Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#227 Apr 26 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I can see there are a few of us who are aware of our nasty addiction to smacking our heads against walls. I think we need to support each other in order to overcome this pathetic addiction. That being said, I'm here for you, bsphil.


Remember your sig!
That's what I thought, but I had to let one section get out. Gotta try harder next time.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#228 Apr 26 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Intelligent Design is a re-branding of Creationism, though.


But creationism itself doesn't assume any specific creator. When you say "creationism" you really mean "the Judeo-Christian account of creation from Genesis". But that's like saying that all animals are dogs, and since dogs can't fly no animal can fly. When you say that creationism is wrong because the literal story in Genesis is wrong, you are making exactly the same logical error.

Quote:
Ask the majority of the proponents of ID who they think the designer is. Who do you think? Shiva? Brahman? Thor? Zeus? Wotan? No, it's Yahweh, the god of the Bible.


Sure. Because that's their personal belief. That does not rule out creationism (or ID) as a valid explanation as to the origin of life the universe and everything.

Quote:
It's also not the Deist interpretation, you know the unmoved mover. The uncaused first cause. The being who set up the Universe and then left it to run it's course. The "Intelligent designer" is a higher being which takes decisive action in this Universe. According to ID, it steered the evolutionary process with us in mind.


And that's a problem, why? Isn't this you injecting your own personal beliefs into the issue?

Quote:
That just isn't true, evolution via natural selection does not have a goal, it does not have foresight. This is well documented.


That's an assumption though, isn't it? I mean, if we accept that there is an intelligent designer who uses evolutionary processes to make his design into what he wants, how would you know the difference? Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you can't prove that there *isn't* an intelligence deciding when specific mutations happen, or which natural events occur which lead life in a given direction.


There's a better argument against ID btw. I've made it myself in the past. It has to do with Occam's Razor, and falsifiability. It's not that we can prove that there isn't an intelligent designer, but that assuming one exists only increases the complexity of our model and does not clarify or solve any problems. That's the real best argument against ID. Trying to insist that science has disproved any act of a divine being causing the world to come out the way it did is a horribly wrong approach. Call this a free tip if you want.


Quote:
I didn't say it was wrong for religious people to take their texts literally. I said their texts were literally wrong.


You misunderstand me. I was trying to make the point that while I'm sure there are some out there somewhere, I've never actually met or communicated with a theist who insisted that the creation story in Genesis was exactly and literally true, but I've met tons of atheists who insist on exactly that sort of literal interpretation when arguing against it. That makes it an amusing form of straw man. The atheists are arguing against a position almost no theists actually take. And certainly, the bulk of folks arguing for creationism or ID today are not insisting that we teach the story out of the bible as literal fact either.

Quote:
Please don't play apologetics here...


I'm not. I'm just remarking with some amusement how the only people I've met who insist on taking the bible literally are atheists. Yet, they're the ones who claim to be arguing from a position of logic and reason. I just find it to be a huge waste of time all the way around.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Apr 26 2011 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Human ********** Very important aspect of reproduction, dangling on the outside of the male body surrounded by some of the most sensitive nerves. I don't know about you, but I don't find it intelligent at all to put the self destruct mechanism on the outside of the fortress. Not so much intelligent design so much as Last Minute Drunk College Science Project.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#230 Apr 26 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
But creationism itself doesn't assume any specific creator. When you say "creationism" you really mean "the Judeo-Christian account of creation from Genesis". But that's like saying that all animals are dogs, and since dogs can't fly no animal can fly. When you say that creationism is wrong because the literal story in Genesis is wrong, you are making exactly the same logical error.
The Jude-Christian account is the one being lobbied for in the US, no? What with it being a "Christian nation" and all?


gbaji wrote:
Sure. Because that's their personal belief. That does not rule out creationism (or ID) as a valid explanation as to the origin of life the universe and everything.
It rules them out as a scientific explanation. You can not test the supernatural via naturalistic means. This means that they do not belong in the Science class room. Do you disagree on this point?


gbaji wrote:
And that's a problem, why? Isn't this you injecting your own personal beliefs into the issue?
Aren't you?


gbaji wrote:
That's an assumption though, isn't it? I mean, if we accept that there is an intelligent designer who uses evolutionary processes to make his design into what he wants, how would you know the difference? Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you can't prove that there *isn't* an intelligence deciding when specific mutations happen, or which natural events occur which lead life in a given direction.
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.


gbaji wrote:
There's a better argument against ID btw. I've made it myself in the past. It has to do with Occam's Razor, and falsifiability. It's not that we can prove that there isn't an intelligent designer, but that assuming one exists only increases the complexity of our model and does not clarify or solve any problems. That's the real best argument against ID. Trying to insist that science has disproved any act of a divine being causing the world to come out the way it did is a horribly wrong approach. Call this a free tip if you want.
I brought up falsifiability earlier, actually. Thanks for the tip. I doubt it would have made much difference to someone like Alma, however.



gbaji wrote:
You misunderstand me. I was trying to make the point that while I'm sure there are some out there somewhere, I've never actually met or communicated with a theist who insisted that the creation story in Genesis was exactly and literally true, but I've met tons of atheists who insist on exactly that sort of literal interpretation when arguing against it. That makes it an amusing form of straw man. The atheists are arguing against a position almost no theists actually take. And certainly, the bulk of folks arguing for creationism or ID today are not insisting that we teach the story out of the bible as literal fact either.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Perhaps you misunderstood me. You can't honestly believe that anyone trying to crowbar ID into Biology classes is not a Biblical literalism. I mean, look at the discovery institute, this is one of the biggest proponents of ID in the US.



gbaji wrote:
I'm not. I'm just remarking with some amusement how the only people I've met who insist on taking the bible literally are atheists. Yet, they're the ones who claim to be arguing from a position of logic and reason. I just find it to be a huge waste of time all the way around.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:06pm by gbaji
That's because most Atheists are against the Bible in it's literal sense. I am yet to meet one who thinks that the bible should not be used as a literary tool. I myself own a King James Version. It contains some beautiful language and I can appreciate it for that reason. This doesn't mean I should refrain from pointing out that the stories contained in it are bullshit.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#231 Apr 26 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Human ********** Very important aspect of reproduction, dangling on the outside of the male body surrounded by some of the most sensitive nerves. I don't know about you, but I don't find it intelligent at all to put the self destruct mechanism on the outside of the fortress. Not so much intelligent design so much as Last Minute Drunk College Science Project.


Lol. Some would argue that they're evidence of intelligent design, since you'd think natural selection would punish creatures with such a design and reward those who evolved with internal testes. An intelligent designer might realize that the design he's working on involves sperm which require a slightly lower temperature than normal body temp and would solve the problem by moving the container just outside the body.

I'm pretty sure that God was originally a software developer for Microsoft, in fact. Or maybe not, since that would suggest that he decided to put the ********* outside the body first and then figured he'd adjust the sperm to take advantage of the lower temperature thus caused rather than the other way around. Hmmmm....
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Apr 26 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
This isn't just about ***-ed class.
I'll repeat a statement I made about the other law. I'd need to see the actual law, and not an unattributed quote in a news article about the law.

That is the text from the law, dipshit. If you actually cared about something other than defending Republicans, you'd have looked for yourself by now and seen the same thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#233 Apr 26 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
An intelligent designer might realize that the design he's working on involves sperm which require a slightly lower temperature than normal body temp and would solve the problem by moving the container just outside the body.
Maybe if he was a 6 year old.

A true intelligent designer would design sperm that could last at a higher temperature.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 8:02pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#234 Apr 26 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Nilatai wrote:
The Jude-Christian account is the one being lobbied for in the US, no? What with it being a "Christian nation" and all?


Is it? I'm honestly curious because this would be the first I've heard of it. Every call for ID taught in public school simply asks that when evolution is taught that some mention of an alternative in which some form of intelligence may have guided development be included. I suppose it's possible that some would like to see a Genesis account included, but I've yet to even see proposed ID curriculum, so we'd just be speculating, wouldn't we?

Quote:
It rules them out as a scientific explanation. You can not test the supernatural via naturalistic means. This means that they do not belong in the Science class room. Do you disagree on this point?


Not at all. But that's not what you argued. You argued that it was wrong because the biblical account in Genesis is wrong if taken literally. You then argued that most of the people proposing ID believe in said biblical account, and assumed that this meant that any inclusion of ID in public school would therefore include their personal beliefs and only their's. But that's an assumption, isn't it? Can you accept the possibility that many religious people don't care if students learn about any specific creation story, but are merely exposed to the idea that creation is a potential alternative explanation to the question of "how did we get here?".

In the context of a world where evolutionary science is often pushed with a markedly anti-religious agenda attached to it (ie: you either reject religion or you reject science), it's not really surprising or unusual for religious people to want to prevent the public school system from teaching the exact science used to make that argument as sole and undisputed fact. Just look at this thread and your own assumptions about creationism and evolution being incompatible. Where did that assumption come from? Given that assumption you make yourself, why be surprised if religious people want to make sure kids are taught that there is an alternative explanation?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
And that's a problem, why? Isn't this you injecting your own personal beliefs into the issue?
Aren't you?


Not even remotely. Trust me on this.


Quote:
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.


But you attempted to make that argument anyway. Hence, my point. You attempted to argue that since evolution is fact, and evolution and creationism are incompatible, therefore creationism can't be true. There are massive gaping holes in that logic *and* it's an unprovable direction to go. But you did it anyway, didn't you?


Quote:
I brought up falsifiability earlier, actually. Thanks for the tip. I doubt it would have made much difference to someone like Alma, however.


Possibly not. But that's also not sufficient by itself. I'd suggest you look up Occam's Razor to understand the principle. Simply arguing that something can't be true because it can't be proven to be false doesn't work. You have to also show why there's no value to assuming that it is true. ID simply doesn't add anything except complexity.

Quote:
You can't honestly believe that anyone trying to crowbar ID into Biology classes is not a Biblical literalism.


I assume you meant "literalist". Of course I can.

I think you're getting ahead of the argument. While I'm sure the ultimate goal of ID proponents is to get more people to believe in their version of god at some point in the future, the actual instruction is based on simply questioning assumptions about evolution. I'll repeat that I've yet to read any proposals demanding specific biblical accounts be taught, but merely that their arguments that there must be an intelligent designer to the world be taught. Again, that's clearly aimed at opening the door for people to later enter into a belief in god, but the instruction in the school doesn't make any pronouncements about the specific form the intelligence would take.


Quote:
I mean, look at the discovery institute, this is one of the biggest proponents of ID in the US.


I just did. They propose teaching a curriculum in which flaws in evolution are taught, and evidence of intelligent design are taught. I've seen nothing to indicate that they intend for any specifics regarding the nature of said intelligence to be taught as part of public school curriculum. But you go ahead and knock yourself out trying to find it. So far, what I see is assumption by you that it's all some plot to sneak bible instruction into public school. Never mind that in the US, that would not be allowed, so the second they "snuck" it in there, the jig would be up, so to speak.


Sure seems like a lot of effort to go through just to have the first class which includes Genesis in their classroom instruction to result in a court case which would eliminate all their work. I'm going to go with the assumption that they don't feel they need to do that and are satisfied with simply opening up students minds to the possibility of an intelligence behind creation.



Quote:
That's because most Atheists are against the Bible in it's literal sense. I am yet to meet one who thinks that the bible should not be used as a literary tool. I myself own a King James Version. It contains some beautiful language and I can appreciate it for that reason. This doesn't mean I should refrain from pointing out that the stories contained in it are bullshit.


But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within. And it certainly seems like most atheists aren't just against a literal interpretation of the bible, but are opposed to religious belief itself. How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about anyone who believes in a "man in the sky"? Lots of times. I've never heard an atheist say that religious belief is just fine as long as the religious people don't take their bible literally. What they do is point out inconsistencies and problems with said literal interpretations and then use those to prove that the entire belief system must be wrong.


Which makes them as bad as those they claim to oppose. There's irony there IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#235 Apr 26 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:
An intelligent designer might realize that the design he's working on involves sperm which require a slightly lower temperature than normal body temp and would solve the problem by moving the container just outside the body.
Maybe if he was a 6 year old.

A true intelligent designer would design sperm that could last at a higher temperature.


That's funny because I actually wrote a bit about how natural selection would not have evolved a sperm that required a lower body temperature in the first place, but then cut it out and replaced it with a joke instead. Kinda goes both ways, doesn't it? I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage? I could see a designer doing that because he might think ahead and come up with an advantage for lower temperature sperm, but evolution?


You do realize I'm just playing here, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Apr 26 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#237 Apr 26 2011 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nil, it's really not worth it to try and argue with Alma.
Nil has to hit rock bottom before he can be saved.
Sssh, post count.


You can do that without Alma. Really.
#238 Apr 26 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
This isn't just about ***-ed class.
I'll repeat a statement I made about the other law. I'd need to see the actual law, and not an unattributed quote in a news article about the law.

That is the text from the law, dipshit.


Is it? I haven't seen anyone link to a source with the actual text of the law. Did I miss that?

Quote:
If you actually cared about something other than defending Republicans, you'd have looked for yourself by now and seen the same thing.


Yes. I have looked it up, and that is the wording. So, as I stated several times, it's a badly worded bill. The point I was making is that this is not the first time I've read an article that misrepresented the language in a law or bill, so I preferred to look at the actual law itself. It's actually surprising how many articles mentioned the same quote, but not one of them had a link to the bill itself. You'd think in this modern age of things like hypertext links, that people who write online articles would learn how to use them.


Remove the "other than heterosexuality" from the end of the sentence, and it's perfectly fine IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#239 Apr 26 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.


So not really "putting the self destruct mechanism outside the fortress", right? Again, the argument goes in both directions. Which is the whole point I'm making. Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

We can go around on this forever, which is why it's a bad argument for either one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#240 Apr 26 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within.
Most atheists I know, myself included, don't have a problem with all with the religious folk who feel this way. If they're a majority, they're an awfully quiet one.

It's mainly the people who believe the bible literally, which is what the people who preach about the bible tend to say. But I'm only basing that on 18 years of experience. Even in the Lutheran church I grew up in, which I still consider fairly open and welcoming relative to the average Christian church, we learned in confirmation classes that every word in the bible was meant to be taken literally.

To reiterate the point made previously, don't bother with the apologetics.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#241 Apr 26 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.


So not really "putting the self destruct mechanism outside the fortress", right? Again, the argument goes in both directions. Which is the whole point I'm making. Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

We can go around on this forever, which is why it's a bad argument for either one.


Maybe God just wanted us to have an easy way to win a fight and also to have some funny home videos.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#242 Apr 26 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.


So not really "putting the self destruct mechanism outside the fortress", right? Again, the argument goes in both directions. Which is the whole point I'm making. Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

We can go around on this forever, which is why it's a bad argument for either one.

Evolution can't have a poor result because it has no goal. It isn't sentient. Whether you choose to attribute value judgment to the results has literally no impact on anything.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#243 Apr 26 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
This isn't about evolution, but how do you explain water?

In every other substance known to man the solid is more dense than the liquid, but not with water. If this were true with water, then life would not exist. That just happened randomly?

I'm not trying to prove that God is real here, just curious as to what you all think about this.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#244 Apr 26 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Bardalicious wrote:
Evolution can't have a poor result because it has no goal. It isn't sentient. Whether you choose to attribute value judgment to the results has literally no impact on anything.
pfff, shows what you know. Evolution is actually a muslim plot to infect all Americans with the ***. Get with the program man.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#245 Apr 26 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Is it? I'm honestly curious because this would be the first I've heard of it. Every call for ID taught in public school simply asks that when evolution is taught that some mention of an alternative in which some form of intelligence may have guided development be included. I suppose it's possible that some would like to see a Genesis account included, but I've yet to even see proposed ID curriculum, so we'd just be speculating, wouldn't we?
In this case who I was arguing was important. Alma is a Christian, he was arguing from that perspective. It was important to shoot down his platform, which is the bible. Plain and simple.


gbaji wrote:
Not at all. But that's not what you argued. You argued that it was wrong because the biblical account in Genesis is wrong if taken literally. You then argued that most of the people proposing ID believe in said biblical account, and assumed that this meant that any inclusion of ID in public school would therefore include their personal beliefs and only their's. But that's an assumption, isn't it? Can you accept the possibility that many religious people don't care if students learn about any specific creation story, but are merely exposed to the idea that creation is a potential alternative explanation to the question of "how did we get here?".
I've said before, it does not matter what religious people want. Whether they want a specifically Biblical creation story or some other ambiguous Intelligent Design hypothesis presented is irrelevant. Students in a science class room should be taught science. There really are people still in the world who believe that the Sun goes around the Earth. This does not mean that we should suggest to students that there is a possibility that this is the case.

gbaji wrote:
In the context of a world where evolutionary science is often pushed with a markedly anti-religious agenda attached to it (ie: you either reject religion or you reject science), it's not really surprising or unusual for religious people to want to prevent the public school system from teaching the exact science used to make that argument as sole and undisputed fact. Just look at this thread and your own assumptions about creationism and evolution being incompatible. Where did that assumption come from? Given that assumption you make yourself, why be surprised if religious people want to make sure kids are taught that there is an alternative explanation?
My point is there isn't an alternative explanation that holds any kind of water when subjected to scrutiny. Again, it does not matter that they want. Wanting something really badly does not change the facts.


gbaji wrote:
Not even remotely. Trust me on this.
Fair enough.


Quote:
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.


gbaji wrote:
But you attempted to make that argument anyway. Hence, my point. You attempted to argue that since evolution is fact, and evolution and creationism are incompatible, therefore creationism can't be true. There are massive gaping holes in that logic *and* it's an unprovable direction to go. But you did it anyway, didn't you?
This isn't remotely the same thing. Evolution is a fact, it happens. So, spontaneous creation of life is incorrect. These are non-overlapping magisteria.


gbaji wrote:
Possibly not. But that's also not sufficient by itself. I'd suggest you look up Occam's Razor to understand the principle. Simply arguing that something can't be true because it can't be proven to be false doesn't work. You have to also show why there's no value to assuming that it is true. ID simply doesn't add anything except complexity.
I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. Again, using it against someone like Alma would be a waste of time.



gbaji wrote:
I assume you meant "literalist". Of course I can.
Typo, it's late/early.

gbaji wrote:
I think you're getting ahead of the argument. While I'm sure the ultimate goal of ID proponents is to get more people to believe in their version of god at some point in the future, the actual instruction is based on simply questioning assumptions about evolution. I'll repeat that I've yet to read any proposals demanding specific biblical accounts be taught, but merely that their arguments that there must be an intelligent designer to the world be taught. Again, that's clearly aimed at opening the door for people to later enter into a belief in god, but the instruction in the school doesn't make any pronouncements about the specific form the intelligence would take.
Perhaps I was jumping ahead, but can you see why this does not belong in a Biology class?


gbaji wrote:
I just did. They propose teaching a curriculum in which flaws in evolution are taught, and evidence of intelligent design are taught. I've seen nothing to indicate that they intend for any specifics regarding the nature of said intelligence to be taught as part of public school curriculum. But you go ahead and knock yourself out trying to find it. So far, what I see is assumption by you that it's all some plot to sneak bible instruction into public school. Never mind that in the US, that would not be allowed, so the second they "snuck" it in there, the jig would be up, so to speak.
They seek to portray Evolution via natural selection as a theory in crisis. You know with snappy catchphrases like "Teach the controversy". Then, 'suggesting' ID as an alternative. They seem to want to use supposed "gaps" in the theory of evolution as proof of ID. ID has no evidence supporting it under it's own merit. This is the main reason it is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists.


gbaji wrote:
Sure seems like a lot of effort to go through just to have the first class which includes Genesis in their classroom instruction to result in a court case which would eliminate all their work. I'm going to go with the assumption that they don't feel they need to do that and are satisfied with simply opening up students minds to the possibility of an intelligence behind creation.
I didn't say it was a good plan.



gbaji wrote:
But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within.
You should rephrase that to "most religious people".

gbaji wrote:
And it certainly seems like most atheists aren't just against a literal interpretation of the bible, but are opposed to religious belief itself.
Personally? I don't care what people believe so long as they don't try to use it to pass legislation that infringes on the rights of others. You know like anti-abortion laws or prohibiting teachers from discussing sexuality with their students even if directly questioned. Unfortunately, some believers won't be happy unless I believe it too.

gbaji wrote:
How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about anyone who believes in a "man in the sky"? Lots of times. I've never heard an atheist say that religious belief is just fine as long as the religious people don't take their bible literally. What they do is point out inconsistencies and problems with said literal interpretations and then use those to prove that the entire belief system must be wrong.

Which makes them as bad as those they claim to oppose. There's irony there IMO.
How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about how non-believers are going to, and quite rightly, tortured forever after we die? I'm sure just as much.

Most atheists are of the position that religious belief is fine, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.


Not really, at least we don't threaten people with eternal damnation or fly planes into buildings if you disagree with us. We just argue a lot. Fun, isn't it?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#246 Apr 26 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
That's what you said!!!


No I didn't. Even if I did or you interpreted as such, I made it very clear in the last few posts that I wasn't.

Nilatai wrote:
Wat? I said that public opinion should have no bearing on what is taught in schools? Apparently your constitution agrees with me, this is why despite the majority of the US population being religious (this is irrelevant by the way, why do you keep bringing it up?) the teaching of ID was deemed to be unconstitutional in the Kismiller Vs Dover trial.


Because current textbooks already have a section on defining ID and creationism and you're complaining and crying about it because it goes against your beliefs. My counter is that if the U.S behaved the same way as you're behaving now, then there wouldn't be anything taught contradictory to religion.

In other words, quit acting like a baby. It's FAIR to at least define ID rather you agree with it or not.

Nilatai wrote:
I already explained what a "top" scientist is. Someone who belongs to an organisation such as the Royal Society. A "real" scientist is someone who does research, or teaches at University level.


Yes, but you didn't answer the second question. Can a real or top scientist believe in I.D.? According to your criteria of a real or top scientist they can. So, if that's the case, what's the point in making a distinction in real and top scientists?

Nilatai wrote:
Why do you keep asking this? Are you saying that just because blindness occurs in animals, that doesn't mean it's natural in humans?


I keep asking because you keep avoiding it and no, that's not what I'm getting at.

Nilatai wrote:
Yes it does, why would humans be any different?


Because what's natural for a dog isn't what's natural for a human. So, for you to cover ALL animals to say, "well it's natural for fish to breath under water, so it's natural for humans to breath underwater" is silly.

Nilatai wrote:
Wat? Why are we talking about other instincts, when did we get off of talking about sexuality?


What are you talking about? Your argument was that homosexuality occurs naturally within animals, so therefore it's natural among humans because we are also animals. Are you now making distinctions on naturally occurring traits in nature among other naturally occurring traits in nature? What is the criteria? Only if it supports your argument?

Nilatai wrote:
No, I'm a primate. A great ape to be precise. So are you, actually. Baboons are known to be *** too, by the way.


So apes are humans? That's pretty funny... Keep telling yourself that.

Nilatai wrote:
Do you know why we start off crawling? Because we don't have the necessary bone or muscle density as an infant to walk. Do you know why this is? Because during gestation more time is spent developing our brains. Brains that give us our niche in the animal kingdom. Brains that we evolved that give us the ability to be sentient. Brains that people like you can use to question whether evolutions even took place at all.


First, are you willingly being ignorant? How many times do I have to say religion and science are not mutually exclusive that I agree with forms of evolution happening. Second, the point is as adults we walk on our feet when we could very well crawl if we wanted to.

Nilatai wrote:
No it doesn't. Do you think some people are weird because they sleep during the day and go to work at night? We're diurnal mammals. It's not natural for people to be awake at night time! Scorn the weird night people!


Not if they are working, but just to be on a reverse cycle for no apparent reason, yes I do and I'm sure most people would also. It has everything to do with society and you just refuse to accept it. When they sleep is further away from my point than HOW they sleep.

My point, which it seems that you completely overlooked, is that as people we have evaluated our bodies and made determinations as what is "normal" or not and that is no different than how we sexually please ourselves.

What's your opinion on furries? What about women ************ with weird objects like pool sticks, peanut butter and musical instruments at band camp?

Nilatai wrote:
What the **** is your point about homosexuality any way? You're opposed to it, but you claim it has nothing to do with your religion. Now you say you don't think it's unnatural. So, what do you have against homosexuals?


Ah! That's what I've been trying to tell you with the blindness in nature question if you ever just answer the question.

In either case, neither of the above (religion or natural) promotes you to ridicule me in anyway shape or form as I haven't said anything negative towards homosexuals. So, please explain to me how I'm a f**ktard other than "I don't agree with you?"
#247 Apr 26 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's actually surprising how many articles mentioned the same quote, but not one of them had a link to the bill itself. You'd think in this modern age of things like hypertext links, that people who write online articles would learn how to use them.

Or you could show a little initiative rather than balling on about laws you're too lazy to look up yourself.
gbaji wrote:
Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

Evolution has no "poor results". Intelligent Design requires an intelligent designer and so you can pass judgment on its designs. Evolution just is, for positive results or negative (to the organism itself).

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 9:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#248 Apr 26 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
This isn't about evolution, but how do you explain water?

In every other substance known to man the solid is more dense than the liquid, but not with water. If this were true with water, then life would not exist. That just happened randomly?

I'm not trying to prove that God is real here, just curious as to what you all think about this.
Water molecules are "bent". When they solidify they form crystalline lattices. The molecules are more widely spaced because of their shape than in the liquid forum. This leads to a lower density because the same mass takes up a larger volume. Thus, the solid floats on the liquid.

Not randomly, it's just how water is. You make the assumption that life is the goal of the Universe.




edit:
Alma wrote:
So apes are humans?
I read this and realised I'm wasting my time communicating with you. That's not what I said. You truly are an idiot.

You can go and pat yourself on the back for winning a debate or whatever you think you've accomplished now.


Edited, Apr 26th 2011 10:16pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#249 Apr 26 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
This isn't about evolution, but how do you explain water?

In every other substance known to man the solid is more dense than the liquid, but not with water. If this were true with water, then life would not exist. That just happened randomly?

Why not? I mean, if it wasn't like that then we wouldn't be here to talk about it but that's hardly evidence that it was "made" that way any more than your existence being proof of a creator because if your parents hadn't "randomly" met, you wouldn't be here to talk to.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Apr 26 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Nilatai wrote:
edit:
Alma wrote:
So apes are humans?
I read this and realised I'm wasting my time communicating with you. That's not what I said. You truly are an idiot.

You can go and pat yourself on the back for winning a debate or whatever you think you've accomplished now.


Edited, Apr 26th 2011 10:16pm by Nilatai


And now, the healing can begin.
#251 Apr 26 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
edit:
Alma wrote:
So apes are humans?
I read this and realised I'm wasting my time communicating with you. That's not what I said. You truly are an idiot.

You can go and pat yourself on the back for winning a debate or whatever you think you've accomplished now.


Edited, Apr 26th 2011 10:16pm by Nilatai


And now, the healing can begin.
I'm starting to feel better already, my brow is significantly less furrowed.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
gbaji, Anonymous Guests (69)