Right Thinking From The Left Coast
We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time. - Vince Lombardi

Banned Books
by Lee

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

Twenty-three books including the latest “Harry Potter” were removed by Wilsona School District trustees from a list recommended by a parent-teacher committee for the Vista San Gabriel Elementary School library.

Trustees said one rejected book contained an unsavory hero who made a bad role model for children; another was about a warlock, which they said was inappropriate; and others were books with which they were unfamiliar and didn’t know whether they promoted good character or conflicted with textbooks.

“There were several of the books on there that board members felt were not appropriate for the children,” board President Sharon Toyne said. “I think basically because for the last eight or nine years, we’ve been pushing character education in our school district. There are so many issues changing in the society we are living in. With this ever-changing society, we have to just stick back to the traditional thing of what kids are supposed to be learning.”

The board voted unanimously at Thursday’s meeting to remove the 23 books from a list of 68 that had been forwarded for board approval to place on the shelves of the Vista San Gabriel school library.

Rejected titles included three bilingual Clifford the Big Red Dog books, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” “Disney’s Christmas Storybook,” and two books from the Artemis Fowl series, whose namesake character was described in reviews as a boy-genius anti-hero and criminal mastermind.

Toyne wouldn’t comment on what was objectionable about the latest of the “Harry Potter” series, which has proved wildly popular in print and on screen but from its inception has drawn criticism that it promotes what predominantly Christian critics term “occultism,” using supernatural means not from the divinity to acquire personal power.

Trustee Marlene Olivarez, a teacher who retired from the district two years ago, said the latest “Harry Potter” installment was rejected because it is fantasy.

“We want books to be things that children would be able to relate to in real life,” she said.

A Disney book?  Clifford the Big Red Dog?  Harry Potter?  Seriously, are these people insane?  Are they trying to intentionally destroy the desire of kids to read anything, ever?

Posted by Lee on 02/26/06 at 04:44 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 02/26/06 at 06:10 PM from United States

Ya,thats pretty screwed up.  Instead of letting kids read for pleasure, they are making sure that the only books available for them are books they’d have to be forced to read.

I spent my summers in the back of a Walden Books reading whatever I could get my hands on.  In today’s aliterate world, we should be encouraging kids to read for entertainment instead of sitting them in front of the idiot box to protect them from “occult” and “fantasy” and dare I even mention it....."creativity."

Posted by mikeguas on 02/26/06 at 06:11 PM from United States

I think they should ban any book that contains the letter ‘e’ in the word.

You can’t have evil without ‘e’.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 06:16 PM from United States

we have to just stick back to the traditional thing of what kids are supposed to be learning

I always thought learning involved learning new things. I guess these backwards retards have a finite set of things they are capable of learning. Therefore, no one else should go beyond.

A backwards we will go, a backwards we will go…

Posted by InsipiD on 02/26/06 at 06:18 PM from United States

I say ban them all if it means they’d bring back Tom Sawyer and To Kill a Mockingbird.  The public schools aren’t compelled to buy what the kids want, but what they need.  The Harry Potter book would be a constant fight, and is too long for kids to read quickly, causing a fight for who gets to be one of the 15 who would have time to read it during the school year.

There’s more valuable to be learned from To Kill a Mockingbird than all of the ‘acceptable’ PC all-inclusive inoffensive dreck written today put together.

Posted by mikeguas on 02/26/06 at 06:31 PM from United States

Has any leader in the history of the world ever used the name ‘Clifford’, or ‘Harry Potter’ to justify oppressive actions? Has any ever used ‘God’ or ‘Allah’ or some other religious icon? Between the teachings of Clifford the Big Red Dog or God, which one is used to excuse oppression more often? I’m not out to slam Christians or any other religious group in general, just this group of overly self righteous pricks.

The far left hates free speech, freedom of choice, and individual responsibility. So does the far right. Why they don’t get along is beyond me. The result of either one getting their way is the same.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 07:33 PM from United States

Banning books is the surest indication of several things, including:

1) tiny penises

2) evangelical retardation

3) sex with goats

4) incestuous marriages

5) dogs smarter than their “owners”

6) living in a double-wide

7) mindblowing stupidity

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 07:42 PM from United States

I think these people think kids are stupid and take all this stuff literally.

Kids know, even at the age of 3, what reality is. They know that warlocks aren’t real. They know that unicorns aren’t real. They pretend, obviously, but thats HEALTHY and NORMAL.

Shit, I watched Ninja turtles and X-men with my neighbor when I was a kid. Did I really think turtles could turn into ninjas? Hell no. Did I read Goosebumps and think people could turn into monsters? No! Kids aren’t complete morons. People don’t give them enough credit.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 07:58 PM from United States

I know folks think local control is sacrosanct, but that is when it appears the nutbars come out.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 07:59 PM from United States

InsipiD, You are on the money. My best ever teacher,Mrs Sprague in Junior year English, taught TKAM in the rare way made it a core value and touchstone forever to me.I reread it two summers ago when the anniversary edition came out,hadn’t read it in 30 years,and it is truly one of the high points in literarature for me,period.I lose it at “Hey,Boo” every time,book or movie.This teacher also made the whole class cry over Arthur C.Clarkes “The Sentinal”,which was the basis for “2001:A Space Odyssey”.I wish more kids could be blessed with teachers of that caliber,but limiting the choices of books to work with cannot be a good thing.She also taught us how to see the shite for the trees as it were.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/26/06 at 08:08 PM from United States

We read ‘MacBeth’ in English cast, then we put him on trial for murder, using only the facts and dialogue from the play. Three or four students on prosecution, a few more on defense, the teacher as the judge, some to serve as the witnesses (roles in the play), and the rest were the ‘jury’.

I was on the defense side, and we managed to get him a “Not Guilty By Reason Of Temporary Insanity” verdict.

Anyone remember the Richard Mulligan role from the Nick Nolte/Jo Beth Williams movie, “Teachers”? The history teacher who was actually an escaped mental patient? I’ll bet those kids learned more that year than in all of the preceding years combined…

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 08:12 PM from Canada

3) sex with goats

I think the question is should we ban books about sex with goats?

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 08:20 PM from United States

depends if it is age-appropriate or not.....

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/26/06 at 08:35 PM from United States

The book-burners will always be with us.  ‘cuz you know if kids do anything wrong, it’s because some nasty book told ‘em to do it.  I remember back in the 80’s the hysteria was Dungeons and Dragons because it made kids into pagans and made them kill themselves.

Honestly, some people will do just about anything to avoid having to actually parent.  No, that’s not really fair.  They’ll do anything to keep anybody else from parenting in a way they might not approve of.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 08:45 PM from United States

This just underlines why Public Education is a bad idea.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a school choosing the books its students will be exposed to in school, even if the choice is based on what most of us would consider weird or stupid reasons.

The way it should work is that if you don’t like a school’s policies, you could send the kid to the school you prefer.  Schools would correspondingly have to compete for business.

But with public education, practically no one can compete with free tuition, soeveryone’s stuck at the same school, which becomes a branch of government, ineveitably run incompetently most of the time, and fucked up decision like this are not uncommon.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 08:46 PM from United States

But I thought it was ONLY “Fundies” that were banning books!

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/26/06 at 09:12 PM from United States

Fundies aren’t limited to only the Religious Right. Or, for that matter, religion at all. You don’t think that there are fundamentalists on the Left? There are even fundies among the atheists. Madelyn Murray O’Hair, just to name a single example.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 09:44 PM from United States

I’m prepared to be flamed, but I have no problem with this school board, in conjunction with parents, deciding which books should be made available to the children in their school.  This is not “book banning”.  If the parents want their kids to have access to these books they can buy the books or go to a public library that carries the books. 

I grew up reading comic books, but my school library didn’t carry them.  Why?  Were they censoring the comic book authors?  Were they limiting my freedom to choose what I would read?  No, they just didn’t feel like the comics provided the proper academic rigor to be included in a school library.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 10:04 PM from United States

I’m wondering how an atheist can be a “fundie”.

I know a lot of liberals, none of them have been fundies, but many of the “conservatives” I’ve met over the years have been.

Posted by Kilroy on 02/26/06 at 11:12 PM from United States

A for Seattle.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 11:13 PM from United States

Banning books is among the hight of retardation.

Posted by Kilroy on 02/26/06 at 11:14 PM from United States

Fundie

Try Try again.

“A Fundie for Seattle.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/26/06 at 11:15 PM from United States

"Fundamentalism” is “A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.”

Now, tell us, SO, who among us on this board could be described as having a “rigid adherence to those principles (of atheism)” and an “intolerance of other views (than atheism)”, hmmmm? I could give you a hint, but that would give it away.

Posted by on 02/26/06 at 11:25 PM from United States

Kids will have the desire to read as long as they can get their hands on Penthouse:Forum.

Posted by Nethicus on 02/26/06 at 11:36 PM from United States

Well, I happen to agree with the school board.  Let me explain why.

Harry Potter-- Come on, don’t you think in a year they’re going to get 35 donations of this damn book?

Clifford books-- Completely irrational.  How much food would someone need for a dog that big?  Don’t you think they’d go broke in a week?  Sucks ass.  Ban it!

Disney’s Christmas Book-- Too many phallic symbols.  Just like the cover of the Little Mermaid.

Artimis Fowl-- Bird flu fears.

See.  Totally reasonable answers for removing the books from the purchase list.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:04 AM from United States

Clifford books-- Completely irrational.  How much food would someone need for a dog that big?  Don’t you think they’d go broke in a week?  Sucks ass.  Ban it!

Maybe you’re just being funny. Unfortunately, these ‘tards on the school’s committee aren’t.

Kids have enough challenges as it is when it comes to learning. Why not throw ‘em a bone when it comes to reading? Clifford is popular because kids like the dog. Harry Potter is popular because kids like the adventure. Isn’t it better that they read about a fucking huge red dog than not read at all?

Pretty soon these nuts will be telling them the only music they can listen to is The Ray Conniff Singers and the marches of John Philip Sousa.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:40 AM from United States

Pretty soon these nuts will be telling them the only music they can listen to is The Ray Conniff Singers and the marches of John Philip Sousa.

Nah, the lefty nuts will come out and decry the blatant militarism of Sousa’s music.  He was the director of the Marine band y’know.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:16 AM from United States

Well, the only intolerant person here is YOU Drumwaster, but you’re too much of an asshole to ever admit it.

Trying to associate what is by definition a religious issue to a lack of religion is the very height of disingenuous bullshit.

Oh yeah, you’re an asshole.  Every time I think you might actually pull your head out and be polite, you prove to me, and everyone else, that you are a small minded bigot.

PS - You are so predictable as to be boring.  Took me about an hour of cruising through your website to determine that I’ve known your kind of intolerant, reactionary, fundie prick all my life.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:16 AM from United States

School boards, the California Legislature, and inability of Iraq to form a government, ruin my trust in democracy. Come to think of it, what was Ronald Reagan even talking about with his anti-Communism tirade? UAE has govt-run companies buying up our port terminal leases, they have govt-run ISPs over there heavily censoring Internet traffic, etc. Isn’t that like Communisim, but without the nukes pointed at us, and without the collapsing economy?

Oh, and Tiger Woods, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and Al Gore hang out in Dubai, so they can’t be that evil. Damn this comment is scatterbrained. That’s why I don’t have my own blog, and comment on others.

Posted by Manwhore on 02/27/06 at 01:22 AM from United States

I think what seeing these kinds of things should expose is that there needs to be a massive overhaul of who our civil servants are.

Lest we forget the little fucking discussion that led to the booning of the books every resident in California payed for and catered.

I always see these signs for some random ‘School Board’ politician. Should I be worried? Or if everyone is so fucking lame should I care?

Posted by californianative on 02/27/06 at 01:38 AM from United States

Public school is completely bankrupt in their thinking, in their method, in how they discipline or not, in their priorities.  For just for some of those reasons alone, I have been homeschooling my 14 yr old son since the beginning of this school yr. 
Best decision my hubby and I ever made.

Posted by Akula on 02/27/06 at 03:06 AM from United States

Seattle Outcast may of just posted the most pathetic response I’ve ever read.

And it almost proved Drumwasters point for him.

Bravo.

Posted by InsipiD on 02/27/06 at 06:37 AM from United States

Fundies aren’t limited to only the Religious Right. Or, for that matter, religion at all. You don’t think that there are fundamentalists on the Left? There are even fundies among the atheists. Madelyn Murray O’Hair, just to name a single example.

Boy howdy am I glad someone besides me finally recognized this, even taken down the the name of the former leader.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:21 AM from United States

6) living in a doublewide

Holy liberal-type comment, Batman!!!

What the fuck is wrong with living in a double-wide?  Some friends of mine (athiest/agnostic friends, btw) live in a double-wide.  They are very intelligent people and the husband in particular would give any of you a run for your money on American History, Pennsylvanian history, sports, automobiles, etc.  Hell, the guy is a human encyclopedia.  They aren’t rednecks, either.  Like many of us here, they are a bunch of metal heads, and conservative ones.

Yeah, I make jokes about trailer parks as well, but I also make note that there are many “exceptions to the rule”.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:23 AM from United States

Okay, so you have noooooo problem with using the word “fundie” in a manner that your average person doesn’t know it by, but you get all bent out of shape when people want the THEORY of evolution to be called a *gasp* theory because you are afraid that people might think of it by it’s inproper deffinition (which, BTW, in science classes teachers DO mention what a theory really is).

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 09:12 AM from United States

That definition of ”fundamentalism is straight out of the dictionary.

So is the one for “theory”. But my problem with the casual use of “theory” is that people get their definition from cop shows, while the scientists use the actual definition, and then the lay people (such as yourself) use that meaning of “silly wild-assed guess” to demean the facts.

Yes, Evolution is a Theory. So is Gravitation, yet you don’t occasionally go floating around your room. So is Electro-magnetism, yet that “Theory” allows most of the items in your home to operate.

Intelligent Design is that “silly wild-assed guess”, because it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior. Evolution can and does.

But fundamentalism (as I pointed out above) is “usually” religious in nature, but not always, as was shown just a few comments ago by our resident atheist fundie. It is the rabid adherence to a specific philosophy and utter intolerance of anything else.

Hey, SO, does all that frothing damage your keyboard, or did you cover it in plastic to protect the keys? But way to prove me wrong, dumbass.

Posted by Starving Writer on 02/27/06 at 09:15 AM from United States

If blacks can be racist (and some of them are), and women can be sexist (and some of them are), then atheists can be fundies (and some of them are). 

To me, “fundy” means “somebody with a blind, unwavering devotion to their beliefs who refuses to even consider alternative perspectives, thinks they’re always right despite the lack of proof for their beliefs, and treat other perspectivies in a hostile way.”

I’m an atheist myself, but I’ve met quite a few other atheists who I would classify as “fundies.” That head of the Atheist Association from a while back, that butt-ugly lady, Andrea Dworkian or whatever, is a pretty good example of such an “Atheist fundy.”

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:49 AM from United States

Intelligent Design is that “silly wild-assed guess”, because it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior.

This is categorically incorrect, across the board.

Drum, I really wish you’d stick to politics and leave ID alone.  It’d be different if you bothered to educate yourself about ID, but you won’t.  You’ll just keep going around insisting that it’s “creationism” and “reelijun”.

It’s neither one, rulings of misinformed activist judges notwithstanding.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:51 AM from United States

Yes, Evolution is a Theory. So is Gravitation, yet you don’t occasionally go floating around your room. So is Electro-magnetism, yet that “Theory” allows most of the items in your home to operate.

That is disingenuous, at best, DW.  You are suggesting that the ability to predict outcome equates to absolute truth.

The theory of gravitation rightly explains the observed results.  It’s “truthfullness” is limited to just that.  Being consistent with observed results does not make it an absolute truth.  i.e. we MAY be wrong, but the theory (and our currently understood model) fits.  This is a good choice to discuss, because of our lack of ability to come up with a unified theory including gravitation.

General Mechanics, once taught as truth, was shown to be a good approxmation within the framework or General Relativity as limited by “normal” velocities and mass/densities.  Again, GM was proven to be an approximation or subset of GR by AE.

Molecular Theory is rife with these possibile limitations, too, but it is a very good THEORY. 
We may be all wet on the actual truth and I am humble enough to admit that, even though I have studied Chemistry for 28 years now.

Of course, your arrogance will prohibit you from seeing it that way....  I would expect no less from a superior mind like yours.

Dave D.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:51 AM from United States

On the meaning of fundamentalism:

When a sports coach talks about having his/her team “work on the fundamentals”, does that mean the team spend their practice reading religious texts, or does it mean that they hone the very basic core skills necessary for their sport?

There is nothing inherently religioug in the term.  Sorry guys, but I think DW wins this one…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:56 AM from United States

To me, “fundy” means “somebody with a blind, unwavering devotion to their beliefs who refuses to even consider alternative perspectives, thinks they’re always right despite the lack of proof for their beliefs, and treat other perspectivies in a hostile way.”

True, but I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian in the sense that I believe in the ultimate authority of the Bible.  OTOH, I firmly believe in freedome FROM religion and would never demand that others adopt my beliefs by force.  I try to be very sensitive of this and it is difficult to seperate my religious beliefs from my political views at times.  It really boils down to chosing NOT to listen to the religious talking heads that try to tell us how to vote.

I guess I am saying that I consider myself a fundie, but still have an open mind?

Dave D.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:56 AM from United States

and then the lay people (such as yourself) use that meaning of “silly wild-assed guess” to demean the facts.

I don’t use the term meaning “silly wild-assed guess” but you seem to think that theory means “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.  A theory is believed due to connecting of the dots of facts, but that doesn’t mean that the theory itself is 100% true.

Also, again there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with IDers wanting “this is a theory” sticker put on books.  It is a theory and if the people who think theory means one thing and not another (look at the deffinantions, it means both the “lay man’s” term and the scientists deffinition) then it’s the teacher’s fault for not telling them what it means by “theory”.

BTW, it looks like both deffinitions are true.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1.  A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2.  The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3.  A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4.  Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5.  A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6.  An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:01 AM from United States

Drum, I really wish you’d stick to politics and leave ID alone.  It’d be different if you bothered to educate yourself about ID, but you won’t.  You’ll just keep going around insisting that it’s “creationism” and “reelijun”.

Drum and Lee tend to think that because christians believe in ID, that it means ID is just a religion.  BTW, that would be considered a theory ;)

Of course someone who is christian will believe in ID, because ID is a belief that there something or someone created the earth, not just some Big Bang theory.  But of course so do muslims, Jews, Hindus, and even *gasp* some agnostics.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:06 AM from Japan

Of course someone who is christian will believe in ID, because ID is a belief that there something or someone created the earth, not just some Big Bang theory.

So if ID were true, then the Big Bang theory would be false? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:09 AM from United States

So if ID were true, then the Big Bang theory would be false? Is that what you are saying?

If you mean the Big Bang theory being that a random act happened due to certain chemicals and such coming together, then yes.

ID is about a being creating the earth.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 10:09 AM from United States

This is categorically incorrect, across the board.

Then please provide actual physical evidence, other than the lame argument of “it’s too complicated to have evolved so it MUST have been created”, because improbable things DO happen, on a daily basis. And please explain how it can be used to predict future events - such as providing proof of a new species appearing where no predecessor existed.

You are suggesting that the ability to predict outcome equates to absolute truth.

No, not “absolute truth”. Science. (Maybe you’ve heard of it?)

The theory of gravitation rightly explains the observed results.

Same with Evolution. Each subset hypothesis has been rigorously tested against real world results, and have been found to be consistent, with no aberrations found within the total framework. You can use Evolution to predict future results in future generations, and breeders do so all the time. So do horticulturalists. So does anyone going for in vitro fertilization with a random sample - the sperm samples are screened for diseases, and listed as to height, weight, eye and hair color of the donor, and these facts allow the prospective parent(s) to choose a lot of the traits that their child would have.

That’s predicting. Admittedly, it’s a relatively new science, and so our predictions are about as accurate as the predictions of medieval astrologers (or modern weather forecasters), but the more data we gather, the more accurate those predictions become.

You cannot “predict” with Intelligent Design. You have no physical evidence with which to work, just complicated molecular tools “that MUST have been created because we don’t understand how they could just happen that way”. (Of course, this isn’t their limitations, oh no, because it must be with the Science. God told them so.)

I would love to be proved wrong, but in the twenty years, I have yet to see a single scrap of actual evidence, and no arguments other than “we don’t understand it, so it must therefore be God”. (Except we can’t use that word, or we’ll NEVER get it into schools - so we’ll use “Intelligent Agent”. That’ll fix ‘em!)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:10 AM from United States

This is the Big Bang theory I’m talking about.

big bang
n.
The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 10:11 AM from United States

Drum and Lee tend to think that because christians believe in ID, that it means ID is just a religion.

Uh, no.  What we have said, countless times, is that because ID relies on a supernatural force as a creator it cannot be considered science, and like all beliefs involving a supernatural being should be relegated to the realm of philosophy, where it belongs.

Get it?  ID is not science.  Never will be.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:12 AM from Japan

If you mean the Big Bang theory being that a random act happened due to certain chemicals and such coming together, then yes.

Well then if God created the universe through the big bang, how would you know the difference?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 10:16 AM from United States

Drum and Lee tend to think that because christians believe in ID, that it means ID is just a religion.

No, it’s because it relies entirely on some (unidentified) Being powerful enough to have Created the whole thing, with no actual verifiable evidence of that Being, anywhere.

The closest they can come is to point to physical structures that lie beyond their understanding, and saying, “See? This is proof of the Creator!”

Just like an Amazon tribesman would act when confronted with a satellite phone. Voices are heard, yet no one is around. It must be God!

I am not saying that God does not exist. I am not saying that ID cannot be true. I AM saying that it is not Science, and does not belong in a Science classroom. Which is what those “activist” judges cb was disparaging were saying.

ID is about a being creating the earth.

But that’s not religion, oh noes…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:26 AM from United States

Then please provide actual physical evidence, other than the lame argument of “it’s too complicated to have evolved so it MUST have been created”, because improbable things DO happen, on a daily basis.

We’ve already gone down this road. I explained that the presence of specified complexity is the evidence, and gave the example from 2001: A Space Odessey, where a monolith exhibiting specified complexity was found, and, since the monolith exhibited specified complexity, intelligent agency was assumed, not nature.

Another example is the movie “Contact”, where electronic pulses from deep space exhibited specified complexity, by counting out prime numbers.

When an artifact exhibits specified complexity, it follows that the artifact is a product of design, not a blind watchmaker.

And please explain how it can be used to predict future events - such as providing proof of a new species appearing where no predecessor existed.

Predictions

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:28 AM from United States

ID is about a being creating the earth.

Wrong.

Why don’t you people educate yourselves?

Or is making stupid statements more enjoyable?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:28 AM from United States

it relies entirely on some (unidentified) Being powerful enough to have Created the whole thing

Nope. Not even close.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:29 AM from United States

ID relies on a supernatural force as a creator

Again, wrong.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:30 AM from United States

Uh, no.  What we have said, countless times, is that because ID relies on a supernatural force as a creator it cannot be considered science, and like all beliefs involving a supernatural being should be relegated to the realm of philosophy, where it belongs.

Get it?  ID is not science.  Never will be.

You constantly go on saying shit like “oh, but ID is nothing but Creationism”.  Creationism is ONE belief. ID is held by man, MANY beliefs.

If it is just about ID not being science, then don’t go bashign christian beliefs and calling them idiots.  Just state how ID is not science.  Oh yeah, and quit getting your panties in a twist about the stickers on text books thing.  After all, no matter what deffinantion you go by (and as I’ve shown, there are several REAL deffinitions) those stickers are correct and it’s the teachers fault if he doesn’t teach what he believes a theory is.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:31 AM from United States

Wrong.

Why don’t you people educate yourselves?

Or is making stupid statements more enjoyable?

If I’m wrong, then what is it about.  Dont’ just insult me and then not say what the correct deffinition of intelligent design is.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:37 AM from United States

I think we should rewrite the classics.  We could have a hip hop book called, “To Mock a Killing Bird” (about life in prison) and “Tom and Huck on the River” (a gay lifestyle among rural teens--kinda Brokeback River . . . of sorts, only you eff fish!).

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:39 AM from United States

If I’m wrong, then what is it about.

What? You are asking what ID is about? Does this mean that you don’t already know?????

Then why did you spout off about it???

At least you admit your ignorance, which is a damned sight better than 99% of the critics here, and for that, I offer you my apology for slighting you.

ID simply states that certain molecular machines inside of cells are irreducibly complex. Irredicible complexity is a specific type of specified complexity, and specified complexity is evidence of design.

Michael Behe, an ID proponent, has no problem with certain aspects of Darwinian evolution. For example, he has no problem with common decent.

He does have a problem with the Darwinian model being able to explain irreducible complexity, however.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 10:41 AM from United States

and gave the example from 2001: A Space Odessey, where a monolith exhibiting specified complexity was found, and, since the monolith exhibited specified complexity, intelligent agency was assumed, not nature.

Maybe you missed the whole “it’s a WORK OF FICTION” part, but you cannot use Arthur C. Clarke’s novel (science-FICTION novel) to prove your hypothesis.

Another example is the movie “Contact”, where electronic pulses from deep space exhibited specified complexity, by counting out prime numbers.

Yeah, and when that happens, we can talk. Until then, that, too, is a work of FICTION. Sagan said as much. But finding extraterrestrials does not provide supporting evidence for your hypothesis, either, since they, too, could have evolved.

You know what would prove the existence of a Creator that Created Man in His image? Finding ET and discovering that he, too, is human, down to the last DNA protein chain. But if ET is different in size, structure or DNA, than that would almost completely disprove ID, because that would prove that different environemtns provide for differing developmental tracks.

Oh, wait, we already have that.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:42 AM from United States

I explained that the presence of specified complexity is the evidence, and gave the example from 2001: A Space Odessey, where a monolith exhibiting specified complexity was found, and, since the monolith exhibited specified complexity, intelligent agency was assumed, not nature.

Another example is the movie “Contact”, where electronic pulses from deep space exhibited specified complexity, by counting out prime numbers.

Holy shit.  Erich von Daniken was right?

Seriously, what is your point here?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:43 AM from United States

What? You are asking what ID is about? Does this mean that you don’t already know?????

Then why did you spout off about it???

Looks like my comment flew way over your head.  I was asking you that question in a “if you’re so smart, then what does it mean” type of fassion.  I hate it when someone retorts with an insult and then doens’t state why so-and-so is wrong.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 10:45 AM from United States

Michael Behe, an ID proponent, has no problem with certain aspects of Darwinian evolution. For example, he has no problem with common decent.

Michael Behe, who thinks that the concept that the stars and planets in their far distant paths somehow influences the behavior of men and women here on earth (bka Astrology) is ALSO just as true as ID. (Under sworn testimony.)

ID is religion’s attempt to use the irrefutable mountain of physical evidence (such as Darwinian evolution and common descent), and stuff God into any cracks.

Does anyone out there have actual evidence, not just “we don’t understand it, so it must have been Created”?

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 10:46 AM from United States

Maybe you missed the whole “it’s a WORK OF FICTION” part, but you cannot use Arthur C. Clarke’s novel (science-FICTION novel) to prove your hypothesis.

Since we’re now using works of fiction to support scientific hypotheses, I believe that the complexity of life came about as a result of humans traveling back through time to genetically modify their predecessors.  To support this hypothesis I will enter into evidence Michael Chrichton’s “Sphere.” In it an alien ship was discovered, and since it was technology that does not exist in the modern day it was assumed to be alien.  However, once they got inside the ship they realized it was indeed an American ship from the future.  This work of fiction thus proves my hypothesis correct.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:47 AM from United States

Maybe you missed the whole “it’s a WORK OF FICTION” part

Nope. You simply missed the “IT’S ONLY AN ILLUSTRATION” part.

I tried to use real examples, but they went over your head.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:48 AM from United States

stars and planets

We’ve already gone over that dead horse, Drum. The point, again, was HOW SCIENTISTS ACTUALL USE THE TERM “THEORY”.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 10:49 AM from United States

If it is just about ID not being science, then don’t go bashign christian beliefs and calling them idiots.  Just state how ID is not science.

I don’t bash Christian beliefs.  I bash beliefs held by morons.  The fact that many Christians believe in the drivel of Creationism and ID does not make it a Christian belief.  Most Catholics, including the Catholic Church in Rome, do not doubt evolution, nor do they consider ID to be science.

I would be just as critical of a Jew or Hindu or Muslim who believed in ID. 

Besides, if ID isn’t a religion, then why is bashing ID and its believers considered by you to be anti-Christian?  Riddle me that one, Batman.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:49 AM from United States

Since we’re now using works of fiction to support scientific hypotheses

You misspelled “illustrate”, Lee.

Don’t be so stupid.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:51 AM from United States

I hate it when someone retorts with an insult and then doens’t state why so-and-so is wrong.

And I hate it when people make stupid statements about a subject they OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING about.

And pointing out stupidity is not an insult. Or, more precisely, it’s a self-inflicted one.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:53 AM from United States

Like I said, just leave ID the fuck alone unless you at least bother to read a book on it.

I’m reading The Blind Watchmaker and plan to read Orign of Species, so I practice what I preach. Both books are obviously pro-Darwin.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 10:57 AM from United States

The point, again, was HOW SCIENTISTS ACTUALL USE THE TERM “THEORY”.

And can you also explain why how Scientists use the word ‘Theory’ precludes it being used for Astrology, while ID requires that use which includes Astrology? A reasonable person would conclude that Intelligent Design, as a “theory”, would rank right up there with Astrology, Phlogiston Chemistry, and Phrenology.

Does that tell you anything?

If you have to stretch the definitions to include obviously erroneous concepts, you’ve forgotten the ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’ rule.

Try actually reading the book ‘Contact’, instead of that schlock with Jodie Foster and Matthew whatshisname. You might be surprised.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 10:58 AM from United States

I’m reading The Blind Watchmaker and plan to read Orign of Species, so I practice what I preach. Both books are obviously pro-Darwin.

Do you read books by Holocaust deniers, too, just to get both sides of the story?  Or do you simply accept that on some subjects there is so much evidence on one side, and so little evidence on the other, that reading the opposing viewpoint is nothing more than devoting time to the rantings of idiots?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:59 AM from United States

Besides, if ID isn’t a religion, then why is bashing ID and its believers considered by you to be anti-Christian?  Riddle me that one, Batman.

Because whenever you bring up something about ID, such as some being possibly creating the earth or other such things, you (1) bring up christianity, (2) bash one of the core beliefs of christians, and (3) ONLY mention christians without even mentioning any other religions that also believe in the eart being created by some means other then a random explosion.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 10:59 AM from United States

And pointing out stupidity is not an insult. Or, more precisely, it’s a self-inflicted one.

You misspelled ‘ACTUALLY’, you moron. Best bandage that foot right away. Gunshots can be painful.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:01 AM from United States

(3) ONLY mention christians without even mentioning any other religions that also believe in the eart being created by some means other then a random explosion.

*sigh*

Lee’s words: I don’t bash Christian beliefs.  I bash beliefs held by morons.  The fact that many Christians believe in the drivel of Creationism and ID does not make it a Christian belief.  Most Catholics, including the Catholic Church in Rome, do not doubt evolution, nor do they consider ID to be science.

I would be just as critical of a Jew or Hindu or Muslim who believed in ID.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:02 AM from United States

Do you read books by Holocaust deniers, too, just to get both sides of the story?

You realize that you are equating Holocoust Denial with Darwinian Evolution, I hope.

I realize your intent, though. Your intent is to equate Holocoust Denial with ID, but you fucked it up.

Nice attempt at a straw man, though.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:03 AM from United States

You misspelled ‘ACTUALLY’, you moron.

Nope. You are simply suffering delusions.

Like I said, I wish you would stick to subject you know.

Moron.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 11:04 AM from United States

Because whenever you bring up something about ID, such as some being possibly creating the earth or other such things, you (1) bring up christianity, (2) bash one of the core beliefs of christians, and (3) ONLY mention christians without even mentioning any other religions that also believe in the eart being created by some means other then a random explosion.

Gee whiz, do you think that this could be because

1) The vast majority of the people who believe this shit are fundamentalist Christians?

2) The people who are financing the effort to get this drivel into schools are fundamentalist Christians, being financed by fundamentalist Christian groups?

3) The only people who ever come to this blog to argue in favor of ID are Christians?

And I’m sick of repeating myself on this issue.  I swear to God, some fucking Christians have exactly the same persecution complex that liberals have.  I don’t bash Christian beliefs.  Believe the world is made of green cheese if you like, I couldn’t care less.  But don’t try to get that idiotic view taught in my kid’s public school science class.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:05 AM from United States

And can you also explain why how Scientists use the word ‘Theory’ precludes it being used for Astrology,

But the DON’T.

That’s the POINT.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:06 AM from United States

*sigh*

Lee’s words: I don’t bash Christian beliefs.  I bash beliefs held by morons.  The fact that many Christians believe in the drivel of Creationism and ID does not make it a Christian belief.  Most Catholics, including the Catholic Church in Rome, do not doubt evolution, nor do they consider ID to be science.

I would be just as critical of a Jew or Hindu or Muslim who believed in ID.

Only after someone points out how he only mentions christians and bashes their beliefs.  Nice try, though.  Maybe if he’d actually state that in a brand-spanking-new post (and not one of those “let me explain things” one either), then you could claim that he isn’t bashing christian beliefs.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:06 AM from United States

The vast majority of the people who believe this shit are fundamentalist Christians?

Of course, given that a beleiver in ID is DEFINED as a fundie xtian.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:07 AM from United States

I don’t like homeschooling just because those guys are protrayed as weirdos on TV and in the movies.  If you live on a mountain or in Dubai I guess you don’t have a choice. I attended public schools & university in California, and am very impressed and happy with my superior intelligence, and how I’m not very arrogant.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:09 AM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 09:03 AM

You misspelled ‘ACTUALLY’, you moron.

Nope. You are simply suffering delusions.

Like I said, I wish you would stick to subject you know.

Moron.

Yes, moron, you did. You might want to go back and “actuall” check it out.

But since you wanted to snark, how does this taste?

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 08:48 AM

stars and planets

We’ve already gone over that dead horse, Drum. The point, again, was HOW SCIENTISTS ACTUALL USE THE TERM “THEORY”.

Were those words of yours tender and tasty, dumbass? How’s the crow? I’ve got a big dollop of shit you can eat, too, since I’m still waiting for actual evidence.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 11:10 AM from United States

You realize that you are equating Holocoust Denial with Darwinian Evolution, I hope.

I realize your intent, though. Your intent is to equate Holocoust Denial with ID, but you fucked it up.

Nice attempt at a straw man, though.

I wasn’t equating anything with anything.  You were pimping yourself out as some great thinker because you were reading books on evolution, positioning yourself as being intellectually superior to Drum and I because you’re exposing yourself to both sides of the story.  I simply wanted to know if you expose yourself to both sides of the story on other issues.  Change the controversy then.  Instead of the Holocaust, how about the moon landing?  How many books claiming the moon landing was faked have you read?  If the answer is zero, why haven’t you?  I mean, the truth could be out there, right?  And you wouldn’t want to limit yourself to what you were spoon fed by your secular government-run school. 

Or do you, as I suspect, simply dismiss lunar hoaxers as nothing more than agenda-driven crackpots who will do anything to contort the facts to give credence to their wild theories?  Because that’s exactly what I do about ID.  It’s so fucking stupid an idea that it’s not even worth the time it would take me to read about it.  Just like lunar hoaxers, just like holocaust deniers, just like the people who think Bush was behind 9/11. 

There are some ideas so patently absurd that the only people who take them seriously are those who really, really, really want them to be true.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 11:12 AM from United States

Only after someone points out how he only mentions christians and bashes their beliefs.  Nice try, though.  Maybe if he’d actually state that in a brand-spanking-new post (and not one of those “let me explain things” one either), then you could claim that he isn’t bashing christian beliefs.

Quote me an example of me explicitly bashing Christian beliefs.  Not *your* Christian beliefs, asshole, but something that all Christians, regardless of denomination, happen to believe. 

You made the accusation, fuckstick, now back it up.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:12 AM from United States

I would be just as critical of a Jew or Hindu or Muslim who believed in ID.

And as far as I know, no Jews, Hindus or Muslims believe in ID.  I could be wrong on the last two, but as a Jew, I’m fairly positive that even the Ultra-Orthodox Jews don’t believe in Intelligent Design.  And Genesis is a major part of the Judaica.

The Jewish position on evolution is pretty complicated and nuanced, but it basically states that God created life, but did not direct evolution.  He merely used evolution as a mechanism without guiding it.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:13 AM from United States

Gee whiz, do you think that this could be because

1) The vast majority of the people who believe this shit are fundamentalist Christians?

2) The people who are financing the effort to get this drivel into schools are fundamentalist Christians, being financed by fundamentalist Christian groups?

3) The only people who ever come to this blog to argue in favor of ID are Christians?

And I’m sick of repeating myself on this issue.  I swear to God, some fucking Christians have exactly the same persecution complex that liberals have.  I don’t bash Christian beliefs.  Believe the world is made of green cheese if you like, I couldn’t care less.  But don’t try to get that idiotic view taught in my kid’s public school science class.

1.  Could it be that *gasp* the majority of people in this country are christian?

2.  Mainly christian groups fund pro-life groups, but that certainly doesn’t mean that only christians are pro-life.  Hell, I know athiests and agnostics that are pro-life.

3.  It’s not so much your disbelief of ID that they get so heated about.  It’s you calling them morons and such.  Try doing a post where you don’t insult christians or their beliefs in an anti-ID post or using sarcasm like “that pesky science” (you know, your false assumption that christians don’t believe in science) and let’s see just how much smaller the comment section gets.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:13 AM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 09:05 AM

And can you also explain why how Scientists use the word ‘Theory’ precludes it being used for Astrology,

But the DON’T.

You misspelled “they”, stupid.

So you’re saying that Scientists think Astrology is a Scientific “Theory” (as scientists would “actuall” {sic} use the word), or is it only Michael Behe who thinks that? Because Behe has stated - UNDER OATH - that the word “theory”, as he uses it to describe ID, would also include Astrology.

Explain how equating ID with Astrology proves your case?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:14 AM from United States

Or do you simply accept that on some subjects there is so much evidence on one side

500 Scientists disagree.

Oh. Wait. That’s right. I keep forgetting.

“REAL” SCIENTIST IS DEFINED AS A BELIEVER IN DARWIN.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:16 AM from United States

You misspelled “they”.

Yup. Got be there, Drum. I fat-fingered.

Good thing you’ve NEVER FUCKING DONE THAT.

So you’re saying that

You can put whatever fucking words you want into my mouth. It’s the only way you can “win”.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:17 AM from United States

Explain how equating ID with Astrology proves your case?

Better idea.

Explain how RELYING ON STRAW MEN helps yours.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:18 AM from United States

“REAL” SCIENTIST IS DEFINED AS A BELIEVER IN DARWIN.

No, a “real” scientist is defined as someone who actually uses Science, not myths and quasi-religious beliefs to fill in the “I don’t know” spots.

EVIDENCE. FACTS. VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE, PREDICTABLE.

Still waiting for that evidence.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:20 AM from United States

Still waiting for that evidence.

So it can go over your head AGAIN?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:20 AM from United States

Still waiting for that evidence.

So you can ignore/dismiss it AGAIN?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:21 AM from United States

Explain how RELYING ON STRAW MEN helps yours.

Hey, I’m not the one making the comparison. Your hero, Behe, was.

But since Michael Behe has stated - again, under oath - that his use of “theory” includes Astrology, how does that help prove your case?

If ID can’t make the grade without such self-serving distortions, what does that say about its validity?

Go ahead, call it a straw man again. Of course, conceding would at least show some intellectual honesty.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:24 AM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 09:20 AM

Still waiting for that evidence.

So you can ignore/dismiss it AGAIN?

You haven’t shown anything to ignore yet, because just pointing at something and saying, “I don’t understand how this could have come to be, so it MUST have been created” is not evidence. It is an argument that barely ranks as a conjecture, because you are substituting one form of “I don’t know” for another.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:25 AM from United States

Hey, I’m not the one

utterly missing the point??!!?!

The hell you aren’t.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:25 AM from United States

You haven’t shown anything

Just as I predected. Dismissal. Ignorance.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:26 AM from United States

And yes, I misspelled “predicted”.

Fucking cope.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:30 AM from United States

Quote me an example of me explicitly bashing Christian beliefs.  Not *your* Christian beliefs, asshole, but something that all Christians, regardless of denomination, happen to believe. 

You made the accusation, fuckstick, now back it up.

Here’s one of you basically calling anyone who believes in Adam and Eve a backwords retard.

I mean, believing that man was walking all over the world 11,000 years ago, that’s just plum crazy!  Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go worship a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago.”

Here’s another one of you steroetyping something an IDer (read: christian, as you do reference Adam and Eve) would say:

These here scientist folk are willing to believe any old thing that comes along, aren’t they?  I mean, it’s obvious to me and all other non-heathen sinners that the glow in these pitchers is the divine light being cast by angel’s wings.  Seriously folks, stars from like a trillion bajillion years ago?  Pretty tough, considering the universe ain’t but 6,000 years old.  I mean, I suppose these here stars were already around when Adam and Eve were running around with the dinosaurs, right?  Sheesh, come on now.”

And these are just a few from you main posts.  I didn’t even go through comments, but you can’t deny that you call anyone (read: christians) who believes in the great flood an “idiot”.

BTW, there is no need for insults.  That’s usually someone who’s trapped in a corner of a debate would do.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:32 AM from United States

The Jewish position on evolution is pretty complicated and nuanced, but it basically states that God created life, but did not direct evolution.  He merely used evolution as a mechanism without guiding it.

Well seeing as though ID doesn’t deny all evolution…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:34 AM from United States

at least show some intellectual honesty.

As if you had a clue.

What you keep FUCKING IGNORING is that UNDER FUCKING OATH, Behe said that the way he used the term “theory” is THE FUCKING SAME WAY MOST SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY USE IT.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:40 AM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 09:25 AM

Hey, I’m not the one

utterly missing the point??!!?!

The hell you aren’t.

Michael Behe said that his use of “theory” to describe Intelligent Design was so vague and all-inclusive that Astrology would be considered a valid “theory” under his definition. That is NOT how actual scientists would use the word.

That is the intellectual equivalent of Affirmative Action, placing ID right up there with Phlogiston “Theory” (which has also been disproved, but it’s a “theory”, just like ID).

Of course, that is NOT what scientists mean. Deny it all you want.

And your evidence is NOT evidence, it is an argument from ignorance. Once more, because you clearly haven’t grasped this concept, just pointing at something and saying, “I cannot understand how this could have happened” is NOT proof that it didn’t. And that is all you have. You point at biological processes, and say, “I see no way this could have naturally evolved, therefore it didn’t”.

Poor guy. Maybe if you keep reading, you’ll learn things like this.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:43 AM from United States

BTW, Lee, you have no idea what my beliefs are, so don’t act like I"m some Pat Robbertson wannabe.  Hell, you should know that simply by my screen name.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:49 AM from United States

Behe said that the way he used the term “theory” is THE FUCKING SAME WAY MOST SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY USE IT.

No, he didn’t. He can make that claim, but it doesn’t mean that it is true. Link for the lunkhead

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

and

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Hypothesis or theory?

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

So the National Academy of Sciences would disagree with you (and with Behe). But you know better…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:49 AM from United States

And your evidence is NOT evidence, it is an argument from ignorance.

Ignorance and dismissal, just as I predicted.

And I spelled it right, this time.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:51 AM from United States

Quote for the lunkhead:

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

He said that under oath, you contemptable imbecile.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:52 AM from United States

And I spelled it right, this time.

Good for you.

But saying “Ignorance and dismissal, just as I predicted.” doesn’t defeat the fact that your shortcomings do not translate into actual fact.

What evidence do you have? Oh, right, those “biological processes” that you cannot explain.

How is that different from what I said?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:52 AM from United States

“I cannot understand how this could have happened”

Another example of Drumwaster Ignorance.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:54 AM from United States

How is that different from what I said?

It hasn’t sunk into that bone head yet after several repetitions, so I have reached the rational conclusion that you are a bonehead that clings to your ignorant position.

Like I said, I really wish you’d stick to politics, then this blog would have to suffer this ugliness.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:56 AM from United Kingdom

22 Accacia - Lee is saying that people who beleive that Adam and Eve were the origin of life are morons because of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. If I were to beleive that Bush was behind 9/11 or that mice are really the intelligent beings on earth, he would call me a moron too. If a christian came to him with evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old, Lee would be willing to listen. Am I right.

So here is an idea. Drum - write a post with the evidence for evolution, and Cbass write a post witht he evidence for ID, and Lee can post it side by side, without the snarking. Cbass, I personally haven’t seen you give any evidence that has gone over Drums head, so I’d be interested to see your point of view. Drum, I’d be interested to see your take on the complexity issue.

If ID claims to be science, lets have a scientific debate, without the snarking, using verifiable evidence as our bedrock. Seriously, it would be good to get everyones views out on the table without resorting to defensiveness or ‘christ punching’.

Whaddaya reckon Lee?

By the way CBass, either way could you point me to that evidence, I must have missed it, and would be interested on the point of view.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:57 AM from United States

MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE WAY THEORIES ARE ACTUALLY USED BY SCIENTISTS

MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE WAY THEORIES ARE ACTUALLY USED BY SCIENTISTS

MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE WAY THEORIES ARE ACTUALLY USED BY SCIENTISTS

How many times do I need to repeat this?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:58 AM from United States

“The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Not by scientists, it isn’t. The National Academy of Science says so, and he agrees.

And that, too, was admitted under oath. ONLY under his own personal, “broader” definition could ID be considered a “theory” (apparently defined as “a guess that’s been to college"). And so could Astrology. (Which was also admitted under oath.)

One more time, equating the scientific validity of Astrology and ID helps your case how, exactly?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:00 PM from United States

How many times do I need to repeat this?

You need to have your eyes squinched up tight, and your fingers in your ears to get the full effect.

But, as I just mentioned, Behe admitted that scientists use the word differently than he does.

But keep repeating it, if it makes you feel better. Maybe you should try having the covers pulled up over your head?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:00 PM from United States

BTW, incase any of you want to make more assumptions about me, here’s my thought on the matter:

ID is not science and therefor shouldn’t be taught in the same manner as evolution (taught for several days and such).  Even so, there is nothing wrong with a science teacher saying “but their are those who believe in Intelligent Design”, nor do I see a problem with books having stickers saying “evolution is a theory”.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:01 PM from United States

Yeah don’t claim the ID is only a Christian thing! By cbass’ own remarks on this website you can clearly see he doesn’t think it was the Christian God.  He has made remarks to Mother Nature being the source as well as aliens.

So clearly he is either a spiritualist, or a Raelian.  Not Christian.  And that is just so much better.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:05 PM from Europe

Hey Twenty2Acaciaave,

nor do I see a problem with books having stickers saying “evolution is a theory”

So… do you think Bibles should carry stickers which state “Some of the stories in this book are demonstrably false?”

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:12 PM from United States

You need to have your eyes squinched up tight, and your fingers in your ears to get the full effect.

Maybe you should try having the covers pulled up over your head?

It seems to work for you.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:12 PM from United States

Drum, I’d be interested to see your take on the complexity issue.

I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know, and I will keep an open mind to any evidence that arises. Cbass clearly is, because he’s substituting his “I don’t know” with some “Intelligent Designer”, and that is NOT evidence, no matter how many times he repeats it.

I have been asking him for actual evidence for quite a while now, and it all keeps coming back to, “This is too improbable to have ‘just happened’, so it must have been Created”.

Of course, he has also admitted that wildly improbable events happen every week. An example is the late Roy Sullivan, who was struck by lightning seven times. Now, if you accept the odds of being struck by lightning in any given year (which is very improbable in itself) are about 1 in 700,000 (Link), and the odds of being struck in a lifetime are about 1 in 3,000.

Being struck seven times would be that 1 in 3,000 raised to the seventh power, or 1 in 2,187,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2,187 billion trillion). Given that there are only about 12-13 billion people estimated to have ever lived through all of history, that’s still roughly a 200 trillion to 1 chance that it would happen to anyone at all in all of history.

But it did. A 200 trillion to one shot. How did it happen? I have no idea. But if you use cbass’ argument, God (or those space aliens aboard the UFOs) must have really had it in for him.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:13 PM from United States

He has made remarks to Mother Nature being the source

Nope, but put words in my mouth if it gets your rocks off. You won’t be the first.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:16 PM from United States

So, cbass, who is the “Intelligent Designer”? And doesn’t it hurt your argument that the main proponents of ID freely admit that when they use that phrase, they mean the God of the Bible?

If not, why not?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:16 PM from United States

Cbass clearly is

The only thing I’m doing is trying, in vain obviously, to keep clear what ID is and isn’t. But the bullshit tidalwave and clinging to ignorance by ID critics is overwhelming.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:19 PM from United States

Hey Twenty2Acaciaave,

“nor do I see a problem with books having stickers saying “evolution is a theory”

So… do you think Bibles should carry stickers which state “Some of the stories in this book are demonstrably false?”

The stickers call evolution a “theory”, which it is.  Those stickers aren’t calling it false or anything like that.  The Bible is a religous book, and religion deals with faith and such.  Saying that it is “false” would not be right.  Perhaps a sticker saying “keep in mind that the translation from hebrew and such may be sketchy” wouldn’t be bad.  But unless you invent a time machine and go to the past, you can’t just say that some stories are just plain “false”.

One thing, though, is that they very well could just be parables.  Jesus spoke in parables, so it could be possible that some of the stories are just parables, and not stuff that actually happened.  But which stories, we’ll probably never know.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:19 PM from United States

So tell us exactly how ID is different than Evolution with some “Intelligent Designer” stuffed into the cracks where “I don’t know” used to be?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:19 PM from United States

So, cbass, who is the “Intelligent Designer”?

Fuck if I know—ID MAKES NO FUCKING ATTEMPT TO FUCKING IDENTIFY THE FUCKING DESIGNER.

But don’t let that fact get in your way.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:20 PM from United States

So tell us exactly how ID is different than Evolution with some “Intelligent Designer” stuffed into the cracks where “I don’t know” used to be?

I’ve already answered this, Drum.

You didn’t pay attention then. Why should now be any diff?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:20 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 01/22/06 at 02:44 AM

I’ve been debating whether to respond to this dead thread, but I’ll just note that it’s amusing when Darwinists attempt to use designed computer programs with stored, directed, designed information (such as a dictionary) to “prove” a lack of design. Mother Nature had no dictionary to compare with, yet she wrote epic poetry anyway, stuff that puts Homer to shame. And each poetic step along the way made perfect literary sense

Kiss my ass cbass

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:22 PM from United States

And doesn’t it hurt your argument that the main proponents of ID freely admit that when they use that phrase, they mean the God of the Bible?

Main proponents???????

You mean “fundie xtian hijackers”.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:23 PM from Europe

Fair enough. I was just thinking that a book should say simply what its author intended, without post-hoc editing by someone else…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:23 PM from United States

The stickers call evolution a “theory”, which it is

I believe most science books also call it a theory as well.  So unless you can find a science textbook that doesn’t, then these stickers are a practice in redundancy and idiocy.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:23 PM from United States

Kiss my ass cbass

You need to point out the spot you want me to “kiss” since you are obviously ass all over.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:25 PM from Canada

I wonder what people feeling on the issue of anti-science and stem cell research.  The Catholic Church is much more restrictive on this item than some fundamental Christian Churches.  Is being against stem cell research anti-science.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:27 PM from United States

But unless you invent a time machine and go to the past, you can’t just say that some stories are just plain “false”.

So when the sun stood still in the sky, that really happened? The Earth either stopped cold in its rotation (with no conservation of angular momentum) or the sun whipped around the planet so as to maintain its relative position in the sky? With no other cultures on the planet noticing the sudden overextended darkness, I might add.

Posted by dakrat on 02/27/06 at 12:27 PM from United States

A 200 trillion to one shot. How did it happen? I have no idea.

The lack of statistical evidence for being struck by lightning seven times in a lifetime should be proof enough that poor Mr. Sullivan was the pawn in a shady bet between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his nemesis, the Hopping Baked Potato.  Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan didn’t have the fortitude of old Job.  He eventually took his own life.  He had been touched by His Noodly Appendage for the last time.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:27 PM from Canada

add on to my last post
“VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Monday reaffirmed Catholic teaching that life begins at the moment of conception, saying embryos are “sacred and inviolable” even before they become implanted in a mother’s uterus.”

http://tinyurl.com/ofnt5

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:29 PM from United States

I have been asking him for actual evidence for quite a while now, and it all keeps coming back to…

But if you use cbass’ argument, God (or those space aliens aboard the UFOs) must have really had it in for him.

For one beotching about “intellectual honesty”, you seem orgasmic about putting words in my mouth.

You’re such an ass.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:30 PM from United States

Is being against stem cell research anti-science

Not really.  It’s more of a “morales” thing, I guess.  A friend of mine (who’s not religious) says it’s more of a freaky “playing God” thing.  Personally, I am all for stem cell research.  Hell, I may be anti-abortion (except when the mother’s life is at stake and such), but if aborted fetisses can be used for something, nothing would be better then to research was to help people who are paralized or who have neurological disorders.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:30 PM from United States

I’ve already answered this, Drum.

No, you haven’t, or I wouldn’t keep asking. You’ve spoouted lots of worthless rhetoric that doesn’t stand up to any kind of close inspection. I have stripped away all of the verbiage and boiled it down to the semantic vbarebones, and it is exactly as I have said: you say “this is too complex to have randomly evolved, therefore it must have been Created”. That isn’t evidence, that’s an argument, and a flwed argument, at that.

Now, put up or shut up. You are getting boring.

You mean “fundie xtian hijackers”.

Now who’s putting words in the mouths of others?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:32 PM from United States

You’re such an ass.

Way to prove me wrong.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:32 PM from United States

So when the sun stood still in the sky, that really happened? The Earth either stopped cold in its rotation (with no conservation of angular momentum) or the sun whipped around the planet so as to maintain its relative position in the sky? With no other cultures on the planet noticing the sudden overextended darkness, I might add.

Would you mind posting a passage to what you’re talking about?  Also, it looks like you missed my point about stickers referring to translations and such.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:32 PM from United States

Drumwaster keeps saying, “Well, since some bozo got struck by lightning seven times, that proves that there’s no goddamned God, and evolooshun obviously happened, just like Darwin preached it. Go look at the law of large numbers, it explains EVERYTHING about evolooshun. Darwin was da man.”

How do you like it, Drum?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:34 PM from United States

22 Accacia - Lee is saying that people who beleive that Adam and Eve were the origin of life are morons because of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Well seeing as christians (not just “fundies") believe that Adam and Eve were the first ones created by God, it seems as though Lee is infact bashing a christian belief.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:35 PM from United States

Way to prove me wrong.

That would require intelligence on your part, as opposed to recalcitrant ignorance coupled with outrageous arrogance on your part.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:37 PM from United States

That would require intelligence on your part

Yeah, because calling me names does so much damage to my arguments, I think I’ll nip off and sob now.

Do you actually HAVE evidence, or are you stuck with nothing but name-calling?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:38 PM from United States

vbarebones

What the fuck are vbarebones, Drum.

Good thing you never fuck up your spelling, hypocrite.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:39 PM from United States

because calling me names does so much

You should know, lunkhead, moron, whatever other names you’ve called me today.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:39 PM from Europe

Cbass, we’ve been through this before I know… but I would be very interested to see one piece of evidence for ID. Proper, stand-alone evidence; not just attacks on other theories or explanations.

Do you have any?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:40 PM from United States

*Yawn*

Evolution is happening and has been happening, this is basically impossible to dispute.

The question is, is evolution guided or random. Many of the patterns in evolution suggest some kind of guided evolution. SCIENCE DOES NOT AS OF YET HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

Religion and philosophy offer answer to this question, BUT THESE ANSWERS ARE NOT SCIENCE.

Intelligent design is secular philosophy, but it fills in holes by saying “there has to have been some sort of creator.” Whether you believe this or not, it isn’t a scientifically derived conclusion, and thus isn’t science.

I repeat though, that as of right now the beginning of the world hasn’t been scientifically been shown to be anything. Any attempt to answer it has either been a scientific THEORY, a RELIGION, or some kind of secular PHILOSOPHY.

ugh

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:41 PM from United States

Would you mind posting a passage to what you’re talking about?  Also, it looks like you missed my point about stickers referring to translations and such.

The Bible, Old Testament, Book of Joshua, Chapter 10.

And if you are saying that errors in translation could mistake something as simple to describe as “the sun stood still in the sky for a whole day”, then it could make an even easier mistake in describing “creating the whole universe in six days”, could it not?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:42 PM from United States

You should know, lunkhead, moron, whatever other names you’ve called me today.

I do that not as a replacement for the arguments (none of which you have actually bothered to refute), but as a garnishment for them.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:43 PM from United States

Good thing you never fuck up your spelling, hypocrite.

Way to shred that argument! Keep up the great work!

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:44 PM from United States

Evolution is happening and has been happening, this is basically impossible to dispute.

MICROevolution is happening and is impossible to dispute.  This simply isn’t true about MACROevolution.

Where is the repeatable lab experiment that proves that your great great great great great great great ...  great great grandad was a fish?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:45 PM from United States

I do that not as a replacement for the arguments (none of which you have actually bothered to refute), but as a garnishment for them.

You took the words right out of my mouth!!

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:45 PM from United States

Where is the repeatable lab experiment that proves that your great great great great great great great ...  great great grandad was a fish?

This is not evidence for ID, it is an argument against Evolution.

Still waiting…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:46 PM from United States

You took the words right out of my mouth!!

Except that you have no argument to garnish.

Still waiting…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:48 PM from United States

Except that you have no argument to garnish.

Your inability to comprehend an argument doesn’t equate to a lack of same.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:49 PM from United States

This is not evidence for ID, it is an argument against Evolution.

I NEVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

I can carry on seperate conversations without conflating the two, even if you can’t.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:51 PM from Europe

Where is the repeatable lab experiment that proves that your great great great great great great great ...  great great grandad was a fish?

There isn’t one, because humans are not descended from fish.

We are, however, descended from apes. And a fossil progression from small apes to humans has been found in many places around the world, particularly in Africa.

Many, many places. How’s that not ‘repeatable’?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:51 PM from United States

Your inability to comprehend an argument doesn’t equate to a lack of same.

I understand it fine. I’ve clobbered it repeatedly, and asked for something more.

You’ve had requests from at least three of us here on this thread. So maybe you need to actually try posting some, maybe?

Still waiting…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:52 PM from United States

I understand it fine. I’ve clobbered it repeatedly, and asked for something more.

You are welcome to your delusions, Drum.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:52 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 10:49 AM

This is not evidence for ID, it is an argument against Evolution.

I NEVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

Yet the request was for evidence proving ID, not more arguments against Evolution. I can see how you can’t keep the two separate, but try, won’t you?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:52 PM from Canada

What is the record for the most amount of comments for a thread?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:53 PM from United States

You are welcome to your delusions, Drum.

Yeah, that’s evidence, isn’t it, everybody?

Put up or shut up.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:53 PM from United States

There isn’t one, because humans are not descended from fish.

According to Darwinism, we are. We all originated in the ocean, remember? The primordial soup?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:54 PM from United States

What is the record for the most amount of comments for a thread?

Well over a thousand, IIRC.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 12:55 PM from United States

And these are just a few from you main posts.  I didn’t even go through comments, but you can’t deny that you call anyone (read: christians) who believes in the great flood an “idiot”.

Let me explain this again, for the millionth time.  If you believe in the great flood, DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, then you are an idiot.  You’re a fucking moron.  You’re too fucking stupid to tie your own shoes.  You should be legally barred from ever spawning a child, lest they be as ignorant as you are.

If you believe that the moon is made of green cheese, DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, then you are an idiot.  You’re a fucking moron.  You’re too fucking stupid to tie your own shoes.  You should be legally barred from ever spawning a child, lest they be as ignorant as you are.

If you believe that the holocause never happened, DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, then you are an idiot.  You’re a fucking moron.  You’re too fucking stupid to tie your own shoes.  You should be legally barred from ever spawning a child, lest they be as ignorant as you are.

If you believe that Bush personally authorized 9/11, or that there was a Republican plot to steal the election, or that the Iraq War was fought solely to enrich Halliburton, DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, then you are an idiot.  You’re a fucking moron.  You’re too fucking stupid to tie your own shoes.  You should be legally barred from ever spawning a child, lest they be as ignorant as you are.

Do you see a pattern here, 22?  It has nothing to do with Christianity.  It has to do with idiocy and willful ignorance.  When you are willing to fervently believe in your on personal dogma, despite it being so obviously and demonstrably wrong, then you’re a fucking moron.  It doesn’t matter what the particular dogma is, whether it is religious or secular in nature.

When I call Muslims idiots for some of their beliefs, you don’t seem to get bent out of shape.  Why is that?  Could it be because (gasp!) you think their beliefs are ridiculous, and have no problem with me or anyone else stating that opinion?

Basically what you’re saying is that it’s perfectly acceptible to you for me to denigrate idiots in every other aspect of life, except Christians.  Because that would be offensive.

Now, I challenge you again.  Find me a post, anywhere, in the three-plus years of me writing this blog, where I specifically denigrate Christianity.  Not certain Christians for holding certain beliefs, or certain Christians for engaging in certain activities, but in CHRISTIANITY ITSELF.

You can’t, because I have never written such a thing in my entire fucking life.  Now, find me a fucking quote, you wormy little prick, or concede the fucking point.

Jesus H. Christ, you fucking Christians and your incessant persecution comploex.  It’s un-fucking-believable.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 12:56 PM from United States

Yet the request was for evidence proving ID

No, it was a CLAIM that “evolution was happening and was impossible to dispute”.

Nice reading comprehension, there, Drum.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 12:58 PM from United States

Yet the request was for evidence proving ID

MY request was for evidence supporting ID.

Do you actually have any, yes or no?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:01 PM from Europe

According to Darwinism, we are. We all originated in the ocean, remember? The primordial soup?

Primordial soup is not a fish. A fish is a vertibrate, for one thing. But there the similarities with humans end, as any fool can see.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:05 PM from United States

Put up

Drum, you contemptable ass, the only reason I’m here is because you made the preposterously stupid statement:

Intelligent Design is that “silly wild-assed guess”, because it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior.

If you didn’t make that boneheaded, moronic, absolutely ignorant you’re-too-stupid-to-tie-your-shoes pigheaded statement, I would never have entered this discussion.

The only one obligated to “put up” is you.

I have already shot the fuck out of both of your stupid claims, yet you blithely pretend otherwise, and whine about me “putting up”?

I have provided a link to predictions. I have explained the evidence.

Your inability to grasp that is irrelevant.

Why don’t you try substantiating your assinine claims, for a wild-assed change of pace?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:07 PM from United States

When I call Muslims idiots for some of their beliefs, you don’t seem to get bent out of shape.  Why is that?  Could it be because (gasp!) you think their beliefs are ridiculous, and have no problem with me or anyone else stating that opinion?

The only “belief” of theirs you bash is the whole “kill the infedels” thing.  You don’t bash their beliefs on how the earth was created or other such beliefs.  You (rightfully) bash their killings and such.  That’s it.  Nice try, though.

Insults again.  *sigh*

Now, I challenge you again.  Find me a post, anywhere, in the three-plus years of me writing this blog, where I specifically denigrate Christianity.  Not certain Christians for holding certain beliefs, or certain Christians for engaging in certain activities, but in CHRISTIANITY ITSELF.

Let’s see.  I posted you bashing stuff that are core beliefs of christians (note to lee: CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE!!!!), yet you don’t see that as evidence.  Oh yeah, let’s not forget you bashing christians for praying (in an over-the-top manner, yes, but they were still just praying).  And yes, I’m refurring to your schiavo post where you seem to think that they were just posing for the cameras.

Christianity takes its teachings from the Bibles.  YOu call people who believe in stories in the Bible idiots.  Therefor, you bash christians.  GET IT?!!?

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:07 PM from United States

cbass, here’s another website with a shitload of evidence, backed up by a lot of scientists and researchers.  What do you think of this?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:08 PM from Canada

Not really.  It’s more of a “morales” thing, I guess.  A friend of mine (who’s not religious) says it’s more of a freaky “playing God” thing.  Personally, I am all for stem cell research.  Hell, I may be anti-abortion (except when the mother’s life is at stake and such), but if aborted fetisses can be used for something, nothing would be better then to research was to help people who are paralized or who have neurological disorders.

Stem cells are not necessarily from aborted children they could be made in tested tube.  This is stopping scientific research that would extend people life.

“By making such a defense of life, the Pope appeared to be trying to cut short any debate that the period between conception and implantation could be seen as a time for legitimate experimentation or manipulation on embryos.

He did not make a distinction between embryos created naturally and those generated outside the womb through in-vitro fertilisation.”

Pope on stem cell

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:10 PM from United States

The only one obligated to “put up” is you.

And I have done so. I have all of the scientific world behind me. You have Michael “Astrology is as valid as ID” Behe. Which sounds more credible?

I have already shot the fuck out of both of your stupid claims

Yeah, those spellchecks were ACTUALL {sic} lethal to the mountain of evidence, weren’t they?

Still waiting…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:11 PM from Europe

Why don’t you try substantiating your assinine claims, for a wild-assed change of pace?

When you makes a remarkable statement, you must have remarkable proof.

Suppose I told you I had a chicken in my garage, and you wanted proof. I would send you a photo of me in the garage with the chicken, and you’d be convinced. It looks like a chicken, there’s no reason why I wouldn’t have a chicken… it’s a chicken.

Now, suppose I said I had a Great Auk. You wouldn’t be convinced by a photo, would you? You’d want it to be examined by experts, have DNA samples taken, and God knows what else. And you’d still probably think I was lying. And rightly so.

But in this debate, it’s you that’s making the remarkable claim. You’re claiming that a huge chunk of human knowledge, accumulated over hundreds of genius-centuries, is bollocks.

And you have no proof. Not a shred.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:13 PM from United States

And you have no proof. Not a shred.

See? I’m not the only one saying it.

Still waiting…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:14 PM from United States

YOu call people who believe in stories in the Bible idiots.

You keep forgetting that whole “DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY” bit, don’t you?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:15 PM from United States

cbass, here’s another website with a shitload of evidence, backed up by a lot of scientists and researchers.  What do you think of this?

I think you’re mixing your metaphors, so to speak. You are the one who keeps saying that Darwinian Evolution has “a shitload of evidence, backed up by a lot of scientists and researchers”, and that ID is the polar opposite.

The question is, what exactly are you trying to prove, here?

For the record, again, my goal is not to “prove ID”, but simply to keep clear what it is and isn’t.

It isn’t “creationism” or “religion”.

It is taking a scientific approach.

There are scientists who doubt Darwinism. THIS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM ID PROPONENTS. IT ALSO DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM CREATIONISTS.

Is that so hard?

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:16 PM from United States

The only “belief” of theirs you bash is the whole “kill the infedels” thing.  You don’t bash their beliefs on how the earth was created or other such beliefs.  You (rightfully) bash their killings and such.  That’s it.  Nice try, though.

I bash their beliefs all the time.  Kill the infidels is one.  Women being the property of their husbands is another.  I could go on and on.  My point, you dunce, is that all of these beliefs held by Muslims are found IN THE FUCKING KORAN.  So, if you find it unacceptable for me to call Muslims idiots for holding these ridiculous beliefs, despite the beliefs being written in the Muslim holy book, then why should you have a problem for me doing the same thing for Christians?

Let’s see.  I posted you bashing stuff that are core beliefs of christians (note to lee: CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE!!!!), yet you don’t see that as evidence.

Absolutely.  But not every Christian believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible as scientific fact, to the exclusion of all scientific evidence to the contrary.  Again, you cann’t find a single example of me bashing Christianity, only of specific Christians.  Weak, dude, fucking weak.

Oh yeah, let’s not forget you bashing christians for praying (in an over-the-top manner, yes, but they were still just praying).  And yes, I’m refurring to your schiavo post where you seem to think that they were just posing for the cameras.

You just answered your own accusation!  I didn’t bash Christians for praying, I bashed THOSE specific Christians for THAT particular style opf prayer, which was done in public for the cameras to make a political point, rather than out of any sincere desire to talk to God.  Unless, of course, you believe that God will hear you better if you’re wailing and rolling on the ground, rather than praying quitely in your living room, away from the TV cameras.

Christianity takes its teachings from the Bibles.  YOu call people who believe in stories in the Bible idiots.  Therefor, you bash christians.  GET IT?!!?

So, what you’re saying is that if you don’t believe the flood myth as being literal scientific fact you’re not a true Christian, right?  Or will you admit that you can be a Christian without believing a 5,000 year old allegorical fable has more veracity than the sum weight of human scientific knowledge.  Because if you can be a Christian and not believe in the flood myth as literal scientific fact, then you have absolutely no logical ground to stand on.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:18 PM from United States

It isn’t “creationism” or “religion”.

It is taking a scientific approach.

It’s taking a pseudo-scientific approach to try and prove creationism.  Tart it up all you like, but that’s what it is.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:19 PM from United States

You’re claiming that a huge chunk of human knowledge, accumulated over hundreds of genius-centuries, is bollocks.

Well, ignorance and lack of reading comprehension raises its ugly head again.

Not to mention impressive, though obviously biased, spin and rhetoric.

I am making no such claim. I am simply clarifying way ID is and isn’t

What can’t you idiots figure that out?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:21 PM from United States

note to lee: CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE!!!!)

I have a Catholic Priest on DVD stating that you cannot take Revelations literally.  He’s a Catholic Priest and there he is saying you can’t take it word for word as being true. 

That can also be applied to other books as well.  Such as Genesis which makes the claim that God created the world in 6 days and this occured approximately 6000 years ago and the first two people created were Adam and Eve.

You shouldn’t be taking that literally especially with all the new evidence about the age of the earth and the location of origin of the human civilization.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:21 PM from United States

It’s taking a pseudo-scientific approach to try and prove creationism.  Tart it up all you like, but that’s what it is.

This is the kind of desperate clinging to willful, abject ignorance I was talking about.

Unless you read a book on ID (Darwin’s Black Box is probably the best intro) and quit relying on second-hand opinions of what ID is, you are a bigot.

Period.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:22 PM from United States

I am making no such claim. I am simply clarifying way ID is and isn’t

So are we.

It IS religious dogma.  It ISN’T science.

Why can’t you idiots figure that out?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:24 PM from Canada

You just answered your own accusation!  I didn’t bash Christians for praying, I bashed THOSE specific Christians for THAT particular style opf prayer, which was done in public for the cameras to make a political point, rather than out of any sincere desire to talk to God.  Unless, of course, you believe that God will hear you better if you’re wailing and rolling on the ground, rather than praying quitely in your living room, away from the TV cameras.

I used both praying approaches once to get in some hot lady pants. Neither approach worked.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:24 PM from United States

Unless you read a book on ID (Darwin’s Black Box is probably the best intro) and quit relying on second-hand opinions of what ID is, you are a bigot.

I’ve never read a book on holocaust denial either.  Does that make me a bigot, because I don’t bother to give deference to every crackpot theory which comes along trying to attack what is obviously scientific fact?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:24 PM from United States

For the record, again, my goal is not to “prove ID”,

Good thing, isn’t it? That obviates the need for such paltry things as “evidence” and “facts” and “logic”.

It is taking a scientific approach.

Except for the whole “evidence” and “facts” and “logic” parts.

Unless, of course, you believe that God will hear you better if you’re wailing and rolling on the ground, rather than praying quitely in your living room, away from the TV cameras.

Which is what Jesus said we should do anyway, didn’t he? Matthew 6:6, IIRC.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:31 PM from Europe

Gotta go. Oh, and Cbass, I’m genuinely interested… if you could find one piece of actual, positive evidence that backs up ID, I would be fascinated.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:33 PM from United States

I’ve never read a book on holocaust denial either.  Does that make me a bigot, because I don’t bother to give deference to every crackpot theory which comes along trying to attack what is obviously scientific fact?

No, but knee-jerk equating ID to Holocoust denial, and dismissing it as a “crackpot theory” does indeed make you a bigot.

Refusing to question your precious Darwinism at any level makes you a fundie.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:35 PM from United States

That obviates the need for such paltry things as “evidence” and “facts” and “logic”.

You should know, Drum, given that your criticism of ID are based on just what you mentioned.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:35 PM from United States

Refusing to question your precious Darwinism at any level makes you a fundie.

We’re more than happy to question it, whenever actual physical evidence that actually refutes it arises (rather than “I don’t understand how it could have happened that way, therefore it couldn’t have happened that way!").

Got any?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:37 PM from United States

Except for the whole “evidence” and “facts” and “logic” parts.

Again, the clinging to willful, abject ignorance on the part of ID critics.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:37 PM from United States

We’re more than happy to question it

Your behaviour belies your claim.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:38 PM from United States

You should know, Drum, given that your criticism of ID are based on just what you mentioned.

You mean that my criticisms are based in evidence and facts and logic? Thanks, I think so, too.

However, those three things are what YOU are sorely lacking. Maybe if you call ahead, the Talking Points Warehouse will save some for you next time, but ID is completely out of stock, and will be for the foreseeable future…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:38 PM from United States

Your behaviour belies your claim.

Not at all. Show me some real evidence, and we’ll talk.

Still waiting…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:40 PM from United States

That obviates the need for such paltry things as “evidence” and “facts” and “logic”.

You should know, Drum, given that your criticism of ID are based on just what you mentioned.

Just to clarify—you mentioned obviating the need.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:43 PM from United States

Again, the clinging to willful, abject ignorance on the part of ID critics.

You have no facts, no evidence and no logic. Your whole position boils down to, “I don’t understand it, therefore it can’t have happened that way”. That is not evidence. That is not a fact. That is not logic.

That is a Calahari Bushman exposed to his forst radio. That is the yokel who, when presented with his very first giraffe, replied, “Ain’t no sich animal”. That is the preacher who cannot ignore the facts any longer, so he attacks and attempts to sow doubt in the young and unlearned, and uses those doubts (and rhetorical ambiguity) as “proof” that “it couldn’t possibly have happened that way, because the Bible says differently!”

Prove me wrong. Provide evidence. If you can.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:44 PM from United States

Refusing to question your precious Darwinism at any level makes you a fundie.

Where have I ever refused to question evolution?  (Calling it Darwinism is a rhetorical device used by people like you to make it appear that fealty to Darwin is the prime motivator in evolutionary belief.)

Hell, evolution could be totally wrong.  If you come along with a better explanation tomorrow I’ll drop evolution in two seconds.  But if you’re going to attack evolution, you really better bring your scientific A-team.  And the drivel that comprises the ID theory, that doesn’t even qualify as the Z-team.

I compare ID to holocause denial for a number of reasons.

1) The proponents of these beliefs are motivated by some other belief, such as fascist tendencies and/or antisemitism, or in Christian theology.

2) The proponents of these beliefs are going up against theories which are widely supported and backed up by mountains of evidence.

3) The proponents of these beliefs really offer nothing in the way of new evidence to support their propositions.  They rely primarily on pointing out minute holes in the prevailing theory, and then using these holes as “proof” that their alternate theory is correct.

Now, let me state, for the record, that I am not comparing belief in ID to fascism or antisemitism.  I am only making the comparison in so far as that both of them exhibit similarities in their implementation and dogmatism.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:45 PM from United States

Show me some real evidence

Given that “real” is defined per your pro-Darwinian bias, I admit that I cannot show you “real” evidence.

Can you show me “real” evidence that your great great great great great ...  great great great great grandad was a fish/microbe/fill-in-the-blank?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:45 PM from United States

Just to clarify—you mentioned obviating the need.

You were the one that said you didn’t need to prove it, yet felt the need to defend it from what its own main proponent said.

Not needing to prove it obviates the need for evidence or facts or logic. I have offered evidence, I have offered facts, and I have offered logic.

You have offered nothing in return.

Prove me wrong. If you can.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 01:45 PM from United States

Boy, 22AcaciaAve sure shut the fuck up, didn’t he?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:49 PM from United States

Can you show me “real” evidence that your great great great great great ...  great great great great grandad was a fish/microbe/fill-in-the-blank?

Yup. Fossil records, all over the planet. The older the record, the simpler the creatures preserved.

Can you provide “real evidence” that your whateverthehellitis was designed? Because, so far, all I have seen is “it’s too complicated to have just happened” (aka “I don’t understand it, so it must not exist").

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:50 PM from Canada

.

Boy, 22AcaciaAve sure shut the fuck up, didn’t he?

I am popping another load of popcorn this is fun.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:51 PM from United States

He’ll be back Lee, not everyone has the freetime to be checking for new posts on the net afterall.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 01:55 PM from United States

Calling it Darwinism is a rhetorical device

No, it’s a clarification device to differentiate the notion of Darwin’s theory from the fact of microevolution.

The “mountrain of evidence” you keep alluding to is often evidence of microevolution that doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to macroevolution.

Sure, Galapagos Finches get thicker beaks during droughts.

Sure, bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics.

Sure, insects develop resistance to pesticides.

This is unquestionable, irrefutable evidence of “evolution”.

But, at the end of the day, the Galapagos Finch is still a Galapagos Finch. The bacteria are still bacteria. The insects are still insects.

“Darwinism” says that the bacteria will one day become insects, and either the bacteria or the insects will one day become birds.

(Well, Darwinism doesn’t actually make these kinds of predictions, but it does say that such has already happened.)

This aspect of Darwin’s theory is not so “irrefutable”, and is in fact being refuted as we type.

This doesn’t prove ID, nor would I claim that it does. ID has a whole different approach other than simply refuting Darwin.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 01:59 PM from United States

Given that “real” is defined per your pro-Darwinian bias, I admit that I cannot show you “real” evidence.

No, it isn’t, but I’ll remember that you have no evidence.

(And you still want to call it “science"… sheesh...)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:01 PM from United States

I compare ID to holocause denial for a number of reasons.

The problem is that, every time you tell us what ID is, you get it so blunderingly, hopelessly wrong that it’s tragic. I have no problem with people rejecting something. My issue is simply KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK YOU’RE REJECTING.

You and Drum consistently fail that last test, with flying colors. Your refusal to correct your misinformation makes you a bigot.

To repeat: If you’re gonna call ID a crackpot theory, you’ve gotta do better than simply calling it “reeligun”. If you can at least pretend to know what the fuck you’re talking about (and no, referring to “mumbo-jumbo rhetoric such as ‘irreducible complexity’” doesn’t qualify. Calling IR “rhetoric” only proves your ignorance.) by calling ID what it really is and not “tarted up creationsim”, and you probably won’t even hear from me.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:04 PM from United States

I’ll remember that you have no evidence.

Again, not what I said, but you aren’t one to let facts get in your way.

(And you still want to call it “science”… sheesh...)

I said it was taking a scientific approach. Again, not paying attention but simply putting words in my mouth.

Still batting .000, Drum.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 02:10 PM from United States

I said it was taking a scientific approach.

Still using your own definitions, I see.

What is the scientific process? Gathering evidence, drawing conclusions, formulating hypotheses, and then testing those against the real world, right?

You can’t even START step 1, because you have no evidence to gather.

To repeat: If you’re gonna call ID a crackpot theory

I’ve never called it a “crackpot theory”, because the word “theory” does not apply, unless you stretch it so far as to be unrecognizeable and meaningless. Call it a “guess”, if you want, but don’t use the word “Theory” in any connection with ID, because it doesn’t meet the standard necessary.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 02:17 PM from United States

Again, not what I said,

Let’s review the record, shall we?

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 11:45 AM

Show me some real evidence

Given that “real” is defined per your pro-Darwinian bias, I admit that I cannot show you “real” evidence.

You can apologize any time now…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:19 PM from United States

I’ve never called it a “crackpot theory”, because the word “theory” does not apply

Tell it to Lee, Drum. “Crackpot theory” was his phrase. I was simply replying.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:22 PM from United States

You can apologize any time now…

For what? Recognizing the word “real” which you refuse to do?

I said I didn’t have “real” evidence, “real” being defined by you and your dogma/bias/boneheadedness.

That ain’t the same as claiming I “don’t have evidence”.  I do have evidence, just none that YOU would accept. Not because it isn’t valid, but because you don’t want to accept it.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:27 PM from United States

Fossil records, all over the planet.

Must be nice to be so gullible. The fossil record only proves that those creatures existed. There is no proof of lineage, and there are other features of the fossile record that are in conflict with Darwin’s theory, such as stasis in the record and the Cambrian explosion.

Pointing to random fossils as “proof” that your great great great great great great ...  great great great great grandad was a fish/microbe/fill-in-the-blank is painfully naive. How do you know that our ancestor, whatever it may have been, didn’t originate during the Cambrian explosion? How do you know that we all descended from a single ancestor?

Just a hand-wave at “the fossil record”?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 02:38 PM from United States

Just a hand-wave at “the fossil record”?

You don’t even have that much. Do you?

I said I didn’t have “real” evidence, “real” being defined by you and your dogma/bias/boneheadedness.

No, “real” means “real” - something that is actually evidence, not an argument. So far, you have nothing at all, just “vague handwaves” at biological processes that you can’t explain, so you assert that they must have therefore been “designed QED”. That is not evidence for ID, that is an argument against Evolution.

And that’s all you have. You have admitted as much. Of course, you could theoretically come up with some (stranger things have been known to happen, completely by chance), but I won’t be holding my breath.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:41 PM from United States

You don’t even have that much. Do you?

Wrong. You simply reject what ID has.

you can’t explain

Again, the abject ignorance.

And that’s all you have. You have admitted as much.

Where have I made this alleged admission?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:41 PM from United States

Lee, what’s your opinion on the great flood, I’m assuming you refer to the Noah’s ark story right?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:48 PM from United States

Lee, out of curiosity, can you point to a list of 500 scientitsts all of whom have Doctoral degrees in the sciences, who have publicly voiced their denial of the Holocaust?

If not, then Holocaust denial is just another straw man.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 02:48 PM from United States

Again, the abject ignorance.

You’re the one who can’t explain it, and is resorting to “it must have been some Old Man In The Sky”.

Where have I made this alleged admission?

Once more, for the learning impaired (who cannot remember what he writes from one minute to the next):

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 11:45 AM

Show me some real evidence

Given that “real” is defined per your pro-Darwinian bias, I admit that I cannot show you “real” evidence.

You haven’t shown any at all.

Wrong. You simply reject what ID has.

How can I reject what doesn’t exist? Of course, you keep claiming that it does, yet repeatedly refuse to actually show it, trying to claim that I “reject” it. But I’m not the only one who has asked. Repeatedly.

I say you can’t, you say you can. Only one of us can be right.

Put it out there if you actually have any, whether you think it’s “real” or not. Either put up or shut up, ya pussy....

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:52 PM from United States

You’re the one who can’t explain it, and is resorting to “it must have been some Old Man In The Sky”.

Again, the abject, willful ignorance.

You haven’t shown any at all.

Denial noted.

How can I reject what doesn’t exist?

Circular argument noted.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 02:53 PM from United States

ya pussy....

Now that’s clever.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 02:57 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 12:52 PM

You’re the one who can’t explain it, and is resorting to “it must have been some Old Man In The Sky”.

Again, the abject, willful ignorance.

You haven’t shown any at all.

Denial noted.

How can I reject what doesn’t exist?

Circular argument noted.

Y’know what would put a stop to all the rhetoric? You, actually providing some evidence. Of course, you cannot because none exists.

(Wouldn’t that be impressive, providing the evidence and proving me wrong, all in one fell swoop?)

Still waiting…

(Claims that he can’t, because I would “reject it” in 3… 2… 1...)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:00 PM from United States

Thre isn’t any evidence for evolution...it seems like it’s just a secular lie.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:00 PM from United States

Uh, I’ve already said what the evidence was, and you have ALREADY rejected/ignored it.

Pussy.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:03 PM from United States

Uh, I’ve already said what the evidence was, and you have ALREADY rejected/ignored it.

No, you’ve given us lots of arguments against Evolution, not but not a single scrap of evidence for ID. There’s a difference. We’ve been through this.

Talk about willful ignorance.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:04 PM from United States

Hell, even NEO-DAWINIST Richard Dawkins admits that there is superb design in nature, he simply refuses to admit that it was designed by a designer.

Or, more precisely, that random mutation with natural selection did the “designing”.

Pretty neat trick.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:05 PM from United States

not a single scrap of evidence for ID

You were obviously not paying attention. Again.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:07 PM from United States

You were obviously not paying attention. Again.

No, I was paying attention. Which is why I can draw the distinction.

Still waiting, and the longer you drag this out, the more foolish you look…

If you have actually posted it, then it shouldn’t be that difficult to do a cut-n-paste, should it?

PROVE ME WRONG. If you can.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:08 PM from United States

PROVE ME WRONG. If you can.

One cannot prove a bigot wrong.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:11 PM from United States

not a single scrap of evidence for ID

Are you kidding me? Look around yourself, how could all this complexity be a result of some random, mindless explosion?

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 03:13 PM from United States

One cannot prove a bigot wrong.

Similarity 42,178 between the radical right and the radical left:  anyone who disagrees is a “bigot.”

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:16 PM from United States

Lee: It just happens that all the anti-IDers are Christian/religion-bashers...coincidence?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:19 PM from United States

Posted by sha2006 on 02/27/06 at 01:11 PM

not a single scrap of evidence for ID

Are you kidding me? Look around yourself, how could all this complexity be a result of some random, mindless explosion?

Oh, you were being serious?

Look, I’ve explained this too many times in the past, but you seem to be new, having (apparently) just arrived on this planet, and never been exposed to the process of “thinking”, but there is a difference between “arguments against Evolution” - which is what you just did - and evidence for Creationism or ID, as the case may be.

First, you are assuming that just because YOU cannot explain things, that means that they cannot be explained. (That is called “argument from ignorance”.) And second, that the only two possible answers are Evolution and Creationism/ID (where disproving one will automatically prove the other), when there are as many explanations as there are cultures. (That is called “false dilemma”.)

So, do YOU have any evidence to prove your case, which ever it may be? Cbass seems to have left it at home in his other pants…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:21 PM from United States

Lee: It just happens that all the anti-IDers are Christian/religion-bashers...coincidence?

Not even true, so how could it be a coincidence? I’m quite happy with my religion, I just don’t think that it should be taught in science classrooms.

(I’m even ordained!)

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 03:21 PM from United States

Lee: It just happens that all the anti-IDers are Christian/religion-bashers...coincidence?

Really?  So the Catholic Church is anti-Christian and a religion-basher?

Dude, you’re a fucking idiot.  You’re in way over your head here, you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:23 PM from United States

OT: It just started raining here. Dammit.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:23 PM from United States

anyone who disagrees is a “bigot.”

No, anyone who refuses to understand something they reject is a bigot.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:25 PM from United States

Cbass seems to have left it at home in his other pants…

Another lame attempt at being “clever”?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:29 PM from United States

Lee: The MAJORITY of anti-IDers bash religion, as evidenced on this site.

You yourself called anyone who believes in the Biblical Flood morons, for ONE example. Way to go for insulting the beliefs deeply cherished by millions of people, asshole.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:29 PM from United States

No, anyone who refuses to understand something they reject is a bigot.

More definition-shifting.

Look, it’s a simple question. Do you have evidence or not?

If you do, then show it. If you don’t, then admit it.

Another lame attempt at being “clever”?

No, it’s a hypothesis based on past observations that seems to fit the real world. So far, the “test against real world” seems to be holding up, so it might progress to “Theory” one day… Of course, it could be falsified by you actually supplying the evidence, but I don’t expect that any time soon.

See how the scientific process works? Observation, conclusion, hypothesis, testing.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:31 PM from United States

Drumwaster: So has anyone ever observed macroevolution?

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 03:33 PM from United States

You yourself called anyone who believes in the Biblical Flood morons, for ONE example. Way to go for insulting the beliefs deeply cherished by millions of people, asshole.

Oh, cry me a fucking river, you whiny, thin-skinned prick.  Muslims believe that it is their divine right to kill anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs.  It’s written right there in their little book.  Now, I think anyone who believes that is a scum-sucking piece of shit.

“You yourself called anyone who believes in the right of vengeance against those who insult Allah morons, for ONE example.  Way to go for insulting the beliefs deeply cherished by billions of people, asshole.”

What a fucking baby.  Waaah, waaah.  Someone thinks I’m a moron because I believe as literal scientific fact an allegorical myth written thousands of years ago.  Waaah.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:33 PM from United States

The MAJORITY of anti-IDers bash religion, as evidenced on this site.

Whoa, BIG backpedal there…

And that also is not true. The ID-bashers are those who understand what science is and what it is not, and how to tell the difference.

ID is bullshit, and there is no evidence to support it. None whatsoever. (And I didn’t bash religion at all in saying so.)

You yourself called anyone who believes in the Biblical Flood morons, for ONE example.

Yet another one who keeps forgetting the whole “DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY” part.

It’s people like YOU that get all religious types such bad names…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:37 PM from United States

Posted by sha2006 on 02/27/06 at 01:31 PM

Drumwaster: So has anyone ever observed macroevolution?

Yup.

Another link

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:42 PM from United States

Okay, let’s see how open-minded you bigots are . . .

This contraption would obviously be considered a designed machine to anyone with a lick of sense. What you are seeing is this machine building itself. There are three equally spaced, coordinated such machines on the E. Coli’s body.

ID says this was obviously designed, given that it’s irreducibly complex.

Darwinists insist that it is the result of random mutations followed by natural selection.

Thing is, they cannot explain how it came to be. Sure, there is a half-baked notion that it evolved from a Type Three Secretion System, but they cannot explain how in detail. They just wave their hands and say, “it happened, damnit, and if you don’t believe us, you’re a knuckle-dragging loon”.

There are several other such nanomachines in existence, and ID predicts that more will be found.

All you guys have to do to falsify ID is provide a detailed model of how this thing evolved via the Darwinian model.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 03:47 PM from United States

Lee: Nice straw man… of course killing people isn’t okay, but what’s wrong with believing that the Earth is a certain age or that certain events did or didn’t happen whether or not they contradict the beliefs of atheist “scientists”? Hmm? You’re the one who’s a fucking prick.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:51 PM from United States

This contraption would obviously be considered a designed machine to anyone with a lick of sense.

“This couldn’t possibly have evolved, so it MUST have been created” (with a bit of “anyone who disagrees is a moron” thrown in for flavor). Why would it “obviously” be so? Seems you’re begging the question - that is, accepting as true that which has not been proved, and using that falsehood to “prove” your next one.

Again, that is not evidence, that is an argument. I have no doubt they exist. I have no doubt you cannot explain them, but don’t try the “it is obvious if you bother to agree with me” argument.

Take it back a few steps. Why does it HAVE to have been created?

Thing is, they cannot explain how it came to be.

No, they are quite willing to leave it at “I don’t know, so I will withhold judgment, pending new evidence”. You (and other IDiots) are not, so you cram some mythical Designer into those gaps.

There are several other such nanomachines in existence, and ID predicts that more will be found.

So does evolution. I guess that proves it true, huh? The whole irreducible complexity has already been explained, over and over.

But, once again, stating that something could not have evolved is an argument against evolution, not evidence for ID.

Are you capable of telling the difference between those two things?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 03:54 PM from United States

but what’s wrong with believing that the Earth is a certain age or that certain events did or didn’t happen whether or not they contradict the beliefs of atheist “scientists”?

Nothing wrong with believing whatever you want. There’s a BIG problem when you want your myths taught in school science classes. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat. You want them to come teach in your Sunday schools? If not, why not?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:00 PM from United States

Nothing wrong with believing whatever you want

Tell that to Lee.

There’s a BIG problem when you want your myths taught in school science classes.

You mean the myth called “evolution”?

There are many scientists who reject the religion of Darwinism, and consider ID scientific. But the fascist Darwinists only want THEIR viewpoint presented in the science classes.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:03 PM from United States

You mean the myth called “evolution”?

No, I mean the quasi-religious claptrap commonly known as “Intelligent Design” (aka “Creationism Lite").

There are many scientists who reject the religion of Darwinism, and consider ID scientific.

That’s called “Appeal To Authority”, and ignores the actual facts. One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Speaking of evidence, do YOU have any?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:10 PM from United States

he simply refuses to admit that it was designed by a designer.

Because maybe he doesn’t beleive it was. He disagrees therefore is refusing to believe your opinion?

ID says this was obviously designed, given that it’s irreducibly complex.

Here’s the big assumption on the part of ID that pisses me off and makes you sound stupid as Drum has pointed out. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE EVOLUTION COULD HAVE PRODUCED THIS. END OF FUCKING STORY. WE GET IT.

All you guys have to do to falsify ID is provide a detailed model of how this thing evolved via the Darwinian model.

Again, as Drum has pointed out, you have offered nothing, just disproving Evoulition beacuse we haven’t figured it out yet verifies ID. Talk about acircular agrument.

Current scientific theory suggests mitochondria were once bactieria that were engulfed by cells and created a sybiotic relationship. Could this be the precursur to your

irreducibly complex

that you keeop spouting about. You are taking systems today that I beleive to have evolved from some simpler form and placing them under your irreducibly complex micropscope claiming this proves ID because it’s to complex in it’s current state to stand up to this bs irreducibly complex shit.

Is this irreducibly complex really the best agrument fo ID? Really?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:11 PM from United States

“This couldn’t possibly have evolved, so it MUST have been created”

So, what other alternative is there, bigot? Either it evolved, or it was designed , or . . . ?

No, they are quite willing to leave it at “I don’t know, so I will withhold judgment, pending new evidence”.

Yes, the ever-popular, “We don’t have an answer for you today. Come back tomorrow (or next year), and we’ll have it. We promise.”

ID takes evidence as it stands today, not some vague, empty hope of new evidence tomorrow.

I guess that proves it true, huh?

Um, is missing the point your only debate skill? You guys keep saying that ID isn’t science because it doesn’t make predictions.

Well, it does make predictions. Moron.

The whole irreducible complexity has already been explained, over and over.

Your precious TalkOrigins rhetoric has been refuted. Over and over.

“Irreducible complexity . . . is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function.”

“Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a “part” is.”

Self-contradiction, and question-begging. A “part” is a protein. Pretty simple.

“deletion of parts”

So an irreducibly complex machine could have evolved from a machine even more complex? So where did the more complex machine come from?

“addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)”

But that doesn’t fit the gradual, step-by-step Darwinian model. ID doesn’t dispute that multiple parts being added simultaneously could create such a machine. In fact, that’s one of ID’s points against Darwinism.

“change of function

addition of a second function to a part

gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations.”

So where is the model for the flagellum’s development? Have all of these mecahnisms been observed in coordination, or only individually?

Remaining hand-waves left as exercise for reader.

But, once again, stating that something could not have evolved is an argument against evolution, not evidence for ID.

And one again, the evidence is the existence of specified complexity, not only the failings of Darwinism.

Thanks fopr proving your bigotry again. Did you even visit the link?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:12 PM from United States

Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction

How do you know this? Maybe those who reject ID/Creationism do so because they have an anti-religious agenda (look at some of the posts on this site).

Speaking of evidence, do YOU have any?

Sigh...it has been mentioned many times on this thread already… Do YOU have any evidence for macroevolution?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:15 PM from United States

YOU SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE EVOLUTION COULD HAVE PRODUCED THIS. END OF FUCKING STORY. WE GET IT.

You obviously don’t get shit.

It’s not a question of “belief”, but of analyzing the data and using your brain. Believing that the Darwinian model produced the artifacts in spite of the evidence is what you guys are doing, and calling it “science” to boot.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:18 PM from United States

ID takes evidence as it stands today, not some vague, empty hope of new evidence tomorrow

No, because that is not evidence, that is an argument. Just pointing at something and saying, “this too complex for us to understand, so it must have been Created” is not evidence, that is an argument.

Still the same old BS from those who have nothing better. (That means YOU, cb.)

Still waiting…

Sigh...it has been mentioned many times on this thread already… Do YOU have any evidence for macroevolution?

I’ve already answered this. You’re just too stupid to understand it. (Hey, that IS easier! Thanks, cb!)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:21 PM from United States

Take it back a few steps. Why does it HAVE to have been created?

A more appropriate question is, “Why does it HAVE to have evolved?”

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:24 PM from United States

Is this irreducibly complex really the best agrument fo ID? Really?

No, it’s the ONLY argument they have. “This is too complex to have randomly evolved, so it MUST have been Designed.”

And a refusal to accept “I don’t know” as meaning “I don’t know”. Because what he means by “I don’t know” is “God must have done it” (while not actually admitting who he means by “Designer”, I might add).

Hey, cb, have you ever gotten over that fear?

Who/What is your Designer, and in what regard does He differ from a Diety?

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 04:24 PM from United States

Tell that to Lee.

Hey, you can believe whatever you like.  Knock yourself out.  I totally respect your right to believe whatever you like, and to teach your children anything you like.  But along with that comes my right to consider you a fucking moron for believing what you do.  Jusr because I respect your right to your beliefs doesn’t mean I have to respect the beliefs thsmselves.

ID is shit, and the only people who believe it are pathetic fundamentalist Christian idiots who are so insecure in their own faith that they have to distort it into the bunting of science.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:26 PM from United States

Could this be the precursur to your

irreducibly complex

that you keeop spouting about.

It could be. If you can convince us that that’s how it went down, with experimental evidence to support it, maybe you can falsify ID and get yourself a Nobel Prize.

Again, as Drum has pointed out, you have offered nothing, just disproving Evoulition beacuse we haven’t figured it out yet verifies ID. Talk about acircular agrument.

Like I said, you don’t get shit.

It’s about analyzing the evidence and realizing that the Darwinian model fails. If you can come up with another model of how it just came to be without random mutation and natural selection, AND without a designer, the scientific community would be all ears, I’m sure.

What are you waiting for?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:27 PM from United States

A more appropriate question is, “Why does it HAVE to have evolved?”

It doesn’t HAVE to, but that where the physical evidence leads.

Now answer the fucking question, or admit that it doesn’t HAVE to have been created.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:28 PM from United States

that where the physical evidence leads.

No, it’s where you desperately want it to lead.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 04:29 PM from United States

Man, I lurk more than post nowadays and every time I take a little break and I come back its crazy around here. But I had to just chime in to say

A) sha2006 - it seems like you are new here but you seemed to have jumped into a discussion way too big for you. I will admit that on this particular subject I am not too invested in for the simple fact that I am comforatble with my “spirituality” for lack of a better term and willing to chalk up the mysteries of the universe as simply mysteries of the universe. There are things we’ll never know and, for me at least, if I had the chance to know, might not want to know. Back to the point - if you are going to try and debate Lee, Drum or others on here you may want to using little things we like to call - facts, links, proof, evidence, sources, logic, reason, etc. It goes a long way here.

B) cbass - count me as one of the ones who would also like to see your evidence. I know you keep saying you did and it went over Drums head but there are a few other people here who don’t recall seeing such evidence. If you posted it already just point it out and see if it goes “over” the rest of our heads

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:30 PM from United States

Oh, Drum, why the FUCK should I “admit” ANY-FUCKING-THING to you? So you’ll gloat and claim that I admitted it soemwhere down the road?

You have already put prolly a dozen “admissions” in my mouth, so what fucking motivation do I have to provide you with an authentic one?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:31 PM from United States

But along with that comes my right to consider you a fucking moron for believing what you do

Christians are fucking morons. Got it.

ID is shit, and the only people who believe it are pathetic fundamentalist Christian idiots who are so insecure in their own faith that they have to distort it into the bunting of science.

Wow, so you can read the minds of “pathetic fundamentalist Christian idiots”? (I notice that you’re singling out the Christians...nope there are no Jews, Muslims or Hindus who believe in ID...)

Can you also read the minds of atheistic scientists? Maybe Darwinism is just something they made up as part of their anti-religious agenda?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:33 PM from United States

It’s about analyzing the evidence and realizing that the Darwinian model fails.

Great. Good for you. Even IF that is true, that is still not evidence for ID. Or Creationism. Or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. RAmen.

An argument AGAINST one thing is not proof of anything else.

Are you capable of recognizing the difference?

No, it’s where you desperately want it to lead.

Yeah, because my bank account has been running low, and I need a few more “DARWIN Trading Stamps” to get that new plasma TV. *rolleyes*

Speaking of evidence, I’m still waiting for yours.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:33 PM from United States

Yes, the ever-popular, “We don’t have an answer for you today. Come back tomorrow (or next year), and we’ll have it. We promise.”

That’s what they did with how bees are able to fly.  Guess what they came up with that solution.  Or did you miss Lee’s post on that bit of scientific discovery.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:35 PM from United States

“this too complex for us to understand, so it must have been Created”

No. Replace “for us to understand” with “to have evolved via the Darwinian model” and you have a fighting chance of not being so hopelessly stupid.

Fucking moron.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:36 PM from United States

Speaking of evidence, I’m still waiting for yours.

Bigotry on your part noted.

(Rolls eyes)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:36 PM from United States

Why does failing the current evolutionary model mean that it must have been created?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:36 PM from United States

Oh, Drum, why the FUCK should I “admit” ANY-FUCKING-THING to you? So you’ll gloat and claim that I admitted it soemwhere down the road?

You’ll feel better about it. Everyone can see it anyway…

B) cbass - count me as one of the ones who would also like to see your evidence. I know you keep saying you did and it went over Drums head but there are a few other people here who don’t recall seeing such evidence. If you posted it already just point it out and see if it goes “over” the rest of our heads

That makes three separate people who have asked, so I know I’m not the only one.

C’mon, cb, it’s “put up or shut up” time…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:38 PM from United States

That’s what they did with how bees are able to fly.

But I can easily observe a bee flying, so whether science can explain it is irrelevant. I cannot observe macroevolution, yet I’m supposed to take it on FAITH that it happened.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:38 PM from United States

Everyone can see it anyway…

Only the bigots.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:40 PM from United States

C’mon, cb, it’s “put up or shut up” time…

I’ve already put up, you moron, and, as predicted, you rejected it, dismissed it out of hand. You prolly didn’t even visit the link.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:42 PM from United States

Why does failing the current evolutionary model mean that it must have been created?

Because it exhibits evidence of design.

Why do the faces on Mt Rushmore “must have been created”?

Why does an electric motor “must have been created”?

Why do native american arrowheads found on the ground “must have been created”?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:42 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 02:36 PM

Speaking of evidence, I’m still waiting for yours.

Bigotry on your part noted.

Stupidity on yours also noted. Is that the best you can do, calling someone who notices your shortcomings a “bigot”?

Do you have evidence or not? Three different people have asked at this point, and you still have yet to provide any, apparently because you cannot tell the difference between fallacious arguments against one thing and actual evidence for something else.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:44 PM from United States

We could see a bee fly but not know how it was accomplishing this.  We now know how.

We can see odd interesting and complex aspects on other creatures and not know how they came to be.  We don’t know how YET.

Why should I believe that they were created instead of believing that science will one day find the reason they are this way as they did with bees flying?

Answer that Cbass.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 04:45 PM from United States

Oh yeah I also had to point out that

No, anyone who refuses to understand something they reject is a bigot.

Is one of the dumbest things ever posted in the history of the internets. I know you are in defensive mode so you are going to take that as an insult but really man, go back and re-read that and try to employ some logic behind it.

Just to use the Holocaust example: I don’t “understand” the thinking behind the Final Solution, personally I don’t “understand” genocide, anti-semitism, homophobia, racism, etc. and I “reject” all of those things. Does that make me a bigot, because I cannot “understand” Hitler and I “reject” his thinking/teachings?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:46 PM from United States

Why do they exhibit evidence of design?  Because evolution can’t explain them?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:46 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 02:38 PM

Everyone can see it anyway…

Only the bigots.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Got it.

I’ve already put up, you moron, and, as predicted, you rejected it, dismissed it out of hand. You prolly didn’t even visit the link.

No, you put up arguments against Evolution. That is not evidence for ID.

Arte you mentally capable of making that distinction, because I’m beginning to have my doubts.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:46 PM from United States

An argument AGAINST one thing is not proof of anything else.

Are you capable of recognizing the difference?

The failure of Darwin’s model is half the story. The presence of specified complexity is the other half.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:47 PM from United States

So anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Got it.

Wrong again. Must be getting used to it by now.

The bigots are those who reject ID without bothering to understand what it is and isn’t.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:47 PM from United States

Lando you can even use the Holocaust deniers against that statement.

I reject the holocaust deniers, and I refuse to understand why they think the holocaust didn’t happen.  Therefore I am a bigot.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:51 PM from United States

No, you put up arguments against Evolution. That is not evidence for ID.

No, you just keep calling evidence supporting ID “evidence against Evolution” like the moron you are. I have already stated that “evolution”, MICOREVOLUTION, is an indisputable fact. It’s Darwinism that is at issue.

But evidence in support of ID isn’t just “evidence against Darwinism” like you keep yammering. It’s evidence of design. You just refuse to accept that, and fall back on the “it’s just an argument against Evolution (sic)” rhetoric.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 04:54 PM from United States

ok - now I am getting irked. cbass, do you know the actual definition of bigotry? Within the context you choose to employ it it makes you a hypocrite. And correct me if I am wrong, if you say ID is not about religion (which I am not even sure about anymore because you don’t bother to cite any of your sources or links anymore) why are you so quick to scream “bigot”? (thats rhetorical because most of us know the answer - its intellectually lazy) I am not out to make any internet enemies or anything but damn it man the more you go on and on the more foolish you look.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:55 PM from United States

How do you know they exhibit evidence of design?  Why don’t you think science will find an explanation that will provide an answer that such a device does not need to be designed to exist?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:55 PM from United States

I reject the holocaust deniers, and I refuse to understand why they think the holocaust didn’t happen.  Therefore I am a bigot.

What exactly is the basis for Holocaust denial?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 04:57 PM from United States

Wrong again. Must be getting used to it by now.

No, RIGHT again. Once more, because you are so fucking stupid, your own words:

“No, anyone who refuses to understand something they reject is a bigot.”

Because I disagree, I am therefore “refusing to understand”, and, by your definition, I am a bigot. You have said so repeatedly, and called me a bigot on at least three occasions.

The bigots are those who reject ID without bothering to understand what it is and isn’t.

However, you can’t comprehend that I do understand your argument.  I just reject it anyway, because there is no evidence to support it.

You also need to study logic. Semantically, your whole position boils down to “Not ‘A’, therefore ‘B’”, while ignoring any other letters.

Your arguments do not correspond with the real world, but even if they were true and complete, that STILL does not prove the validity of anything else. (False Dilemma)

Still waiting…

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 04:57 PM from United States

Lando you can even use the Holocaust deniers against that statement.

I reject the holocaust deniers, and I refuse to understand why they think the holocaust didn’t happen. Therefore I am a bigot.

I know Buzz, I thought about that as well. There were several variables to put into that equation and his “logic” would’ve been just as absurd.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:58 PM from United States

Why don’t you think science will find an explanation that will provide an answer that such a device does not need to be designed to exist?

Why are you so convinced that it will?

There is a list of 500 (and growing) Doctoral/Professoral scientists who have publicly gone on record as doubting Darwin.

Is there anything resembling this for the Holocaust?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 04:59 PM from United States

I just reject it anyway, because there is no evidence to support it.

You have just shown that you don’t understand shit.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:00 PM from United States

Semantically, your whole position boils down to “Not ‘A’, therefore ‘B’”, while ignoring any other letters.

Again, you demonstrate that you don’t comprehend shit.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 05:02 PM from United States

No, you just keep calling evidence supporting ID “evidence against Evolution” like the moron you are.

There is no ‘there’ there. You point at things you cannot explain, and insist that your intellectual shortcomings are “proof” that ID is true.

If you have nothing else, quit wasting my time.

It’s evidence of design.

No, it isn’t. (Or does that also make me a ‘bigot’?)

but damn it man the more you go on and on the more foolish you look.

I’ve been saying it all along…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:06 PM from United States

What exactly is the basis for Holocaust denial?

I don’t know and I don’t care, therefore by your definition I’m a bigot.

As for why I’m convinced that it will?  Because they have before.  Like in the case of how bees fly.  Because there are scientists out there working right now trying to figure out ways it could be possible. 

And also, having 500 people on your side doesn’t make you right.  The number of people on the other side (which I’m willing to bet is a lot larger) would also be growing too.  That’s what happens when people go to college and get degrees afterall.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:09 PM from United States

ok - now I am getting irked. cbass

I’ve been “irked” all afternoon. What of it?

Like I have said a numbver times, I’m being railroaded. My intent isn’t to “defend” ID but that’s what ends up happening, because people refuse to comprehend what ID actually is.

People call me names because I mend up “defending” ID, telling me I’m “illogical” and otherwise insulting my intelligence, WITHOUT BOTHERING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M “DEFENDING”.

Calling the evidence supporting ID “evidence against Evolution” without bothering to even look at the evidence is what make you a bigot.

The only way for me to “defend” ID is to quote the whole fucking text of Darwin’s Black Box or Uncommon Dissent, because the arguments and anaylses are in depth and nontrivial. But in this shallow forum, people simply cling to their various dogmas. Clinging to dogma is bigotry.

The only reason I’mm even here is because Drum made the foolish claim:

Intelligent Design is that “silly wild-assed guess”, because it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior. Evolution can and does.

ID is not a “wild-assed guess”, but since he is on the side of “evolution”, his tarring-with-a-broad-brush is hunky-dory.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:12 PM from United States

If you have nothing else, quit wasting my time.

Quit making foolish claims, and you can quit wasting mine.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 05:16 PM from United States

Quit making foolish claims

Like “you have no evidence”? That isn’t a claim, that is now a fact. You have been asked, invited, challenged, dared and defied, yet you don’t have any to provide, yet you try to avoid the issue with claims of “it’s too complicated for you to understand”.

Maybe that worked when the preacher told you that in Sunday School, but this here’s The Fleet. You got bullshit to spread, you better be able to back it up, or people will ignore you.

Still waiting…

(I suspect I will be waiting forever, since you aren’t smart enough to know what actual evidence is.)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:20 PM from United States

And also, having 500 people on your side doesn’t make you right.

And having 50,000 on yours doesn’t make you right.

I don’t know and I don’t care, therefore by your definition I’m a bigot.

Indeed. And the reason is because YOU GUYS brought up the issue of Holocaust denial as some kind of club to beat me with. If you are going to bring up a subject, ANY FUCKING SUBJECT, without bothering to have an inkling of understanding makes you a bigot.

Just like when you guys beat on ID without understanding it, without even TRYING to understand it. Bigotry.

And I don’t personally care how many “enemies” I make here over this subject. I can agree with Drum all day long on some political issues (not all, just some), but his claims on ID are simply out to lunch.

I suppose I could be “brave” and remain silent. But I thought the whole point to blogging was to share views. I guess only if you agree with the blogger and his buds.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:23 PM from United States

ID is not a “wild-assed guess”, but since he is on the side of “evolution”, his tarring-with-a-broad-brush is hunky-dory.

You’re quite correct.  I’ll apologize for the rest of the board on this one.  ID isn’t a “wild-assed guess”, it’s the guess of an ass.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 05:26 PM from United States

I guess only if you agree with the blogger and his buds.

No, only if you have evidence to back shit up.

You don’t. You can’t. There isn’t any, and the best you can do is try and poke holes in Evolution.

But to you, that’s all it takes. The rest of the world has a higher standard.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:26 PM from United States

when the preacher told you that in Sunday School

There you go with the ID = REELIJUN bullshit ignorance. It was just a matter of time.

, but this here’s The Fleet. You got bullshit to spread, you better be able to back it up, or people will ignore you.

For starters, What I’m “spreading” is an attempt to clarify what ID is, but you guys insist that I formally defend it. I have told you repeatedly what the evidence was, but you reject it in favor of calling it something else.

And yeah, I’ve been getting ignored all day long, getting called names all afternoon.

Well, I’m rather glad that being called “bigot” manages to register with some of you.

Like I said, I simply don’t have time to copy entire chapters of books to make a case. Being open-minded and reading a book is what you guys are s’posed to do, but no, that’s like “Holocaust Denial”

BULLSHIT.

Unless you can provide a list of 500 scientists that deny the Holocaust, that comparison won’t fly.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:27 PM from United States

you act like those 500 are proof you will be on the winning side, like we should be shocked that there are 500 scientists who believe it, and should therefore hold merit that we should investigate. 

It doesn’t, we don’t need to, so why don’t you go back to your shrine of mother nature.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:27 PM from United States

You don’t. You can’t. There isn’t any,

Denial noted. That’s all you have, obviously.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:30 PM from United States

you act like those 500 are proof you will be on the winning side

Missing the point is all you guys are good at.

The 500 simply invalidates the bullshit holocaust denial argument.

Based on the discussions all afternoon, I’m obviously on the losing side. But I believe that bullshit should be countered, even if submitted by the blogger himself, or his bud.

Even if no one else agrees or gives a flying fuck.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:31 PM from Canada

Denial

Denial isn’t that a River in Egypt.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:32 PM from United States

Here’s a fun argument for ID.  Given a certain probability of natural evolution (I happen to think it’s rather high), a certain number of intelligent species are likely to arise.

Of those that reach a certain level of technological development, current trends in physics and computer science suggest (not definitively!) that it should be possible for us to either create new universes or sufficiently high quality simulations as to encompass at least our current (2006) level of interactive complexity.  It will naturally be more interesting to create universes/simulations where life is more likely to form.

At that point, it becomes a bet on where technology is going.  If you find the preceding paragraph plausible, then it would at least be possible that it is more likely that we are in a designed/created universe/simulation than in a naturally occuring one.

At least this gets around the regress of where the designer came from.  Anyway, as long as evolution continues to provide continued useful hypotheses and provide a useful frame for biology, I’ll continue studying it.  It’s interesting to play with the ideas of creationism, but until there’s some way to test ‘em, they just ain’t science.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:38 PM from United States

Were those words of yours tender and tasty, dumbass? How’s the crow? I’ve got a big dollop of shit you can eat, too,

You seem to get an orgiastic thrill over misspellings, which indicates just how shallow you are. And as far as dollops of shit are concerned, I’ve been dealing with your dollops all afternoon.

No crow over here. You’re the idiot who started the whole “Oh Looky You Fucked Up The Spelling What A Moron You Are” childishness.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:42 PM from United States

It doesn’t, we don’t need to

Bigotry in action.

so why don’t you go back to your shrine of mother nature.

What the FUCK are you babbling about?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:47 PM from United States

Here’s the basics most of us need to know about ID.

Its not science and should not be taught in the science classroom.  Those who try to push that it is science and should be taught as such need to be told to shut up and have it pointed out again and again that it is not science.  When you attempt to argue how Evolutionary Theory is wrong and therefore shows how ID is better and right is to argue against science with non science. 

That is the extent anyone really needs to know about ID.  Its not science.  Anything additional about ID that I have learned has done nothing to dissuade that truth.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:48 PM from United States

I’m babbling that your Diety is Mother Nature.  Or do I need to point again where you said that?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 05:49 PM from United States

What the FUCK are you babbling about?

One could ask the same thing of you.

You’re the idiot who started the whole “Oh Looky You Fucked Up The Spelling What A Moron You Are” childishness.

No, actually that was you.

Your own words:

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 08:49 AM

Since we’re now using works of fiction to support scientific hypotheses

You misspelled “illustrate”, Lee.

Don’t be so stupid.

The facts just keep piling up against you. Ever wonder why that is?

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/27/06 at 05:52 PM from United Kingdom

This simply isn’t true about MACROevolution.

What about this.

Cbass, I’m wondering what sort of person you are. If I (or anyone) is to take you seriously I want the answer to the following questions:

1) Are you above the age of 16?
2) What sort of scientific education do you have?
3) What is the line of reasoning that says there must be creater, other than evolution couldn’t have done it? Is there one, because if the only thing going for ID is that the Darwin view of the world is wrong then I think that you should shut up.

Posted by Loud on 02/27/06 at 05:56 PM from United States

Scientists have speculated that a new intelligent species like humans would appear at the rate of one per year, based on what we know about solar and planetary formation and composition, and how evolution works.  Forgive me, but I can’t remember if that’s in our galaxy alone or throughout the entire universe, but it’s still quite a bit, considering the universe is 13.7 billion years old.  If the figure is universe-wide and the first such civilization evolved just a billion years ago… that’s a billion civilizations today, out of about 100 billion galaxies, and about 70 sextillion stars… So, no, our presence being a complete accident of nature isn’t really that much of a crapshoot.

Furthermore, have any of you ID proponents ever paused to consider the fact that if evolution hadn’t happened, we wouldn’t be here to discuss it?  The simple fact that we’re here but we can’t precisely explain why is not proof that any intelligence was at work to create us.

And about the irreducible complexity.  Did you know that at one point we didn’t know we were made out of cells?  We used science to learn about those cells… then molecules… atoms… hadrons an’ shit… You don’t say, “God made it that way,” and stop looking.  That isn’t science.  Take a walk down the hall to philosophy class, kthx.

If you put all the parts of a watch in a box and shake it, you can still get a working watch.  Did you ever consider shaking the box for 13 billion years?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 05:57 PM from United States

I’m babbling that your Diety is Mother Nature.  Or do I need to point again where you said that?

In a word, yes.  Point it out.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:00 PM from United States

We don’t need to hold the merit the opinion of those 500 scientists, nor do there opinions mean that we need to investigate their claims further.

That is not bigotry.  You see a bigot is defined as:  “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

This definition does not mean that being intolerant of one opinion makes us bigots.  Just because we’re intolerant of your single view doesn’t make us bigots.  Almost everyone I’ve seen arguing with you has stated that they would be willing to throw current evolutionary theory away if credible evidence comes to light.  You see we’re not holding onto evolution and refusing to believe anything other than that.  We’re refusing to believe your single viewpoint. 

So far you’ve shown that you don’t understand two definitions of words, Theory and bigot.  Are there any others that you will show?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:02 PM from United States

If you put all the parts of a watch in a box and shake it, you can still get a working watch.  Did you ever consider shaking the box for 13 billion years?

Especially when two pieces that fit together and work better as a combined set get to stick, and then the third part fits in and works better still, and so on.

Pretty soon, you’ll get not just a pocketwatch, but the whole of Big Ben, and all with nothing but random numbers, and in far less time than 13 billion years.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:03 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 01/22/06 at 02:44 AM

I’ve been debating whether to respond to this dead thread, but I’ll just note that it’s amusing when Darwinists attempt to use designed computer programs with stored, directed, designed information (such as a dictionary) to “prove” a lack of design. Mother Nature had no dictionary to compare with, yet she wrote epic poetry anyway, stuff that puts Homer to shame. And each poetic step along the way made perfect literary sense

You say Mother Nature wrote epic poetry meaning the plants and animals and ecosystems here on earth.  That sounds like worship to me

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:05 PM from United States

What about this.

What about it?

Are you above the age of 16?

Fuck off.

Are you older than, oh, ten?

What sort of scientific education do you have?

Not Nearly As Impressive As Yours, I’m Sure (TM)

What is the line of reasoning that says there must be creater,

None. The evidence of design says there should be a designer.

if the only thing going for ID is that the Darwin view of the world is wrong then I think that you should shut up.

Again, fuck off.

If you really wanna know what ID is then READ A FUCKING BOOK!

But no, that’s “Denying The Holocaust”.

So it’s okay to ask stupid questions about it instead, and pretend to be oh so intellectually superior.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:07 PM from United States

You say Mother Nature wrote epic poetry meaning the plants and animals and ecosystems here on earth.

I was paraphrasing the point of view of the Darwinists, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE!

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/27/06 at 06:09 PM from United Kingdom

Pretty soon, you’ll get not just a pocketwatch, but the whole of Big Ben, and all with nothing but random numbers, and in far less time than 13 billion years.

I’m going to have to stop you there - “Big Ben” is actually just the bell that chimes the number of hours.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:12 PM from United States

And I am mocking your reluctance to state who you view as the Designer because you believe it to be the Christian God.  Of course you’ll claim that we don’t need to know who the Designer is, but its obvious to everyone.  So I point out how you believe its mother nature, which makes you some silly spiritualist, or how aliens were the designers which makes a Raelien.

I’m making fun of you, you ignorant little turd.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:13 PM from United States

I’m going to have to stop you there - “Big Ben” is actually just the bell that chimes the number of hours.

Fair enough. The “Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster in London”, okay?

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/27/06 at 06:13 PM from United Kingdom

None. The evidence of design says there should be a designer.

Ok then designer. IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF A DESIGNER OTHER THAN “IT COULDN’T HAVE BEEN DONE BY EVOLUTION ALONE”?

Are you above the age of 16?

It’s a simple yes or no question.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:22 PM from United States

Almost everyone I’ve seen arguing with you has stated that they would be willing to throw current evolutionary theory away if credible evidence comes to light.

And all these “non-bigots” have to do is pretend that and evidence that comes along is “not credible” and they can continue to cling to their dogma, while claiming, “Imnotabigot!”

That’s the problem, who gets to decide what “credible” is. If there is even a fucking HINT of “GAWD”, no matter how small or indirect, well, it’s just fucking reelijun, not science, will never fucking EVER be science hallelujah amen godamit.

I’ve seen it in operation.

“I’ll convert, just show me the light!” is empty rhetoric. And I ain’t even asking anyone to convert FFS. I’m just trying to keep clear what ID actually is.

And I have already posted a nifty-keen animation of a bacterial flagellum putting itself together, but die-hard Darwinists refuse to consider that it was designed. No, they’re indoctrinated into believin’ that almightah Darwinism will Someday lead us into the Promised Land of Knowin’.

Well, like I keep saying, “non-falsifiable” ID can be falsified just as soon as science provides an explanation with experimental data to back it up, as opposed to the ever-popular just-so hand-wave explanations that satisfy the current congregation.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:24 PM from United States

I’m making fun of you, you ignorant little turd.

You’re doing a bang-up job, moron. I mean, geez, to have such a dismal grasp of English and then call someone else “ignorant”?

I may just pee my pants from laughing so hard.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:26 PM from United States

So I point out how you believe its mother nature, which makes you some silly spiritualist, or how aliens were the designers which makes a Raelien.

For fuck’s sake…

You just got caught with your pants around your ankles, and you’re just trying to save face.

And failing miserably.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:28 PM from United States

And all these “non-bigots” have to do is pretend that and evidence that comes along is “not credible”

If that’s what you fear, then no wonder you haven’t provided any evidence.

But you haven’t even shown that you understand the difference between evidence and argument.

I may just pee my pants from laughing so hard.

The rest of us are laughing, too. Although that’s at you, not with you.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:28 PM from United States

You just got caught with your pants around your ankles, and you’re just trying to save face.

Like you are with the misspelling fiasco?

Oh, yeah, huh?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:32 PM from United States

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF A DESIGNER OTHER THAN “IT COULDN’T HAVE BEEN DONE BY EVOLUTION ALONE”?

Geez, no need to shout. I’m right here.

Why do you care? It’s obvious that no one here believes there is any such evidence, so what value is my one lone voice?

Like I said, if you truly give a flying fuck, you will read a book on ID and make the judgement call yourself. I don’t have time to type in whole paragraphs or chapters from Uncommon Dissent or any other ID book to explain the evidence. As soon as I get past the first sentence, you will come back with “THAT AIN’T EVIDENCE PAH”.

Check an ID book out at a library if you don’t wanna finance crackpots.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:32 PM from United States

Who do you think the designer is cbass? 

Oh that’s right you don’t need to know.  Why is that? Because to identify the Designer would show it to be religious.  Even saying that its aliens would make it religion (the Raeliens).

You claim we’re bigots while you show bigotry towards evolutionary theory. Its quite funny.

And we don’t need to know what ID is because we know what it isn’t.  It isn’t science.

I just love how you keep saying Darwinism too.  Maybe everyone should start calling ID IC instead.  Intelligent Creation.  That sounds perfect to me.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:32 PM from United States

Like you are with the misspelling fiasco?

You love to dream, don’t you?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:35 PM from United States

You love to dream, don’t you?

Are you denying that you started the misspelling snark, and then tried to accuse me of it, only to have your nose rubbed in it, just like any six-week-old puppy still being housebroken?

Because if that is what you are claiming, I’ll be happy to cut-and-paste the proof yet again. (I have no problem making you look foolish, but proving that you’re a liar as well is just icing on the cake.)

So - ARE you denying that I proved you wrong? Or have you got the nads to admit to your lies?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:36 PM from Canada

Will this thread set a new record for most comments?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:37 PM from United States

Because to identify the Designer would show it to be religious.

Lousy logic skills noted.

You claim we’re bigots while you show bigotry towards evolutionary theory.

Not paying attention again. Like I said hours ago, I’m currectly reading a couple of books on Darwinian evolution. That’s what open-minded people do, investigate rather than jumping to stupid conclusions.

I just love how you keep saying Darwinism too.

Yeah, it’s known as being clear with language. “Evolution” means many things, including micro and macro. “Darwinism” narrows it down, and is very specific. Technically, I should be using “neo-Darwinism” but that’s just too damned awkward to type over and over.

Get the fuck over it.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:38 PM from United States

It’s obvious that no one here believes there is any such evidence, so what value is my one lone voice?

Gee, I wonder why people doubt there is any evidence? Maybe because you haven’t provided any? Y’think? Maybe huh?

If you have actual evidence (NOT arguments, although I doubt you can understand the difference), provide it.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:39 PM from United States

I could also laugh how it takes you 2 posts to respond to just one of mine.  Since I find it incredibly stupid. 

No I’m not caught with my pants down.  You’ve always willfully refused to state who you think the Creator is.  So when you make a statement that identifies some source as the Creator I point it out and laugh at your idiocy since I know you will never actually say who you think the Creator is despite it being obvious to everyone else here.  I will continue to do so oh High Priest of the Mothership Nature from planet Rigel VII, until you say who you think the Creator is for IC.

Who is the Creator cbass?  Or at least who do YOU believe the Creator to be?

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/27/06 at 06:44 PM from United Kingdom

I don’t have time to type in whole paragraphs or chapters from Uncommon Dissent or any other ID book to explain the evidence. As soon as I get past the first sentence, you will come back with “THAT AIN’T EVIDENCE PAH”.

I’m not asking for the evidence, I want to know whether it (in your eyes) exists.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 06:46 PM from United States

I’m not asking for the evidence, I want to know whether it (in your eyes) exists.

Of course he thinks it exists. Until he actually shows it to someone else, though, he’s the only one who does.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:47 PM from United States

Just because you’re reading the books doesn’t mean you’re not a bigot, moron.

That’s like claiming you’re not a racist just because you know black people.

Posted by HARLEY on 02/27/06 at 06:48 PM from United States

Will this thread set a new record for most comments?

not hardly.

jesus fucking h christ people......... can we have one fucking week when there isnt a fucking flame war over this?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:51 PM from United States

Are you denying that you started the misspelling snark

Are you Lee? Or are you so enamoured with Lee that you have to rush to his defense over something so trivial? Isn’t he man enough to handle snarks on his own?

Between US, YOU fucking started it.

And my snark to Lee was simply a snide way to tell him he was wrong, that he MISREPRESENTED what I said. Given his misrepresentation, a snark seems mild, not something to get your panties in a wad over. But wad you did.

You OTOH, actually got into masturbating over actual typos, and yes, you did THAT first also.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:53 PM from United States

No I’m not caught with my pants down.

Oh no, of course not (rolling eyes).

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:53 PM from Canada

jesus fucking h christ people......... can we have one fucking week when there isnt a fucking flame war over this?

Does the Sun rise in the East.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 06:55 PM from United States

I couldn’t care less about your interpretation of ID (which in your book makes me a “bigot") But what is really telling in all of this is that you expect us to “understand” your interpretation and to not “reject” it (since it makes us all bigots) however you don’t even understand (in the true, basic definition of the word) what bigotry is. And like I said earlier, based upon what your “defintion” of what bigotry is it makes you A FUCKIN HYPOCRITE! GET IT? OR DID THAT GO “OVER YOUR HEAD”? (Hint - thats why everybody is giving you the Holocaust examples - so that last question was rhetorical, seeing as you need it spelled out for you)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:55 PM from United States

Who is the Creator cbass?

Why are you so obsessed, Buzz?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 06:56 PM from United States

Why are you so afraid to answer cbass?

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/27/06 at 07:00 PM from United Kingdom

I’m not asking for the evidence, I want to know whether it (in your eyes) exists.

Clarification:

I asking about evidence of ID that doesn’t only revolve around holes in the evolutionary theory

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:01 PM from United States

Are you denying that you started the misspelling snark

So, then that’s a “yes”.

Okay, once more, the person who first started snarking overmisspellings as a means of arguing:

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 08:49 AM

Since we’re now using works of fiction to support scientific hypotheses

You misspelled “illustrate”, Lee.

Don’t be so stupid.

I hope the shame is not too much for you to bear. Of course, given your lack of intellectual honesty, I doubt it. “Oh, yeah, well, maybe I started it (even though I’m not admitting it), but YOU responded, and that makes it YOUR fault!”

Do you ever get dizzy?

Still waiting…

I imagine Buzz is still waiting for you to tell us who you think the Designer is, too.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:04 PM from United States

Posted by Buzzion on 02/27/06 at 04:56 PM

Why are you so afraid to answer cbass?

Because he knows that the moment he does, ID becomes religion (or, more accurately, “admits to being"), and his whole argument evaporates.

He has no stand-alone evidence and he doesn’t dare identify the Designer (because that dissolves his argument), but don’t you DARE disagree, or you’re a bigot!

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:08 PM from United States

which in your book makes me a “bigot”

Wrong again. Making negative statements about it without bothering to know what it is or isn’t would make you one. Disagreeing with me doesn’t. The problem is everyone seems so intent on misrepresenting what I say, without bothering to comprehend what I actually say.  What I said was that not wanting to understand X but criticizing or reject X anyway makes one a bigot. So of course, y’all trot out Holocaust denial.

Yeah, I get it. I’m a moron because I don’t toe the anti-ID line, so, not only am I just as fucking stupid as a Holocaust denyer, I have no right to even call you guys bigots because, well, hey, that would be like calling Holocaust believers BIGOTS.

But if you refuse to see the diff between whether there was a Holocasut and the debate over ID and evolution, then you are simply using intimidation in attempt to silence a viewpoint you don’t like.

Rather than own up to your bigotry.

I can admit that I’m a bigot, for I have no intention of investigating Holocaust denial, or trying to undertand that point of view.

I’m a bigot in that regard. Does that smooth your ruffled feathers?

Bottom line: Insisting that ID is “creationism” without bothering to find out what it really is, is bigotry.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:09 PM from United States

don’t you DARE disagree, or you’re a bigot!

No, but repeated misrepresentations of what I actually say might make you one.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:09 PM from Australia

Let’s see if we can write a bit of a summary.

1) Intelligent Design is not science.

2) Intelligent Design will never be science no matter how much it’s tweaked.

3) Neo-Darwinism is not perfect, but at the moment it’s the best explanation for the origin of species we’ve got.

4) A hole in Neo-Darwinism does not invalidate the rest of the theory. (example: A creationist tells the police he was hit by a blue car. He has injuries consistent with being hit by a car. The police find a red car with his blood on it. Therefore, the creationist accepts that he wasn’t hit by a car at all, it was some form of supernatural being smiting him).

5) It is possible to completely destroy Neo-Darwinism. Simply find evidence that a species came into being without using natural selection and imperfect genetic replication.

6) Michael Behe is an idiot, and irreducible complexity is another name for “I don’t understand it, so it can’t be true”. Read talk.origins.

7) If you try to read Darwin’s Black Box, you will roll your eyes so hard they may very well pop out. This will save you from the tortured prose and logical abominations contained within it.

8) Irreducible complexity is a complete logical fallacy which stands up to close inspection for all of five minutes.

9) Anyone who believes in creationism is, in my opinion, wrong. This does not make them a bad person. It does not make them stupid. It does not invalidate their PhD, no matter how many petitions they sign with it.

10) Anyone who believes that creationism or intelligent design can possibly be considered scientific is, however, a cretin of the highest order.

As a side note, I worked with an engineering PhD who didn’t believe in the holocaust. He also thought that quantum mechanics was a Jewish plot, and that the photon didn’t exist.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:11 PM from United States

Why are you so afraid to answer cbass?

Why do you jump to the foolish conclusion that it’s “fear”, buzz?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:13 PM from United States

So, then that’s a “yes”.

For fuck’s sake, Drum, is English your third fucking language?

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 07:51 PM

Are you denying that you started the misspelling snark

Are you Lee? Or are you so enamoured with Lee that you have to rush to his defense over something so trivial? Isn’t he man enough to handle snarks on his own?

Between US, YOU fucking started it.

And my snark to Lee was simply a snide way to tell him he was wrong, that he MISREPRESENTED what I said. Given his misrepresentation, a snark seems mild, not something to get your panties in a wad over. But wad you did.

You OTOH, actually got into masturbating over actual typos, and yes, you did THAT first also.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:14 PM from United States

Why do you jump to the foolish conclusion that it’s “fear”, buzz?

Because that’s all you have left.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:16 PM from United States

For fuck’s sake, Drum, is English your third fucking language?

And you are utterly incomprehensible in all of them.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:17 PM from United States

Ok you’re not afraid to answer the question.  So why won’t you provide an answer to such a simple question?  What’s stopping you from giving an answer as to who you believe the Creator is in IC?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:18 PM from United States

Because that’s all you have left.

Again, Drum Dreams.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:18 PM from United States

Insisting that ID is “creationism” without bothering to find out what it really is, is bigotry.

Insisting that ID is science without bothering to provide evidence is stupidity.

But that hasn’t stopped YOU…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:19 PM from United States

So why won’t you provide an answer to such a simple question?

Because it’s FUCKING IRRELEVANT, or relevant ONLY TO YOU.

Do I need to draw fucking pictures?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:20 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 05:18 PM

Because that’s all you have left.

Again, Drum Dreams.

Provide proof that you are not afraid. Answer the question.

Prove us all wrong, or we will be forced to conclude that I was right. There aren’t any other options.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:21 PM from United States

Insisting that ID is science

Where have I done that, Lurch?

And no, saying that it’s “taking a scientific approach” is NOT the same thing as calling it science, your forthcoming insistences that it is notwithstanding.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:26 PM from United States

How can knowing who caused our existence be irrelevant?  You claim we are the result of ID.  Therefore someone designed us.  Wanting to know who did that seems very relevant to me.  And really I find it completely shocking that you would think its irrelevant since you’re the one being the proponent of the designer.

Who do you believe the Designer to be?  Also along the same lines, why hasn’t the Designer ever come back to prevent us from being so destructive towards its creations?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:26 PM from United States

Provide proof that you are not afraid. Answer the question.

Fuck off. Whether you think I’m “afraid” is irrelevant.  If it gives you warm fuzzies to think I’m “afraid”, then knock yourself out.

the Creator is in IC

The fact that you’re now calling it Intelligent Creation is just another aspect of your bigotry, the obvious fact that you aren’t interested in viwepoints other than your own, unless it’s to mock them. Given that, why should I answer your flame-bait question?

Masturbate over something else.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:28 PM from United States

You claim we are the result of ID.

I make no such claim, you fucking moron.

Read the fucking thread over until you figure that out.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:31 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 05:28 PM

You claim we are the result of ID.

I make no such claim, you fucking moron.

Yeah, even HE doesn’t believe in it.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:32 PM from Canada

(Sarcasm on)
March 4, 2006
CNN Headline
Blogger Dies After 144-hour flame
The blogger known as Cbass at the Right Thinking at The West Coast was found dead at his keyboard after a 144 hour flame. Cbass was at his keyboard for 144 hour straight in a flame war on Intelligent Design. He had not left the keyboard to eat, drank or relieve himself during that period.  An autopsy will determine his exact type of death, but instantaneous combustion is a distinct possibility.
(Sarcasm off)

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:34 PM from Canada

sorry it should have said Right-Thinking from the Left Coast.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:35 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 05:21 PM

Insisting that ID is science

Where have I done that, Lurch?

When you claimed that ID is a valid Scientific “Theory”, while needing to stretch that term so far that it even includes Astrology. Your whole response is “that’s what Behe said”, even though the NAS says differently.

Of course, Behe’s definition is sufficient for you, and that makes ID “science”.

Anything else you said that you don’t remember, you just ask, and I’ll be sure to rub your nose in it.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:36 PM from United States

Of course, given your lack of intellectual honesty

One more time—Lee misrepresented what I said, so my “snark” was simply an underhanded way of correcting him.

It was about what [redacted] originally said, after all.

But, givin your lack of intellectual honesty, you will continue to be an ass.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:37 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 05:26 PM

Provide proof that you are not afraid. Answer the question.

Fuck off.

His standard response when asked for proof. Those two words cover a multitude of logical errors and factual lapses.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:37 PM from United States

So we’re not the result of Evolution, and we’re not the result of ID.  But you don’t like scientists using the “we don’t know yet” for an answer to some of the more complex systems some creatures have.

What are we the result of then?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:37 PM from United States

Ah fuckall

Of course, given your lack of intellectual honesty

One more time—Lee misrepresented what I said, so my “snark” was simply an underhanded way of correcting him.

It was about what I originally said, after all.

But, givin your lack of intellectual honesty, you will continue to be an ass.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:37 PM from United States

And he’s become pissed off enough to forget to close the tabs.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:39 PM from United States

One more time—Lee misrepresented what I said, so my “snark” was simply an underhanded way of correcting him.

Without actually, y’know, correcting him. I see. Subtle.

One of those “get your ass beat until even your opponent starts to feel sorry for you” tactics, eh?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:39 PM from Canada

cbass for a religious guy you sure like to say fuck-off

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:40 PM from United States

What are we the result of then?

Standard response of “fuck off” from cb in 3… 2… 1…

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:40 PM from United States

One of those “get your ass beat until even your opponent starts to feel sorry for you” tactics, eh?

Would that give you a woody, Drum?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:45 PM from United States

Standard response of “fuck off” from cb in 3… 2… 1…

Well, I’ve been getting the same from you pack, just prettied up.

The same nonsense repeated mover and over.

ID == Creationism == Reelijun

ID == No Evidence

Ad Nauseam.

That pretty much amounts to a “fuck off, we’re gonna believe what we wanna believe to hell with the facts” type of response.

The only way I’m getting my “ass beat” is by assuming you guys can be rational at any level when it comes to ID.

I admit it, you guys are too strong in your emotional ties to Darwinism to have a rational discussion of what ID actually is or isn’t. You guys obvioulsy see it as a threat to your points of view.

I realize that now.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:46 PM from United States

Without actually, y’know, correcting him

More Drum Denial

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:46 PM from United States

Would that give you a woody, Drum?

Watching you get your ass beat until I felt sorry for you? Not really, because I have no pity for you whatsoever, since most of the ass-whipping you’ve been receiving has been on your own instigation.

When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep dark hole, you really should stop digging.

Me? I’m happy to keep piling dirt on top of you.

You’re still dodging questions.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:48 PM from United States

That pretty much amounts to a “fuck off, we’re gonna believe what we wanna believe to hell with the facts” type of response.

You missed the whole “until better evidence comes along”. Not surprising, since you think your (already beaten) arguments actually count as evidence.

Got Facts?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:48 PM from United States

cbass for a religious guy you sure like to say fuck-off

Yeah, here we go again.

Where did I ever say I was religious?

FUCK!

Again, just because I appear to be defending ID, I MUST BE FUCKING RELIGIOUS?!?!?!?!

FUCK ME WITH A WHITE HOT POKER!

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:50 PM from United States

“until better evidence comes along”

But it’ll conveniently never come along, unless it fails to threaten your preconceptions.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:50 PM from United States

Well, it’s been real, But I gotta go.

Think you’ve “won” if it gives you a woody, but I simply have things to do.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:51 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 05:46 PM

Without actually, y’know, correcting him

More Drum Denial

Denial? Hey, you’re the one that completely ignored the point, choosing instead to fixate on his misspelling. The sum total of your reply to his point was “you misspelled ‘illustrate’”.

But you claim that I’m the one denying facts?

(another shovelful gets tossed on top}

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:52 PM from United States

But it’ll conveniently never come along, unless it fails to threaten your preconceptions.

How would YOU know? You can’t even DEFINE “evidence”, much less provide any…

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 07:52 PM from United States

Wrong again. Making negative statements about it without bothering to know what it is or isn’t would make you one. Disagreeing with me doesn’t. The problem is everyone seems so intent on misrepresenting what I say, without bothering to comprehend what I actually say.  What I said was that not wanting to understand X but criticizing or reject X anyway makes one a bigot. So of course, y’all trot out Holocaust denial.

Yeah, I get it. I’m a moron because I don’t toe the anti-ID line, so, not only am I just as fucking stupid as a Holocaust denyer, I have no right to even call you guys bigots because, well, hey, that would be like calling Holocaust believers BIGOTS.

But if you refuse to see the diff between whether there was a Holocasut and the debate over ID and evolution, then you are simply using intimidation in attempt to silence a viewpoint you don’t like.

Rather than own up to your bigotry.

I can admit that I’m a bigot, for I have no intention of investigating Holocaust denial, or trying to undertand that point of view.

I’m a bigot in that regard. Does that smooth your ruffled feathers?

Bottom line: Insisting that ID is “creationism” without bothering to find out what it really is, is bigotry.

A simple “I have no idea what the actual, accurate definition of what bigotry is and even then could not comprehend it, all I have to go off of is what my personal beliefs define it to me as.” would have been sufficient.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 07:54 PM from United States

Again, just because I appear to be defending ID,

“Just appear” to defend it is all you were doing, but you have so far denied belief in Evolution, denied belief in Creationism, and now you’re denying belief in ID. Yet you also deny that there are any alternatives.

Do you actually have any beliefs, or are you just tasked to come up with dumbassed things to say?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:56 PM from United States

Well you see cbass we’re trying to figure you out.  All you do is defend ID and criticize evolutionary theory.  But you’ve now stated that you don’t believe humans are the result of ID, so you seem to be arguing in favor of something you don’t believe in.

You refuse to admit your age, your religious beliefs, who you think the Designer is, and any other questions.  You act like when we give you an opportunity to give an understanding of you that we’re attacking you so harshly.  Drum isn’t the only one here reading you know.  Niether am I.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 07:56 PM from United States

*yawn again*

To prove that ID is Science you have to show that the existence of a divine creator is true through observation, since this is likely not to happen ID will never be real science.

It’s not a religion either because it’s not devoted to the worship of a specific god based on prophecy (Islam/Christianity/Judiasm/etc.) or recorded observation (Christianity/Judiasm/etc.) It’s a philosophy which infers the existence of a divine creator through secular observation. None of this is science, however.

Now if God were to come to earth tommorow it would be then verifiable Scientific fact that God came to earth, and then THAT would be science, hasn’t happened yet though.

*so lame*

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 08:01 PM from United States

ReaPsTA

You’ll piss off cbass for using the word divine, since it could possibly be aliens which aren’t divine, although he doesn’t actually believe in ID anyways.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 08:07 PM from United States

Drumwaster and Lee seek to define what proponents of ID believe so a straw man can be made of their views, i.e. they are all fundamentalist Christians trying to sneak God into the classroom.

Cbass is stating that Drumwaster and Lee are incorrect incorrect in their statements about what ID actually entails.

The issue of holocaust denial and evidence is important.  As Lee stated, you do not actually need to read a book by a holocaust denier to know that the holocaust actually occurred; however, if you seek to state explicitly what the deniers believe, then you damn well better read a book so you can state their arguments as well as their conclusions.

Drumwaster and Lee are stating that proponents of ID believe X, Cbass is stating that they believe Y.

Stating what and why the Holocaust deniers believe as they does not mean that one is advocating their position.

Cbass is stating that the evidence of ID is the complexity of life.  In effect, what ID proponents are saying is that a 42” flat screen T.V. is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, law of large numbers be damned.

The other issue at play is argument through negation, i.e. attacking A does not prove B.  What ID is doing here is stating that there are two singular explanations for life on Earth, either evolution with random chance or intelligent design.  When one side loses, the other side implicitly wins.  I am not saying that this is what I believe, only that this is what I believe has been said.

Intelligent Design is that “silly wild-assed guess”, because it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior. Evolution can and does.

This is Drumwaster’s money quote.  The problem, as Cbass has stated, is as follows: 1) There is no evidence chain between the microbe and then man.  He is also claiming that the fossil record is insufficient evidence to explain the diversity and nuance of life. 2) Evolution, on the macro scale is equally non predictive: i.e. what will a dog evolve into after a paltry 500 million years?  Evolution works on the micro level, as Cbass has said, however, when extrapolated over millions and billions of years, problems arise.

In conclusion, you can all go fuck yourselves because you would rather fight than have a good faith argument.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 08:28 PM from United States

You could probably say that the “good faith argument” “evolved” into a “fight” because in order to have a “good faith argument” one side must at the minimum present an argument.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 08:30 PM from United States

Incorrect, ones argument need not be good.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/27/06 at 08:34 PM from United States

I didn’t say anything about good, I just said one had to be presented. Maybe I am not hip to some other thread where this started but all I saw in this one was “I already did” and “why should I? It would just go over your head”

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 08:38 PM from United States

It was all stated at the beginning, then one side ignored then other and made the same demands.  The other side then said, lrn2read.

It then descended into a battle to see who could post the most without a piss break.

Posted by mikeguas on 02/27/06 at 08:52 PM from United States

Holy shit. With all these hostile posts, I thought we were talking about how Bush is or isn’t a loyal Republican. Evidence says he isn’t, faith says he is.

I say let’s have one thread where IDers can post all the evidence they have for ID without debate from the other side, and evolutionists can post all theirs on another thread. Then find out which evidence for either side is based on years of trial and error, testing and retesting, and other ideas that are based on the word of one or a few, and not tested or retested. Both sides can attempt to prove their case without having to spend energy defending themselves while doing it. Then there would be material for debate after.

Posted by dakrat on 02/27/06 at 09:04 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 02/27/06 at 05:51 PM

No, you just keep calling evidence supporting ID “evidence against Evolution” like the moron you are. I have already stated that “evolution”, MICOREVOLUTION, is an indisputable fact. It’s Darwinism that is at issue.

No it is actually you, cbass, who is calling “evidence against Evolution” evidence FOR ID.

Let’s try to break this down so that say...a 13 year old can understand it.  A detective has been called in to investigate the murder of a man.  The murder occured on Saturday night.  The evidence so far points to two main suspects.  The man’s wife, and the boyfriend that the man was keeping on the side.  The detective later finds that many people are able to verify that this “boyfriend” is known as “Hoover” every Saturday night at the local leather bar.

Question.  Is the boyfriend’s alibi evidence of the wife’s guilt?  If not, why not? 

Because what you seem to be arguing-with ID-is that the boyfriend’s innocence is evidence against the wife.  When in fact, the culprit could also be the dude that sits next to him at work and is fed up with the man’s blowing his nose as loud as a cartoon thirty times a day. 

Granted the wife should be looked at more closely now.  But is the boy toy’s innocence evidence of her guilt?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:15 PM from United States

Dakrat,

ID proponents are assuming a binary situation.  A closer example would be three people (A,B, and C) are alive and locked in a room.

A is found dead when the door is opened.  Who commited the murder, B or C?

Well, if B is a parapalegic, and incapable of moving then the guilty party is C.

The proponents of ID are stating that there are only two choices: evolution or design.  If one fails, then the other wins.

Posted by dakrat on 02/27/06 at 09:32 PM from United States

ID proponents are assuming a binary situation.  A closer example would be three people (A,B, and C) are alive and locked in a room.

Unfortunately, assuming binary terms for every science vs. religion conflict results in the repression of information and ideas.  Not so long ago humans were confronted with a binary choice of the Earth rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun, or the Church is wrong and God doesn’t exist.  At the time many other possibilities existed, but the binary side-the Church-simply would not consider it.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:45 PM from United States

I think you are looking at it too broadly.  The issue is ID or evolution, not: God or no God.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:49 PM from United States

Boy, 22AcaciaAve sure shut the fuck up, didn’t he?

It’s called I-have-a-job!

Posted by dakrat on 02/27/06 at 09:56 PM from United States

I think you are looking at it too broadly.

Indeed, this could be so.  But it could also be true that…

The issue is ID or evolution

can very well be considered “looking at it too broadly.”

What I was trying to show with the “murder case” was that just because A doesn’t equal C, doesn’t necessarily mean that A equals B.  Around here the inverse of the latter seems to be the argument for ID.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 09:58 PM from United States

ID proponents are assuming a binary situation.  A closer example would be three people (A,B, and C) are alive and locked in a room.

A is found dead when the door is opened.  Who commited the murder, B or C?

Well, if B is a parapalegic, and incapable of moving then the guilty party is C.

The problem is that ID then comes along and claims that it was actually their imaginary friend G that killed A.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 10:01 PM from United States

I bash their beliefs all the time.  Kill the infidels is one.  Women being the property of their husbands is another.  I could go on and on.  My point, you dunce, is that all of these beliefs held by Muslims are found IN THE FUCKING KORAN.  So, if you find it unacceptable for me to call Muslims idiots for holding these ridiculous beliefs, despite the beliefs being written in the Muslim holy book, then why should you have a problem for me doing the same thing for Christians?

Well let’s see.  For one, even though I don’t agree with there beliefs, I dont’ call them morons for having such beliefs.  I hate the extremist wing’s beliefs in women basically being “its” and how they are always beheading people, but I don’t call them “idiots” for their core beliefs.  I"m also not a muslim and don’t know enough about Islam to really comment on it.

Absolutely.  But not every Christian believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible as scientific fact, to the exclusion of all scientific evidence to the contrary.  Again, you cann’t find a single example of me bashing Christianity, only of specific Christians.  Weak, dude, fucking weak.

Translation: “I only like christians that believe what I believe”.  Face it, you do bash christian beliefs.  Yeah, there is a small percentage of christians that don’t believe in the great flood.  That doesn’t meant that you aren’t bashing a belief of the majority of christians out there.

You just answered your own accusation!  I didn’t bash Christians for praying, I bashed THOSE specific Christians for THAT particular style opf prayer, which was done in public for the cameras to make a political point, rather than out of any sincere desire to talk to God.  Unless, of course, you believe that God will hear you better if you’re wailing and rolling on the ground, rather than praying quitely in your living room, away from the TV cameras.

You really are ignorant on this matter.  I’ve been to a church like that where in the church people really do that (no cameras either).  I didn’t care for it as it made me for uncomfortable, but I didn’t have an elitist attitude like you do and say “these people are idiots”.

So, what you’re saying is that if you don’t believe the flood myth as being literal scientific fact you’re not a true Christian, right?  Or will you admit that you can be a Christian without believing a 5,000 year old allegorical fable has more veracity than the sum weight of human scientific knowledge.  Because if you can be a Christian and not believe in the flood myth as literal scientific fact, then you have absolutely no logical ground to stand on.

Again, the MAJORITY of christians belief that the flood happened.

Oh yeah, and why do you feel the need to hurl insults?  It makes you look like an elitist liberal.....or desperate.

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:26 PM from United States
say let’s have one thread where IDers can post all the evidence they have for ID without debate from the other side, and evolutionists can post all theirs on another thread.

Section 8,
If you can’t get the Id’ers to understand the scientific meaning of theory, you are wasting your time.
un-fucking-believable thread

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/27/06 at 11:29 PM from United States

Jeez, beanie, you STILL can’t get it right!

Try the “Close All” button. Get into the habit.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 11:30 PM from United States

Drumwaster and Lee are stating that proponents of ID believe X, Cbass is stating that they believe Y.

So, when a Muslim says “There is nothing about Islam that would make anyone lead to terrorism,” should I believe him?  Or do I think that maybe, just maybe, he has an ulterior motive in mind?

You know, just like the creationists.  I mean, proponents of Intelligent Creationism.  I mean, Intelligent Design.

Posted by Lee on 02/27/06 at 11:32 PM from United States

In effect, what ID proponents are saying is that a 42” flat screen T.V. is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, law of large numbers be damned.

A 42” flat screen TV is not a living organism.  But why should we take not of that pesky fact?

Posted by on 02/27/06 at 11:50 PM from United States

Life may not be able to make a 42” flatscreen but it can make the wiring to transmit the signal to it.  There’s a sponge in the ocean that actually makes better fiberoptic cables than we are capable of.

the hi-speed sponge

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:01 AM from United States

So, when a Muslim says “There is nothing about Islam that would make anyone lead to terrorism,” should I believe him?  Or do I think that maybe, just maybe, he has an ulterior motive in mind?

You know, just like the creationists.  I mean, proponents of Intelligent Creationism.  I mean, Intelligent Design.

Wrong.  In the case of ID, I believe you are trying to create a straw man.  First, you are cherry-picking your responses.  By focusing on the shit head bible thumpers, you are attempting to characterize all proponents of ID as shit head loons.  In addition to this, you ignore ID’s criticism of macro-evolution and complex organisms.  The net effect is to frame ID as an issue unworthy of even cursory response.  Just a wave of the hand and a curse at Falwell is enough to make it go away.  This is classic poisoning of the well, i.e. ignore ID because only shit head bible thumpers believe it.

A 42” flat screen TV is not a living organism.  But why should we take not of that pesky fact?

Are you claiming that the law of large numbers is incapable of explaining the presence of that T.V.?
Why is it more reasonable to believe life evolved from bacteria to beast, an almost unimaginable number of mutations, than it is to believe T.V.s just appear?

Cbass’s example of the “biological machine” is one where multiple dependent parts work together and are incapable of working alone.  The point being that there is a large jump in complexity and it is not clear how a single or series of mutations would have caused this effect.

This is a very complex issue and I do not have answers; I don’t even care which side “wins.” The problem that I have is when one side is characterized as knuckle draggers unworthy of a response, save ridicule.  That is an intellectually lazy position to take and does nothing to further the understanding of the issue.  The only reason I feel it is valuable to understand the issue is because some questions remain unanswered, and if one wishes to convert people to ones position, to understand the beliefs and arguments of ones opponent allows one to best answer their claims.  No conservative reads Chomsky because it is fun, they read him so they can best meet his arguments and destroy the ideological framework of his beliefs.  Calling him a pinko-commie is not enough.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:13 AM from United States

Karbox, one side is saying “ID is not science and here is why it isn’t… where they then state what is the requirements for the scientific approach and what is needed for each step.” The other side response is “NU-UH it is too scientific :fingers in ears: LALALALALA.” See ID wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for those trying to push it into the science classroom.  And do you want to guess which ones are trying to push it into the science classrooms?  It couldn’t possibly the fundamentalist christians could it?

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 12:21 AM from United States

Well let’s see.  For one, even though I don’t agree with there beliefs, I dont’ call them morons for having such beliefs.  I hate the extremist wing’s beliefs in women basically being “its” and how they are always beheading people, but I don’t call them “idiots” for their core beliefs.  I"m also not a muslim and don’t know enough about Islam to really comment on it.

What about communism?  If you met a communist who was utterly convinced that communism, if it is properly applied, can lead to paradise on earth, do you respect their beliefs?  Or do you laugh at them and call them morons for believing something so demonstrably stupid?

Translation: “I only like christians that believe what I believe”.  Face it, you do bash christian beliefs.  Yeah, there is a small percentage of christians that don’t believe in the great flood.  That doesn’t meant that you aren’t bashing a belief of the majority of christians out there.

A small percentage?  You’re fucking insane it you honestly think that the vast majority of Christians actually believe, literally, in the biblical flood myth, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 

And as for my alleged bashing of Christians, there’s a Google search box on the front page.  Find me a quote where I “bash” Christianity, or admit that you’re full of shit.

You really are ignorant on this matter.  I’ve been to a church like that where in the church people really do that (no cameras either).  I didn’t care for it as it made me for uncomfortable, but I didn’t have an elitist attitude like you do and say “these people are idiots”.

They are idiots.  Just because they’re Christians doesn’t mean they’re idiots.  So are the Shi’ites who go around whipping themselves until they bleed.  I have no problem calling a spade a spade.  Neither do you, unless the spade happens to be wearing a crucifix.

Again, the MAJORITY of christians belief that the flood happened.

To the exclusion of all scientific evidence to the contrary?  You honestly believe that the cast majority of Christians in this country actually believe in the scientific fact that a the world was covered in water, and that one man and his family built a ship which carried two of every animal?  Anyone who believes that is an idiot, and if this means that Christianity is a religion comprised of gullible simps then so be it.  You’re the one who set this standard, not me.

Oh yeah, and why do you feel the need to hurl insults?  It makes you look like an elitist liberal.....or desperate.

I’m not an elitist in any sense of the word.  I just happen to believe in science and questioning and exploration and intellect rather than fear and intimidation and subservience and unwavering belief in something that is an absolute physical impossibility.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 12:23 AM from United States

In addition to this, you ignore ID’s criticism of macro-evolution and complex organisms.

Not at all, but those “cherry-picked” arguments are made, and then overblown as if being able to “prove” that those things could not have evolved (with exactly the “isn’t it obvious?” hand waves you disparage) somehow proves that they must have been designed, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that even if those things disproved evolution (which I stipulate only for the point of making the argument), they do not prove whatever explanation is being proposed as a counter, whether ID or Creationism.

But those are arguments from incredulity, in that the inability of the arguer to explain certain processes and phenomenon means that no explanation can possibly be made, and that this acts as evidence of Higher Design. The simple fact that they speak of a ‘Design’ means that there must have been a ‘Designer’, and that immediately makes it religion, even when used in the most general of senses.

No matter who or what you claim as the Designer, it remains, by definition, a religion, and not science.

If you doubt me, ask them to identify the Designer behind their so-called Intelligent Design.

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 12:36 AM from United States

First, you are cherry-picking your responses.  By focusing on the shit head bible thumpers, you are attempting to characterize all proponents of ID as shit head loons.  In addition to this, you ignore ID’s criticism of macro-evolution and complex organisms.  The net effect is to frame ID as an issue unworthy of even cursory response.  Just a wave of the hand and a curse at Falwell is enough to make it go away.  This is classic poisoning of the well, i.e. ignore ID because only shit head bible thumpers believe it.

You don’t think the fact that only shithead bible thumpers believe this drivel is significant?  It’s exactly the fucking point!  ID is nothing more than a means for shithead bible thumpers to give the appearance of scientific truth to their particular superstition.

Look, criticize evolution all you want.  Criticism is the hallmark of science.  But merely disproving one theory, for which the sum total of human scientific knowledge provides ample support, does not in and of itself prove another theory.  We’ve gone over and over and over this again.  There is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE of ID other than to point out flaws in evolution.  As I’ve said a thousand and one times, if you can disprove evolution then fine, provide me a better theory.  And ID, my friend, ain’t it, and anyone who believes it is will be considered a fucking moron, by me, forever.

If ID is not based in religion, show me an atheist scientist who believes it.

Cbass’s example of the “biological machine” is one where multiple dependent parts work together and are incapable of working alone.  The point being that there is a large jump in complexity and it is not clear how a single or series of mutations would have caused this effect.

It is not clear.  Exactly.  At one point in time it was not clear how man could fly, but he has done so.  At one point in time polio was devastating, but now it’s taken care of by a vaccination.  At one point in time everything we know was unknown.  It is the height of idiocy to look at something we don’t know and claim that the lack of knowledge is proof of falsity. 

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Science 101.  You can look it up and everything.

The problem that I have is when one side is characterized as knuckle draggers unworthy of a response, save ridicule.  That is an intellectually lazy position to take and does nothing to further the understanding of the issue.

Yet, interestingly, you don’t seem to think that “We don’t have all the answers, so God did it” is an intellectually lazy position.  It’s the height of intellectual laziness.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:52 AM from United States

Not at all, but those “cherry-picked” arguments are made, and then overblown as if being able to “prove” that those things could not have evolved (with exactly the “isn’t it obvious?” hand waves you disparage) somehow proves that they must have been designed, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that even if those things disproved evolution (which I stipulate only for the point of making the argument), they do not prove whatever explanation is being proposed as a counter, whether ID or Creationism.

I would like to reuse the example of the mythical 42” plasma T.V.  Specifically, we know that the T.V. was created because it is statistically impossible for such a device to be a naturally occurring event.  Statistically anything is possible, but I feel confident in saying that a coal miner in Virginia will never unearth a T.V.

Like you, I dislike arguing from negation.  Disproving B does not prove A.  The only exception I can think of, and I am willing to be wrong in this, is when there are only two possible answers.  If life did not evolve, then it was created.  I cannot think of any other possibilities.

But those are arguments from incredulity, in that the inability of the arguer to explain certain processes and phenomenon means that no explanation can possibly be made, and that this acts as evidence of Higher Design. The simple fact that they speak of a ‘Design’ means that there must have been a ‘Designer’, and that immediately makes it religion, even when used in the most general of senses.

I already addressed incredulity where one side is arguing with a statistical impossibility while the other side is arguing against it.  I am ambivalent about the claim that ID is religion.  Someone can be right about the designer but wrong about the name.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 01:11 AM from United States

Statistically anything is possible

Except evolution, of course.

If life did not evolve, then it was created.  I cannot think of any other possibilities.

Then it must have been created by Someone. That makes it religion, not science.

Someone can be right about the designer but wrong about the name.

That’s a difference in degree, not type. A Creator means a religion, even if there are no “parishioners” (so to speak). Even if your designer is space aliens (as cbass claimed at one point), that means something like the Raelians, or Spider Robinson’s Fireflies.

If life did not evolve, then it was created.  I cannot think of any other possibilities.

I can. We have always been here, working our way through the lifespans of the universes, sending seed of ourselves into the next Big Bang-growth-expansion-contraction cycle, only to have that seed land on a planet somewhere, evolve all over again, and struggle up through the millenia to find our ways back to the stars, then repeat forever and ever.

Philosophy and religion is just a side-effect of wondering “where did we come from?”, and sooner or later, some species is certain to grow self-aware.

Life of a certain minimum size develops self-awareness, aka “souls”, curiosity and a sense of right and wrong. Even dogs and cats have those.

(How am I doing? Life Eternal and Everchanging as an alternative to either “developed” or “desogned”.)

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 01:11 AM from United States

You don’t think the fact that only shithead bible thumpers believe this drivel is significant?  It’s exactly the fucking point!  ID is nothing more than a means for shithead bible thumpers to give the appearance of scientific truth to their particular superstition.

It is significant, but not game breaking.  All this proves is that their claims should be examined before being believed.  What you are in effect saying is that Jimmy Carter can never be right, ever.

ut merely disproving one theory, for which the sum total of human scientific knowledge provides ample support, does not in and of itself prove another theory.  We’ve gone over and over and over this again.  There is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE of ID other than to point out flaws in evolution.

This is correct.  The reason it is correct is because if one assumes otherwise, they are in danger of creating a false dichotomy.  A false dichotomy is saying that X was caused by either A or B, when it is possible that there is some other unknown C, D, etc lurking in the bushes.

ID proponents are claiming that because of the nature of the question, a false dichotomy is almost impossible, either life arose from a random set of events, or it did not.  If large numbers can not explain our current existence, then what other option is there?

It is not clear.  Exactly.  At one point in time it was not clear how man could fly, but he has done so.  At one point in time polio was devastating, but now it’s taken care of by a vaccination.  At one point in time everything we know was unknown.  It is the height of idiocy to look at something we don’t know and claim that the lack of knowledge is proof of falsity. 
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Science 101.  You can look it up and everything.

In this case, “not clear” is considered to be a failing of evolution; if evolution is not responsible, then mayhap your large numbers?  What then if there was an equivalent chance of finding my T.V.?  Understanding the how and why of an event does not mean it was the result of random chance.  This is a neat little crutch of I.D. even if evolution was to become 110% proven, the designer is still possible.

Yet, interestingly, you don’t seem to think that “We don’t have all the answers, so God did it” is an intellectually lazy position.  It’s the height of intellectual laziness.

It is lazy because no effort is made to engage the argument.  I was talking about the quality of response, not the quality of the original argument.  Even then, is not your own position quite similar to that of the ID proponents? Specifically, you do not know how life came to its present form, but you are confident large numbers and a lot of time explains it all.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 01:26 AM from United States

Statistically anything is possible
Except evolution, of course.

Except my TV, of course.  It is interesting that you choose to respond to only snippets of a sentence.  Saying that something is statistically possible is not saying much.
My original sentence regarding that which is possible: Statistically anything is possible, but I feel confident in saying that a coal miner in Virginia will never unearth a T.V.

That’s a difference in degree, not type. A Creator means a religion, even if there are no “parishioners” (so to speak). Even if your designer is space aliens (as cbass claimed at one point), that means something like the Raelians, or Spider Robinson’s Fireflies.

The proponents of ID would argue that since a designer is a fact, this distinction is important.  Religion is a concern insofar as we are dealing with beliefs.  ID is an attempt to transcend belief into fact.


(How am I doing? Life Eternal and Everchanging as an alternative to either “developed” or “desogned”.)

Someone stayed awake during their South East Asian religions class!  At least the Buddha had some honesty, when asked about the origin of the world, he said: “I refuse to speculate.”

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 01:51 AM from United States

It is significant, but not game breaking.  All this proves is that their claims should be examined before being believed.  What you are in effect saying is that Jimmy Carter can never be right, ever.

That’s not what I am saying at all.  What I’m saying is that I don’t trust anything that Jimmy Carter says or does, and I believe that in most things he does he is driven more by his left-wing ideology than anything else.  So if Jimmy Carter says something I am immediately skeptical of it, and if he wants to convince me of the superiority of his argument he’s going to have to do better than “Well, Bush’s way isn’t right.” Bush’s way may not be right, but it doesn’t mean that Carter’s is.

In this case, “not clear” is considered to be a failing of evolution; if evolution is not responsible, then mayhap your large numbers?  What then if there was an equivalent chance of finding my T.V.?  Understanding the how and why of an event does not mean it was the result of random chance.  This is a neat little crutch of I.D. even if evolution was to become 110% proven, the designer is still possible.

You keep bringing up the TV, but a TV is not a biological organism, and therefore has no evolutionary mechanism of any kind.  Even most of the proponents of ID freely admit that microevolution takes place, but you’ll never see microevolution in a TV either.  Does this mean that microevolution doesn’t exist?  You’ll never see a TV evolve into a better TV.

Your TV is a stupid analogy.  I’ll freely admit that there is no way a TV could come into being by design, but this doesn’t mean that all complex systems can ONLY come into being by design.  You’re looking at two complex systems, stating the fact that one of them can only come into being by design, and deducing that this proves that the other was designed as well.  But only life has its own mechanism by which it can improve itself and adapt, something your TV does not and will not ever have.

It is lazy because no effort is made to engage the argument.  I was talking about the quality of response, not the quality of the original argument.

It’s a stupid argument, made by dogmatic theists whose particular superstitions supersede their ability to rationally evaluate a given situation.  It’s like trying to logically explain to a 13 year old girl why her nose isn’t too big.

Posted by Loud on 02/28/06 at 02:55 AM from United States

ID is an attempt to transcend belief into fact.

Bingo!  ID has a preconceived belief and tries to find evidence to prove it.  Newton didn’t sit down and say “Ok, the acceleration due to gravity is going to be -9.81 meters per second squared,” and then fudge his observations of gravity to fit that notion.  We followed the observations to the result.  ID doesn’t do that.

Posted by Loud on 02/28/06 at 03:01 AM from United States

Well, I should say IDers think they’re following observations, when they’re really observing things we can’t yet entirely explain and making up reasons they exist.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 03:30 AM from Europe

Well, I should say IDers think they’re following observations, when they’re really observing things we can’t yet entirely explain and making up reasons they exist

I agree. I think it’s possible that adherence to ID is a sign of shaken or weak faith. If your faith was strong, you wouldn’t have to scrabble around fudging evidence to back up your belief system. You would simply believe.

Of course, belief in a creator and a scientific approach to the world around us are not exclusive. Many eminent scientists are Christians or members of other religions (Jocelyn Bell, discoverer of pulsars, comes to mind).

Personally, I wish I believed in a creator, and I want to believe in a creator, because that would be an incredibly comforting thought. But I simply can’t blindly adopt such a belief just because I want it to be so, without some concrete evidence to base it upon.

And I see none.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:03 AM from Japan

I haven’t had time to read the whole thread - I got half way through before quitting in frustration. So I apologize if I am repeating something someone has already said.

Cbass. You say that people such as myself attack ID without knowing the whole story, yet you continually refuse to post any kind of evidence, or even valid argument, that ID offers a better basis for understanding the world than the scientific method.

I also see the following problems, which you also need to address:

The theory of evolution does not rule out an intelligent designer - a designer could simply have designed evolution to work that way.

The big bang theory does not rule out an intelligent designer - an intelligent designer could have just said “I got an idea!” and whump, bang, there it all is. And here we all are, 12 or so billion years later.

You argue that fossils don’t show evolution of a species, but simply that the species existed at one time or another. Would this then mean that the intelligent designer had made a mistake in creating that animal? It would also mean that the total number of species would have gotten smaller over time, unless new ones were being created. Do you have any evidence that a new species was suddenly created? Can you show me repeatable evidence that a new species has/can be created in the laboratory by an intelligent designer?

There is no evidence for or against this, so I certainly wouldn’t be wasting hours arguing about it.

I am actually interested in your views, but you have said so little to support ID that I have no basis to assess your arguments. Attacks on evolution, or the big bang, which as I said is not exclusive of ID, do nothing to help me understand.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:05 AM from Japan

Also, I have my own pet-belief about the origin of the universe – that if scientist ever work out the mathematical equation that defines everything, there won’t be one, but two (or perhaps three), and they will be contradictory (Yeah, I know – it’s a bit Douglas Adams).

Now I have not one shred of evidence for this belief, but at no point did I think: I should make stickers to put on all mathematics textbooks to say that ‘math is just a theory.’

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:15 AM from United States

What about communism?  If you met a communist who was utterly convinced that communism, if it is properly applied, can lead to paradise on earth, do you respect their beliefs?  Or do you laugh at them and call them morons for believing something so demonstrably stupid?

No, I dont’ call them a moron.  They have their beliefs and I have mine.  I have a friend who wants a socialist society because she thinks it will be perfect.  Do I think she’s a moron?  No.  Infact, if you ever talked to her on other matter, she’s rather intelligent.

A small percentage?  You’re fucking insane it you honestly think that the vast majority of Christians actually believe, literally, in the biblical flood myth, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 

So I guess you think EVERYONE knows ALL the “evidence” that you speak of.  Let’s see how many more times that “evidence” will change, btw.  Soooo....are eggs bad for you or good for you now?

And as for my alleged bashing of Christians, there’s a Google search box on the front page.  Find me a quote where I “bash” Christianity, or admit that you’re full of shit.

Oh, I see.  You want me to find a comments that simply says “christians are dumb”, because in your view everything is black and white.

They are idiots.  Just because they’re Christians doesn’t mean they’re idiots.  So are the Shi’ites who go around whipping themselves until they bleed.  I have no problem calling a spade a spade.  Neither do you, unless the spade happens to be wearing a crucifix.

I’m not catholic, but don’t let your ignorance of christianity stop you from making comments about crucifixes and wether people are idiots for being pasionate when it comes to prayer (btw, still feeling that sting now knowing that they don’t just do it for the cameras?).

To the exclusion of all scientific evidence to the contrary?  You honestly believe that the cast majority of Christians in this country actually believe in the scientific fact that a the world was covered in water, and that one man and his family built a ship which carried two of every animal?  Anyone who believes that is an idiot, and if this means that Christianity is a religion comprised of gullible simps then so be it.  You’re the one who set this standard, not me.

Strange how I never see you call anyone an idiot for not believing global warming exist CONTRARY TO ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. 

I’m not an elitist in any sense of the word.  I just happen to believe in science and questioning and exploration and intellect rather than fear and intimidation and subservience and unwavering belief in something that is an absolute physical impossibility.

So I guess unless you believe that everything a scientist says is automatically true, even though scientists are proven wrong (yes, by science) quite often, that you don’t believe in science.  You really need to get rid of your narrow, “believe everything I believer or else you’re an idiot” view of the world.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 08:44 AM from United Kingdom

Actually, Global Warming is a good comparision. There is no one denying Global warming by simply saying ‘god did it’. All the evidence against Global warming is based on science.

“Global warming is not fact becasue of X Y Z - look at the data I’ve collected from over here”.

Even not using the proper scientific terminology, (which has been discussed here ad nauseum) I would say that ID isn’t a theory, it is merely a ‘possibility’. Just as it is a ‘possibility’ that this is all a dream. Or that we actually blinked into existence last thursday by accident. Without any evidence that specifically points towards something being designed - it’s not science.

So I guess you think EVERYONE knows ALL the “evidence” that you speak of.  Let’s see how many more times that “evidence” will change, btw.  Soooo....are eggs bad for you or good for you now?

there is this strange beleif by proponents of ID that science itself is based on faith. Nothing is further from the truth - in fact the opposite is the case. It is testament to science that eggs are seen as bad one week, and then good the next, as science doesn’t take any of the answers it finds on face value.

Bring this to the evolution debate - you can point at the holes in evolution all you want, we know that they are there, becasue they were discovered by scientists. However, instead of throwing our hands up in the air and ASSUMING there must be a higher being at work, science realises the hole, and works to explain the hole. Even if that blows out the whole theory (which it hasn’t).

As in the case of the flight of the Bee - at no point did any scientist throw up their hands and say “Well I can’t explain it, it must be a magic Bumble Bee.”

CBass - It is now nearly 24 hours since I asked for the evidence that went over Drums head. I would still be interested (if only to see what might go over drums head). If I have missed it, I apologise, please just point me to which comment in which thread it was and I’ll find it myself. Alternatively a couple of key words I could put into the search engine would be fine.

By the way, I have read a couple Denbski books, and a creationist ‘anthology’ (Pentock? I don’t have it with me) - so hopefully I qualify to not be a ‘bigot’.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 09:48 AM from United States

Lee,

In regards to your original statement of: “You don’t think the fact that only shithead bible thumpers believe this drivel is significant?  It’s exactly the fucking point!”

You are still missing the point regarding my Carter example.  By setting up the argument as you have done, you are essentially creating guilt by intellectual association.  Since only fools believe in ID, if someone else believes in ID, they are therefore a fool and can be ignored.  It is a form of poisoning the well.

You keep bringing up the TV, but a TV is not a biological organism, and therefore has no evolutionary mechanism of any kind.  Even most of the proponents of ID freely admit that microevolution takes place, but you’ll never see microevolution in a TV either.  Does this mean that microevolution doesn’t exist?  You’ll never see a TV evolve into a better TV.

I believe ID proponents use the “TV example” because it illustrates an example of complexity that results from design and is impossible to obtain through random chance.  Microevolution has nothing to do with the T.V.

You’re looking at two complex systems, stating the fact that one of them can only come into being by design, and deducing that this proves that the other was designed as well.  But only life has its own mechanism by which it can improve itself and adapt, something your TV does not and will not ever have.

I do not believe the ID proponents would agree with that statement.  I believe what they are saying is that since macro evolution fails to make the leap from microbe to man and since random chance is bordering on statistically impossible, as impossible as a naturally occurring T.V. that this is therefore indicative of design.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 09:49 AM from United States

there is this strange beleif by proponents of ID that science itself is based on faith. Nothing is further from the truth - in fact the opposite is the case. It is testament to science that eggs are seen as bad one week, and then good the next, as science doesn’t take any of the answers it finds on face value.

You didn’t get my point.  I never said that science is based on faith.  All I was pointing out is that something that is considered “fact” now may very likely be proven “false” later, so saying that someone is an idiot because of scientific “evidence” that may be disproven later is wrong.

Bring this to the evolution debate - you can point at the holes in evolution all you want, we know that they are there, becasue they were discovered by scientists. However, instead of throwing our hands up in the air and ASSUMING there must be a higher being at work, science realises the hole, and works to explain the hole. Even if that blows out the whole theory (which it hasn’t).

Yet again, someone makes the assumption that since I’m deffending christians that I must not believe in science and that ID disproves evolution (btw, as you’ll notice, I never said I didn’t believe in evolution).

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 10:22 AM from Europe

All I was pointing out is that something that is considered “fact” now may very likely be proven “false” later,

I agree, but only up to a point. Small details, like this one, may change; but the chances of finding evidence which overturns the entire geological column, and suggests that all was created in six days, seems rather remote.

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 10:26 AM from United States

No, I dont’ call them a moron.  They have their beliefs and I have mine.  I have a friend who wants a socialist society because she thinks it will be perfect.  Do I think she’s a moron?  No.  Infact, if you ever talked to her on other matter, she’s rather intelligent.

“There are some ideas so bad that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” — George Orwell

Soooo....are eggs bad for you or good for you now?

Eggs are good for you.  However, when science thought eggs were bad for you, there wasn’t a group of people running around saying that eggs were good for you because God wanted them to be that way.  And if there had been, they would have been morons.

I’m not catholic, but don’t let your ignorance of christianity stop you from making comments about crucifixes and wether people are idiots for being pasionate when it comes to prayer (btw, still feeling that sting now knowing that they don’t just do it for the cameras?).

You misunderstood my point.  We all come on this blog all the time and give our opinions on just about every subject.  I’m critical of any number of things in the world around me.  The only people who get bent out of shape about it are the fucking Christians.  As a group, I have never met anyone with a more prominent persecution complex than Christians, except maybe for liberals.

And as for the “sting” of your comment, when did I ever say that there were people who didn’t pray that way regularly?  It doesn’t change my point at all.  I think that people who pray that way on a regular basis are doing so because they want to demonstrate the strength of their faith to those around them.  It’s like a pissing contest among wacko fundamentalists to see who is more filled with the spirit of the Lord.  Given that God is able to see into your heart and hear your prayers, there is absolutely no reason for writing and wailing during prayer at all, other than as a means of showing off to others who will be impressed by that sort of behavior.

Strange how I never see you call anyone an idiot for not believing global warming exist CONTRARY TO ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Actually, there is so much evidence showing the world is getting warmer, and that man has contributed to it, anyone who isn’t willing to concede this point is a fool.  There are plenty of areas with which to disagree with the radical environmentalist lunatics over the solution to the problem, or whether or not this is even a problem at all.  But only someone who is dogmatic in their views will be unwilling to admit that, for whatever reason, the earth is getting warmer.  It can’t be denied.

So I guess unless you believe that everything a scientist says is automatically true, even though scientists are proven wrong (yes, by science) quite often, that you don’t believe in science.  You really need to get rid of your narrow, “believe everything I believer or else you’re an idiot” view of the world.

You really don’t understand how science works.  I don’t believe everything a scientist says just because he said it.  That’s how religions work, and I’m not a religions guy.  I don’t have faith in anything.  I believe in what the evidence at the time leads me to believe.  If evidences comes up at a later date to show that the original theory was wrong, I’ll adopt the new theory.  This is the scientific process, and it’s responsible for the sum total of human knowledge.

However, ID is not a science.  It’s not that I object to anyone disproving evolution.  The only requirement is that they do so USING SCIENCE.  And merely pointing to areas for which we do not yet have a full understanding and saying “Well, this is evidence that God dod it” is intellectually weak.  Believe in ID all you like.  Believe in the flood myth, or that the moon is made of cheese, or any other ridiculous myth or superstition, no matter how implausible or unprovable.  But don’t come to me with your whining, insecure, petulant tone and expect me to accept your mumbo jumbo as scientific fact, because it’s nothing but pseudoscientific drivel parceled out to the true believers.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 10:28 AM from United Kingdom

You didn’t get my point.  I never said that science is based on faith.  All I was pointing out is that something that is considered “fact” now may very likely be proven “false” later, so saying that someone is an idiot because of scientific “evidence” that may be disproven later is wrong.

But the evidence isn’t (well rarely) disproven, the hypothesis is merely refined. So on your terms there is no such thing as ‘evidence’ ‘truth’ ‘facts’ and ‘logic’ becasue they might all be improved on later on, so we should give up, and attribute it to a supreme being?

Yet again, someone makes the assumption that since I’m deffending christians that I must not believe in science and that ID disproves evolution (btw, as you’ll notice, I never said I didn’t believe in evolution).

No I’m not. I’m saying that using the holes in evolutionary theory to point towards another explanation doesn’t work.

Even if we accepted that the evidence against evolution means that something else must have kick started the whole shebang - we’re still not talking in the realms of science, becasue we’re not answering or attempting to answer who, what, when , where or how.

Science asks questions and tries to answer them.

ID simply sidesteps the questions.

At least Creationists answer the questions!!!

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 10:38 AM from United States

You are still missing the point regarding my Carter example.  By setting up the argument as you have done, you are essentially creating guilt by intellectual association.  Since only fools believe in ID, if someone else believes in ID, they are therefore a fool and can be ignored.  It is a form of poisoning the well.

It’s not a poisoning of the well, because you keep phrasing it ass backwards.  ID is not a science, it is a religious concept.  I don’t need to disprove ID because I have the sum total of human scientific knowledge in support of my belief.  In addition to the sum total of human knowledge, I offer as proof of my assertion that ID is a religious concept by showing that the only people who actually believe this drivel are devoutly religious fundamentalist fools.  We all make value judgments like this a million times a day in our lives, and it’s not inappropriate to do so here.

I attack ID’s “science” using science.  I attack ID’s claim that it is not a religious belief by identifying the religious beliefs of its proponents.  And there is nothing dishonest about either.

I believe ID proponents use the “TV example” because it illustrates an example of complexity that results from design and is impossible to obtain through random chance.  Microevolution has nothing to do with the T.V.

It has everything to do with the TV, because it shows what a fucking stupid example the TV is.  There are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution.  All living organisms evolve.  Just about everyone, even the crackpot ID folks, are willing to concede that microevolution takes place.  In a similar manner, I am willing to admit that a TV could not come into being outside of being created.  But a TV, by virtue of being a living organism, has no means through which to evolve itself.  So you’re looking at a TV, something which cannot evolve in either a microevolutionary or macroevolutionary sense, and using it to support the idea that macroevolution could not have taken place.  But then shouldn’t the TV also prove that microevolution does not take place as well, since a TV cannot microevolve?  And since it is an indisputable face that microevolution takes (and is taking) place, doesn’t it make the TV a pretty fucking dumb comparison to make?

Not if you really, really, really want it to be a good comparison.

Yet again, someone makes the assumption that since I’m deffending christians that I must not believe in science and that ID disproves evolution (btw, as you’ll notice, I never said I didn’t believe in evolution).

Don’t come in here and argue the point that we should give due consideration to the arguments of Holocaust deniers and then not expect to get tarred with the Holocaust denier brush yourself.  If you defend idiocy, then you’re an idiot.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 10:47 AM from United States

(btw, still feeling that sting now knowing that they don’t just do it for the cameras?).

They may very well do it when the cameras aren’t there, but when the cameras ARE there, they’re doing it for the political and PR value, not because they think God will hear them better.

Once again, I refer you to Matthew 6:6. Does that mean that (since these people are defying a specific command from Jesus) these people are sinning when they pray that way (as a public demonstration)? Even when some of the Holy Rollers do that in church, that is still against what Jesus commanded us to do in that verse. I’ll reprint it here, since you obviously don’t know what it says (and I’ll include several of the surrounding verses, so you don’t think that I’m taking it out of context, although the emphasis is entirely mine):

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

(New International Version, since some of you don’t like it when I use the KJV.)

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 11:18 AM from United States

It’s not a poisoning of the well, because you keep phrasing it ass backwards.  ID is not a science, it is a religious concept.  I don’t need to disprove ID because I have the sum total of human scientific knowledge in support of my belief.  In addition to the sum total of human knowledge, I offer as proof of my assertion that ID is a religious concept by showing that the only people who actually believe this drivel are devoutly religious fundamentalist fools.  We all make value judgments like this a million times a day in our lives, and it’s not inappropriate to do so here.

Wrong, by characterizing the proponents of ID as moronic snake-handlers it allows you dismiss their few nuanced arguments.  Drumwaster dismisses ID using the following criteria: “it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior.” The same standard could be used to dismiss macro-evolution.  You are also dismissing those who are agnostic and believe that the odds are simply too great for life to be a random occurrence.

It has everything to do with the TV, because it shows what a fucking stupid example the TV is.  There are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution.  All living organisms evolve.

It is a stupid example if one purposefully distorts what its an example of.  The T.V. is not a commentary on evolution; it is a commentary on the “rule of large numbers.” The fact that we can distinguish between what was purposefully created and what was not indicates that at some point, large numbers and large odds are insufficient to explain what we are observing.  T.V.s don’t just happen.  Large numbers and odds alone are incapable of explaining its existence, therefore, we infer design.

This is a much more nuanced argument than: “I red it in teh bible.”

It is also a pertinent example because it ties directly into macro evolution.  Currently, the tie between microbe and man is unknown; however, you seem content to accept that time and chance are sufficient to explain their connection.  Like your characterization of ID, you don’t have the answers, yet you are fervently advocating your beliefs.

To claim there is no designer is to also make a religious claim, in this case, however, it is a profession of atheism.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 11:20 AM from United States

Lee, Drumwaster, britishcress, whoever...why don’t you godless heathens go to democratic underground? None of you understand ID theory at all, yet bash the fuck out of it, calling it religion, etc.

If anything, macroevolution is religion. Have any of you seen it? You haven’t, right? End of discussion

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 11:23 AM from United States

I always enjoy it when Drumwaster criticizes someone else’s interpretation of the Bible by quoting his interpretation of the Bible.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 11:28 AM from United States

Cbass’s example of the “biological machine” is one where multiple dependent parts work together and are incapable of working alone.  The point being that there is a large jump in complexity and it is not clear how a single or series of mutations would have caused this effect.

This is illustrative of something I don’t get about ID.  What’s the next step?  Once we find something that cannot be explained by current evolutionary evidence and theory, what do we do in the framework of ID?

1) Do we ‘quit’ and say that, “it had to be designed so that’s the end of it.  Let’s go have lunch”?

2) Do we begin asking why it was designed one way and not another?

3) Do we begin looking for who or what was the force/entity that designed it?

4) Do we begin looking at how and when it was made?

See, out of all the times that I’ve listened to someone talk about ID, I’ve never gotten a sense that they have a game plan.  How exactly does one research ID theory?  How do you expand human knowledge of the universe using ID as a framework?

My belief is that if you answer 1 in the above, you don’t belong in the discussion.  If you answer 2 ID becomes philosophy.  If you answer 3, ID becomes religion, and only if you answer 4 does ID have even the remotest chance of being considered scientific.

However, I present this:  Isn’t the theory of evolution in itself an attempt to explain how tremendously complex systems were made?  And doesn’t the theory of evolution try to estimate when the systems were made?

If you make ID scientific (i.e. - take out the who/what and the why and focus only on how and when), then researching it is not substantively different than researching evolution.

Examine the following dialogue to get an idea of how I feel talking about ID:

ID proponent: System XYZ is too complex to have come about by evolution, so it must have been designed.

Me: O.K., I’ll buy that.  Who designed it?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., how was it designed?  What were the mechanisms of design?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., why do new designs keep popping up through out the fossil record?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., do you have a hypothesis about how it all started?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., so let’s review.  You don’t know how this was made, you don’t know why it was made, you don’t know when it was made and you don’t know who made it, and on top of all of that you don’t care?  You haven’t added anything to this discussion other than to cut down an existing theory.

ID proponent: Fuck you!

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 11:31 AM from Europe

Drumwaster dismisses ID using the following criteria: “it neither relies on verifiable physical evidence, nor is it used to predict future behavior.” The same standard could be used to dismiss macro-evolution.

So, there’s no “verifiable physical evidence”. Except this lot, of course.

And, it’s not “used to predict future behavior”. Except when you’re developing new antibiotics, that is.

And, for crying out loud, TVs are, and always have been, dead! They can’t reproduce. And hence can’t evolve. End of story.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 11:33 AM from United States

Posted by karbox on 02/28/06 at 09:23 AM

I always enjoy it when Drumwaster criticizes someone else’s interpretation of the Bible by quoting his interpretation of the Bible.

I’ll use whatever version of the Bible You want. No matter how you look at it, Jesus is condemning those who pray in public as a demonstration as hypocrites and Pharisees.

Show me the version that says differently.

Like your characterization of ID, you don’t have the answers, yet you are fervently advocating your beliefs.

You, and all of the rest of the IDiots out there, are more than welcome to come up with better evidence. But simply pointing at what you see as shortcomings in one Theory does nothing to advance the likelihood of your own. Once again, that is an argument, not evidence.

Can any of you tell the difference? And can any of you actually point at EVIDENCE?

Because without evidence, it is purely speculation, and all of the claims that we are Godless heathens (LOL - someone hasn’t been paying attention, nor does she/he/it even know what the hell a religion actually is) do nothing to actually provide any.

Got proof?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 11:39 AM from United States

To claim there is no designer is to also make a religious claim, in this case, however, it is a profession of atheism.

Oh, so the Designer is some form of Diety, and (ipso facto) ID is a religion.

Thanks. Maybe cbass will come out of that particular closet one day…

But no one is saying that God doesn’t exist (except for our resident aXt, SO), especially not me.

What I have been arguing (and continue to argue) is that ID is not science, and does not belong in the Science classrooms.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 11:42 AM from United States

D proponent: System XYZ is too complex to have come about by evolution, so it must have been designed.

Me: O.K., I’ll buy that.  Who designed it?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., how was it designed?  What were the mechanisms of design?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., why do new designs keep popping up through out the fossil record?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., do you have a hypothesis about how it all started?

ID proponent: That’s not important, what’s important is that it could not have evolved on it’s own and therefore must have been designed.

Me: O.K., so let’s review.  You don’t know how this was made, you don’t know why it was made, you don’t know when it was made and you don’t know who made it, and on top of all of that you don’t care?  You haven’t added anything to this discussion other than to cut down an existing theory.

ID proponent: Fuck you!

That pretty much summed up all of yesterday.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 11:44 AM from United Kingdom

Retluocc said it better than I did. Listen to him.

And Drum - TV’s aren’t dead. They’re non living.

/pedantic.

:-)

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 11:52 AM from United States

You need to tell that to the ones making the argument, cress.

So is a pocketwatch. So is Big Ben, er, “the Clock Tower”.

I can show changes from one generation of a species to the next in a single generation. Don’t believe me? Ask any professional breeder. If evolution wasn’t predictable, they would be out of business, because “pure-bred” would be utterly meaningless.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:03 PM from United States

I can show changes from one generation of a species to the next in a single generation. Don’t believe me? Ask any professional breeder.

That’s not evolution, Drum. That’s the Devil trying to trick us!

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 12:08 PM from United States

Lee, Drumwaster, britishcress, whoever...why don’t you godless heathens go to democratic underground?

Go “back” to the Democratic Underground?  This is my fucking blog, you ignorant piece of shit.  Why don’t you go back to whatever snake-handling pit of ignorance you slithered out of and diddle yourself to the Bible.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:13 PM from United States

Yes but shat2006 has spoken. The discussion is over. Nothing to see here.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/28/06 at 12:20 PM from United States

Lee, Drumwaster, britishcress, whoever...why don’t you godless heathens go to democratic underground? None of you understand ID theory at all, yet bash the fuck out of it, calling it religion, etc.

Yeah Lee, you Christpuncher, ditch your own blog (where this particular idiot obviously frequents) and go to DU! There is no room for independent thought in the conservative movement! Conform or find the exit! And take all the non-believers with you - oh wait, theres that many of you leaving...? Its our (GO)Party and we’ll impose what we want to, impose what we want to (but don’t compare us to those damn libruls - for ours is the work of God) What of traditional GOP values such as the strict adherence to the Constitution? Separation of Church and State? We are doing Gods work I tells ya, Gods work! Mass baptisms scheduled for 10am, conform, resistance is futile!

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/28/06 at 12:30 PM from United States

We’re not godless heathens! We’re infidels! Sheesh, why can’t these people make up their minds! : )

But you’re right-Shitty2006 has spoken and we shall not question its will!

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:31 PM from United States

I’ll use whatever version of the Bible You want. No matter how you look at it, Jesus is condemning those who pray in public as a demonstration as hypocrites and Pharisees.
Show me the version that says differently.

Some are hypocrites, some are not.  For those that are not, are you claiming religious authority in your condemnation?  That your interpretation is the sole interpretation?

You, and all of the rest of the IDiots out there, are more than welcome to come up with better evidence. But simply pointing at what you see as shortcomings in one Theory does nothing to advance the likelihood of your own. Once again, that is an argument, not evidence.

It is humorous that you see a difference of opinion as a lack of intelligence.  It is also humorous to watch the supremacy with which the both of you argue your position.  Evolution as is does not explain everything, but you are presenting it as the one, true, and final answer.

Evolution has facts supporting its existence.  ID only infers its existence.  Explaining our current situation is a result of large numbers and time is equally an inference and as such, you are stating what you believe, not what you know.  This is what makes this argument so fascinating and repugnant, each side is unwilling to acknowledge the inherent weakness of their own positions and treat opposing beliefs with an iota of respect.  You and Lee do not know how we got here, you think you know how we got here.  The same is true of Cbass and everyone else.

Is ID worthy of being taught as fact? Hell no!  Does evolution answer all questions to such an extent that it allows you to insult heterodox views? Hell no!

This is just a big e-peen fight where each side wishes to use the issue as a platform to pronounce the superiority of their penis over everyone else.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/28/06 at 12:31 PM from United States

I always enjoy it when Drumwaster criticizes someone else’s interpretation of the Bible by quoting his interpretation of the Bible.

I fail to see how Drum may be “re-interpreting” this particular passage. The words are there just as the sky is blue. I guess its just me, as that particular passage has meant the same to me since I was a child growing up in Catholic school. But then again I am a heathen and a bigot so what do I know?

Yes but shat2006 has spoken. The discussion is over. Nothing to see here.

Note to sha2006: leave the debate to the big boys, your blind ideology obviously determines what side you are on.

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 12:40 PM from United States

Wrong, by characterizing the proponents of ID as moronic snake-handlers it allows you dismiss their few nuanced arguments.

How?  I’m more than willing to admit that there are holes in evolutionary theory, and have said so a thousand times.  But, and I’m going to stress this point, HOLES IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DO NOT IN ANY WAY LEAD ONE FUCKING SHRED OF CREDENCE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY.  INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE PROVED OR DISPROVED ON ITS OWN MERITS.  This is the standard that must be met, and he ID folks don’t even remotely come close to meeting it.

It is a stupid example if one purposefully distorts what its an example of.  The T.V. is not a commentary on evolution; it is a commentary on the “rule of large numbers.” The fact that we can distinguish between what was purposefully created and what was not indicates that at some point, large numbers and large odds are insufficient to explain what we are observing.  T.V.s don’t just happen.  Large numbers and odds alone are incapable of explaining its existence, therefore, we infer design.

Really?  We “infer” design when we look at a TV?  The difference between your asinine TV analogy and ID is that with a TV I know for an absolute fact that there was a designer, and that if I do a little research I can find out his name and what company he works for and where he lives.  The reason I can say with absolute 100% scientific certainly that a TV was designed is because I CAN FIND OUT WHO DESIGNED IT.  With ID there is no means to identify the designer, and none of the people whop believe this drivel are intellectually honest enough to admit that they all think it’s the Christian God of the Bible. 

So let’s take something for which there is no identifiable designer.  For years the Giant’s Causeway in Ireland was assumed to be man made.  A whole legend was created about it being the remains of a bridge once used by giants.  Unfortunately, that pesky science came along and showed how it was, indeed, a natural geological formation, despite how “designed” it appeared.  Then there’s the Bimini Road.  Some claim it’s natural, some claim it’s man-made, and some claim it is evidence of extraterrestrial life.  Science hasn’t shown one theory or the other to be correct yet.  Perhaps the Bible has some answers?

Inferring design is a stupid, non-scientific way of approaching a problem, whichj is exactly why ID proponents use it with such verve.

Currently, the tie between microbe and man is unknown; however, you seem content to accept that time and chance are sufficient to explain their connection.  Like your characterization of ID, you don’t have the answers, yet you are fervently advocating your beliefs.

I am perfectly content to accept that time and chance are sufficient to explain their connection because that is where all our current evidence leads us.  I don’t have the pressing need to validate my own personal superstitions by filling in the gap with angels.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:43 PM from United States

Well said Retluocc1. Trying to have a resonable discussion about ID is proving to be impossible.

It respect to cbass,

ok I get you have a Scientific basis for your belief that ID is a science.

I will accept you don’t believe ID is a religion or religiously based.

I will take your arguments for the above and assume you believe ID has been hijacked by the fundies as an alternative to Evolution and the whole creator thing just gets them wet and hostile blurring any real discussion or debate over the scientific validity of ID. I will attempt to read Behe so you can no longer cal be a bigot and see ya on the next flame regarding ID.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 12:46 PM from United States

Some are hypocrites, some are not.

Well, hell, I guess I’ll take your word over that of Jesus. Those were His words, not mine. HE calls them hypocrites, but since you know better, that ends it.

For those that are not, are you claiming religious authority in your condemnation?  That your interpretation is the sole interpretation?

How else would you interpret that particular passage? Please, enlighten us as to what Jesus means when He says, “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men”? Or what He means when He continues, “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray”?

Lots of gray area there, isn’t there? Enlighten Us, Oh Half-Vast One. Tell us what He really meant.

It is humorous that you see a difference of opinion as a lack of intelligence.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Evolution as is does not explain everything, but you are presenting it as the one, true, and final answer.

Not at all. I would be happy to hear something that actually answers all of the questions. You IDiots don’t because the answer you have to anything you can’t understand is “God did it, that ends it”. That’s why it isn’t science.

This is just a big e-peen fight where each side wishes to use the issue as a platform to pronounce the superiority of their penis over everyone else.

At least we have actual evidence of having a penis. Do you have any evidence to support your viewpoint?

Thought not.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:47 PM from United States

Listen up heathens:

When the antiPasto rises from the east, we will see the second coming of His Holiness, FSM. They will then engage in a gastric battle of epicurean proportions. Those left at the table will burn in their throats for eternity, having denied the truth: R-O-L-A-I-D-S.

Ramen.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 12:58 PM from United States

I hope you were wearing the pirate suit, mister. The FSM shall not be mocked!

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 12:58 PM from United States

I was thinking about teratogens and spontaneous mutations last night, you want big jumps, here you go. We know what teratognes can do, and we only are really made aware of the fatal ones, well since they are fatal. How many others that are not fatal happen everyday and get mixed up with the gene pool?

Developemental scienes are looking at the whole nature vs nurture in gene expression.

ID explains a complex machine we see today must have been designed since it is too complex to have evolved?

Sorry, I need more than that for me to take ID seriously.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 01:03 PM from United States

I hope you were wearing the pirate suit, mister.

I was wearing me buccaneers right under me buccan hat.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 01:15 PM from United States

Well, hell, I guess I’ll take your word over that of Jesus. Those were His words, not mine. HE calls them hypocrites, but since you know better, that ends it.

You are presuming to know the motivations of others; you are presuming to monopolize the scripture so you may then use it as tool to attack those who practice a form of faith with which you disagree.  You are using the Bible to condemn the faith of others.  You are acting no different than any other piss ant tyrant who seeks to use snippets of scripture to justify their personal prejudices.

Lots of gray area there, isn’t there? Enlighten Us, Oh Half-Vast One. Tell us what He really meant.

I am not arrogant enough to attempt to speak for God; I leave that to the likes of you and Pat Robertson.

Not at all. I would be happy to hear something that actually answers all of the questions. You IDiots don’t because the answer you have to anything you can’t understand is “God did it, that ends it”. That’s why it isn’t science.

If only that were their actual argument, life would be so simple then.  Rather, you assign them that argument because it is easier to attack.  ID proponents could safely argue that even if the method were known, the statistical improbability of it actually occurring is enough to infer the presence of a designer.

I picked this fight because so much of your rhetoric is needlessly insulting.  Not every theist is a mouth breathing buffoon who denies science.  A belief in a god should not result in an automatic insult upon someone’s intelligence.  Many, not all, of the anti-ID crowd are speaking in absolutes, i.e. Lee claiming that” the only people who actually believe this drivel are devoutly religious fundamentalist fools.”

You are correct in many of your points, but there is little need to overly simplify the debate or gleefully shit on those that disagree.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 01:39 PM from United States

You are using the Bible to condemn the faith of others.

Not their faith. Their works. (Even the Bible makes that distinction.)

You are acting no different than any other piss ant tyrant who seeks to use snippets of scripture to justify their personal prejudices.

I draw no judgments. I merely pointed out that Jesus called people like that ‘hypocrites’. If you have other verses that contradict Jesus, feel free to provide them. Until then, I think I’ll listen to what He said.

I am not arrogant enough to attempt to speak for God; I leave that to the likes of you and Pat Robertson.

I’m not speaking for Him, I’m just pointing out to you what He actually said. And what He said is that people who pray out in public are hypocrites. (If you think there is another interpretation, I invite you to put it out there, with suitable Biblical authority to back it up.) Now I have no idea WHY He said it, but the fact is irrefutable.

If only that were their actual argument, life would be so simple then.

You’re trying to use semantics to change “we don’t understand it, so it must have been designed” into something else. Feel free, but the farther you get from that argument, the farther you get from ID.

Now, do YOU have any evidence? Or is this just another of the “you can’t understand” tactics used when you can’t show anything else?

I picked this fight because so much of your rhetoric is needlessly insulting.

I insult not because I have nothing else. I leave that to the IDiots. I insult because I enjoy it. So while it may be “needlessly”, I’m the one who determines that particular need. (Besides, if you can’t handle the heat, maybe you should evaluate what is causing you to take so much of it. And change it.)

You are correct in many of your points, but there is little need to overly simplify the debate or gleefully shit on those that disagree.

I don’t shit on those who disagree, I shit on those that need it the most. And again, I’m the one who determines that need. And as for “overly simplifying”, that wasn’t me. I’m the one who keeps demanding the evidence, only to hear the same old bullshit. If that isn’t simplifying on the part of the IDiots, then you are obviously misusing the word. Or, as Inigo Montoya would say, “I do not think that it means what you think that it means.”

Not every theist is a mouth breathing buffoon who denies science.

Oh, I know. I am one. I am quietly, but deeply, religious. However, I have no illusions about what religion is, and what it is not, and what Science is and what it is not.

Intelligent Design is religion’s attempts to admit to the mountain of evidence, and fill in any gaps with “We don’t know, so it must have been God” (or other words which mean the same thing).

ID has no evidence to support it. None whatsoever. Pointing at flaws in other Theories does nothing to advance alternate theories, which must be argued on their own merits. They are arguments, not evidence. ID does not belong in Science classrooms, any more than a Van de Graaf generator belongs in Sunday School.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 01:59 PM from United States

I was wearing me buccaneers right under me buccan hat.

Okay, whoever makes the next bad pun (well, any pun since all are equally bad) gets shot.
Posted by on 02/28/06 at 02:10 PM from United States

I was wearing me buccaneers right under me buccan hat.

Okay, whoever makes the next bad pun (well, any pun since all are equally bad) gets shot.

Oh come on, that’s funny! Slow day for me, haven’t heard it for a while.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 02:17 PM from United States

Okay, whoever makes the next bad pun (well, any pun since all are equally bad) gets shot.

Just ye try it and ye be dancin’ the hempen jig, powder monkey!

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 02:56 PM from United States

In regards to Jesus and hypocrites, I take exception to what you have said because you are making a religious argument where one need not be made.  The problem is not the contradiction between the bible and their beliefs, the problem is that they are full of shit.  In your quotation of the Bible, you are making the argument that they are practicing a false form of faith, i.e. doing what is contrary to what is commanded.  This argument, of course, assumes that you know the proper form of prayer and that you possess the knowledge and qualification to determine what actions are in accordance with the bible.

You’re trying to use semantics to change “we don’t understand it, so it must have been designed” into something else. Feel free, but the farther you get from that argument, the farther you get from ID.

That is not what ID is saying either, they are arguing that our current state is impossible to achieve via large numbers and time.  This is a substantially different argument than claiming the Bible as proof because even if we knew precisely how we got here, they could still make the same argument.  I view this to be a key distinction because it defies the label that ID only argues from ignorance.

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/28/06 at 02:58 PM from United Kingdom

ID proponents are assuming a binary situation.  A closer example would be three people (A,B, and C) are alive and locked in a room.

A is found dead when the door is opened.  Who commited the murder, B or C?

Well, if B is a parapalegic, and incapable of moving then the guilty party is C.

The proponents of ID are stating that there are only two choices: evolution or design.  If one fails, then the other wins.

What if we don’t even know that C is in the room in the first place? Then you’ll probably put it down to suicide.

Who says that there are only two choices anyway? You can pick holes in evolution but that DOES NOT support ID - especially as the holes in ID are 10 miles wide.

And don’t forget this. Does that not show a trasitional form from a normal to a flat fish?

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 03:05 PM from United States

The example is the example.  It is given to you exactly as is to illustrate a binary situation. Ta-da!  What Ifs are nothing more than an attempt to pervert the example and change its meaning.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 03:08 PM from United States

In your quotation of the Bible, you are making the argument that they are practicing a false form of faith, i.e. doing what is contrary to what is commanded.

Their problem, not mine. Are you denying that those are Jesus’ words? Are you suggesting that he meant something entirely different than what the words actually mean? If so, then advance the argument, and supply the evidence. Until then, I will still believe that Jesus said exactly what He meant, and meant exactly what He said.

If there are those who claim to worship in His name by having sex with random strangers, would you say that I was making a religious argument by pointing out that the Bible actually says that you should be faithful to your spouse?

That is not what ID is saying either, they are arguing that our current state is impossible to achieve via large numbers and time.

That’s my point. That is an ARGUMENT, not evidence. Can you tell the difference?

An argument without evidence is an unfounded assertion, and that is all that ID has - unfounded assertions against Evolution. They have nothing else to argue. That is nothing more than combining an argument from incredulity (that because we cannot explain how random chance can produce something that looks designed, we will never be able to do so - which ignores all of Human History) with a False Dilemma (that since one alternative might not be true, the other one MUST be - meanwhile ignoring that there may be other alternatives).

But even if they were speaking the truth - that these faults are so massive that it completely collapses the entire mountain range of data, collected around the world over the last fifteen decades across a dozen sciences - that does nothing to actually prove their own position. That is something none of them seem to grasp.

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/28/06 at 03:11 PM from United Kingdom

The example is the example.  It is given to you exactly as is to illustrate a binary situation. Ta-da!  What Ifs are nothing more than an attempt to pervert the example and change its meaning.

To a meaning more in tune with reality? Again, why is the whole ID thing is a binary situation? How on Earth can you justify: not evolution implies designer.

Especially we know of no designer capable of doing the job.

With the Mount Rushmore and plasma tv examples we do have a candidate designer (man) so the design argument is sensible.

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 03:11 PM from United States

Here’s my comment from above, posted in non-fucked up format.

Wrong, by characterizing the proponents of ID as moronic snake-handlers it allows you dismiss their few nuanced arguments.

How?  I’m more than willing to admit that there are holes in evolutionary theory, and have said so a thousand times.  But, and I’m going to stress this point, HOLES IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DO NOT IN ANY WAY LEAD ONE FUCKING SHRED OF CREDENCE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY.  INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE PROVED OR DISPROVED ON ITS OWN MERITS.  This is the standard that must be met, and he ID folks don’t even remotely come close to meeting it.

It is a stupid example if one purposefully distorts what its an example of.  The T.V. is not a commentary on evolution; it is a commentary on the “rule of large numbers.” The fact that we can distinguish between what was purposefully created and what was not indicates that at some point, large numbers and large odds are insufficient to explain what we are observing.  T.V.s don’t just happen.  Large numbers and odds alone are incapable of explaining its existence, therefore, we infer design.

Really?  We “infer” design when we look at a TV?  The difference between your asinine TV analogy and ID is that with a TV I know for an absolute fact that there was a designer, and that if I do a little research I can find out his name and what company he works for and where he lives.  The reason I can say with absolute 100% scientific certainly that a TV was designed is because I CAN FIND OUT WHO DESIGNED IT.  With ID there is no means to identify the designer, and none of the people whop believe this drivel are intellectually honest enough to admit that they all think it’s the Christian God of the Bible. 

So let’s take something for which there is no identifiable designer.  For years the Giant’s Causeway in Ireland was assumed to be man made.  A whole legend was created about it being the remains of a bridge once used by giants.  Unfortunately, that pesky science came along and showed how it was, indeed, a natural geological formation, despite how “designed” it appeared.  Then there’s the Bimini Road.  Some claim it’s natural, some claim it’s man-made, and some claim it is evidence of extraterrestrial life.  Science hasn’t shown one theory or the other to be correct yet.  Perhaps the Bible has some answers?

Inferring design is a stupid, non-scientific way of approaching a problem, whichj is exactly why ID proponents use it with such verve.

Currently, the tie between microbe and man is unknown; however, you seem content to accept that time and chance are sufficient to explain their connection.  Like your characterization of ID, you don’t have the answers, yet you are fervently advocating your beliefs.

I am perfectly content to accept that time and chance are sufficient to explain their connection because that is where all our current evidence leads us.  I don’t have the pressing need to validate my own personal superstitions by filling in the gap with angels.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 03:33 PM from United States

Oh come on, that’s funny! Slow day for me, haven’t heard it for a while.

There is no such thing as a funny pun.
Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 03:43 PM from United States

Well, you know that a straight line is the shortest distance between two puns…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 03:47 PM from United States

Lee, your link to the Giant Causeway is hosed…

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 04:04 PM from United States

Throws things at Drum.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 04:19 PM from United States

Hey, didn’t you catch my meaning?

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 04:20 PM from United States

Lee, your link to the Giant Causeway is hosed…

Fuck.  It was just a link to the Google search, anyway.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 04:40 PM from United States

I don’t have the pressing need to validate my own personal superstitions by filling in the gap with angels.

But you do have the pressing need to insult anyone how agress with you? Uh huh, sure am glad you are taking the intellectual high ground here Lee, not like them knuckle-dragging IDer’s or creationists.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 04:46 PM from United States

But you do have the pressing need to insult anyone how agress with you?

Should be “disagrees”.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 05:04 PM from United States

Denial? Hey, you’re the one that completely ignored the point, choosing instead to fixate on his misspelling.

You are the one fixating, Drum. Even a ten-year-old should be able to figure out that I was using sarcasm when I said he misspelled. What I really meant was that he used the wrong word. Which he did.

The sum total of your reply to his point was “you misspelled ‘illustrate’”.

But you pretend to not get what I was really driving at. He SHOULD have used the word “illustrate” instead of “support”, because that’s what I was doing, illustrating, NOT “supporting”.

By saying that he misspelled, I was simply being sarcastic.

But you know that. You’re just trolling.

But you claim that I’m the one denying facts?

Absolutely. You ignore the fact that I was correcting Lee’s misrepresentation of what I said.

(another shovelful gets tossed on top}

Indeed.

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 05:18 PM from United States

But you do have the pressing need to insult anyone how agress with you? Uh huh, sure am glad you are taking the intellectual high ground here Lee, not like them knuckle-dragging IDer’s or creationists.

As I’ve said a million times before, it’s not like I’m just insulting people.  I also include an argument with the insults.  I insult people. I speak honestly what I think.  Liberals are scum, and ID folks are morons.  Disagree with me all you like, but don’t piss and moan because I dare to say what I actually think.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 05:31 PM from United States

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 02:39 PM

I’m not speaking for Him, I’m just pointing out to you what He actually said. And what He said is that people who pray out in public are hypocrites. (If you think there is another interpretation, I invite you to put it out there, with suitable Biblical authority to back it up.) Now I have no idea WHY He said it, but the fact is irrefutable.

Irrefutable??

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 05:37 PM from United States

Disagree with me all you like, but don’t piss and moan because I dare to say what I actually think.

You have all but admitted to not actually studying the topic of creationism whatseoever, in this thread. How can you in good mind be so adamant about a topic you admit you know very little about?

My problem has never been that people disagree with me. In all honestly I have never really even tried to change someone’s mind on this board, that is as futile as trying drain the ocean. The entire reason I post on these topics is to show you people that there IS more to creationism than just “because the Bible says so”. There is hard evidence of it happening. Now maybe you dismiss the evidence, or don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it exists.

And just getting up on a soap box, and sticking your fingers in your ears while mocking the dissenters does nothing but make you look like a fool.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 05:55 PM from United States

Who says that there are only two choices anyway?

You have an object in your hand. Either it was designed, or it was not.

What is the third alternative?

No, the issue is quite dichotomous—either an artifact is a product of design, or it is not.

Anyone claiming this to be a “false dichotomy” needs to come up with an actual third possibility. And if you get metaphysical (ie, “There may be other possibilities, we just don’t know what they are") then you are being duplicitous if you criticize ID’s “reliance” on “metaphysical entites” or “supernatural entities” or whatnot.

Claiming some mystical third alternative is a cop-out, a flagrantly unscientific one, at that.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:02 PM from United States

I will take your arguments for the above and assume you believe ID has been hijacked by the fundies as an alternative to Evolution and the whole creator thing just gets them wet and hostile blurring any real discussion or debate over the scientific validity of ID.

Finally! Someone GETS IT!!

I will attempt to read Behe so you can no longer cal be a bigot and see ya on the next flame regarding ID.

This is all I ever asked of anybody.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 02/28/06 at 06:15 PM from United States

For those who are getting all butt-hurt over Lee’s insults: How is this any different than how he usually acts and/or treats a subject? I’ve visited this site for about two years now, I see no difference in the way Lee treats a subject, that is often with humor and/or insults when warranted - its just how he rolls. Personally his humor is one of the reasons why I frequent his blog, I identify with his humor, I like how he can mix it with his outlook on politics, society, etc and pepper it with insults when warranted. And often it seems like a lot of the folks who are bitching now, freely engage in insulting things like libruls and Mooslims when he does but when he turns his focus on something they hold sacred its: HOW DARE HE?!?! Lee is what I like to call an EOO - Equal Oppotunity Offender. He calls it like HE (operative word here) sees it, I can respect that. I don’t agree with him on everything but when I do I don’t get all butt-hurt and offended, it doesn’t comsume me and keep me up at night. (noone has the right to be offended for that matter) Remember if you don’t like Lee’s style and/or approach to debate YOU have the FREEDOM to not come here, read, debate, post, etc.
I am honestly surprised this thread has lived as long as it has. However its looks like both sides just finally need to just acknowledge that they’re not going to change the other sides opinions.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 06:22 PM from United States

Irrefutable??

What? Did I misspell the word? Did you not know what it means?

You have all but admitted to not actually studying the topic of creationism

I don’t have to study tomes of work that “prove” that the Earth is flat to refute them, especially when they have nothing but suppositions and flawed logic backing them up.

What is the third alternative?

So was God Designed, or was he a result of random forces?

Or is there a third option?

No, the issue is quite dichotomous—either an artifact is a product of design, or it is not.

And your whole evidence that an object is designed is “well, just LOOK at it!”

That’s not evidence, and never will be.

But thanks for admitting that you cannot tell the difference between evidence and argument.

This is all I ever asked of anybody.

I mean, can’t you SEE that the Earth is flat? I’ve got books that prove it and everything!

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/28/06 at 06:29 PM from United Kingdom

You have an object in your hand. Either it was designed, or it was not.

No, ID reasoning works on the premise that either it was designed or it came about through Darwinism:

cbass: It’s Darwinism that is at issue.

Darwinism vs ID is not either-or - it can be neither.

Also, there are a few questions that you still haven’t aswered:

1) Is there ANY argument behind ID that DOESN’T rely on attacking some aspect of evolution?

2) Do you not think that the plaice is a good reason to believe evolution?

Could you please answer these questions clearly in you next post.

Thank you

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:31 PM from United States

So was God Designed, or was he a result of random forces?

If God exists, he clearly is not on our plane of existence, so to assume he his bound to the same laws we are is just asinine.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:34 PM from United States

My belief is that if you answer 1 in the above, you don’t belong in the discussion.  If you answer 2 ID becomes philosophy.  If you answer 3, ID becomes religion, and only if you answer 4 does ID have even the remotest chance of being considered scientific.

Fair enough. You at least choose not to make the universal claim that ID “will never ever be science”, which strikes me as an unscientific claim in its own right.

However, I present this:  Isn’t the theory of evolution in itself an attempt to explain how tremendously complex systems were made?  And doesn’t the theory of evolution try to estimate when the systems were made?

Well, the Darwinian model of evolution, the one espoused by Dawkins and Gould and their group, says that things evolved through gradual, extremely small changes over vast periods of time. Now, there are other evolutionalry models, Punctuated Equilibruim being one that tries to explain some failings of the Darwinian model, namely, things like the Cambrian Explosion. PE basically states that some organisms evolved quite rapidly, and then stayed in a period of relative stasis, which attempts to explain the Cambrian Explosion and the fact that there is stasis in the record.

ID simply says that the Darwinian model is incapable of producing certain artifacts, which, for the record, is not the same as claiming “evolution” couldn’t produce them—just provide an appropriate model, and back it up with evidence. Do that and ID is falsified.

ID also says that design can be determined objectively.

If you make ID scientific (i.e. - take out the who/what and the why and focus only on how and when), then researching it is not substantively different than researching evolution.

Indeed.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:35 PM from United States

1) Is there ANY argument behind ID that DOESN’T rely on attacking some aspect of evolution?

Yes, and considering that creationism was around before evolution, I would that was a stupid question.

2) Do you not think that the plaice is a good reason to believe evolution?

I don’t understand the question.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:36 PM from United States

So was God Designed, or was he a result of random forces?

Oh, so the object in your hand ALWAYS EXISTED then?

That clears it up.

After all, that is the claim re:God—He Always Existed.

Of course, He doesn’t really exist at all, so nice straw man.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 06:37 PM from United States

However its looks like both sides just finally need to just acknowledge that they’re not going to change the other sides opinions.

I would be happy to. But you gotta do it with actual evidence. So far, ID doesn’t have any, only arguments against Evolution. And all of cbass’ stupidity and snarkiness doesn’t change that.

(C’mon, cbass, dazzle us with the brilliance of your standard “fuck you!” which, of course, trumps all arguments, facts, and logic.)

There is hard evidence of it happening.

Really? Maybe you can show us some. Because all cb has been able to come up with is to point at something and say “Isn’t it obvious?!?” and his intellectual Aces-in-the-hole of “you’re an idiot if you don’t agree!” and “fuck you!”

Yeah, that’ll really convince people.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:42 PM from United States

And your whole evidence that an object is designed is “well, just LOOK at it!”

That’s not evidence, and never will be.

Nice reasoning there, Drum. After all, evidence is stuff we LOOK at, UNLESS (apparently) it’s evidence in support of ID.

In THAT case, the fact that we LOOK at it somehow proves it isn’t really evidence.

Do we not LOOK at the fossil record? DNA? Experimental results?

Do we not LOOK thru telecopes? Microscopes?

Thanks for such a crysal clear illustration of abject duplicity.

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/28/06 at 06:44 PM from United Kingdom

Dirk, those questions were actually aimed at cbass, but the more the merrier.

Yes, and considering that creationism was around before evolution, I would that was a stupid question.

But creationism is religion which is apparently nothing to do with ID.

I don’t understand the question.

Plaice

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:55 PM from United States

And your whole evidence that an object is designed is “well, just LOOK at it!”

That’s not evidence, and never will be.

I would like to ask for clarification.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:56 PM from United States

C’mon, cbass, dazzle us with the brilliance of your standard “fuck you!” which, of course, trumps all arguments, facts, and logic.

Way to put words in mouths again, Drum. I admit I have said “fuck off” in response to someone else’s smarminess, and “what the fuck you’re rejecting”, but I have yet to say “fuck you” to anybody.

Of course, as you repeatedly demonstrate, facts are irrelevant. Character assasination is all that matters.

I would be happy to. But you gotta do it with actual evidence. So far, ID doesn’t have any, only arguments against Evolution.

ID does have evidence. Drum simply rejects it by calling it “only arguments against Evolution”, even though it is a positive argument FOR design. The argument against Darwinism (NOT “Evolution") is just a side effect, as it were.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 06:58 PM from United States

For the record, tinyurl is scary.  I am always afraid that a Goatse or Tubgirl variant will appear on my screen.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:02 PM from United States

Liberals are scum, and ID folks are morons.

Morons huh? Let me give you a short list of some of these “morons”.

Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay. Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz. Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier. Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder. Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz.

And of course lets not forget Einstein. Good thing these knuckle draggers never got into an science books…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 07:06 PM from United States

Nice reasoning there, Drum.

Don’t point at me, dumbass, YOU’RE the one making those claims.

Do we not LOOK at the fossil record? DNA? Experimental results?

Yes, and there is actually something there to see, not just “I can’t explain this, so it must be the work of God!”. They all point towards random selection and massive quantities of time with which to work. You have nothing but arguments against Evolution. You have nothing that points ONLY at Intelligent Creationism, just differing interpretations of biological processes that you can’t understand.

Do you have anything that actually points towards the actual existence of a Designer? And have you grown enough hair on your sac to actually indentify that Designer? Or are you going to deny that there is such a Being? (Or, maybe your stock answer to uncomfortable questions of “fuck you!”?)

Talk about duplicity. You have denied believing anything at all, just in this thread!

Of course, I will give you one final opportunity to explain the mechanism by which the Designer (the same one that you deny exists) made those things? And when?

You do have those explanations, don’t you? I mean, ID is Science, is it not? Here’s your chance. Do that Science shit you claim you have…

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:08 PM from United States

Uh, you know those people were “ID folks” how?

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:11 PM from United States

ID does have evidence.

I’ve been reading these threads here for quite some time and have yet to see any real evidence presented in support of ID. But, I’m all ears (or eyes).

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 07:14 PM from United States

As long as you keep calling it “Darwinism”, I’ll start calling it “Intelligent Creationism”.

Way to put words in mouths again, Drum. I admit I have said “fuck off” in response to someone else’s smarminess, and “what the fuck you’re rejecting”, but I have yet to say “fuck you” to anybody.

Yeah, there’s a lot of difference, is there?

I would like to ask for clarification.

cb points at something he can’t explain, and says, “See? Isn’t that proof enough for you? If not, you must be an idiot!”

Which, that’s not evidence, that’s an argument against Evolution. Only a fool would think otherwise. (Gee, that really works! thx, cb!)

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:14 PM from United States

Uh, you know those people were “ID folks” how?

It’s called history. Research the people, their beleifs are well known. Let give you an example. Does anyone know Benjamin Franklin’s beleifs.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 07:39 PM from United States

Posted by Dirk Steele on 02/28/06 at 05:14 PM

Uh, you know those people were “ID folks” how?

It’s called history. Research the people, their beleifs are well known.

And they were all proponents of Intelligent Creationism? Or are you talking about their religious beliefs? (I understand you confusing the two, seeing how closely they are intertwined, but still...)

Does anyone know Benjamin Franklin’s beleifs.

Yes. He proposed a turkey instead of an eagle as the National symbol.

Or are you still talking about Intelligent Creationism?

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:42 PM from United States

Irrefutable??

What? Did I misspell the word? Did you not know what it means?

No, spelling is not the issue, but having irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence intrigues me.  Can you document that please?

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 07:51 PM from United States

And they were all proponents of Intelligent Creationism?

Yes

Or are you still talking about Intelligent Creationism?

Actually no, he was a deist. Not a Christian. I really don’t know his beleifs on the origin of life. But that wasn’t the point Drum. I was just trying to get someone else to say he was a deist so that the fact that some peoples beleifs are not lost in time.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 07:55 PM from United States

Maybe I spoke sloppily. The fact that those words are attributed to Christ are irrefutable. Black letter, direct quotes, and all that.

But karb’s problem is that we were criticizing those hypocrites who were standing out on the street corners, wailing and moaning and gnashing their teeth, but only when the cameras showed up.

Jesus is quoted as calling them hypocrites, and karb took offense.

Those are not my words. But karb thinks I’m the one making the point (referring to me as “the same as those petty tyrants”, so His words must strike close to karb’s pew…

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 08:16 PM from United States

Fair enough, Drum. 

I do have a question for you.  I’m too lazy to search for your post, but I believe I read earlier that you identified yourself as a Christian (if not, quit reading now).  If that is the case, explain how it’s acceptable for you to have a belief rooted in faith, but require cbass (et al) to ‘prove’ their beliefs with facts and evidence.  I don’t mean to sound argumentative, and this isn’t meant to win the ID vs Darwinism debate (I don’t have the education to partake). 

Is it reasonable to have such demanding requirements of evidence put on others, yet be unable to provide evidence for one of your own beliefs?  Please take the question for what it is-- I realize your main disagreement with cbass is ‘ID is not science’ and my question has drifted off topic, but I’d be truly interested to hear how you’d answer this question.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 08:17 PM from United States

No, Drum, my problem is that you even though you are unable to distinguish between the frauds and the true belivers, you lump them all into the same camp, and roundly condemn them all.

You do so using the Bible, and given the great diversity of faith which has arisen from a single text, claiming your interpretation is the determination for what is or is not a Christian act is lauguable at best.  Using your quote and the subsequent claim, the Pope is not acting like a true Christian because he prays in public.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 08:28 PM from United States

Posted by Dirk Steele on 02/28/06 at 05:51 PM

And they were all proponents of Intelligent Creationism?

Yes

Wow, all that time, and still not a scrap of evidence that supports it.

You’d think after all that time that they could come up with something stronger than “See The World. The complexity of its existence implies a Creator. This Creator we call God, so bow down and worship Him, for His works proclaim His might.”

The catch is the word “implies”. That makes it an argument, not evidence.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 08:35 PM from United States

You do so using the Bible, and given the great diversity of faith which has arisen from a single text, claiming your interpretation is the determination for what is or is not a Christian act is lauguable at best.

Take it up with Jesus. He’s the one calling them hypocrites. I just happen to agree.

And I have asked you at least three times now to supply an alternate interpretation to “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men”?

How else would you interpret that? Simply accusing me of getting it wrong does nothing to erase the fact that the words are right there. I’ve looked at a dozen different version of the Bible now (Look for yourself), and they all say basically the same thing.

If you have more accurate interpretations, put it out there and supply your evidence, but don’t just say I’m wrong without telling us what is “right”.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 08:42 PM from United States

Wow, all that time, and still not a scrap of evidence that supports it.

Wow Drum, you just took what I said WAY out of context.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 09:15 PM from United States

No Drum, you are assuming that Jesus would call these men hypocrits.  You have no way of knowing how he would evaluate this current situation or if he would lump them all together.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 09:28 PM from United States

No Drum, you are assuming that Jesus would call these men hypocrits.

“Assuming”? He DOES call them hypocrites.

Are you saying that if He only knew the facts that He would feel differently? Who was it again that claimed that he wouldn’t dare to speak for Him?

Once more, how else can “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men” be interpreted?

C;mon, karb, you’ve been asked several times how you would interpret that passage, and you have only said that mine (which is a direct quote) is somehow wrong, and that you know better.

Put it out there and tell us what Jesus meant when he said “hypocrites”, with your evidence to back it up. Or concede that when He said “hypocrites”, He {gasp!} actually meant “hypocrites”.

Show me.

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 09:33 PM from United States

You are assuming that Jesus, today, would call men, both fraudlent and honest, hypocrites because they prayed while a camera was present.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/28/06 at 09:35 PM from United States

Hoo boy, people are STILL trying to push their junk science, er, theory? BTW, speaking of religious whackos, this is the thirteenth anniversary of the beginning of the Waco siege.

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 09:43 PM from United States

Why is it that almost none of you capitalize “He” when referring to Jesus or God, yet I, the Christ-punching leftist, always do?

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 09:44 PM from United States

You do so using the Bible, and given the great diversity of faith which has arisen from a single text…

So which one is right?

Posted by mikeguas on 02/28/06 at 09:46 PM from United States

BTW, speaking of religious whackos, this is the thirteenth anniversary of the beginning of the Waco siege.

Which whackos, the ones inside, or the ones surrounding it?

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 09:46 PM from United States

Why is it that almost none of you capitalize “He” when referring to Jesus or God, yet I, the Christ-punching leftist, always do?

Because like Drumwaster’s hypocrits, you are only concerned that people take notice of your public display of respect. :P

You do so using the Bible, and given the great diversity of faith which has arisen from a single text…

So which one is right?

No fucking clue.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 09:50 PM from United States

You are assuming that Jesus, today, would call men, both fraudlent and honest, hypocrites because they prayed while a camera was present.

You continue to claim that I am doing that, but no matter how many times you say it, it will never be true.

What I AM saying is that Jesus has ALREADY CALLED THEM ‘HYPOCRITES’, and so when Billy Biblethumper stands out there on the street corner so that everyone can see how pious he is, I don’t care whether a camera is there to spread the image to TVs all over the country or not. The simple fact that he is doing so for public consumption is enough for me, just as it was for Jesus. That fact alone was enough for Jesus to call him a hypocrite.

YOU are the one that is assuming that Jesus WOULDN’T do so (despite the clear evidence that He alreasy has done so), if only He knew all the facts.

If you think Jesus would act differently, then tell us what He would do, and provide the evidence. But quit telling me that my interpretation is wrong (even though I’m not interpreting, I’m merely quoting) without actually showing why.

Why are you taking this so personally? Wondering if Jesus actually meant what He said? Worried about what might happen if He did? Better get it right, big guy, because “not a sparrow shall fall”, and Jesus is watching you…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 09:52 PM from United States

Posted by Lee on 02/28/06 at 07:43 PM

Why is it that almost none of you capitalize “He” when referring to Jesus or God, yet I, the Christ-punching leftist, always do?

I do, almost all the time. (I can’t think of any exceptions, but I admit the possibility.)

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 10:21 PM from United States

You have an object in your hand. Either it was designed, or it was not.

What is the third alternative?

A third alternative to that no.  HOWEVER!  You have made a massive fault in your statement for the discussion at hand.  It is true that it was either designed or it wasn’t designed.  Now you of course in all your great and powerful knowledge of all working of science and the world say “This object is incredibly complex and I can see no way for it to exist except by design.” That is you congratulations you’re all done and you can go get your cookie and play in the sand.

Now I on the other hand am going to look at the object and say “This object is incredibly complex, but I don’t think it came about by someone else designing it.  Instead I believe it came to exist as it is by a certain method that allows it to naturally occur.  I may be able to find a lot of potential for how this can occur and get a very good set of details about how it happened.  Perhaps in the future someone else will look at the object and say I was partially or maybe even completely wrong and they have an even better explanation of how this object can come about besides someone designing it.  And then maybe someone else will come along one day....”

You see that’s the difference here, you believe its either or and since it can’t be the “or” as you have determined “or” to be then its your “either” We believe its either or or or or or or.... And currently evolution is the best “or” we have, and it works pretty good while others try to get the better “or”

Posted by on 02/28/06 at 10:29 PM from United States

1.Id’ers say ID is not religion
2.Lee and Drum “bash” ID as a scientific theory
3.ID’ers say Lee and Drum “bash” their religious beliefs and mock their faith
4.If Lee and Drum reject ID as a scientific theory and ID proponents say it is not religion, then how are Lee and Drum bashing their religious beliefs?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/28/06 at 11:12 PM from United States

Ssssshh, you’ll confuse them.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:09 AM from United States

You continue to claim that I am doing that, but no matter how many times you say it, it will never be true.
What I AM saying is that Jesus has ALREADY CALLED THEM ‘HYPOCRITES’

No, you are assuming that the two situations are so similar that Jesus would have no choice but to come to the conclusion that you have already reached.
You are also assuming that Jesus is concerned solely with action instead of intent.  Jesus specifically talked about how the hypocrites wished to be seen by men and how they had already received their reward, this is significant, because his criticism was directed at the motives behind their actions.
Quoting scripture is irrelevant.  It is self evident that other groups interpret the Bible differently from yourself and this applies to more than just public prayer, i.e. the divine nature of Jesus, the trinity, and transubstantiation.  Simply put, it is outrageous that you believe you have the authority to condemn as man practicing a false faith.

YOU are the one that is assuming that Jesus WOULDN’T do so (despite the clear evidence that He alreasy has done so), if only He knew all the facts.

Wrong.  I am not claiming what Jesus would do, in fact, I have explicitly stated that I am not arrogant enough to attempt to speak for God.  I have also stated that the two situation are not analogous because in one you have a specific action coupled with intent while in the other the intent is unknown.

If you think Jesus would act differently, then tell us what He would do, and provide the evidence.

I am not presuming to know what Jesus would do.  I am not appealing to his authority so that I may condemn that with which I dislike.

But quit telling me that my interpretation is wrong (even though I’m not interpreting, I’m merely quoting) without actually showing why.

I am not evaluating your interpretation.  What I am doing is attacking the application of your interpretation, i.e. claiming that other Christians are essentially heretics because their actions run contrary to “the wishes of Christ.” You are accusing them of practicing a false faith.

Why are you taking this so personally? Wondering if Jesus actually meant what He said? Worried about what might happen if He did?

The most asinine thing a man can do is to claim that God is on his side and that he possesses “the truth.” This is pride and arrogance of an unimaginable degree. When you were challenged that not all who pray in front of cameras are hypocrites, you quoted scripture to attack them as practitioners of a false form of faith.  You attacked their faith and basically accused them on insincerity.

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 12:15 AM from United States

The most asinine thing a man can do is to claim that God is on his side and that he possesses “the truth.” This is pride and arrogance of an unimaginable degree.

You mean this asshole?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:29 AM from United States

Yes, exactly.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 12:31 AM from United States

No, you are assuming that the two situations are so similar that Jesus would have no choice but to come to the conclusion that you have already reached.

True. On the one hand, we have “people praying on the street corner so that people will see how pious they are”, and on the other hand, we have “people praying on the street corner so that people will see how pious they are, while television cameras broadcast it all over the world”.

Yeah, I can really see the differences now that you point them out.

You are also assuming that Jesus is concerned solely with action instead of intent.

I’m not assuming anything. I merely point out the quote, straight from the Bible. YOU are the one assuming that Jesus knows that “you really didn’t mean it” when you do something that would cause Him to call you a hypocrite, and that makes it all better.

Jesus specifically talked about how the hypocrites wished to be seen by men and how they had already received their reward, this is significant, because his criticism was directed at the motives behind their actions.

You should have actually read the whole passage. Not only did He disparage those who wanted to have their piety on public display, He also said “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” That means that it is the action of praying in public that He is condemning, because the only ones who WOULD want to pray in public (ignoring His specific directions) are the ones who are seeking public approval of those prayers. He is actually teaching his Disciples how to pray in this passage, so I think it’s considered a religious teaching, rather than just a comment on the lack of technology of His day…

I am not presuming to know what Jesus would do.

You just know that what He actually said and did isn’t what He actually meant. Because that is all that I have done - quoted the relevant passage, and you freaked out! Guilty conscience?

One more time, I do not presume to speak for Him, I merely post exactly what He said. And you keep saying that He is wrong.

The most asinine thing a man can do is to claim that God is on his side and that he possesses “the truth.”

You mean like Intelligent Creationism?

All I said was that Jesus called them hypocrites. I backed it up.

If you have a different explanation, then post it, or give it up.

When you were challenged that not all who pray in front of cameras are hypocrites, you quoted scripture to attack them as practitioners of a false form of faith.

Yeah, how dare I use the Bible to prove their actions wrong? One more time (just because it apparently annoys you so much), Jesus was the one who called them hypocrites.

I just posted the passage where He does so.

You are the one who claimed that I was wrong, even though I wasn’t. I’m not attacking their faith, only their works. And Jesus’ own words are a pretty potent argument, especially in Christianity.

Check with another preacher (your own, perhaps), if you don’t believe me. Ask several of them. Ask them what Matthew, chapter six, verses five & six mean. Read it for yourself. Read several versions. Pray on it (in your closet, of course). Learn the truth for yourself.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 03/01/06 at 12:57 AM from United States

cb points at something he can’t explain, and says, “See? Isn’t that proof enough for you? If not, you must be an idiot!”

I’m gonna have to call you out on this one Drum - the word we were looking for was bigot....bigot.

Still failing to see how the particular passage of scripture quoted today was taken “out of context”. Guess thats just me, ya know, thinking Jesus meant what He said, silly me. I must not be hip to the latest revisions. I’m guessing there have been some amendments to those silly, outdated Ten Commandments as well???

Posted by HARLEY on 03/01/06 at 06:07 AM from United States

Holy fucking tity fucking Christ on a fucking pogo stick.......... you people are still at this?

JESUS was not litterly the son of god he was just a man, maybe a little kooky but he did have the right idea about living and how to effect your world with your positive actions.
ID only works if you can show that somewhere in the genetic code it has been tweaked and modified.

Evolution is full of holes, but has some dam big points going for it, such ass the human appendix and tail bone, which are totally useless, and would be vestigial parts left over from a advancing evolutionary process.
fuck.....

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 07:56 AM from United States

JESUS was not litterly the son of god he was just a man, maybe a little kooky but he did have the right idea about living and how to effect your world with your positive actions.

Wow thanks Harley, my life is now so much simpler because you have just summed up everything. My God, you must be an absolute genius to know everything about the nature of God…

Evolution is full of holes, but has some dam big points going for it, such ass the human appendix

Why is that if it’s part of the immune system?

Here

Here

Here

Hmm. Thats so odd. I remember being told when I was akid, much like you no doubt, that the appendix was useless and was proof of evolution. But I geuss science was wrong…

and tail bone, which are totally useless

Useless huh? Those are some strong words. Let’s do a little exercise ok? Imagine that the tail is missing in your body. Now try to imagine sitting down, with out it? Looks like the tail bone has a function now doesn’t it?

Besides the tail bone is the termination of the spine, I mean why in God’s name would you think that was useless?

So now that the “big damn points” for evolution have been debunked, what else you got? Oh thats right though, there is absolutely no reason to beleive in creation, I mean it’s not like the science behind evolutionary proof could be worng or anything…

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 08:15 AM from Europe

Hey Dirk,

I think there’s some confusion - vestigial does not mean useless, but rather a remnant from an earlier species which has become changed or atrophied in later species.

The tail bone in humans isn’t useless, and obviously other structures are anchored to it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a remnant from the earlier times, when it was more highly developed.

A better example might be the tiny femurs which are still found in modern whales. Why would whales have leg bones if they didn’t once walk the Earth?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 08:37 AM from United States

I think there’s some confusion - vestigial does not mean useless, but rather a remnant from an earlier species which has become changed or atrophied in later species.

Actually I’m not the one who said useless Harley was.

That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a remnant from the earlier times, when it was more highly developed.

So if an organ exists in the body, that has a very clear function and use it is still called vestigial just because thats how it looks? I don’t understand.

Both the tailbone and appendix have a very real and needed function today. To assume they did anything differnt in the past is pure specualtion until there is irrefutable proof. Point being, proving the tailbone was actually a tail at one lies on you, not the converse on me.

A better example might be the tiny femurs which are still found in modern whales. Why would whales have leg bones if they didn’t once walk the Earth?

Because they are not leg bones, they are used in mating. But don’t worry, it’s not the first time “science” has gotten something like that wrong. You ever heard of a brontosaurus?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 08:46 AM from Japan

I had another read through most of the thread. I can’t believe that this is still going.

I am interested in hearing the case of ID, but you haven’t presented one.

The theory of evolution does not rule out an intelligent designer - a designer could simply have designed evolution to work that way. I mean you say that most evolutionists are anti-science, but as I see it, you are equally not willing to accept the idea of ID-driven creation.

I also wanted to know why the big bang theory does not rule out an intelligent designer? An intelligent designer could have just said “I got an idea!” and whump, bang, there it all is. And here we all are, 12 or so billion years later.

You argue that fossils don’t show evolution of a species, but simply that the species existed at one time or another. Would this then mean that the intelligent designer had made a mistake in creating that animal? It would also mean that the total number of species would have gotten smaller over time, unless new ones were being created. Do you have any evidence that a new species was suddenly created? Can you show me repeatable evidence that a new species has/can be created in the laboratory by an intelligent designer?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 09:59 AM from Europe

Actually I’m not the one who said useless Harley was

Well, you did use that word three times in your post…

So if an organ exists in the body, that has a very clear function and use it is still called vestigial just because thats how it looks? I don’t understand.

A function, whether as are reduced form of the original purpose or an adapted purpose, may or may not be present. My coccyx has a reduced form of its original purpose. A whale’s pelvis is, as you say, used for mating, but its femurs, to which I was referring, are not. They have no function at all.

Point being, proving the tailbone was actually a tail at one lies on you, not the converse on me.

Consider it done.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:03 AM from United States

As long as you keep calling it “Darwinism”, I’ll start calling it “Intelligent Creationism”.

Drum, you are a hopeless idiot. I call it “Darwinism” NOT as some kind of slight against those who adopt it, as you and Lee (being hypersensitive, it appears) seem to think. No, I call it “Darwinism” to differentiate it from the generic “evolution”, which is a more general term.  “Darwinism” is SPECIFIC MODEL which states that MANY SMALL GRADUAL CHANGES occured over a VAST PERIOD OF TIME.

“Evolution” simply states that things “evolve” WITHOUT NECESSARILY EXPLAINING HOW.

“Darwinism is a SPECIFIC EXPLANATION on HOW things evolved.  “Evolution” is not.

But you insist in taking “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” as some kind of insult, which is monumentally stupid. I’m just trying to be precise in my use of language.

You guys point to Galapagos Finches getting thicker beaks during droughts as an example of observable “evolution”.

Which it is.

You guys point to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as an example of “evolution”.

Which it is.

You guys point to insects developing resistance to pesticides as an example of “evolution”.

Which it is.

Those are all examples of “EVOLUTION”, showing “EVOLUTION” to be a verifiable fact.

“DARWINISM” insists that, given enough time, BACTERIA BECOME INSECTS AND/OR BIRDS.

That is an EXTRAPOLATION OF OBSERVED DATA. Evolutionary change on this scale HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

“DARWINISM” claims that all it takes is small changes over vast persiod of time for BACTERIA TO BECOME INSECTS OR BIRDS.

You guys call someone who doesn’t adopt DARWINIAN evolution a moron because you pretend that they don’t believe in bacteria resistance to antibiotics.  You say that “EVOLUTION” is a fact, by pointing out the afore-mentioned examples.

BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE DARWIN’S EXTRAPOLATION A FACT.

So I use the term Darwinism to refer SPECIFICALLY TO THAT EXTRAPOLATION, and the gradual stepwise refinement explanation behind it.

IT IS NOT AN “INSULT”, so quit being such a baby.

“Intelligent Creation” OTOH, IS a slight, as you implicitly admit, and it demonstrates that bigotry I was referring to earlier.

No, “disagreement” is not bigotry. MISUNDERSTANDING, COUPLED WITH NO DESIRE TO CORRECT THAT MISUNDERSTANDING, IS, and THAT is what you are guilty of.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:24 AM from United States

cb points at something he can’t explain, and says, “See? Isn’t that proof enough for you? If not, you must be an idiot!”

Classic intellectual bankrupty on Drum’s part, again, putting words in my mouth.

What I did was provide an animation of a bacterial flagellum building itself out, and claimed that it was obviously designed, obvious to anyone with a lick of sense. Hell, even Richard Dawkins, one of the Grand Poobaahs of neo-Darwinism (AND BEFORE LEE AND DRUM GET THEIR PANTIES IN A WAD, “NEO-DARWINISM” IS A TERM USED BY DAWKINS IN HIS BOOK, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER) admits in his book The Blind Watchmaker that nature exhibits suberb designs, using bat echolocation as his example.

So the fact of design is pretty obvious, even to neo-Darinists. It’s just that neo-Darwinists refuse to accept the notion of a designer.

But the evidence is clear, to both IDers and neo-Darwinists. It’s just that IDers admit that design is evidence of a designer, and neo-Darwinists refuse to make that connection. Dawkins prefers to refer to “apparent design”, which is an underhanded way of admiting that things do appear designed without having to admit that they were.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:32 AM from United States

Oh, and for the record, “can’t explain” is a lie. IDers CAN explain how these machines work and what they do. They just recognize the fact that knowing how something works IS NOT THE SAME AS knowing how it got there.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:38 AM from United States

that’s not evidence, that’s an argument against Evolution.

It’s both, but Drum refuses to understand that. Evidence in favor of ID has no choice but to be evidence against the Darwinian model. Just like evidence in favor of Copernicus’ model is necessarily evidence against Ptolomey’s model.

Using Drum’s “argument”, evidence of Copernicus’ model isn’t really evidence because it’s only an argument against the Ptolemic model. The same celestial bodies being in motion is the evidence in both cases, after all.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:41 AM from Europe

So, cbass, have you scraped together any evidence yet? You’ve only had two days...

While we’re at it...

So the fact of design is pretty obvious, even to neo-Darinists. It’s just that neo-Darwinists refuse to accept the notion of a designer

Just because something has a form, and I’m using that as a synonym for design, doesn’t mean it had a designer. A paint splatter has a form. It doesn’t mean it was designed.

They just recognize the fact that knowing how something works IS NOT THE SAME AS knowing how it got there

Yes it is. You can’t claim to fully understand something until you can say how it was built. Hence, I fully understand how a car engine works, but I only partially understand how a computer operates.

Gotta go…

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 10:49 AM from United States

Using Drum’s “argument”, evidence of Copernicus’ model isn’t really evidence because it’s only an argument against the Ptolemic model. The same celestial bodies being in motion is the evidence in both cases, after all.

The important distinction here, of course, is that Copernicus had actual evidence of his model.  What he didn’t do was stand up, point out holes in the Ptolemic model, and then claim that angels and ooga booga prove the Copernican theory correct.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:50 AM from United States

Well you see cbass we’re trying to figure you out.

Why? My person is irrelevant to this discussion, but thanks for admitting that you are trying to make this about me personally.

All you do is defend ID and criticize evolutionary theory.  But you’ve now stated that you don’t believe humans are the result of ID, so you seem to be arguing in favor of something you don’t believe in.

No, you simply jump to what turn out to be unsupportable conclusions. This is what happens when you focus on the peron making an argument rather than the argument he’s making.

You refuse to admit your age, your religious beliefs, who you think the Designer is, and any other questions.

Because none of that is relevant to the discussion. But again, thanks for admitting that you are trying to make this personal.

You act like when we give you an opportunity to give an understanding of you that we’re attacking you so harshly.  Drum isn’t the only one here reading you know.  Niether am I.

Hardly relevant. I don’t ask about your age or personal beliefs, do I? Because I understand that those things are not relevant to the discussion. By trying to turn the focus onto ME PERSONALLY, you are obviously trying to use the character assassination method of torpedoing a discussion.

I simply refuse to cooperate.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 10:51 AM from United States

They just recognize the fact that knowing how something works IS NOT THE SAME AS knowing how it got there.

If I were to suddenly find a section of the old UNIVAC in my driveway, knowing how it works tells me nothing about how it could have gotten there. That last part - how it got that way (using the Designer) - is what trips them up every time. Science might not be able to explain today, but they will probably be able to at some point in the future. IDiots don’t accept that, and say, “Well, since YOU can’t explain it, it must have been put there by a Higher Power”.

Which is bullshit, and an intellectual copout. Attributing something to a Diety is the 21st century equivalent of claiming that thunder is caused by the angels playing tenpins. You don’t understand it, you can’t explain it, so you throw up the proverbial hands and say “It must have been Created”.

Classic intellectual bankrupty on Drum’s part, again, putting words in my mouth.

You’re right, I should have used your exact word - “bigot”.

It’s just that neo-Darwinists refuse to accept the notion of a designer.

Meanwhile, you Intelligent Creationists refuse to accept that your Creator might not have had any kind of hand in it at all.

Dawkins prefers to refer to “apparent design”, which is an underhanded way of admiting that things do appear designed without having to admit that they were.

Grand Canyon - “designed” or just happened due to massive amounts of water flowing down the Colorado River for millenia?

How about that Bimini Road that Lee linked to yesterday? Was it designed, and if so, by whom and for what purpose? Or is it just an odd coincidence, where rocks are formed underwater in a concentric ring around a formerly volcanic island?

Intelligent Creationism is just religion’s attempt to subvert the actual evidence, and fill in any cracks with “Just look at this! Can’t you see that it was designed?”

That’s not evidence, that’s an argument. Are you actually capable of telling the difference? I have my doubts, because every time I ask for evidence, you argue that Evolution couldn’t possibly have produced whateveritis.

This is the sticking point you do not comprehend - arguments against one explanation do nothing to advance any alternate explanations, which must stand or fall on their own merits. Lee has explained this to you at least three times now, and I have done so at least twice that I can think of. Others have pointed this out to you as well, so it isn’t just me.

You don’t get it. You are apparently incapable of ever understanding that.

But go ahead and tell me that I am the one who is intellectually bankrupt. I need a good laugh.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:52 AM from United States

Just because its evidence against Darwin’s model of evolution, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANOTHER POTENTIAL MODEL OF EVOLUTION WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED YET.  Your statements that if it can’t work in Darwin’s version means that it must have been created by God is an incorrect statement.  Don’t you understand that?  Are you that stupid?

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 10:52 AM from United States

“Darwinism is a SPECIFIC EXPLANATION on HOW things evolved.  “Evolution” is not.

But you insist in taking “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” as some kind of insult, which is monumentally stupid. I’m just trying to be precise in my use of language.

“Natural selection” is the process by which things evolve, you fucking twit.  You don’t use this established term because it’s all sciencey-sounding and prefer to use the term “Darwinist” because it implies that anyone who believes in evolution through natural selection is under the spell of some kind of cult of personality.  It’s a pathetic rhetorical device, which is not surprising, considering the pathetic “scientific” argument you put forward.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:54 AM from United States

A paint splatter has a form. It doesn’t mean it was designed.

You’re simply side-stepping the issue by erroneously equating “form” with “design”.

A paint splatter doesn’t exhibit specified complexity. An image of Mona Lisa does.

A paint splatter may have been designed or it may not.

An image of Mona Lisa may have been designed or it may not.

In each case, which is the better explanation?

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 10:54 AM from United States

This is what happens when you focus on the peron making an argument rather than the argument he’s making.

This from a guy who uses the term “Darwinist.”

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 10:55 AM from United States

Hence, I fully understand how a car engine works, but I only partially understand how a computer operates.

And I’m just the opposite. I can chart the flow of power in a car from the gas tank through the exhaust pipe, but I’d be lucky to change the air filter without breaking something.

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 10:56 AM from United States

An image of Mona Lisa may have been designed or it may not.

The Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci.  I can identify its creator.  Who is the creator in ID? 

I can scientifically prove that Leonardo da Vinci existed.  Can you prove the existence of your mythical creator?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:57 AM from United States

ANOTHER POTENTIAL MODEL OF EVOLUTION WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED YET.

As soon as you evoke mystical “other possibilies that ‘haven’t been discovered yet’”, you are leaving the realm of OBSERVED DATA and TESTABLE HYPOTHESES and entering the world of philosophy, something you guys criticize ID over. The issue is evidence we have TODAY, and the BEST EXPLANATION available TODAY. Not some empty mystical promise of tomorrow.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 10:57 AM from United States

You’re simply side-stepping the issue by erroneously equating “form” with “design”.

But it’s your own argument. “See how perfectly this was formed! Doesn’t that perfection just scream ‘Design’ at you? If not, you’re a bigot!”

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 11:01 AM from United States

you are leaving the realm of OBSERVED DATA and TESTABLE HYPOTHESES and entering the world of philosophy

How would you know? You’ve never entered that realm to begin with.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:06 AM from United States

And yours is a mystical promise today, instead of tomorrow.  Except science has looked at questions in the past and today we have answers.  For you to assume that science won’t find our questions today in the future.  As has been stated over and over, in the past science was incapable of explaining how bees fly.  Today they know how.  You are pushing for stagnation, I am looking towards future growth.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:10 AM from United States

Science might not be able to explain today, but they will probably be able to at some point in the future.

Maybe, and maybe not.

If nothing else, ID serves as a cattle prod to get science on the stick to provide some explanations. Before ID, science only had to wave its hand and claim “it evolved, JUST SO”, and the Scientific Faithful would genuflect and offer up praise. Well, now science’s job is a little tougher, ain’t it? Too bad, because that’s how it moves foerward.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:14 AM from United States

But it’s your own argument. “See how perfectly this was formed! Doesn’t that perfection just scream ‘Design’ at you? If not, you’re a bigot!”

Nope, that ain’t “my” argument, but you again demonstrate your fixation on putting words in my mouth. It ain’t about “perfection” or “screaming ‘design’” or any of the other intellectually bankrupt nonsense you are indulging in.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:15 AM from United States

You’ve never entered that realm to begin with.

Wrong.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:17 AM from United States

If nothing else, ID serves as a cattle prod to get science on the stick to provide some explanations. Before ID, science only had to wave its hand and claim “it evolved, JUST SO”, and the Scientific Faithful would genuflect and offer up praise. Well, now science’s job is a little tougher, ain’t it? Too bad, because that’s how it moves foerward.

Bullshit.  You’re now claiming that without ID, science was in a point of stagnation.  That’s utter garbage and I dare you to prove that research and studying into how the species of the world came to be has stagnated since darwin.  Science doesn’t need a boogeyman to push it forward.  Otherwise we’d think that the air was still made of phlogestin because there was no group morons saying that it wasn’t like that.  Other scientists are out there already working to further prove or completely disprove another’s scientific theory.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:34 AM from United States

zzzzzzzz *snort* Wha?...Huh?

*slowly closes his eyes and puts the other side of his face in the puddle of drool on his desk*

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 11:55 AM from United States

Nope, that ain’t “my” argument,

“See this structure? It exhibits signs of design, therefore it was designed, instead of just randomly happening. Anyone who believes otherwise is a bigot (even if I have to redefine the word to make it fit).”

How is that different than what you were claiming?

I’ve seen more intellectual acument from a squirrel.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 11:56 AM from United States

stagnation

You loving jumping to emotional conclusions, don’t you? And tarring with a broad brush.

I simply said that, before ID, science didn’t have to explain how irreducibly complex machines came about, beyond simply stating “They evolved”.

Well, now they have to do a little bit more.

Translating that specific instance into an all-encompassing “Science Has Stagnated” is the type of intellectual bankruptcy I have now come to expect.

Other scientists are out there already working to further prove or completely disprove another’s scientific theory.

But the simple fact is that no scientists were able to come up with models of how certain specific machines cames to be, and for the most part weren’t even trying. Now they have to at least try.

Prove me wrong. Show us a paper where the blood clotting cascade’s Darwinian, stepwise evolution was detailed out, BEFORE ID CAME ALONG.  Or the cilia, or flagellum.

Sure, we have attempts NOW. That’s my point.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:02 PM from United States

You’re claiming that advances in science are being caused because of ID pushing it, instead of science improving itself.  Since you now have ID as a crutch any breakthroughs in science you can go and say “yeah they wouldn’t have done that if ID wasn’t pushing them.”

You’re an idiot.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:11 PM from United States

Anyone who believes otherwise is a bigot (even if I have to redefine the word to make it fit).”

Wrong. What I said was anyone criticizing X without trying to understand X was a bigot. I stated several times that disagreement wasn’t bigotry, yet you again try to force those words into my mouth.

“A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” is the M-W definition, and someone who criticizes X without trying to understand it certainly is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”.

So I ain’t “redefining” anything.

And a person who insists that ID is “reelijun” or “doesn’t have a scrap of evidence” or “isn’t falsifiable” after having been shown otherwise certainly qualifies. A person who rejects evidence because they prefer to call it “just an argument against evolution” when even neo-Darwinists admit that things are designed (Richard Dawkins calls bat echolocation a SUPERB DESIGN (emphasis added)) qualifies.

Dawkins says things are designed. He just claims that the “designer” is natural selection.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:14 PM from United States

You’re an idiot.

So you cannot prove me wrong, and resort to invective instead.

And you are over-generalizing my statements. Ironic that you call me an “idiot”, given your obviously sloppy thinking.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:16 PM from United States

Wrong. What I said was anyone criticizing X without trying to understand X was a bigot. I stated several times that disagreement wasn’t bigotry, yet you again try to force those words into my mouth.

“A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” is the M-W definition, and someone who criticizes X without trying to understand it certainly is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”.

So I ain’t “redefining” anything.

Yes you are.  Just because we believe Y, and find your X to be completely and totally stupid doesn’t mean we will do the same to Z.  You’re again assuming that it only a binary possibility and refusing to believe there could be multiple choices.  You have redefined it to mean if we don’t like X we are bigots.  The actual way a bigot would be is we like Y and only Y and nothing will change that.  We’ve been telling you forever that Z may come along and change our views on Y, but we’re still going to hate X because its stupid and moronic.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:17 PM from United States

"Science is making progress because of ID.”

That’s what you’ve said.  That’s not true.  You’re an idiot.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:25 PM from United States

The Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci.  I can identify its creator.

Does that therefore prove that not identifying a creator can prove that the artifact wasn’t created?

If I find an arrowhead in a meadow, I cannot identify the person who created it, ergo, the arrowhead obviously evolved.

If I find several arrowheads, no two exactly alike but all very similar, well, that’s just further evidence that they evolved. A designer would make them all exactly alike and perfect, would it?

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 12:26 PM from United States

Posted by cbass on 03/01/06 at 10:11 AM

Anyone who believes otherwise is a bigot (even if I have to redefine the word to make it fit).”

Wrong. What I said was anyone criticizing X without trying to understand X was a bigot.

And that’s changing the definition, just as I said. You are calling anyone who criticizes your arguments a bigot, because YOU claim that we don’t understand them. (The fact that we DO understand them, which is WHY we criticize them, seems to pass you by.)

“A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” is the M-W definition,

And YOUR definition is “anyone criticizing X without trying to understand X was a bigot.”

Looks like a change to me, because no one here is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted” to anything. We have invited you, time and again, to show us how we might be wrong. You have, just as repeatedly, failed to do so.

Seems maybe we’re not the one who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted” to something…

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 12:31 PM from United States

If I find several arrowheads, no two exactly alike but all very similar, well, that’s just further evidence that they evolved.

Of course, if you were to find roughly triangular chips of rock of roughly the same size, the possibility that they could have be ground or broken off other rocks that may have once been there (maybe during the last time glaciers were in that meadow) will never have occurred to you, because obviously someone must have shaved them to look like that, right? I mean since they show signs of having three sides (which could never actually occur at random, y’know), and since there are three parts to God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), that’s proof that He exists? Duh! You guys are just bigots if you can’t see that.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:35 PM from United States

Just because we believe Y, and find your X to be completely and totally stupid doesn’t mean we will do the same to Z.

More evidence of sloppy thinking. “Z” is irrelevant to my claim, which you would realize if you had decent reading comprehension skills.

You have redefined it to mean if we don’t like X we are bigots.

No, I have not. What I have done is say, “if you don’t like X AND YOU DON’T BOTHER TO FIND OUT WHAT X REALLY IS BUT KEEP SCREAMING ABOUT WHAT YOU ERRONEOUSLY THINK IT IS you are a bigot”.

The fact that you and Drum have to keep misrepresenting what I say and keep putting words in my mouth is evidence of said bigotry, as it indicates that you don’t bother trying to understand what I ACTUALLY say, but rail against your fantasy of what you THINK I said.

Equating “disagree” with “bigot” over and over like you and Drum have done is a case in point.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:36 PM from United States

Duh! You guys are just bigots if you can’t see that.

Puttng words in my mouth is becoming a full-time obsession with you.

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 12:42 PM from United States

Note that cbass has completely ignored my point about the Giant’s Causeway and the Bimini Road.  Both of these are structures with a great deal of apparent design.  Both have a history of being considered to be the work of man, or “designed” in other words.  Science has subsequently proven that the Giant’s Causeway is not man-made, despite its irregular and distinct design, but is a natural geological function, completely explainable by random chance.  The Bimini Road is currently under discussion.  There are disagreements as to whether it is man made or natural.  However, science will eventually prove this one way or the other.

My point is that just because something appears to be designed, and at that specific moment in time there is no explanation for how this apparent design came about, is not in and of itself proof of a designer.

If it was, then you’d have to believe that the Giant’s Causeway was actually built by giants.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 12:48 PM from United States

“Z” is irrelevant to my claim, which you would realize if you had decent reading comprehension skills.

Because, y’know, it HAS to be a binary solution (which you HAVE said), so any suggestions that there may be other alternatives simply don’t fit what I was saying, so they don’t count.

Equating “disagree” with “bigot” over and over like you and Drum have done is a case in point.

You are the one equating the two. Your own words: “What I said was anyone criticizing X without trying to understand X was a bigot.” So criticizing (aka “disagreeing") makes one a bigot. (The whole “without understanding” part is utterly incorrect, but you don’t see that. You only see the criticism, and your response is to start calling people who disagree “bigots”.)

Try and keep up with the bullshit you spew, alright?

What I have done is say, “if you don’t like X AND YOU DON’T BOTHER TO FIND OUT WHAT X REALLY IS BUT KEEP SCREAMING ABOUT WHAT YOU ERRONEOUSLY THINK IT IS you are a bigot”.

But we HAVE bothered to find out. We just happen to think it is nothing more than a bunch of religious hoohah trying to dress up in a lab coat and nerd glasses. But we dare to disagree, so you call us bigots, making up your own definition to make it fit, even though you admitted that the dictionary says something else entirely.

We understand exactly what you say. You don’t think that ID is science (or, rather, you denied having said so). You have said that there are structures in biology “that show signs of design”, and claim that as “proof” that they were, in fact, designed. You refuse to identify the designer (even going so far as to claim that someone once claimed that “random selection” is the designer, while ignoring that first word, “Intelligent"). You refuse to actually provide evidence, despite repeated requests from multiple people, and call US stupid.

We disagree and criticize your position, so you call us bigots.

We got it all. (If there is anything else I may have missed, feel free to throw it out there.)

We still think you are wrong. You have no evidence that stands alone. You have no arguments other than “Darwinism is wrong”.

You have one last chance to provide evidence. Pretend you are in front of a jury. Present your case, with links and facts and logic. I’m sure Lee would post it utterly unchanged.

Or STFU about things you obviously do not comprehend, bigot.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:48 PM from United States

Of course, if you were to find roughly triangular chips of rock of roughly the same size, the possibility that they could have be ground or broken off other rocks that may have once been there (maybe during the last time glaciers were in that meadow) will never have occurred to you

And the possibility of a nomadic civilization having existed there or at least passed through there would never have occurred to you, to use your argument.

ID doesn’t jump to conclusions like you seem intent on painting it. It looks at the evidence (arrowhead, or “triangular chip of rock") and tries to objectively determine the likelihood of design v. nondesign. If other evidence suggests that the “arrowheads” were somehow “formed naturally”, well, no bigee, they aren’t evidence of design.  If other no other evidence suggests they were naturally formed AND they exhibit evidence of design, then they probably were designed. This conclusion is reinforced of the artifiacts resemble other artifacts inour experience that we know are designed.

It takes a strong leap of faith to insist that an arrowhead is a product of natural forces.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 12:52 PM from United States

Because, y’know, it HAS to be a binary solution (which you HAVE said)

What I HAVE said is that a given object is either designed or not designed. I HAVE ASKED FOR OTHER POSSIBILITIES BUT NO ONE HAS TAKEN THE CHALLENGE.

If Designed/Not Designed is not a dichotomy, then what is the third alternative?

Some mystical third possibility that we don’t know about ("yet") puts you in the same boat as ID.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 01:11 PM from United States

You are the one equating the two. Your own words: “What I said was anyone criticizing X without trying to understand X was a bigot.” So criticizing (aka “disagreeing") makes one a bigot.

Logical disconnect on your part noted. Intellectual dishonesty on your part also noted.

But we HAVE bothered to find out.

You show no evidence of that. You continue to make false statements about it in spite of having been corrected, like “religious hoohah”.

Sure, you are free to think that, just like a racist is free to think that a certain race is “inferior” to another, or a Holocaust denier is free to believe that the Holocaust didn’t happen.

But a racist who doesn’t investigate the culture and accomplishments of the race he denigrates, or if the Holocaust denier doesn’t investigate the documentation on the Holocaust, that person is just like an ID critic who hasn’t actually investigated ID.

You wouldn’t hesitate to call the first two bigots, would you?

Relying on my comments is not “investigating” btw. I have said numerous times that I would have to quote paragraphs of text to properly make a case, but I cannot even get past one or two statements before the flaming begins.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 01:12 PM from United States

Or STFU about things you obviously do not comprehend, bigot.

Glad you got that off your chest. Feel better now?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 01:22 PM from United States

Note that cbass has completely ignored my point about the Giant’s Causeway and the Bimini Road.

No, I just haven’t gotten to that, yet.  Sorry if you feel left out, but I had badder fish to fry, as it were.

“Natural selection” is the process by which things evolve, you fucking twit.  You don’t use this established term because it’s all sciencey-sounding and prefer to use the term “Darwinist” because it implies that anyone who believes in evolution through natural selection is under the spell of some kind of cult of personality.

Man, you truly are paranoid.

I use “Darwinism” because it’s easier to type than “natural selection” and is just as valid as a label, your personal prejudices notwithstanding. When I use the term, I do not have any “kind of cult of personality” in mind at all—that just never occurred to me. I guess your belief in “natural selection” is so fragile that you have to attack anyone who isn’t so politically correct as to use YOUR term of preference.

Too bad.

I explained why I use the term, I even admitted that I SHOULD use “neo-Darwinism” (a term that NEO-DARWINIST RICHARD DAWKINS USES) but that it was too awkward. Well, “natural selection” is just as awkward.

Get over it.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 01:39 PM from United States

Change the controversy then.  Instead of the Holocaust, how about the moon landing?

Thing is, you and Drum go out of your way to take potshots at ID, which does have legitimate scientists behind it.  Do the Holocaust Denial or Lunar Landing Hoax groups have PhD scientists and professors at major world universities in their midst?

Are their books on the best-seller lists?

This last issue is important, because it differentiates between mainstream and “crackpot”. And before you trot out your Astrology analogies (lots of people are into Astrology, so it’s mainstream, but still crackpot), remember that ID has the backing of published scientists, even if ID isn’t “really” science.  Do you have an example of a book promoting Astrology from a PhD mathematician or molecular biologist, who teaches at an established university?

My point is that these comparisons simply aren’t valid. At least, you haven’t yet shown them to be valid.  You simply state that YOU PERSONALLY think they are the same.

Well and good, but that’s hardly objective.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 01:43 PM from United States

I’ve seen more intellectual acument from a squirrel.

Six or seven of them, to be exact.  And they’re rabid.

But the simple fact is that no scientists were able to come up with models of how certain specific machines cames to be, and for the most part weren’t even trying.

Weren’t able, or hadn’t attempted it yet?  Besides this, ID hasn’t either.  ID isn’t a model, a model has predictive value and is built on facts.  Irreducible complexity is a philosophy because it is built entirely on assumptions.

science didn’t have to explain how irreducibly complex machines came about

Because what is and what isn’t an irreducibly complex machine isn’t clearly defined, and still isn’t. 

You’re claiming that advances in science are being caused because of ID pushing it, instead of science improving itself.

If anything, the amount of time and energy that affiliated scientists are putting into these legal battles with public-taught ID and defending evolution is causing the field to stagnate.  Ok, maybe not stagnate, but it sure ain’t helping.

If I find an arrowhead in a meadow, I cannot identify the person who created it, ergo, the arrowhead obviously evolved.

If I find several arrowheads, no two exactly alike but all very similar, well, that’s just further evidence that they evolved. A designer would make them all exactly alike and perfect, would it?

This is assuming the arrowheads were, in fact, arrowheads, and not some facet of the local geology.  I understand the point you’re trying to make, but the difference between you and I is that I see flint flakes with similar structure in the field, and rather than automatically assume they were designed, investigate the surrounding environment for reasonable explanations.  Drum beat me to this one (sorry for the repeat, I’m responding as I go down the thread).

And the possibility of a nomadic civilization having existed there or at least passed through there would never have occurred to you, to use your argument.

The possibility exists, but science isn’t about the possibilities, that’s philosophy.  Science is about exhaustively examining the situation and forming a hypothesis on the facts at hand.

ID doesn’t jump to conclusions like you seem intent on painting it. It looks at the evidence (arrowhead, or “triangular chip of rock") and tries to objectively determine the likelihood of design v. nondesign. If other evidence suggests that the “arrowheads” were somehow “formed naturally”, well, no bigee, they aren’t evidence of design.  If other no other evidence suggests they were naturally formed AND they exhibit evidence of design, then they probably were designed. This conclusion is reinforced of the artifiacts resemble other artifacts inour experience that we know are designed.

If you will, cbass, list the facts that ID is based on.

It takes a strong leap of faith to insist that an arrowhead is a product of natural forces.

Au contraire, the leap of faith is calling the arrowhead an arrowhead based purely on the fact that it was found with objects of similar shape.  Removing it from the realm of faith would, bare minimum, require factual evidence of the existence of an intelligent population in the area.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 01:48 PM from United States

Note that cbass has completely ignored my point about the Giant’s Causeway and the Bimini Road.

And you completely ignored my list my scientific minds that where either creationist or IDers.

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 02:08 PM from United States

And you completely ignored my list my scientific minds that where either creationist or IDers.

And how many of them are atheists?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 02:23 PM from United States

Note that cbass has completely ignored my point about the Giant’s Causeway and the Bimini Road.  Both of these are structures with a great deal of apparent design.  Both have a history of being considered to be the work of man, or “designed” in other words.

Interesting. Is this as appeal to prior ignortance, or somesuch.

I looked around at both items, and admit that Bimini Road looks like it could be man-made, but I wouldn’t go on record as stating such a claim. And, regardless of Lee’s claim that they show “great deal of apparent design”, I am not convinced that either one would pass through Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, because there is not enough structure (at least from what I could see) to rule out Law or Chance.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 02:39 PM from United States

Au contraire, the leap of faith is calling the arrowhead an arrowhead based purely on the fact that it was found with objects of similar shape.

Unfortunately, I am unable to draw you a picture.

When I said “arrowhead”, I was referring to more than just the “rough triangle” that you guys seem intent on trivializing it to.  Have you ever seen an arrowhead?

If yes, would you insist that it’s a product of natural forces, based on nothing more than examining the artifact itself?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 03:02 PM from United States

And how many of them are atheists?

Way to avoid the point Lee. You called people who beleive in creation/ID morons at the very least. Therfore you are calling Newton Gallileo, Einstein… morons.

Now I am not the smartest man in the world but I don’t really beleive they are by any stretch of the imagination “morons”. And if you would call these men, who have so impacted science and the world as we know it morons, then I just don’t know what to say to that.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 03:17 PM from United States

Weren’t able, or hadn’t attempted it yet?

Which kind of begs the question of why haven’t they attempted yet? Why did they (apparently) wait for ID to come onto the scene before getting it into gear, as it were?

Is it because they didn’t see the need, given than “just so” hand waves had sufficed thus far?

Irreducible complexity is a philosophy because it is built entirely on assumptions.

The same can be said of many aspects of Darwinism, given that there is evidence that contradicts the Darwinian model. PE, in fact, is a hypothesis intended to address some of Darwinism’s shortcomings, and directly contradicts some of classic Darwinism’s tenets in the process.

It is assumed that random mutation coupled with natural selection is sufficient to account for all of the diversity we see in the biosphere, but it is merely an assumption, “mountains of evidence” notwithstanding. Macroevolution on the scale of a microbe becoming even an insect, let alone a mammal, has yet to be observed.

It is assumed that this mechanism is sufficient because there has been enough time (it is assumed) to allow the mechanism to produce the variety we do observe.

It is assumed that all varieties of life evolved from a common ancestor (or a limit group of ancestors).

But stasis in the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion go a considerable way towards refuting at least some of these assumptions, but the assumptions pretty much remain.

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 03:25 PM from United States

Way to avoid the point Lee. You called people who beleive in creation/ID morons at the very least. Therfore you are calling Newton Gallileo, Einstein… morons.

Absolutely not.  As I have said a thousand times (wow, how many thousand times have I had to use that preface?), what I am opposed to is a literalist interpretation of Biblical accounts TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  With ID, you are perfectly free to believe in a Creator of some kind, and to believe that this creator provided the divine spark which set the universe and all life in motion.  What you are not free to do is discount scientific evidence simply because it happens to disagree with your personal religious dogma.

The point about the 500 scientists is completely valid.  What you have done is show me a list of 500 scientists whose desire for there to be scientific justification for their own personal religious beliefs has trumped their belief in objective science.  This is why I ask if there are any atheists on the list.  If ID is truly science, then the argument for a creator should be so persuasive that someone who is an atheist should be convinced of ID’s veracity.  Since there are no atheists on the list, all you have done is show me a list of highly educated people who have bought on to a stupid, illogical idea simply because they really, really, really want to believe it.

Posted by Lee on 03/01/06 at 03:28 PM from United States

Let me put it this way.  I bet there are a hell of a lot more than 500 scientists, who also happen to believe in God, who reject the idiocy of ID.  Being a Christian does not require you to be an ignorant fool.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 03:38 PM from United States

It is assumed that random mutation coupled with natural selection is sufficient to account for all of the diversity we see in the biosphere, but it is merely an assumption, “mountains of evidence” notwithstanding. Macroevolution on the scale of a microbe becoming even an insect, let alone a mammal, has yet to be observed.

Look, this is the case with most large scale physical theories.  We haven’t observed the macro-evolution of galactic structures, but we can view what evidence is available, look at the examples from which we are currently receiving information (over different distances and times) and see what makes the most sense.  At points, our theory helps to create hypotheses that are testable (say in the way that dark energy theories may testably interact with certain high energy experiments).  Etc.

This is how most of science works.  Science does not claim to be absolute truth, but it does claim to be the best method we’ve found for getting to truth and weeding out error.  It’s a powerful system and I think one of the reasons for the progress of the last 500 years, but science != truth.

Science is a method.  ID has not yet been formulated in the language of science.  Until ID’ers find a way to do that, it’s just faith.  Faith is a fine enough thing, but it is not science and it’s either a misunderstanding or an attempt to deceive to pretend that it is.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 03:48 PM from United States

Unfortunately, I am unable to draw you a picture.

When I said “arrowhead”, I was referring to more than just the “rough triangle” that you guys seem intent on trivializing it to.  Have you ever seen an arrowhead?

If yes, would you insist that it’s a product of natural forces, based on nothing more than examining the artifact itself?

The entire example is a metaphor, anyways, so there are many things that could be included in the example, granted it doesn’t compare to the “design” of irreducible complexity, but you missed the point I was trying to make.  It’s far from impossible for nature to create something similar to, if not exactly like, a flint-knapped arrowhead.  The evidence you provide in this case is that there are several of them in one area.  This doesn’t compare to the example of ID, because the nature of life IS to expand.  I had a year’s worth of archaeology classes, so I actually do have an idea of what you’re talking about. 

Answering your last question requires more info as to the scenario-
It’s far from impossible for random chance to fracture a rock along certain points and recreate a man-made arrowhead, especially given the crude nature of the tool. 

I do think that the prevalence of ID in the news has certainly pushed some scientists to evaluate the examples that ID’ers present and come up with realistic alternatives.  Whether those scientists were better off investigating other avenues is a philosophical question.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 04:04 PM from United States

Lee:

Let me put it this way.  I bet there are a hell of a lot more than 500 scientists, who also happen to believe in God, who reject the idiocy of ID.  [bold]Being a Christian does not require you to be an ignorant fool.[/bold]

Amen! RAmen! Fuckin’ A! Hell Yeah!

I think that quote about sums it up. Rather than being some kind of evil Bush/Rove/Haliburton anti-Christ invention from way back, I think science is a gift from God. How is it really Christian to abandon the God-given gift of logic and the God-given tool of scientific study in favor of stubbornness?

cbass:

And I have already posted a nifty-keen animation of a bacterial flagellum putting itself together, but die-hard Darwinists refuse to consider that it was designed.

....and how was that nifty-keen animation any more evident of design or intelligent design than spontaneous generation?

If ID does not point to or infer any particular designer, why does there have to be one? Your nifty-keen animation just convinced me that spontaneous generation should be the prevailing theory.

Oh yeah, but....

Spontaneous generation was a widely held belief throughout the middle ages and into the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, some people still believe in it today. [bold]The idea is attractive because it meshed nicely with the prevailing religious views of how God created the universe. There was a strong bias to legitimize the idea because this vital force was considered a strong proof of Gods presence in the world.[/bold] Many recipes and experiments were offered in proof. To create mice, a recipe called for dirty underwear and wheat grain be mixed in a bucket and left open outside. In 21 days or less, you would have mice.

....since spontaneous generation has already been claimed by the Christofacists, I can’t have it. Since I found out through this thread that I, too, am a Christ-punching-leftist for supporting science, I think I will just stick with Darwinism/evolution for now.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 04:08 PM from United States

Thing is, you and Drum go out of your way to take potshots at ID, which does have legitimate scientists behind it.

Flat Earth has some scientists behind it, too. Does that make it true?

You called people who beleive in creation/ID morons at the very least. Therfore you are calling Newton Gallileo, Einstein… morons.

Dirk, you made this claim earlier, but never backed it up. What evidence can you supply to show that these men believe in the claptrap that is IC? (Other than the fact that they were religious, because the two are not the same thing, as cbass keeps pointing out.)

The same can be said of many aspects of Darwinism, given that there is evidence that contradicts the Darwinian model.

Funny how you never actually provide any of this alleged evidence, isn’t it? Oh, wait, that’s right, you said you don’t have any evidence. (Hell, you were even denying that ID is science.)

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 04:10 PM from United States

Oh, yeah....

Louis Pasteur = Hitler.

Posted by HARLEY on 03/01/06 at 04:11 PM from United States

IF mankind was “designed” then i want to meet the engineer, and kick his ass, truly a piss poor design, i am sure that we ill improve on it here soon.

There is simply no evidence to support the idea that man was designed “as is”......... as for the Tail bone.where did the rest of my tail go? why have it at all, shurly that could have been designed differently, or maybe this is Lazy engineering?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 04:16 PM from United States

There is simply no evidence to support the idea that man was designed “as is”......... as for the Tail bone.where did the rest of my tail go? why have it at all, shurly that could have been designed differently, or maybe this is Lazy engineering?

I’m telling you, HARLEY, it’s spontaneous generation. If you disagree, you are a fucking dickhead bigot and I will poke your eyes out with a pickle jar because you havent read every single shred of literature out there on spontaneous generation.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 04:25 PM from United States

Which kind of begs the question of why haven’t they attempted yet? Why did they (apparently) wait for ID to come onto the scene before getting it into gear, as it were?

Is it because they didn’t see the need, given than “just so” hand waves had sufficed thus far?

I haven’t done any looking, so I can’t speak with certainty that these things haven’t been investigated previously.  There’s an infinite number of things to learn about science, and a finite number of scientists.  Most scientists are doing work in “hot” fields, because that’s where the greatest vested interest is.  The examples provided by ID didn’t become “hot” until it was pushed into the spotlight because of the controversy.

Irreducible complexity is a philosophy because it is built entirely on assumptions.
The same can be said of many aspects of Darwinism, given that there is evidence that contradicts the Darwinian model. PE, in fact, is a hypothesis intended to address some of Darwinism’s shortcomings, and directly contradicts some of classic Darwinism’s tenets in the process.

Contradictory facts don’t mean that the previous hypothesis/theory wasn’t based on facts, it suggests that there weren’t enough to see the complete picture.

What is PE?  I missed something.  I just started reading the thread about ten posts before my last post.  Who’d have thought a banned books thread would turn into an ID thread?

It is assumed that random mutation coupled with natural selection is sufficient to account for all of the diversity we see in the biosphere, but it is merely an assumption, “mountains of evidence” notwithstanding. Macroevolution on the scale of a microbe becoming even an insect, let alone a mammal, has yet to be observed.

A theory is a predictive model based on all available facts.  The theory of evolution IS intended to account for all known life, because it is the sum total of all known facts about life.  Aspects of evolution are still debated, because there is still much to learn, and only so much we can glean, or is left to glean.  You are using the term “assumption” here in a wholly incomparable fashion.  The theory of evolution ASSUMES that all life evolved, because there is nothing reasonable to suggest otherwise.  See my comments on the philosophical basis of ID above.

This is a LOGIC argument. 
If A + B = C and C + D = E, then A + B + D = E.
A = random mutation
B = natural selection
C = microevolution
D = time
E = macroevolution

There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that, given enough time, enough random mutations in a species won’t irrevocably change the line of the species.  Do I have to whip out my picture of the cyclops kitten?  The only obstacle to accepting macroevolution is if you BELIEVE that something else is guiding the process.  Belief.  Moreover, based on your own statements, ID doesn’t discount macroevolution, or are you changing your viewpoint now?

Macroevolution is 99.999% of the time, unobservable.  It’s a long process, incomprehensible by human standards.  Macroevolution has been observed, numerous examples cited previously.  Until ID can fit to scientific standards, it’s a philosophical argument. 

But stasis in the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion go a considerable way towards refuting at least some of these assumptions, but the assumptions pretty much remain.

Absolutely untrue.  Evolution happens when it needs to happen, not by any set schedule.  A static environment will leave only competitive pressure in natural selection, and some mutational changes will not survive without environmental pressure.  The Cambrian explosion is far from an example AGAINST evolution.  This refutes some proposed pathways, without a doubt, but the theory remains.

Posted by Kilroy on 03/01/06 at 04:30 PM from United States

Ah, the internet debate, Clickey, Clickey.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 04:53 PM from United States

What you have done is show me a list of 500 scientists whose desire for there to be scientific justification for their own personal religious beliefs has trumped their belief in objective science.

Actually Lee it wasn’t me that pointed out the 500 scientists that was cbass. But it sure is neat that you apparantly know all 500 of those men personally. I mean that is the only possible way you caould make such a claim about them…

TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

Yes Lee, but my point has always been that the scientific evidence to the contrary always changes.

Let’s say we argue about topic A. You call me a moron because all the scientific data in the world says that topic A is true, and denying topic A to beleive my point makes me a moron. Well tomorrow topic A is shown to have been worng/hoax/fabricated/miscalculated etc. does that still make me a moron?

Don’t you see Lee, 500 years ago you would be calling Columbus a moron for think the world was round before he set sail because that contadicted what the majroity of science said at the time. Sceince is not all powerful and all knowing and doubting it does not make one an idiot regardless of the reasons.

This is why I ask if there are any atheists on the list.

And the question doesn’t make sense Lee. ID requires a being of higher power intervening somehow you can beleive that and be an atheist.

Dirk, you made this claim earlier, but never backed it up. What evidence can you supply to show that these men believe in the claptrap that is IC?

Try researching this on your own if you really care but I will give you a link to information on Newton.
Newton

And to save you the trouble of actually having to read it heres the money shot for you.

...he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God’s providential role in nature.

There you go. If you call all IDers or creationists morons you are also calling the father of modern physics a moron, and I think that takes a huge set of brass ones to do.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 05:25 PM from United States

There you go. If you call all IDers or creationists morons you are also calling the father of modern physics a moron, and I think that takes a huge set of brass ones to do.

If someone came up to me today and told me they believed in alchemy, I would call them a moron.  This view would not be changed if they pointed out the Newton believed in it (and spent more time working on it than physics).  Newton was a giant of his time.  We could debate whether he would believe in ID/creationism if born today, but that’s somewhat irrelevant.  The fact is that he lived in ignorant times, something he did a lot to help move us out of but he didn’t wipe away with a single stroke.  Was he a moron?  No.  Did he hold some views that if held today would be considered moronic?  Yes.  Unless you find alchemy to be true in which case there’s really no point in trying to convince you of anything.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 05:48 PM from United States

The fact is that he lived in ignorant times, something he did a lot to help move us out of but he didn’t wipe away with a single stroke.

I was waiting for someone to say this. Check this link out.

Einstein was by all definitions and IDer in a time well after evolution became the accepted standard amoung the scientific community.

Now someone explain to me why Einstein was a moron.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:05 PM from United States

[quote]...he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God’s providential role in nature.There you go. If you call all IDers or creationists morons you are also calling the father of modern physics a moron, and I think that takes a huge set of brass ones to do.

You’re being ridiculous, Dirk.  You’re referencing a man who existed in the 17th century.  The alternatives didn’t exist for another century.

You’re reading too far into that essay.  Calling Einstein an ID’er is reading WAY into it.  Here’s some more Einstein quotes, relative to this, and other discussions we’ve had-

Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Emphasis mine, cause those statements are the kick in the knickers.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:07 PM from United States

Now someone explain to me why Einstein was a moron.

Not at all a moron. But he wasn’t a Biologist, nor an anthropologist, nor a geologist. He was a mathematical physicist who (by some accounts) occasionally forgot to tie his shoes. Does that make him a credible witness, or are you just saying “look at these men, they believed in God, too, so that means I’m right!”

He was incredibly bright in his field (let me emphasize that - IN HIS FIELD), but how does that translate into knowing anything at all about the mechanisms and processes of natural selection and/or evolution as a whole? And why would you argue that specialization in any field carries over to any other field?

Nice try, though.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:11 PM from United States

Nice one, rabid. I kicked the other leg out from under that argument, but I have no doubt it will be repeated in the future.

(Just for future reference, Dirk, what you just tried - and failed - to do is called “Appeal to Authority”. To save time, I’ll just use that phrase to prove you wrong in the future should this argument ever arise again, m’kay?)

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:12 PM from United States

ID requires a being of higher power intervening somehow you can beleive that and be an atheist.

That is what makes it a religion, not science. Are you capable of grasping the difference?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:18 PM from United States

You’re referencing a man who existed in the 17th century.  The alternatives didn’t exist for another century.

Actually no, that was just one man that I refernced. I mentioned many of them both before and after evolution was made a theroy. But regardless of what century he lived in that doesn’t change what he beleived. And if you honestly beleive that no one doubted the Bible in the 17th century you have some real history to catch up on.

And your point about Einstein, I never said he was a Christian or a creationist just that he beleived in God. If someone beleives in God obviosly they are an IDer at the least unless someone can explain to me how you can beleive in God but don’t think he has anything to do with creation.

Point being he didn’t beleive in the Jedeo-Christian God, be he did beleive in an idea that was greater than us and had its hand in creation which is all that ID teaches (for the record, I am not and IDer).

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:20 PM from United States

I was waiting for someone to say this. Check this link out.

Einstein was by all definitions and IDer in a time well after evolution became the accepted standard amoung the scientific community.

Now someone explain to me why Einstein was a moron.

As I said for Newton, Einstein was not a moron.  That said, your claim that he was an IDer doesn’t even fit the link you sent.  His views hold to what Lee and others have kept repeating is a fine approach to things.  He believed in a God creator who was expressed through the physical laws he sought.

Besides, even Einstein got things wrong (as he acknowledge at the time).  Unless you think that socialist world government is correct because Einstein thought so (not quite alchemy, but still).

As to his belief of the necessity of God, recall that in terms of cosmological theory the red shift wasn’t discovered until 1929 and it would be years before the mechanisms of heredity in modern biology were discovered.  There was plenty of room for a ‘God of the gaps’.

Putting all that aside, the fact that some scientists (today) believe in God is not an argument for ID.  Even most of those who believe in God are strongly against _ID as science_.

As I’ve said previously, science is a method and ID has yet to even be expressed in that language.  Einstein believed in God but he did not think that that belief needed to be expressed as science.  Rather, his faith led him to explore the beauty and power of that creation.  That’s a principled view.  However, the attempt (ID) to legitimize faith by taking the mantle of science is neither principled nor respectable.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:21 PM from Canada

How long will this thread stay alive.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:26 PM from United States

Slow typing left me behind rabid and drum, but on to the next round…

And your point about Einstein, I never said he was a Christian or a creationist just that he beleived in God. If someone beleives in God obviosly they are an IDer at the least unless someone can explain to me how you can beleive in God but don’t think he has anything to do with creation.

ID is not about creation, it’s about what comes after creation.  It’s the notion that the universe requires active and regular intervention (contravening physical law as we understand it) in order to acheive the existence of complex life (as we know it).  There’s obviously a range of opinions between the single-act creator and the belief that all actions are the direct result of God’s intervention, but there’s no necessary connection between ID and creation.

(which is not to say that many people who believe in one don’t believe in the other)

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:32 PM from United States

Nice one, rabid. I kicked the other leg out from under that argument, but I have no doubt it will be repeated in the future.

Wow thats an impressive. You kicked the leg out of an argument I wasn’t even making. You truly are amazing Drum.

The POINT the original post was that Lee called anyone who was an IDer or a Creationist is a moron. So I pulled up a list of many intelligent men who have been very important to science that would be considered at the least an IDer ergo Lee was calling those men morons.

Nothing more than tha Drum, I know how you love to put words in peoples mouth and argue points that were never made to being with but it won’t happen this time.

Not at all a moron. But he wasn’t a Biologist, nor an anthropologist, nor a geologist.

Ok, fine move the line a little bit further then. Mendel was a biologist. He was a Christian. He is even considered by some the father or genetics.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:34 PM from United States

If someone beleives in God obviosly they are an IDer at the least unless someone can explain to me how you can beleive in God but don’t think he has anything to do with creation.

Because the two are completely separate. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started (just what happened once it got started), or how we should be treating each other while we’re here.

And just for the record, Dirk, you’re a moron. I have repeatedly stated that I believe in God, but I think ID/IC is a load of tripe I would stuff down the disposal if I didn’t think I would get in trouble for fouling the sewers. It not only isn’t science, it isn’t even in the same universe as science.

Point being he didn’t beleive in the Jedeo-Christian God, be he did beleive in an idea that was greater than us and had its hand in creation which is all that ID teaches

Which is why Intelligent Creationism isn’t a science, but is, instead, a religion having no place in public schools.

And so what if he believed in a “Higher Power”? Does that mean that IC is true? Of course not, any more than looking at the man in the moon would make you a believer that space aliens built the pyramids (because obviously it was too much for the Egyptian’s primitive technology to move large rocks around and line them up in a straight line and all).

I’d still love to hear why Einstein’s capability in mathematical physics somehow translates over to Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:38 PM from United States

Ok, fine move the line a little bit further then. Mendel was a biologist. He was a Christian. He is even considered by some the father or genetics.

It’s stupid of you to keep pulling historical examples who existed prior to even the knowledge of modern biology.  There are modern biologists who believe in God.  What I’ve pointed out several times now is that most of those treat that as faith separate from science.  Those who believe in ID as science (Behe is the loudest) are (at least on this) morons.  ID has a possibility of being correct, but it isn’t science.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:42 PM from United States

There’s obviously a range of opinions between the single-act creator and the belief that all actions are the direct result of God’s intervention, but there’s no necessary connection between ID and creation.

Yes, but ID doesn’t who was invloved, how long he was involved nor to what extent either. By definition if you beleive that a higher power started the Big Bang or created the first form of life billions of years ago, that makes you an IDer. AND AGAIN I am not argueing the scientific value of ID or creationism, I am refuteing the claim that anyone who beleives in ID or creationism is an automatic moron.

I am not using the fact that intelligent men throughout history have beleived it so therefore it makes it more true. I am just trying to show, that just because someone beleives in ID or creationism does not make them a moron. THAT IS ALL. Now stop arguing with me about topics you insist on adding.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:47 PM from United States

The POINT the original post was that Lee called anyone who was an IDer or a Creationist is a moron.

Once more, you’ve forgotten the importent part: “DESPITE THE MOUNTAIN OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY”.

And Mendel believed many things, but Intelligent Creationism wasn’t one of them.

Belief in God does not automatically mean belief in Intelligent Creationism, no matter how many times you say it.

So I pulled up a list of many intelligent men who have been very important to science that would be considered at the least an IDer ergo Lee was calling those men morons.

Who is considering them such? Only you, and just because you say so. (Once more, for the cheap seats: Belief in God does not mean that one “would be considered at the least an IDer”.)

How many more men from the 17th century are you going to claim and what are their qualifications to judge the modern evidence? Mendel did a lot to prove that Evolution occurs (through heredity), rather than proving that God has a hand in any of it.

He did not know about DNA or protein chains or the rest of it. He worked with pea plants. Very smart man. But IDiot? No way. (Feel free to pull out a random quote out of context to show that he believed in God, but I just want you to know that you might as well be proving that his favorite color was brown for all the good it will do you in proving IC.)

Keep trying…

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:52 PM from United States

By definition if you beleive that a higher power started the Big Bang or created the first form of life billions of years ago, that makes you an IDer.

No, it does NOT. But repeating that flawed argument over and over again DOES make you a fucking moron.

I am just trying to show, that just because someone beleives in ID or creationism does not make them a moron.

When they ignore the mountain range of evidence that says otherwise, that DOES make them a moron. Just like you are ignoring any data that doesn’t fit your preconceived religious notions, which makes you a moron, as well.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:54 PM from United States

Evolution has nothing to do with how life started (just what happened once it got started), or how we should be treating each other while we’re here.

And all ID says is that a higher power was involved in our existence. To that extent you are a closet IDer.

It not only isn’t science, it isn’t even in the same universe as science.

And who exactly is arguing differntly right now? Oh thats right, you love to insult people and argue with them over stuff they never even said.

Which is why Intelligent Creationism isn’t a science, but is, instead, a religion having no place in public schools.

Again, who said differntly?

And so what if he believed in a “Higher Power”? Does that mean that IC is true?

Wow drum. Way to comepletly miss the point of my post again. I bet you could argue with a wall couldn’t you?

I’d still love to hear why Einstein’s capability in mathematical physics somehow translates over to Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.

I’d love to hear that as well, especially considering no here said anything like that.

ID has a possibility of being correct, but it isn’t science.

Again, I never said anything differnt.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:55 PM from United States

I am just trying to show, that just because someone beleives in ID or creationism does not make them a moron. THAT IS ALL.

Actually, you’ve tried to show that some intelligent people have believed in God.  You’ve tried to claim that’s the same as believing in ID which has been refuted.

Now stop arguing with me about topics you insist on adding.

Is this your way of asking me to stop scaring you with facts?

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:56 PM from United States

(Feel free to pull out a random quote out of context to show that he believed in God, but I just want you to know that you might as well be proving that his favorite color was brown for all the good it will do you in proving IC.)

Drum. Mendel was a monk.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 06:59 PM from United States

Drum. Mendel was a monk.

He was also a human being.

(Gee, swapping irrelevant yet obvious facts is fun! Your turn!)

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 06:59 PM from United States

And all ID says is that a higher power was involved in our existence. To that extent you are a closet IDer.

No.  ID is a very specific program to insert creationism into science.  Creationism and religion are different things, but ID has a very specific meaning.  It seems all of this boils down to you trying to say existence of God = ID.  If you want to redefine terms, I suppose you can win any argument.

Look, under your redefined debate, I agree.  Intelligent people believe in God.  Fine.  But trying to slip ID in by making it seem non-controversial is the entire problem with it and that’s why it’s irksome to just let you redefine things at will.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 07:02 PM from United States

You’ve tried to claim that’s the same as believing in ID which has been refuted.

Lets do a little critical thinking here.

ID says that an unknown force started creation. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. Not JUST life, or not JUST the big bang, but had at the very least SOMETHING to do with creation.

So, if you beleive that “god” used evolution and the big bang to start life, that means you are an IDer.

So expalin to me how some one can beleive that God exists, but is not an IDer.

Is this your way of asking me to stop scaring you with facts?

What the hell are you talking about? The problem is that you and Drum keep getting off point and arguing with me about stuff that I either don’t even disagree with, or am not even talking about.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 07:02 PM from United States

To that extent you are a closet IDer.

To that extent you are an outed moron.

The two are completely separate. Get it straight. Belief in God does NOT automatically translate to belief in ID.

Case in point: The Pope! He very obviously believes in God (being the head dude of his religion), yet the Catholic Church says that ID is totally false.

Obviously the Pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about, right? And because he says one thing, he actually means something else. (Lucky for him he has you to do his thinking for him, isn’t it?)

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/01/06 at 07:05 PM from United States

So, if you beleive that “god” used evolution and the big bang to start life, that means you are an IDer.

No, it doesn’t.

So expalin to me how some one can beleive that God exists, but is not an IDer.

Ask the Pope. He believes in God, yet thinks that ID is bullshit. (Okay, maybe he didn’t say “bullshit”, but he did say that it was not true.)

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 07:21 PM from United States

ID says that an unknown force started creation. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. Not JUST life, or not JUST the big bang, but had at the very least SOMETHING to do with creation.

I’ve already pointed out that this is an incorrect definition of ID.  ID claims not just that the universe had a creator but that the appearance of complex life required the active intervention of a ‘higher power’ outside of the regular laws of that universe.  More, ID is the name of a particular program which pretends that this belief is science.

This has been explained to you a few times by multiple people.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 07:23 PM from United States

ID is not about creation, it’s about what comes after creation.  It’s the notion that the universe requires active and regular intervention (contravening physical law as we understand it) in order to acheive the existence of complex life (as we know it).

No offense, but the problem is that you don’t understand the basic terms you’re using and then get upset when someone explains the facts that could help you to understand those terms.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 07:24 PM from United States

Shit, and my problem is that I don’t know how to proofread.

Here was the quote I intended to reply to:

The problem is that you and Drum keep getting off point and arguing with me about stuff that I either don’t even disagree with, or am not even talking about.

Sorry about that.

Posted by on 03/01/06 at 10:07 PM from United States

Let’s say we argue about topic A. You call me a moron because all the scientific data in the world says that topic A is true, and denying topic A to beleive my point makes me a moron. Well tomorrow topic A is shown to have been worng/hoax/fabricated/miscalculated etc. does that still make me a moron?

Yes, because that’s not what going on here.  Not only is science saying A is true, you are going “A is not true but my belief B is actually true.” Science then shows that A actually isn’t true but new information has led to the discovery that C is true.  People following scientific data will look at C agree that it is much better than A and change their views.  You will still be off in the corner shouting that B is still the truth.  We’ve moved on in our views you remain unchanged.  So yes you are still a moron.

And Harley

IF mankind was “designed” then i want to meet the engineer, and kick his ass, truly a piss poor design, i am sure that we ill improve on it here soon.

There is simply no evidence to support the idea that man was designed “as is”......... as for the Tail bone.where did the rest of my tail go? why have it at all, shurly that could have been designed differently, or maybe this is Lazy engineering?

There’s an engineering joke about that.  The punchline is that it was a civil engineer because who else would put a waste stream through a recreation area.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 09:36 AM from United States

Dirk, I’ve gotten into arguments with you before.  I already have Hell to look forward to, I don’t need to experience it here on earth.
You make these ridiculous leaps of the imagination when you argue, and all I keep thinking is that segments of the population should be forcibly sterilized.

You said this:

And your point about Einstein, I never said he was a Christian or a creationist just that he beleived in God. If someone beleives in God obviosly they are an IDer at the least unless someone can explain to me how you can beleive in God but don’t think he has anything to do with creation.

But before that, you said this:

Einstein was by all definitions and IDer in a time well after evolution became the accepted standard amoung the scientific community.

You did more than say Einstein was religious, which is fairly common knowledge, you made the bold statement that Einstein was, by all accounts, an ID’er.  ID’ers don’t all believe in God, just ask cbass.  Nor do all religious folk believe in ID.  I’m not sure how you manage to connect these dots when they’re on completely different pages.

Not only that, but the fact that you see some merit in your argument about old-school scientists being religious and/or creationists.  The timeframe they grew up in is the yardstick by which they should be judged, not our timeframe.  Every time I argue with you, I feel like banging my head on the desk.  I’m not going to do it anymore.  I have a nice desk.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/02/06 at 09:53 AM from United States

Nor do all religious folk believe in ID.

{Waves hand}

I’m not sure how you manage to connect these dots when they’re on completely different pages.

They’re not even in the same book. I have doubts they are even in the same section of the library.

Maybe Dirk and cbass ought to get together and work out their play book a little more, because “if you believe in God, you MUST believe in ID” makes it sound religiously based (which, btw, is exactly the opposite of what I have been arguing - that if you believe in ID, you must believe in God, no matter which label you attach to Him).

You wanna know what will REALLY flip them both out?

Intelligent Creationism may very well BE the explanation. BUT IT ISN’T SCIENCE!

{hunkers down and waits for explosion}

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/02/06 at 09:56 AM from United States

Well, shit.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 10:10 AM from United States

It’s far from impossible for nature to create something similar to, if not exactly like, a flint-knapped arrowhead.  The evidence you provide in this case is that there are several of them in one area.  This doesn’t compare to the example of ID, because the nature of life IS to expand.  I had a year’s worth of archaeology classes, so I actually do have an idea of what you’re talking about.

Well, the fact of its objectively being an arrowhead was a given, but then it was turned into a “roughly triangular chip of rock”, which changes the scenario. Let’s try to fine-tune it if we can. Let’s say you find several of these on the ground, or perhaps a few of these.

Should we dismiss these as “roughly triangular chips of rock”? Granted, they are rock and they are “roughly triangular”, but is that all they are? A “chip” is usually smooth sided, even if its edges are (extremely) sharp, but these artifacts appear to have been chipped, and aren’t just chips themselves.

Granted, these artifacts look like they could be canine teeth of some large predator, and could therefore be natural artifacts, but they aren’t made of tooth enamel, but stone. Also, they are quite symmetrical, and have what appear to be serrated edges, as opposed to a smooth edge most “chips” exhibit.

Well, symmetry does appear in nature, but does it appear in rocks, in geological formations?

Yes, we can point to quartz crystals, for example. They are symmetrical hexagonal crystalline structures, often quite transparant but sometimes milky or translucent.

However, we know that crystalline structures get their symmetry from the uniform structuring of their atoms, and we know how crystals grow by the gradual laying down of row upon row of uniformly structured atoms.

The artifacts in question, however, don’t exhibit crystalline uniformity, so their symmetry must have come about by different means.

What about the serrated edges? What about the notches at the base?

I don’t have the time to exhastively go through the scenario, but hopefully you can see where I’m going. By examining the artifact and comparing it to our knowledge base of natural phenomena along with man-made phenomena, we simply try to determine the best explanation for how these particualr stones got their shape.  We don’t merely assume that they are products of nature and build theories/hypotheses/scenarios on that asumption. We determine that deliberate design is the better explanation and proceed from there.

Granted, if that determination turns out to be wrong, a condition that ID recognizes, then the scenarios/hypotheses/theories built on that determination would be abandoned. But the point is that ID isn’t just saying “God Did It Praize Jayzuz” like so many people are claiming.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 10:39 AM from United States

Well of course as with the case of the television, arrowheads aren’t alive and don’t reproduce.  To use those as a reason for ID to be viable is again stupid on your part.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 10:53 AM from United States

Why should I believe that they were created instead of believing that science will one day find the reason they are this way as they did with bees flying?

For the record, I’m not telling anyone what they should or shouldn’t believe. I’m simply clarifying what ID is and isn’t.

Of course, “science will one day find” is an article of faith, a philosophical position based on the belief that naturalistic science is capapble of (eventually) explaining all aspects of observed reality.

Posted by Lee on 03/02/06 at 11:00 AM from United States

You have an object in your hand. Either it was designed, or it was not.

What is the third alternative?

Say you have a playing card.  On the face is the ace of spades, and on the back is a red pattern.  How many degrees do you have to rotate the card to get it back to where you can see the face again?

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 11:01 AM from United States

What ID isn’t is Science.  That’s all we need to know.  What it also isn’t is a force that is pushing science forward.  Science does that on its own.  There weren’t fundamentalist christians saying that einstein’s theories weren’t explaining everything right and thus that’s why Hawking has continued to research and modify them.

And what “science will one day find” is not an article of faith.  It is an article of logic.  They’ve done a pretty good job so far, of doing this.

Posted by Lee on 03/02/06 at 11:02 AM from United States

Of course, “science will one day find” is an article of faith, a philosophical position based on the belief that naturalistic science is capapble of (eventually) explaining all aspects of observed reality.

And ID is religious dogma, a philosophical position based on the belief that since at the given point in time naturalistic science is incapable of explaining all aspects of observed reality, this somehow proves that some supernatural being is responsible.

Posted by Lee on 03/02/06 at 11:07 AM from United States

cbass, we all now know (through that pesky science of genetics) that the father determines the sex of the baby.  We didn’t know this fifty years ago.  If you could go back to the 50s and ask doctors what determines the sex of the baby, most of them probably would have said that it was random chance or God or something similar.  So, I have a few questions for you.

1) Since the majority of doctors fifty years ago couldn’t explain how the sex of a baby was determined, does that mean that it was God?

2) Since we now know that the father’s genes determine the sex of the baby, does this mean that the scientists who 50 years ago thought it was God were wrong?

3) Since we now understand the biological process by which the sex of the baby is determined, does this mean that God has no hand in these matters?

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 11:08 AM from United States

Well of course as with the case of the television, arrowheads aren’t alive and don’t reproduce.

Explain how that’s relevant.

To use those as a reason for ID to be viable is again stupid on your part.

Perhaps you can explain how or why it’s so allegedly “stupid”.

Bacterial flagella on their own don’t reproduce. Neither do blood-clotting cascades. No, the host organism has to reproduce, and then copies of these machines are made in the process.

But it is again an outside agent making copies, not the machines themselves. The question of who or what is making the copies is irrelevant, just like the issue of who or what is making copies of arrowheads is irrelevant.

“Alive” is just an arbitrary distinction. Are proteins “alive”? Are bacterial flagella “alive”.

Yes they are parts of living organisms, but does that make them “alive” in their own right?

Besides, this is just an illustration of how ID works. The artifact in question isn’t required to be a living organism. Like I said, your requirement of “alive” is purely arbitrary.

Posted by Lee on 03/02/06 at 11:15 AM from United States

“Alive” is just an arbitrary distinction. Are proteins “alive”? Are bacterial flagella “alive”.

Yes they are parts of living organisms, but does that make them “alive” in their own right?

Substitute “fetus” for the terms above and you’ve just used exactly the same argument as every modern pro-abortion group.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 11:32 AM from United States

1) Since the majority of doctors fifty years ago couldn’t explain how the sex of a baby was determined, does that mean that it was God?

2) Since we now know that the father’s genes determine the sex of the baby, does this mean that the scientists who 50 years ago thought it was God were wrong?

3) Since we now understand the biological process by which the sex of the baby is determined, does this mean that God has no hand in these matters?

I am going to answer these questions philosophically/religiously:

1) Yes, because God choose which sperm cell to fertilize the egg.

2) No, because God still made the choice.

3) No, for the same reason as 2).

Now I am going to answer them scientifically:

1) No, because we cannot determine whether God exists, so we cannot rely on God as a causal factor (as opposed to chance) of which sperm fertilizes the egg.

2) Not necessarily. Answer 1) above doesn’t rule out the possibility of God being a causal factor, it’s just something we cannot test for. We do understand probability and have quantified it, and chance is a satisfactory explanation. We do not need to invoke God.

3) Again, not necessarily, and again, it’s because we cannot test for God’s intervention, but we can test for chance, and, given that chance is sufficient, God simply isn’t necessary.

Let the flaming begin . . .

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 11:37 AM from United States

Substitute “fetus” for the terms above and you’ve just used exactly the same argument as every modern pro-abortion group.

But a “fetus” isn’t a part of a larger organism, it is a living organism in its own right. It just happens to be undergoing its development process.

I suppose it could technically be considered a parasite. At least, that’s how some pro-"choice" people view it.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 12:14 PM from United States

Say you have a playing card.  On the face is the ace of spades, and on the back is a red pattern.  How many degrees do you have to rotate the card to get it back to where you can see the face again?

Wait, is this a riddle?  Assuming that our viewing point is directly above the card, any point greater than 270 degrees should “technically” be considered viewable.  Are you just messing with my head?

cbass, I like your scenario.  I also like the way you were thinking, including that it could be an animal tooth of some type.  Here’s where the story sinks.

Well, symmetry does appear in nature, but does it appear in rocks, in geological formations?

Arrowheads:

Fact:  Humans exist and have existed for a long time.
Fact:  Humans have created and continue to create arrowheads

These two facts together make pronouncing the arrowhead an arrowhead the simplest assumption.  (Occam’s Razor)

Irreducible complexity:

Fact:  Some intelligent lifeforms (humans, bare minimum) can design and implement those designs that are not regularly, if at all, seen in nature.
Assumption:  Nature cannot create certain complex cellular mechanisms because of the perceived design of the structures.

It’s the assumption that sinks ID as scientific.

Here’s the other kicker.
Design in geology is rare, typically happenstance.
Design in biology is common, almost the norm.  Look at how the Fibonacci spiral shows up in conch shells, artichoke leaves, etc.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 12:19 PM from United States

Say you have a playing card.  On the face is the ace of spades, and on the back is a red pattern.  How many degrees do you have to rotate the card to get it back to where you can see the face again?

Are you saying that design is a matter of degree? That an artifact can be, say 43% designed and 57% the product of natural selection (or some other evolutionary mechanism)?

OTOH, at some point of turning, the face of the card does again become visible. That specific point is the point of dichotomy—prior to that point, the face’s second appearance is not, at that point and beyond (until it turns enough to become invisible again), it is.

Unless you would choose to take the first steps down an infinite regression by questioning whether “visible-ness” is a dichotomy.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 12:39 PM from United States

Fact:  Humans exist and have existed for a long time.
Fact:  Humans have created and continue to create arrowheads

I understand that, but I was trying to illustrate a process, by focusing on the artifiacts themselves. Yes, I did invoke a “knowledge base of natural and man-made phenomena”, so the facts you presented are technically allowable, but that simply short-circuits the process I was trying to illustrate.

Also, we need to be clear that illustrations don’t prove anything, just like a mathematical graph doesn’t prove anything. Graphs and illustrations do not attempt to support an assertion, they simply try to convey in easy-to-undertand terms just what the assertion is asserting.

Assumption:  Nature cannot create certain complex cellular mechanisms because of the perceived design of the structures.

OTOH, the assumption that science makes is that nature can make them, even if there is no evidence in support of that assertion. It’s just that the evidence has not been found, nor the explanation discovered.

Design in biology is common, almost the norm.  Look at how the Fibonacci spiral shows up in conch shells, artichoke leaves, etc.

It’s interesting that you would say that design prevalent in nature. However, I don’t think that a Fibonacci sequence would be considered evidence of design from an ID point of view. A sequence of prime numbers, perhaps, but Fibonacci is too easily describable in natural terms. It is just a sum of two preceding numbers, after all. A prime number has the more abstract property of not being a product of any other number than 1 and itself, and I don’t believe any such sequences have been observed in nature.

Of course, primes can always be the sum of two or more arbitrary numbers.

Posted by on 03/02/06 at 05:17 PM from United States

OTOH, the assumption that science makes is that nature can make them, even if there is no evidence in support of that assertion. It’s just that the evidence has not been found, nor the explanation discovered.

Science makes predictions, not assumptions.  A prediction is an assumption with a track record.  There is no evidence to the contrary, which is why we utilize a theories predictive value.  When facts surface that contradict the existing model, then the model is changed. 

Bear in mind, though, that even though science makes predictions, it is not BUILT on them. 

It’s interesting that you would say that design prevalent in nature. However, I don’t think that a Fibonacci sequence would be considered evidence of design from an ID point of view. A sequence of prime numbers, perhaps, but Fibonacci is too easily describable in natural terms. It is just a sum of two preceding numbers, after all. A prime number has the more abstract property of not being a product of any other number than 1 and itself, and I don’t believe any such sequences have been observed in nature.

Of course, primes can always be the sum of two or more arbitrary numbers.

As my own personal belief, I don’t think God is as heavy handed as divinely creating and inserting biological structures Himself.  (This isn’t to say that I can be shown otherwise.) I imagine that God’s touch is felt more in the intricacies of the natural laws already in place, e.g. Fibonacci spirals in nature.

I do realize that design from an ID perspective is understood to be much closer related to human design properties (rotary engines) than just cleverly referencing mathematic equations.  What’s amazing about the Fibonacci sequence isn’t so much the sequence itself.  As you said, the equation is very simple.  What’s amazing is how the spiral shows up so frequently in nature.  It’s basic life forms doing algebra, if you think about it.  Mathematics is the language of the universe.  Prime numbers aren’t all that much more difficult, mathematically.  Take Euclid’s proof-

Suppose you have a finite number of primes. Call this number m. Multiply all m primes together and add one (see Euclid number). The resulting number is not divisible by any of the finite set of primes, because dividing by any of these would give a remainder of one. And one is not divisible by any primes. Therefore it must either be prime itself, or be divisible by some other prime that was not included in the finite set. Either way, there must be at least m+1 primes. But this argument applies no matter what m is; it applies to m+1, too. So there are more primes than any given finite number.

All this talk of divinely inspired numbers is making me want to take a drill to my medulla oblongata.

Posted by on 03/03/06 at 02:16 PM from United States

Prime numbers aren’t all that much more difficult, mathematically.  Take Euclid’s proof-

Of course, you need a set of primes to begin with, and therein lies the rub.

Interestingly, this parallels a prediction of ID, namely, in order to produce an irreducibly complex machine through a Darwinian mechanism, you need 1 or more irreducibly complex machine(s) as a starting point.

Posted by on 03/03/06 at 02:29 PM from United States

A prediction is an assumption with a track record.

Of course, science also has a less flattering track record of wrong turns, let’s not forget. Therefore, the term “prediction” as opposed to “assumption” loses some of its impact.

Posted by on 03/03/06 at 02:33 PM from United States

Of course, you need a set of primes to begin with, and therein lies the rub.

And, of course, the first three integers provide the seed.

Therefore it must either be prime itself, or be divisible by some other prime that was not included in the finite set.

I wonder how easy it would be to figure out that “some other prime”?

Posted by on 03/03/06 at 02:45 PM from United States

Contradictory facts don’t mean that the previous hypothesis/theory wasn’t based on facts, it suggests that there weren’t enough to see the complete picture.

When Darwin orginally published his theory in “Origins”, he made the assumption that the gaps in the fossil record would be filled in. That hasn’t happened, and, according to people like Dawkins, we should actually expect those gaps.

What is PE?

Punctuated Equilibria, as espoused by Gould (and lambasted by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker), which states that evolution progresses very quickly, followed by periods of statis, just as the fossil record shows.

Posted by Drumwaster on 03/03/06 at 02:46 PM from United States

And, of course, the first three integers provide the seed.

Except for the fact that 1 is not prime, of course.

Oops.

I wonder how easy it would be to figure out that “some other prime”?

Depends on what base you’re using. For example, 21 is prime, if you’re using base 3, but not if you’re using base 4. It’s also prime in base 5, 6, 8, & 9, but not in base 7 or 10…

{/math geek}

Posted by on 03/03/06 at 02:56 PM from United States

You have denied believing anything at all, just in this thread!

Because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject matter, just as yours are. By obsessing over my beliefs, you are trying to make this about me personally, not the subject at hand.

Posted by on 03/06/06 at 10:47 AM from United States

Of course, science also has a less flattering track record of wrong turns, let’s not forget. Therefore, the term “prediction” as opposed to “assumption” loses some of its impact.

Whether the prediction is correct or not isn’t the important point.  The importance is that the prediction is based on the facts at hand.  You can decry science’s monumental failures, and I don’t think I’d be wrong in saying that the number of successes to failures is an enormous ratio, but that’s science.  Form a hypothesis, test it, rinse, repeat.  The framework for science absolutely works, and I don’t imagine it changing any time soon.

When Darwin orginally published his theory in “Origins”, he made the assumption that the gaps in the fossil record would be filled in. That hasn’t happened, and, according to people like Dawkins, we should actually expect those gaps.

This is a good example of a hypothesis/theory being fine tuned as more is learned on the topic.  150 years is a long time to make new discoveries.

Ah, ok, I wasn’t sure what you were referencing by the abbreviation.  The debate behind PE is an excellent example of what people mean when they say evolution is a solid theory, but the mechanisms behind it are still disputed.

Sorry to bring this thread back up, I’m slow.

Next entry: Private Hosercare

Previous entry: Dim Sumuhammad

<< Back to main