Don't Say Gay BillFollow

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.



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.



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



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.




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.



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

The Jude-Christian account is the one being lobbied for in the US, no? What with it being a "Christian nation" and all?


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?


Aren't you?


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.


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



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.



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.

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.

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?



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?




Not even remotely. Trust me on this.




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?




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 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.




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.





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.

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.

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



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.

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.

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 gay. Get with the program man.

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.



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.



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?



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



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.



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?



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



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.



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?



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?"

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: 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.