as corrupt as politics. Certain scientist are already being influenced by polititians in "theories" of "global warming" being mostly man made. (Gore-bal warming). Many other scientist have debunked this "theory" which makes more sense to me. Any idea how many more damaging emmissions goes into our atmosphere from volcanos (alone) annually than from our tail pipes? Man made "global warming" isn't theory at all, they are hypothosises.
I think the same could be said for evolution, unless you can prove to me otherwise.
-hfrmack "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:49 PM:
" Relating to an outstanding bet, tomorrow the electoral college ballots are tallied. We'll see if anyone tries to claim in Congress that Obama is ineligible because he wasn't "a natural born citizen." If not, then it's just a matter of waiting until the 20th for the swearing in.
And, yes, I am rubbing it in.
/s/ Steve Cross "
And, yes, I am rubbing it in.
/s/ Steve Cross "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:54 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:44 PM:
" Thank GOD we have xrfred to tell us what is fact and what is not.(because you know he is the one who decides what is and what isn't) "
Really? Am I the one that is dictating what should be taught in what class? What should not be discussed because it is not scientific fact, even though science is constantly changing? Am I the one hiding censorship in a cloak of bogus elitist superiority? "
" Thank GOD we have xrfred to tell us what is fact and what is not.(because you know he is the one who decides what is and what isn't) "
Really? Am I the one that is dictating what should be taught in what class? What should not be discussed because it is not scientific fact, even though science is constantly changing? Am I the one hiding censorship in a cloak of bogus elitist superiority? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 5, 2009 4:15 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:06 PM:
" No, Xdfred, that is still not censorship. Just like teaching social studies during science class is not censorship, and teaching computer programming in gym class is not censorship."
OK, have it your way. In which class should the concept of intelligent design be discussed?
"Once again . . . Creationists are trying to nose their way into the science class."
Nope. Just trying to avoid getting trhown out of class for bringing it up.
"Scientists are not trying to nose their way into the Church." Who says they are? Actually, some are, when they say abortion is OK, because it's not a person yet, but can't tell us when it is.
"Neither side is currently censored . . . they just have seperate places in which they are taught." Again, look at Stein's movie.
"Yes, parts of evolution are still unknown and may be found to be inaccurate." But God help you if you mention that in science class.
"This is part of what is taught in schools. Today, this is our best model. Tomorrow, it will (no pun intended) evolve into something different. In a mere 100 years, look how much science has changed. In another hundred, it will be far different than it is now." Great.
"The difference in this and creationism is that Creationists have already made up their mind. No matter what new evidence comes out, they have their answer already." What if the new evidence is fraudulant, like it has been.
"Their conclusion is set in stone. It can not be proven, or disproven." But that means it shouldn't be discussed. At all?
"Ergo, it is not science." Neither is typing. What's your point? That only science should be discussed and everything else censored?
"100 years ago, Creationists knew the world was 6,000 years old. Today they know it is 6,000 years old, and in a hundred years they will know it is 6,000 years old." And how reliable is carbon dating?
"Using ancient texts written by a Nomadic tribe of dessert people as a model for the universe is simply not science. If it works for you, then great." What you decribed doesn't work for me, but texts written by inspired prophets, whose words came true hundreds of years later, or the saints who actually walked with Christ, does.
"And yes, you hit the nail on the head -- the worst that can happen if a person argues with evolution is that they might be ridiculed or academically unaccepted." Transaltion: fired.
"Do you want to weigh that against what has always happened when people disagree with religion?" Tell me, what has always happened? In this country, the safest thing to do is ridicule religion. Art that mocks Christ or the Virgin Mary is applauded.
"And bollocks -- religion does too judge people. How can you say that it doesn't? Where have you been? " Pure fiction on your part. Religion is a thing. How does a thing judge people? "
" No, Xdfred, that is still not censorship. Just like teaching social studies during science class is not censorship, and teaching computer programming in gym class is not censorship."
OK, have it your way. In which class should the concept of intelligent design be discussed?
"Once again . . . Creationists are trying to nose their way into the science class."
Nope. Just trying to avoid getting trhown out of class for bringing it up.
"Scientists are not trying to nose their way into the Church." Who says they are? Actually, some are, when they say abortion is OK, because it's not a person yet, but can't tell us when it is.
"Neither side is currently censored . . . they just have seperate places in which they are taught." Again, look at Stein's movie.
"Yes, parts of evolution are still unknown and may be found to be inaccurate." But God help you if you mention that in science class.
"This is part of what is taught in schools. Today, this is our best model. Tomorrow, it will (no pun intended) evolve into something different. In a mere 100 years, look how much science has changed. In another hundred, it will be far different than it is now." Great.
"The difference in this and creationism is that Creationists have already made up their mind. No matter what new evidence comes out, they have their answer already." What if the new evidence is fraudulant, like it has been.
"Their conclusion is set in stone. It can not be proven, or disproven." But that means it shouldn't be discussed. At all?
"Ergo, it is not science." Neither is typing. What's your point? That only science should be discussed and everything else censored?
"100 years ago, Creationists knew the world was 6,000 years old. Today they know it is 6,000 years old, and in a hundred years they will know it is 6,000 years old." And how reliable is carbon dating?
"Using ancient texts written by a Nomadic tribe of dessert people as a model for the universe is simply not science. If it works for you, then great." What you decribed doesn't work for me, but texts written by inspired prophets, whose words came true hundreds of years later, or the saints who actually walked with Christ, does.
"And yes, you hit the nail on the head -- the worst that can happen if a person argues with evolution is that they might be ridiculed or academically unaccepted." Transaltion: fired.
"Do you want to weigh that against what has always happened when people disagree with religion?" Tell me, what has always happened? In this country, the safest thing to do is ridicule religion. Art that mocks Christ or the Virgin Mary is applauded.
"And bollocks -- religion does too judge people. How can you say that it doesn't? Where have you been? " Pure fiction on your part. Religion is a thing. How does a thing judge people? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 5, 2009 4:42 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:49 PM:
" Relating to an outstanding bet, tomorrow the electoral college ballots are tallied. We'll see if anyone tries to claim in Congress that Obama is ineligible because he wasn't "a natural born citizen." If not, then it's just a matter of waiting until the 20th for the swearing in.
And, yes, I am rubbing it in.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Yes, and if you win, you have all gloating rights. But remember, it is only the first half of the bet. If you lose, you can bet that I'll gloat.
-hfrmack "
" Relating to an outstanding bet, tomorrow the electoral college ballots are tallied. We'll see if anyone tries to claim in Congress that Obama is ineligible because he wasn't "a natural born citizen." If not, then it's just a matter of waiting until the 20th for the swearing in.
And, yes, I am rubbing it in.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Yes, and if you win, you have all gloating rights. But remember, it is only the first half of the bet. If you lose, you can bet that I'll gloat.
-hfrmack "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:17 PM:
" hfrmack Jan 5, 2009 4:42 PM said, "remember, it is only the first half of the bet. If you lose, you can bet that I'll gloat."
If I lose on Obama being impeached and convicted because he isn't a "natural born citizen" I deserve all the gloating that can be heaped on me. Fortunately, I regard that half as even more secure money than the first half.
/s/ Steve Cross "
If I lose on Obama being impeached and convicted because he isn't a "natural born citizen" I deserve all the gloating that can be heaped on me. Fortunately, I regard that half as even more secure money than the first half.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Newswatcher wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:33 PM:
" Cross,
So did it never occur to you that the Courier has a Right leaning Opinion Columnist and a Left leaning Opinion Columnist for a reason?
Balancing things out for us not OK with you?
We just all have to see things your way or it's the highway?
Typical typical typical of the Liberals.
You, Cross make a joke out of yourself on here, week after week. We laugh at you and yes, you have a couple of followers, but I'd bet sometimes even they sigh at your preposterous, conceited and far too lengthy entries.
NEWSFLASH FOR CROSS:
1. It's an Opinion Page
2. You have too much time on your hands to care this much every single Sunday about trying to prove someone else's opinion is wrong when that's NEVER GONNA HAPPEN! It's an opinion!
Get over yourself! "
So did it never occur to you that the Courier has a Right leaning Opinion Columnist and a Left leaning Opinion Columnist for a reason?
Balancing things out for us not OK with you?
We just all have to see things your way or it's the highway?
Typical typical typical of the Liberals.
You, Cross make a joke out of yourself on here, week after week. We laugh at you and yes, you have a couple of followers, but I'd bet sometimes even they sigh at your preposterous, conceited and far too lengthy entries.
NEWSFLASH FOR CROSS:
1. It's an Opinion Page
2. You have too much time on your hands to care this much every single Sunday about trying to prove someone else's opinion is wrong when that's NEVER GONNA HAPPEN! It's an opinion!
Get over yourself! "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:26 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:59 AM:
" newswatcher, while you are correct that you can't scientifically prove a parent's love for their child or that you can't scientifically prove grief i will say that in all of my science classes we never studied love or grief or any other emotion for that matter. we never sat in a lab, put love in a beaker mixed it with nacl, let it sit under a heat lamp for a week or two and then tested the results to see if love (or any other emotion) did in fact exist. "
Well timbrackett,
Is psychiatry a medical science? If not, then how about the pharmacology of psychiatry? Do you suppose that some of those medications could effect a persons emotions? I know these sciences may be a little bit beyond our realm of science study, so I'll share a little personal story with you.
Do you happen to remember about ten years ago, and even some more recent about an over diagnosis of A.D.D. and A.D.H.D. and the over prescibing of Ridalin?
Don't get me wrong, I know that there are legitimate diagnosis' and prescriptions for this.
When my son was in his early elementary years, (he's in high school now), he was having some difficulty with the curriculum. His mother and I were notified of this by his teacher, and a meeting was arranged with his teacher and the principal. In short, they recommended an evaluation be performed on him by his physician. Of course, his mother and I were concerned and immediately arranged an appointment with his doctor and a meeting. Thank God, she (his doctor), recommended another specialist for an evaluation. Not all doctors did this, and others would have had to possibly get second or third opinions to find this information out. We followed her advice, and took him to this specialist. I turns out that my son was diagnosed with Dyslexia. There is no medication to treat this. When his mother and I reported these findings back to the school, they were dumb-founded as to how to help this "special needs" student. Those teachers had all the answers on how to help the special needs students by over-seeing the kids' daily doses of Ridalin, to make dealing with these kids "easier" on the teachers, but had no idea how to help my son. Yet any school you drive by, you can see all of the signs posted "No Drug Zone". What a bad joke!!! Now in hind sight, I know many other parents that had the same sort of teacher/pricipal meetings. Many other kids were unnecessarily drugged.
Today, my son is doing fine and getting "A's" and "B's". I couldn't be prouder of him. He is just a little slower at reading, but it has made him a more thorough reader. He can now read a book once and recite many lines from the book he just read. That may not be much of a challenge for you or I, but it was for him.
My point with this personal story is that from my experience, and also from what I've read in many other sciences, is that science is more often wrong than it is right. Compare that to theology, it is right more often than it is wrong. If you would have asked a twelfth century physisist, he would have told you that the world is flat. And if you would ask some current day geologist, as I mentioned in another post, most "global (Gore-bal) warming is man made". But yet not all geologist beleive this. Many and perhaps most (depending on who you ask) scientist are as corrupt as our polititians. I believe most.
-hfrmack "
" newswatcher, while you are correct that you can't scientifically prove a parent's love for their child or that you can't scientifically prove grief i will say that in all of my science classes we never studied love or grief or any other emotion for that matter. we never sat in a lab, put love in a beaker mixed it with nacl, let it sit under a heat lamp for a week or two and then tested the results to see if love (or any other emotion) did in fact exist. "
Well timbrackett,
Is psychiatry a medical science? If not, then how about the pharmacology of psychiatry? Do you suppose that some of those medications could effect a persons emotions? I know these sciences may be a little bit beyond our realm of science study, so I'll share a little personal story with you.
Do you happen to remember about ten years ago, and even some more recent about an over diagnosis of A.D.D. and A.D.H.D. and the over prescibing of Ridalin?
Don't get me wrong, I know that there are legitimate diagnosis' and prescriptions for this.
When my son was in his early elementary years, (he's in high school now), he was having some difficulty with the curriculum. His mother and I were notified of this by his teacher, and a meeting was arranged with his teacher and the principal. In short, they recommended an evaluation be performed on him by his physician. Of course, his mother and I were concerned and immediately arranged an appointment with his doctor and a meeting. Thank God, she (his doctor), recommended another specialist for an evaluation. Not all doctors did this, and others would have had to possibly get second or third opinions to find this information out. We followed her advice, and took him to this specialist. I turns out that my son was diagnosed with Dyslexia. There is no medication to treat this. When his mother and I reported these findings back to the school, they were dumb-founded as to how to help this "special needs" student. Those teachers had all the answers on how to help the special needs students by over-seeing the kids' daily doses of Ridalin, to make dealing with these kids "easier" on the teachers, but had no idea how to help my son. Yet any school you drive by, you can see all of the signs posted "No Drug Zone". What a bad joke!!! Now in hind sight, I know many other parents that had the same sort of teacher/pricipal meetings. Many other kids were unnecessarily drugged.
Today, my son is doing fine and getting "A's" and "B's". I couldn't be prouder of him. He is just a little slower at reading, but it has made him a more thorough reader. He can now read a book once and recite many lines from the book he just read. That may not be much of a challenge for you or I, but it was for him.
My point with this personal story is that from my experience, and also from what I've read in many other sciences, is that science is more often wrong than it is right. Compare that to theology, it is right more often than it is wrong. If you would have asked a twelfth century physisist, he would have told you that the world is flat. And if you would ask some current day geologist, as I mentioned in another post, most "global (Gore-bal) warming is man made". But yet not all geologist beleive this. Many and perhaps most (depending on who you ask) scientist are as corrupt as our polititians. I believe most.
-hfrmack "
Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:50 PM:
" Xdfred, you asked in which class should Intelligent Design be brought up. Simple answer -- Sunday School.
You also say that science noses its way into the church by suggesting that abortion is ok. This is pure poppycock. Science is a neutral force -- it does not say that something is ok. It simply can not make a metaphysical analysis of what constitutes a person. Let's face it, all of us. We know a fetus is a living organism, but the issues that we dance around with is . . . does it have a soul, and if so, when? Then, what is a soul. Science can not answer, and will not try.
You say, God help us if we mention that Evolution may not be entirely accurate, in a class? That is nonsense. The classes, themselves, acknowledge that the current models do not have all the answers, and that we do not know how the entire process may have occurred (in Macro evolution anyway). It's not only ok to bring up, but it's completely acknowledged by scientists. What are you not understanding about this?
When I brought up the point about how creationism is different than science, you asked if this means that it should not be discussed at all. Of course not Fred. But listen . . . Creationism doesn't have a PLACE in the science room. You can still discuss it. Look at it this way -- do you interrupt your pastor if you have opposing ideas, in church? Of course not. But you can discuss these views outside of church, or in an open bible study. Basically, there is a time and place for everything. Science class is not the place for using ancient texts as evidence, especially when those ancient texts suggest that the Earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around us.
As for Stein's movie? Good God, Fred. That movie is the biggest bunch of tripe to ever grace the DVD shelf. The best way to sum it up is its review on the cover. "I Love this Movie!" -Ben Stein. That's right . . . On the cover of his own movie, he placed his own review, saying how much he loved it. "
You also say that science noses its way into the church by suggesting that abortion is ok. This is pure poppycock. Science is a neutral force -- it does not say that something is ok. It simply can not make a metaphysical analysis of what constitutes a person. Let's face it, all of us. We know a fetus is a living organism, but the issues that we dance around with is . . . does it have a soul, and if so, when? Then, what is a soul. Science can not answer, and will not try.
You say, God help us if we mention that Evolution may not be entirely accurate, in a class? That is nonsense. The classes, themselves, acknowledge that the current models do not have all the answers, and that we do not know how the entire process may have occurred (in Macro evolution anyway). It's not only ok to bring up, but it's completely acknowledged by scientists. What are you not understanding about this?
When I brought up the point about how creationism is different than science, you asked if this means that it should not be discussed at all. Of course not Fred. But listen . . . Creationism doesn't have a PLACE in the science room. You can still discuss it. Look at it this way -- do you interrupt your pastor if you have opposing ideas, in church? Of course not. But you can discuss these views outside of church, or in an open bible study. Basically, there is a time and place for everything. Science class is not the place for using ancient texts as evidence, especially when those ancient texts suggest that the Earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around us.
As for Stein's movie? Good God, Fred. That movie is the biggest bunch of tripe to ever grace the DVD shelf. The best way to sum it up is its review on the cover. "I Love this Movie!" -Ben Stein. That's right . . . On the cover of his own movie, he placed his own review, saying how much he loved it. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:57 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:17 PM:
If I lose on Obama being impeached and convicted because he isn't a "natural born citizen" I deserve all the gloating that can be heaped on me. Fortunately, I regard that half as even more secure money than the first half.
/s/ Steve Cross "
My mother always told me, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch".
Besides, I'm pulling for the "Cedar Valley Food Bank".
-hfrmack "
If I lose on Obama being impeached and convicted because he isn't a "natural born citizen" I deserve all the gloating that can be heaped on me. Fortunately, I regard that half as even more secure money than the first half.
/s/ Steve Cross "
My mother always told me, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch".
Besides, I'm pulling for the "Cedar Valley Food Bank".
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:45 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:18 PM:
As I recall, it's the creationists who are trying to force their ideology into the schools as part of the science curriculum. (WRONG!!!) They get opposition from people who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says about freedom of religion. The people who bring suit against the creationists may or may not be atheists. (ARE) But, the point of the lawsuits is whether creationism is a religion and can't be taught as a science. Although I haven't read all the cases, I can assure you that the issue is NEVER that it can't be taught because god doesn't exist.
The whole matter of trying to censor creationism is bogus. Creationism isn't science. (REALLY?!?!?) It and intelligent design were specifically invented to try to get around court rulings that you can't include religion in public school curriculum. (WHY NOT?)
You can teach ABOUT religion in school (PUBLIC), why not just keep teaching about ID, or whatever, in those kinds of courses. (I suppose that's a rhetorical question. People who like ID also don't like the teaching of religion that is devoid of any judgment on which is the right religion. So they don't favor courses about religions.) (-WRONG)
/s/ Steve Cross "
Steve,
It's funny you should happen to mention the Bill of Rights, the first ten Ammmendments of the Constitution. Ironic, don't you think? Does Constitutional Law also include Article II, Section one?
I know that ID and Creationism can't be taught in "public" schools. Nice "invention"...did YOU think of it?
Try telling a clergyman or clergywoman that providing comfort to a grieving family isn't a science. While you are at it, explain how interpreting the Word of the Gospel to a congregation isn't a science. Better yet, explain this to timbrackett, who actually studied the field of ministry about this. I'm anxious to read you two's comments...
BTW, Your use of the word "bogus" is highly over....stated.
-hfrmack "
As I recall, it's the creationists who are trying to force their ideology into the schools as part of the science curriculum. (WRONG!!!) They get opposition from people who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says about freedom of religion. The people who bring suit against the creationists may or may not be atheists. (ARE) But, the point of the lawsuits is whether creationism is a religion and can't be taught as a science. Although I haven't read all the cases, I can assure you that the issue is NEVER that it can't be taught because god doesn't exist.
The whole matter of trying to censor creationism is bogus. Creationism isn't science. (REALLY?!?!?) It and intelligent design were specifically invented to try to get around court rulings that you can't include religion in public school curriculum. (WHY NOT?)
You can teach ABOUT religion in school (PUBLIC), why not just keep teaching about ID, or whatever, in those kinds of courses. (I suppose that's a rhetorical question. People who like ID also don't like the teaching of religion that is devoid of any judgment on which is the right religion. So they don't favor courses about religions.) (-WRONG)
/s/ Steve Cross "
Steve,
It's funny you should happen to mention the Bill of Rights, the first ten Ammmendments of the Constitution. Ironic, don't you think? Does Constitutional Law also include Article II, Section one?
I know that ID and Creationism can't be taught in "public" schools. Nice "invention"...did YOU think of it?
Try telling a clergyman or clergywoman that providing comfort to a grieving family isn't a science. While you are at it, explain how interpreting the Word of the Gospel to a congregation isn't a science. Better yet, explain this to timbrackett, who actually studied the field of ministry about this. I'm anxious to read you two's comments...
BTW, Your use of the word "bogus" is highly over....stated.
-hfrmack "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:21 AM:
" hfrmack--i agree with you on the over-prescriptions and mis-diagnosing related to ritalin in the past. i also applaud you for your parenting skills (and your child for working so hard to overcome a huge obstacle).
relating to science i have a few points i would like to bring to your attention. first, the scientific method confirms that science can (and will) be wrong. second, psychology and psychiatry are a science replete with theories (proven, debunked and ongoing) that follow the scientific method. medications used to alter behavior or moods have been researched using said scientific method before being used.
now, i must disagree with your assertion that theology is often more right than wrong (compared to science). theology once declared the world was flat. theology led to the crusades. theology led to the ongoing struggle in ireland. theology led to the burning of witches at the stake. theology led to the slaughtering of millions of native americans (manifest destiny). theology once stated that slavery was just. i could go on and on about how "theology" has been wrong more often than right throughout the course of history after Jesus' death and resurrection, but i'll stop for now.
i am a christian. i believe in my heart that the first two chapters of genesis explain how and why we are here. (to go further, i believe in the "gap theory" regarding Gen. 1:1-2). if/when i have children i will read them the book of genesis and advise them that i believe in creation. however, i could care less if public schools teach creation or if the guy down the street believes in creation (or evolution). it has nothing to do with my personal faith or the faith i would like to pass on to my children. "
relating to science i have a few points i would like to bring to your attention. first, the scientific method confirms that science can (and will) be wrong. second, psychology and psychiatry are a science replete with theories (proven, debunked and ongoing) that follow the scientific method. medications used to alter behavior or moods have been researched using said scientific method before being used.
now, i must disagree with your assertion that theology is often more right than wrong (compared to science). theology once declared the world was flat. theology led to the crusades. theology led to the ongoing struggle in ireland. theology led to the burning of witches at the stake. theology led to the slaughtering of millions of native americans (manifest destiny). theology once stated that slavery was just. i could go on and on about how "theology" has been wrong more often than right throughout the course of history after Jesus' death and resurrection, but i'll stop for now.
i am a christian. i believe in my heart that the first two chapters of genesis explain how and why we are here. (to go further, i believe in the "gap theory" regarding Gen. 1:1-2). if/when i have children i will read them the book of genesis and advise them that i believe in creation. however, i could care less if public schools teach creation or if the guy down the street believes in creation (or evolution). it has nothing to do with my personal faith or the faith i would like to pass on to my children. "
Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:45 AM:
" xdfred & hfrmack - Since neither of you are bright enough to look up what parts of evolution are proven, here is one - natural selection. Now you can do the research from here, but we see the results of it all the time, the prime example being diseases (i.e. living organisms) that evolve to become resistant to vaccines.
Now it is your turn - educate all of us please - on ONE single part of creationism/intelligent design that is a proven scientific fact.
Also, xdfred - the "gaps" in the theory of evolution are discussed all the time. Just because gaps exist doesn't discredit the entire theory.
How you two can doubt what is happening right before your eyes - evolution, global warming, etc. - yet completely buy into something that has no basis in fact - creationism - is not only illogical, but makes all your arguments questionable.
Why should any opinion of people like yourselves have any shred of credibility? "
Now it is your turn - educate all of us please - on ONE single part of creationism/intelligent design that is a proven scientific fact.
Also, xdfred - the "gaps" in the theory of evolution are discussed all the time. Just because gaps exist doesn't discredit the entire theory.
How you two can doubt what is happening right before your eyes - evolution, global warming, etc. - yet completely buy into something that has no basis in fact - creationism - is not only illogical, but makes all your arguments questionable.
Why should any opinion of people like yourselves have any shred of credibility? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:33 AM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:50 PM:
" Xdfred, you asked in which class should Intelligent Design be brought up. Simple answer -- Sunday School." OK, so when the discussion on the origin of life, or the origin of the universe is brought up, it should not be considered a valid theory?
"Creationism doesn't have a PLACE in the science room." And that is the purest definition of censorship there is. You can't say that here.
"As for Stein's movie? Good God, Fred. That movie is the biggest bunch of tripe to ever grace the DVD shelf." Translation: I haven't seen the movie, nor do I know anything about it, but, being a liberal puppet, I have to attack it by calling senseless names and making baseless unfounded accusations.
"The best way to sum it up is its review on the cover. "I Love this Movie!" -Ben Stein. That's right . . . On the cover of his own movie, he placed his own review, saying how much he loved it. " He's a comedian, clueless. But please point out any falsehoods you know of in his research or the documentary itself. Or take the easy way out. Watch this: The theory of evolution is tripe. Easy, isn't it? "
" Xdfred, you asked in which class should Intelligent Design be brought up. Simple answer -- Sunday School." OK, so when the discussion on the origin of life, or the origin of the universe is brought up, it should not be considered a valid theory?
"Creationism doesn't have a PLACE in the science room." And that is the purest definition of censorship there is. You can't say that here.
"As for Stein's movie? Good God, Fred. That movie is the biggest bunch of tripe to ever grace the DVD shelf." Translation: I haven't seen the movie, nor do I know anything about it, but, being a liberal puppet, I have to attack it by calling senseless names and making baseless unfounded accusations.
"The best way to sum it up is its review on the cover. "I Love this Movie!" -Ben Stein. That's right . . . On the cover of his own movie, he placed his own review, saying how much he loved it. " He's a comedian, clueless. But please point out any falsehoods you know of in his research or the documentary itself. Or take the easy way out. Watch this: The theory of evolution is tripe. Easy, isn't it? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:42 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:45 AM:
" xdfred & hfrmack - Since neither of you are bright enough to look up what parts of evolution are proven, here is one - natural selection." Sigh. This is like talking to a 5 year old. The biggest flaw in the THEORY of evolution is natural selection. The characteristics have to exist to begin with for the selection to occur. But how did they get there to begin with? And you confuse natural selection with adaptation. Sure, the more resistant germs survive, and the others die off. Yet, fish are still around, even though evolution somehow drove fish out of the water. Oh, only some fish. And why do we have so many differnt species of, say, birds? Wouldn't only the fittest species have survived due to natural selection? And where did the different species come from to begin with?
"How you two can doubt what is happening right before your eyes - evolution, global warming, etc. - yet completely buy into something that has no basis in fact - creationism - is not only illogical, but makes all your arguments questionable."
Global warming? Believing in human caused global warming makes your arguments ludicrous. And why even bring that red herring up? And how is evolution happening before my eyes? Or yours, for that matter?
The THEORY of evolution was created by those who think A) Some people are better than others, and B) There is no power greater than the state.
Racial supremecy is one result of the THEORY of evolution. "
" xdfred & hfrmack - Since neither of you are bright enough to look up what parts of evolution are proven, here is one - natural selection." Sigh. This is like talking to a 5 year old. The biggest flaw in the THEORY of evolution is natural selection. The characteristics have to exist to begin with for the selection to occur. But how did they get there to begin with? And you confuse natural selection with adaptation. Sure, the more resistant germs survive, and the others die off. Yet, fish are still around, even though evolution somehow drove fish out of the water. Oh, only some fish. And why do we have so many differnt species of, say, birds? Wouldn't only the fittest species have survived due to natural selection? And where did the different species come from to begin with?
"How you two can doubt what is happening right before your eyes - evolution, global warming, etc. - yet completely buy into something that has no basis in fact - creationism - is not only illogical, but makes all your arguments questionable."
Global warming? Believing in human caused global warming makes your arguments ludicrous. And why even bring that red herring up? And how is evolution happening before my eyes? Or yours, for that matter?
The THEORY of evolution was created by those who think A) Some people are better than others, and B) There is no power greater than the state.
Racial supremecy is one result of the THEORY of evolution. "
Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:10 AM:
" xdfred - I am afraid you ARE the five year old when you attempt to make your arguments. You say "Sure the most resistant germs survive" - you have just acknowledged natural selection exists. Thank you.
Why do we have different species of animals - good grief, did you even go to school?
You are choosing stupidity over knowledge.
I only hope, if you have children, they don't suffer from your same desire to defy reality.
By the way, I am still waiting for the one proven part of creationism. "
Why do we have different species of animals - good grief, did you even go to school?
You are choosing stupidity over knowledge.
I only hope, if you have children, they don't suffer from your same desire to defy reality.
By the way, I am still waiting for the one proven part of creationism. "
Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:12 AM:
" Xdfred, I'll say once again . . . that is NOT censorship. You teach science in science class. They won't be teaching gym, or music, or art there either.
The most neutral way I can say this is . . . Evolution can change and be either made more credible, or debunked using the scientific method. Scientists admit this (as opposed to your idea that Scientists will fight to the death over this). Creationism can not be tested, measured, or disproven. No matter what evidence comes or goes, Creationism will not alter its conclusion. Therefore it can not be science.
So what's next here, Fred? In Lingusitic Anthropology, the origin and formation of language is studied. We systematically analyze each langauge, and trace its roots, etc. Are you going to assert that Anthropology teach the opposing theology, equally? You know, how apparently we all spoke one uniform language until God got ticked off about the tower of babel . . .
I've only seen small clips of Stein's movie, but have read plenty of Stein's views. I'll bite, though, Fred. If ever it is on cable, I will happily watch it in its entirety. But until then, I am not going to spend 15 bucks on the DVD. And, just so you know, Stein isn't the first to have movies and documantaries on the subject -- others exist, and were quite comical. I recommend one I saw by Kent Hovand (sp?). He's one of the biggest proponants of Intelligent Design out there. However, we won't hear from him again for a while, as he got caught with major cases of fraud and is now in prison.
And before you go accusing people like us of being automatically bias, and blindly ready to accept anything on our side of the argument . . . There is also a documentary (the name escapes me at the moment) that tries to debunk religion with "evidence." This one is also bollocks. Worst piece of trash I had ever seen . . . and it used terribe alegorical evidence and, well, just plain failed. Also, just so you know, not everybody who disagrees with you is an atheist. I'm not an atheist. I just don't want this stuff put in the science room, being taught with public funding. "
The most neutral way I can say this is . . . Evolution can change and be either made more credible, or debunked using the scientific method. Scientists admit this (as opposed to your idea that Scientists will fight to the death over this). Creationism can not be tested, measured, or disproven. No matter what evidence comes or goes, Creationism will not alter its conclusion. Therefore it can not be science.
So what's next here, Fred? In Lingusitic Anthropology, the origin and formation of language is studied. We systematically analyze each langauge, and trace its roots, etc. Are you going to assert that Anthropology teach the opposing theology, equally? You know, how apparently we all spoke one uniform language until God got ticked off about the tower of babel . . .
I've only seen small clips of Stein's movie, but have read plenty of Stein's views. I'll bite, though, Fred. If ever it is on cable, I will happily watch it in its entirety. But until then, I am not going to spend 15 bucks on the DVD. And, just so you know, Stein isn't the first to have movies and documantaries on the subject -- others exist, and were quite comical. I recommend one I saw by Kent Hovand (sp?). He's one of the biggest proponants of Intelligent Design out there. However, we won't hear from him again for a while, as he got caught with major cases of fraud and is now in prison.
And before you go accusing people like us of being automatically bias, and blindly ready to accept anything on our side of the argument . . . There is also a documentary (the name escapes me at the moment) that tries to debunk religion with "evidence." This one is also bollocks. Worst piece of trash I had ever seen . . . and it used terribe alegorical evidence and, well, just plain failed. Also, just so you know, not everybody who disagrees with you is an atheist. I'm not an atheist. I just don't want this stuff put in the science room, being taught with public funding. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:34 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:10 AM:
" xdfred - I am afraid you ARE the five year old when you attempt to make your arguments. You say "Sure the most resistant germs survive" - you have just acknowledged natural selection exists. Thank you." You're welcome. And I'll give your opinion of me all the attention it desreves.....OK. For the second time, natural selection cannot occur without preexisting charactersitics. I notice you didn't address that little issue.
"Why do we have different species of animals - good grief, did you even go to school?" OK, so don't answer the question. Obviously you don't know, do you? Having so many species blows the THEORY of evolution apart, doesn't it? For natural selection to occur, from to or more doesn't the fittest survive? "
" xdfred - I am afraid you ARE the five year old when you attempt to make your arguments. You say "Sure the most resistant germs survive" - you have just acknowledged natural selection exists. Thank you." You're welcome. And I'll give your opinion of me all the attention it desreves.....OK. For the second time, natural selection cannot occur without preexisting charactersitics. I notice you didn't address that little issue.
"Why do we have different species of animals - good grief, did you even go to school?" OK, so don't answer the question. Obviously you don't know, do you? Having so many species blows the THEORY of evolution apart, doesn't it? For natural selection to occur, from to or more doesn't the fittest survive? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:37 AM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:12 AM:
" Xdfred, I'll say once again . . . that is NOT censorship. You teach science in science class. They won't be teaching gym, or music, or art there either." If there is a question, such as how life started, or where did everything come from, shouldn't all answers be discussed. What exactly is you definitaion of censorship? It's OK to say certain things only at certain times or certain places? That all theories to a given problem cannot be discussed due to venue? If that isn't censorship, then what is? "
" Xdfred, I'll say once again . . . that is NOT censorship. You teach science in science class. They won't be teaching gym, or music, or art there either." If there is a question, such as how life started, or where did everything come from, shouldn't all answers be discussed. What exactly is you definitaion of censorship? It's OK to say certain things only at certain times or certain places? That all theories to a given problem cannot be discussed due to venue? If that isn't censorship, then what is? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:39 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:10 AM:
"By the way, I am still waiting for the one proven part of creationism. "
Keep waiting. But look at it this way. Either everything around us is the result of pure random chance, or is driven by a force many of us know as God. Both possibilities merit discussion.
I'm still waiting for the proven part of evolution. "
"By the way, I am still waiting for the one proven part of creationism. "
Keep waiting. But look at it this way. Either everything around us is the result of pure random chance, or is driven by a force many of us know as God. Both possibilities merit discussion.
I'm still waiting for the proven part of evolution. "
Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:47 AM:
" Xdfred, Science class is still not the place to discuss that aspect. Think of it this way . . . WHY would you want it discussed in Science class, anyway? Do you think Science has the capacity (or the responsiblity) of analyzing your God? Fred, in Science class you talk about things that can be measured and analyzed. Your God can not be measured or analyzed.
Censorship does not come into play. In a class where you discuss things that can have the scientific method applied, anything else is just off topic.
Do you feel Churches should give equal time to discussing the possibility of other gods? You said before that Church is different because it is not a captive audience. I beg to differ. We've (most of us) all seen it, or been a part of it -- kids tend not to have a choice about going to Church.
Seriously, though. Christianity is one that values faith, and God is supposed to reward those who are faithful. Analyzing and "putting God to the test" is actually quite blasphemous by Christian standards. One would think God would be ticked at being weighed against evolution in a class of measures and analytical process. When it comes to religion, you either believe it or you don't. Science can't convince you. Just food for thought.
I notice you didn't answer my part about linguistic anthropology. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on that. "
Censorship does not come into play. In a class where you discuss things that can have the scientific method applied, anything else is just off topic.
Do you feel Churches should give equal time to discussing the possibility of other gods? You said before that Church is different because it is not a captive audience. I beg to differ. We've (most of us) all seen it, or been a part of it -- kids tend not to have a choice about going to Church.
Seriously, though. Christianity is one that values faith, and God is supposed to reward those who are faithful. Analyzing and "putting God to the test" is actually quite blasphemous by Christian standards. One would think God would be ticked at being weighed against evolution in a class of measures and analytical process. When it comes to religion, you either believe it or you don't. Science can't convince you. Just food for thought.
I notice you didn't answer my part about linguistic anthropology. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on that. "
Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:56 AM:
" Xdfred, in your reply to Phil you said that both possibilities merit discussion.
Ya know what? I actually agree with you. It's just that there is a time and place for everything. I actually love discussing theology, and debating it. But why would we do it in a science class?
I'm always listening to the way others view the world. I've been to different churches, a synagog, etc. and I love to read about all of it. But ya know, I'm not going to go to a chuch to hear about Evolution. "
Ya know what? I actually agree with you. It's just that there is a time and place for everything. I actually love discussing theology, and debating it. But why would we do it in a science class?
I'm always listening to the way others view the world. I've been to different churches, a synagog, etc. and I love to read about all of it. But ya know, I'm not going to go to a chuch to hear about Evolution. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:35 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:47 AM:
Your God can not be measured or analyzed.
How about by the weight of your own soul, Adversary?
-hfrmack "
Your God can not be measured or analyzed.
How about by the weight of your own soul, Adversary?
-hfrmack "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:02 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:47 AM:
" Xdfred, Science class is still not the place to discuss that aspect. Think of it this way . . . WHY would you want it discussed in Science class, anyway?" Because science cannot answer basic questions like how was the earth formed, how did life begin, why giraffes and zebras exist in the same places, etc. And the concept of intelligent design, a force that drives beings to greater complexity when the laws of physics drive everything else to greater simplicity, cannot be explained except to acknowledge a higher being. A greater entity that many of us know as God.
What should a biology teacher say when asked how life began?
"Censorship does not come into play. In a class where you discuss things that can have the scientific method applied, anything else is just off topic." Which is Prof Clayson's point. It shouldn't be. Discussing the concept of intelligent design and forcing a state religion are worlds apart.
"I notice you didn't answer my part about linguistic anthropology. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on that." I missed the question. I'll reply on it later.
More censorship. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85422
This is actually OK, unless the Obama camp pressured NBC into it.
" "
" Xdfred, Science class is still not the place to discuss that aspect. Think of it this way . . . WHY would you want it discussed in Science class, anyway?" Because science cannot answer basic questions like how was the earth formed, how did life begin, why giraffes and zebras exist in the same places, etc. And the concept of intelligent design, a force that drives beings to greater complexity when the laws of physics drive everything else to greater simplicity, cannot be explained except to acknowledge a higher being. A greater entity that many of us know as God.
What should a biology teacher say when asked how life began?
"Censorship does not come into play. In a class where you discuss things that can have the scientific method applied, anything else is just off topic." Which is Prof Clayson's point. It shouldn't be. Discussing the concept of intelligent design and forcing a state religion are worlds apart.
"I notice you didn't answer my part about linguistic anthropology. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on that." I missed the question. I'll reply on it later.
More censorship. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85422
This is actually OK, unless the Obama camp pressured NBC into it.
" "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:07 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:21 AM:
"...now, i must disagree with your assertion that theology is often more right than wrong (compared to science). theology once declared the world was flat." Yet Christian scientists were allowed to research and publish their results that proved the actual composition and behavior of our solar system.
" theology led to the crusades." No it didn't. Islamic expansion did.
"theology led to the ongoing struggle in ireland." Nope. Pure greed.
"theology led to the burning of witches at the stake." Nope. Pure fear and false accusations.
"theology led to the slaughtering of millions of native americans" Also, pure greed. Also, there really weren't millions of native Americans. They were too good at slaughtering each other.
"theology once stated that slavery was just." Really? Was that before love one another as I have loved you, or after?
"i could go on and on about how "theology" has been wrong more often than right throughout the course of history after Jesus' death and resurrection, but i'll stop for now." It wasn't wrong. It was corrupted by man. Big difference. "
"...now, i must disagree with your assertion that theology is often more right than wrong (compared to science). theology once declared the world was flat." Yet Christian scientists were allowed to research and publish their results that proved the actual composition and behavior of our solar system.
" theology led to the crusades." No it didn't. Islamic expansion did.
"theology led to the ongoing struggle in ireland." Nope. Pure greed.
"theology led to the burning of witches at the stake." Nope. Pure fear and false accusations.
"theology led to the slaughtering of millions of native americans" Also, pure greed. Also, there really weren't millions of native Americans. They were too good at slaughtering each other.
"theology once stated that slavery was just." Really? Was that before love one another as I have loved you, or after?
"i could go on and on about how "theology" has been wrong more often than right throughout the course of history after Jesus' death and resurrection, but i'll stop for now." It wasn't wrong. It was corrupted by man. Big difference. "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:37 PM:
" I have often said on this site that those on the hard right have their own history and that history is shared with no one else.
xdfred's statement of Jan 6, 2009 1:07 PM shows this far better than I've been able to to. Not only does xdfred's list show a difference history but it shows that the difference is chin-droppingly different.
The real downside is that its impossible to compromise with someone with whom there is no shared history. I'm afraid that the only thing that can be done is to make sure that those on the hard right never again assume any political power.
/s/ Steve Cross "
xdfred's statement of Jan 6, 2009 1:07 PM shows this far better than I've been able to to. Not only does xdfred's list show a difference history but it shows that the difference is chin-droppingly different.
The real downside is that its impossible to compromise with someone with whom there is no shared history. I'm afraid that the only thing that can be done is to make sure that those on the hard right never again assume any political power.
/s/ Steve Cross "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:55 PM:
" cross--you are correct. it's too bad, really, that people can be so incredibly naive. "
TommyBoy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:57 PM:
" Cross = owned again...
Clayson is the Globetrotters, and you are the Washington Generals. The score of the series is 745 - 0. I know why the Generals take their beating night in and night out... they get paid to. Since you aren't getting paid, why do you continually play the fool?
It's almost like watching someone kick a puppy. "
Clayson is the Globetrotters, and you are the Washington Generals. The score of the series is 745 - 0. I know why the Generals take their beating night in and night out... they get paid to. Since you aren't getting paid, why do you continually play the fool?
It's almost like watching someone kick a puppy. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:59 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:30 PM:
" xdfred--how naive. "
Who's being naive? Blame everything on theology vs those that use it to acheive their self serving ends. "
" xdfred--how naive. "
Who's being naive? Blame everything on theology vs those that use it to acheive their self serving ends. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:06 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:37 PM:
" I have often said on this site that those on the hard right have their own history and that history is shared with no one else." I feel the same way about those on the left. Stalin was great at re-writing history.
"xdfred's statement of Jan 6, 2009 1:07 PM shows this far better than I've been able to to. Not only does xdfred's list show a difference history but it shows that the difference is chin-droppingly different." Tough being told you're wrong by your betters, isn't it. Suck it up. What difference history do you take issue with? General elitist snob statements don't quite cut it.
"The real downside is that its impossible to compromise with someone with whom there is no shared history." Then quit making your own up.
"I'm afraid that the only thing that can be done is to make sure that those on the hard right never again assume any political power." Does that explain the penchant for stealing or trying to steal elections? Or are you implying something even more sinister, hence the fondness for disarming the law abiding. Tell me counselor, in your little world do I belong in a gulag?
/s/ Steve Cross " "
" I have often said on this site that those on the hard right have their own history and that history is shared with no one else." I feel the same way about those on the left. Stalin was great at re-writing history.
"xdfred's statement of Jan 6, 2009 1:07 PM shows this far better than I've been able to to. Not only does xdfred's list show a difference history but it shows that the difference is chin-droppingly different." Tough being told you're wrong by your betters, isn't it. Suck it up. What difference history do you take issue with? General elitist snob statements don't quite cut it.
"The real downside is that its impossible to compromise with someone with whom there is no shared history." Then quit making your own up.
"I'm afraid that the only thing that can be done is to make sure that those on the hard right never again assume any political power." Does that explain the penchant for stealing or trying to steal elections? Or are you implying something even more sinister, hence the fondness for disarming the law abiding. Tell me counselor, in your little world do I belong in a gulag?
/s/ Steve Cross " "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:42 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:06 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:37 PM:
"..."
/s/ Steve Cross " "
My bad, I copied Cross's goofy signature on my previous post.
"The real downside is that its impossible to compromise with someone ...."
So, counselor, where's your compromise. Compromise to a liberal means you give, he takes. "
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:37 PM:
"..."
/s/ Steve Cross " "
My bad, I copied Cross's goofy signature on my previous post.
"The real downside is that its impossible to compromise with someone ...."
So, counselor, where's your compromise. Compromise to a liberal means you give, he takes. "
Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:43 PM:
" Xdfred, you asked what a biology teacher should say when asked how all of those life forms began.
What's wrong with, "We're not sure."?
Evolution does not claim to know exactly how everything happened.
You, like others, speak generically about a generic higher being. But let's face it . . . you're talking about a single god -- God. Are you willing to bring into the discussion the possible existance of a different god, or gods?
Your history knowledge is baffling, Fred. You clearly know nothing about the crusades, except for Christian propaganda. You speak of this Islamic expansion. Care to elaborate? The Muslims were in their own land, and Christian armies & Knights came from as far away as England to attack. Interestingly, it was Saladin -- a Muslim -- who we got our image of the chivalrous knight from, and not one of "our own."
Where do you think the fear you spoke of in those witch trials came from? It was always fear of the devil that they spoke of, and his consorts. All theology, and of course the bible reference that says you shall not suffer a witch to live. Read your bible, Fred. It's fully of lovely and interesting things, including those justifications for slavery. Many of them. If you want passages and citations, I will be happy to post them here for everybody to see when I get home tonight. Then you, and others can see. Just give the word.
How do you know this theology wasn't wrong before, as you say, it was corrupted by man? "
What's wrong with, "We're not sure."?
Evolution does not claim to know exactly how everything happened.
You, like others, speak generically about a generic higher being. But let's face it . . . you're talking about a single god -- God. Are you willing to bring into the discussion the possible existance of a different god, or gods?
Your history knowledge is baffling, Fred. You clearly know nothing about the crusades, except for Christian propaganda. You speak of this Islamic expansion. Care to elaborate? The Muslims were in their own land, and Christian armies & Knights came from as far away as England to attack. Interestingly, it was Saladin -- a Muslim -- who we got our image of the chivalrous knight from, and not one of "our own."
Where do you think the fear you spoke of in those witch trials came from? It was always fear of the devil that they spoke of, and his consorts. All theology, and of course the bible reference that says you shall not suffer a witch to live. Read your bible, Fred. It's fully of lovely and interesting things, including those justifications for slavery. Many of them. If you want passages and citations, I will be happy to post them here for everybody to see when I get home tonight. Then you, and others can see. Just give the word.
How do you know this theology wasn't wrong before, as you say, it was corrupted by man? "
Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:52 PM:
" xdfred - fine, and the theory of gravity is just that too, a theory with many holes in it. And I expect that very soon we will all be floating around in the air.
Say what you want, you are wrong and have been proven wrong by folks who have the facts and evidence.
Whoever is selling you this garbage is a liar. While your use of the vocabulary indicates you aren't a dolt, your choosing not to believe in scientific facts is simply stupid stubborness.
Believe in supreme beings all you want, but the fact you want to believe in them more than you want to believe scientific facts is actually disrespectful to the supreme being who gave you a mind and the ability to study and learn about the world and how it interacts and changes. I really don't think such a being would want you to disregard the abilities he gave you and to think so is silly.
That I cannot provide all the evidence to your satisfaction in this post to "prove" evolution doesn't mean it hasn't been proven already. It has. You are wrong. This isn't an opinion - and there is no debate.
I honestly believe you and the others like you are afraid of things like evolution. Cause if you believe that, then maybe there is no supreme being. Maybe humans are just like all the other animals on this planet - except for language and the ability to reason - and when we die, that's it. That would be so scary to you. Yet there is no evidence that indicates otherwise other than some writings made by folks hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago that cannot be verified.
If the supreme being "created" all these species, they must have had some reason for them. And if so, then why are they allowing humans to kill off so many of them? So many contradictions. "
Say what you want, you are wrong and have been proven wrong by folks who have the facts and evidence.
Whoever is selling you this garbage is a liar. While your use of the vocabulary indicates you aren't a dolt, your choosing not to believe in scientific facts is simply stupid stubborness.
Believe in supreme beings all you want, but the fact you want to believe in them more than you want to believe scientific facts is actually disrespectful to the supreme being who gave you a mind and the ability to study and learn about the world and how it interacts and changes. I really don't think such a being would want you to disregard the abilities he gave you and to think so is silly.
That I cannot provide all the evidence to your satisfaction in this post to "prove" evolution doesn't mean it hasn't been proven already. It has. You are wrong. This isn't an opinion - and there is no debate.
I honestly believe you and the others like you are afraid of things like evolution. Cause if you believe that, then maybe there is no supreme being. Maybe humans are just like all the other animals on this planet - except for language and the ability to reason - and when we die, that's it. That would be so scary to you. Yet there is no evidence that indicates otherwise other than some writings made by folks hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago that cannot be verified.
If the supreme being "created" all these species, they must have had some reason for them. And if so, then why are they allowing humans to kill off so many of them? So many contradictions. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:59 PM:
" Oh, by the way; evolution is a fact of science not a theory.(and we are not taking about men coming from apes, but animals evolving over time) "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:16 PM:
" xdfread said: "Because science cannot answer basic questions like how was the earth formed, how did life begin, why giraffes and zebras exist in the same places, etc. And the concept of intelligent design, a force that drives beings to greater complexity when the laws of physics drive everything else to greater simplicity, cannot be explained except to acknowledge a higher being. A greater entity that many of us know as God.
What should a biology teacher say when asked how life began?"
Actually we have pretty good theories and data on the formation of our solar system. How life began is it's own field, abiogenesis, which is distinct and separate from both evolution and from cosmology. Cosmology focus's primarily in the realm of physics and math, evolution is in the realm of biology, and abiogenesis is in the realm of chemistry. Very few true experts in all 3 field combined.
Why wouldn't zebras and giraffes coexist? That's like saying you can't have cows and horses coexist. In the wild they both fill different ecological niches.
ID is simply the idiot stepchild of creationism. ID was born by the folks who got slapped by SCOTUS over teaching creationism. Even the fine folks pushing ID had to admit under oath that there was no scientific theory of ID, that ID was not science, and that for ID to be considered science, you would have to change the very definition of science. And that would allow things like astrology, numerology, and magic to be taught as valid science as well. To date, the ID folks have published no peer-reviewed scientific articles on ID. When ID proponents claim ID is science, and not religion, they are being evasive. It's always "an intelligent designer" not god. But then ask them who created the intelligent designer. When they say a previous intelligent designer all you have to do is tell them that at some point far back in the chain, there was either a natural evolution of the initial intelligent designer, or the initial intelligent designer always "was", and that is god.
Sorry, but ID is crappy as science and it's crappy as religion. It's a cop out. "
What should a biology teacher say when asked how life began?"
Actually we have pretty good theories and data on the formation of our solar system. How life began is it's own field, abiogenesis, which is distinct and separate from both evolution and from cosmology. Cosmology focus's primarily in the realm of physics and math, evolution is in the realm of biology, and abiogenesis is in the realm of chemistry. Very few true experts in all 3 field combined.
Why wouldn't zebras and giraffes coexist? That's like saying you can't have cows and horses coexist. In the wild they both fill different ecological niches.
ID is simply the idiot stepchild of creationism. ID was born by the folks who got slapped by SCOTUS over teaching creationism. Even the fine folks pushing ID had to admit under oath that there was no scientific theory of ID, that ID was not science, and that for ID to be considered science, you would have to change the very definition of science. And that would allow things like astrology, numerology, and magic to be taught as valid science as well. To date, the ID folks have published no peer-reviewed scientific articles on ID. When ID proponents claim ID is science, and not religion, they are being evasive. It's always "an intelligent designer" not god. But then ask them who created the intelligent designer. When they say a previous intelligent designer all you have to do is tell them that at some point far back in the chain, there was either a natural evolution of the initial intelligent designer, or the initial intelligent designer always "was", and that is god.
Sorry, but ID is crappy as science and it's crappy as religion. It's a cop out. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:19 PM:
" Adversary wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:43 PM:
" Xdfred, you asked what a biology teacher should say when asked how all of those life forms began.
What's wrong with, "We're not sure."?
Evolution does not claim to know exactly how everything happened.
You, like others, speak generically about a generic higher being. But let's face it . . . you're talking about a single god -- God." Nope. Putting words in my mouth or those of others won't help your cause.
"Are you willing to bring into the discussion the possible existance of a different god, or gods?" Sure.
"Your history knowledge is baffling, Fred. You clearly know nothing about the crusades, except for Christian propaganda. You speak of this Islamic expansion. Care to elaborate? The Muslims were in their own land, and Christian armies & Knights came from as far away as England to attack."
Utter nonsense. The ancient state of Israel existed long before Islam came into existance, which was around 5-600 A.D.. And it originated in the Iraq/Iran area and spread West through the sword. The crusades were in response to Islam invading the ancient state of Israel and surrounding Christian holy lands. How can Jerusalem be called Muslim land by anyone with a serious knowledge of history. Oh, yes, the Koran says that once Muslims swipe a land, it instantly becomes traditional Muslim land.
"Interestingly, it was Saladin -- a Muslim" Really?
"-- who we got our image of the chivalrous knight from, and not one of "our own." Wow. I call that fiction.
"Where do you think the fear you spoke of in those witch trials came from? It was always fear of the devil that they spoke of, and his consorts. All theology, and of course the bible reference that says you shall not suffer a witch to live. Read your bible, Fred. It's fully of lovely and interesting things, including those justifications for slavery. Many of them. If you want passages and citations, I will be happy to post them here for everybody to see when I get home tonight. Then you, and others can see. Just give the word." Jesus Christ came and showed us how to live with each other. No where did he advocate for slavery. Yes, it is in the old testament, but more as a historical record or in specific instance. The only book I know of that advocates slavery of non believers now is the Koran.
"How do you know this theology wasn't wrong before, as you say, it was corrupted by man? " What would the motives have been? "
" Xdfred, you asked what a biology teacher should say when asked how all of those life forms began.
What's wrong with, "We're not sure."?
Evolution does not claim to know exactly how everything happened.
You, like others, speak generically about a generic higher being. But let's face it . . . you're talking about a single god -- God." Nope. Putting words in my mouth or those of others won't help your cause.
"Are you willing to bring into the discussion the possible existance of a different god, or gods?" Sure.
"Your history knowledge is baffling, Fred. You clearly know nothing about the crusades, except for Christian propaganda. You speak of this Islamic expansion. Care to elaborate? The Muslims were in their own land, and Christian armies & Knights came from as far away as England to attack."
Utter nonsense. The ancient state of Israel existed long before Islam came into existance, which was around 5-600 A.D.. And it originated in the Iraq/Iran area and spread West through the sword. The crusades were in response to Islam invading the ancient state of Israel and surrounding Christian holy lands. How can Jerusalem be called Muslim land by anyone with a serious knowledge of history. Oh, yes, the Koran says that once Muslims swipe a land, it instantly becomes traditional Muslim land.
"Interestingly, it was Saladin -- a Muslim" Really?
"-- who we got our image of the chivalrous knight from, and not one of "our own." Wow. I call that fiction.
"Where do you think the fear you spoke of in those witch trials came from? It was always fear of the devil that they spoke of, and his consorts. All theology, and of course the bible reference that says you shall not suffer a witch to live. Read your bible, Fred. It's fully of lovely and interesting things, including those justifications for slavery. Many of them. If you want passages and citations, I will be happy to post them here for everybody to see when I get home tonight. Then you, and others can see. Just give the word." Jesus Christ came and showed us how to live with each other. No where did he advocate for slavery. Yes, it is in the old testament, but more as a historical record or in specific instance. The only book I know of that advocates slavery of non believers now is the Koran.
"How do you know this theology wasn't wrong before, as you say, it was corrupted by man? " What would the motives have been? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:20 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:59 PM:
" Oh, by the way; evolution is a fact of science not a theory.(and we are not taking about men coming from apes, but animals evolving over time) "
That's really really funny. It's not a theory. When did that happen? What a hoot. "
" Oh, by the way; evolution is a fact of science not a theory.(and we are not taking about men coming from apes, but animals evolving over time) "
That's really really funny. It's not a theory. When did that happen? What a hoot. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:27 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:52 PM:
" xdfred - fine, and the theory of gravity is just that too, a theory with many holes in it. And I expect that very soon we will all be floating around in the air." Dumb argument. Really dumb.
"Say what you want, you are wrong and have been proven wrong by folks who have the facts and evidence." So you say.
"Whoever is selling you this garbage is a liar. While your use of the vocabulary indicates you aren't a dolt, your choosing not to believe in scientific facts is simply stupid stubborness." What scientific facts contradict intelligent design?
"Believe in supreme beings all you want,..." Gee, thanks.
"but the fact you want to believe in them more than you want to believe scientific facts is actually disrespectful to the supreme being who gave you a mind and the ability to study and learn about the world and how it interacts and changes. I really don't think such a being would want you to disregard the abilities he gave you and to think so is silly." You just contradicted yourself. Big time.
"That I cannot provide all the evidence to your satisfaction in this post to "prove" evolution doesn't mean it hasn't been proven already. It has. You are wrong. This isn't an opinion - and there is no debate." Censorship.
"I honestly believe you and the others like you are afraid of things like evolution." Yes. It is the basis for racism.
"Cause if you believe that, then maybe there is no supreme being."
???????
"Maybe humans are just like all the other animals on this planet - except for language and the ability to reason - and when we die, that's it." Maybe, but I don't think so.
"That would be so scary to you. Yet there is no evidence that indicates otherwise other than some writings made by folks hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago that cannot be verified." Cannot be verified? The Romans kept excellent records, particularly on crucifixtions.
"If the supreme being "created" all these species, they must have had some reason for them." yes, some to feed others.
"And if so, then why are they allowing humans to kill off so many of them? So many contradictions. " Humans have killed of many species? Which? Now who is listening to liars. And animals kill each other off as well. Is that wrong? I hunt deer for food. So do mountain lions. "
" xdfred - fine, and the theory of gravity is just that too, a theory with many holes in it. And I expect that very soon we will all be floating around in the air." Dumb argument. Really dumb.
"Say what you want, you are wrong and have been proven wrong by folks who have the facts and evidence." So you say.
"Whoever is selling you this garbage is a liar. While your use of the vocabulary indicates you aren't a dolt, your choosing not to believe in scientific facts is simply stupid stubborness." What scientific facts contradict intelligent design?
"Believe in supreme beings all you want,..." Gee, thanks.
"but the fact you want to believe in them more than you want to believe scientific facts is actually disrespectful to the supreme being who gave you a mind and the ability to study and learn about the world and how it interacts and changes. I really don't think such a being would want you to disregard the abilities he gave you and to think so is silly." You just contradicted yourself. Big time.
"That I cannot provide all the evidence to your satisfaction in this post to "prove" evolution doesn't mean it hasn't been proven already. It has. You are wrong. This isn't an opinion - and there is no debate." Censorship.
"I honestly believe you and the others like you are afraid of things like evolution." Yes. It is the basis for racism.
"Cause if you believe that, then maybe there is no supreme being."
???????
"Maybe humans are just like all the other animals on this planet - except for language and the ability to reason - and when we die, that's it." Maybe, but I don't think so.
"That would be so scary to you. Yet there is no evidence that indicates otherwise other than some writings made by folks hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago that cannot be verified." Cannot be verified? The Romans kept excellent records, particularly on crucifixtions.
"If the supreme being "created" all these species, they must have had some reason for them." yes, some to feed others.
"And if so, then why are they allowing humans to kill off so many of them? So many contradictions. " Humans have killed of many species? Which? Now who is listening to liars. And animals kill each other off as well. Is that wrong? I hunt deer for food. So do mountain lions. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:29 PM:
" xdfred said: "I'm still waiting for the proven part of evolution".
Here are a couple points you can investigate - an experimental line of e coli suddenly evolved to metabolize citrate. This was in a long running experiment with several colony lines where every hundredth or so generation of each line had a sample frozen. They found that even though the new metabolism began at say the 50,000th generation, they had to go back about the 20,000th generation to see the initial random mutation.
Another point to consider - ERV's. Endogenous retrovirus's show up in the same spots in DNA of related species. This happens when a retro virus invades the germ line of the initial host organism. You can look at the DNA of humans and other great apes, and by comparing where certain ERV's are located, get an idea of how long ago the different species shared a common ancestor. "
Here are a couple points you can investigate - an experimental line of e coli suddenly evolved to metabolize citrate. This was in a long running experiment with several colony lines where every hundredth or so generation of each line had a sample frozen. They found that even though the new metabolism began at say the 50,000th generation, they had to go back about the 20,000th generation to see the initial random mutation.
Another point to consider - ERV's. Endogenous retrovirus's show up in the same spots in DNA of related species. This happens when a retro virus invades the germ line of the initial host organism. You can look at the DNA of humans and other great apes, and by comparing where certain ERV's are located, get an idea of how long ago the different species shared a common ancestor. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:46 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:52 PM:
" xdfred - fine, and the theory of gravity is just that too, a theory with many holes in it. And I expect that very soon we will all be floating around in the air."
BTW, why is there gravity? Maybe that's why it's considered a theory.
No boys and girls. All reasonable ideas merit discussion in any venue where that idea can help answer the why or how questions. Something blatantly false, like life originated when lightening struck the ocean millions of years ago, and hasn't since, should still be discussed to show the lengths evolutionists will go to prove their THEORY. "
" xdfred - fine, and the theory of gravity is just that too, a theory with many holes in it. And I expect that very soon we will all be floating around in the air."
BTW, why is there gravity? Maybe that's why it's considered a theory.
No boys and girls. All reasonable ideas merit discussion in any venue where that idea can help answer the why or how questions. Something blatantly false, like life originated when lightening struck the ocean millions of years ago, and hasn't since, should still be discussed to show the lengths evolutionists will go to prove their THEORY. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:30 PM:
" "BTW, why is there gravity? Maybe that's why it's considered a theory."
Things like gravity, evolution, etc. are both fact and theory. Evolution - the fact is evolution happens. We see it every day. We make predictions based on it. The theory is in the "why's and the how's". Just like with gravity. The fact is, mass attracts mass. Just as when you hold out the bowling ball and release it, it falls to the earth, in reality, the earth also rises up to meet the ball. The distance each moves is related to the mass of each of them, and the distance between the center of each. Thus the ball moves a great deal, the earth - not so much. Actually, by "dropping the ball" you are altering the center of gravity of the entire universe. The theory is in WHY mass attracts mass. Gravitons? Gravity waves? Strings?
By the way - the folks who study gravity - they wish they had one tenth the evidence for gravity that the folks who study evolution have. "
Things like gravity, evolution, etc. are both fact and theory. Evolution - the fact is evolution happens. We see it every day. We make predictions based on it. The theory is in the "why's and the how's". Just like with gravity. The fact is, mass attracts mass. Just as when you hold out the bowling ball and release it, it falls to the earth, in reality, the earth also rises up to meet the ball. The distance each moves is related to the mass of each of them, and the distance between the center of each. Thus the ball moves a great deal, the earth - not so much. Actually, by "dropping the ball" you are altering the center of gravity of the entire universe. The theory is in WHY mass attracts mass. Gravitons? Gravity waves? Strings?
By the way - the folks who study gravity - they wish they had one tenth the evidence for gravity that the folks who study evolution have. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:17 PM:
" xdfred said: "No boys and girls. All reasonable ideas merit discussion in any venue where that idea can help answer the why or how questions. Something blatantly false, like life originated when lightening struck the ocean millions of years ago, and hasn't since, should still be discussed to show the lengths evolutionists will go to prove their THEORY."
First of all, the use of the word "evolutionists" is really wrong. Do you call folks who study gravity "gravitationalists"?
Second - abiogenesis is not evolution. If you have a problem with first life, you have a problem with abiogenesis, not evolution.
Third - there is no theory of abiogenesis (yet). [You might want to google abiogenesis and Harvard though] There are several really good hypotheses' out there. It looks like the chemistry involved in first life could have occurred in several different methods - everything from hydrothermal vents to wet clay. As to why it doesn't continue to occur - first live, being incredibly simple is at the very bottom of the entire earth's food chain. Any short chain self-replicating molecules would quickly get "eaten" by something in that niche.
Fourth - by capitalizing theory and putting it in quotes you indicate that you don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Also by making the statement "prove their theory". A scientific theory is never proven. It never gets promoted to fact or law. A theory exists to explain a set of facts or laws. A theory can be proposed, confirmed, modified, or falsified. That's it. Regarding evolution, the initial theory was put forth by Darwin and Wallace. It has been modified over and over and over. It has been confirmed over and over and over. But - and this is a huge but - it has never, ever, once in 150+ years, been falsified. Never. Not even close. "
First of all, the use of the word "evolutionists" is really wrong. Do you call folks who study gravity "gravitationalists"?
Second - abiogenesis is not evolution. If you have a problem with first life, you have a problem with abiogenesis, not evolution.
Third - there is no theory of abiogenesis (yet). [You might want to google abiogenesis and Harvard though] There are several really good hypotheses' out there. It looks like the chemistry involved in first life could have occurred in several different methods - everything from hydrothermal vents to wet clay. As to why it doesn't continue to occur - first live, being incredibly simple is at the very bottom of the entire earth's food chain. Any short chain self-replicating molecules would quickly get "eaten" by something in that niche.
Fourth - by capitalizing theory and putting it in quotes you indicate that you don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Also by making the statement "prove their theory". A scientific theory is never proven. It never gets promoted to fact or law. A theory exists to explain a set of facts or laws. A theory can be proposed, confirmed, modified, or falsified. That's it. Regarding evolution, the initial theory was put forth by Darwin and Wallace. It has been modified over and over and over. It has been confirmed over and over and over. But - and this is a huge but - it has never, ever, once in 150+ years, been falsified. Never. Not even close. "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:56 PM:
" Primewonk @ Jan 6, 2009 4:30 PM said, "By the way - the folks who study gravity - they wish they had one tenth the evidence for gravity that the folks who study evolution have."
Could you explain that more? (I don't doubt you. I'm just intrigued on why there isn't huge amounts of evidence for gravity. For example: the movement of the planets, the falling of apples, etc.)
/s/ Steve Cross "
Could you explain that more? (I don't doubt you. I'm just intrigued on why there isn't huge amounts of evidence for gravity. For example: the movement of the planets, the falling of apples, etc.)
/s/ Steve Cross "
jjennings96 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:55 PM:
" Both sides are not in a faith based system. Evolution is based on facts and data while religion is based on wishful thinking. Religion claims to already to know the answer while unreligious people say they do not know but these seems more plausible. If there was a designer it was a very horrible design and it is a small chance that everything has worked out for life on this planet. But if you look at the shear size of the universe its not that unlikely. Religion is for the illogical! Have a happy new year! "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:04 PM:
" Steve Cross said: "Could you explain that more? (I don't doubt you. I'm just intrigued on why there isn't huge amounts of evidence for gravity. For example: the movement of the planets, the falling of apples, etc.)"
Yes we have evidence of gravity - things falling. But the huge questions are "why" and "how"? Why does mass attract mass? How does this happen? What "is" gravity? It looks like gravity has dual properties like light - both wave and particle properties. We know there should be gravity waves. Everything points to them existing. But, overall, gravity is a pretty weak force. How do you see or measure a gravity wave? (Google LIGO - laser interferometry gravitational wave observatory - we have one of the 2 LIGO sites in the US about an hour away from where I live. Every so often they open it up and let us science geeks go in and drool.) How do you see or measure the gravity particle? String theory predicts them, but have we seen them? Maybe if the LHC comes back online in CERN we can find the Higgs Bosun? "
Yes we have evidence of gravity - things falling. But the huge questions are "why" and "how"? Why does mass attract mass? How does this happen? What "is" gravity? It looks like gravity has dual properties like light - both wave and particle properties. We know there should be gravity waves. Everything points to them existing. But, overall, gravity is a pretty weak force. How do you see or measure a gravity wave? (Google LIGO - laser interferometry gravitational wave observatory - we have one of the 2 LIGO sites in the US about an hour away from where I live. Every so often they open it up and let us science geeks go in and drool.) How do you see or measure the gravity particle? String theory predicts them, but have we seen them? Maybe if the LHC comes back online in CERN we can find the Higgs Bosun? "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:39 PM:
" cross--another thing i love about the hard right is that on the issue of creation i agree with xdfred, but since i don't fit into his mold he continues to attack me in this thread. its the whole us v. them, karl rove, wedge politics agenda that the minions on the hard right have bought into. it is also a perfect example of why the youth (especially evangelical youth) are fleeing the republican party in droves and the party dying.
i have made it clear that i am an evangelical christian who believes in creation and i get more respect from the liberal democrats than i get from the conservative (christian?) republicans... "
i have made it clear that i am an evangelical christian who believes in creation and i get more respect from the liberal democrats than i get from the conservative (christian?) republicans... "
Newswatcher wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:49 PM:
" Primework.
You ask 'why is there gravity?'
Why not?
I ask you: Why is there love? "
You ask 'why is there gravity?'
Why not?
I ask you: Why is there love? "
Newswatcher wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:50 PM:
" And what I mean by that question, is how would love become through a 'big bang theory'?
How about hate or envy? "
How about hate or envy? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:00 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:30 PM:
Things like gravity, evolution, etc. are both fact and theory. Evolution - the fact is evolution happens.
So does defecation. Primewonka, you are so full of it, you should probably hurry to a bathroom.
Even I know from Jr. high education, (or it may have been even sooner), that an "educated guess" is a "hypothosis" in science. To be theory, there has to be evidence in plural to possibly draw the idea of a hypothosis into theory, but it is all inconclusive until the evidence is there to prove it into law. In agreement, but there is NO conclusive evidence to prove evolution into law, let alone "theory". Sir Isaac Newton proved gravity into "scientific law". We all know this without debate. But there is NO evidence, despite your diatribe, of any evidence to prove evolution beyond a hypothosis into a theory. All you have stated in previous post are hypothosis', and YOU know it. If you have smoke to blow some where, go blow it some where else. You have no business confusing other readers of this thread with false authority and your self-proclaimed "scientific facts". If anyone here can "google", they'd know the truth of these fraudulent claims of this supposed authoritive figure, Primewonk.
Primewonka, plain and simple, DNA evidence blows all of your false theories, and even hypothosis' away.
-hfrmack "
Things like gravity, evolution, etc. are both fact and theory. Evolution - the fact is evolution happens.
So does defecation. Primewonka, you are so full of it, you should probably hurry to a bathroom.
Even I know from Jr. high education, (or it may have been even sooner), that an "educated guess" is a "hypothosis" in science. To be theory, there has to be evidence in plural to possibly draw the idea of a hypothosis into theory, but it is all inconclusive until the evidence is there to prove it into law. In agreement, but there is NO conclusive evidence to prove evolution into law, let alone "theory". Sir Isaac Newton proved gravity into "scientific law". We all know this without debate. But there is NO evidence, despite your diatribe, of any evidence to prove evolution beyond a hypothosis into a theory. All you have stated in previous post are hypothosis', and YOU know it. If you have smoke to blow some where, go blow it some where else. You have no business confusing other readers of this thread with false authority and your self-proclaimed "scientific facts". If anyone here can "google", they'd know the truth of these fraudulent claims of this supposed authoritive figure, Primewonk.
Primewonka, plain and simple, DNA evidence blows all of your false theories, and even hypothosis' away.
-hfrmack "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:06 AM:
" My apologies to "primework" for having to read ad hominum insults like those just handed out by hfrmack. Primework obviously knows more about science than hfrmack who seems to think that junior high education is where scientific knowledge stops.
/s/ Steve Cross "
/s/ Steve Cross "
Independent wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:01 AM:
" Primewonk, thanks for the deep thoughts this week.
If you just skip over the hfrmack comments, this comment section is much more enjoyable.
String theory turns my brains to mush, but it's a fun ride. "
If you just skip over the hfrmack comments, this comment section is much more enjoyable.
String theory turns my brains to mush, but it's a fun ride. "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:05 AM:
" It is amazing that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of scientific theories yet the only one that the creationists challenge is evolution.
Why? Because it just might shake the very foundation of their beliefs - and of that they can have no doubt.
Yet I am willing to wager that these same folks have spent very little time actually researching the history of their own beliefs. They probably know very little of the history of the Bible itself, where the texts came from, how it was put together, etc., let alone any research into the life of any of the people actually mentioned in it.
They don't want to learn, they are afraid they might find out something that challenges their faith. Fine, that's their right. But to stop those of us who want to learn and understand our world, well that's wrong.
No its the creationists who are in favor of censorship - who are opposed to learning the truth - who are so busy looking backwards they are afraid to walk forward.
Think about how little man would have progressed if the scientists and explorers of the world hadn't ignored people like the creationists and challenged the status quo.
Tell you what creationists, since evolution is so wrong, you, your children, grandchildren, etc. should only take medicines, vaccines and antibiotics in the same form as they were 50 years ago. Leave the new versions for those of us who want to move forward. See how that works for you. "
Why? Because it just might shake the very foundation of their beliefs - and of that they can have no doubt.
Yet I am willing to wager that these same folks have spent very little time actually researching the history of their own beliefs. They probably know very little of the history of the Bible itself, where the texts came from, how it was put together, etc., let alone any research into the life of any of the people actually mentioned in it.
They don't want to learn, they are afraid they might find out something that challenges their faith. Fine, that's their right. But to stop those of us who want to learn and understand our world, well that's wrong.
No its the creationists who are in favor of censorship - who are opposed to learning the truth - who are so busy looking backwards they are afraid to walk forward.
Think about how little man would have progressed if the scientists and explorers of the world hadn't ignored people like the creationists and challenged the status quo.
Tell you what creationists, since evolution is so wrong, you, your children, grandchildren, etc. should only take medicines, vaccines and antibiotics in the same form as they were 50 years ago. Leave the new versions for those of us who want to move forward. See how that works for you. "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:11 AM:
" Just announced today - Mississippi, in the heart of the conservative Bible belt - has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. Meanwhile the New England states, which outside of California, are the heart of godless liberalism, have the lowest.
I guess the "theory" of contraception hasn't been accepted south of the old Mason Dixon line. "
I guess the "theory" of contraception hasn't been accepted south of the old Mason Dixon line. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:47 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:29 PM:
" xdfred said: "I'm still waiting for the proven part of evolution".
Here are a couple points you can investigate - an experimental line of e coli suddenly evolved to metabolize citrate. This was in a long running experiment with several colony lines where every hundredth or so generation of each line had a sample frozen. They found that even though the new metabolism began at say the 50,000th generation, they had to go back about the 20,000th generation to see the initial random mutation." Ok, so when will it become a frog? Or how long would it take for something like that to happen? It's still e coli, isn't it?
"Another point to consider - ERV's. Endogenous retrovirus's show up in the same spots in DNA of related species. This happens when a retro virus invades the germ line of the initial host organism. You can look at the DNA of humans and other great apes, and by comparing where certain ERV's are located, get an idea of how long ago the different species shared a common ancestor. "
I'm not an ape. And if humans evolved from apes, as you claim, then why are there still apes? And the method you describe to compute how long ago we shared a common ancestor involves an obscene amount of mathematical extrapolation.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Please read the theory in crisis part. "
" xdfred said: "I'm still waiting for the proven part of evolution".
Here are a couple points you can investigate - an experimental line of e coli suddenly evolved to metabolize citrate. This was in a long running experiment with several colony lines where every hundredth or so generation of each line had a sample frozen. They found that even though the new metabolism began at say the 50,000th generation, they had to go back about the 20,000th generation to see the initial random mutation." Ok, so when will it become a frog? Or how long would it take for something like that to happen? It's still e coli, isn't it?
"Another point to consider - ERV's. Endogenous retrovirus's show up in the same spots in DNA of related species. This happens when a retro virus invades the germ line of the initial host organism. You can look at the DNA of humans and other great apes, and by comparing where certain ERV's are located, get an idea of how long ago the different species shared a common ancestor. "
I'm not an ape. And if humans evolved from apes, as you claim, then why are there still apes? And the method you describe to compute how long ago we shared a common ancestor involves an obscene amount of mathematical extrapolation.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Please read the theory in crisis part. "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:02 AM:
" phil--there was an excellent article in the newyorker a few months back about teen pregnancy and how the rates are much higher in red states than they are in blue states. (this was right before the election and used the blue state/red state map of the '04 election.) i'll search for the link and post it here if you are interested. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:07 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:17 PM:
"First of all, the use of the word "evolutionists" is really wrong." You're in no position to correct me, since I didn't coin the term
"Do you call folks who study gravity "gravitationalists"?" That has nothing to do with the term evolutionist, strawman.
"Fourth - by capitalizing theory and putting it in quotes you indicate that you don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Also by making the statement "prove their theory". A scientific theory is never proven." This is the only thing you've written that actually makes sense as it pertains to this discussion. The theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution deserve equal consideration. The problem evolutionists have, is they use evolution to replace intelligent design, where as intelligent design seeks to explain the many shortcomings of the the theory of evolution, such as what really drives organisms to greater complexity. the origin of life, etc. "
"First of all, the use of the word "evolutionists" is really wrong." You're in no position to correct me, since I didn't coin the term
"Do you call folks who study gravity "gravitationalists"?" That has nothing to do with the term evolutionist, strawman.
"Fourth - by capitalizing theory and putting it in quotes you indicate that you don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Also by making the statement "prove their theory". A scientific theory is never proven." This is the only thing you've written that actually makes sense as it pertains to this discussion. The theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution deserve equal consideration. The problem evolutionists have, is they use evolution to replace intelligent design, where as intelligent design seeks to explain the many shortcomings of the the theory of evolution, such as what really drives organisms to greater complexity. the origin of life, etc. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:09 AM:
" jjennings96 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:55 PM:
" Both sides are not in a faith based system. Evolution is based on facts and data" Evolution is based on fraud. There have been numerous studies that attempted to prove evolution, like one in England where the "scientist" had to paint the moths to prove his point. Fraud. Lot's of it. "
" Both sides are not in a faith based system. Evolution is based on facts and data" Evolution is based on fraud. There have been numerous studies that attempted to prove evolution, like one in England where the "scientist" had to paint the moths to prove his point. Fraud. Lot's of it. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:12 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:11 AM:
" Just announced today - Mississippi, in the heart of the conservative Bible belt - has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. Meanwhile the New England states, which outside of California, are the heart of godless liberalism, have the lowest.
I guess the "theory" of contraception hasn't been accepted south of the old Mason Dixon line. "
Gee, maybe if seculirists who push evolution and censor intelligent design weren't also censoring abstinence and the true dangers of promiscuity and abortion, things might be a little different. And where are most abortions performed? Large, liberal, cities. But what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Oh, yes, another sideways attack on the terrifying religious right. I get it. "
" Just announced today - Mississippi, in the heart of the conservative Bible belt - has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. Meanwhile the New England states, which outside of California, are the heart of godless liberalism, have the lowest.
I guess the "theory" of contraception hasn't been accepted south of the old Mason Dixon line. "
Gee, maybe if seculirists who push evolution and censor intelligent design weren't also censoring abstinence and the true dangers of promiscuity and abortion, things might be a little different. And where are most abortions performed? Large, liberal, cities. But what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Oh, yes, another sideways attack on the terrifying religious right. I get it. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:17 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:06 AM:
" My apologies to "primework" for having to read ad hominum insults like those just handed out by hfrmack. Primework obviously knows more about science than hfrmack who seems to think that junior high education is where scientific knowledge stops.
/s/ Steve Cross "
And I sincerely apologize for Steve Cross, the bitter lawyer, numerous hatefilled vile posts. "
" My apologies to "primework" for having to read ad hominum insults like those just handed out by hfrmack. Primework obviously knows more about science than hfrmack who seems to think that junior high education is where scientific knowledge stops.
/s/ Steve Cross "
And I sincerely apologize for Steve Cross, the bitter lawyer, numerous hatefilled vile posts. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:24 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:05 AM:
" It is amazing that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of scientific theories yet the only one that the creationists challenge is evolution." Really? Like which?
"Why? Because it just might shake the very foundation of their beliefs - and of that they can have no doubt." Actually, you just mirrored what's really going on. Religion, and intelligent design are ruthlessly attacked, because socialists want everyone they control to believe the state is the supreme being. Hitler used evolution to push racial superiority. Dachau was initially populated with Catholic priests prior to WW2.
"Yet I am willing to wager that these same folks have spent very little time actually researching the history of their own beliefs." What courage.
"They probably know very little of the history of the Bible itself, where the texts came from, how it was put together, etc., let alone any research into the life of any of the people actually mentioned in it." Yes, we just make things up as we go along.
"They don't want to learn, they are afraid they might find out something that challenges their faith. Fine, that's their right. But to stop those of us who want to learn and understand our world, well that's wrong."
"No its the creationists who are in favor of censorship - who are opposed to learning the truth - who are so busy looking backwards they are afraid to walk forward." Really? I'd ask you to try and prove that. How many professors have been fired for teaching evolution as gospel, and not as a theory? Yet Iowa State fired a professor for bringing up the possibility of intelligent design in a paer he wrote on astronomy.
PLEASE quit lying!
Think about how little man would have progressed if the scientists and explorers of the world hadn't ignored people like the creationists and challenged the status quo.
Tell you what creationists, since evolution is so wrong, you, your children, grandchildren, etc. should only take medicines, vaccines and antibiotics in the same form as they were 50 years ago. Leave the new versions for those of us who want to move forward. See how that works for you. " "
" It is amazing that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of scientific theories yet the only one that the creationists challenge is evolution." Really? Like which?
"Why? Because it just might shake the very foundation of their beliefs - and of that they can have no doubt." Actually, you just mirrored what's really going on. Religion, and intelligent design are ruthlessly attacked, because socialists want everyone they control to believe the state is the supreme being. Hitler used evolution to push racial superiority. Dachau was initially populated with Catholic priests prior to WW2.
"Yet I am willing to wager that these same folks have spent very little time actually researching the history of their own beliefs." What courage.
"They probably know very little of the history of the Bible itself, where the texts came from, how it was put together, etc., let alone any research into the life of any of the people actually mentioned in it." Yes, we just make things up as we go along.
"They don't want to learn, they are afraid they might find out something that challenges their faith. Fine, that's their right. But to stop those of us who want to learn and understand our world, well that's wrong."
"No its the creationists who are in favor of censorship - who are opposed to learning the truth - who are so busy looking backwards they are afraid to walk forward." Really? I'd ask you to try and prove that. How many professors have been fired for teaching evolution as gospel, and not as a theory? Yet Iowa State fired a professor for bringing up the possibility of intelligent design in a paer he wrote on astronomy.
PLEASE quit lying!
Think about how little man would have progressed if the scientists and explorers of the world hadn't ignored people like the creationists and challenged the status quo.
Tell you what creationists, since evolution is so wrong, you, your children, grandchildren, etc. should only take medicines, vaccines and antibiotics in the same form as they were 50 years ago. Leave the new versions for those of us who want to move forward. See how that works for you. " "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:31 AM:
" A quote from the above article:
"Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Now, the discussion we have been having here, why can't it be held in an academic environment without fear of retribution? That, kiddies, is Prof Clayson's point. "
"Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Now, the discussion we have been having here, why can't it be held in an academic environment without fear of retribution? That, kiddies, is Prof Clayson's point. "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:00 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:12 AM:
"Gee, maybe if seculirists who push evolution and censor intelligent design weren't also censoring abstinence and the true dangers of promiscuity and abortion, things might be a little different."
Where have you been the past 8 years as Bush has funded the abstinence only programs across the country? Censorship? What a joke - these programs are being dropped like rocks because they don't work.
Christians - always the victim. What a pathetic joke.
By the way, I am still waiting for a single fact to support creationism/intelligent design.
And are you really so uncurious that you don't know about theories such as gravity, atomic theories, theories about matter, and so on?
You must have been "educated" at a Christian school - or in the south. "
"Gee, maybe if seculirists who push evolution and censor intelligent design weren't also censoring abstinence and the true dangers of promiscuity and abortion, things might be a little different."
Where have you been the past 8 years as Bush has funded the abstinence only programs across the country? Censorship? What a joke - these programs are being dropped like rocks because they don't work.
Christians - always the victim. What a pathetic joke.
By the way, I am still waiting for a single fact to support creationism/intelligent design.
And are you really so uncurious that you don't know about theories such as gravity, atomic theories, theories about matter, and so on?
You must have been "educated" at a Christian school - or in the south. "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:01 AM:
" timbrackett - if you have the link and its not too much trouble - great. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 AM:
" Newswatcher wrote: "" Primework.
You ask 'why is there gravity?'
Why not?
I ask you: Why is there love? " and " And what I mean by that question, is how would love become through a 'big bang theory'?
How about hate or envy? "
Love, hate, and other emotions are also evolutionary. They are processed by the amygdala in the brain. You can actually "see" love in brain imaging experiments. [Isn't science cool!] "
You ask 'why is there gravity?'
Why not?
I ask you: Why is there love? " and " And what I mean by that question, is how would love become through a 'big bang theory'?
How about hate or envy? "
Love, hate, and other emotions are also evolutionary. They are processed by the amygdala in the brain. You can actually "see" love in brain imaging experiments. [Isn't science cool!] "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:18 AM:
" hfrmack wrote: "Even I know from Jr. high education, (or it may have been even sooner), that an "educated guess" is a "hypothosis" in science. To be theory, there has to be evidence in plural to possibly draw the idea of a hypothosis into theory, but it is all inconclusive until the evidence is there to prove it into law. In agreement, but there is NO conclusive evidence to prove evolution into law, let alone "theory". Sir Isaac Newton proved gravity into "scientific law". We all know this without debate. But there is NO evidence, despite your diatribe, of any evidence to prove evolution beyond a hypothosis into a theory. All you have stated in previous post are hypothosis', and YOU know it. If you have smoke to blow some where, go blow it some where else. You have no business confusing other readers of this thread with false authority and your self-proclaimed "scientific facts". If anyone here can "google", they'd know the truth of these fraudulent claims of this supposed authoritive figure, Primewonk.
Primewonka, plain and simple, DNA evidence blows all of your false theories, and even hypothosis' away."
====
In a scientific discussion we use the scientific definition of words. In science, at least in the US, it doesn't get much higher than the National Academy of Sciences. Here, courtesy of SCIAM, is their definition of theory, ""a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling." "
Primewonka, plain and simple, DNA evidence blows all of your false theories, and even hypothosis' away."
====
In a scientific discussion we use the scientific definition of words. In science, at least in the US, it doesn't get much higher than the National Academy of Sciences. Here, courtesy of SCIAM, is their definition of theory, ""a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling." "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:24 AM:
" xdfred wrote: "I'm not an ape. And if humans evolved from apes, as you claim, then why are there still apes? And the method you describe to compute how long ago we shared a common ancestor involves an obscene amount of mathematical extrapolation."
I'm constantly amazed at how some folks vilify and denigrate the ToE, and then make statements that show they don't even have a clue about what is going on. First off, we did not evolve from apes. We are a species in the Great Ape line, just like orangs, gorilla's, chimps, etc. Asking if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, is like asking "if I come from a long line of Germans, why are there still Germans?" As to the math statement - no. You can do a simple DNA analysis and plot where the same ERV's show up. Heck, high school kids are doing this kind of stuff these days. "
I'm constantly amazed at how some folks vilify and denigrate the ToE, and then make statements that show they don't even have a clue about what is going on. First off, we did not evolve from apes. We are a species in the Great Ape line, just like orangs, gorilla's, chimps, etc. Asking if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, is like asking "if I come from a long line of Germans, why are there still Germans?" As to the math statement - no. You can do a simple DNA analysis and plot where the same ERV's show up. Heck, high school kids are doing this kind of stuff these days. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:26 AM:
" xdfred wrote: The theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution deserve equal consideration. The problem evolutionists have, is they use evolution to replace intelligent design, where as intelligent design seeks to explain the many shortcomings of the the theory of evolution, such as what really drives organisms to greater complexity. the origin of life, etc. "
Interesting. But wrong. Even the Disco Institute admits there is no scientific theory of ID. If you have it, this would be a great place to post it. See, no one - EVER - has pubished a scientific theory of ID (or any other version of creationism). Heck, you'd probably get a Nobel prize if you did. "
Interesting. But wrong. Even the Disco Institute admits there is no scientific theory of ID. If you have it, this would be a great place to post it. See, no one - EVER - has pubished a scientific theory of ID (or any other version of creationism). Heck, you'd probably get a Nobel prize if you did. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:34 AM:
" xdfred wrote: "Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Now, the discussion we have been having here, why can't it be held in an academic environment without fear of retribution? That, kiddies, is Prof Clayson's point. "
Again, interesting. But wrong. Well, Darwin, did say that. But here's the kicker - for some reason, creationists always choose to omit the REST OF THE QUOTE. In case you missed it, here it is: When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
So, did you omit the rest of the quote on purpose? Or doesn't your "source" have the full quote either?
You know, you really ought to google these things before you quote them. "
Now, the discussion we have been having here, why can't it be held in an academic environment without fear of retribution? That, kiddies, is Prof Clayson's point. "
Again, interesting. But wrong. Well, Darwin, did say that. But here's the kicker - for some reason, creationists always choose to omit the REST OF THE QUOTE. In case you missed it, here it is: When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
So, did you omit the rest of the quote on purpose? Or doesn't your "source" have the full quote either?
You know, you really ought to google these things before you quote them. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:44 AM:
" "kiddies"
That proves xdfred state of mind (or no mind)that he is superior to all the rest of us. We are uncapable of comprehending Clayson's article. Only xdfred is capable of that. xdfred is superior to all of us.(in his mind he is superior) "
That proves xdfred state of mind (or no mind)that he is superior to all the rest of us. We are uncapable of comprehending Clayson's article. Only xdfred is capable of that. xdfred is superior to all of us.(in his mind he is superior) "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:26 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:00 AM:
"You must have been "educated" at a Christian school - or in the south. " Gee, what a world class bigot. And so typical.
"
"You must have been "educated" at a Christian school - or in the south. " Gee, what a world class bigot. And so typical.
"
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:28 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 AM:
"Love, hate, and other emotions are also evolutionary. They are processed by the amygdala in the brain. You can actually "see" love in brain imaging experiments. [Isn't science cool!] " OK, but what Darwinian process drove the evolution of emotion? Natural selection? Not hardly. A force some of us know as God? More likely.
Isn't intelligent design cool? "
"Love, hate, and other emotions are also evolutionary. They are processed by the amygdala in the brain. You can actually "see" love in brain imaging experiments. [Isn't science cool!] " OK, but what Darwinian process drove the evolution of emotion? Natural selection? Not hardly. A force some of us know as God? More likely.
Isn't intelligent design cool? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:37 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:18 AM:
"In a scientific discussion we use the scientific definition of words. In science, at least in the US, it doesn't get much higher than the National Academy of Sciences. Here, courtesy of SCIAM, is their definition of theory, ""a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."
The fossil record shows an abrupt beginning in the fossil time line, but why mention that. And it doesn't show anything evolved. Just when certain animals died. There is no chain of fossils showing man evolving from an ape. The only thing that exists is a painting based on nothing, that is in most textbooks. "
"In a scientific discussion we use the scientific definition of words. In science, at least in the US, it doesn't get much higher than the National Academy of Sciences. Here, courtesy of SCIAM, is their definition of theory, ""a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."
The fossil record shows an abrupt beginning in the fossil time line, but why mention that. And it doesn't show anything evolved. Just when certain animals died. There is no chain of fossils showing man evolving from an ape. The only thing that exists is a painting based on nothing, that is in most textbooks. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:44 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:34 AM:
"Again, interesting. But wrong." Did you beat your mighty chest again when you typed the word wrong.
"Well, Darwin, did say that." So, which is it?
"But here's the kicker - for some reason, creationists always choose to omit the REST OF THE QUOTE. In case you missed it, here it is: When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
That's Darwin's way of putting a lot of sweet smelling mayonaisse on a fecal matter sandwich.
"So, did you omit the rest of the quote on purpose? Or doesn't your "source" have the full quote either?" The source didn't have it, but Darwin brought up a good point, but didn't refute it with any science. Just trust me.
"You know, you really ought to google these things before you quote them. "
Since we're into correcting each other, You're WRONG -ouch, that hurt my chest-. Google isn't a verb. Or is it OK for you to use incorrect lingo, but not others? "
"Again, interesting. But wrong." Did you beat your mighty chest again when you typed the word wrong.
"Well, Darwin, did say that." So, which is it?
"But here's the kicker - for some reason, creationists always choose to omit the REST OF THE QUOTE. In case you missed it, here it is: When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
That's Darwin's way of putting a lot of sweet smelling mayonaisse on a fecal matter sandwich.
"So, did you omit the rest of the quote on purpose? Or doesn't your "source" have the full quote either?" The source didn't have it, but Darwin brought up a good point, but didn't refute it with any science. Just trust me.
"You know, you really ought to google these things before you quote them. "
Since we're into correcting each other, You're WRONG -ouch, that hurt my chest-. Google isn't a verb. Or is it OK for you to use incorrect lingo, but not others? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:49 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:24 AM:
"I'm constantly amazed at how some folks vilify and denigrate the ToE, and then make statements that show they don't even have a clue about what is going on." Wow. Don't I feel humble.
"First off, we did not evolve from apes. We are a species in the Great Ape line, just like orangs, gorilla's, chimps, etc. Asking if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, is like asking "if I come from a long line of Germans, why are there still Germans?" "
No it's not. According to natural selection, only the fittest survive. Why would man evolve from something else, if that something else was good enough to carry on? What force drove the evolution, if you can call it that.
"As to the math statement - no. You can do a simple DNA analysis and plot where the same ERV's show up. Heck, high school kids are doing this kind of stuff these days." So there's no extrapolation involved to determine when we were all single cell organisms? "
"I'm constantly amazed at how some folks vilify and denigrate the ToE, and then make statements that show they don't even have a clue about what is going on." Wow. Don't I feel humble.
"First off, we did not evolve from apes. We are a species in the Great Ape line, just like orangs, gorilla's, chimps, etc. Asking if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, is like asking "if I come from a long line of Germans, why are there still Germans?" "
No it's not. According to natural selection, only the fittest survive. Why would man evolve from something else, if that something else was good enough to carry on? What force drove the evolution, if you can call it that.
"As to the math statement - no. You can do a simple DNA analysis and plot where the same ERV's show up. Heck, high school kids are doing this kind of stuff these days." So there's no extrapolation involved to determine when we were all single cell organisms? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:53 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:26 AM:
"Interesting. But wrong."
Wrong again? It's amazing that I probably earn a lot more money than you do, too.
"Even the Disco Institute admits there is no scientific theory of ID."
What's 80's dancing have to do with this?
"If you have it, this would be a great place to post it. See, no one - EVER - has pubished a scientific theory of ID (or any other version of creationism). Heck, you'd probably get a Nobel prize if you did. " Nope. Don't have it. All I have are huge holes in the THEORY of evolution that point to intelligent design, like what drove the creation of the eye? Why do we have so many different species of birds, etc.
No one on this blog has said anything about the theory of evolution allowing for the concept of racial superiority. Scaredy cats? "
"Interesting. But wrong."
Wrong again? It's amazing that I probably earn a lot more money than you do, too.
"Even the Disco Institute admits there is no scientific theory of ID."
What's 80's dancing have to do with this?
"If you have it, this would be a great place to post it. See, no one - EVER - has pubished a scientific theory of ID (or any other version of creationism). Heck, you'd probably get a Nobel prize if you did. " Nope. Don't have it. All I have are huge holes in the THEORY of evolution that point to intelligent design, like what drove the creation of the eye? Why do we have so many different species of birds, etc.
No one on this blog has said anything about the theory of evolution allowing for the concept of racial superiority. Scaredy cats? "
dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:08 PM:
" Remember, who ever has the most posts wins the argument. (that is what xdfred told me & he makes the rules) "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:14 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:28 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 AM:
"Love, hate, and other emotions are also evolutionary. They are processed by the amygdala in the brain. You can actually "see" love in brain imaging experiments. [Isn't science cool!] " OK, but what Darwinian process drove the evolution of emotion? Natural selection? Not hardly. A force some of us know as God? More likely.
Isn't intelligent design cool? "
Again, the use of "Darwinian" shows that you are ignorant concerning the field of evolutionary biology. Do you call those that understand gravity Newtonians or Einstienians?
Anyway, these spaces are much too small to really get to the evolution of emotions, but if you google emotion and evolution you'll get tons of hits.
It's not a "darwinian" process. There is no such thing. Do you have another question? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 AM:
"Love, hate, and other emotions are also evolutionary. They are processed by the amygdala in the brain. You can actually "see" love in brain imaging experiments. [Isn't science cool!] " OK, but what Darwinian process drove the evolution of emotion? Natural selection? Not hardly. A force some of us know as God? More likely.
Isn't intelligent design cool? "
Again, the use of "Darwinian" shows that you are ignorant concerning the field of evolutionary biology. Do you call those that understand gravity Newtonians or Einstienians?
Anyway, these spaces are much too small to really get to the evolution of emotions, but if you google emotion and evolution you'll get tons of hits.
It's not a "darwinian" process. There is no such thing. Do you have another question? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:17 PM:
" xdfred wrote: The fossil record shows an abrupt beginning in the fossil time line, but why mention that. And it doesn't show anything evolved. Just when certain animals died. There is no chain of fossils showing man evolving from an ape. The only thing that exists is a painting based on nothing, that is in most textbooks. "
===
No it doesn't. Please, for god's sake read a freaking science book instead of a creationist website once in while.
It appears you don't have a clue (again) about fossilization, how and why it happens, etc. Besides, fossils, while very helpful in evolution have taken a back seat to DNA. "
===
No it doesn't. Please, for god's sake read a freaking science book instead of a creationist website once in while.
It appears you don't have a clue (again) about fossilization, how and why it happens, etc. Besides, fossils, while very helpful in evolution have taken a back seat to DNA. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:29 PM:
" xdfred - You posted the BEGINNING of the quote from Darwin on evolution of the eye in which he questions the possibility. He then goes on to finish the statement by stating how the evolution of the eye could have happened. When creationists post just the first part of the quote they are stating that even Darwin doubted evolution was possible. Why do you do this? It's not only wrong, but it's intellectually dishonest. Even fundy websites like AIG now tell it's minions not to use this quote mining. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:34 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:49 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:24 AM:
"I'm constantly amazed at how some folks vilify and denigrate the ToE, and then make statements that show they don't even have a clue about what is going on." Wow. Don't I feel humble.
"First off, we did not evolve from apes. We are a species in the Great Ape line, just like orangs, gorilla's, chimps, etc. Asking if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, is like asking "if I come from a long line of Germans, why are there still Germans?" "
No it's not. According to natural selection, only the fittest survive. Why would man evolve from something else, if that something else was good enough to carry on? What force drove the evolution, if you can call it that.
"As to the math statement - no. You can do a simple DNA analysis and plot where the same ERV's show up. Heck, high school kids are doing this kind of stuff these days." So there's no extrapolation involved to determine when we were all single cell organisms? "
Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer that creationists like to parrot. In reality, evolution is the survival of the just good enough. Survival of the just a little tiny bit better, who survive long enough to pass this trait on to progeny who are fertile. Baby steps dude, baby steps.
Secondly, again you are confounding evolution and abiogenesis. How does scanning DNA for ERV's equate to first life? It doesn't. It's simply another creationist dodge tactic.
High school kids today are doing work with DNA. My oldest son (now a college junior in chem) did it when he was a junior in AP Chem in high school. Why is this a problem for you? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:24 AM:
"I'm constantly amazed at how some folks vilify and denigrate the ToE, and then make statements that show they don't even have a clue about what is going on." Wow. Don't I feel humble.
"First off, we did not evolve from apes. We are a species in the Great Ape line, just like orangs, gorilla's, chimps, etc. Asking if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, is like asking "if I come from a long line of Germans, why are there still Germans?" "
No it's not. According to natural selection, only the fittest survive. Why would man evolve from something else, if that something else was good enough to carry on? What force drove the evolution, if you can call it that.
"As to the math statement - no. You can do a simple DNA analysis and plot where the same ERV's show up. Heck, high school kids are doing this kind of stuff these days." So there's no extrapolation involved to determine when we were all single cell organisms? "
Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer that creationists like to parrot. In reality, evolution is the survival of the just good enough. Survival of the just a little tiny bit better, who survive long enough to pass this trait on to progeny who are fertile. Baby steps dude, baby steps.
Secondly, again you are confounding evolution and abiogenesis. How does scanning DNA for ERV's equate to first life? It doesn't. It's simply another creationist dodge tactic.
High school kids today are doing work with DNA. My oldest son (now a college junior in chem) did it when he was a junior in AP Chem in high school. Why is this a problem for you? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:42 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:53 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:26 AM:
"Interesting. But wrong."
Wrong again? It's amazing that I probably earn a lot more money than you do, too.
"Even the Disco Institute admits there is no scientific theory of ID."
What's 80's dancing have to do with this?
"If you have it, this would be a great place to post it. See, no one - EVER - has pubished a scientific theory of ID (or any other version of creationism). Heck, you'd probably get a Nobel prize if you did. " Nope. Don't have it. All I have are huge holes in the THEORY of evolution that point to intelligent design, like what drove the creation of the eye? Why do we have so many different species of birds, etc.
No one on this blog has said anything about the theory of evolution allowing for the concept of racial superiority. Scaredy cats? "
==================
You earn more money than I do? What is this, the He Man Woman Haters Club?
Disco Institute = Discovery Institute, sorry.
Sorry, but you do not have huge holes in evolutionary theory. You have what you THINK are huge holes, but in reality what you have is stuff you post from fundiot websites. You've shown you don't have a grasp of even basic biology, yet you are compelled to post these "amazing proofs that evolution is wrong". If you are so sure you are right, why don't you post a couple citations from peer-reviewed science journals supporting your contentions?
You really can't figure out why we have so many different species of birds? Dude you're going to be floored when I tell you that we have over 350,000 different species of beetles alone! Species evolve to fill an ecological niche. It's as simple as that. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:26 AM:
"Interesting. But wrong."
Wrong again? It's amazing that I probably earn a lot more money than you do, too.
"Even the Disco Institute admits there is no scientific theory of ID."
What's 80's dancing have to do with this?
"If you have it, this would be a great place to post it. See, no one - EVER - has pubished a scientific theory of ID (or any other version of creationism). Heck, you'd probably get a Nobel prize if you did. " Nope. Don't have it. All I have are huge holes in the THEORY of evolution that point to intelligent design, like what drove the creation of the eye? Why do we have so many different species of birds, etc.
No one on this blog has said anything about the theory of evolution allowing for the concept of racial superiority. Scaredy cats? "
==================
You earn more money than I do? What is this, the He Man Woman Haters Club?
Disco Institute = Discovery Institute, sorry.
Sorry, but you do not have huge holes in evolutionary theory. You have what you THINK are huge holes, but in reality what you have is stuff you post from fundiot websites. You've shown you don't have a grasp of even basic biology, yet you are compelled to post these "amazing proofs that evolution is wrong". If you are so sure you are right, why don't you post a couple citations from peer-reviewed science journals supporting your contentions?
You really can't figure out why we have so many different species of birds? Dude you're going to be floored when I tell you that we have over 350,000 different species of beetles alone! Species evolve to fill an ecological niche. It's as simple as that. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:47 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:08 PM:
" Remember, who ever has the most posts wins the argument. (that is what xdfred told me & he makes the rules) "
Liar liar pants on fire. Any more fiction to post? "
" Remember, who ever has the most posts wins the argument. (that is what xdfred told me & he makes the rules) "
Liar liar pants on fire. Any more fiction to post? "
cubbies08 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:47 PM:
" All of you are arguing about positions that cannot be proven. Does God exist? At this point I don't know because I have not personally met him. The theory of evolution shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today but who started the beginning of the evolution chain? Was it purely chance? We may never know the answers to these questions but based on the crazy world we live in I sure hope God exists. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:49 PM:
" Sorry, forgot your stuff about "racial superiority" There is only the human race, sorry. If you are talking about black folks, and white folks, and asian folks, etc. - there is actual MORE diversity between members of the same "race" than between racial groups. Please don't post the cr@p about Darwin being a racist, that's been debunked a thousand times on the net alone. Please don't post about "social darwinism" either. That's another load of cr@p that only creationists try and raise.
Look, it all boils down to this - because of your religious beliefs you feel compelled to denigrate anything that could disagree with those beliefs. You base these beliefs on what you think your version of god wants you to think. This is based on a literalist interpretation of your bible. That's fine. More power to you. I, for one, will stand and fight for your right to believe in whatever god or gods you want. But - there's always a but - you do not have the right to give your version of a god a free pass regarding secular institutions like schools. Sorry. "
Look, it all boils down to this - because of your religious beliefs you feel compelled to denigrate anything that could disagree with those beliefs. You base these beliefs on what you think your version of god wants you to think. This is based on a literalist interpretation of your bible. That's fine. More power to you. I, for one, will stand and fight for your right to believe in whatever god or gods you want. But - there's always a but - you do not have the right to give your version of a god a free pass regarding secular institutions like schools. Sorry. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:08 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:14 PM:
"Again, the use of "Darwinian" shows that you are ignorant concerning the field of evolutionary biology. Do you call those that understand gravity Newtonians or Einstienians?" Again, I didn't coin the term, and you don't set the rules. Nice way to dodge the issue, too.
"Anyway, these spaces are much too small to really get to the evolution of emotions, but if you google emotion and evolution you'll get tons of hits." Translation: I don't have a clue, so I'm running away from this one.
"It's not a "darwinian" process. There is no such thing. Do you have another question? " Yes, why don't you "google" Darwinian before you state there's no such thing. And, since the root of the word is someone's name, it should be capitilized. "
"Again, the use of "Darwinian" shows that you are ignorant concerning the field of evolutionary biology. Do you call those that understand gravity Newtonians or Einstienians?" Again, I didn't coin the term, and you don't set the rules. Nice way to dodge the issue, too.
"Anyway, these spaces are much too small to really get to the evolution of emotions, but if you google emotion and evolution you'll get tons of hits." Translation: I don't have a clue, so I'm running away from this one.
"It's not a "darwinian" process. There is no such thing. Do you have another question? " Yes, why don't you "google" Darwinian before you state there's no such thing. And, since the root of the word is someone's name, it should be capitilized. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:13 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:34 PM:
"Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer that creationists like to parrot." So now Darwin is wrong.
"In reality, evolution is the survival of the just good enough." But then where do new characetristics come from?
"Survival of the just a little tiny bit better, who survive long enough to pass this trait on to progeny who are fertile. Baby steps dude, baby steps." Wow. Way to add even more ambiguity.
"Secondly, again you are confounding evolution and abiogenesis. How does scanning DNA for ERV's equate to first life? It doesn't. It's simply another creationist dodge tactic." Nope. Evolutionists claim we all evolved from single celled organisms. So, we should all have the same DNA.
"High school kids today are doing work with DNA. My oldest son (now a college junior in chem) did it when he was a junior in AP Chem in high school. Why is this a problem for you? " Nope. Is this a red herring, strawman? If not, then why bring it up? Where did I say DNA was a problem? I just said there is a lot of extrapolation in using it to determine when species evolved. "
"Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer that creationists like to parrot." So now Darwin is wrong.
"In reality, evolution is the survival of the just good enough." But then where do new characetristics come from?
"Survival of the just a little tiny bit better, who survive long enough to pass this trait on to progeny who are fertile. Baby steps dude, baby steps." Wow. Way to add even more ambiguity.
"Secondly, again you are confounding evolution and abiogenesis. How does scanning DNA for ERV's equate to first life? It doesn't. It's simply another creationist dodge tactic." Nope. Evolutionists claim we all evolved from single celled organisms. So, we should all have the same DNA.
"High school kids today are doing work with DNA. My oldest son (now a college junior in chem) did it when he was a junior in AP Chem in high school. Why is this a problem for you? " Nope. Is this a red herring, strawman? If not, then why bring it up? Where did I say DNA was a problem? I just said there is a lot of extrapolation in using it to determine when species evolved. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:18 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:42 PM:
"You earn more money than I do? What is this, the He Man Woman Haters Club?" It's a joke. Intelligent design gave people like me a sense of humor.
"Disco Institute = Discovery Institute, sorry." I'm sorry, too. They should have picked a better name.
"Sorry, but you do not have huge holes in evolutionary theory. You have what you THINK are huge holes, but in reality what you have is stuff you post from fundiot websites. You've shown you don't have a grasp of even basic biology, yet you are compelled to post these "amazing proofs that evolution is wrong". If you are so sure you are right, why don't you post a couple citations from peer-reviewed science journals supporting your contentions?" Lazy. Besides, my purpose is not to create earth shattering revalations proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligent design is the ultimate answer. It's to support prof Clayson's view that neither should be censored from academic discussion.
"You really can't figure out why we have so many different species of birds?" Neither can you.
"Dude you're going to be floored when I tell you that we have over 350,000 different species of beetles alone! Species evolve to fill an ecological niche. It's as simple as that. " But why? What determines those niches need filling? And by so many? In the same areas? Doesn't make sense from a Darwinian evolutionist standpoint. "
"You earn more money than I do? What is this, the He Man Woman Haters Club?" It's a joke. Intelligent design gave people like me a sense of humor.
"Disco Institute = Discovery Institute, sorry." I'm sorry, too. They should have picked a better name.
"Sorry, but you do not have huge holes in evolutionary theory. You have what you THINK are huge holes, but in reality what you have is stuff you post from fundiot websites. You've shown you don't have a grasp of even basic biology, yet you are compelled to post these "amazing proofs that evolution is wrong". If you are so sure you are right, why don't you post a couple citations from peer-reviewed science journals supporting your contentions?" Lazy. Besides, my purpose is not to create earth shattering revalations proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligent design is the ultimate answer. It's to support prof Clayson's view that neither should be censored from academic discussion.
"You really can't figure out why we have so many different species of birds?" Neither can you.
"Dude you're going to be floored when I tell you that we have over 350,000 different species of beetles alone! Species evolve to fill an ecological niche. It's as simple as that. " But why? What determines those niches need filling? And by so many? In the same areas? Doesn't make sense from a Darwinian evolutionist standpoint. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:19 PM:
" cubbies08 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:47 PM:
" All of you are arguing about positions that cannot be proven. Does God exist? At this point I don't know because I have not personally met him. The theory of evolution shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today but who started the beginning of the evolution chain? Was it purely chance? We may never know the answers to these questions but based on the crazy world we live in I sure hope God exists. "
I agree totally. "
" All of you are arguing about positions that cannot be proven. Does God exist? At this point I don't know because I have not personally met him. The theory of evolution shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today but who started the beginning of the evolution chain? Was it purely chance? We may never know the answers to these questions but based on the crazy world we live in I sure hope God exists. "
I agree totally. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:31 PM:
" cubbies08 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:47 PM:
" All of you are arguing about positions that cannot be proven. Does God exist? At this point I don't know because I have not personally met him. The theory of evolution shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today but who started the beginning of the evolution chain? Was it purely chance? We may never know the answers to these questions but based on the crazy world we live in I sure hope God exists. "
==============================
Scince is moot on the philosophical notion of any god. A god, by definition is supernatural. Science deals with the natural, any theory in a any natural domain has to be falsifiable. A god, by virtue of being supernatural and existing outside the natural domain is not falsifiable. Think of it this way - anytime you can claim "goddidit" or "poof, then a miracle occurs" it is not longer natural, thus science stays out of it. (unless of course folks start claiming that things like creationism or a global flood is real - then science replies with objective evidence)
The second part of your statement - evolution only deals with the diversification of life on earth. It doesn't have anything to do with first life. That is a separate field of abiogenesis. Think of it this way - let's say you are interested in the diversification of front wheel drive cars produced by Detroit starting in the late 70's. Your buddy tells you that is ridiculous because you don't know when the first caveman smelted ore. You'd look at your buddy like he was nuts. That is how those of us on the science side of the fence look at creationists when they start with all the first life stuff.
I mean, if they want to discuss first life, fine, we can do that. But it's a different discussion. It goes from being biology driven to being chemistry driven. "
" All of you are arguing about positions that cannot be proven. Does God exist? At this point I don't know because I have not personally met him. The theory of evolution shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today but who started the beginning of the evolution chain? Was it purely chance? We may never know the answers to these questions but based on the crazy world we live in I sure hope God exists. "
==============================
Scince is moot on the philosophical notion of any god. A god, by definition is supernatural. Science deals with the natural, any theory in a any natural domain has to be falsifiable. A god, by virtue of being supernatural and existing outside the natural domain is not falsifiable. Think of it this way - anytime you can claim "goddidit" or "poof, then a miracle occurs" it is not longer natural, thus science stays out of it. (unless of course folks start claiming that things like creationism or a global flood is real - then science replies with objective evidence)
The second part of your statement - evolution only deals with the diversification of life on earth. It doesn't have anything to do with first life. That is a separate field of abiogenesis. Think of it this way - let's say you are interested in the diversification of front wheel drive cars produced by Detroit starting in the late 70's. Your buddy tells you that is ridiculous because you don't know when the first caveman smelted ore. You'd look at your buddy like he was nuts. That is how those of us on the science side of the fence look at creationists when they start with all the first life stuff.
I mean, if they want to discuss first life, fine, we can do that. But it's a different discussion. It goes from being biology driven to being chemistry driven. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:38 PM:
" Remember, xdfred determines what is fiction and what isn't. "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:03 PM:
" Primework is schooling xdfred. ... Primework, I applaud your persistence, but you can't educate someone who has no interest in learning. Knowing would mean he just might be wrong, and we all know for those on the hard right there can be no question, no doubt, no apologies. Just like Bush & Cheney. "
jjennings96 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:08 PM:
" Evolution is a fraud. LOL! The biggest fraud in history is religion! Thats it. End of discussion. The discussion just ended. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Hicks are god! We dont have any answers but I'm not going to start making things up to make myself feel better. Have proof of which you speak or shut up! Or better yet just shut up! Happy New Year! "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:11 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:38 PM:
" Remember, xdfred determines what is fiction and what isn't. "
-Sigh-. No, just your fiction, when you lie about what I say. "
" Remember, xdfred determines what is fiction and what isn't. "
-Sigh-. No, just your fiction, when you lie about what I say. "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:18 PM:
" cubbies08 - while I appreciate your post from your heart, there are things in evolution that have been proven. I don't mean that as a put down, but despite what you hear, that is the case.
xdfred - by agreeing with cubbies08 - who acknowledges that evolution "shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today" - you are admitting that evolution is valid science.
Great - nice to see you owning up to the truth. "
xdfred - by agreeing with cubbies08 - who acknowledges that evolution "shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today" - you are admitting that evolution is valid science.
Great - nice to see you owning up to the truth. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:20 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:31 PM:
"Scince is moot on the philosophical notion of any god. A god, by definition is supernatural. Science deals with the natural, any theory in a any natural domain has to be falsifiable. A god, by virtue of being supernatural and existing outside the natural domain is not falsifiable. Think of it this way - anytime you can claim "goddidit" or "poof, then a miracle occurs" it is not longer natural, thus science stays out of it. (unless of course folks start claiming that things like creationism or a global flood is real - then science replies with objective evidence)" yet I'm the one making up all the rules. If what you say is even remotely true, then why are there so many scientists who believe on God? With a capital G?
"The second part of your statement - evolution only deals with the diversification of life on earth. It doesn't have anything to do with first life. That is a separate field of abiogenesis. Think of it this way - let's say you are interested in the diversification of front wheel drive cars produced by Detroit starting in the late 70's. Your buddy tells you that is ridiculous because you don't know when the first caveman smelted ore. You'd look at your buddy like he was nuts. That is how those of us on the science side of the fence look at creationists when they start with all the first life stuff." Dumbest example I've read about in some time.
"I mean, if they want to discuss first life, fine, we can do that. But it's a different discussion. It goes from being biology driven to being chemistry driven. "
What chemistry are you even talking about? What mixture of chemicals creates life?
Science can also be described as man's way of explaining God's creation. To an open minded person, the two go hand in hand.
Back to your species claptrap, dude. What, or who, determined the need for so many species of the same thing? What niche does a finch fill that a robin cannot? "
"Scince is moot on the philosophical notion of any god. A god, by definition is supernatural. Science deals with the natural, any theory in a any natural domain has to be falsifiable. A god, by virtue of being supernatural and existing outside the natural domain is not falsifiable. Think of it this way - anytime you can claim "goddidit" or "poof, then a miracle occurs" it is not longer natural, thus science stays out of it. (unless of course folks start claiming that things like creationism or a global flood is real - then science replies with objective evidence)" yet I'm the one making up all the rules. If what you say is even remotely true, then why are there so many scientists who believe on God? With a capital G?
"The second part of your statement - evolution only deals with the diversification of life on earth. It doesn't have anything to do with first life. That is a separate field of abiogenesis. Think of it this way - let's say you are interested in the diversification of front wheel drive cars produced by Detroit starting in the late 70's. Your buddy tells you that is ridiculous because you don't know when the first caveman smelted ore. You'd look at your buddy like he was nuts. That is how those of us on the science side of the fence look at creationists when they start with all the first life stuff." Dumbest example I've read about in some time.
"I mean, if they want to discuss first life, fine, we can do that. But it's a different discussion. It goes from being biology driven to being chemistry driven. "
What chemistry are you even talking about? What mixture of chemicals creates life?
Science can also be described as man's way of explaining God's creation. To an open minded person, the two go hand in hand.
Back to your species claptrap, dude. What, or who, determined the need for so many species of the same thing? What niche does a finch fill that a robin cannot? "
Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:25 PM:
" An example of when we allow right wing religious politicians decide what should be taught in our schools:
"According to the newest numbers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, teen births increased by 3 percent nationally in 2006, reversing a 15-year decline of more than a third. And Palin's home state of Alaska -- one of 26 states to see a rise -- led the way, with a 19 percent increase in the teenage birthrate from the previous year." "
"According to the newest numbers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, teen births increased by 3 percent nationally in 2006, reversing a 15-year decline of more than a third. And Palin's home state of Alaska -- one of 26 states to see a rise -- led the way, with a 19 percent increase in the teenage birthrate from the previous year." "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:28 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:08 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:14 PM:
"Again, the use of "Darwinian" shows that you are ignorant concerning the field of evolutionary biology. Do you call those that understand gravity Newtonians or Einstienians?" Again, I didn't coin the term, and you don't set the rules. Nice way to dodge the issue, too.
"Anyway, these spaces are much too small to really get to the evolution of emotions, but if you google emotion and evolution you'll get tons of hits." Translation: I don't have a clue, so I'm running away from this one.
"It's not a "darwinian" process. There is no such thing. Do you have another question? " Yes, why don't you "google" Darwinian before you state there's no such thing. And, since the root of the word is someone's name, it should be capitilized. "
=======================
I'm serious about the size of these spaces. There are huge bodies of work done on the evolution of emotions, not only in humans but in other species. Plus there are large bodies of work on the evolution of morals, consciousness, religion, gods, etc.
Here are cites for 4 recent articles. if you have access to Lonesome Doc or a medical library they can get you the full text.
MacDonald KB. Effortful control, explicit processing, and the regulation of human evolved predispositions. Psychol Rev. 2008 Oct;115(4):1012-31
Izard CE. Emotion theory and research: highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:1-25.
Denton DA, McKinley MJ, Farrell M, Egan GF. The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Conscious Cogn. 2008 Aug 11
Waller BM, Cray JJ, Burrows AM. Selection for universal facial emotion. Emotion. 2008 Jun;8(3):435-9.
==================================
As for the "darwinian cr@p" - you're just exposing your ignorance even further, sorry. Heck Sparky, you can google "creationists are idiots" and you'll get 160,000+ hits - so it must be true???? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:14 PM:
"Again, the use of "Darwinian" shows that you are ignorant concerning the field of evolutionary biology. Do you call those that understand gravity Newtonians or Einstienians?" Again, I didn't coin the term, and you don't set the rules. Nice way to dodge the issue, too.
"Anyway, these spaces are much too small to really get to the evolution of emotions, but if you google emotion and evolution you'll get tons of hits." Translation: I don't have a clue, so I'm running away from this one.
"It's not a "darwinian" process. There is no such thing. Do you have another question? " Yes, why don't you "google" Darwinian before you state there's no such thing. And, since the root of the word is someone's name, it should be capitilized. "
=======================
I'm serious about the size of these spaces. There are huge bodies of work done on the evolution of emotions, not only in humans but in other species. Plus there are large bodies of work on the evolution of morals, consciousness, religion, gods, etc.
Here are cites for 4 recent articles. if you have access to Lonesome Doc or a medical library they can get you the full text.
MacDonald KB. Effortful control, explicit processing, and the regulation of human evolved predispositions. Psychol Rev. 2008 Oct;115(4):1012-31
Izard CE. Emotion theory and research: highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:1-25.
Denton DA, McKinley MJ, Farrell M, Egan GF. The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Conscious Cogn. 2008 Aug 11
Waller BM, Cray JJ, Burrows AM. Selection for universal facial emotion. Emotion. 2008 Jun;8(3):435-9.
==================================
As for the "darwinian cr@p" - you're just exposing your ignorance even further, sorry. Heck Sparky, you can google "creationists are idiots" and you'll get 160,000+ hits - so it must be true???? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:49 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:13 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:34 PM:
"Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer that creationists like to parrot." So now Darwin is wrong.
"In reality, evolution is the survival of the just good enough." But then where do new characetristics come from?
"Survival of the just a little tiny bit better, who survive long enough to pass this trait on to progeny who are fertile. Baby steps dude, baby steps." Wow. Way to add even more ambiguity.
"Secondly, again you are confounding evolution and abiogenesis. How does scanning DNA for ERV's equate to first life? It doesn't. It's simply another creationist dodge tactic." Nope. Evolutionists claim we all evolved from single celled organisms. So, we should all have the same DNA.
"High school kids today are doing work with DNA. My oldest son (now a college junior in chem) did it when he was a junior in AP Chem in high school. Why is this a problem for you? " Nope. Is this a red herring, strawman? If not, then why bring it up? Where did I say DNA was a problem? I just said there is a lot of extrapolation in using it to determine when species evolved. "
==============================
Like I said, the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer. Darwin didn't even coin the phrase. He used it as a metaphor.
I'm curious about the questions you ask, like not knowing how new characteristics evolve. And this goes hand-in-hand with my statements about the size of this space. Is there a specific reason you ask these questions on a message board instead of enrolling in a beginning biology course at your local college or university?
You asked "Evolutionists claim we all evolved from single celled organisms. So, we should all have the same DNA." - Again with the "evolutionists" - so be it. Apparently fundiots (fundamentalist idiots) don't realize that all life does have the same DNA. DNA is simply Adenine bonding with Thymine and Guanine bonding with Cytosine. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. 4 simple units that only bond in specific ways. Plus, early self replicating life would have had very few base pairs and very few codons. Instead of hundreds of thousands of base pares, the early cells would have had 20 or so. Hence my comment about baby steps. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:34 PM:
"Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer that creationists like to parrot." So now Darwin is wrong.
"In reality, evolution is the survival of the just good enough." But then where do new characetristics come from?
"Survival of the just a little tiny bit better, who survive long enough to pass this trait on to progeny who are fertile. Baby steps dude, baby steps." Wow. Way to add even more ambiguity.
"Secondly, again you are confounding evolution and abiogenesis. How does scanning DNA for ERV's equate to first life? It doesn't. It's simply another creationist dodge tactic." Nope. Evolutionists claim we all evolved from single celled organisms. So, we should all have the same DNA.
"High school kids today are doing work with DNA. My oldest son (now a college junior in chem) did it when he was a junior in AP Chem in high school. Why is this a problem for you? " Nope. Is this a red herring, strawman? If not, then why bring it up? Where did I say DNA was a problem? I just said there is a lot of extrapolation in using it to determine when species evolved. "
==============================
Like I said, the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer. Darwin didn't even coin the phrase. He used it as a metaphor.
I'm curious about the questions you ask, like not knowing how new characteristics evolve. And this goes hand-in-hand with my statements about the size of this space. Is there a specific reason you ask these questions on a message board instead of enrolling in a beginning biology course at your local college or university?
You asked "Evolutionists claim we all evolved from single celled organisms. So, we should all have the same DNA." - Again with the "evolutionists" - so be it. Apparently fundiots (fundamentalist idiots) don't realize that all life does have the same DNA. DNA is simply Adenine bonding with Thymine and Guanine bonding with Cytosine. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. 4 simple units that only bond in specific ways. Plus, early self replicating life would have had very few base pairs and very few codons. Instead of hundreds of thousands of base pares, the early cells would have had 20 or so. Hence my comment about baby steps. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:10 PM:
" PW - Sorry, but you do not have huge holes in evolutionary theory. You have what you THINK are huge holes, but in reality what you have is stuff you post from fundiot websites. You've shown you don't have a grasp of even basic biology, yet you are compelled to post these "amazing proofs that evolution is wrong". If you are so sure you are right, why don't you post a couple citations from peer-reviewed science journals supporting your contentions?"
xdfred: Lazy. Besides, my purpose is not to create earth shattering revalations proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligent design is the ultimate answer. It's to support prof Clayson's view that neither should be censored from academic discussion.
PW: Sorry, but it appears your purpose is be yet another fundiot who posts prototypical creationist cr@p. As soon as you and the other creationists get off your collective a$$ and do the work and come up with a scientific theory of ID and a scientific theory of your version of creationism, and do the freaking research, and publish the results in peer-reviewed science journals, then yes, you can teach these as valid theories in science class. But you won't do it. Lazy is right. Look Sparkles, no one on the science side of the fence is going to do your work for you, you folks are simply going to have to man up and do it yourselves.
=============================
PW: You really can't figure out why we have so many different species of birds?"
You: Neither can you.
PW: Dude you're going to be floored when I tell you that we have over 350,000 different species of beetles alone! Species evolve to fill an ecological niche. It's as simple as that. "
You: But why? What determines those niches need filling? And by so many? In the same areas? Doesn't make sense from a Darwinian evolutionist standpoint. "
Me: Of course it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The whole point of continuation of a species is genetic distribution. There are different mechanisms involved in asexual and sexual reproduction, but the goal is the same.
What determines how each ecological niche is filled is some big guided master plan. There is no direction to evolution, no up or down, no forward or backward. If it a mutation makes it easier for an organism to exist and make more fertile organisms, then you get more organisms. If a mutation makes it harder to exist makes fewer fertile organisms, you get less organisms. If a mutation does nothing (for now), it may stick in the DNA or it may not. Sometimes future mutations will have an effect on past mutations that stuck around and they will then start doing stuff. A couple good examples are both happening to humans in Africa. If a child inherits a single copy of the gene mutations for Sickle Cell, they get some minor Sickle Cell traits and some pain - But they get greatly improved resistance to Malaria. If they are unlucky enough to inherit two copies of the mutation, they get full-blown Sickle Cell Disease, but they still get the Malaria resistance. The other change is in lactose tolerance. All humans are born with a gene expression leading to tolerance of lactose - found in milk (mothers, cow, goat, sheep, etc.) It was natural it lose this expression after infancy. In cultures outside Africa long ago, a mutation caused humans to continue to tolerate lactose, hence kids and adults consumed milk, and humans went on to invent thinks like cheese and ice cream. Some tribes in Africa show that they too are now developing this gene mutation. This will allow better management of health by allowing kids and adults to consume milk and milk products easily. "
xdfred: Lazy. Besides, my purpose is not to create earth shattering revalations proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligent design is the ultimate answer. It's to support prof Clayson's view that neither should be censored from academic discussion.
PW: Sorry, but it appears your purpose is be yet another fundiot who posts prototypical creationist cr@p. As soon as you and the other creationists get off your collective a$$ and do the work and come up with a scientific theory of ID and a scientific theory of your version of creationism, and do the freaking research, and publish the results in peer-reviewed science journals, then yes, you can teach these as valid theories in science class. But you won't do it. Lazy is right. Look Sparkles, no one on the science side of the fence is going to do your work for you, you folks are simply going to have to man up and do it yourselves.
=============================
PW: You really can't figure out why we have so many different species of birds?"
You: Neither can you.
PW: Dude you're going to be floored when I tell you that we have over 350,000 different species of beetles alone! Species evolve to fill an ecological niche. It's as simple as that. "
You: But why? What determines those niches need filling? And by so many? In the same areas? Doesn't make sense from a Darwinian evolutionist standpoint. "
Me: Of course it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The whole point of continuation of a species is genetic distribution. There are different mechanisms involved in asexual and sexual reproduction, but the goal is the same.
What determines how each ecological niche is filled is some big guided master plan. There is no direction to evolution, no up or down, no forward or backward. If it a mutation makes it easier for an organism to exist and make more fertile organisms, then you get more organisms. If a mutation makes it harder to exist makes fewer fertile organisms, you get less organisms. If a mutation does nothing (for now), it may stick in the DNA or it may not. Sometimes future mutations will have an effect on past mutations that stuck around and they will then start doing stuff. A couple good examples are both happening to humans in Africa. If a child inherits a single copy of the gene mutations for Sickle Cell, they get some minor Sickle Cell traits and some pain - But they get greatly improved resistance to Malaria. If they are unlucky enough to inherit two copies of the mutation, they get full-blown Sickle Cell Disease, but they still get the Malaria resistance. The other change is in lactose tolerance. All humans are born with a gene expression leading to tolerance of lactose - found in milk (mothers, cow, goat, sheep, etc.) It was natural it lose this expression after infancy. In cultures outside Africa long ago, a mutation caused humans to continue to tolerate lactose, hence kids and adults consumed milk, and humans went on to invent thinks like cheese and ice cream. Some tribes in Africa show that they too are now developing this gene mutation. This will allow better management of health by allowing kids and adults to consume milk and milk products easily. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:22 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:03 PM:
" Primework is schooling xdfred. ... Primework, I applaud your persistence, but you can't educate someone who has no interest in learning. Knowing would mean he just might be wrong, and we all know for those on the hard right there can be no question, no doubt, no apologies. Just like Bush & Cheney. "
====================================
Thanks. I agree that folks like xdfred are pretty much a lost cause - but that isn't why I do this. Years and years ago when the first computerized message boards started, this battle was one of the first. Some of us realized that the folks like fred would not change. But what if a casual reader wandered by? What if they read about some real science instead? What if they said to themselves "Hey that kinda makes sense, but I really don't understand it" - so they go to their local library and start to check out some basic science books and went from there.
The fred's will never change. And guess what? It looks like that too is evolutionary. There are distinct brain differences between those that adhere to rigid dogmatic beliefs and those who are open to accepting new information. "
" Primework is schooling xdfred. ... Primework, I applaud your persistence, but you can't educate someone who has no interest in learning. Knowing would mean he just might be wrong, and we all know for those on the hard right there can be no question, no doubt, no apologies. Just like Bush & Cheney. "
====================================
Thanks. I agree that folks like xdfred are pretty much a lost cause - but that isn't why I do this. Years and years ago when the first computerized message boards started, this battle was one of the first. Some of us realized that the folks like fred would not change. But what if a casual reader wandered by? What if they read about some real science instead? What if they said to themselves "Hey that kinda makes sense, but I really don't understand it" - so they go to their local library and start to check out some basic science books and went from there.
The fred's will never change. And guess what? It looks like that too is evolutionary. There are distinct brain differences between those that adhere to rigid dogmatic beliefs and those who are open to accepting new information. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
" me: "Scince is moot on the philosophical notion of any god. A god, by definition is supernatural. Science deals with the natural, any theory in a any natural domain has to be falsifiable. A god, by virtue of being supernatural and existing outside the natural domain is not falsifiable. Think of it this way - anytime you can claim "goddidit" or "poof, then a miracle occurs" it is not longer natural, thus science stays out of it. (unless of course folks start claiming that things like creationism or a global flood is real - then science replies with objective evidence)"
xdfred: yet I'm the one making up all the rules. If what you say is even remotely true, then why are there so many scientists who believe on God? With a capital G?
me: Good lord, look at the number of religious folks who have no problems with believing in a god or gods, and yet have no problem with evolution or abiogenesis, or cosmology. It is only the fundamentalists - primarily christian and muslim - who have this problem.
Look, we have about 950,000 biological scientists, yet fewer than 0.01% of those have signed the Discovery Institutes petition. Why do you think that is? Secondly the degree of religiousocity decreases with increased education and training. Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%.
You'll also find the belief varies by profession. Engineers in particular have higher belief levels - specualtion is that it's again tied to dogmatic rigid ideation. Social scientists - the so called "soft sciences" have higher beliefs than the "hard sciences", with physics, chemistry, geology, and math having lower levels and biology the lowest.
========================================
me: "The second part of your statement - evolution only deals with the diversification of life on earth. It doesn't have anything to do with first life. That is a separate field of abiogenesis. Think of it this way - let's say you are interested in the diversification of front wheel drive cars produced by Detroit starting in the late 70's. Your buddy tells you that is ridiculous because you don't know when the first caveman smelted ore. You'd look at your buddy like he was nuts. That is how those of us on the science side of the fence look at creationists when they start with all the first life stuff."
you: Dumbest example I've read about in some time.
me: Just trying to make it as simple as I can dude.
=======================================
me: "I mean, if they want to discuss first life, fine, we can do that. But it's a different discussion. It goes from being biology driven to being chemistry driven. "
you: What chemistry are you even talking about? What mixture of chemicals creates life?
Science can also be described as man's way of explaining God's creation. To an open minded person, the two go hand in hand.
Back to your species claptrap, dude. What, or who, determined the need for so many species of the same thing? What niche does a finch fill that a robin cannot? "
me: Again we're back to the space issue. Before you can have first life and evolution you need protocells, lipids, etc. You need organic molecules. The good thing is that the universe is full of organic molecules. Basic chemistry has certain molecules bonding with others and only in specific ways. The 2 main camps to day are the RNA world folks and the metabolism first folks. Both routes are possible. If you want a good primer on it, go here: http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Origin_of_life
(Warning - no goddidits on this site)
If you want to claim that science just explains gods creation, then you initial have to show that there is a god or gods and that your version is "the god". So far the current record holder is a proto-snake type god from what is now Botswana dating back about 75,000 years - so your god is kinda late to the party. However, there is no evidence for any of these gods, nor is their any evidence for any of the 1000 different creation myths we've isolated so far.
Back to your species comment - No one determines how many species can occupy a niche. As to why you would see several different similar species occupy the same area - better distribution of genetic material. A good correlate would be the status of your pension plan the last few months. Who has the better odds of staying around, someone with a diversified portfolio, or someone who had their entire life savings in AIG? "
xdfred: yet I'm the one making up all the rules. If what you say is even remotely true, then why are there so many scientists who believe on God? With a capital G?
me: Good lord, look at the number of religious folks who have no problems with believing in a god or gods, and yet have no problem with evolution or abiogenesis, or cosmology. It is only the fundamentalists - primarily christian and muslim - who have this problem.
Look, we have about 950,000 biological scientists, yet fewer than 0.01% of those have signed the Discovery Institutes petition. Why do you think that is? Secondly the degree of religiousocity decreases with increased education and training. Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%.
You'll also find the belief varies by profession. Engineers in particular have higher belief levels - specualtion is that it's again tied to dogmatic rigid ideation. Social scientists - the so called "soft sciences" have higher beliefs than the "hard sciences", with physics, chemistry, geology, and math having lower levels and biology the lowest.
========================================
me: "The second part of your statement - evolution only deals with the diversification of life on earth. It doesn't have anything to do with first life. That is a separate field of abiogenesis. Think of it this way - let's say you are interested in the diversification of front wheel drive cars produced by Detroit starting in the late 70's. Your buddy tells you that is ridiculous because you don't know when the first caveman smelted ore. You'd look at your buddy like he was nuts. That is how those of us on the science side of the fence look at creationists when they start with all the first life stuff."
you: Dumbest example I've read about in some time.
me: Just trying to make it as simple as I can dude.
=======================================
me: "I mean, if they want to discuss first life, fine, we can do that. But it's a different discussion. It goes from being biology driven to being chemistry driven. "
you: What chemistry are you even talking about? What mixture of chemicals creates life?
Science can also be described as man's way of explaining God's creation. To an open minded person, the two go hand in hand.
Back to your species claptrap, dude. What, or who, determined the need for so many species of the same thing? What niche does a finch fill that a robin cannot? "
me: Again we're back to the space issue. Before you can have first life and evolution you need protocells, lipids, etc. You need organic molecules. The good thing is that the universe is full of organic molecules. Basic chemistry has certain molecules bonding with others and only in specific ways. The 2 main camps to day are the RNA world folks and the metabolism first folks. Both routes are possible. If you want a good primer on it, go here: http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Origin_of_life
(Warning - no goddidits on this site)
If you want to claim that science just explains gods creation, then you initial have to show that there is a god or gods and that your version is "the god". So far the current record holder is a proto-snake type god from what is now Botswana dating back about 75,000 years - so your god is kinda late to the party. However, there is no evidence for any of these gods, nor is their any evidence for any of the 1000 different creation myths we've isolated so far.
Back to your species comment - No one determines how many species can occupy a niche. As to why you would see several different similar species occupy the same area - better distribution of genetic material. A good correlate would be the status of your pension plan the last few months. Who has the better odds of staying around, someone with a diversified portfolio, or someone who had their entire life savings in AIG? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:48 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:03 PM:
" Primework is schooling xdfred. ... Primework, I applaud your persistence, but you can't educate someone who has no interest in learning. Knowing would mean he just might be wrong, and we all know for those on the hard right there can be no question, no doubt, no apologies. Just like Bush & Cheney. "
Hardly.
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:10 PM:
"Sorry, but it appears your purpose is be yet another fundiot who posts prototypical creationist cr@p." Not my fault that you need better comprehension skills.
"As soon as you and the other creationists get off your collective a$$ and do the work and come up with a scientific theory of ID and a scientific theory of your version of creationism, and do the freaking research, and publish the results in peer-reviewed science journals, then yes, you can teach these as valid theories in science class. But you won't do it. Lazy is right. Look Sparkles, no one on the science side of the fence is going to do your work for you, you folks are simply going to have to man up and do it yourselves." Gee, really? The whole point of all this is that anyone that wants to do that is immediately shut down and thrown out by the knowledge gestapo, or at least belittled and disregarded out of hand. Some of these activities were shown by Ben Stein in his documentary. That's the whole point of Professor Clayson's article. And save your trendy sounding names, mein herr.
"What determines how each ecological niche is filled is some big guided master plan." Sounds like intelligent design.
"Thanks. I agree that folks like xdfred are pretty much a lost cause - but that isn't why I do this. Years and years ago when the first computerized message boards started, this battle was one of the first. Some of us realized that the folks like fred would not change. But what if a casual reader wandered by? What if they read about some real science instead? What if they said to themselves "Hey that kinda makes sense, but I really don't understand it" - so they go to their local library and start to check out some basic science books and went from there.
The fred's will never change. And guess what? It looks like that too is evolutionary. There are distinct brain differences between those that adhere to rigid dogmatic beliefs and those who are open to accepting new information. "
How elitist of both of you. For the upmteenth time, the issue at hand here is the censorship of this type of discussion in academic venues. Have I ever said you were wrong about any science you cough up to make yourself sound good? No. That's an open mind. Yet, according to you, I'm wrong left right up and down. Who has an open mind? You and your ilk use your snobbery to push censorship. Just like the whole man made global warming scam artists running around saying the discussion is over. That's censorship, too.
"Again we're back to the space issue. Before you can have first life and evolution you need protocells, lipids, etc. You need organic molecules. The good thing is that the universe is full of organic molecules. Basic chemistry has certain molecules bonding with others and only in specific ways. The 2 main camps to day are the RNA world folks and the metabolism first folks. Both routes are possible. If you want a good primer on it, go here: http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Origin_of_life" OK, so there are organic chemical compounds and your knowledge of the names is astounding. The original question still stands. What mixture of chemicals creates life. You don't know becuase there isn't one. You cannot take chemicals and mix them to create something that is alive. Cannot be done. And sounding cool about species and DNA does not explain why there are so many different species of birds, or horse, or dogs.Wouldn't only the strongest, best, fittest, have survived? Or, wouldn't we be swamped with fossil evidence of all the trial and error experiments that had to have happened to have the 350,000 species of whatever that exist today? Or did we somehow skip the error part in trial and error? "
" Primework is schooling xdfred. ... Primework, I applaud your persistence, but you can't educate someone who has no interest in learning. Knowing would mean he just might be wrong, and we all know for those on the hard right there can be no question, no doubt, no apologies. Just like Bush & Cheney. "
Hardly.
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:10 PM:
"Sorry, but it appears your purpose is be yet another fundiot who posts prototypical creationist cr@p." Not my fault that you need better comprehension skills.
"As soon as you and the other creationists get off your collective a$$ and do the work and come up with a scientific theory of ID and a scientific theory of your version of creationism, and do the freaking research, and publish the results in peer-reviewed science journals, then yes, you can teach these as valid theories in science class. But you won't do it. Lazy is right. Look Sparkles, no one on the science side of the fence is going to do your work for you, you folks are simply going to have to man up and do it yourselves." Gee, really? The whole point of all this is that anyone that wants to do that is immediately shut down and thrown out by the knowledge gestapo, or at least belittled and disregarded out of hand. Some of these activities were shown by Ben Stein in his documentary. That's the whole point of Professor Clayson's article. And save your trendy sounding names, mein herr.
"What determines how each ecological niche is filled is some big guided master plan." Sounds like intelligent design.
"Thanks. I agree that folks like xdfred are pretty much a lost cause - but that isn't why I do this. Years and years ago when the first computerized message boards started, this battle was one of the first. Some of us realized that the folks like fred would not change. But what if a casual reader wandered by? What if they read about some real science instead? What if they said to themselves "Hey that kinda makes sense, but I really don't understand it" - so they go to their local library and start to check out some basic science books and went from there.
The fred's will never change. And guess what? It looks like that too is evolutionary. There are distinct brain differences between those that adhere to rigid dogmatic beliefs and those who are open to accepting new information. "
How elitist of both of you. For the upmteenth time, the issue at hand here is the censorship of this type of discussion in academic venues. Have I ever said you were wrong about any science you cough up to make yourself sound good? No. That's an open mind. Yet, according to you, I'm wrong left right up and down. Who has an open mind? You and your ilk use your snobbery to push censorship. Just like the whole man made global warming scam artists running around saying the discussion is over. That's censorship, too.
"Again we're back to the space issue. Before you can have first life and evolution you need protocells, lipids, etc. You need organic molecules. The good thing is that the universe is full of organic molecules. Basic chemistry has certain molecules bonding with others and only in specific ways. The 2 main camps to day are the RNA world folks and the metabolism first folks. Both routes are possible. If you want a good primer on it, go here: http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Origin_of_life" OK, so there are organic chemical compounds and your knowledge of the names is astounding. The original question still stands. What mixture of chemicals creates life. You don't know becuase there isn't one. You cannot take chemicals and mix them to create something that is alive. Cannot be done. And sounding cool about species and DNA does not explain why there are so many different species of birds, or horse, or dogs.Wouldn't only the strongest, best, fittest, have survived? Or, wouldn't we be swamped with fossil evidence of all the trial and error experiments that had to have happened to have the 350,000 species of whatever that exist today? Or did we somehow skip the error part in trial and error? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:50 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:22 PM:
"The fred's will never change. And guess what? It looks like that too is evolutionary. There are distinct brain differences between those that adhere to rigid dogmatic beliefs and those who are open to accepting new information. "
And yet I probably earn more money using my brain than both of you combined. Life's interesting, isn't it? "
"The fred's will never change. And guess what? It looks like that too is evolutionary. There are distinct brain differences between those that adhere to rigid dogmatic beliefs and those who are open to accepting new information. "
And yet I probably earn more money using my brain than both of you combined. Life's interesting, isn't it? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:51 PM:
" I realized this needed expanding - No one determines how many species can occupy a niche. As to why you would see several different similar species occupy the same area - better distribution of genetic material.
Let's look at an example of why competing species in the same niche may be a good thing. Let's say that in a field there is agroup of plants. In the group, a series of random mutations leads to the plant producing a fragrant smell. This lead to a species of bug rubbing around in this nectar. As the bugs go from plant to plant and roll around, they end up pollinating the plants. This is more efficient than the wind blowing the pollen around so this group really takes off. Then, in a section of these plants a random mutation leads to the flower being bright red instead of drap green. A species of bird that normally didn't eat these flowers now starts to eat them. Then as the birds fly over the area they poop. In their poop are the seeds from this plant now with the bright red flowers. So now you have insects spreading pollen that never happened before and you have birds spreading the seeds and that never happened before.
But in the next valley, you have the same plant growing that you started with. Except in this plant there was no random mutation leading to the fragrance, or to the bright red flowers. This plant survives by having the wind blow it's pollen, hopefully fertilizing other plants and then the wind blowing the seeds, hopefully spreading them around.
Now between the 2 valleys, everything else being equal, which do think will end up with more of these plants?
Now let's expand - let's stick in the valley with the thriving plants. Another bug wanders into the valley. It likes the fragrance as well. It starts rolling in the flowers and transferring pollen too. Is there a problem? Not unless the food supply or some other factor pops up. Now let's say that second bug is a lot more efficient than the first bug. It's eating more, breeding more, etc. Pretty soon the valley is getting overrun with these little buggers. They're eating all the plants. If nothing changes, that's the end for this plant in this valley. But wait! Flying in one day a different species of bird see's these bright red flowers with these bugs all over them. The bird knows these insects are edible because it ate them in the other valley. Soon these other birds are feasting on the excess bugs.
That is what evolution is all about. Survival of the just a little bit better - until something even a little bit better yet comes along. Competition, survival, breeding, gene dispersment. In the big picture of things, pretty simple. It's when you get down in the details of what plants attract what bugs attract what birds etc. that it gets complicated. "
Let's look at an example of why competing species in the same niche may be a good thing. Let's say that in a field there is agroup of plants. In the group, a series of random mutations leads to the plant producing a fragrant smell. This lead to a species of bug rubbing around in this nectar. As the bugs go from plant to plant and roll around, they end up pollinating the plants. This is more efficient than the wind blowing the pollen around so this group really takes off. Then, in a section of these plants a random mutation leads to the flower being bright red instead of drap green. A species of bird that normally didn't eat these flowers now starts to eat them. Then as the birds fly over the area they poop. In their poop are the seeds from this plant now with the bright red flowers. So now you have insects spreading pollen that never happened before and you have birds spreading the seeds and that never happened before.
But in the next valley, you have the same plant growing that you started with. Except in this plant there was no random mutation leading to the fragrance, or to the bright red flowers. This plant survives by having the wind blow it's pollen, hopefully fertilizing other plants and then the wind blowing the seeds, hopefully spreading them around.
Now between the 2 valleys, everything else being equal, which do think will end up with more of these plants?
Now let's expand - let's stick in the valley with the thriving plants. Another bug wanders into the valley. It likes the fragrance as well. It starts rolling in the flowers and transferring pollen too. Is there a problem? Not unless the food supply or some other factor pops up. Now let's say that second bug is a lot more efficient than the first bug. It's eating more, breeding more, etc. Pretty soon the valley is getting overrun with these little buggers. They're eating all the plants. If nothing changes, that's the end for this plant in this valley. But wait! Flying in one day a different species of bird see's these bright red flowers with these bugs all over them. The bird knows these insects are edible because it ate them in the other valley. Soon these other birds are feasting on the excess bugs.
That is what evolution is all about. Survival of the just a little bit better - until something even a little bit better yet comes along. Competition, survival, breeding, gene dispersment. In the big picture of things, pretty simple. It's when you get down in the details of what plants attract what bugs attract what birds etc. that it gets complicated. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:58 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:18 PM:
" cubbies08 - while I appreciate your post from your heart, there are things in evolution that have been proven. I don't mean that as a put down, but despite what you hear, that is the case.
xdfred - by agreeing with cubbies08 - who acknowledges that evolution "shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today" - you are admitting that evolution is valid science.
Great - nice to see you owning up to the truth. "
Again, I have never said evolution wasn't a valid science. What I have said is it does not exclude intelligent design. The two can go hand in hand. But you and your elitist pal seem to think that science and religion are at opposite ends of some spectrum. "
" cubbies08 - while I appreciate your post from your heart, there are things in evolution that have been proven. I don't mean that as a put down, but despite what you hear, that is the case.
xdfred - by agreeing with cubbies08 - who acknowledges that evolution "shows evidence as to how we got to where we are today" - you are admitting that evolution is valid science.
Great - nice to see you owning up to the truth. "
Again, I have never said evolution wasn't a valid science. What I have said is it does not exclude intelligent design. The two can go hand in hand. But you and your elitist pal seem to think that science and religion are at opposite ends of some spectrum. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:38 PM:
" I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
-hfrmack "
-hfrmack "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:59 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
What censorship? I agree. Teach all competing theories to explaining the diversification of life on earth.
If you want to teach a religious mythology class as an elective that would be fine too. But remember this is about teaching religious mythology, and your own personal religion is gets no free pass. Your creation myth gets equal treatment with that of Bumba and Amma.
Or - and here's the kicker - you could teach your religion in your church, and teach science in science class. Cause I'm sorry, but so far, no matter how you pretty-it-up, your creation myths are not science. ID is not science. Hell, even your guys big guru Behe admitted under oath in court that ID was not science. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
What censorship? I agree. Teach all competing theories to explaining the diversification of life on earth.
If you want to teach a religious mythology class as an elective that would be fine too. But remember this is about teaching religious mythology, and your own personal religion is gets no free pass. Your creation myth gets equal treatment with that of Bumba and Amma.
Or - and here's the kicker - you could teach your religion in your church, and teach science in science class. Cause I'm sorry, but so far, no matter how you pretty-it-up, your creation myths are not science. ID is not science. Hell, even your guys big guru Behe admitted under oath in court that ID was not science. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:13 PM:
" xdfred said: The whole point of all this is that anyone that wants to do that is immediately shut down and thrown out by the knowledge gestapo, or at least belittled and disregarded out of hand. Some of these activities were shown by Ben Stein in his documentary. That's the whole point of Professor Clayson's article. And save your trendy sounding names, mein herr.
PW - Um, no. Expelled was a load of cr@p. Sorry. ID is not science. It's simply the idiot stepchild of fundies who got spanked by SCOTUS. Again, the guy at ISU had tenure denied because he was a lousy professor. How much telescope time did he get while at ISU? How many of his grad students actually graduated while he was at ISU? How much research funding did he bring in while he was at ISU? How many peer-reviewed papers in astronomy was he primary on?
That is the point - he was a lousy teacher. Odds are, because he was a closet creationist he was a lousy teacher because he realized that what he believed was not what the data showed as he taught. Why don't you go to expelledexposed.com and see the reality.
And please don't pull the old "they won't play fair" cr@p, claiming that all those mean old scientific journals refuse to publish your guys drivel. That little ditty got busted in court too. See, at one of the trials you guys always loose, the creationists tried that ploy. So, to be fair, the judge said he wanted to see all the rejection letters from the journals. Ya know what happened next Sparkles? It's a hoot - the creationists had to admit, under oath, that there were NO rejection letters because they hadn't even bothered to submit any articles for peer-review. "
PW - Um, no. Expelled was a load of cr@p. Sorry. ID is not science. It's simply the idiot stepchild of fundies who got spanked by SCOTUS. Again, the guy at ISU had tenure denied because he was a lousy professor. How much telescope time did he get while at ISU? How many of his grad students actually graduated while he was at ISU? How much research funding did he bring in while he was at ISU? How many peer-reviewed papers in astronomy was he primary on?
That is the point - he was a lousy teacher. Odds are, because he was a closet creationist he was a lousy teacher because he realized that what he believed was not what the data showed as he taught. Why don't you go to expelledexposed.com and see the reality.
And please don't pull the old "they won't play fair" cr@p, claiming that all those mean old scientific journals refuse to publish your guys drivel. That little ditty got busted in court too. See, at one of the trials you guys always loose, the creationists tried that ploy. So, to be fair, the judge said he wanted to see all the rejection letters from the journals. Ya know what happened next Sparkles? It's a hoot - the creationists had to admit, under oath, that there were NO rejection letters because they hadn't even bothered to submit any articles for peer-review. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:19 PM:
" me: "What determines how each ecological niche is filled is some big guided master plan."
xdfred: Sounds like intelligent design.
me: WHOOPS. Forgot the NOT before some. See what happens when you don't proof your material. Thanks for catching it.
7 or 8 years ago I had written an Informed Consent for a big research study we were doing funded by the NIH. The Informed Consent made it through NIH review, NHLBI review, our internal ethics board, and 5 Institutional Review Boards. And it had to be reviewed by all these groups on a yearly basis. It wan't until year 3 of the grant that a little old retired English teacher pointed out that on like page 14 of the consent, where I meant to say "Public", it said "Pubic".
So thanks for catching that one for me. "
xdfred: Sounds like intelligent design.
me: WHOOPS. Forgot the NOT before some. See what happens when you don't proof your material. Thanks for catching it.
7 or 8 years ago I had written an Informed Consent for a big research study we were doing funded by the NIH. The Informed Consent made it through NIH review, NHLBI review, our internal ethics board, and 5 Institutional Review Boards. And it had to be reviewed by all these groups on a yearly basis. It wan't until year 3 of the grant that a little old retired English teacher pointed out that on like page 14 of the consent, where I meant to say "Public", it said "Pubic".
So thanks for catching that one for me. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:22 PM:
" xdfred said: For the upmteenth time, the issue at hand here is the censorship of this type of discussion in academic venues. Have I ever said you were wrong about any science you cough up to make yourself sound good? No. That's an open mind. Yet, according to you, I'm wrong left right up and down. Who has an open mind? You and your ilk use your snobbery to push censorship. Just like the whole man made global warming scam artists running around saying the discussion is over. That's censorship, too.
Me: NO! It is not censorship. We teach science in science class. Would you call it censorship if someone demanded that they start teaching Auto Mechanics during English Lit class? "
Me: NO! It is not censorship. We teach science in science class. Would you call it censorship if someone demanded that they start teaching Auto Mechanics during English Lit class? "
Oboy wrote on Jan 7, 2009 7:44 PM:
" I'm curious also hfmack, when and where, are you going to personaly present Steve with the $20.00 wager? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:09 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:51 PM:
Wrote of a two valley story. It was a nice story of how plants breed with pollination using bugs, wind and birds.
I don't see what that have to do with evolution vs. ID vs. creationism. If it was intended to be an example of evolution, which Primewonk has been argueing, I don't see it.
What if a wild fire ran through one of your valleys? What if it had the last of the species of red flowers in it?
Extinction...
Weird Science.
Everybody Wang Chung tonight!
-hfrmack "
Wrote of a two valley story. It was a nice story of how plants breed with pollination using bugs, wind and birds.
I don't see what that have to do with evolution vs. ID vs. creationism. If it was intended to be an example of evolution, which Primewonk has been argueing, I don't see it.
What if a wild fire ran through one of your valleys? What if it had the last of the species of red flowers in it?
Extinction...
Weird Science.
Everybody Wang Chung tonight!
-hfrmack "
Kramerica wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:22 PM:
" Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science
at Oxford and arguably the best-known Darwinist on the planet,
claims those who do not believe in evolution are “ignorant, stupid
or insane.” But in place of rhetoric and emotional stereotypes,
intelligent design (ID) proponents actually propose reason and
empirical science.
First, ID proponents are willing to follow scientifi c evidence
wherever it leads. ID theorists neither presuppose nor preclude
supernatural explanations for the phenomena they encounter in
an information–rich universe. As such, the ID movement rightly
practices open–minded science.
Furthermore, ID begins with the common scientific principle that
intelligent design is detectable wherever there is specified, organized
complexity (i.e. “information”). This design principle is central to
many scientific fields, including archaeology, forensic pathology,
crime scene investigation, cryptology, and the search for extra–
terrestrial intelligence (SETI). When applied to information–rich
DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the Cambrian
Explosion in the fossil record, as well as the fact that earth is
perfectly situated in the Milky Way for both life and scientific
discovery, the existence of an intelligent designer is the most
plausible scientific explanation.
Finally, although its conclusions are not worldview-neutral, ID lends
no more support to Christian theism than Darwinian evolution
lends to atheism. Thus, the appropriateness of ID for public
education ought to be judged on the basis of the theory’s explanatory
power, not on its metaphysical implications. "
at Oxford and arguably the best-known Darwinist on the planet,
claims those who do not believe in evolution are “ignorant, stupid
or insane.” But in place of rhetoric and emotional stereotypes,
intelligent design (ID) proponents actually propose reason and
empirical science.
First, ID proponents are willing to follow scientifi c evidence
wherever it leads. ID theorists neither presuppose nor preclude
supernatural explanations for the phenomena they encounter in
an information–rich universe. As such, the ID movement rightly
practices open–minded science.
Furthermore, ID begins with the common scientific principle that
intelligent design is detectable wherever there is specified, organized
complexity (i.e. “information”). This design principle is central to
many scientific fields, including archaeology, forensic pathology,
crime scene investigation, cryptology, and the search for extra–
terrestrial intelligence (SETI). When applied to information–rich
DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the Cambrian
Explosion in the fossil record, as well as the fact that earth is
perfectly situated in the Milky Way for both life and scientific
discovery, the existence of an intelligent designer is the most
plausible scientific explanation.
Finally, although its conclusions are not worldview-neutral, ID lends
no more support to Christian theism than Darwinian evolution
lends to atheism. Thus, the appropriateness of ID for public
education ought to be judged on the basis of the theory’s explanatory
power, not on its metaphysical implications. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:09 PM:
" Primewonk,
I thought I'd ask b4 I offend you. Would you mind if I called you "Mr. Wizard" as a nick-name? Primewonk just doesn't seem to fit you with the opinions that you share.
-hfrmack "
I thought I'd ask b4 I offend you. Would you mind if I called you "Mr. Wizard" as a nick-name? Primewonk just doesn't seem to fit you with the opinions that you share.
-hfrmack "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
Actually the universities and colleges are loaded folks tending to be liberal. It's a sign of being able experience new ideas, etc.
By the way, plenty of "conservatives" have no problem with evolution either.
As to the continuing lie about censorship - If there were several competing scientific theories for the diversification of life on earth, and the schools refused to teach all but one, then yes, it would be censorship. But as I told you several times before, as of now, there is only one valid scientific theory for the diversification of life on earth. You continuing to insist that creationism is valid science is a lie. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods. But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
Actually the universities and colleges are loaded folks tending to be liberal. It's a sign of being able experience new ideas, etc.
By the way, plenty of "conservatives" have no problem with evolution either.
As to the continuing lie about censorship - If there were several competing scientific theories for the diversification of life on earth, and the schools refused to teach all but one, then yes, it would be censorship. But as I told you several times before, as of now, there is only one valid scientific theory for the diversification of life on earth. You continuing to insist that creationism is valid science is a lie. "
Subl1m1nal wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:35 PM:
" Reading this article makes me question just how crazy prof is. I wouldn't take his class if I were paid to. He, like many UNI professors, are too out there, which is why Hawkeye is plenty fine for me.
He is right that it takes faith. In Genesis, it says God created the earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. To me, a book that has lasted for 2000+ years and has many stories of miracles and fulfilled prophecies is something credible.
Thinking that humans came from monkeys takes some faith too. However, I can see the resemblance in professor clayson... "
He is right that it takes faith. In Genesis, it says God created the earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. To me, a book that has lasted for 2000+ years and has many stories of miracles and fulfilled prophecies is something credible.
Thinking that humans came from monkeys takes some faith too. However, I can see the resemblance in professor clayson... "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:44 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 7:26 PM:
" hfrmack: those are the ONLY alternatives?
/s/ Steve Cross "
I stand corrected "Mr. Wizard"....
" I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
(Or any OTHER theory you may have?)
-hfrmack "
" hfrmack: those are the ONLY alternatives?
/s/ Steve Cross "
I stand corrected "Mr. Wizard"....
" I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
(Or any OTHER theory you may have?)
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:14 PM:
" Oboy wrote on Jan 7, 2009 7:44 PM:
" I'm curious also hfmack, when and where, are you going to personaly present Steve with the $20.00 wager? "
Um, when he wins?
-hfrmack "
" I'm curious also hfmack, when and where, are you going to personaly present Steve with the $20.00 wager? "
Um, when he wins?
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:52 AM:
" xdfred - you say this argument is about censorship, that creationism should be taught. OK - which version? Or all versions? How does an educational body decide which version(s)? And if some versions are excluded isn't that a form of censorship as well?
And why, if our schools are supported by taxpayers, of which some are atheist, some Christian, some non-Christian, should some of those taxpayers have their version excluded?
Perhaps all versions could be satisfied with a simple statement that is read in the appropriate science class:
"There are people who do not believe evolution was how humankind, as well as the various species of animals, were created. They believe that a supreme being or God played an integral part in the creation of living creatures. They offer no scientific evidence to support these claims and none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate."
That pretty much sums up your argument. "
And why, if our schools are supported by taxpayers, of which some are atheist, some Christian, some non-Christian, should some of those taxpayers have their version excluded?
Perhaps all versions could be satisfied with a simple statement that is read in the appropriate science class:
"There are people who do not believe evolution was how humankind, as well as the various species of animals, were created. They believe that a supreme being or God played an integral part in the creation of living creatures. They offer no scientific evidence to support these claims and none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate."
That pretty much sums up your argument. "
Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:01 AM:
" hfrmack - chirp, chirp.
So tell us, oh wise one, when does life begin? Are all those frozen embryos at the fertility clinics living beings? Is something alive when it cannot sustain itself outside the womb of a living being? And what do we call those fertilized eggs that never end up attaching themselves to the wall of the female's uterus and are ultimately expelled from her body?
And why did the people of Colorado vote down a ballot initiative that defined a fertilized egg as a person?
So many questions, but I sure you have all the definitive answers. "
So tell us, oh wise one, when does life begin? Are all those frozen embryos at the fertility clinics living beings? Is something alive when it cannot sustain itself outside the womb of a living being? And what do we call those fertilized eggs that never end up attaching themselves to the wall of the female's uterus and are ultimately expelled from her body?
And why did the people of Colorado vote down a ballot initiative that defined a fertilized egg as a person?
So many questions, but I sure you have all the definitive answers. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:34 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods." You make it sound like that's a bad thing.
"But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
"Actually the universities and colleges are loaded folks tending to be liberal. It's a sign of being able experience new ideas, etc." It's also a sign of left wing ideology not being able to make it the private sector, but that's a different topic.
"By the way, plenty of "conservatives" have no problem with evolution either." I don't have a problem with it as you keep saying over and over and over.
"As to the continuing lie about censorship - If there were several competing scientific theories for the diversification of life on earth," So, this is the censorship. Who says they have to be scientific theories? The theory you seem to worship is so gray and ambiguous, it can't be considered one theory, can it. Since your only expertise appears to be googling, cutting, and pasting scientific text, how about going to the web site Ben Stein set up and checking out the censorship I'm talking about. Never mind. Google quarks and neutrinos instead.
"and the schools refused to teach all but one, then yes, it would be censorship. But as I told you several times before, as of now, there is only one valid scientific theory for the diversification of life on earth." You can tell me all you want. You are not the lord and master.
"You continuing to insist that creationism is valid science is a lie. " I admire your anonymous courage in calling me a liar, but the lie is you saying that I said creationism is a valid science. I have never said that. It is a valid answer to the questions secularist science cannot answer. And by secularist science, I mean the science that exists soley to discredit religion. "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
"Yes, many folks with a BS or MS in biology still profess a belief in a god or gods." You make it sound like that's a bad thing.
"But by the time you get to Biologists with the NAS, you drop below 1%." Sure, just like most university poli sci programs are infested with liberals. It's the censorship that you purposely avoid addressing. "
"Actually the universities and colleges are loaded folks tending to be liberal. It's a sign of being able experience new ideas, etc." It's also a sign of left wing ideology not being able to make it the private sector, but that's a different topic.
"By the way, plenty of "conservatives" have no problem with evolution either." I don't have a problem with it as you keep saying over and over and over.
"As to the continuing lie about censorship - If there were several competing scientific theories for the diversification of life on earth," So, this is the censorship. Who says they have to be scientific theories? The theory you seem to worship is so gray and ambiguous, it can't be considered one theory, can it. Since your only expertise appears to be googling, cutting, and pasting scientific text, how about going to the web site Ben Stein set up and checking out the censorship I'm talking about. Never mind. Google quarks and neutrinos instead.
"and the schools refused to teach all but one, then yes, it would be censorship. But as I told you several times before, as of now, there is only one valid scientific theory for the diversification of life on earth." You can tell me all you want. You are not the lord and master.
"You continuing to insist that creationism is valid science is a lie. " I admire your anonymous courage in calling me a liar, but the lie is you saying that I said creationism is a valid science. I have never said that. It is a valid answer to the questions secularist science cannot answer. And by secularist science, I mean the science that exists soley to discredit religion. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:36 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:34 AM:
" Do I hear crickets??? "
No, it's a new species of turkey that hasn't finished evolving yet. "
" Do I hear crickets??? "
No, it's a new species of turkey that hasn't finished evolving yet. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:41 AM:
" Now xdfred is superior becuase he makes more money that the two of them together.(total speculation) "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:55 AM:
" " I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:04 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:34 AM:
" Do I hear crickets??? "
PW - I'm always amazed that some folks state over and over how we need to teach both evolution and creationism in science class. Even though one is science and one is religious mythology. I'm even further amazed that these folks assume that it is ToE vs creationism. The fact is, so far we have come up with well over 1000 different creation myths. All are mutually exclusive, yet these folks state that their myth is real and all others are false. When asked for some empirical scientific evidence to support this contention, we get "the bible says so". That's it.
These folks plagiarize other websites - posting long text strings cut and pasted, with attribution. Not only is this illegal, it's immoral (it's a lie). They post partial quotes taken out of context, and claim it "proves" their point. They patently refuse to even look at any evidence that disagrees with their biblical literalist mindset. They demand special rights and privileges for their version of a god they refuse to all other gods.
All this in 21st century America.
It's just sad. "
" Do I hear crickets??? "
PW - I'm always amazed that some folks state over and over how we need to teach both evolution and creationism in science class. Even though one is science and one is religious mythology. I'm even further amazed that these folks assume that it is ToE vs creationism. The fact is, so far we have come up with well over 1000 different creation myths. All are mutually exclusive, yet these folks state that their myth is real and all others are false. When asked for some empirical scientific evidence to support this contention, we get "the bible says so". That's it.
These folks plagiarize other websites - posting long text strings cut and pasted, with attribution. Not only is this illegal, it's immoral (it's a lie). They post partial quotes taken out of context, and claim it "proves" their point. They patently refuse to even look at any evidence that disagrees with their biblical literalist mindset. They demand special rights and privileges for their version of a god they refuse to all other gods.
All this in 21st century America.
It's just sad. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:44 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:52 AM:
" xdfred - you say this argument is about censorship, that creationism should be taught. OK - which version? Or all versions? How does an educational body decide which version(s)? And if some versions are excluded isn't that a form of censorship as well?" You and Willy Wonka need to get better glasses or grow some honesty. Lot's of it. I didn't say that. I said that the concept of intelligent design should be presented as a viable answer to the origins of life.
"And why, if our schools are supported by taxpayers, of which some are atheist, some Christian, some non-Christian, should some of those taxpayers have their version excluded?" Irrelevant and insignificant, see above.
"Perhaps all versions could be satisfied with a simple statement that is read in the appropriate science class:
"There are people who do not believe evolution was how humankind, as well as the various species of animals, were created. They believe that a supreme being or God played an integral part in the creation of living creatures. They offer no scientific evidence to support these claims and none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate."
That pretty much sums up your argument. " Except there is no scientific evidence to support no intelligent design was involved in the origin of life and the development of species.
"...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate." You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it.
Are you trying to justify the censorship prof Clayson describes? "
" xdfred - you say this argument is about censorship, that creationism should be taught. OK - which version? Or all versions? How does an educational body decide which version(s)? And if some versions are excluded isn't that a form of censorship as well?" You and Willy Wonka need to get better glasses or grow some honesty. Lot's of it. I didn't say that. I said that the concept of intelligent design should be presented as a viable answer to the origins of life.
"And why, if our schools are supported by taxpayers, of which some are atheist, some Christian, some non-Christian, should some of those taxpayers have their version excluded?" Irrelevant and insignificant, see above.
"Perhaps all versions could be satisfied with a simple statement that is read in the appropriate science class:
"There are people who do not believe evolution was how humankind, as well as the various species of animals, were created. They believe that a supreme being or God played an integral part in the creation of living creatures. They offer no scientific evidence to support these claims and none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate."
That pretty much sums up your argument. " Except there is no scientific evidence to support no intelligent design was involved in the origin of life and the development of species.
"...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate." You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it.
Are you trying to justify the censorship prof Clayson describes? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:47 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:01 AM:
"And why did the people of Colorado vote down a ballot initiative that defined a fertilized egg as a person?" Great way to skirt the original question, Phil, not that it was directed to you. And speaking of votes, what happened with prop8 in California? Never mind, off topic, like the one you just brought up.
"So many questions, but I sure you have all the definitive answers. " You sure don't. "
"And why did the people of Colorado vote down a ballot initiative that defined a fertilized egg as a person?" Great way to skirt the original question, Phil, not that it was directed to you. And speaking of votes, what happened with prop8 in California? Never mind, off topic, like the one you just brought up.
"So many questions, but I sure you have all the definitive answers. " You sure don't. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:04 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:01 AM:
Q: So tell us, when does life begin?
A: At conception.
Q: Are all those frozen embryos at the fertility clinics living beings?
A: Technically, yes. And the ferility clinics are man-made, aren't they.
Q:Is something alive when it cannot sustain itself outside the womb of a living being?
A: Yes. Can you sustain yourself without food, water, clothing, shelter, and love?
Q: And what do we call those fertilized eggs that never end up attaching themselves to the wall of the female's uterus and are ultimately expelled from her body?
A: The term is called a "mis-carriage", Phil.
Q: And why did the people of Colorado vote down a ballot initiative that defined a fertilized egg as a person?
A: Because the people of Colorado are human and imperfect.
==============================================================================
Q: Is science perfect?
A: No.
Q: Is our government and politics perfect?
A: No.
Q: Are humans perfect?
A: No....Not even you.
Q: Is God perfect?
A: Absolutely!
-hfrmack "
Q: So tell us, when does life begin?
A: At conception.
Q: Are all those frozen embryos at the fertility clinics living beings?
A: Technically, yes. And the ferility clinics are man-made, aren't they.
Q:Is something alive when it cannot sustain itself outside the womb of a living being?
A: Yes. Can you sustain yourself without food, water, clothing, shelter, and love?
Q: And what do we call those fertilized eggs that never end up attaching themselves to the wall of the female's uterus and are ultimately expelled from her body?
A: The term is called a "mis-carriage", Phil.
Q: And why did the people of Colorado vote down a ballot initiative that defined a fertilized egg as a person?
A: Because the people of Colorado are human and imperfect.
==============================================================================
Q: Is science perfect?
A: No.
Q: Is our government and politics perfect?
A: No.
Q: Are humans perfect?
A: No....Not even you.
Q: Is God perfect?
A: Absolutely!
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:10 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:55 AM:
" " I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Do I smell CHICKEN?
-hfrmack "
" " I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Do I smell CHICKEN?
-hfrmack "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:25 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:10 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:55 AM:
" " I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Do I smell CHICKEN?
=============================
What? You fail in the evolution debate so you demand to change topics? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:55 AM:
" " I'm curious "professor Primewonk", what is your "scientific theory" of when human life begins? Is it at conception with 23 chromosomes from the male sperm and 23 chromosomes from the female egg to form the first 46 chromosome human cell, or would it be at birth?
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Do I smell CHICKEN?
=============================
What? You fail in the evolution debate so you demand to change topics? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:37 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:25 AM:
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Do I smell CHICKEN?
=============================
What? You fail in the evolution debate so you demand to change topics? "
=======================================================
I thought I DID!
-hfrmack "
PW - And this has what to do with the topic at hand? "
Do I smell CHICKEN?
=============================
What? You fail in the evolution debate so you demand to change topics? "
=======================================================
I thought I DID!
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:39 AM:
" Come on Mr. Wizard, please????
Would you please answer my question to you????
-hfrmack "
Would you please answer my question to you????
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:44 AM:
"...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate." You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it."
Since I didn't claim any creationism activities to be true the burden of proof does not lie with me, but with you. And since you cannot prove any of them, nor provide any specific observable theories, then they are simply myths, urban legends, fiction.
At least evolution presents theories that can be observed in nature. Thus it has a scientific standing - as you yourself acknowledge.
How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?
That is called common sense - not censorship. "
"...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate." You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it."
Since I didn't claim any creationism activities to be true the burden of proof does not lie with me, but with you. And since you cannot prove any of them, nor provide any specific observable theories, then they are simply myths, urban legends, fiction.
At least evolution presents theories that can be observed in nature. Thus it has a scientific standing - as you yourself acknowledge.
How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?
That is called common sense - not censorship. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:00 PM:
" hfrmack - OK - so what evidence do you have to support your answers?
You say God is perfect but humans are not? What evidence exists? What defines perfection in the case of human beings?
You say God is perfect - whose God? Yours? The Muslim God? And how do you know? Did he tell you? How? Via the Bible? But that was written by the "imperfect" humans - wasn't it? Maybe they translated something wrong?
And you know when life begins? Fertilization is a science project that can be recreated in a lab. So scientists create life?
The truth is you have made up answers that are no more right or wrong than ones I can get from any mullah in the middle east or a Shintoist in Japan.
So they are frauds and you are the one I should believe? Why?
You have no answers - you have guesses, and poor ones at that. "
You say God is perfect but humans are not? What evidence exists? What defines perfection in the case of human beings?
You say God is perfect - whose God? Yours? The Muslim God? And how do you know? Did he tell you? How? Via the Bible? But that was written by the "imperfect" humans - wasn't it? Maybe they translated something wrong?
And you know when life begins? Fertilization is a science project that can be recreated in a lab. So scientists create life?
The truth is you have made up answers that are no more right or wrong than ones I can get from any mullah in the middle east or a Shintoist in Japan.
So they are frauds and you are the one I should believe? Why?
You have no answers - you have guesses, and poor ones at that. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:01 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Let's say you are in a room that is on fire. On your right is a bassinet with a week old baby in it. On your right is a vacuum chamber with 100 frozen embryos in it. You can either pick up the baby and escape, or you can pick up the vacuum chamber with the 100 frozen embryos. You cannot pick up both. Which do you choose to save?
Doesn't get any more basic than that. "
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Let's say you are in a room that is on fire. On your right is a bassinet with a week old baby in it. On your right is a vacuum chamber with 100 frozen embryos in it. You can either pick up the baby and escape, or you can pick up the vacuum chamber with the 100 frozen embryos. You cannot pick up both. Which do you choose to save?
Doesn't get any more basic than that. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:10 PM:
" xdfred said: I said that the concept of intelligent design should be presented as a viable answer to the origins of life.
PW: And yet again, if you want to do it in science class, it has to be science based. That is not censorship. That is common sense. Tell me, in a science unit on astronomy, are you also in favor of teaching that astrology is a perfectly acceptable alternative? In a chemistry class are you in favor of teaching that alchemy is true? "
PW: And yet again, if you want to do it in science class, it has to be science based. That is not censorship. That is common sense. Tell me, in a science unit on astronomy, are you also in favor of teaching that astrology is a perfectly acceptable alternative? In a chemistry class are you in favor of teaching that alchemy is true? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:12 PM:
" Phil said - You say God is perfect - whose God? Yours? The Muslim God? And how do you know? Did he tell you? How? Via the Bible? But that was written by the "imperfect" humans - wasn't it? Maybe they translated something wrong?
PW - The ironic thing is that for the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, it's the exact same god. It's like wanting to kill your cousins because you think their grandfather is evil. "
PW - The ironic thing is that for the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, it's the exact same god. It's like wanting to kill your cousins because you think their grandfather is evil. "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:24 PM:
" hrfmack:
I very much doubt that there can be a "scientific" conclusion on "when human life begins." Science CAN tell us what is going on during the procreation process. The issue of when "life begins" is a philosophical question. Or, more directly, it is the policy choice on when the legal protections of human life are initiated. That question is usually answered by how the broad cross-section of the society answers that question.
BTW, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should NOT be, "When does human life begin?" Rather, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should be, "How should we protect human life?" There is a subtle difference in those questions with the latter one being much broader. And, I'd suggest that the answer to the latter question would lead to a more comprehensive philosophical answer and a more useful one as well.
Along the way, science can answer factual questions but it can't answer the philosophical question. If someone says that, "I know the scientific answer to when human life begins" is a charlatan.
/s/ Steve Cross "
I very much doubt that there can be a "scientific" conclusion on "when human life begins." Science CAN tell us what is going on during the procreation process. The issue of when "life begins" is a philosophical question. Or, more directly, it is the policy choice on when the legal protections of human life are initiated. That question is usually answered by how the broad cross-section of the society answers that question.
BTW, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should NOT be, "When does human life begin?" Rather, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should be, "How should we protect human life?" There is a subtle difference in those questions with the latter one being much broader. And, I'd suggest that the answer to the latter question would lead to a more comprehensive philosophical answer and a more useful one as well.
Along the way, science can answer factual questions but it can't answer the philosophical question. If someone says that, "I know the scientific answer to when human life begins" is a charlatan.
/s/ Steve Cross "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:28 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:01 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Let's say you are in a room that is on fire. On your right is a bassinet with a week old baby in it. On your right is a vacuum chamber with 100 frozen embryos in it. You can either pick up the baby and escape, or you can pick up the vacuum chamber with the 100 frozen embryos. You cannot pick up both. Which do you choose to save?
Doesn't get any more basic than that. "
What?!?!?
You want me to answer your question, but you won't answer mine???
It doesn't work that way, Mr. Wizard.
-hfrmack "
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Let's say you are in a room that is on fire. On your right is a bassinet with a week old baby in it. On your right is a vacuum chamber with 100 frozen embryos in it. You can either pick up the baby and escape, or you can pick up the vacuum chamber with the 100 frozen embryos. You cannot pick up both. Which do you choose to save?
Doesn't get any more basic than that. "
What?!?!?
You want me to answer your question, but you won't answer mine???
It doesn't work that way, Mr. Wizard.
-hfrmack "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:34 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:41 AM:
" Now xdfred is superior becuase he makes more money that the two of them together.(total speculation) "
Nope. A whole pile of other reasons, too. But you left wingers insist you're so superior and so much more intelligent, you all should be millionaires, unless it's in your own minds. "
" Now xdfred is superior becuase he makes more money that the two of them together.(total speculation) "
Nope. A whole pile of other reasons, too. But you left wingers insist you're so superior and so much more intelligent, you all should be millionaires, unless it's in your own minds. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:44 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:44 AM:
"...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate." You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it."
Since I didn't claim any creationism activities to be true the burden of proof does not lie with me, but with you." I'm not saying you need to prove that. You made an absolute statement : "...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate.". You made the statement. I say you can't prove it. That none of their claims have ever been proven. Your fingers are typing checks you can't cash. "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:44 AM:
"...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate." You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it."
Since I didn't claim any creationism activities to be true the burden of proof does not lie with me, but with you." I'm not saying you need to prove that. You made an absolute statement : "...none of their claims have ever been proven to be factually accurate.". You made the statement. I say you can't prove it. That none of their claims have ever been proven. Your fingers are typing checks you can't cash. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:46 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:44 AM:
"At least evolution presents theories that can be observed in nature. Thus it has a scientific standing - as you yourself acknowledge." Really? Somebody observed one species evolve into another one?
"How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?" When did science class become the litmus test for what can be talked about in an academic setting? Because if that isn't the case, then it's an excuse for censorship. "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:44 AM:
"At least evolution presents theories that can be observed in nature. Thus it has a scientific standing - as you yourself acknowledge." Really? Somebody observed one species evolve into another one?
"How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?" When did science class become the litmus test for what can be talked about in an academic setting? Because if that isn't the case, then it's an excuse for censorship. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:50 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:01 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Let's say you are in a room that is on fire. On your right is a bassinet with a week old baby in it. On your right is a vacuum chamber with 100 frozen embryos in it. You can either pick up the baby and escape, or you can pick up the vacuum chamber with the 100 frozen embryos. You cannot pick up both. Which do you choose to save?
Doesn't get any more basic than that. "
Yep. Won't answer a simple question, so you come up with a ridiculous scenario. Let's say you grabbed the 100, and the baby dies, but those 100 were implanted and became 100 people? "
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:43 AM:
" Just as I thought. It must be "Weird Science". I don't think PW wants to alienate his new found liberal buddies in this thread by speaking about true scientific fact of when life begins.
LOL!!!
-hfrmack "
Let's say you are in a room that is on fire. On your right is a bassinet with a week old baby in it. On your right is a vacuum chamber with 100 frozen embryos in it. You can either pick up the baby and escape, or you can pick up the vacuum chamber with the 100 frozen embryos. You cannot pick up both. Which do you choose to save?
Doesn't get any more basic than that. "
Yep. Won't answer a simple question, so you come up with a ridiculous scenario. Let's say you grabbed the 100, and the baby dies, but those 100 were implanted and became 100 people? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:52 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:00 PM:
"And you know when life begins? Fertilization is a science project that can be recreated in a lab. So scientists create life?" This must explain why you have a hard time getting dates.
Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
"And you know when life begins? Fertilization is a science project that can be recreated in a lab. So scientists create life?" This must explain why you have a hard time getting dates.
Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:54 PM:
" hfrmack - I neither need, nor want your pity. I pity you for being afraid to even study and question the very beliefs you hold. If they really are as valid as you think they are you should be willing to put them to a rigorous test.
But you won't.
Tell me, how will you see in the afterlife with no eyes? How will you hear with no ears? Even emotions are the product of physical actions in the brain - otherwise how would people lose the ability to express certain emotions when they have brain damage. So how will you feel anything?
Believe what you want, I don't really care, but don't for a minute think you, or xdfred or Clayson have any right to spout your beliefs as some sort of "science" or subject that deserve any kind of acknowledgement or respect in our schools. Excluding them is NOT censorship, it is simply common sense.
Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
Talk about elitist. "
But you won't.
Tell me, how will you see in the afterlife with no eyes? How will you hear with no ears? Even emotions are the product of physical actions in the brain - otherwise how would people lose the ability to express certain emotions when they have brain damage. So how will you feel anything?
Believe what you want, I don't really care, but don't for a minute think you, or xdfred or Clayson have any right to spout your beliefs as some sort of "science" or subject that deserve any kind of acknowledgement or respect in our schools. Excluding them is NOT censorship, it is simply common sense.
Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
Talk about elitist. "
Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:58 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:52 PM:
"Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
Brilliant statement, just brilliant. I don't know of any scientist who creates their own materials to use in experiments in a lab. They collect them.
You are so out of your league in this discussion it is just pathetic.
Still waiting for something in creationism that can be backed up by scientific evidence.
The lack of a response to this question is the ultimate in crickets chirping. "
"Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
Brilliant statement, just brilliant. I don't know of any scientist who creates their own materials to use in experiments in a lab. They collect them.
You are so out of your league in this discussion it is just pathetic.
Still waiting for something in creationism that can be backed up by scientific evidence.
The lack of a response to this question is the ultimate in crickets chirping. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:59 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:24 PM:
" hrfmack:
I very much doubt that there can be a "scientific" conclusion on "when human life begins." Science CAN tell us what is going on during the procreation process. The issue of when "life begins" is a philosophical question. Or, more directly, it is the policy choice on when the legal protections of human life are initiated. That question is usually answered by how the broad cross-section of the society answers that question.
BTW, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should NOT be, "When does human life begin?" Rather, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should be, "How should we protect human life?" There is a subtle difference in those questions with the latter one being much broader. And, I'd suggest that the answer to the latter question would lead to a more comprehensive philosophical answer and a more useful one as well.
Along the way, science can answer factual questions but it can't answer the philosophical question. If someone says that, "I know the scientific answer to when human life begins" is a charlatan.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Point taken with partial agreement, cross. But don't you think that if when life begins is scientificly proven first, that it might inspire different thinking philisophically of when life begins to others?
-hfrmack "
" hrfmack:
I very much doubt that there can be a "scientific" conclusion on "when human life begins." Science CAN tell us what is going on during the procreation process. The issue of when "life begins" is a philosophical question. Or, more directly, it is the policy choice on when the legal protections of human life are initiated. That question is usually answered by how the broad cross-section of the society answers that question.
BTW, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should NOT be, "When does human life begin?" Rather, I'd suggest that the philosophical question should be, "How should we protect human life?" There is a subtle difference in those questions with the latter one being much broader. And, I'd suggest that the answer to the latter question would lead to a more comprehensive philosophical answer and a more useful one as well.
Along the way, science can answer factual questions but it can't answer the philosophical question. If someone says that, "I know the scientific answer to when human life begins" is a charlatan.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Point taken with partial agreement, cross. But don't you think that if when life begins is scientificly proven first, that it might inspire different thinking philisophically of when life begins to others?
-hfrmack "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:12 PM:
" Phil said: "At least evolution presents theories that can be observed in nature. Thus it has a scientific standing - as you yourself acknowledge."
xdfred: Really? Somebody observed one species evolve into another one?
PW: Really? Cause we've seen speciation. For example Culex molestans evolved from Culex pipens in under 150 years in the London Subway tunnels. Just one example for you. Of course you won't find any mention of this on your fundiot websites.
Phil said: "How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?"
xdfred said: When did science class become the litmus test for what can be talked about in an academic setting? Because if that isn't the case, then it's an excuse for censorship. "
PW - We discuss SCIENCE in science class. No one said you can't have a comparative religious mythology class in school. That way you can teach about all 1000 creation myths, giving EQUAL credence to all. Or you could teach it in an abnormal psych class, a sociology class, an Eastern/Western Civ class, etc. Why do you continue to have a problem with understanding that? "
xdfred: Really? Somebody observed one species evolve into another one?
PW: Really? Cause we've seen speciation. For example Culex molestans evolved from Culex pipens in under 150 years in the London Subway tunnels. Just one example for you. Of course you won't find any mention of this on your fundiot websites.
Phil said: "How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?"
xdfred said: When did science class become the litmus test for what can be talked about in an academic setting? Because if that isn't the case, then it's an excuse for censorship. "
PW - We discuss SCIENCE in science class. No one said you can't have a comparative religious mythology class in school. That way you can teach about all 1000 creation myths, giving EQUAL credence to all. Or you could teach it in an abnormal psych class, a sociology class, an Eastern/Western Civ class, etc. Why do you continue to have a problem with understanding that? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 PM:
" xdfred said - Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
PW - of course you can. You can manipulate ESC's into gamete cells. "
PW - of course you can. You can manipulate ESC's into gamete cells. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:29 PM:
" xdfred said: Yep. Won't answer a simple question, so you come up with a ridiculous scenario. Let's say you grabbed the 100, and the baby dies, but those 100 were implanted and became 100 people? "
It continues to look like you want to shift the argument since you can't win on the creationism issue. Obviously you want to shift to how wicked and evil and bad folks are, who are pro choice.
The problem is, that even the fundiots are closet pro choice. I've yet to meet any of them who aren't "pro-abortion" (to coin their phrase) when it's to save the life of the mother. How freaking hypocritical. How come all of a sudden the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus? What you guys ought to be doing - in your dark age mentality - is to legislate strapping the woman down and letting your version of god decide who lives and who dies. Who gave you guys the right to play god by letting a women abort a fetus in order to save her own life?
By the way - to make this a fair debate - 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, often before the woman even knows she was pregnant. Your god, by claiming omniscience and omnipotence is responsible for this, thus your god is the biggest abortionist ever. Get him to knock this cr@p off, then come back and ask the question. "
It continues to look like you want to shift the argument since you can't win on the creationism issue. Obviously you want to shift to how wicked and evil and bad folks are, who are pro choice.
The problem is, that even the fundiots are closet pro choice. I've yet to meet any of them who aren't "pro-abortion" (to coin their phrase) when it's to save the life of the mother. How freaking hypocritical. How come all of a sudden the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus? What you guys ought to be doing - in your dark age mentality - is to legislate strapping the woman down and letting your version of god decide who lives and who dies. Who gave you guys the right to play god by letting a women abort a fetus in order to save her own life?
By the way - to make this a fair debate - 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, often before the woman even knows she was pregnant. Your god, by claiming omniscience and omnipotence is responsible for this, thus your god is the biggest abortionist ever. Get him to knock this cr@p off, then come back and ask the question. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:36 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
===============================================================
Thanks for the philosiphy and socialism lesson, Mr. Wizard! But that was a lousy lesson that I don't agree with. You have no scientific evidence to back it up! You should stick to answering science questions.
-hfrmack "
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
===============================================================
Thanks for the philosiphy and socialism lesson, Mr. Wizard! But that was a lousy lesson that I don't agree with. You have no scientific evidence to back it up! You should stick to answering science questions.
-hfrmack "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:47 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 PM:
" xdfred said - Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
PW - of course you can. You can manipulate ESC's into gamete cells. "
Are you saying you can make sperm and an egg in a lab? That's ludicrous. "
" xdfred said - Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
PW - of course you can. You can manipulate ESC's into gamete cells. "
Are you saying you can make sperm and an egg in a lab? That's ludicrous. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:58 PM:
" But don't you think that if when life begins is scientificly proven first, that it might inspire different thinking philisophically of when life begins to others?
PW - a lot depends on how you define life. Today we can clone life from a single cell. So are single cells alive? "
PW - a lot depends on how you define life. Today we can clone life from a single cell. So are single cells alive? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:01 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:54 PM:
" hfrmack - I neither need, nor want your pity. I pity you for being afraid to even study and question the very beliefs you hold. If they really are as valid as you think they are you should be willing to put them to a rigorous test.
But you won't.
==================================================================
Are you questioning my faith? How do you measure faith in a beeker?
My faith is tested daily.
And I will continue to pray for you an your soul that you don't end up in a very warm place some day.
-hfrmack
BTW, Why are you so angry? Were you wronged in some way by a Christian in the past? "
" hfrmack - I neither need, nor want your pity. I pity you for being afraid to even study and question the very beliefs you hold. If they really are as valid as you think they are you should be willing to put them to a rigorous test.
But you won't.
==================================================================
Are you questioning my faith? How do you measure faith in a beeker?
My faith is tested daily.
And I will continue to pray for you an your soul that you don't end up in a very warm place some day.
-hfrmack
BTW, Why are you so angry? Were you wronged in some way by a Christian in the past? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:05 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:45 PM:
" i like chicken! "
==============================================================
So do I, Tim. After my comment this morning, I got a craving for it and had some for lunch. It was good too!
-hfrmack "
" i like chicken! "
==============================================================
So do I, Tim. After my comment this morning, I got a craving for it and had some for lunch. It was good too!
-hfrmack "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:06 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 PM:
" xdfred said - Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
PW - of course you can. You can manipulate ESC's into gamete cells. "
BTW you SOUND quite brilliant. What does google tell you can be done to create life by a scientist with a gamete cell? Nothing? "
" xdfred said - Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
PW - of course you can. You can manipulate ESC's into gamete cells. "
BTW you SOUND quite brilliant. What does google tell you can be done to create life by a scientist with a gamete cell? Nothing? "
conservativeUS wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:07 PM:
" PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
oh this explains why Obama has such liberal, socialist, muslim ideals and ideology. He was born in kenya. Thanks for clearing this up. Now if we can just get a valid birth cert. "
oh this explains why Obama has such liberal, socialist, muslim ideals and ideology. He was born in kenya. Thanks for clearing this up. Now if we can just get a valid birth cert. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:11 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:12 PM:
"PW: Really? Cause we've seen speciation. For example Culex molestans evolved from Culex pipens in under 150 years in the London Subway tunnels. Just one example for you. Of course you won't find any mention of this on your fundiot websites." What a wit. Fundiot. Really funny. But Evolutionist is wrong.
Have a link, Mr Science?
"Phil said: "How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?"
xdfred said: When did science class become the litmus test for what can be talked about in an academic setting? Because if that isn't the case, then it's an excuse for censorship. "
PW - We discuss SCIENCE in science class." Still working on that diploma, huh?
"No one said you can't have a comparative religious mythology" Why do you get to name it. How about an evolution mythology class?
"...class in school. That way you can teach about all 1000 creation myths, giving EQUAL credence to all. Or you could teach it in an abnormal psych class, a sociology class, an Eastern/Western Civ class, etc. Why do you continue to have a problem with understanding that? " Play your games. How about a segment in a science class that describes, scientifically, the gaps in the THEORY of evolution. "
"PW: Really? Cause we've seen speciation. For example Culex molestans evolved from Culex pipens in under 150 years in the London Subway tunnels. Just one example for you. Of course you won't find any mention of this on your fundiot websites." What a wit. Fundiot. Really funny. But Evolutionist is wrong.
Have a link, Mr Science?
"Phil said: "How is it censorship to omit something that cannot be observed in any scientific setting from a science class?"
xdfred said: When did science class become the litmus test for what can be talked about in an academic setting? Because if that isn't the case, then it's an excuse for censorship. "
PW - We discuss SCIENCE in science class." Still working on that diploma, huh?
"No one said you can't have a comparative religious mythology" Why do you get to name it. How about an evolution mythology class?
"...class in school. That way you can teach about all 1000 creation myths, giving EQUAL credence to all. Or you could teach it in an abnormal psych class, a sociology class, an Eastern/Western Civ class, etc. Why do you continue to have a problem with understanding that? " Play your games. How about a segment in a science class that describes, scientifically, the gaps in the THEORY of evolution. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:18 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:58 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:52 PM:
"Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
Brilliant statement, just brilliant. I don't know of any scientist who creates their own materials to use in experiments in a lab. They collect them."
Your powers of comprehension show that God, while perfect, has a sense of humor. I was refering to sperm and eggs, the ingredients required for fertilization.
"You are so out of your league in this discussion it is just pathetic." Yes. I need to drop to the 5th grade level. BUt that's not my league. That's yours.
"Still waiting for something in creationism that can be backed up by scientific evidence." Sure. How did eyes evolve? If they evolved, there should be millions of years of fossils with no eye sockets. But there aren't any. The earliest trilobyte fossils have distinct fully formed large eye sockets. Eyes could not have just occured by random chance, or there would still be lots of eyeless species today. Unless the eyeless species were wiped out due to natural selection, but the fossils would exist, wouldn't they? This in and of itself points to a force that determined, designed, and created those characteristics. Intelligent design.
"The lack of a response to this question is the ultimate in crickets chirping. " Chirp, chirp, chirp. "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:52 PM:
"Fertilization may be a science project as you call it, but the required "ingrediants" cannot be created in your temple, the science lab. "
Brilliant statement, just brilliant. I don't know of any scientist who creates their own materials to use in experiments in a lab. They collect them."
Your powers of comprehension show that God, while perfect, has a sense of humor. I was refering to sperm and eggs, the ingredients required for fertilization.
"You are so out of your league in this discussion it is just pathetic." Yes. I need to drop to the 5th grade level. BUt that's not my league. That's yours.
"Still waiting for something in creationism that can be backed up by scientific evidence." Sure. How did eyes evolve? If they evolved, there should be millions of years of fossils with no eye sockets. But there aren't any. The earliest trilobyte fossils have distinct fully formed large eye sockets. Eyes could not have just occured by random chance, or there would still be lots of eyeless species today. Unless the eyeless species were wiped out due to natural selection, but the fossils would exist, wouldn't they? This in and of itself points to a force that determined, designed, and created those characteristics. Intelligent design.
"The lack of a response to this question is the ultimate in crickets chirping. " Chirp, chirp, chirp. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:22 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
"PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain ...... If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
Yet we would have one thing in common. The concept of intelligent design.
And people don't want to fly airplanes into buildings because they believe in God. They do it because someone else tells them to. Stick to middle school science. "
"PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain ...... If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
Yet we would have one thing in common. The concept of intelligent design.
And people don't want to fly airplanes into buildings because they believe in God. They do it because someone else tells them to. Stick to middle school science. "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:32 PM:
" hfrmack @ on Jan 8, 2009 1:59 PM said, "But don't you think that if when life begins is scientificly proven first, that it might inspire different thinking philisophically of when life begins to others?"
I don't think that science can say and will never be able to say "when life begins." That's just not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question and always will be that kind of a question.
Science can say, "this is how the procreation process works." But, they cannot say, and never will be able to say, "This is the point in the procreation process when we give the then existing entity the same rights as those entities that are walking around and talking."
Science may help us make that policy decision. But, the issue of when a certain level of protection applies is not capable scientific definition.
/s/ Steve Cross "
I don't think that science can say and will never be able to say "when life begins." That's just not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question and always will be that kind of a question.
Science can say, "this is how the procreation process works." But, they cannot say, and never will be able to say, "This is the point in the procreation process when we give the then existing entity the same rights as those entities that are walking around and talking."
Science may help us make that policy decision. But, the issue of when a certain level of protection applies is not capable scientific definition.
/s/ Steve Cross "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:00 PM:
" On another topic, today, in a joint session of Congress, the electoral votes were counted. Obama and Biden won. But, as far as I can tell, there wasn't a murmur of protest or question that Obama was not eligible to be president.
On the other side, when in my grocery yesterday, the Globe (one of the tabloids always in the check-out lanes) had a headline about Obama perhaps being born in Kenya and being ineligible for the presidency.
I'd think that the fact that official channels regard the matter of Obama's birthplace as a nuisance and that supermarket tabloids give it credence, would give anyone the idea that, "Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here." (BTW, the supermarket tabloids were the ones who said that Clinton won because he had a man from another planet helping him and had a picture to prove it.)
Next: the inauguration.
/s/ Steve Cross "
On the other side, when in my grocery yesterday, the Globe (one of the tabloids always in the check-out lanes) had a headline about Obama perhaps being born in Kenya and being ineligible for the presidency.
I'd think that the fact that official channels regard the matter of Obama's birthplace as a nuisance and that supermarket tabloids give it credence, would give anyone the idea that, "Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here." (BTW, the supermarket tabloids were the ones who said that Clinton won because he had a man from another planet helping him and had a picture to prove it.)
Next: the inauguration.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Spenser wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:14 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different
There is no empirical evidence to prove that the role brain chemistry plays is in anyway an explanation for religion.Just as science is based on the unproven assumption that everything in the universe is of material substance.An atheist being a construct of his environment,or a buddhist of his isn't so much a chance event as it is a part of a bigger unproven. "
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different
There is no empirical evidence to prove that the role brain chemistry plays is in anyway an explanation for religion.Just as science is based on the unproven assumption that everything in the universe is of material substance.An atheist being a construct of his environment,or a buddhist of his isn't so much a chance event as it is a part of a bigger unproven. "
Leo46 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:41 PM:
" Cross you said,"they cannot say, and never will be able to say, "This is the point in the procreation process when we give the then existing entity the same rights as those entities that are walking around and talking."
A two week old baby can neither walk nor talk. Don't they have the same rights as you or I? Why not extend that back to when the fetus could be removed from it's mother and still live? Then why not extend it further back to when an egg is fertilized? Afterall, with modern science that fertilazed embryo could be implanted in a willing female and live.
Or are you implying that you have no rights unless you can walk and talk? "
A two week old baby can neither walk nor talk. Don't they have the same rights as you or I? Why not extend that back to when the fetus could be removed from it's mother and still live? Then why not extend it further back to when an egg is fertilized? Afterall, with modern science that fertilazed embryo could be implanted in a willing female and live.
Or are you implying that you have no rights unless you can walk and talk? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:45 PM:
" "oh this explains why Obama has such liberal, socialist, muslim ideals and ideology. He was born in kenya. Thanks for clearing this up. Now if we can just get a valid birth cert. "
Gosh, you'd think a right-wing SCOTUS would have agreed with you. Wonder why the idiots who believe this drivel keep getting slapped down by the courts? "
Gosh, you'd think a right-wing SCOTUS would have agreed with you. Wonder why the idiots who believe this drivel keep getting slapped down by the courts? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:51 PM:
" "PW: Really? Cause we've seen speciation. For example Culex molestans evolved from Culex pipens in under 150 years in the London Subway tunnels. Just one example for you. Of course you won't find any mention of this on your fundiot websites."
xdfred: What a wit. Fundiot. Really funny. But Evolutionist is wrong.
Have a link, Mr Science?
PW - A link - sure: http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html
This will take to a full text article.
This is just one example of observed speciation. When you get your science information from real science sources instead of "Pastor Dave", you'd be amazed at what you can learn. "
xdfred: What a wit. Fundiot. Really funny. But Evolutionist is wrong.
Have a link, Mr Science?
PW - A link - sure: http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html
This will take to a full text article.
This is just one example of observed speciation. When you get your science information from real science sources instead of "Pastor Dave", you'd be amazed at what you can learn. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:56 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:36 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
===============================================================
Thanks for the philosiphy and socialism lesson, Mr. Wizard! But that was a lousy lesson that I don't agree with. You have no scientific evidence to back it up! You should stick to answering science questions.
=====================================
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
" Phil said - Finally hfrmack, if by chance you had been born in Iran or Japan you wouldn't believe the things you do now. So a chance event makes your beliefs right and superior to those people?
PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain chemistry also plays a roll as it too. If these guys had been born in Tehran or Baghdad, they likely would be in the streets screaming death to the great Satan and dreaming of flying planes into buildings. If they had been born in deepest Africa or South America, the gods they worship would be very different, yet they would be proclaiming them as real. If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
===============================================================
Thanks for the philosiphy and socialism lesson, Mr. Wizard! But that was a lousy lesson that I don't agree with. You have no scientific evidence to back it up! You should stick to answering science questions.
=====================================
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:17 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
=====================================================================
Good Lord. Are you incapable of reading a Bible, or getting online with God in prayer, Mr. Wizard? "
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
=====================================================================
Good Lord. Are you incapable of reading a Bible, or getting online with God in prayer, Mr. Wizard? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:23 PM:
" xdfred said: How did eyes evolve? If they evolved, there should be millions of years of fossils with no eye sockets. But there aren't any. The earliest trilobyte fossils have distinct fully formed large eye sockets. Eyes could not have just occured by random chance, or there would still be lots of eyeless species today. Unless the eyeless species were wiped out due to natural selection, but the fossils would exist, wouldn't they? This in and of itself points to a force that determined, designed, and created those characteristics. Intelligent design.
PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. "
PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:36 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:22 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
"PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain ...... If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
Yet we would have one thing in common. The concept of intelligent design.
And people don't want to fly airplanes into buildings because they believe in God. They do it because someone else tells them to. Stick to middle school science. "
PW - These guys flew planes into buildings because of what they thought their version of god wanted them to do. The exact same thing over here resulted in white folks thinking god said it was OK to own black folks. More recently fundamentalists thought their version of god said black folks shouldn't be allowed to marry white folks. Now these fundamentalists are saying their version of god thinks gay folks are icky - even though gay folks are born that way. Heck we even have our fundamentalists killing doctors, bombing medical clinics, and blowing up federal buildings. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM:
"PW - EXACTLY! And that is the point they don't get. Your set of religious beliefs is largely a construct of how, when, and where you born and raised. Brain ...... If they had been born in 10th century Rome, they way they practiced their faith would be very different. "
Yet we would have one thing in common. The concept of intelligent design.
And people don't want to fly airplanes into buildings because they believe in God. They do it because someone else tells them to. Stick to middle school science. "
PW - These guys flew planes into buildings because of what they thought their version of god wanted them to do. The exact same thing over here resulted in white folks thinking god said it was OK to own black folks. More recently fundamentalists thought their version of god said black folks shouldn't be allowed to marry white folks. Now these fundamentalists are saying their version of god thinks gay folks are icky - even though gay folks are born that way. Heck we even have our fundamentalists killing doctors, bombing medical clinics, and blowing up federal buildings. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:43 PM:
" "How about a segment in a science class that describes, scientifically, the gaps in the THEORY of evolution."
What are the scientifically relevant "gaps" in the theory of evolution? Now, please don't start listing all the creationist cr@p "gaps". Show us that you can do real research. Give us the cites for the peer-reviewed science articles listing all these "gaps". Remember, were talking science, not religion. If you list a "gap", I'd like to see at least one scientific reference to support it. If you don't have any valid scientific cites for a "gap", then it isn't a gap, and you move on. Again, remember, this is science, not religion. "
What are the scientifically relevant "gaps" in the theory of evolution? Now, please don't start listing all the creationist cr@p "gaps". Show us that you can do real research. Give us the cites for the peer-reviewed science articles listing all these "gaps". Remember, were talking science, not religion. If you list a "gap", I'd like to see at least one scientific reference to support it. If you don't have any valid scientific cites for a "gap", then it isn't a gap, and you move on. Again, remember, this is science, not religion. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:44 PM:
" Spencer said: Just as science is based on the unproven assumption that everything in the universe is of material substance.An atheist being a construct of his environment,or a buddhist of his isn't so much a chance event as it is a part of a bigger unproven. "
PW - as we are talking science, I'm sure you have some valid peer-reviewed citations to support your contentions. "
PW - as we are talking science, I'm sure you have some valid peer-reviewed citations to support your contentions. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:46 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:51 PM:
"This is just one example of observed speciation. When you get your science information from real science sources instead of "Pastor Dave", you'd be amazed at what you can learn. "
Well, I've learned that there are plenty of so called real science sources that have agendas, like more funding, that push the man made global warming scam. How do you know this source isn't bent?
BTW, I read the report. It describes differences in two organisms, one subtearanean, and one not. No where did the analysis show where/when they were the same to begin with. No samples for the WWII years, when this became a big nuisance, were collected and compared to today's. The big diffrence is that the subtearanean one aggressively attacked and bit. This is probably due to the lack of food that the other organism didn't have to deal with, but maybe it was a subteranean organism all along? "
"This is just one example of observed speciation. When you get your science information from real science sources instead of "Pastor Dave", you'd be amazed at what you can learn. "
Well, I've learned that there are plenty of so called real science sources that have agendas, like more funding, that push the man made global warming scam. How do you know this source isn't bent?
BTW, I read the report. It describes differences in two organisms, one subtearanean, and one not. No where did the analysis show where/when they were the same to begin with. No samples for the WWII years, when this became a big nuisance, were collected and compared to today's. The big diffrence is that the subtearanean one aggressively attacked and bit. This is probably due to the lack of food that the other organism didn't have to deal with, but maybe it was a subteranean organism all along? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:47 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:17 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
=====================================================================
Good Lord. Are you incapable of reading a Bible, or getting online with God in prayer, Mr. Wizard? "
It's amazing how leftwingers worship their own Gods, and don't even realize it. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
=====================================================================
Good Lord. Are you incapable of reading a Bible, or getting online with God in prayer, Mr. Wizard? "
It's amazing how leftwingers worship their own Gods, and don't even realize it. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:49 PM:
" Leo46 said: A two week old baby can neither walk nor talk. Don't they have the same rights as you or I? Why not extend that back to when the fetus could be removed from it's mother and still live? Then why not extend it further back to when an egg is fertilized? Afterall, with modern science that fertilazed embryo could be implanted in a willing female and live.
Or are you implying that you have no rights unless you can walk and talk? "
PW - So why allow any abortions? Why the cop out from the religious right (oxymoron) on saying it's OK to abort the fetus to save the mother? Why do her rights over-ride those of the fetus? Why allow surgery for ectopic pregnancies? Why not simply strap the mother down and wait? Eventually the fetus and probably the mother will die, or if it's god's will, he'll move the fetus from the abdominal cavity into the uterus. "
Or are you implying that you have no rights unless you can walk and talk? "
PW - So why allow any abortions? Why the cop out from the religious right (oxymoron) on saying it's OK to abort the fetus to save the mother? Why do her rights over-ride those of the fetus? Why allow surgery for ectopic pregnancies? Why not simply strap the mother down and wait? Eventually the fetus and probably the mother will die, or if it's god's will, he'll move the fetus from the abdominal cavity into the uterus. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:50 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:23 PM:
"PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. " What a heretic to science. It's possible? That the best you can do? Why doesn't the fossil record show how this happened. No, wait, the fossil record actually contridicts eyes evolving over time. What a heretic. You'll be burned at the next Mr Science fan club meeting stake.
Who's pastor Dave? Is he like high priest Al Gore? "
"PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. " What a heretic to science. It's possible? That the best you can do? Why doesn't the fossil record show how this happened. No, wait, the fossil record actually contridicts eyes evolving over time. What a heretic. You'll be burned at the next Mr Science fan club meeting stake.
Who's pastor Dave? Is he like high priest Al Gore? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:05 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:17 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
=====================================================================
Good Lord. Are you incapable of reading a Bible, or getting online with God in prayer, Mr. Wizard? "
================================
Why in the world would I read a bible for a science related query? Which god would I pray to? Zeus? Ra? Amma? Thor? There is just as much evidence for these as there is for your version of god.
Which part of the bible should I read for science? The part where it states that pi = 3.0? How about where it says grasshoppers have 4 legs, or says bats are birds? How about the part where it says to treat leprosy by using a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around a house? Maybe the part where it says to treat mental illness by exorcising the demons into roving herds of wild pigs and then drive them off a cliff? How about the part where god creates the earth before any thing else in the universe, but yet it still has 24 hour days. Or he has liquid water on the surface of the earth prior to "creating" the sun. Maybe the part about the moon being a natural light. Oh - how about how the earth had vegetation before there was a means for photosynthesis.
The bible is a terrible science book. but then it's also pretty bad at history (there were civilizations around long before 6000 years ago). It also sucks at morality - gay sex is bad, but giving up your young virgin daughters for gang rape is good, and then having these young virgin daughters incestially rape their daddy just to get pregnant is good. Almost as good as sacrificing your own virgin daughter to god by torching her, just for god letting you win a fight.
That book? Read it. Several times. Read it over and over and when it started to not make sense the Pastors said I was a trouble maker because they couldn't answer my questions. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Good lord. Are you guys incapable of querying the NLM on your own? Do none of you have online access to PubMed or another gateway? Do you not read Nature or Science - even online? "
=====================================================================
Good Lord. Are you incapable of reading a Bible, or getting online with God in prayer, Mr. Wizard? "
================================
Why in the world would I read a bible for a science related query? Which god would I pray to? Zeus? Ra? Amma? Thor? There is just as much evidence for these as there is for your version of god.
Which part of the bible should I read for science? The part where it states that pi = 3.0? How about where it says grasshoppers have 4 legs, or says bats are birds? How about the part where it says to treat leprosy by using a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around a house? Maybe the part where it says to treat mental illness by exorcising the demons into roving herds of wild pigs and then drive them off a cliff? How about the part where god creates the earth before any thing else in the universe, but yet it still has 24 hour days. Or he has liquid water on the surface of the earth prior to "creating" the sun. Maybe the part about the moon being a natural light. Oh - how about how the earth had vegetation before there was a means for photosynthesis.
The bible is a terrible science book. but then it's also pretty bad at history (there were civilizations around long before 6000 years ago). It also sucks at morality - gay sex is bad, but giving up your young virgin daughters for gang rape is good, and then having these young virgin daughters incestially rape their daddy just to get pregnant is good. Almost as good as sacrificing your own virgin daughter to god by torching her, just for god letting you win a fight.
That book? Read it. Several times. Read it over and over and when it started to not make sense the Pastors said I was a trouble maker because they couldn't answer my questions. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:34 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:23 PM:
"PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. " What a heretic to science. It's possible? That the best you can do? Why doesn't the fossil record show how this happened. No, wait, the fossil record actually contridicts eyes evolving over time. What a heretic. You'll be burned at the next Mr Science fan club meeting stake.
Who's pastor Dave? Is he like high priest Al Gore? "
"PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. " What a heretic to science. It's possible? That the best you can do? Why doesn't the fossil record show how this happened. No, wait, the fossil record actually contridicts eyes evolving over time. What a heretic. You'll be burned at the next Mr Science fan club meeting stake.
Who's pastor Dave? Is he like high priest Al Gore? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:13 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:50 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:23 PM:
"PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. "
xdfred: What a heretic to science. It's possible? That the best you can do? Why doesn't the fossil record show how this happened. No, wait, the fossil record actually contridicts eyes evolving over time. What a heretic. You'll be burned at the next Mr Science fan club meeting stake.
PW - You really don't have a clue do you?
First off, how are fossils formed? Next, how does the fossil record contradict evolution of the eye?
Finally, why didn't you bother reading any of the scientific sites concerning evolution of the eye?
Doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:23 PM:
"PW - This is what happens when you rely on creationist websites for your science information. Trouble is "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as the minions who are getting their science information from him. I googled "evolution of the eye" and got 21 million hits. Sure, a lot of them are from your fundiot sites claiming evolution of the eye is impossible. What's really funny is to look at the hits above or below your sites that say it's impossible, because the science sites all show just how possible it is - heck they'll give you step by step changes. "
xdfred: What a heretic to science. It's possible? That the best you can do? Why doesn't the fossil record show how this happened. No, wait, the fossil record actually contridicts eyes evolving over time. What a heretic. You'll be burned at the next Mr Science fan club meeting stake.
PW - You really don't have a clue do you?
First off, how are fossils formed? Next, how does the fossil record contradict evolution of the eye?
Finally, why didn't you bother reading any of the scientific sites concerning evolution of the eye?
Doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:36 PM:
" Mr. Wizard,
Like Phil, you have my pity and prayers.
Your twisted analogy of a whole book with many more paragraphs than four like you just listed of out of context material is ludicrous.
Do you have a definition in the world of science for: Miracle?
Have you ever witnessed one?
Are you married or ever been in love and experienced that miracle?
Have you had any children and experienced that miracle?
How about the love of friends and family and the experience of that miracle?
Have you ever had a close call with tragedy and experienced a miracle like that?
Or even suffered a tragedy and survived and learned from that experience and realized the miracle of that?
Have you ever lost a loved one, and experienced the miracle of another offering condolences?
Does everything with you have to be able to be described scientificly before you can beleive it?
Do you have to be able to touch it, weigh it, smell it, taste it, hear it, and see it before you know it exist? If you can't explain it, it doesn't exist?
What am I thinking...you won't answer my questions, will you?
Why am I wasting my time?
You still have my prayers though.
-hfrmack "
Like Phil, you have my pity and prayers.
Your twisted analogy of a whole book with many more paragraphs than four like you just listed of out of context material is ludicrous.
Do you have a definition in the world of science for: Miracle?
Have you ever witnessed one?
Are you married or ever been in love and experienced that miracle?
Have you had any children and experienced that miracle?
How about the love of friends and family and the experience of that miracle?
Have you ever had a close call with tragedy and experienced a miracle like that?
Or even suffered a tragedy and survived and learned from that experience and realized the miracle of that?
Have you ever lost a loved one, and experienced the miracle of another offering condolences?
Does everything with you have to be able to be described scientificly before you can beleive it?
Do you have to be able to touch it, weigh it, smell it, taste it, hear it, and see it before you know it exist? If you can't explain it, it doesn't exist?
What am I thinking...you won't answer my questions, will you?
Why am I wasting my time?
You still have my prayers though.
-hfrmack "
John14541 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:16 PM:
" The Clayson followers put on quite a show this week. Ringling Brothers and P. T. Barnum couldn't put on a circus like this. "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:47 PM:
" hfrmack---then we agree. we both like chicken. i wish they would do an article on chicken and then we could all comment on how awesome chicken is. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:06 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:13 PM:
Doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? "
====================================================================
Do you have ANY idea of what Jesus endured in his suffering and death
for you and I?
For a good depiction, I recommend seeing the movie "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson.
The full story is also in the Bible.
The same book you ridicule.
(What am I thinking, why do I keep asking questions to someone who won't answer????????????????) There must be a scientific answer to this!
-hfrmack "
Doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? "
====================================================================
Do you have ANY idea of what Jesus endured in his suffering and death
for you and I?
For a good depiction, I recommend seeing the movie "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson.
The full story is also in the Bible.
The same book you ridicule.
(What am I thinking, why do I keep asking questions to someone who won't answer????????????????) There must be a scientific answer to this!
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:30 AM:
" timbrackett,
Will YOU not jump into this conversation any more than you have?
YOU, of all people, who I know has been following this thread, must have some greater insight to offer poor Mr. Wizard than I have been able to, especially with your experience. Mr. Wizard is in need of a "Good Samaritan". Will you sit back and watch, or continue to walk by? Or will you help this poor man?
-hfrmack
BTW, He may not want anyones help even though it is obvious that he is in dire need of it. I've done all I can do to try to help, but this case is out of my league, and more in YOUR league. Will you help this poor man?
Please?????
-hfrmack "
Will YOU not jump into this conversation any more than you have?
YOU, of all people, who I know has been following this thread, must have some greater insight to offer poor Mr. Wizard than I have been able to, especially with your experience. Mr. Wizard is in need of a "Good Samaritan". Will you sit back and watch, or continue to walk by? Or will you help this poor man?
-hfrmack
BTW, He may not want anyones help even though it is obvious that he is in dire need of it. I've done all I can do to try to help, but this case is out of my league, and more in YOUR league. Will you help this poor man?
Please?????
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:37 AM:
" hfrmack - while I appreciate your offer of prayer, I really think you should save it for folks like Bush & Cheney who if there is an afterlife, really don't have much to look forward to other than, as you would put it, a lot of warm temperatures. For that matter, if you supported the Iraq invasion and occupation maybe I should pray for you.
Instead of praying for me, take that time and study the various religions of the world, their histories, and the foundations of their belief systems. Knowledge is a good thing and it certainly won't hurt to broaden yourself there. "
Instead of praying for me, take that time and study the various religions of the world, their histories, and the foundations of their belief systems. Knowledge is a good thing and it certainly won't hurt to broaden yourself there. "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:41 AM:
" xdfred - regarding your income generation abilities, there are a number of people who make a lot more money than me who are wrong about lots and lots of things. Limbaugh and Coulter are a couple of them. If you think that they are worried about God and creationism and an afterlife the way they smear people, lie about them, and live immorally then you are really kidding yourself. Do you really want to put yourself into their company? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:36 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:41 AM:
" xdfred - regarding your income generation abilities, there are a number of people who make a lot more money than me who are wrong about lots and lots of things. Limbaugh and Coulter are a couple of them. If you think that they are worried about God and creationism and an afterlife the way they smear people, lie about them, and live immorally then you are really kidding yourself. Do you really want to put yourself into their company? "
We've been down this road before. Only losers accuse people of lying with no proof/examples whatsoever. Wealth envy is your big issue, isn't it?
Reality check: People who lie in their professions don't make a lot of money. "
" xdfred - regarding your income generation abilities, there are a number of people who make a lot more money than me who are wrong about lots and lots of things. Limbaugh and Coulter are a couple of them. If you think that they are worried about God and creationism and an afterlife the way they smear people, lie about them, and live immorally then you are really kidding yourself. Do you really want to put yourself into their company? "
We've been down this road before. Only losers accuse people of lying with no proof/examples whatsoever. Wealth envy is your big issue, isn't it?
Reality check: People who lie in their professions don't make a lot of money. "
Oboy wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:36 AM:
" To the Gang Of Three, xdfred, hfmack and Spencer, my father-in-law has an old saying that goes like this, "If I could only buy them for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth, I would not have to work one more day" "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:05 AM:
" xdfred - no wealth envy is no issue for me at all. And if you don't know about the lies Limbaugh and Coulter spread it is simply because you choose not to know, or to believe, because they are very well documented. I don't need to post all the links here.
Reality check - liars make lots of money. See "politicians" for one prime example. See Enron for another. See Bernie Madoff. Need I continue?
Its the folks they dupe who come up short. "
Reality check - liars make lots of money. See "politicians" for one prime example. See Enron for another. See Bernie Madoff. Need I continue?
Its the folks they dupe who come up short. "
conservativeUS wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:12 AM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:37 AM:
" hfrmack - while I appreciate your offer of prayer, I really think you should save it for folks like Bush & Cheney who if there is an afterlife, really don't have much to look forward to other than, as you would put it, a lot of warm temperatures. For that matter, if you supported the Iraq invasion and occupation maybe I should pray for you.
One, phil obviously does not believe in God. Good luck to you Phil. Two, phil seems to think big bad bush caused the iraq war. I think that onus goes on saddam. but the congress, including his beloved leftists, voted for war. so i guess he is going to heck in a hand basket as well. three, as a liberal, phil is by definition an abortionist. I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly.
nice try, Phil, but three strikes and you are out! save your atheist prayers for the liberals. "
" hfrmack - while I appreciate your offer of prayer, I really think you should save it for folks like Bush & Cheney who if there is an afterlife, really don't have much to look forward to other than, as you would put it, a lot of warm temperatures. For that matter, if you supported the Iraq invasion and occupation maybe I should pray for you.
One, phil obviously does not believe in God. Good luck to you Phil. Two, phil seems to think big bad bush caused the iraq war. I think that onus goes on saddam. but the congress, including his beloved leftists, voted for war. so i guess he is going to heck in a hand basket as well. three, as a liberal, phil is by definition an abortionist. I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly.
nice try, Phil, but three strikes and you are out! save your atheist prayers for the liberals. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:36 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:13 PM:
"PW - You really don't have a clue do you?" You keep saying that like it means something. Whatever floats your boat, dude.
"First off, how are fossils formed?" You don't know?
"Next, how does the fossil record contradict evolution of the eye?" It doesn't show the thousands of eyeless species we should have had.
"Finally, why didn't you bother reading any of the scientific sites concerning evolution of the eye?" Because, as you stated, they only describe possibilities. Another possibility is intelligent design. Eyes were there all along.
"Doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? " And you can prove I'm intending to deceive, right? That I know what I am saying is wrong, but pusing it anayway? Do your high school teachers accuse you of lying when you make a mistake on a test? How juvenile are you? "
"PW - You really don't have a clue do you?" You keep saying that like it means something. Whatever floats your boat, dude.
"First off, how are fossils formed?" You don't know?
"Next, how does the fossil record contradict evolution of the eye?" It doesn't show the thousands of eyeless species we should have had.
"Finally, why didn't you bother reading any of the scientific sites concerning evolution of the eye?" Because, as you stated, they only describe possibilities. Another possibility is intelligent design. Eyes were there all along.
"Doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? " And you can prove I'm intending to deceive, right? That I know what I am saying is wrong, but pusing it anayway? Do your high school teachers accuse you of lying when you make a mistake on a test? How juvenile are you? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:50 AM:
" "First off, how are fossils formed?" You don't know?
"Next, how does the fossil record contradict evolution of the eye?" It doesn't show the thousands of eyeless species we should have had.
"Finally, why didn't you bother reading any of the scientific sites concerning evolution of the eye?" Because, as you stated, they only describe possibilities. Another possibility is intelligent design. Eyes were there all along.
PW - Of course I know how fossils form. I also know how rare fossilization is. I also know that it takes extremely specific circumstances for soft tissue (like eyes) to fossilizes. However, we do have evidence. "
"Next, how does the fossil record contradict evolution of the eye?" It doesn't show the thousands of eyeless species we should have had.
"Finally, why didn't you bother reading any of the scientific sites concerning evolution of the eye?" Because, as you stated, they only describe possibilities. Another possibility is intelligent design. Eyes were there all along.
PW - Of course I know how fossils form. I also know how rare fossilization is. I also know that it takes extremely specific circumstances for soft tissue (like eyes) to fossilizes. However, we do have evidence. "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:13 AM:
" hfrmack--my honest answer is that science bores me. i'd rather watch paint dry. so i do not have the knowledge required to keep up with this thread. i am horrible at science. it took me two tries to pass biology at hawkeye community college. (but i got an 'A' in english comp II without even attending a single class for the last six weeks of the semester--my strengths lean towards history, language and the arts; definitely not science or mathematics.) "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:16 AM:
" I'm not a scientist, but my rudimentary understanding of evolution indicates why we don't find eyeless species around.
It's natural selection.
Any eyeless species would have been at a serious disadvantage to any species WITH eyes. So, eyeless species would have been a nice lunch for those with eyes and none would have grown to adulthood. (And, now that I think about it, might not have grown up even then because of their disadvantage in finding food themselves. They would probably have starved.) And, having died so young, they would not have left any skeletal remains to become fossils.)
/s/ Steve Cross "
It's natural selection.
Any eyeless species would have been at a serious disadvantage to any species WITH eyes. So, eyeless species would have been a nice lunch for those with eyes and none would have grown to adulthood. (And, now that I think about it, might not have grown up even then because of their disadvantage in finding food themselves. They would probably have starved.) And, having died so young, they would not have left any skeletal remains to become fossils.)
/s/ Steve Cross "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:51 PM:
" conservativeUS wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:12 AM:
"...Good luck to you Phil." -- Thank you and good luck to you as well.
"..phil seems to think big bad bush caused the iraq war." -- Well let's see, did Iraq attack us? - Nope. Did Iraq attack any other country? - Nope. Did Iraq declare war on the USA? - Nope. Yep, I'm pretty sure it was Bush who decided to invade Iraq - which means he caused it. I can't find any other answer.
"three, as a liberal, phil is by definition an abortionist." - I am? Wow, I didn't even know I was a doctor. Hey, if no one ever wants to have another abortion that's fine with me. Does that make me an "abortionist"?
Finally, you don't know if I believe in god or not. I don't believe in creationism. I have big doubts about any afterlife - as any rational person would.
Should I assume since you believe in god you also believe in the tooth fairy, Sasquatch, and the Easter Bunny? You seem quite sure of yourself yet you nor any of the others who post here can offer one shred of evidence that a god exists any more than those other beings do.
While science doesn't have all the answers at this time, it does have rational theories as well as evidence of how things are likely to have evolved over BILLIONS of years. Billions of years, an amount of time so long the human mind can't even fathom it.
If there is a god, we humans have failed him miserably - especially the Bushes and Cheneys of this world. "
"...Good luck to you Phil." -- Thank you and good luck to you as well.
"..phil seems to think big bad bush caused the iraq war." -- Well let's see, did Iraq attack us? - Nope. Did Iraq attack any other country? - Nope. Did Iraq declare war on the USA? - Nope. Yep, I'm pretty sure it was Bush who decided to invade Iraq - which means he caused it. I can't find any other answer.
"three, as a liberal, phil is by definition an abortionist." - I am? Wow, I didn't even know I was a doctor. Hey, if no one ever wants to have another abortion that's fine with me. Does that make me an "abortionist"?
Finally, you don't know if I believe in god or not. I don't believe in creationism. I have big doubts about any afterlife - as any rational person would.
Should I assume since you believe in god you also believe in the tooth fairy, Sasquatch, and the Easter Bunny? You seem quite sure of yourself yet you nor any of the others who post here can offer one shred of evidence that a god exists any more than those other beings do.
While science doesn't have all the answers at this time, it does have rational theories as well as evidence of how things are likely to have evolved over BILLIONS of years. Billions of years, an amount of time so long the human mind can't even fathom it.
If there is a god, we humans have failed him miserably - especially the Bushes and Cheneys of this world. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:58 PM:
" See bats
See spiders
See pit viper snakes
See blind people
They/we all have senses, some with more common sense than others. It is how they/we use them.
-hfrmack "
See spiders
See pit viper snakes
See blind people
They/we all have senses, some with more common sense than others. It is how they/we use them.
-hfrmack "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:02 PM:
" xdfred said - And you can prove I'm intending to deceive, right? That I know what I am saying is wrong, but pusing it anayway?
PW - gee, what else do you call it when you quote out of context? What else do you call it when you continue to claim "there is no evidence", when you've been given the evidence (repeatedly). When you continue to claim ID deserves to be taught in science, when we've shown you that even ID's big guns admit ID is NOT science?
What do you call it? "
PW - gee, what else do you call it when you quote out of context? What else do you call it when you continue to claim "there is no evidence", when you've been given the evidence (repeatedly). When you continue to claim ID deserves to be taught in science, when we've shown you that even ID's big guns admit ID is NOT science?
What do you call it? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:15 PM:
" " I'm not a scientist, but my rudimentary understanding of evolution indicates why we don't find eyeless species around.
It's natural selection.
Any eyeless species would have been at a serious disadvantage to any species WITH eyes. So, eyeless species would have been a nice lunch for those with eyes and none would have grown to adulthood. (And, now that I think about it, might not have grown up even then because of their disadvantage in finding food themselves. They would probably have starved.) And, having died so young, they would not have left any skeletal remains to become fossils.)
PW - There are numerous eyeless species - they are found in lightless environments. In fact, you can find eyeless species that used to have eyes, but then (because of evolution) inhabited ecological niches that are dark. There are some really cool examples of cave dwelling species, especially some fish in water in caves.
Another example of evolution in action are the marine species of the deep. Some are sightless, but some evolved light emitting functions. "
It's natural selection.
Any eyeless species would have been at a serious disadvantage to any species WITH eyes. So, eyeless species would have been a nice lunch for those with eyes and none would have grown to adulthood. (And, now that I think about it, might not have grown up even then because of their disadvantage in finding food themselves. They would probably have starved.) And, having died so young, they would not have left any skeletal remains to become fossils.)
PW - There are numerous eyeless species - they are found in lightless environments. In fact, you can find eyeless species that used to have eyes, but then (because of evolution) inhabited ecological niches that are dark. There are some really cool examples of cave dwelling species, especially some fish in water in caves.
Another example of evolution in action are the marine species of the deep. Some are sightless, but some evolved light emitting functions. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
It's only 20%. Are you lying again? "
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
It's only 20%. Are you lying again? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:22 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:51 PM:
" conservativeUS wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:12 AM:
"...Good luck to you Phil." -- Thank you and good luck to you as well.
"..phil seems to think big bad bush caused the iraq war." -- Well let's see, did Iraq attack us? - Nope. Did Iraq attack any other country? - " That whole Kuwait think must have been a Cheney fib, huh? "
" conservativeUS wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:12 AM:
"...Good luck to you Phil." -- Thank you and good luck to you as well.
"..phil seems to think big bad bush caused the iraq war." -- Well let's see, did Iraq attack us? - Nope. Did Iraq attack any other country? - " That whole Kuwait think must have been a Cheney fib, huh? "
jeroze wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:25 PM:
" So far this week as this is written., 257 comments on the artile. As timbrackett confesses that science is not his thing, I confess that the blogs have gone far beyond the science that was being taught when I graduated from high school in 1952. So I kind of got lost in some of the technical stuff. Hope the subject next week is different and the blogging less emotionally charged. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:51 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
It's only 20%. Are you lying again? "
PW - From Medline and the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
I quote, "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
It's only 20%. Are you lying again? "
PW - From Medline and the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
I quote, "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
timbrackett wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:55 PM:
" yeah, i give clayson a hard time but he generates a lot of discussion and ad revenue for the courier's online edition. i'll give credit where it is due.
also, i still like chicken! "
also, i still like chicken! "
cf1981 wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:03 PM:
" Why not teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in our schools?
Why not teach alchemy alongside chemistry? Magic alongside physics? Astrology alongside Astronomy?
Teach the garbage alongside the science and let the kids decide which they like! "
Why not teach alchemy alongside chemistry? Magic alongside physics? Astrology alongside Astronomy?
Teach the garbage alongside the science and let the kids decide which they like! "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:12 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:22 PM:
"That whole Kuwait think must have been a Cheney fib, huh? "
Great logic. Iraq was no longer in Kuwait when we last invaded it - and hadn't been for years.
According to your logic, we should be able to attack Japan any time we want since they attacked us in Pearl Harbor - 47 years ago.
That's stupid beyond the bounds of stupidity. "
"That whole Kuwait think must have been a Cheney fib, huh? "
Great logic. Iraq was no longer in Kuwait when we last invaded it - and hadn't been for years.
According to your logic, we should be able to attack Japan any time we want since they attacked us in Pearl Harbor - 47 years ago.
That's stupid beyond the bounds of stupidity. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:13 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:02 PM:
" xdfred said - And you can prove I'm intending to deceive, right? That I know what I am saying is wrong, but pusing it anayway?
PW - gee, what else do you call it when you quote out of context? What do you call it? "
I call you a joke. I took a quote, in it's entirety, and pasted it here, and pasted the link to the article, so anybody could see where I got it from. Yet, according to your feeble mind, I somehow took something out of context. Also, you and the other you in your we can tell me all you want. It doesn't make you right." And what evidence have you presented that there's no way intelligent design is not possible.
"When you continue to claim ID deserves to be taught in science," Never claimed that. Just discussed as an alternative possibility.
" when we've shown you that even ID's big guns admit ID is NOT science?" Wow. I'll admit ID isn't science. You happy now?
Did you get rapped on the knuckles one time too many in Sunday school and made to sit in the corner with the pointy hat one time too often? What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion. "
" xdfred said - And you can prove I'm intending to deceive, right? That I know what I am saying is wrong, but pusing it anayway?
PW - gee, what else do you call it when you quote out of context? What do you call it? "
I call you a joke. I took a quote, in it's entirety, and pasted it here, and pasted the link to the article, so anybody could see where I got it from. Yet, according to your feeble mind, I somehow took something out of context. Also, you and the other you in your we can tell me all you want. It doesn't make you right." And what evidence have you presented that there's no way intelligent design is not possible.
"When you continue to claim ID deserves to be taught in science," Never claimed that. Just discussed as an alternative possibility.
" when we've shown you that even ID's big guns admit ID is NOT science?" Wow. I'll admit ID isn't science. You happy now?
Did you get rapped on the knuckles one time too many in Sunday school and made to sit in the corner with the pointy hat one time too often? What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:15 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:51 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
It's only 20%. Are you lying again? "
PW - From Medline and the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
I quote, "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
Nope, but I was going by actual numbers of known miscarriages, not blind estimates. That may be close to making stuff up, but just close. "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" "I am sure God will have no sense of humor to those that kill the unborn so willingly."
PW - your god causes 50% of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion. Your god, by virtue of him claiming omnipotence and omniscience , is responsible for these abortions. Get your god to knock it off, then we can talk. "
It's only 20%. Are you lying again? "
PW - From Medline and the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
I quote, "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
Nope, but I was going by actual numbers of known miscarriages, not blind estimates. That may be close to making stuff up, but just close. "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:15 PM:
" Gee, since Jesus was into forgiveness, and giving everything to the poor, and many things that today would today classify him as a "liberal", I guess by definition that makes him an abortionist.
And now we find out that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort.
Guess it all adds up.
Jesus = God = abortionist = liberal
Who'd of thunk it? "
And now we find out that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort.
Guess it all adds up.
Jesus = God = abortionist = liberal
Who'd of thunk it? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:18 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:15 PM:
" " I'm not a scientist, but my rudimentary understanding of evolution indicates why we don't find eyeless species around.
It's natural selection.
Any eyeless species would have been at a serious disadvantage to any species WITH eyes. So, eyeless species would have been a nice lunch for those with eyes and none would have grown to adulthood. (And, now that I think about it, might not have grown up even then because of their disadvantage in finding food themselves. They would probably have starved.) And, having died so young, they would not have left any skeletal remains to become fossils.)
Except that initially, they all would have been eyeless, so your little 2 dollar theory just went out the window. And they would have been eyeless for a very long time, so there should be plenty of fossils.
OK, so animals that don't need eyes have lost them over time, or so we think. Why woulod they have had eyes to begin with? Or do they have eyes, but they are small and not used much. "
" " I'm not a scientist, but my rudimentary understanding of evolution indicates why we don't find eyeless species around.
It's natural selection.
Any eyeless species would have been at a serious disadvantage to any species WITH eyes. So, eyeless species would have been a nice lunch for those with eyes and none would have grown to adulthood. (And, now that I think about it, might not have grown up even then because of their disadvantage in finding food themselves. They would probably have starved.) And, having died so young, they would not have left any skeletal remains to become fossils.)
Except that initially, they all would have been eyeless, so your little 2 dollar theory just went out the window. And they would have been eyeless for a very long time, so there should be plenty of fossils.
OK, so animals that don't need eyes have lost them over time, or so we think. Why woulod they have had eyes to begin with? Or do they have eyes, but they are small and not used much. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:20 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:12 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:22 PM:
"That whole Kuwait think must have been a Cheney fib, huh? "
Great logic. Iraq was no longer in Kuwait when we last invaded it - and hadn't been for years.
According to your logic, we should be able to attack Japan any time we want since they attacked us in Pearl Harbor - 47 years ago.
That's stupid beyond the bounds of stupidity. "
Earth to Phil. The US, as part of a multi-national force, evicted Iraq from Kuwait. Then the UN said stop, we need evil dictators around to justify our existance and get dirty money, so we were stopped and Iraq promised to play nice or else. 14 UN resolutions later, the or else happened. I wonder if professor Wonk would consider you a liar over this. And what does this have to do with censorship of ID discussion? "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:22 PM:
"That whole Kuwait think must have been a Cheney fib, huh? "
Great logic. Iraq was no longer in Kuwait when we last invaded it - and hadn't been for years.
According to your logic, we should be able to attack Japan any time we want since they attacked us in Pearl Harbor - 47 years ago.
That's stupid beyond the bounds of stupidity. "
Earth to Phil. The US, as part of a multi-national force, evicted Iraq from Kuwait. Then the UN said stop, we need evil dictators around to justify our existance and get dirty money, so we were stopped and Iraq promised to play nice or else. 14 UN resolutions later, the or else happened. I wonder if professor Wonk would consider you a liar over this. And what does this have to do with censorship of ID discussion? "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:28 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:13 PM:
"...What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion. "
Who hates religion? Stop the persecution complex.
First you were censored - now you are hated? Bull-hockey.
Nobody here "hates" religion. Nobody wants to "censor" religion.
All we are saying about religion is:
1. It isn't a scientific subject.
2. It doesn't belong in the schools.
3. It doesn't belong in the government.
Otherwise BELIEVE WHAT EVER FAIRY TALES YOU WANT! Teach it in whatever church will have you - or start your own. Take out ads in newpapers. Get sponsors for a TV show. How much more freedom can you want?
But you see beyond that, when you force someone to teach something that has no basis in science, your aren't teaching - you are spewing propoganda.
Tell me, how is teaching that your god is the "real" god, or your creation story is the "true" one any different than teaching one nationality is really a "master" race? "
"...What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion. "
Who hates religion? Stop the persecution complex.
First you were censored - now you are hated? Bull-hockey.
Nobody here "hates" religion. Nobody wants to "censor" religion.
All we are saying about religion is:
1. It isn't a scientific subject.
2. It doesn't belong in the schools.
3. It doesn't belong in the government.
Otherwise BELIEVE WHAT EVER FAIRY TALES YOU WANT! Teach it in whatever church will have you - or start your own. Take out ads in newpapers. Get sponsors for a TV show. How much more freedom can you want?
But you see beyond that, when you force someone to teach something that has no basis in science, your aren't teaching - you are spewing propoganda.
Tell me, how is teaching that your god is the "real" god, or your creation story is the "true" one any different than teaching one nationality is really a "master" race? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:58 PM:
" jeroze wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:25 PM:
" So far this week as this is written., 257 comments on the artile. As timbrackett confesses that science is not his thing, I confess that the blogs have gone far beyond the science that was being taught when I graduated from high school in 1952. So I kind of got lost in some of the technical stuff. Hope the subject next week is different and the blogging less emotionally charged. "
PW - I agree that for a lot of folks "science is not their thing". Personally, I think that's sad, but I'm biased, having spent the past 30 years working in science. But I understand not all folks are interested in the same things. So what I don't understand, is when folks who clearly do not understand science, start proclaiming that science is wrong. The things they say (or write) may seem like they make sense, but if you know what science really says, the things these critics are saying sound like gibberish.
For instance - I admit I know nothing about ice hockey. The last full hockey game I even saw was in 1980. So if I went on a hockey forum online and started posting that a guy I know read a book once that said the umpires (referees?, officials?) had been miscalling the icing penalty (foul?) all wrong for years, what do you think the folks who actually watch hockey (much less play it) would say?
Other folks who didn't understand hockey might think I was brilliant, or at least knew what I was talking about though.
That is what this is all about. On one hand you have hundreds of thousands of professionals who have spent literally millions of years in training and education. On the other hand you have folks who want to believe that groups of itinerant nomadic bronze-age shepherds writing down oral tradition myths 3000 years ago, were smarter and wiser than all these professional scientists and researchers.
You have folks posting who think ID is the equal to real science so it should be taught as an equal to real science. ID is nothing more that christian creationism with a new name. It was founded by the same folks who tried to get creationism taught in school and were rejected by the Supreme Court. These folks then "changed their name" and took the exact same text book they had written for teaching creationism (Of Pandas and People), and changed "god" to intelligent designer and changed "creationism" to intelligent design. They wrote an internal briefing memo called the Wedge Document where they laid out their strategy, which in reality is nothing less than to turn this country into a right wing talibaneque theocracy. They have a "reseach institution" that does no research. They have "scientists" that perform no science. They are made up of lawyers and marketing folks. They don't "do science" they do "creation lite".
And you have some folks posting here who have bought into their little bag of lies, hook, line, and sinker. "
" So far this week as this is written., 257 comments on the artile. As timbrackett confesses that science is not his thing, I confess that the blogs have gone far beyond the science that was being taught when I graduated from high school in 1952. So I kind of got lost in some of the technical stuff. Hope the subject next week is different and the blogging less emotionally charged. "
PW - I agree that for a lot of folks "science is not their thing". Personally, I think that's sad, but I'm biased, having spent the past 30 years working in science. But I understand not all folks are interested in the same things. So what I don't understand, is when folks who clearly do not understand science, start proclaiming that science is wrong. The things they say (or write) may seem like they make sense, but if you know what science really says, the things these critics are saying sound like gibberish.
For instance - I admit I know nothing about ice hockey. The last full hockey game I even saw was in 1980. So if I went on a hockey forum online and started posting that a guy I know read a book once that said the umpires (referees?, officials?) had been miscalling the icing penalty (foul?) all wrong for years, what do you think the folks who actually watch hockey (much less play it) would say?
Other folks who didn't understand hockey might think I was brilliant, or at least knew what I was talking about though.
That is what this is all about. On one hand you have hundreds of thousands of professionals who have spent literally millions of years in training and education. On the other hand you have folks who want to believe that groups of itinerant nomadic bronze-age shepherds writing down oral tradition myths 3000 years ago, were smarter and wiser than all these professional scientists and researchers.
You have folks posting who think ID is the equal to real science so it should be taught as an equal to real science. ID is nothing more that christian creationism with a new name. It was founded by the same folks who tried to get creationism taught in school and were rejected by the Supreme Court. These folks then "changed their name" and took the exact same text book they had written for teaching creationism (Of Pandas and People), and changed "god" to intelligent designer and changed "creationism" to intelligent design. They wrote an internal briefing memo called the Wedge Document where they laid out their strategy, which in reality is nothing less than to turn this country into a right wing talibaneque theocracy. They have a "reseach institution" that does no research. They have "scientists" that perform no science. They are made up of lawyers and marketing folks. They don't "do science" they do "creation lite".
And you have some folks posting here who have bought into their little bag of lies, hook, line, and sinker. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:17 PM:
" xdfred said: I call you a joke. I took a quote, in it's entirety, and pasted it here, and pasted the link to the article, so anybody could see where I got it from. Yet, according to your feeble mind, I somehow took something out of context.
PW - Let's see - Here is the quote you posted (by Darwin) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
My, my, my, That certainly sounds like Darwin doubted his own theory doesn't it. But, as I stated, that was only the first part of Darwin's quote. So no you most certainly did not post the quote in it's entirety. This is the entire Darwin quote - "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
That quote certainly reads much different now doesn't it?
Here's what you did - You got a quote from a fundamentalist creationist website. These folks have a partial quote posted that shows even the great and mighty Darwin doubted evolution. But - they don't bother telling you minions that what they posted is only a partial quote, and that the can't post the entire quote, because it would refute what they are claiming. You, in your zeal, to show everyone that even the great and mighty Darwin didn't really believe in evolution, didn't bother to double check your information before you posted the out of context partial quote. And you got caught.
I'm kind of disappointed that you didn't follow up that out of context partial quote with the old "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" story. Usually for creationists, that's the old one, two punch they throw out. (By the way, Lady Hope lied).
=======================================
xdfred also said: "Wow. I'll admit ID isn't science. You happy now?"
PW - so why continue to claim it should be taught in science class? "
PW - Let's see - Here is the quote you posted (by Darwin) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
My, my, my, That certainly sounds like Darwin doubted his own theory doesn't it. But, as I stated, that was only the first part of Darwin's quote. So no you most certainly did not post the quote in it's entirety. This is the entire Darwin quote - "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
That quote certainly reads much different now doesn't it?
Here's what you did - You got a quote from a fundamentalist creationist website. These folks have a partial quote posted that shows even the great and mighty Darwin doubted evolution. But - they don't bother telling you minions that what they posted is only a partial quote, and that the can't post the entire quote, because it would refute what they are claiming. You, in your zeal, to show everyone that even the great and mighty Darwin didn't really believe in evolution, didn't bother to double check your information before you posted the out of context partial quote. And you got caught.
I'm kind of disappointed that you didn't follow up that out of context partial quote with the old "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" story. Usually for creationists, that's the old one, two punch they throw out. (By the way, Lady Hope lied).
=======================================
xdfred also said: "Wow. I'll admit ID isn't science. You happy now?"
PW - so why continue to claim it should be taught in science class? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:29 PM:
" xdfred said: "Except that initially, they all would have been eyeless, so your little 2 dollar theory just went out the window. And they would have been eyeless for a very long time, so there should be plenty of fossils.
OK, so animals that don't need eyes have lost them over time, or so we think. Why woulod they have had eyes to begin with? Or do they have eyes, but they are small and not used much. "
PW - I've given you links to sites that discuss early evolution of the eye, why won't you read them? The first early early critters did not have eyes, they also didn't have much in the way of bones to fossilize. If you had read any of the sites, you would have known that. Plus - it was not "no eyes"..."no eyes"...BOOM "eyes"..."eyes". Again, you fail to realized the concept of just a little bitty tiny bit better. I'm also willing to bet you can't comprehend just how long 3.8 billion years is. "
OK, so animals that don't need eyes have lost them over time, or so we think. Why woulod they have had eyes to begin with? Or do they have eyes, but they are small and not used much. "
PW - I've given you links to sites that discuss early evolution of the eye, why won't you read them? The first early early critters did not have eyes, they also didn't have much in the way of bones to fossilize. If you had read any of the sites, you would have known that. Plus - it was not "no eyes"..."no eyes"...BOOM "eyes"..."eyes". Again, you fail to realized the concept of just a little bitty tiny bit better. I'm also willing to bet you can't comprehend just how long 3.8 billion years is. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:38 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:28 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:13 PM:
"...What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion. "
Who hates religion? Stop the persecution complex." Given your constant religious slams, it's easy to assume such.
First you were censored - now you are hated? Bull-hockey." That's right. Bull hockey. I never said I was censored.
Nobody here "hates" religion. Nobody wants to "censor" religion." No, just limit where it's mentioned. But evolution can be discussed anywhere.
All we are saying about religion is:
1. It isn't a scientific subject." Agreed.
2. It doesn't belong in the schools." Censorship.
3. It doesn't belong in the government." Have you read what's in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or what's on our money? This makes your statement wrong. The people who created this country thought otherwise.
"Otherwise BELIEVE WHAT EVER FAIRY TALES YOU WANT! Teach it in whatever church will have you - or start your own. Take out ads in newpapers. Get sponsors for a TV show. How much more freedom can you want?" To be able to discuss the concept of intelligent design in schools.
"But you see beyond that, when you force someone to teach something that has no basis in science, your aren't teaching - you are spewing propoganda." Who said anything about force? And what about biology teachers who don't believe evolution is the only answer to life's questions? What are they forced to do?
"Tell me, how is teaching that your god is the "real" god, or your creation story is the "true" one any different than teaching one nationality is really a "master" race? " I'm talking about intelligent design. You want info on God, get to church. Quick! "
" xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:13 PM:
"...What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion. "
Who hates religion? Stop the persecution complex." Given your constant religious slams, it's easy to assume such.
First you were censored - now you are hated? Bull-hockey." That's right. Bull hockey. I never said I was censored.
Nobody here "hates" religion. Nobody wants to "censor" religion." No, just limit where it's mentioned. But evolution can be discussed anywhere.
All we are saying about religion is:
1. It isn't a scientific subject." Agreed.
2. It doesn't belong in the schools." Censorship.
3. It doesn't belong in the government." Have you read what's in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or what's on our money? This makes your statement wrong. The people who created this country thought otherwise.
"Otherwise BELIEVE WHAT EVER FAIRY TALES YOU WANT! Teach it in whatever church will have you - or start your own. Take out ads in newpapers. Get sponsors for a TV show. How much more freedom can you want?" To be able to discuss the concept of intelligent design in schools.
"But you see beyond that, when you force someone to teach something that has no basis in science, your aren't teaching - you are spewing propoganda." Who said anything about force? And what about biology teachers who don't believe evolution is the only answer to life's questions? What are they forced to do?
"Tell me, how is teaching that your god is the "real" god, or your creation story is the "true" one any different than teaching one nationality is really a "master" race? " I'm talking about intelligent design. You want info on God, get to church. Quick! "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:39 PM:
" PW: Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
xdfred: Nope, but I was going by actual numbers of known miscarriages, not blind estimates. That may be close to making stuff up, but just close. "
PW: So do you have any peer reviewed data do show the NLM NIH is wrong?
Here's where you are wrong - you're claiming that actual numbers of know miscarriages is the actual number of all miscarriages. You are not accounting for the number of unknown miscarriages - the majority of which will happen in the first few days to the first week or so. That's where you went wrong. However, medical researchers have methods to take this into account. "
xdfred: Nope, but I was going by actual numbers of known miscarriages, not blind estimates. That may be close to making stuff up, but just close. "
PW: So do you have any peer reviewed data do show the NLM NIH is wrong?
Here's where you are wrong - you're claiming that actual numbers of know miscarriages is the actual number of all miscarriages. You are not accounting for the number of unknown miscarriages - the majority of which will happen in the first few days to the first week or so. That's where you went wrong. However, medical researchers have methods to take this into account. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:49 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:17 PM:
" xdfred said: I call you a joke. I took a quote, in it's entirety, and pasted it here, and pasted the link to the article, so anybody could see where I got it from. Yet, according to your feeble mind, I somehow took something out of context.
PW - Let's see - Here is the quote you posted (by Darwin) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
My, my, my, That certainly sounds like Darwin doubted his own theory doesn't it. But, as I stated, that was only the first part of Darwin's quote. So no you most certainly did not post the quote in it's entirety." You really have a comprehension problem , don't you. I posted the quote in it's entirety from the source I posted. Now, if the author of that piece only posted part of it, I had no way of knowing that, did I? That's why I included the source of where I got it from. Given your ethics, I'll play along with your I've been in science for 30 yeras, claim. As the lab floor sweeper.
"You, in your zeal, to show everyone that even the great and mighty Darwin didn't really believe in evolution, didn't bother to double check your information before you posted the out of context partial quote. And you got caught."
Wow, so now I have to double and triple check everything to suit a loser like you? And by me getting caught, as you say, caught at what? Intent to deceive.
"PW - so why continue to claim it should be taught in science class? " You are such a dishonest loser! I never claimed it should be taught in science class. Discussed as an alternative to pure evolution random chance we all came from slime theories. Mentioned as another possibility. Gee, after listening to "scientists" rattle on about man made global warming, and this utter dishonesty of yours, I'm starting to think lawyers aren't so bad after all. "
" xdfred said: I call you a joke. I took a quote, in it's entirety, and pasted it here, and pasted the link to the article, so anybody could see where I got it from. Yet, according to your feeble mind, I somehow took something out of context.
PW - Let's see - Here is the quote you posted (by Darwin) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
My, my, my, That certainly sounds like Darwin doubted his own theory doesn't it. But, as I stated, that was only the first part of Darwin's quote. So no you most certainly did not post the quote in it's entirety." You really have a comprehension problem , don't you. I posted the quote in it's entirety from the source I posted. Now, if the author of that piece only posted part of it, I had no way of knowing that, did I? That's why I included the source of where I got it from. Given your ethics, I'll play along with your I've been in science for 30 yeras, claim. As the lab floor sweeper.
"You, in your zeal, to show everyone that even the great and mighty Darwin didn't really believe in evolution, didn't bother to double check your information before you posted the out of context partial quote. And you got caught."
Wow, so now I have to double and triple check everything to suit a loser like you? And by me getting caught, as you say, caught at what? Intent to deceive.
"PW - so why continue to claim it should be taught in science class? " You are such a dishonest loser! I never claimed it should be taught in science class. Discussed as an alternative to pure evolution random chance we all came from slime theories. Mentioned as another possibility. Gee, after listening to "scientists" rattle on about man made global warming, and this utter dishonesty of yours, I'm starting to think lawyers aren't so bad after all. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:11 PM:
" xdfred wrote: "What else explains the blind hatred of anything even remotely associated with religion"
PW - I don't hate religion. What I hate is a fundamentalists mindset of any stripe. A mindset that says "My version of god has bigger balls than your version of god, and he's gonna kick the crap out of you".
I know of many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) who are good loving people. And they understand that people come to "god" in different ways. Then there are the fundamentalists who believe that only they worship the correct version of the correct god. They think they have to believe in a literal word for word interpretation of their bible, and that anything else is a fraud.
Much of this type of mindset, at least for Christianity started in Europe in the late 1400's to late 1500's. Two things happened then. First was the invention of the printing press, next was Martin Luther. Prior to the reformation, Catholicism was the primary religion. This sect had a priest class who "interpreted" the bible for the common folks. Plus all the bibles were written in Latin, and all the church services were in Latin. At one point in some locals, it was actually illegal for common folks to have a copy of the bible in the common language. Once all hell broke loose and folks started getting bibles in their own tongue and were "throwing" off the bonds of the Catholic church things changed. As they read their bibles without someone to tell them what the stories meant, they started taking the bible literally. The fear was, that if they interpreted something wrong (parable, metaphor, etc.) they risked "getting it wrong" and going to hell. Unfortunately, a lot of that mindset continues today. "
PW - I don't hate religion. What I hate is a fundamentalists mindset of any stripe. A mindset that says "My version of god has bigger balls than your version of god, and he's gonna kick the crap out of you".
I know of many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) who are good loving people. And they understand that people come to "god" in different ways. Then there are the fundamentalists who believe that only they worship the correct version of the correct god. They think they have to believe in a literal word for word interpretation of their bible, and that anything else is a fraud.
Much of this type of mindset, at least for Christianity started in Europe in the late 1400's to late 1500's. Two things happened then. First was the invention of the printing press, next was Martin Luther. Prior to the reformation, Catholicism was the primary religion. This sect had a priest class who "interpreted" the bible for the common folks. Plus all the bibles were written in Latin, and all the church services were in Latin. At one point in some locals, it was actually illegal for common folks to have a copy of the bible in the common language. Once all hell broke loose and folks started getting bibles in their own tongue and were "throwing" off the bonds of the Catholic church things changed. As they read their bibles without someone to tell them what the stories meant, they started taking the bible literally. The fear was, that if they interpreted something wrong (parable, metaphor, etc.) they risked "getting it wrong" and going to hell. Unfortunately, a lot of that mindset continues today. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:56 PM:
" xdfred said: [regarding his quote mine of Darwin] "You really have a comprehension problem , don't you. I posted the quote in it's entirety from the source I posted. Now, if the author of that piece only posted part of it, I had no way of knowing that, did I? That's why I included the source of where I got it from. Given your ethics, I'll play along with your I've been in science for 30 yeras, claim. As the lab floor sweeper.
PW - Gee, do you think a creationist website might lie about a quote by Darwin? A rational person might have wondered why Darwin would say something like that in the first place. And instead of just blindly propagating the lie, investigate it. Kind of like if I went to a website and it proclaimed that Richard Dawkins thought aliens seeded Earth with life. I'd certainly investigate that before I started posting it on other sites.
======================================
xdfred said: ou are such a dishonest loser! I never claimed it should be taught in science class. Discussed as an alternative to pure evolution random chance we all came from slime theories. Mentioned as another possibility. Gee, after listening to "scientists" rattle on about man made global warming, and this utter dishonesty of yours, I'm starting to think lawyers aren't so bad after all. "
PW - If you don't want it taught in science class, then where are you wanting it taught, English Lit?
You're kinda all over the board aren't you? Evolution is wrong. Abiogenesis is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Man made global warming is wrong. By the way (god I hate to do this) - No one who really understands this issue states that humans are responsible for this climate change. The earth is always in a state of change. It's an oscillatory system about a set point. A lot of it has to do with procession about the axis of spin. What they are saying, is that humans have exacerbated it. We've made it more pronounced than it would have been if we weren't here. The problem with oscillatory systems is that if you go beyond a set point by a certain amount, it can be hard to get the system back into it's normal oscillation. It's like pulling on a slinky too hard - after that you can't get it back to it's normal state.
By the way, don't ever double or triple check your information just suit a loser like me. Do it for yourself. Especially when it's religious sites pretending that science is wrong. See, you may call me a loser, but you're the one who got lied to by a supposedly christian website. Or are going to claim that your website went through Darwin's "Origin of Species", got to Chapter 6, started reading his statement about the eye and transcribed up to the period and then "forgot" to include the rest.
Question - If your christian websites claiming evolution is wrong, are lying to you guys about quotes from Darwin, what are the odds they're lying about other stuff as well?
Follow-up question - What rational reason is there for these christian websites that claim evolution is wrong, to knowingly lie to the folks who read them?
See, this isn't an isolated incident. Numerous "christian" websites have the exact same partial quote by Darwin. A lot of them also throw in the "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" lie. Even when it was clear that Lady Hope lied, and that she wasn't even near Darwin's house when he died, these websites still post these lies. Some of your "christian" websites claiming evolution is wrong are being run by guys claiming to be men of "god" with Doctorates in various fields. Yet, when investigated, these are fake degree's. Yet they don't admit they've been caught, they go right on proclaiming themselves "Dr." Heck, one of the biggies is now in Federal prison. So why are these sites lying to folks like you? We've made you aware now of some of the "shenanigans" these websites are pulling, so now do you see why you should check your sources? For god's sake, don't do it for a "loser" like me - do it so others won't think you're a minion to these idiots. "
PW - Gee, do you think a creationist website might lie about a quote by Darwin? A rational person might have wondered why Darwin would say something like that in the first place. And instead of just blindly propagating the lie, investigate it. Kind of like if I went to a website and it proclaimed that Richard Dawkins thought aliens seeded Earth with life. I'd certainly investigate that before I started posting it on other sites.
======================================
xdfred said: ou are such a dishonest loser! I never claimed it should be taught in science class. Discussed as an alternative to pure evolution random chance we all came from slime theories. Mentioned as another possibility. Gee, after listening to "scientists" rattle on about man made global warming, and this utter dishonesty of yours, I'm starting to think lawyers aren't so bad after all. "
PW - If you don't want it taught in science class, then where are you wanting it taught, English Lit?
You're kinda all over the board aren't you? Evolution is wrong. Abiogenesis is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Man made global warming is wrong. By the way (god I hate to do this) - No one who really understands this issue states that humans are responsible for this climate change. The earth is always in a state of change. It's an oscillatory system about a set point. A lot of it has to do with procession about the axis of spin. What they are saying, is that humans have exacerbated it. We've made it more pronounced than it would have been if we weren't here. The problem with oscillatory systems is that if you go beyond a set point by a certain amount, it can be hard to get the system back into it's normal oscillation. It's like pulling on a slinky too hard - after that you can't get it back to it's normal state.
By the way, don't ever double or triple check your information just suit a loser like me. Do it for yourself. Especially when it's religious sites pretending that science is wrong. See, you may call me a loser, but you're the one who got lied to by a supposedly christian website. Or are going to claim that your website went through Darwin's "Origin of Species", got to Chapter 6, started reading his statement about the eye and transcribed up to the period and then "forgot" to include the rest.
Question - If your christian websites claiming evolution is wrong, are lying to you guys about quotes from Darwin, what are the odds they're lying about other stuff as well?
Follow-up question - What rational reason is there for these christian websites that claim evolution is wrong, to knowingly lie to the folks who read them?
See, this isn't an isolated incident. Numerous "christian" websites have the exact same partial quote by Darwin. A lot of them also throw in the "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" lie. Even when it was clear that Lady Hope lied, and that she wasn't even near Darwin's house when he died, these websites still post these lies. Some of your "christian" websites claiming evolution is wrong are being run by guys claiming to be men of "god" with Doctorates in various fields. Yet, when investigated, these are fake degree's. Yet they don't admit they've been caught, they go right on proclaiming themselves "Dr." Heck, one of the biggies is now in Federal prison. So why are these sites lying to folks like you? We've made you aware now of some of the "shenanigans" these websites are pulling, so now do you see why you should check your sources? For god's sake, don't do it for a "loser" like me - do it so others won't think you're a minion to these idiots. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 5:24 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:39 PM:
" PW: Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
xdfred: Nope, but I was going by actual numbers of known miscarriages, not blind estimates. That may be close to making stuff up, but just close. "
PW: So do you have any peer reviewed data do show the NLM NIH is wrong?
Here's where you are wrong - you're claiming that actual numbers of know miscarriages is the actual number of all miscarriages. You are not accounting for the number of unknown miscarriages - the majority of which will happen in the first few days to the first week or so. That's where you went wrong. However, medical researchers have methods to take this into account. "
Yes, except for one thing. What do medical researchers base this on? It has to be a guess of some sort. But your gods are infallible, aren't they? Really, how would you model the number of unknown pregnancies that resulted in unknown miscarriages without any empirical data? "
" PW: Do you really think the folks who understand science just make this stuff up? "
xdfred: Nope, but I was going by actual numbers of known miscarriages, not blind estimates. That may be close to making stuff up, but just close. "
PW: So do you have any peer reviewed data do show the NLM NIH is wrong?
Here's where you are wrong - you're claiming that actual numbers of know miscarriages is the actual number of all miscarriages. You are not accounting for the number of unknown miscarriages - the majority of which will happen in the first few days to the first week or so. That's where you went wrong. However, medical researchers have methods to take this into account. "
Yes, except for one thing. What do medical researchers base this on? It has to be a guess of some sort. But your gods are infallible, aren't they? Really, how would you model the number of unknown pregnancies that resulted in unknown miscarriages without any empirical data? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 9, 2009 5:30 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:29 PM:
PW - I've given you links to sites that discuss early evolution of the eye, why won't you read them? The first early early critters did not have eyes, they also didn't have much in the way of bones to fossilize. If you had read any of the sites, you would have known that. Plus - it was not "no eyes"..."no eyes"...BOOM "eyes"..."eyes". Again, you fail to realized the concept of just a little bitty tiny bit better. I'm also willing to bet you can't comprehend just how long 3.8 billion years is. " OK, so it took the same amount of time to develop simple bones, that would fossilize vs a very complex eye. And your web sites only talk possibilities. Here's another one: Intelligent design. See, nothing shows no eyes no eye, no eyes, boom, eyes, didn't happen. It's speculation. Not science. But it's OK to teach speculation, just not the possibility of ID. "
PW - I've given you links to sites that discuss early evolution of the eye, why won't you read them? The first early early critters did not have eyes, they also didn't have much in the way of bones to fossilize. If you had read any of the sites, you would have known that. Plus - it was not "no eyes"..."no eyes"...BOOM "eyes"..."eyes". Again, you fail to realized the concept of just a little bitty tiny bit better. I'm also willing to bet you can't comprehend just how long 3.8 billion years is. " OK, so it took the same amount of time to develop simple bones, that would fossilize vs a very complex eye. And your web sites only talk possibilities. Here's another one: Intelligent design. See, nothing shows no eyes no eye, no eyes, boom, eyes, didn't happen. It's speculation. Not science. But it's OK to teach speculation, just not the possibility of ID. "
Oboy wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:19 PM:
" xdfred, is your grave marker inscribed, "I always Babbled the last word, I think" "
MAC wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:52 PM:
" xdfred....primewonk has shucked the corn and milked the cows.
Sorry...you're toast.
And that is just my opinion. I don't have to prove it. "
Sorry...you're toast.
And that is just my opinion. I don't have to prove it. "
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:14 PM:
" xdfred - I want to teach the Buddhist version of creation in school as well as the Wiccan version. Anything less is censorship. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:41 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:56 PM:
By the way (god I hate to do this) - No one who really understands this issue states that humans are responsible for this climate change. The earth is always in a state of change. It's an oscillatory system about a set point. A lot of it has to do with procession about the axis of spin. What they are saying, is that humans have exacerbated it. We've made it more pronounced than it would have been if we weren't here. The problem with oscillatory systems is that if you go beyond a set point by a certain amount, it can be hard to get the system back into it's normal oscillation. It's like pulling on a slinky too hard - after that you can't get it back to it's normal state.
================================================================
What?!?!??!
Do you mean that the man who invented the "internet", (Al Gore), is wrong???????????????????????????
This is the exact argument Conservatives, along with Conservative scientist have been argueing all along!
No one doubts the global warming, the doubt is the blame of being "man made" by Liberals, Liberal scientist, and "Heidi Culumb" of "The Weather Channel", vs. the axis changes you described, along with many other natural occurances like volcano emmissions, which are much more devastating than tail pipe emmissions.
The exacerbation part you stated I have a hard time swallowing. The way you phrased it were as if to say, this wouldn't have happened if we weren't here. Well guess what? We're here, we've made an "ecological foot print", and there is nothing that can be done about it. Our civilization has made ecological foot prints for centuries, do you not think that we won't continue to do so for centuries into the future? What are you suggesting "if we weren't here"???????
I think I STILL smell chicken!!!
Go xdfred!!!
I know Mr. Wizard won't answer my questions.
Just some food for thought fodder for argumentative sake.
-hfrmack
BTW xdfred, if you get the chance, ask him about when life begins. "
By the way (god I hate to do this) - No one who really understands this issue states that humans are responsible for this climate change. The earth is always in a state of change. It's an oscillatory system about a set point. A lot of it has to do with procession about the axis of spin. What they are saying, is that humans have exacerbated it. We've made it more pronounced than it would have been if we weren't here. The problem with oscillatory systems is that if you go beyond a set point by a certain amount, it can be hard to get the system back into it's normal oscillation. It's like pulling on a slinky too hard - after that you can't get it back to it's normal state.
================================================================
What?!?!??!
Do you mean that the man who invented the "internet", (Al Gore), is wrong???????????????????????????
This is the exact argument Conservatives, along with Conservative scientist have been argueing all along!
No one doubts the global warming, the doubt is the blame of being "man made" by Liberals, Liberal scientist, and "Heidi Culumb" of "The Weather Channel", vs. the axis changes you described, along with many other natural occurances like volcano emmissions, which are much more devastating than tail pipe emmissions.
The exacerbation part you stated I have a hard time swallowing. The way you phrased it were as if to say, this wouldn't have happened if we weren't here. Well guess what? We're here, we've made an "ecological foot print", and there is nothing that can be done about it. Our civilization has made ecological foot prints for centuries, do you not think that we won't continue to do so for centuries into the future? What are you suggesting "if we weren't here"???????
I think I STILL smell chicken!!!
Go xdfred!!!
I know Mr. Wizard won't answer my questions.
Just some food for thought fodder for argumentative sake.
-hfrmack
BTW xdfred, if you get the chance, ask him about when life begins. "
Independent wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:31 AM:
" Hey xdfred! Wow, are you taking a whopping!
One question for ya, where are all of your and Clayson's sheep on this one?
Maybe you are the last one? "
One question for ya, where are all of your and Clayson's sheep on this one?
Maybe you are the last one? "
plaxibo wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:40 AM:
" Its mind boggling what evolutionist believe. Guess everyone needs there religion.
Evolution is not science it is religion plain and simple. Guess you could say it is the religion of atheist. "
Evolution is not science it is religion plain and simple. Guess you could say it is the religion of atheist. "
Phil wrote on Jan 10, 2009 11:53 AM:
" plaxibo wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:40 AM:
"Evolution is not science it is religion plain and simple."
I just thought I would repeat it to show how incrediby stupid this comment is.
Anyone who believes that should be banned from voting. "
"Evolution is not science it is religion plain and simple."
I just thought I would repeat it to show how incrediby stupid this comment is.
Anyone who believes that should be banned from voting. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:20 PM:
" Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:14 PM:
" xdfred - I want to teach the Buddhist version of creation in school as well as the Wiccan version. Anything less is censorship. "
PW - so far we know of at least 1000 different creation stories. Every culture, tribe, society, etc. had at least one. All of these stories are mutually exclusive. If you teach one as fact, you have to teach them all. Personally, my favorite is the creation myth of the Dogen and their god Amma. I doubt it would make it through the filters on this site, but you can google it.
Plus, does anyone really think most teachers are going to objectively teach that all myths - including the christian one - have equal credibility? "
" xdfred - I want to teach the Buddhist version of creation in school as well as the Wiccan version. Anything less is censorship. "
PW - so far we know of at least 1000 different creation stories. Every culture, tribe, society, etc. had at least one. All of these stories are mutually exclusive. If you teach one as fact, you have to teach them all. Personally, my favorite is the creation myth of the Dogen and their god Amma. I doubt it would make it through the filters on this site, but you can google it.
Plus, does anyone really think most teachers are going to objectively teach that all myths - including the christian one - have equal credibility? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:29 PM:
" plaxibo wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:40 AM:
" Its mind boggling what evolutionist believe. Guess everyone needs there religion.
Evolution is not science it is religion plain and simple. Guess you could say it is the religion of atheist. "
PW - and of course you have citations to peer-reviewed science sources to support these contentions? Preferably cites from journals such as Nature, Science, Cell, etc.
What you fail to understand is that those with standing in a field have the right and the duty to define the lexicon, set the parameters, etc. How does one achieve standing? You get off your rear and do the work. You get the education, you do the scut work in the labs, you spend years as a grad student, a post doc, a fellow. You do the research and submit it for peer review. You present it and argue it. Others replicate your work and confirm it. Then, and only then, do you have the right to say "evolution is not science". I'd be willing to hazard a guess that you do not have standing. "
" Its mind boggling what evolutionist believe. Guess everyone needs there religion.
Evolution is not science it is religion plain and simple. Guess you could say it is the religion of atheist. "
PW - and of course you have citations to peer-reviewed science sources to support these contentions? Preferably cites from journals such as Nature, Science, Cell, etc.
What you fail to understand is that those with standing in a field have the right and the duty to define the lexicon, set the parameters, etc. How does one achieve standing? You get off your rear and do the work. You get the education, you do the scut work in the labs, you spend years as a grad student, a post doc, a fellow. You do the research and submit it for peer review. You present it and argue it. Others replicate your work and confirm it. Then, and only then, do you have the right to say "evolution is not science". I'd be willing to hazard a guess that you do not have standing. "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:58 PM:
" One thing this whole discussion proves is that it's one thing to deal with ignorant people and quite another to deal with ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance.
/s/ Steve Cross "
/s/ Steve Cross "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:59 PM:
" xdfred said: OK, so it took the same amount of time to develop simple bones, that would fossilize vs a very complex eye. And your web sites only talk possibilities. Here's another one: Intelligent design. See, nothing shows no eyes no eye, no eyes, boom, eyes, didn't happen. It's speculation. Not science. But it's OK to teach speculation, just not the possibility of ID. "
PW - So you can't understand why we won't find a fossil of the "first eye" from a billion years ago, thus ToE is nothing but "speculation".
Fine. Please show us where the Garden of Eden is. You can post a link from google earth if you want. It's only 6000 years old so plate tectonics won't have moved it more than a few feet at most. Other geological forces haven't had enough time to cover it up. Plus according to your god (genesis 3:24) he placed cherubim with an ever-turning sword of flame at the east side. This should be a piece of cake. Heck we now have KH-11 satellites than resolve objects down to less than a foot. We've invaded the country where it should be, why not send a couple Blackhawks over with some HD camera's - stream the data right to the web.
I mean, your bible is literally true isn't it? The word of god never changes, does it? So where is it? You guys always want fossils of the first humans, so where are the fossils of Adam and Eve? Again, we're only talking 6000 years, well maybe like 5100 years since Adam was 930 years old when he died.
I'm also curious, it seems, according to some creationist websites - that you like to quote - that before the "fall" or on other sites before the "flood" that all animals were herbivorous - there were no meat eating animals. Can you cite some images showing the changes in carnivore dentition from 6000 years ago to say 4000 years ago showing this? In other words, show me a 6000 year old lion skeleton with flat crowns for teeth.
Or all these bible stories just "speculation"?
By the way, these are the easy questions. Once you answer these we can get to some others involving the physics of the "flood" - you might want to brush up on thermodynamics. "
PW - So you can't understand why we won't find a fossil of the "first eye" from a billion years ago, thus ToE is nothing but "speculation".
Fine. Please show us where the Garden of Eden is. You can post a link from google earth if you want. It's only 6000 years old so plate tectonics won't have moved it more than a few feet at most. Other geological forces haven't had enough time to cover it up. Plus according to your god (genesis 3:24) he placed cherubim with an ever-turning sword of flame at the east side. This should be a piece of cake. Heck we now have KH-11 satellites than resolve objects down to less than a foot. We've invaded the country where it should be, why not send a couple Blackhawks over with some HD camera's - stream the data right to the web.
I mean, your bible is literally true isn't it? The word of god never changes, does it? So where is it? You guys always want fossils of the first humans, so where are the fossils of Adam and Eve? Again, we're only talking 6000 years, well maybe like 5100 years since Adam was 930 years old when he died.
I'm also curious, it seems, according to some creationist websites - that you like to quote - that before the "fall" or on other sites before the "flood" that all animals were herbivorous - there were no meat eating animals. Can you cite some images showing the changes in carnivore dentition from 6000 years ago to say 4000 years ago showing this? In other words, show me a 6000 year old lion skeleton with flat crowns for teeth.
Or all these bible stories just "speculation"?
By the way, these are the easy questions. Once you answer these we can get to some others involving the physics of the "flood" - you might want to brush up on thermodynamics. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 3:51 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:58 PM:
" One thing this whole discussion proves is that it's one thing to deal with ignorant people and quite another to deal with ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance.
PW - It's not they are just proud of their ignorance - they wear it as a badge of honor. They don't care about evidence, they don't even care if they understand what the question is. "
" One thing this whole discussion proves is that it's one thing to deal with ignorant people and quite another to deal with ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance.
PW - It's not they are just proud of their ignorance - they wear it as a badge of honor. They don't care about evidence, they don't even care if they understand what the question is. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 10, 2009 4:55 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:58 PM:
" One thing this whole discussion proves is that it's one thing to deal with ignorant people and quite another to deal with ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance.
/s/ Steve Cross "
========================================================================
We agree, Steve. Mr. Wizard sure is ignorant, isn't he? Atheism = ignorance.
-hfrmack "
" One thing this whole discussion proves is that it's one thing to deal with ignorant people and quite another to deal with ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance.
/s/ Steve Cross "
========================================================================
We agree, Steve. Mr. Wizard sure is ignorant, isn't he? Atheism = ignorance.
-hfrmack "
Oboy wrote on Jan 10, 2009 5:22 PM:
" Steve be sure to bring up the "Ignorant" word when hfmack presents you with his $20.00. He is going to be big enough to personally present the money isn't he? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 5:31 PM:
" We agree, Steve. Mr. Wizard sure is ignorant, isn't he? Atheism = ignorance.
-hfrmack "
I'm still amazed that some groups of creationists assume that anyone who understands evolution is real has to be an atheist. So are the 1.1 billion Catholics all really atheists? "
-hfrmack "
I'm still amazed that some groups of creationists assume that anyone who understands evolution is real has to be an atheist. So are the 1.1 billion Catholics all really atheists? "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 10, 2009 6:25 PM:
" hfrmack, just because you refer to a very educated man by the title "Mr. Wizard," you do know who I'm talking about as "ignorant."
/s/ Steve Cross "
/s/ Steve Cross "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:06 PM:
" hfrmack said: "What?!?!??!
Do you mean that the man who invented the "internet", (Al Gore), is wrong???????????????????????????
This is the exact argument Conservatives, along with Conservative scientist have been argueing all along!
No one doubts the global warming, the doubt is the blame of being "man made" by Liberals, Liberal scientist, and "Heidi Culumb" of "The Weather Channel", vs. the axis changes you described, along with many other natural occurances like volcano emmissions, which are much more devastating than tail pipe emmissions.
The exacerbation part you stated I have a hard time swallowing. The way you phrased it were as if to say, this wouldn't have happened if we weren't here. Well guess what? We're here, we've made an "ecological foot print", and there is nothing that can be done about it. Our civilization has made ecological foot prints for centuries, do you not think that we won't continue to do so for centuries into the future? What are you suggesting "if we weren't here"???????"
This problem is one we face every day. It's a form of translational journalism. How do we take true scientific concepts and put them into a form that the lay public can understand. When we write informed consents for various research protocols, we are mandated by various IRB's and funding institutions to keep them at a 4th to 6th grade reading level - that of the general public. So how in the world do we take these concepts like evolution, or global warming, or cosmology and multidimensional hyperspace, and make so the average adult can not only read it, but understand it? Those of us on the science side of the fence sometimes criticize our journalism colleagues for "dumbing down" the science. This is what can happen in the "global warming" debate. The scientists state that the probability of humans exacerbating climate change fall within a predicted range. What the general public gets is "Humans are to blame for global warming". The earth is in one of it's warming phases. Odds are, even if there was no human species, it would still be in a warming phase. But, human activity has not only changed the rate of change, but they have exacerbated, or made it more pronounced. It's a synergistic effect. "
Do you mean that the man who invented the "internet", (Al Gore), is wrong???????????????????????????
This is the exact argument Conservatives, along with Conservative scientist have been argueing all along!
No one doubts the global warming, the doubt is the blame of being "man made" by Liberals, Liberal scientist, and "Heidi Culumb" of "The Weather Channel", vs. the axis changes you described, along with many other natural occurances like volcano emmissions, which are much more devastating than tail pipe emmissions.
The exacerbation part you stated I have a hard time swallowing. The way you phrased it were as if to say, this wouldn't have happened if we weren't here. Well guess what? We're here, we've made an "ecological foot print", and there is nothing that can be done about it. Our civilization has made ecological foot prints for centuries, do you not think that we won't continue to do so for centuries into the future? What are you suggesting "if we weren't here"???????"
This problem is one we face every day. It's a form of translational journalism. How do we take true scientific concepts and put them into a form that the lay public can understand. When we write informed consents for various research protocols, we are mandated by various IRB's and funding institutions to keep them at a 4th to 6th grade reading level - that of the general public. So how in the world do we take these concepts like evolution, or global warming, or cosmology and multidimensional hyperspace, and make so the average adult can not only read it, but understand it? Those of us on the science side of the fence sometimes criticize our journalism colleagues for "dumbing down" the science. This is what can happen in the "global warming" debate. The scientists state that the probability of humans exacerbating climate change fall within a predicted range. What the general public gets is "Humans are to blame for global warming". The earth is in one of it's warming phases. Odds are, even if there was no human species, it would still be in a warming phase. But, human activity has not only changed the rate of change, but they have exacerbated, or made it more pronounced. It's a synergistic effect. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:12 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Jan 10, 2009 6:25 PM:
" hfrmack, just because you refer to a very educated man by the title "Mr. Wizard," you do know who I'm talking about as "ignorant."
PW - It was a sad day when Don Herbert - Mr. Wizard - died 18 months ago. The world, especially the US, could use many, many more "Mr. Wizard's". Folks who could teach kids about science and make it fun and interesting. Get these kids motivated to learn more, experiment more. It's way too obvious that for many here it wasn't "cool" to be smart, or to like science or math, when they were in school. Maybe if more kids had spent 30 minutes a week watching Mr. Wizard, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. "
" hfrmack, just because you refer to a very educated man by the title "Mr. Wizard," you do know who I'm talking about as "ignorant."
PW - It was a sad day when Don Herbert - Mr. Wizard - died 18 months ago. The world, especially the US, could use many, many more "Mr. Wizard's". Folks who could teach kids about science and make it fun and interesting. Get these kids motivated to learn more, experiment more. It's way too obvious that for many here it wasn't "cool" to be smart, or to like science or math, when they were in school. Maybe if more kids had spent 30 minutes a week watching Mr. Wizard, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:36 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:06 PM:
This problem is one we face every day. It's a form of translational journalism. How do we take true scientific concepts and put them into a form that the lay public can understand. When we write informed consents for various research protocols, we are mandated by various IRB's and funding institutions to keep them at a 4th to 6th grade reading level - that of the general public. So how in the world do we take these concepts like evolution, or global warming, or cosmology and multidimensional hyperspace, and make so the average adult can not only read it, but understand it? Those of us on the science side of the fence sometimes criticize our journalism colleagues for "dumbing down" the science. This is what can happen in the "global warming" debate. The scientists state that the probability of humans exacerbating climate change fall within a predicted range. What the general public gets is "Humans are to blame for global warming". The earth is in one of it's warming phases. Odds are, even if there was no human species, it would still be in a warming phase. But, human activity has not only changed the rate of change, but they have exacerbated, or made it more pronounced. It's a synergistic effect. "
=============================================================================
Thank you for answering one of my questions, (finally), Mr. Wizard, not that I appreciate my intelligence being insulted. I was also aware of the passing of Don Herbert. In a complementary way, I was hoping that calling you "Mr. Wizard", would inspire you to help educate other readers and myself of this blog the scientific perspective (in lay terms) to debate.
All this is not personal from me, it's politics. I love a good debate!
Time is short on this thread, but do you think you could answer and explain your scientific theory of when human life begins in addressing my question which you did not reply to? (Fair warning though, if you insult my intelligence, yours will be too.)
Thus far, you seem to be the best educated authority on this blog in the field of science. But insulting Christianity, and my intelligence is un-called for, whether you are a Christian believer or not. I have sensed that you are a politically charged character to the far left from your blogs on this thread. The answer I was looking for from my un-answered question, was originally for a scientific defenition, if you could provide one. When our exchange became heated in debate, it turned political for me and obviously, you also.
If you no longer wish to be called "Mr. Wizard" by me, just let me know. You didn't answer that question either when I asked your permission.
I'm also fine with just keeping all of this debate political, if that is what you wish. It's all part of the fun with blogging on Clayson's threads.
-hfrmack "
This problem is one we face every day. It's a form of translational journalism. How do we take true scientific concepts and put them into a form that the lay public can understand. When we write informed consents for various research protocols, we are mandated by various IRB's and funding institutions to keep them at a 4th to 6th grade reading level - that of the general public. So how in the world do we take these concepts like evolution, or global warming, or cosmology and multidimensional hyperspace, and make so the average adult can not only read it, but understand it? Those of us on the science side of the fence sometimes criticize our journalism colleagues for "dumbing down" the science. This is what can happen in the "global warming" debate. The scientists state that the probability of humans exacerbating climate change fall within a predicted range. What the general public gets is "Humans are to blame for global warming". The earth is in one of it's warming phases. Odds are, even if there was no human species, it would still be in a warming phase. But, human activity has not only changed the rate of change, but they have exacerbated, or made it more pronounced. It's a synergistic effect. "
=============================================================================
Thank you for answering one of my questions, (finally), Mr. Wizard, not that I appreciate my intelligence being insulted. I was also aware of the passing of Don Herbert. In a complementary way, I was hoping that calling you "Mr. Wizard", would inspire you to help educate other readers and myself of this blog the scientific perspective (in lay terms) to debate.
All this is not personal from me, it's politics. I love a good debate!
Time is short on this thread, but do you think you could answer and explain your scientific theory of when human life begins in addressing my question which you did not reply to? (Fair warning though, if you insult my intelligence, yours will be too.)
Thus far, you seem to be the best educated authority on this blog in the field of science. But insulting Christianity, and my intelligence is un-called for, whether you are a Christian believer or not. I have sensed that you are a politically charged character to the far left from your blogs on this thread. The answer I was looking for from my un-answered question, was originally for a scientific defenition, if you could provide one. When our exchange became heated in debate, it turned political for me and obviously, you also.
If you no longer wish to be called "Mr. Wizard" by me, just let me know. You didn't answer that question either when I asked your permission.
I'm also fine with just keeping all of this debate political, if that is what you wish. It's all part of the fun with blogging on Clayson's threads.
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:54 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:06 PM:
The earth is in one of it's warming phases. Odds are, even if there was no human species, it would still be in a warming phase. But, human activity has not only changed the rate of change, but they have exacerbated, or made it more pronounced. It's a synergistic effect. "
===========================================================================
Does anyone besides myself remember in the 70's of the dumbed up science/media blitz of a coming "Ice Age"?
Mr. Wizard can't be wrong now, can he?
Of course he can, by his own admission that science is often wrong.
Could global warming be wrong? Who knows? It is agreed, however, that "man-made" global warming is incorrect. We just made it more pronounced, we guess????????
-hfrmack "
The earth is in one of it's warming phases. Odds are, even if there was no human species, it would still be in a warming phase. But, human activity has not only changed the rate of change, but they have exacerbated, or made it more pronounced. It's a synergistic effect. "
===========================================================================
Does anyone besides myself remember in the 70's of the dumbed up science/media blitz of a coming "Ice Age"?
Mr. Wizard can't be wrong now, can he?
Of course he can, by his own admission that science is often wrong.
Could global warming be wrong? Who knows? It is agreed, however, that "man-made" global warming is incorrect. We just made it more pronounced, we guess????????
-hfrmack "
Brian B wrote on Jan 11, 2009 3:21 AM:
" cross1242 said:" One thing this whole discussion proves is that it's one thing to deal with ignorant people and quite another to deal with ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance."
And you are the proudest on here..... "
And you are the proudest on here..... "
cross1242 wrote on Jan 11, 2009 3:28 AM:
" hfrmack @ Jan 10, 2009 10:54 PM asked: "Does anyone besides myself remember in the 70's of the dumbed up science/media blitz of a coming "Ice Age"?"
I was there. And, no, I don't. I think that's another figment of the imagination of wingnuts.
/s/ Steve Cross "
I was there. And, no, I don't. I think that's another figment of the imagination of wingnuts.
/s/ Steve Cross "
plaxibo wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:03 AM:
" Cross back in the 70's they did say the earth was getting colder and heading for another ice age. Guess you have selective memory. "
chester11 wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:54 AM:
" hfrmack -
You keep trying to demean Primewonk with low level sarcastic name calling and then expect him to answer your questions. You call him a "politically charged character from the far left". It's always a lunatic from the far left if their opinions don't go hand in hand with those from the far right, isn't it? It must be.
Primewonk writes large, inclusive, and informative paragraphs explaining his rationale for believing what he believes and you cherry pick little snippets and demand that he give you answers on them, when in a couple, he's already addressed them.
He said earlier that one can believe in God and believe in evolution. You say he insults you as a Christian. Yet, it's ok for you, from browsing the content of your favorite conservative blogs, to ridicule the theory of evolution that many of us believe passionately in. Isn't that insulting our intelligence? And the only reason you're even able to do this is because there really is an angry cabal mobilized out there to shoot down anything that counters their rigid right wing dogma.
It's the same principle that allows someone like Ann Coulter to paint a scumbag like Joe McCarthy as a national hero. It's disingenuous politics.
Primewonk suggests that detractors do the work in a lab, submit results for peer review and criticism.
Perusing neocon sites somehow doesn't strike me as the same level of research. But of course, all labs, all colleges, all forums of higher education are disgusting left wing madhouses so they can be largely dismissed, thus ignorance can continue to be wallowed in.
If you're going to be so insistent that Primewonk answer your questions, then start answering his. Specifically, find us proof of the Garden of Eden. If the burden is on him to find proof of ocular development over what most of us believe to be hundreds of millions of years then surely the burden oughta be on you to find physical evidence of your 6,000 year old stories. "
You keep trying to demean Primewonk with low level sarcastic name calling and then expect him to answer your questions. You call him a "politically charged character from the far left". It's always a lunatic from the far left if their opinions don't go hand in hand with those from the far right, isn't it? It must be.
Primewonk writes large, inclusive, and informative paragraphs explaining his rationale for believing what he believes and you cherry pick little snippets and demand that he give you answers on them, when in a couple, he's already addressed them.
He said earlier that one can believe in God and believe in evolution. You say he insults you as a Christian. Yet, it's ok for you, from browsing the content of your favorite conservative blogs, to ridicule the theory of evolution that many of us believe passionately in. Isn't that insulting our intelligence? And the only reason you're even able to do this is because there really is an angry cabal mobilized out there to shoot down anything that counters their rigid right wing dogma.
It's the same principle that allows someone like Ann Coulter to paint a scumbag like Joe McCarthy as a national hero. It's disingenuous politics.
Primewonk suggests that detractors do the work in a lab, submit results for peer review and criticism.
Perusing neocon sites somehow doesn't strike me as the same level of research. But of course, all labs, all colleges, all forums of higher education are disgusting left wing madhouses so they can be largely dismissed, thus ignorance can continue to be wallowed in.
If you're going to be so insistent that Primewonk answer your questions, then start answering his. Specifically, find us proof of the Garden of Eden. If the burden is on him to find proof of ocular development over what most of us believe to be hundreds of millions of years then surely the burden oughta be on you to find physical evidence of your 6,000 year old stories. "
myers39 wrote on Jan 11, 2009 1:34 PM:
" Simply as I can put it, I believe that if yoy read Genisis, and not knowing how long a day is to G-d, the scientific proof to date follows just what was written. Life in water first, then land, then birds. The big question is how did man begin? so one needs to realize both are needed to be true and have faith. Also, as so many said, no religion should be banned for any reason. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:07 PM:
" hfrmack said: Mr. Wizard can't be wrong now, can he?
Of course he can, by his own admission that science is often wrong.
PW - where did I say that science is often wrong?
One requirement of a scientific theory is that it has to be able to be modified. This happens as we learn new information, make new discoveries, etc. An example of this is gravity. Newton's theories on gravity held up quite well for hundreds of years. In fact, you can still use Newtonian gravity to calculate the trajectory to rocket to Mars. But his work broke down in certain instances. Einstein's work with relativity fixed some of these. So was Newton wrong?
The other concept you need to be aware of, is that science is self-correcting. Religion, by it's nature is rarely self-correcting, or takes an exceedingly long time to admit it's mistakes. Examples include the Catholic church's treatment of Galileo, or the SBC's finally renouncing it's racist past. "
Of course he can, by his own admission that science is often wrong.
PW - where did I say that science is often wrong?
One requirement of a scientific theory is that it has to be able to be modified. This happens as we learn new information, make new discoveries, etc. An example of this is gravity. Newton's theories on gravity held up quite well for hundreds of years. In fact, you can still use Newtonian gravity to calculate the trajectory to rocket to Mars. But his work broke down in certain instances. Einstein's work with relativity fixed some of these. So was Newton wrong?
The other concept you need to be aware of, is that science is self-correcting. Religion, by it's nature is rarely self-correcting, or takes an exceedingly long time to admit it's mistakes. Examples include the Catholic church's treatment of Galileo, or the SBC's finally renouncing it's racist past. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:20 PM:
" plaxibo wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:03 AM:
" Cross back in the 70's they did say the earth was getting colder and heading for another ice age. Guess you have selective memory. "
PW - This is another example of science being self-correcting. In fact here is a quote from a NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report from back in the 70's, "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Now, here (again) is the kicker - we recognized we did not have a clue as to what the problems were, or even how to approach the situation. So science kicked it's collective rear into action and started researching, collecting data, modeling, predicting, experimenting, etc. It's what science does. "
" Cross back in the 70's they did say the earth was getting colder and heading for another ice age. Guess you have selective memory. "
PW - This is another example of science being self-correcting. In fact here is a quote from a NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report from back in the 70's, "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Now, here (again) is the kicker - we recognized we did not have a clue as to what the problems were, or even how to approach the situation. So science kicked it's collective rear into action and started researching, collecting data, modeling, predicting, experimenting, etc. It's what science does. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:51 PM:
" hfrmack said: Time is short on this thread, but do you think you could answer and explain your scientific theory of when human life begins in addressing my question which you did not reply to?
PW - You need to differentiate between human, human life, human being, viable human, etc. If you want to claim that human life begins at conception, no ifs, ands, or buts, then you need to shut down all assisted reproduction clinics. Because if you implant several fertilized ova knowing that most will not become viable, you commit murder. If you have frozen zygotes and do not implant them in women you are depriving the zygote of their constitutional rights. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, and she aborts it, she needs to be charged with murder. If a pregnant women develops cancer and needs chemotherapy to survive, she should not be allowed to get it, because it may terminate the pregnancy. You will have to require states to start strapping down 12 year old girls who get pregnant following gang rape in order to force them to continue the pregnancy.
The really ironic thing is that I have had religious fundamentalists tell me that the only time abortion should be allowed would be if there was a pre-birth test to determine if the fetus was gay.
The other sad fact is that so often it is the exact same religious fundamentalists who scream the loudest against a woman's reproductive rights and the ones screaming the loudest to cut prenatal funding, forbid sex ed (real sex ed), stop post natal funding, etc. "
PW - You need to differentiate between human, human life, human being, viable human, etc. If you want to claim that human life begins at conception, no ifs, ands, or buts, then you need to shut down all assisted reproduction clinics. Because if you implant several fertilized ova knowing that most will not become viable, you commit murder. If you have frozen zygotes and do not implant them in women you are depriving the zygote of their constitutional rights. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, and she aborts it, she needs to be charged with murder. If a pregnant women develops cancer and needs chemotherapy to survive, she should not be allowed to get it, because it may terminate the pregnancy. You will have to require states to start strapping down 12 year old girls who get pregnant following gang rape in order to force them to continue the pregnancy.
The really ironic thing is that I have had religious fundamentalists tell me that the only time abortion should be allowed would be if there was a pre-birth test to determine if the fetus was gay.
The other sad fact is that so often it is the exact same religious fundamentalists who scream the loudest against a woman's reproductive rights and the ones screaming the loudest to cut prenatal funding, forbid sex ed (real sex ed), stop post natal funding, etc. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 11, 2009 6:51 PM:
" myers39 wrote on Jan 11, 2009 1:34 PM:
" Simply as I can put it, I believe that if yoy read Genisis, and not knowing how long a day is to G-d, the scientific proof to date follows just what was written. Life in water first, then land, then birds. The big question is how did man begin? so one needs to realize both are needed to be true and have faith. Also, as so many said, no religion should be banned for any reason. "
PW - in ancient Hebrew the word "yom" could mean anything from a literal 24 hour day, to an indefinite period of time. However every time they used yom along with the modifiers "evening and morning", it refers to a literal 24 hour day. Creationists who can't quite wrap their heads around believing in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago like to claim that the combination of yom and evening and morning don't mean 24 hours ONLY in these first few verses of genesis. Bit of a cop out.
But let's look at the biblical order of creation in genesis 1 - never mind that there is a completely different order of creation in genesis 2!
Day 1 - god creates "light". However, god fails to create anything that emits light.
Day 2 - god creates the "heavens" by dividing the waters above and below. However, god still hasn't created anything in the heavens.
Day 3 - god creates the dry land and the waters on earth. However, with no source of heat energy you cannot have liquid water. God also creates vegetation on land. However, you cannot have vegetation without photosynthesis. And you can't have photosynthesis on earth without the sun, which still hasn't been created. We also know that plant life first happened in the seas, not on land.
Day 4 - god creates "lights" in the heavens (for astrological signs), and the sun and moon. Except god claims the moon is a source of light for the night. Apparently god didn't know the moon just reflects light.
Day 5 - god creates sea creatures and birds. Apparently god didn't know that birds evolved from earlier land creatures that he hadn't bothered creating yet.
Day 6 - god creates land animals and humans.
So no, your bible did not get things quite right. Plus, you still have that pesky second order of creation in the next chapter. "
" Simply as I can put it, I believe that if yoy read Genisis, and not knowing how long a day is to G-d, the scientific proof to date follows just what was written. Life in water first, then land, then birds. The big question is how did man begin? so one needs to realize both are needed to be true and have faith. Also, as so many said, no religion should be banned for any reason. "
PW - in ancient Hebrew the word "yom" could mean anything from a literal 24 hour day, to an indefinite period of time. However every time they used yom along with the modifiers "evening and morning", it refers to a literal 24 hour day. Creationists who can't quite wrap their heads around believing in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago like to claim that the combination of yom and evening and morning don't mean 24 hours ONLY in these first few verses of genesis. Bit of a cop out.
But let's look at the biblical order of creation in genesis 1 - never mind that there is a completely different order of creation in genesis 2!
Day 1 - god creates "light". However, god fails to create anything that emits light.
Day 2 - god creates the "heavens" by dividing the waters above and below. However, god still hasn't created anything in the heavens.
Day 3 - god creates the dry land and the waters on earth. However, with no source of heat energy you cannot have liquid water. God also creates vegetation on land. However, you cannot have vegetation without photosynthesis. And you can't have photosynthesis on earth without the sun, which still hasn't been created. We also know that plant life first happened in the seas, not on land.
Day 4 - god creates "lights" in the heavens (for astrological signs), and the sun and moon. Except god claims the moon is a source of light for the night. Apparently god didn't know the moon just reflects light.
Day 5 - god creates sea creatures and birds. Apparently god didn't know that birds evolved from earlier land creatures that he hadn't bothered creating yet.
Day 6 - god creates land animals and humans.
So no, your bible did not get things quite right. Plus, you still have that pesky second order of creation in the next chapter. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:44 PM:
" Oboy wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:19 PM:
" xdfred, is your grave marker inscribed, "I always Babbled the last word, I think" "
You'll never know.
MAC wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:52 PM:
" xdfred....primewonk has shucked the corn and milked the cows.
Sorry...you're toast.
And that is just my opinion. I don't have to prove it. "
And your opinion here, as it does everywhere else you haunt, is meaningless.
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:14 PM:
" xdfred - I want to teach the Buddhist version of creation in school as well as the Wiccan version. Anything less is censorship. "
Let me know how it goes. I only want the possibility of intelligent design discussed. You're more ambitious than I am. Or just a talker. "
" xdfred, is your grave marker inscribed, "I always Babbled the last word, I think" "
You'll never know.
MAC wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:52 PM:
" xdfred....primewonk has shucked the corn and milked the cows.
Sorry...you're toast.
And that is just my opinion. I don't have to prove it. "
And your opinion here, as it does everywhere else you haunt, is meaningless.
Phil wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:14 PM:
" xdfred - I want to teach the Buddhist version of creation in school as well as the Wiccan version. Anything less is censorship. "
Let me know how it goes. I only want the possibility of intelligent design discussed. You're more ambitious than I am. Or just a talker. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM:
" chester11 wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:54 AM:
" It's the same principle that allows someone like Ann Coulter to paint a scumbag like Joe McCarthy as a national hero. It's disingenuous politics." Or someone like you to paint a national hero like Joe McCarthy a scumbag. BTW, did you know that the venona cables proved Joe McCarthy was correct? And the liberal myth that Joe went after Hollywood starts is indeed a myth. That was the house unAmerican activites committee. Joe McCarthy was a SENATOR. Who's been drinking the kool aid? "
" It's the same principle that allows someone like Ann Coulter to paint a scumbag like Joe McCarthy as a national hero. It's disingenuous politics." Or someone like you to paint a national hero like Joe McCarthy a scumbag. BTW, did you know that the venona cables proved Joe McCarthy was correct? And the liberal myth that Joe went after Hollywood starts is indeed a myth. That was the house unAmerican activites committee. Joe McCarthy was a SENATOR. Who's been drinking the kool aid? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:50 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:20 PM:
" plaxibo wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:03 AM:
" Cross back in the 70's they did say the earth was getting colder and heading for another ice age. Guess you have selective memory. "
PW - This is another example of science being self-correcting. In fact here is a quote from a NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report from back in the 70's, "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Now, here (again) is the kicker - we recognized we did not have a clue as to what the problems were, or even how to approach the situation. So science kicked it's collective rear into action and started researching, collecting data, modeling, predicting, experimenting, etc. It's what science does. "
Translation: Don't hang your hat on what scientists say, especially pseudo scientists like PW.
What's tommarrow's scientific "crisis" going to be? "
" plaxibo wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:03 AM:
" Cross back in the 70's they did say the earth was getting colder and heading for another ice age. Guess you have selective memory. "
PW - This is another example of science being self-correcting. In fact here is a quote from a NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report from back in the 70's, "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Now, here (again) is the kicker - we recognized we did not have a clue as to what the problems were, or even how to approach the situation. So science kicked it's collective rear into action and started researching, collecting data, modeling, predicting, experimenting, etc. It's what science does. "
Translation: Don't hang your hat on what scientists say, especially pseudo scientists like PW.
What's tommarrow's scientific "crisis" going to be? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 12, 2009 6:22 PM:
" PW - This is another example of science being self-correcting. In fact here is a quote from a NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report from back in the 70's, "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Now, here (again) is the kicker - we recognized we did not have a clue as to what the problems were, or even how to approach the situation. So science kicked it's collective rear into action and started researching, collecting data, modeling, predicting, experimenting, etc. It's what science does. "
=========
xdfred: Translation: Don't hang your hat on what scientists say, especially pseudo scientists like PW.
What's tommarrow's scientific "crisis" going to be? "
PW - Wow. Question - is there ANY field of science you know ANYTHING about? Do you have a clue as to what the scientific method is? "
Now, here (again) is the kicker - we recognized we did not have a clue as to what the problems were, or even how to approach the situation. So science kicked it's collective rear into action and started researching, collecting data, modeling, predicting, experimenting, etc. It's what science does. "
=========
xdfred: Translation: Don't hang your hat on what scientists say, especially pseudo scientists like PW.
What's tommarrow's scientific "crisis" going to be? "
PW - Wow. Question - is there ANY field of science you know ANYTHING about? Do you have a clue as to what the scientific method is? "
Independent wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:26 PM:
" xdfred prolly graduated from the Rush Limbaugh science school of kool-aide drinking sheep, with honors. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:33 AM:
" Independent wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:26 PM:
" xdfred prolly graduated from the Rush Limbaugh science school of kool-aide drinking sheep, with honors. "
And I prolly learned how to spell there, too, with the other kool-aide drinkers.
It takes a real genius to knock one of the most successful radio personalities in the world. As I have mentioned before, the left fears him, hence the weak attacks. But no one can point to any dishonesty in his work, blatant lies on what he says. So, if Rush did indeed have a school, I would have benn proud to have attended. Not prolly, definately. "
" xdfred prolly graduated from the Rush Limbaugh science school of kool-aide drinking sheep, with honors. "
And I prolly learned how to spell there, too, with the other kool-aide drinkers.
It takes a real genius to knock one of the most successful radio personalities in the world. As I have mentioned before, the left fears him, hence the weak attacks. But no one can point to any dishonesty in his work, blatant lies on what he says. So, if Rush did indeed have a school, I would have benn proud to have attended. Not prolly, definately. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:36 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 12, 2009 6:22 PM:
"PW - Wow. Question - is there ANY field of science you know ANYTHING about? Do you have a clue as to what the scientific method is? " Yes, according to you it's the method where science is allowed to change its mind at the drop of a hat, but should be believed as absolute truth, even though science, like anything else, can be corrupted by those with an agenda. The secularist THEORY of evolution is one example of that method. Man made global warming is another one. I know a lot more about science, but I'm just regurgitating what I learned on this blog. From you. "
"PW - Wow. Question - is there ANY field of science you know ANYTHING about? Do you have a clue as to what the scientific method is? " Yes, according to you it's the method where science is allowed to change its mind at the drop of a hat, but should be believed as absolute truth, even though science, like anything else, can be corrupted by those with an agenda. The secularist THEORY of evolution is one example of that method. Man made global warming is another one. I know a lot more about science, but I'm just regurgitating what I learned on this blog. From you. "
Independent wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:48 AM:
" xdfred wrote, I would have benn proud to have attended.
I don't know what the word is between have and proud? I think you need to attend some more spelling class before you cock-off about your spelling abilities.
xdfred, that's all you do is regurgitate the Rush Limbaugh radio program.
Nice to see Al Franken is actually doing something to make a difference, it has to burn Rush that he is not respected enough to be elected to a senate seat. "
I don't know what the word is between have and proud? I think you need to attend some more spelling class before you cock-off about your spelling abilities.
xdfred, that's all you do is regurgitate the Rush Limbaugh radio program.
Nice to see Al Franken is actually doing something to make a difference, it has to burn Rush that he is not respected enough to be elected to a senate seat. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 10:24 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:33 AM:
" Independent wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:26 PM:
" xdfred prolly graduated from the Rush Limbaugh science school of kool-aide drinking sheep, with honors. "
And I prolly learned how to spell there, too, with the other kool-aide drinkers.
It takes a real genius to knock one of the most successful radio personalities in the world. As I have mentioned before, the left fears him, hence the weak attacks. But no one can point to any dishonesty in his work, blatant lies on what he says. So, if Rush did indeed have a school, I would have benn proud to have attended. Not prolly, definately. "
How do you know when Limbaugh is lying? He opens his mouth.
LIMBAUGH: But he’s not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn’t have any African — that’s why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he’s down for the struggle. He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa. He’s not — his father was — he’s not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American."
Funny - I googled rush Limbaugh Lies and got like almost 900,000 hits! "
" Independent wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:26 PM:
" xdfred prolly graduated from the Rush Limbaugh science school of kool-aide drinking sheep, with honors. "
And I prolly learned how to spell there, too, with the other kool-aide drinkers.
It takes a real genius to knock one of the most successful radio personalities in the world. As I have mentioned before, the left fears him, hence the weak attacks. But no one can point to any dishonesty in his work, blatant lies on what he says. So, if Rush did indeed have a school, I would have benn proud to have attended. Not prolly, definately. "
How do you know when Limbaugh is lying? He opens his mouth.
LIMBAUGH: But he’s not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn’t have any African — that’s why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he’s down for the struggle. He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa. He’s not — his father was — he’s not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American."
Funny - I googled rush Limbaugh Lies and got like almost 900,000 hits! "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 10:27 AM:
" "PW - Wow. Question - is there ANY field of science you know ANYTHING about? Do you have a clue as to what the scientific method is? "
xdfred: Yes, according to you it's the method where science is allowed to change its mind at the drop of a hat, but should be believed as absolute truth, even though science, like anything else, can be corrupted by those with an agenda. The secularist THEORY of evolution is one example of that method. Man made global warming is another one. I know a lot more about science, but I'm just regurgitating what I learned on this blog. From you. "
PW - WOW! I really said science changes it's mind at the of a hat? As for my comment about you not understanding a thing about science - it stands. "
xdfred: Yes, according to you it's the method where science is allowed to change its mind at the drop of a hat, but should be believed as absolute truth, even though science, like anything else, can be corrupted by those with an agenda. The secularist THEORY of evolution is one example of that method. Man made global warming is another one. I know a lot more about science, but I'm just regurgitating what I learned on this blog. From you. "
PW - WOW! I really said science changes it's mind at the of a hat? As for my comment about you not understanding a thing about science - it stands. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 13, 2009 12:30 PM:
" Independent wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:48 AM:
" xdfred wrote, I would have benn proud to have attended.
I don't know what the word is between have and proud? I think you need to attend some more spelling class before you cock-off about your spelling abilities." Good point, but benn to been is slightly less erroneous than polly to probably, don't you think?
"xdfred, that's all you do is regurgitate the Rush Limbaugh radio program." And why not?
"Nice to see Al Franken is actually doing something to make a difference,..."
Is this some sort of joke?
"...it has to burn Rush that he is not respected enough to be elected to a senate seat." I missed have missed something, but when did Rush run? If he hasn't, then how can you claim he isn't respected enough to be elected? Oh, I get it. You're regurgitating moveon.org. Or is it dailykos? "
" xdfred wrote, I would have benn proud to have attended.
I don't know what the word is between have and proud? I think you need to attend some more spelling class before you cock-off about your spelling abilities." Good point, but benn to been is slightly less erroneous than polly to probably, don't you think?
"xdfred, that's all you do is regurgitate the Rush Limbaugh radio program." And why not?
"Nice to see Al Franken is actually doing something to make a difference,..."
Is this some sort of joke?
"...it has to burn Rush that he is not respected enough to be elected to a senate seat." I missed have missed something, but when did Rush run? If he hasn't, then how can you claim he isn't respected enough to be elected? Oh, I get it. You're regurgitating moveon.org. Or is it dailykos? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
" "xdfred, that's all you do is regurgitate the Rush Limbaugh radio program."
xdfred: And why not?
Cause Rush does lie:
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank).
Limbaugh: "There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492" (Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, p. 171).
Reality: Forestland in what are now the 50 states covered about 1 billion acres before European settlement, according to U.S. Forest Service historian Douglas MacCleery. Today, there are only 737 million acres of forestland, much of which lacks the ecological diversity of old-growth forest (the American Forestry Association).
source: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1995/05/fair.html
Need more? "
xdfred: And why not?
Cause Rush does lie:
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank).
Limbaugh: "There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492" (Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, p. 171).
Reality: Forestland in what are now the 50 states covered about 1 billion acres before European settlement, according to U.S. Forest Service historian Douglas MacCleery. Today, there are only 737 million acres of forestland, much of which lacks the ecological diversity of old-growth forest (the American Forestry Association).
source: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1995/05/fair.html
Need more? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:37 PM:
" Still waiting:
Those of us on the science side of the fence have made some requests for information from those of you on the anti-science side of the fence. So far, we have not seen any.
Specifically, we are looking for:
The scientific theory of ID.
The scientific theory of your version of creationism.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in ID.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in your version of creationism.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into ID.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into your version of creationism.
Do any of you have a timeline of when we can expect any of these? "
Those of us on the science side of the fence have made some requests for information from those of you on the anti-science side of the fence. So far, we have not seen any.
Specifically, we are looking for:
The scientific theory of ID.
The scientific theory of your version of creationism.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in ID.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in your version of creationism.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into ID.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into your version of creationism.
Do any of you have a timeline of when we can expect any of these? "
Spenser wrote on Jan 13, 2009 4:29 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
If return to capital is higher for the wealthy then the poorest 1/5th needs to boost their nominal wage by becoming more productive.Nominal income is determined by individual productivity and the rate of inflation;hence,no matter how hard liberals try,society isn't going to become wealthier by redistributing income. "
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
If return to capital is higher for the wealthy then the poorest 1/5th needs to boost their nominal wage by becoming more productive.Nominal income is determined by individual productivity and the rate of inflation;hence,no matter how hard liberals try,society isn't going to become wealthier by redistributing income. "
Spenser wrote on Jan 13, 2009 5:05 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:37 PM
Specifically, we are looking for:
The scientific theory of ID.
The scientific theory of your version of creationism.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in ID.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in your version of creationism.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into ID.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into your version of creationism.
Looking at it now,the whole thread is counterintuitive--its all resting on untestable assumptions.One thing is certain:judging by your previous post your knowledge of economics is nil.In grad school for economics all we perform is operations in the mathematics--one of the hard sciences.Is biology grounded in mathematics? "
Specifically, we are looking for:
The scientific theory of ID.
The scientific theory of your version of creationism.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in ID.
Citations to peer-reviewed science journals showing work in your version of creationism.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into ID.
Links to accredited universities and colleges doing research into your version of creationism.
Looking at it now,the whole thread is counterintuitive--its all resting on untestable assumptions.One thing is certain:judging by your previous post your knowledge of economics is nil.In grad school for economics all we perform is operations in the mathematics--one of the hard sciences.Is biology grounded in mathematics? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:18 PM:
" Spencer said: Looking at it now,the whole thread is counterintuitive--its all resting on untestable assumptions.One thing is certain:judging by your previous post your knowledge of economics is nil.In grad school for economics all we perform is operations in the mathematics--one of the hard sciences.Is biology grounded in mathematics? "
PW - I posted quotes from info supplied by the CBO. I would suggest your beef is with them. However, the pompous gassbag know as Rush, has lied - and been caught at it - many many many times.
I'm curious as to what you are claiming are untestable assumptions? "
PW - I posted quotes from info supplied by the CBO. I would suggest your beef is with them. However, the pompous gassbag know as Rush, has lied - and been caught at it - many many many times.
I'm curious as to what you are claiming are untestable assumptions? "
xdfred wrote on Jan 15, 2009 11:26 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:18 PM:
"...source: http://www.motherjones.com..." Is it laugh in time? Why don't you find an even more left wing source?
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:37 PM:
" Still waiting:
Those of us on the science side of the fence have made some requests for information from those of you on the anti-science side of the fence. So far, we have not seen any.
Specifically, we" Mouse in your pocket? Who is this we you now speak for?
"... are looking for:
The scientific theory of ID." Doesn't exist.
"Do any of you have a timeline of when we can expect any of these? " Yes, when we're dead. because that is the only time we will know the absolute truth. One way or the other.
Where's your peer reviewed university approved scientifically sound documentation showing that ID is totally bogus and does not deserve any consideration in an academic setting.? Because that, little man, is the issue here. What merits discussion, and what does not. Youve trie, and failed, to turn the discussion into a who can prove what egeo trip. Failed. Miserably. "
"...source: http://www.motherjones.com..." Is it laugh in time? Why don't you find an even more left wing source?
Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:37 PM:
" Still waiting:
Those of us on the science side of the fence have made some requests for information from those of you on the anti-science side of the fence. So far, we have not seen any.
Specifically, we" Mouse in your pocket? Who is this we you now speak for?
"... are looking for:
The scientific theory of ID." Doesn't exist.
"Do any of you have a timeline of when we can expect any of these? " Yes, when we're dead. because that is the only time we will know the absolute truth. One way or the other.
Where's your peer reviewed university approved scientifically sound documentation showing that ID is totally bogus and does not deserve any consideration in an academic setting.? Because that, little man, is the issue here. What merits discussion, and what does not. Youve trie, and failed, to turn the discussion into a who can prove what egeo trip. Failed. Miserably. "
xdfred wrote on Jan 15, 2009 11:28 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank). "
Then why are people literally dying to come here? "
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank). "
Then why are people literally dying to come here? "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:44 PM:
" xdfred - you just stated that there is no scientific theory of ID. The big guns behind ID admit that it is not science. The courts have ruled that it isn't science. The scientists have stated that it isn't science. So why the heck are you so adamant about having taught in a science class? You can go ahead and set up a comparative religious mythology class and teach ID in that all you want. That is the issue here. As soon as can demonstrate ID is science, then by all means, teach it in science class. Same with astrology, alchemy, numerology, etc. "
Primewonk wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:49 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jan 15, 2009 11:28 AM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank). "
Then why are people literally dying to come here? "
=====================================
So tell me, how many folks from Germany, France, or Briton are dying trying to get to the US? Did you not read the quote? Does the quote have anything to say about the poor and destitute from Latin America and Mexico dying trying to get here? No, it does not.
Limbaugh stated that the poorest people in the America were better off than mainstream Europeans. What does that statement mean to you? So not only does Limbaugh lie - which you said he didn't - but you lie in your inane attempts to support that blithering pompous bag of flatulent gas. Again, doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank). "
Then why are people literally dying to come here? "
=====================================
So tell me, how many folks from Germany, France, or Briton are dying trying to get to the US? Did you not read the quote? Does the quote have anything to say about the poor and destitute from Latin America and Mexico dying trying to get here? No, it does not.
Limbaugh stated that the poorest people in the America were better off than mainstream Europeans. What does that statement mean to you? So not only does Limbaugh lie - which you said he didn't - but you lie in your inane attempts to support that blithering pompous bag of flatulent gas. Again, doesn't lying make baby jesus cry? "
chester11 wrote on Jan 16, 2009 10:37 PM:
" Spenser wrote on Jan 13, 2009 4:29 PM:
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
If return to capital is higher for the wealthy then the poorest 1/5th needs to boost their nominal wage by becoming more productive.Nominal income is determined by individual productivity and the rate of inflation;hence,no matter how hard liberals try,society isn't going to become wealthier by redistributing income. "
I know Spenser. Cause the problem with the Wal Mart checker or the Tyson's Ham Line slicer is that they just don't work hard enough. I like how you shove your grad career down everyone's throat but you have convinced basically nobody of anything with your chopped up, incoherent tripe. "
" Primewonk wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:32 PM:
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
If return to capital is higher for the wealthy then the poorest 1/5th needs to boost their nominal wage by becoming more productive.Nominal income is determined by individual productivity and the rate of inflation;hence,no matter how hard liberals try,society isn't going to become wealthier by redistributing income. "
I know Spenser. Cause the problem with the Wal Mart checker or the Tyson's Ham Line slicer is that they just don't work hard enough. I like how you shove your grad career down everyone's throat but you have convinced basically nobody of anything with your chopped up, incoherent tripe. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
chester11 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:59 AM: