# Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?

How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

You need to amend the poll, The Light. Neither option suits me.  I think matter and energy change form, but do not start and stop.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information *cannot come from nothing?*
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?


What THING is God???


----------



## Tom Clancy (Sep 26, 2010)

Well...

When a man and woman really love each other they create. 


I'm wondering why there isn't an option of Reproduction.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?



There are designs, The Light.  Most likely, millions of patterns we cannot see.  This alone is not proof of God (I don't think God _can_  be proven, strictly speaking).  Why would it have been any different millions of years ago?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA]YouTube - Nature by Numbers[/ame]


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> You need to amend the poll, The Light. Neither option suits me.  I think matter and energy change form, but do not start and stop.



Well, I had meant in terms of the origin of life. Otherwise you do have a point.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> ...



It is now known that the universe had a beginning so therefore life too had a beginning. This begs the question how did it begin and could it start without the information and means with which to be built?

Is a house built without blueprints?
Is a house built without hands to follow the blueprints?
Can a house build itself from raw materials on it's own?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

What is "life", The Light?


----------



## Tom Clancy (Sep 26, 2010)

That's way to broad of a question Madeline..

:/


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

I guess it seems to different from person to person. What do you see it as?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

Well, as you know I'm a scientific idijit, The Light.  Remember "Jurassic Park"?  There's a line from that movie something like "life will find a way".  I think that's likely true.

The impulse to live is inherent in the universe.  Take a brew of light and chemicals, wait a million years or so, you get a panda or a butterfly.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 26, 2010)

You have read posts from Dante, Douger, Rdean, Truthmatters, Ravi, Kerry Won Ohio, Mr Shaman.   Res Ipsa Loquitor.   QED.


----------



## manifold (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> It is now known that the universe had a beginning so therefore life too had a beginning. This begs the question how did it begin and could it start without the information and means with which to be built?
> 
> Is a house built without blueprints?
> Is a house built without hands to follow the blueprints?
> Can a house build itself from raw materials on it's own?



So where did the intelligent designer come from?

Did the intelligent designer build itself from raw materials on it's own?


----------



## Douger (Sep 26, 2010)

I'll take the design part but if *society* was "designed" to be this way the creator is either an idiot or a psychopath.


----------



## editec (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?


 
How can anyone believe that GOD came from a bubbling bath or chemicals and random change when we KNOW that is impossible?

Intelligent design really offers us absolutely NO answers, either.

God intelligently designed the universe?

Okay.

Who or what intelligently designed GOD?

See my point?

Debating theology trying to use logic or science is silly.

You either have faith or you don't.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2010)

By the what we know of chemistry and physics, it appears at present that the appearance of life in conditions like those of early earth is inevitable.

The Origin of Life

Abstract



Even the simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible &#8211; in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Conditions for synthesis of organic molecules on the early Earth are reviewed, and &#8216;gene-first&#8217; and &#8216;metabolism-first&#8217; models are discussed. While the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars has been a puzzling problem for decades, recent findings provide plausible explanations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2010)

Another site where you can read what some scientists think may have happened;

Pre-biotic Earth


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2010)

*Does not look like we need somebodys idea of a diety to explain the origin of life. And this is just one of the many possible paths.*

By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,&#8221; said Sutherland. &#8220;The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.&#8221;


Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland&#8217;s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth&#8217;s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland&#8217;s team added phosphate. &#8220;Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!&#8221; said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating &#8220;warm little pond&#8221; hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond &#8220;evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.&#8221;

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing &#8220;a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.&#8221;

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland&#8217;s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.



Read More Life&#8217;s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 26, 2010)

I wouldn't say it was inevitable, there is only a very narrow range of phase space where it is even possible.

And life as we see it now only is allowable in the range of freaky.   

but there are too many areas in the design of things that are not intelligent.   Unless the intelligence is kind of sadistic.  I really don't like the concept of being playthings of a neurotic sadistic god.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

Yes, the question of why is there evil in the world is a toughie.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


>



What did your god make them from?

Where did your god come from? Who made it?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
I would appreciate it, JB, if you wouldn't purposefully distort my posts. THANK YOU

If you have something to say then say it, but don't alter what I have to say.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Another site where you can read what some scientists think may have happened;
> 
> Pre-biotic Earth


 
That explains nothing about how life came about, it only talks about a bunch of chaos and explosions which are purely religious speculations that explain absolutely nothing.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Another site where you can read what some scientists think may have happened;
> ...



The Light, not trying to set you up to be mocked, honest.  But I'm curious.  Do you accept evolution as a scientifically-proven fact?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

manifold said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > It is now known that the universe had a beginning so therefore life too had a beginning. This begs the question how did it begin and could it start without the information and means with which to be built?
> ...


 
Where did all the material come from for the big bang? And don't tell me "nothing exploded".

The intelligent designer does not live within "time" but rather is eternal and has no need to be "created".


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
Depends. What is your definition of "evolution"?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 26, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Well, lemme google for one, k?



> ev·o·lu·tion  (v-lshn, v-)
> n.
> 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
> 2.
> ...



evolution - definition of evolution by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## blu (Sep 27, 2010)

who, with a functioning brain, would believe in intelligent design?

Once the ID people can explain dinosaurs and stars millions/billions of light years away then we can talk


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 27, 2010)

editec said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> ...


 
No, actually quite the opposite. 

Because an intelligent designer designed the universe, it is quite apparent that there is intelligence of design within our world.

Paul tells us the same thing in Romans 1:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -Romans 1:20

On the contrary, it is utterly silly to try to argue for evolutionism and its supporting theories using intelligence, logic and science because it is the exact antithesis of those things. In other words you would be trying to use logic to describe how an illogical series of chaotic events created a human being out of mush using intelligence which came from nowhere. Intelligence cannot and will not ever be observed to come from non intelligence and remains solely in the minds of those who wish it to be so.

You say "Who or what intelligently designed GOD?" which is a perfectly legitimate question as all questions are and should be treated as such. If you would like to observe the answer to that question though, you would have to resort to a means other than those limited to our 4 dimensions.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 27, 2010)

blu said:


> who, with a functioning brain, would believe in intelligent design?
> 
> Once the ID people can explain dinosaurs and stars millions/billions of light years away then we can talk


 
That I can do, but you still have not answered mine.

How can intelligence arise from non intelligence and where can I observe this phenomenon occurring today?

How did life come from nothing but lifeless goo?

Why is it we live on a planet perfectly fine tuned for discovering the universe?

Why is it the only known planet that has intelligent observers has the correct sized moon and distance ratio to the sun so that we can discover the composition of our sun during a full eclipse?

Those are just a few...


----------



## Madeline (Sep 27, 2010)

I think evolution is anything but an illogical series of random events, The Light.  In any event, I have difficulty understanding why a religious person would reject evolution.  Seems like it should be just the opposite; the complexity and interrelatedness of this Earth is infinite and to me, suggests an infinite Deity.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
Yes, 1 and 2 I agree with as they are scientifically testable and proven. Number 3, however is a religion based on the hopes and dreams of those that hate the Judeo-Christian G-d and should not be mixed with science. I'm not saying that all those who follow 3 hate G-d, as many have been raised to believe that this is really science.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



He did a pretty shitty job of "designing".  He put the sewer pipe right next to the playground.

So how long did he "sit around" and do nothing until he finally started to "make something"?

All that solitude.  I bet he has no social skills.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 27, 2010)

> 3. Biology
> a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.



The Light, if you accept the first two definitions as true, doesn't the third logically follow?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 27, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone not believe that information *cannot come from nothing?*
> ...





THE LIGHT said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


I notice you have been avoiding my question!

You said information cannot come from nothing. God, of course, is not a thing therefore you contradict yourself when you say God is the source of information necessary for life.

Regarding what went "bang" at the Big Bang it was all the energy of the universe. It was not energy which began at the Big Bang, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed. All you have done is call energy "God." It was TIME that began at the Big Bang.


----------



## manifold (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



So the intelligent designer is something that came from nothing.

But wait, I thought that was not possible?


----------



## del (Sep 27, 2010)

Douger said:


> I'll take the design part but if *society* was "designed" to be this way the creator is either an idiot or a psychopath.



so you're still in the running.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance *when we know that it is impossible*?


We do?


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?



How do you know it's impossible?  You can't logically use a conclusion as evidence.


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



The blueprints are the Laws of Chemnisdtry and Physics.  If there's any design, that's where it is.  The rest is evolution with the final design undesignated.  It's actually a process which won't end until all life itself ends.  Asking if a house can build itself s an illogical question in this context.  There are no Laws of Chemistry and Physics which would lead to the creation of a house from raw materials.  There are are, however, laws that allow for the formation of amino acids, sugars, fats, purine and pyrimadine bases, phosphates, etc., i.e. everything you need for life including mechanisms for how they could coalesce into a functioning whole.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2010)

TL, how can life emerge by magic and where can I observe this phenomenon occurring today?


> Why is it we live on a planet perfectly fine tuned for discovering the universe?



We don't. We can't even see much of it.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM]YouTube - Intelligent Design? - Neil deGrasse Tyson[/ame]


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?



First off, evolution has nothing to do with life coming from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance.  Secondly, evolution is not random.  This seems to be a concept you can't seem to grasp.  Third, the opposite of evolution is not intelligent design.  There is little that is intelligent about our genes anyway.  Forth, disproving the big bang or start of life in no way has anything to do with evolution.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 27, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> ...


 
Thou dost protest too much. I never stated evolution in my OP that you just quoted yet you bring it up just to deny it.

And no, I grasp it just fine. I am asking a question that you don't seem to be able to answer. All you have done is make up a long list of excuses rather than address the question which is typical for you.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 27, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> TL, how can life emerge by magic and where can I observe this phenomenon occurring today?
> 
> 
> > Why is it we live on a planet perfectly fine tuned for discovering the universe?
> ...


 
Well if you consider the construction of houses, assembly of cars, etc. magic, I don't know how to help you.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> ...


 
Let's just say that the tooth fairy is more probable than that.


----------



## blu (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?



how do you know its impossible??


----------



## marksinvirginia (Sep 27, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...





******************************************

It is more likely that a disassembled watch could put itself back together than that the universe created itself.

There is no subject that has more time and energy vainly invested than man's effort to prove that his own Creator doesn't exist.

It's amusing how when man's knowledge hits a wall he propounds theory. When his theory hit a wall he calls it empirical knowledge.


~Mark


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > TL, how can life emerge by magic and where can I observe this phenomenon occurring today?
> ...


You're right! Clearly, ther must be an uber god to create god! and an uber-uber-god to create the uber-god! and an uber-uber-uber god to create the uber-uber-god _ad infinitim_


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 28, 2010)

No, G-d does not require a creator.

Back to the question. How did life get started without information?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 28, 2010)

The diety as an every expanding set of Matroshka dolls.

Works for me.

Life is not a thing, it is a process.    Conditions back then were not the same as they are now.   In the days before life, the atmosphere had not oxygen.    Oxygen exists as a pollutant created by proto life.

the process of life is actually chemistry going to a lower energy state from a higher energy state.   Systems that don't work are replaced by those that do.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 28, 2010)

Life = matter + energy + information

If you have a computer without an OS it will turn on but sit like a useless zombie.

However, if you have a computer with an OS and applications it will do exactly what those applications have been "designed" to do. If it encounters an unknown command it will not develop a better program but give you a message saying "I don't know what the hell you are talking about" or simply crash.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> No, G-d does not require a creator.
> 
> Back to the question. How did life get started without information?



Information does not require a creator.

There, done.


----------



## Newby (Sep 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yes, the question of why is there evil in the world is a toughie.



Evil is simply the absense of good, in varying degrees.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the question of why is there evil in the world is a toughie.
> ...


Yes... because when god is involved, everything's fucking awesome!
Murder in the Bible

Slavery in the Bible


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Life = matter + energy + information



what the hell is that, lite?  is this a new religion you started this week?


----------



## marksinvirginia (Sep 29, 2010)

A group of ants were gathered on a railroad track debating over whether or not the railroad actually had a president. 

I don't expect that to sink in.

~Mark


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 29, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > No, G-d does not require a creator.
> ...


 
Example please?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Life = matter + energy + information
> ...


----------



## marksinvirginia (Sep 29, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the question of why is there evil in the world is a toughie.
> ...



******************************

Evil rulzs.... _so... you have that backwards.  _


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 29, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> The intelligent designer does not live within "time" but rather is eternal and has no need to be "created".



Oh, so you find it hard to believe that the universe started out as a pin prick, then there was a massive explosion, and it seems to have appeared out of nothing, but you can't see why athiests like myself have a problem with a so-called God that was always 'there' and came from 'nothing'.

Note to The Light - look up the word 'hypocrite'.

That aside, check out Stephen Hawkings "Into the Universe". You might learn something...


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 30, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > The intelligent designer does not live within "time" but rather is eternal and has no need to be "created".
> ...


 
Note to Dr. Grump - your advice would help you and your friends out greatly.

Note: You really should read Stephen Hawkings thoughts about the big bang and just ponder them for a while. Forget trying to hate God for a moment and ask some really challenging questions about his theory.

Maybe Lord Kelvin is right after all.

"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism." ~Lord Kelvin


----------



## Newby (Sep 30, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > The intelligent designer does not live within "time" but rather is eternal and has no need to be "created".
> ...



A pinprick in what or where, exactly?


----------



## Newby (Sep 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You point to the descriptions of the actions of man, not God.


----------



## jillian (Sep 30, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Where does it appear he 'hates' G-d? He simply doesn't believe G-d exists..

As for Hawkings, I think it's clear that if one reads A Brief History of Time, the big bang doesn't necessarily preclude the idea of G-d and is, in fact, consistent with creation... but only if one is not a literalist about the bible. And given that I don't believe the bible was ever intended to be taken literally, perhaps the idea of both ideas co-existing isn't so alien to me.


----------



## konradv (Sep 30, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Life = matter + energy + information
> 
> If you have a computer without an OS it will turn on but sit like a useless zombie.
> 
> However, if you have a computer with an OS and applications it will do exactly what those applications have been "designed" to do. If it encounters an unknown command it will not develop a better program but give you a message saying "I don't know what the hell you are talking about" or simply crash.



The Laws of Chemistry and Physics are the OS, i.e. "design", evolution is the program.  Like in a computer when you change data the program changes the output, but that's not "design", if the data are random mutations, recombinations or environmental stressors.


----------



## vonbolical5 (Sep 30, 2010)

wow


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 30, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Soon as you provide an example of the highlighted


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 30, 2010)

Newby said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


ordered by God/El/YHWH


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Information does not require a creator.
> ...


 


Still waiting for those examples.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Life = matter + energy + information
> ...


 
Right, and an OS has a creator. 




> Like in a computer when you change data the program changes the output,


 
Yes, because the program that is doing that for you is "designed" to do that.



> but that's not "design",


 
Wha?



> if the data are random mutations, recombinations or environmental stressors.


 
There is no such thing as random numbers.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

jillian said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


 
Oh, I agree that the big bang is consistant with the Bible if G-d is the one responsible for it. However, Hawkings says that it happened on its own.


----------



## konradv (Oct 1, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Not denying a creator, just saying evolution is the plan.  While the program may be "design", when random events are plugged in the results aren't predetermined as Intelligent Design theorizes.  The part about random numbers is irrelevant.   What about 
"mutations, recombinations or environmental stressors"?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2010)

I find the thread title is perfect for the question.  Faith (a set of ideas that are beliefs) in ID requires faith - either faith in a God or faith in the possibility of a God.

One cannot prove or disprove God'sexistence so faith is all that is left.  Believing in ID requires faith - 'I believe, therefore it is true'.

Seems rather obvious.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 1, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Oh, I agree that the big bang is consistant with the Bible if G-d is the one responsible for it. However, Hawkings says that it happened on its own.


So you're saying an event, known only by the data observed from its aftereffect, only really happened if god did it, even though god is in no way suggested from the data which produced the understanding of the event in the first place. So IF god did it, then all the evidence is valid.  But if god didn't do it, then the exact same evidence is somehow magically invalidated.   Right.  






Si modo said:


> God'sexistence


awesome.



Si modo said:


> so faith is all that is left.  Believing in ID requires faith - 'I believe, therefore it is true'.
> 
> Seems rather obvious.


Right.  The problem is that these nuts then equate ALL thinking as equal but different "beliefs", when such is not the case.  Some thinking is based on well documented evidence, tried, true, and predictably applicable.  Other thinking is based on absolutely nothing or completely fabricated information.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 
You say that it happened by random events, and then you say it doesn't matter that there is no such thing random.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2010)

Of course, if one wanted to really do some research into the possibilities of how life started, one could start here;

The Origin of Life

Even the simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible &#8211; in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Conditions for synthesis of organic molecules on the early Earth are reviewed, and &#8216;gene-first&#8217; and &#8216;metabolism-first&#8217; models are discussed. While the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars has been a puzzling problem for decades, recent findings provide plausible explanations.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

Si modo said:


> I find the thread title is perfect for the question. Faith (a set of ideas that are beliefs) in ID requires faith - either faith in a God or faith in the possibility of a God.
> 
> One cannot prove or disprove God'sexistence so faith is all that is left. Believing in ID requires faith - 'I believe, therefore it is true'.
> 
> Seems rather obvious.


 
Seems rather obvious that you are willfully ignorant. Your willful ignorance shows your intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because you hate the idea of a god that you willfully misinterpret true science and gladly accept the impossible lies of evolutionism.

You have it completely backwards. In ID one is not trying to prove that a god exists in order for Intelligent Design exist. Rather, Intelligent Design is a testable conjecture which if true implies that an Intelligent Designer is necessary. I don't have to find the watchmaker who made my watch to know that it was designed. I know that my watch was designed therefore there is a need for a designer. Whether I see, touch, smell or feel that designer is really irrelevant to the whole equation.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 1, 2010)

Really? The watch again?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0]YouTube - Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker[/ame]


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course, if one wanted to really do some research into the possibilities of how life started, one could start here;
> 
> The Origin of Life
> 
> Even the simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, *once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed*, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible  in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Conditions for synthesis of organic molecules on the early Earth are reviewed, and gene-first and metabolism-first models are discussed. While the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars has been a puzzling problem for decades, recent findings provide plausible explanations.


 
You still haven't answered it. How did that self replicating genetic molecule come about?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 1, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=related]YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak[/ame]


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I find the thread title is perfect for the question. Faith (a set of ideas that are beliefs) in ID requires faith - either faith in a God or faith in the possibility of a God.
> ...



I find it ironic that you call me willfully ignorant when you clearly don't comprehend my comment.

Bottom line, ID requires a belief in a God.  One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, thus, ID is a non-falsifiable theory.  Convenient.  So, it's easy to believe in something that is based on a belief.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 1, 2010)

Si modo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
Either 

a) You didn't read my post

or 

b) You read it and did just what I said. Willfully disregarded everything I said.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 2, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Ohhhhhhh.  I just love false dichotomies!


----------



## germanguy (Oct 2, 2010)

Do I believe in intelligent design ?

Ever read Douglas Adams "Last Chance to see" ? 
The chapter about a bird called Kakapo ?

If this bird is an example of intelligent design, the designer was stoned.

But serious:

ID tries to combine science and belief, which does not match properly. 

So, personally I think, that the Evolution as a model for explaining things is making more sense, everybody else can believe what he wants. In the very end we will see who was right.

(Imagine, after your death you are standing in front of a door with a sign "Sorry - Mormons, Jews and Kirk of Scotland only"  - a fucking nightmare).

regards
ze germanguy


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 2, 2010)

Si modo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
You dodge questions quite well.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 2, 2010)

germanguy said:


> Do I believe in intelligent design ?
> 
> Ever read Douglas Adams "Last Chance to see" ?
> The chapter about a bird called Kakapo ?
> ...


 
Because of one bird that you don't understand ID is not possible. Now that is science!



> But serious:
> 
> ID tries to combine science and belief, which does not match properly.


 
Yeah, it is a bad thing to belive in science. Psuedo science like evolution is far better.




> So, personally I think, that the Evolution as a model for explaining things is making more sense, everybody else can believe what he wants. In the very end we will see who was right.


 
Evolutionism doesn't explain how things get started. In fact those who "believe" in evolutionism have NO explanation for how life got started.

On the contrary, ID has an explanation for how life got started. And those who hold an ID viewpoint generally have a theory of evolution that explains things far better and more scientific.

Yes, we will see who was right. Unfortunately by that time it will be too late for the followers of the evolutionism cult.



> (Imagine, after your death you are standing in front of a door with a sign "Sorry - Mormons, Jews and Kirk of Scotland only" - a fucking nightmare).
> 
> regards
> ze germanguy


 
Wha? Are you trying to make some you hate God therefore ID is false point out of that?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 2, 2010)

I have this little test to see if someone is making an intelligent claim with support and substance, or is just spouting hot air: flip all of the parties and substances in the sentence, and see if the point changes.  If it appears to still work and nothing else is changed, the original claim is useless.  Let's try it out:



THE LIGHT said:


> Seems rather obvious that I am willfully ignorant. My willful ignorance shows my intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because I hate the idea of science that I willfully misinterpret God and gladly accept the impossible lies of the bible.



Another winner: completed unsupported and useless.


----------



## Toro (Oct 2, 2010)

Somebody started talking to me yesterday about "Creation Science.". It took everything I had to not burst out laughing.


----------



## Toro (Oct 2, 2010)

Re watchmaker analogy

Light

the problem with your analogy is that you can physically track down your watchmaker. You can fly to Switzerland and go to the watch factory and meet the employees who made your watch. 

When you can take me to heaven and intoduce me to God then your analogy applies. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. However, until you can provide tangible and repeatable evidence of God, you are merely articulating a belief-system more akin to philosophy than science.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 2, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I have this little test to see if someone is making an intelligent claim with support and substance, or is just spouting hot air: flip all of the parties and substances in the sentence, and see if the point changes. If it appears to still work and nothing else is changed, the original claim is useless. Let's try it out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I would appreciate if you DO NOT intentionally distort my posts. That is extremely dishonest. Must you really do that to prove that evolutionism is true?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 2, 2010)

That had nothing to do with proving evolution to be true or not.  That only proved your comments at the time, REGARDLESS of the topic, are completely useless.  It's not misrepresenting your stance if I first state how and why I am about to flip words in your quote, and then highlight exactly which words I purposely change.  

You speak of dishonesty in big red letters, which in fact you are the one claiming I'm attempting to prove evolution with a point that had absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. 

Playing the victim doesn't make you any smarter, nor does it discredit evolution.  Sorry.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 2, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM]YouTube - Intelligent Design? - Neil deGrasse Tyson[/ame]


----------



## germanguy (Oct 2, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> germanguy said:
> 
> 
> > Do I believe in intelligent design ?
> ...



I personally think, that if there is a god, he is beyond our comprehension. We ight get a glimpse, but this is all. But this is not the point.

Science is, more or less, statistics. If an object has fallen at a specific speed in a specific time a specific distance for many times, than you can start to make a law out of it. 
Once this will not happen anymore, you are in deep shit. 

Still, we are able via science to explain and understand a lot of things, but not all.

This is that. Science is profoundly human and secular.

The theory, that an almighty god (which already excludes non-monotheistic religions and animistic religions) has started the thing seems to me rather an idea to comfort, than anything else.

A universe simply being is a thing hard to stand. 

So, therefore I do not believe in ID, I consider the theory of evolution more likely.

And no, I do not want to make a hate god, but I think the Almighty has a good sense of humor.  And the face of all religious hypocrits, when they meet god is something I personally look forward.

regards 
ze germanguy


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2010)

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
        upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
        the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
        light from the darkness

Or, 15 billion or so years ago there was an enormous explosion that originated from a singularity the size of a proton.  From that proton sized singularity all the matter in the universe erupted in one cataclysm, the matter that makes up the 400 billion or so stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, and all the matter in the rest of the 125 billion or so galaxies out there.

Seems to me BOTH explanations require an element of faith.


----------



## jeffrockit (Oct 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Does not look like we need somebodys idea of a diety to explain the origin of life. And this is just one of the many possible paths.*
> 
> By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides, said Sutherland. The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.
> 
> ...



Where did these ingredients come from?


----------



## Synthaholic (Oct 3, 2010)

*Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?*


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> 
> 001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
> upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
> ...



Well if you go with the Big Boss theory of the Bible, no other explanation is necessary.  Unless you are like me and think that if we puny humans were able to figure out God and exactly how He did or does anything, He wouldn't be much of a God would he?

And if you go with the Big Bang theory, there is still a notion that something had to light the fuse.  And ID-ers can comprehend a universe so vast and so intricate and so unexplainable that we can't quite grasp it all, but that there is some Intelligent Force that set it in motion.  For people like me, God would be the author of science, and therefore I have no problem at all reconciling God and science in my head.

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory.  If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again.  Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

But then there are people like me who say okay, but something's got to shake the sack.

The point being to all this that no matter what theory of creation and evolution feels most right to you, there are huge chunks of it that nobody can explain or prove.  There is plenty of room for a belief in God or Intelligent Design AND science.  And we really don't have to fuss all that much in order to coexist.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> 
> 001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
> upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
> ...



There's a misconception that all opinions and ideas are equal.  They're not.  While both of the ideas you gave may have some "element" of faith, ONE of those ideas has physical observable ongoing EVIDENCE that supports it.  The other does not.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 3, 2010)

Anyone who stands there and tells me that plants existed before the sun and expects to be taken seriously is retarded.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 3, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


If you actually posed a question when you presented your false dichotomy, I may actually have dodged something.  How dishonest of you to suggest that you have.

How does being so dishonest sit with being so pious?


----------



## germanguy (Oct 3, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QrGAJJ2sSc[/ame]

Nuff said
ze germanguy


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 3, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> ...


The first problem with your "logic" is if some thing must light the fuse you have eliminated God from the equation because God is not a thing.

Science,of course, says GRAVITY lit the fuse, but gravity is not an "intelligent" force so believers reject it without thought even though you admit a FORCE is responsible for the motion.

And finally, your stupid vacuum cleaner example shows a complete lack of understanding of chemistry and physics! Unlike a vacuum cleaner part, atoms and molecules are quite able to assemble themselves into more complex structures. And they don't form random structures either. Only specific structures are formed naturally according to the number of electrons in the outer shell called valence electrons. And guess what, all life is made up ONLY from these natural molecules, there are no "designer" molecules at all.


----------



## antagon (Oct 3, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> ...



this is the frailty of faith which i think fundamentalists and ID advocates betray with their obstinacy to science.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 3, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing?
> 
> How can anyone belive that life came from a bubbling bath of chemicals and random chance when we know that it is impossible?



We don't know where the Mother Ship comes from. Some AI could well have been the designer of earthlings.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 3, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Well...
> 
> When a man and woman really love each other they create.
> 
> ...



Is there "love" in cloning?


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 6, 2010)

If matter sprang from nothing,  _as some claim _- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.  This is, of course,  unless we have *run out *of "nothing" from which matter can spring.  But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite.  That would then render matter as infinite,  because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.     

So,  my dear atheists,  your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity;  more appropriately called... _bullshit_.

Reductio ad absurdum,  at its best! 

~Mark


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 6, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Yes, if you want to play word games. However, if you want to talk science, we know that other dimensions do exist beyond those that we can perceive.



> Science,of course, says GRAVITY lit the fuse, but gravity is not an "intelligent" force so believers reject it without thought even though you admit a FORCE is responsible for the motion.


 
Science says? Hmmm... were we there to observe this??? has it been reproduced???

Didn't think so.

Stephen Hawking says....

That's more like it. 

Where did gravity come from? and how does gravity act on nothing?



> And finally, your stupid vacuum cleaner example shows a complete lack of understanding of chemistry and physics! Unlike a vacuum cleaner part, atoms and molecules are quite able to assemble themselves into more complex structures. And they don't form random structures either. Only specific structures are formed naturally according to the number of electrons in the outer shell called valence electrons. And guess what, all life is made up ONLY from these natural molecules, there are no "designer" molecules at all.


 
Your explanation does nothing to reconcile the origin of life. Yes, atoms are quite able to assemble themselves into complex structures, however, these complex structures are limited. 

The complex code needed for life is neither random nor repetitive therefore the laws dictating chemical bonding in no wise are able to explain the origin of life.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 6, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Anyone who stands there and tells me that plants existed before the sun and expects to be taken seriously is retarded.


 
Plants can't survive one night???


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 6, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> *Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?*


 




Who believes in Darwinian evolutionism?


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> ...






Well said!


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> ...






Prove to us how the entire observable universe erupted from a dot the size of half an atom.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






You need to read some more books (or maybe your first?) on cosmology.  So far no one KNOWS what lit the fuse.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> *If matter sprang from nothing,  as some claim *- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.  This is, of course,  unless we have *run out *of "nothing" from which matter can spring.  But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite.  That would then render matter as infinite,  because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.
> 
> So,  my dear atheists,  your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity;  more appropriately called... _bullshit_.
> 
> ...





THE LIGHT said:


> Where did gravity come from? and *how does gravity act on nothing?*


The only "as some claim" who say everything came from nothing are Creationists! 

In science there is no such thing as nothing!!! According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore there always was and always will be energy in the exact same total quantity. Only  its form will change.


----------



## konradv (Oct 7, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> If matter sprang from nothing,  _as some claim _- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.  This is, of course,  unless we have *run out *of "nothing" from which matter can spring.  But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite.  That would then render matter as infinite,  because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.
> 
> So,  my dear atheists,  your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity;  more appropriately called... _bullshit_.
> 
> ...



That's a straw man argument, mark.  Who are these "some" and why are you only using their words?  It must be a very small percentage of scientists, because I've NEVER heard that stated.  Most cosmologists say that all energy and matter emerged from a singularity.  That's NOT nothing, rather it's EVERYTHING.  Given that, it seems it's your argument that's reduced to absurdity.  Also, why assume all that believe in the Big Bang are atheists?  Perhaps that singularity IS God.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 7, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> If matter sprang from nothing,  _as some claim _- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.




Fail.




> This is, of course,  unless we have *run out *of "nothing" from which matter can spring.  But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite.  That would then render matter as infinite,  because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.



fail





> So,  my dear atheists,  your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity;  more appropriately called... _bullshit_.



fail





> Reductio ad absurdum,  at its best!



Nope, just stupidity on display


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 7, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?*
> ...



:yawn:

Who believes in Jesus?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 7, 2010)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe-einstein.html


----------



## konradv (Oct 7, 2010)

*And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.*

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen.  There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2010)

God made us from dust....you don't get any more intelligent than that


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 7, 2010)

konradv said:


> *And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.*
> 
> That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen.  There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.



Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.*
> ...






konrad usually does....


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.*
> ...


As far as what specific molecules will form naturally, it is the structure of the atom itself.

With the exception of the inner shell which holds 2 electrons, when the outer shell of an atom or molecule holds 8 electrons it is a stable atom or molecule. Atoms and molecules will exchange or share electrons to achieve this stable state. The electrons in the outer shell are called valence electrons.

There are no non-natural "designer molecules" in any known form of life.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 7, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner?   How did it come to be that way?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Magic! 

It is the nature of the structure of the atom, a stable form of energy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 7, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Where the the structure of the atom that resulted in the nature come from?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Can you please learn how to construct a valid sentence before trying to discuss anything more complicated than _American Idol_, dipshit?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


From Energy changing from.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?


I think you're missing the point of NATURAL laws if you're looking for the person writing them. 



Foxfyre said:


> Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner?   How did it come to be that way?



Expectation?  Expectations are for humans, not atoms.  Atoms are atoms.  We observe them, and can determine expectations. 

But let's fast forward your bottomless pit of an argument: Regardless of how many answers you are given for underlying reasons, you continue to ask "but what made THAT thing?" in true second grade fashion, unable to be satiated because people can't tell you things that happened before the evidence trail goes cold.  It doesn't matter whether you get a hundred or a million explanations of the preceding step, because in your mind none of these things can simply just exist.  But the moment the evidence is no longer there, that's when you step in and claim a magical being made it.  And if you were asked the same question of "and who made that magical being?" you'd give some answer that didn't satiate you when you were doing the asking, but for absolutely no reason whatsoever works just fine as long as its applied to your magical being. 

Am I close?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?
> ...



You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close.  I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design.  Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.

And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?

One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now.  How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion?  What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?

If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there?  For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there?  How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force?  What lit the fuse?

All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close.  I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design.  Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.


Einstein also didn't pooh pooh Obama's candidacy.  This is not evidence.  Einstein wasn't even alive to see genetics come into full swing. Over 50 years has passed since his time.  That's half a century of invaluable knowledge.  Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but he knew nothing about what we know regarding evolution today.  Using him as support is not only outdated, but short sighted. 



> And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?


Where on earth did you draw that conclusion?  The two halves of that sentence have nothing to do with one another. Regardless of that, the fact still remains that the natural laws in no way required human expectation to continue doing their thing.



			
				fox said:
			
		

> One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now.  How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion?  What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?


Your vacuum cleaner in the sack analogy WAS foolish for the reasons he pointed out.  I'm happy to restate his reasoning if you're at all confused.  The remainder of your questions in this above quote appear to be entering that bottomless pit stupidity I had referred to in my previous post.  The fact still remains that answering such questions is useless in someone like you, because as soon as the evidence trail runs cold and things aren't explained by modern science, you chalk it up to God.  This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history.  The sun was too mysterious, so it was God.  The parts that make up people are too mysterious, so that was God.  Then we discovered cells and the things that made the cells work were too mysterious, so that was God.  Then we figured out DNA, and the things that make up DNA are too mysterious, so that was God.  It's an endless load of vacuous crap.

And somehow, out of that crap, you think you have some reason to believe in intelligent design, when understanding the origins of atoms has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution can and does exist regardless of what started it, or what makes the irrelevant physical forces that progress it. 



> If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there?  For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there?  How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force?  What lit the fuse?
> 
> All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.


Sure, they are reasonable questions that demand reasonable investigation.  The only UNreasonable answer would be throwing up your hands and saying "it must be God cuz I'm too dumb to know".  Lack of knowledge does not mean God.  It means you don't know.  There are a number of brilliant physicists who can offer a ton of explanation for a lot of them, but again, you're currently hitting the part where the evidence trail goes cold.  You can either learn from your ignorant heritage and believe there is still a reasonable explanation to these questions, or follow in their footsteps.  "Because throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be. . . not magic!"


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Let me try again.

Atoms and the materials that make up the atom are forms of energy. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy in all its changing forms always exists in the exact same total quantity. The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so it is not a theory so you will have to just accept it as fact whether you understand it or not.

Where I think you are confused is you have time and energy flip-flopped. I suspect you think time is eternal and energy has a beginning and end. It is time that has a beginning and end not energy. Time exists only in terms of motion, no motion, no time. Time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. Energy is what went bang. And time ends at the Big Crunch.

But that ending of time is only for an instant too small to measure. Please visualize in your mind a ball tossed straight up into the air. It rises up to a single point where it is neither rising nor falling for an instant. This singularity is very unstable and in the very next instant it starts to fall again. 

So too the universe. The universe expands from the Big Bang and compresses to the Big Crunch and for one singular instant all the energy of the universe is compressed into one single and very unstable point that for that instant is neither contracting nor expanding. On one side of that singularity, if you will, is the Big Crunch and on the other is the Big Bang, but for that one singular instant, like the ball described earlier, there is no motion and time does not exist.

That is the simplest way I can explain it and it actually is quite oversimplified, but that is the best way I know how to show the difference between time and energy.

I hope it helps.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 7, 2010)

Really?   I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe.  But I cannot mentally erase time and space.  Why not?  And where did those come from?   And where is the beginning of time?  When is the end?  Where is the beginning of the universe?  Where is the end?

By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed?  Has existed in the form that it currently exists?

You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

Intelligent design can answer such questions.  And in fact would be the author of science.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 7, 2010)

konradv said:


> *And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.*
> 
> That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.


 
Really? What are these laws?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...





Foxfyre said:


> Really?   I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe.  But I cannot mentally erase time and space.  Why not?  And where did those come from?  * And where is the beginning of time?  When is the end?*  Where is the beginning of the universe?  Where is the end?
> 
> *By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed?*  Has existed in the form that it currently exists?
> 
> ...


Obviously I wasted my time since you didn't bother to even read what was written as the red highlighted parts show.

But thank you for admitting your mind is completely closed no matter how much you might pretend the contrary.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 7, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> marksinvirginia said:
> 
> 
> > *If matter sprang from nothing, as some claim *- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing. This is, of course, unless we have *run out *of "nothing" from which matter can spring. But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite. That would then render matter as infinite, because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.
> ...


 
No, I'm afraid you don't know what you believe.

 "as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear *spontaneously from nothing.* Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > marksinvirginia said:
> ...


Hawking is not infallible.
Gravity cannot be defined without mass, and quantum theory accounts for certain interactions between energy and matter. Both are useful for understanding how EXISTING things function. Neither is useful to account for the origin of those things. If there had ever been a time when absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Your vacuum cleaner in the sack analogy WAS foolish for the reasons he pointed out. I'm happy to restate his reasoning if you're at all confused. The remainder of your questions in this above quote appear to be entering that bottomless pit stupidity I had referred to in my previous post. The fact still remains that answering such questions is useless in someone like you, because as soon as the evidence trail runs cold and things aren't explained by modern science, you chalk it up to God. This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God. The parts that make up people are too mysterious, so that was God. Then we discovered cells and the things that made the cells work were too mysterious, so that was God. Then we figured out DNA, and the things that make up DNA are too mysterious, so that was God. It's an endless load of vacuous crap.
> 
> And somehow, out of that crap, you think you have some reason to believe in intelligent design, when understanding the origins of atoms has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution can and does exist regardless of what started it, or what makes the irrelevant physical forces that progress it.


 
Just answer his questions Hick. Or is there a reason you wish to dodge them?

And no, it isn't Christians who attributed the sun as God. We have gone over this many times before and you know that is a lie. Just because science points to a creator doesn't mean that it was unexplainable.

In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a logical and scientific fashion which you have been unable to do thus far.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 7, 2010)

I like the rock theory..


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a *logical and scientific fashion* which you have been unable to do thus far.



So let's get this straight: You want something explained in a logical and scientific fashion, yet you believe in one of the most illogical, unscientific and preposterous theories of all? 

Too funny...


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Really?   I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe.  But I cannot mentally erase time and space.  Why not?




Because you have a limited imagination. Might have something to do with your severely limited intellect.



> how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?



You're retarded.



> Intelligent design...would be the author of science.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 7, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 
You just stated that it was "only" Creationists who believed that. It appears not. It looks more like it is not Chreationists vs. Non-Creationists but rather the Scientific community vs. Edthecynic.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 7, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


Hawking is one scientist not the scientific community.

If nothing exists then mass does not exist, so how can gravity exist without mass to create something from nothing?????? 

Most likely that quote is out of context since it is so obviously wrong.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a *logical and scientific fashion* which you have been unable to do thus far.
> ...


 

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny..."  - Isaac Asimov


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 7, 2010)

Well I don't know about TheLight, but since my esteemed opponents have now ceased trying to have a conversation on the subject and have turned to insulting and accusing me, I shall declare myself the winner of the debate.     (The winner is the one who doesn't run out of ammunition and has nothing left but schoolyard insults.)

You folks do have a good night.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 7, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> marksinvirginia said:
> 
> 
> > If matter sprang from nothing,  _as some claim _- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.
> ...




****************************************

And your ignorant reply,   JBeukema,  reduces you to the least common  denominator of absurdity. 

Now,  I mean that in a _nice constructive way_. 

~Mark


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 8, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> marksinvirginia said:
> 
> 
> > *If matter sprang from nothing,  as some claim *- than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.  This is, of course,  unless we have *run out *of "nothing" from which matter can spring.  But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite.  That would then render matter as infinite,  because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.
> ...



********************************

And ... where did you learn that crock of shit? 

Everything is finate except the unverse which is without confines. Things (matter) have limits... pure emptiness has neither dimensions nor limits.   

Vacuum fluctuations.  particle excitation.  antiparticles;   is there something that has less energy than nothing?   Is there [a space]  between antiparticles that has _less no-vacuum _fluctuation?   And,  what lies between those "anti-particles"  of nothingness?   And if something does... what lies between those "anti-particles?"

"Anti-particles"  are the hobgobblins of pseudo-physics and frustrated anti-creationists.


~Mark


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 8, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...





Foxfyre said:


> Well I don't know about TheLight, but since my esteemed opponents have now ceased trying to have a conversation on the subject and have turned to insulting and accusing me, I shall declare myself the winner of the debate.     (The winner is the one who doesn't run out of ammunition and has nothing left but schoolyard insults.)
> 
> You folks do have a good night.


So the "winner" is the one who Cuts & Runs.


----------



## antagon (Oct 8, 2010)

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory?  it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor?  is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful?  this is the _evolution_ of this ID biz that's played out in this thread.  i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

antagon said:


> has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory?  it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.
> 
> is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor?  is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful?  this is the _evolution_ of this ID biz that's played out in this thread.  i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.



I disagree. As previously posted, Einstein did not beieve in a 'personal God' or in any sort of spiritual beings with thoughts and emotions.  But when he contemplated the universe and the intricate symmetry, order, predictability, and consistency, he was not willing to dismiss some form of cosmic intelligence behind it all.  It is much the same view as held by Plato, some Buddhist sects, and others who did not believe in a "God" as such, but who nevertheless sensed or observed characteristics within the universe that led to something more than everything happening by pure accident or chance.

In my opinion, this is not outside the realm of science at all nor an insult to it.  I think any decent science curriculum should include the concepts of such original and famous scientists.  It is not 'religion' as in the sense of something that is to be adored or worshipped, but for people like me who are believers and are Christians, it is no insult to our beliefs either.

Again it comes down to the three theories:

1.  Big Boss - God, however or whatever one considers God to be, called it into being with no effort to explain how God came to be.
2.  Big Bang - A cosmic event that resulted in what we now have with no effort to explain how the components that caused the event came to be.
3.  Vacuum Cleaner shaken in the sack - no particular rhyme or reason but it all happened by pure chance and coincidence given unlimited time and space.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory?  it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.
> ...


Again, energy, the component of the Big Bang, didn't "come to be." Energy has always been and will always be in the exact same total quantity according to the "authority" of the PROVEN FLoT.


----------



## konradv (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.*
> ...



If I did, then it's a poor analogy.  I have no problem with the possibility of design with regard to the laws of nature, but that's not what ID focuses on.  It normally refers to the theory that the life on earth was designed, while evolutionary theory contends that it's the result of environmental forces and natural selection, not a designer.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

konradv said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Well I'm sorry that you don't like my analogy, but the specific point I'm making is that Intelligent Design can include a concept of a designer but does not have to include a concept of a designer as i have taken some pains to explain and have provided background to support.

Those who use threads like this to express their prejudices and contempt for the religious and religion are often not willing to focus on anything else or even consider any other theory for intelligent design, however, and I hope you are not among that group that I now pretty much have on figurative if not literal ignore.  Once they attack the messenger I know they are not serious about discussing the topic.  (Should they acknowledge their sin  and pledge to cease and desist from that sort of thing, I will no longer need to think it an exercise in futility to engage them.)

But going back to your comment here, how do you reconcile a 'design within the laws of nature' without having some sort of intelligence behind it?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed?  Has existed in the form that it currently exists?
> 
> You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?
> 
> Intelligent design can answer such questions.  And in fact would be the author of science.


Actually, intelligent design has NOTHING to do with atoms and energy, nor does evolution.  I know it's difficult for you to actually educate yourself on these topics, but at least know your own bad theory before entering a discussion about it. EVEN IF some deity created the universe and all the atoms and energy in it, including but not limited to the very first life on the planet, it IN NO WAY deteriorates evolution, which has nothing to do with those things. 

AS SUCH, trying to refute evolution with things like atoms and energy is like trying to refute the internet with gravity.  Gravity existed before the internet, and its forces affect the servers that run the internet, but the two concepts have nothing to do with one another, and disproving gravity in no way challenges the internet. If it sounds like what I'm saying doesn't make sense because gravity and the internet have nothing to do with one another, IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T.  Nor can talking about the start of the universe disprove evolution. 

FURTHERMORE, disproving evolution, something you can't do, does not prove intelligent design.  You need supporting evidence to prove a point, not just knocking out the competition.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed?  Has existed in the form that it currently exists?
> ...



Whether or not I have educated myself on these things is something you have no knowledge whatsoever of, and therefore is inappropriate to bring into the conversation don't you think?

But perhaps you could spend some time reading the comments I have made before drawing any conclusion about the argument I have been making.

You will find a damn hard time finding any place that I have made any argument involving the behavior of atoms or energy or natural law/laws of nature or evolution even though I am quite comfortable and an advocate for all those things.  And not one gives any reason for why a concept of intelligent design is not also credible, whether derived from a "Creator" or any of the other theories I have proposed.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 8, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God. The parts that make up people are too mysterious, so that was God. Then we discovered cells and the things that made the cells work were too mysterious, so that was God. Then we figured out DNA, and the things that make up DNA are too mysterious, so that was God. It's an endless load of vacuous crap.
> ...


Which one did I miss?  



			
				LIGHT said:
			
		

> And no, it isn't Christians who attributed the sun as God. We have gone over this many times before and you know that is a lie. Just because science points to a creator doesn't mean that it was unexplainable.


I never stated Christians attributed the sun as God.  I stated ignorant people throughout time have associated things they don't understand as God, be it cheap magic tricks by others or unexplained natural phenomena.  It was YOU, and only you, who interpreted "ignorant people" to mean Christians.  That's the association in YOUR mind. 

Then you go on to claim I am lying because of your stupidity?  You have no clue what the word "lie" means. Perhaps this thread will clarify for you.



			
				LIGHT said:
			
		

> In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a logical and scientific fashion which you have been unable to do thus far.


So you're saying reason and logic are using the best evidence available to draw the best possible conclusion, and is open to change and being proven wrong if new evidence comes along?  And that somehow this is a bad thing?  That sounds open minded, logical, and willing to admit a mistake. Contrast that to ID, which offers an explanation without support or logic, that is utterly incapable of being changed by new evidence.  

I don't know about you, but the company I keep are the type of honorable people who can admit mistakes based on evidence, learn from them, and grow.  There is nothing noble about being stubborn in the face of clear opposing evidence, but that's what you call "faith".




Foxfyre said:


> Well I don't know about TheLight, but since my esteemed opponents have now ceased trying to have a conversation on the subject and have turned to insulting and accusing me, I shall declare myself the winner of the debate.     (The winner is the one who doesn't run out of ammunition and has nothing left but schoolyard insults.)
> 
> You folks do have a good night.


You seem to have this habit of only reading the things you want to see, and ignoring everything else.  It's not just that people are calling you stupid.  You're being called stupid for the very specific reasons being provided that show you to be incorrect in the face of evidence and reason. 

But you dismiss that evidence, seeing only the insult, and somehow declaring yourself a "winner" because you haven't run out of ammunition.  In all actuality, you haven't had ANY ammunition from the start.  No evidence.  No support.  No way to even test your completely made up theory. Stating your unsupported unintelligent theory over and over again is like firing an unloaded gun. 

There's a reason this crap isn't taught in public schools. 



antagon said:


> has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory?  it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.
> 
> is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor?  is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful?  this is the _evolution_ of this ID biz that's played out in this thread.  i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.


I couldn't have said it better myself.  Evolution is not threatened nor affected by religious beliefs.  But the opposite is not true.


----------



## antagon (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory?  it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.
> ...



i don't think that einstein's beliefs line up with ID the way it was originally put forward, neither are his scientific explorations of physics and the universe predicated on a physical insertion point whereby deity interacts with our universe or its history the way you have put forward.

for example, while the big bang theory is a conclusion based on physics and the observation of matter in our universe, its movement/momentum and the laws governing it, it is not mutually exclusive to God in such a manner as you have juxtaposed them.  because einstein maintained the spirituality which you describe, it is doubtful that he also took such a mutually exclusive perspective as you have proposed.

apart from co-opting dead scientists into ID, the proposal that God created the universe is nothing new.  its doubtful that ID will insult anyone per sa.  what i think is 'heretical' about it is that it presents an incorporation of God into science which is not consistent with science itself nor with biblical christianity.  

for example, when you proposed earlier that the value of God was predicated on the extent which nature was mysterious to us, i question with what biblical mandate would such beliefs be based?  this is among the ways i find this juxtaposition to science as being unique to conventional christianity and inferior with respect to faith.  when you propose above that alternative to the big bang, science should conclude without inquest that God had created the universe, i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all?  In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that.  Are you one of those who is incapable of understanding any concept other than that which supports a prejudice against God or religious belief?


----------



## antagon (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all?  In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that.  Are you one of those who is incapable of understanding any concept other than that which supports a prejudice against God or religious belief?



i couldn't speak for others, but i make this connection because God is the only identity I attribute the capacity which you lend to your IDer.  i don't have a prejudice against God or a religious belief.  i believe in God and have religious belief myself.  i think i've made some specific indictments of ID.  are you one of those who is incapable of answering to those, resorting instead to claims of persecution?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all?  In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that.  Are you one of those who is incapable of understanding any concept other than that which supports a prejudice against God or religious belief?
> ...



I have not made any assertion re persecution either.  But I have been repeatedly told here by some that the ONLY theory of Intelligent Design that is reasonable to consider is the Big Boss (God/Creator) theory.  And that has been explained to me by several, including you, in most unflattering terms; and, in my point of view, that is a very narrow minded and incomplete way of looking at it.

So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong?   What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered?  Not one of those believed in/believes in a personal God or identifiable Being.

I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 8, 2010)

antagon said:


> i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.


Christianity has historically made such boundaries countless times.  It is no coincidence that one of the founding stories involves looking down upon someone for wanting to explore and eating "forbidden fruit" from the tree of KNOWLEDGE.  Knowledge seeking is bad! Claiming the earth revolves around the sun is criminal! Look at how many times Christianity has had to concede on blatant scientific evidence years if not decades after it has been accepted by researchers.  The very establishment of "Christian science" is proof of the agenda that knowledge should only be analyzed and applied in specific ways.  Evidence is evidence.  Leave the bias out.



Foxfyre said:


> Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all?  In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that.


Because you are making that argument.  There's only one type of person who enters a discussion regarding ID and doesn't reference God: the person who believes it was God, but doesn't want to say it.  You may have been avoiding using that word, but you've insinuated it and no other designers from the start.  Or do you think aliens created life on Earth?  And how do you explain atomic interactions?  You make reference to an "authority" that would need to structure the atoms.  Is that not another word for God?  If not as a synonym, is that not simply another MEANING of the exact same concept of a magical being or process that designed physical interactions?  Here's a simple way to settled this: what do you think is that "authority" you asked about previously?

Don't start backpedaling and victimizing yourself now.  You're too transparent.  



Foxfyre said:


> I have not made any assertion re persecution either.  But I have been repeatedly told here by some that the ONLY theory of Intelligent Design that is reasonable to consider is the Big Boss (God/Creator) theory.  And that has been explained to me by several, including you, in most unflattering terms; and, in my point of view, that is a very narrow minded and incomplete way of looking at it.


And yet, you've proposed no other view on the topic.  It's your claim.  Don't call us closed minded when you provide....   NOTHING.



> So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong?   What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered?


You seem to have a habit of calling on famous people who had absolutely no knowledge past philosophy.  The most recent on your list was born in a time when LIGHT BULBS weren't in most houses.  And you want us to answer what new things we have today that make our ideas more credible?  How about launching complex telescopes into space?  How about genetics?  How about every piece of laboratory equipment in the world that requires electricity?  



> I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.


The first problem with that is that you ARE a religious fanatic.  You want someone to see you as something you are not as the only way to have a discussion?  Why reference "authority" instead of just accepting that things ARE as they ARE?  That's the heart of this matter: do things simply exist, or were they created by God?  As of now, the evidence shows absolutely no indication of the latter, and every discovery throughout history has pointed to the former. 

How about this: when you lose the religious pretext, I'll stop treating you like a religious fanatic.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

Just one question STH before I put you on figurative ignore with several of the others.

Please point out any statement I have made in this discussion (or anywhere else for that matter) that would give you any credibility to conclude and state that I am a religious fanatic.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 8, 2010)

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature  of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective  observer, adult or child. (page 24)
 

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is  that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID  as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID  proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the  God of Christianity. (page 26)
 

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
 

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a  religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific  theory. (page 43)
 

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court,  Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not  &#8216;teaching&#8217; ID but instead is merely &#8216;making students aware of it.&#8217; In  fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony,  which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as  will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they  needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to  the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)
 

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we  find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the  Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on  three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a  determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the  centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting  supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism  that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative  attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)
 

[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs  students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by  even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86&#8211;87)
 

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we  have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the _controversy_,  but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at  best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to  encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would  supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
 

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board  amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote  religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the  Establishment Clause. (page 132)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

Yes, I am quite familiar with that case JB and have discussed and debated it quite extensively on another forum.  However, the thesis I have been dealing with here is unrelated to any specific activity by any group and is unrelated to any legal or social action including the Dover case.

As I see it, the thesis here boils down to one of three things:

1.  A 'big boss" and/or intellgent design theory--ID not necessarily being related to any kind of spiritual being--as was reasoned by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and many others.

The main problem with this theory is that it cannot be tested, proved, or falsified using any known science at our disposal.

2.  A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.

The main problem with this theory is that the science at our disposal leaves so many questions including how the materials involved in the 'big bang' got there in the first place and what process caused the subsequent explosion.

3.  The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space--there is no beginning and there is no end--and we are experiencing how they happened to be positioned at this time in eternity.  In other words everything is just a fluke or happenstance.

The main problem with this theory is that it assumes that the scientific principles we know are also happenstance and of necessity will change with the next 'shake of the sack' in which a different universe will exist.  And that flies in the face of our trust in the consistency of scientific principle.

My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way is to defend Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, certain of the Buddhist community, and others, none of whom are Christian and none of whom believe in a personal God.  All have scientific, rational, and well organized minds, but all came pretty much to the same conclusion that some things can only be explained by a concept of some sort of intelligent design being behind them.  And not one of these are looney tunes, irrational, or religious fanatics.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> 2.  A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.


The big bang has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection.   Please do not project your uninformed ideas regarding ID onto evolution. Evolution deals with how life evolved, and does not deal in what came before life, let alone what came before the planet or universe. 



> The main problem with this theory is that the science at our disposal leaves so many questions including how the materials involved in the 'big bang' got there in the first place and what process caused the subsequent explosion.


Existence of questions in one theory does not prove a completely different theory.  Questions will always exist, regardless of how much we know. 



> 3.  The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space--there is no beginning and there is no end--and we are experiencing how they happened to be positioned at this time in eternity.  In other words everything is just a fluke or happenstance.
> 
> The main problem with this theory is that it assumes that the scientific principles we know are also happenstance and of necessity will change with the next 'shake of the sack' in which a different universe will exist.  And that flies in the face of our trust in the consistency of scientific principle.


Where do you come up with this garbage?  Is it because you think the "theories" that come out of your head are somehow just as valid as scientific theory?  



> My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way is to defend Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, certain of the Buddhist community, and others, none of whom are Christian and none of whom believe in a personal God.  All have scientific, rational, and well organized minds, but all came pretty much to the same conclusion that some things can only be explained by a concept of some sort of intelligent design being behind them.  And not one of these are looney tunes, irrational, or religious fanatics.


That's because the NORM of ages past is religious fanaticism today.  Again, you seem to have no problem completely ignoring the fact that hundreds of years of knowledge has been accumulated since these great thinkers.  You rely on them as a crutch instead of presenting up to date supporting evidence of your own.  



Foxfyre said:


> Just one question STH before I put you on figurative ignore with several of the others.
> 
> Please point out any statement I have made in this discussion (or anywhere else for that matter) that would give you any credibility to conclude and state that I am a religious fanatic.


Ignorance somewhat demands you ignore people like me who provide evidence based reasoning, so I don't expect the following answer will actually do anything.  

Things you've said that insinuate you are coming from religious dogma instead of fact based reasoning:
"what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons"
"You would have to define 'magic'"
"By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed?"
"science is incapable of answering such questions"

The objective of science is to draw conclusions from evidence in the physical world.  If you believe science is incapable of answering such questions, and need me to define what kind of "magic big boss" has the "authority" to create "expectations" of molecules, you're defining God.  Even IF you claim you weren't talking about a biblical figure, you are nonetheless defining a deity.  

But more than all the positive signs you've tried to suppress, and go so far as to continually restate "I never stated that" are the negative ones: despite being asked flat out whether you do or do not have a religious foundation to your argument, you avoid answering at all costs.  At best, you will deflect with statements about what you DIDN'T say, instead of what you DO believe.  

So let's just end the charade. Why not answer the question you've been avoiding so much?  What is your idea of the underlying force behind ID?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> 2.  A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.



I've never heard any such concept of 'BBT' put forth by any science or in any science book.

Where did you get this misunderstanding of the theory?





> 3.  The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space



Again... where are you pulling this stuff out of?





> My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way



-is to build men of straw grounded in your own ignorance.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Yes, I am quite familiar with that case JB and have discussed and debated it quite extensively on another forum.  However, the thesis I have been dealing with here is unrelated to any specific activity by any group and is unrelated to any legal or social action including the Dover case.
> 
> As I see it, the thesis here boils down to one of three things:
> 
> ...


There you go again denying the existence of the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics, thus revealing your dishonesty in discussing this topic seriously. if you wish to eliminate the FLoT from the discussion you must FIRST disprove James Prescott Joule's experiment. To claim that energy must have "got there in the first place" as you do, you must prove that energy can be created, which violates the PROVEN FLoT.

Your "purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way" is to deliberately misrepresent the scientific argument because you KNOW, correctly stated, the scientific argument will prevail. That also explains your "purpose" in "ignoring" anyone who points out your misrepresentation of PROVEN science.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 8, 2010)

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  it has escaped the  'superior'  minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others.  Our, so called, "laws of physic" apply only to the dimension we occupy.  In cross-dimensional logic,  each dimension has its own laws... none of which our pathetic occupants have the remotest clue.  

Right now... all you have are your _little theories_.  You have heard, and read, of God and His laws.  But...looking in the mirror,  you see a wretch who stands light years in departure from God's laws.  So you,  as if a player in Aesop's Fables,  decide that all you have to do is deny God's existence,  and His rules,  which encumber you,  will no longer apply.

But wait.... God still doesn't go away.  So you, in turn, develop theories and conjecture to support your disbelief.  But, even in so doing, you continue to wallow in the discontent of your hearts.  

_"The fool saith in his heart that there is no God."_   You wear your badges of foolishness around your necks like millstones. 

You know damn well that only a complete and utter, freaking  fool spends his life trying to prove that something does not exist.

But you have become so steeped in foolishness that you are willing to chance being consigned into hell... wherein you smugly think you will be able to  plead ignorance.  But you will spend your eternity in realization that the appeal process ended when you died. You will wish a zillion times that you had become  master over your "laws of physics" rather than letting them become the master over you.

To deny God is to deny cross-dimensional logic.

Protect your dignity  and defer your insults until you see if this sinks in.


~Mark


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 8, 2010)

> In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  it has escaped the  'superior'   minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most  basic of logic dictates there are others.


Fail.


But thanks for 'debunking' Christianity (monotheism) while quoting the bible; I needed a laugh


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 2.  A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.
> ...



If you don't like my analogies or metaphors, then come up with your own.  I am having a discussion with those willing to have one and refuse to have a 'fight' over this no matter how insulting and disagreeable some of you get.  If you are here just to look for an excuse to be insulting, I'm sure you'll find plenty of ammunition.

However I will concede that the explosion is a metaphor for a characterization of the "Big Bang" coined, if I remember right, by a Dr. Hoyle ???? in the mid to late 40's.  And I will concede that it wasn't a literal explosion but rather the theory of a rapid expansion of condensed hot matter.  And where did I get it?  Highschool and college science classes and various and other sundry places where origins of the universe have been discussed.  That same Dr. Hoyle also didn't buy into the theory of the 'big bang' but was more of a static universe person which would be more consistent with the vacuum cleaner theory, but okay, you don't like that idea either.

So anyhow, if you aren't interested in a discussion of the various ways folks look at origins of the universe, please enjoy the others who also seem to find actual discussion disagreeable.

And do have a nice evening.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

> If you don't like my analogies or metaphors, then come up with your own.



They're not false analogies. They're simply misrepresentations. Come back when you know something about the subject you're trying to discuss.


> And I will concede that it wasn't a literal explosion but rather the theory of a rapid expansion of condensed hot matter.



Not quite. Try more along the lines of the expansion of space-time itself.

And the term 'Big Bang' was coined Hoyle to confuse morons like you.

Steady State has been debunked. See: Red Shift

And I already linked before to the theory I find to be the best available model, despite it's most grievous sin: M-Theory.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  it has escaped the  'superior'  minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others.  Our, so called, "laws of physic" apply only to the dimension we occupy.  In cross-dimensional logic,  each dimension has its own laws... none of which our pathetic occupants have the remotest clue.
> 
> Right now... all you have are your _little theories_.  You have heard, and read, of God and His laws.  But...looking in the mirror,  you see a wretch who stands light years in departure from God's laws.  So you,  as if a player in Aesop's Fables,  decide that all you have to do is deny God's existence,  and His rules,  which encumber you,  will no longer apply.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your perspective Mark, but I don't think it is necessary to believe in God in order to believe in Intelligent Design as I have gone to some pains to illustrate.  Whether or not it is rational to deny God is probably a different discussion, albeit it would be an interesting one.

And I am of the opinion, that you don't win many hearts for God by consigning folks to hell.  I prefer to show them God's love and something of His eternal design.  

My primary interest in this discussion at all is to illustrate how science can be taught and how even young people of faith can be encouraged to embrace it without compromising their personal beliefs at all but also not violating the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution.  The JudeoChristian concepts of Creationism merit no place in Science Class any more than do the Hindu or Taoist or Islamic concepts of Creation.

And no form of I.D, even that embraced by scientists, can be taught as science.  But For me it is criminal to allow science curriculum and/or teachers to not at least explain that I.D. is at least one means of explaining gaps in knowledge that science cannot answer, and that the concept is not irrational or without logic.  The students should be told that I.D. will not be included in science class.  But science should never be used to destroy their faith either.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  it has escaped the  'superior'   minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most  basic of logic dictates there are others.
> 
> 
> Fail.
> ...





**********************************************

Once again,  Beukema,  your vacuous intellect is manifest in the consummate stupidity of your replies.


~Mark


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 9, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  ...
> 
> You know damn well that only a complete and utter, freaking  fool spends his life trying to prove that something does not exist
> 
> ~Mark


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 9, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I never stated Christians attributed the sun as God. I stated ignorant people throughout time have associated things they don't understand as God, be it cheap magic tricks by others or unexplained natural phenomena. It was YOU, and only you, who interpreted "ignorant people" to mean Christians. That's the association in YOUR mind.
> 
> Then you go on to claim I am lying because of your stupidity? You have no clue what the word "lie" means. Perhaps this thread will clarify for you.


 
You might want to go back and take a look at your post. You called Foxfyre (who I do believe is a Christian?) ignorant, and in the same breath stated that it was ignorant people like him that attribute the sun to God. 

Also, so you don't make the "mistake" again, usually the word "God" with a capital 'G' is taken to be the Judeo-Christian god. Usually when referring to sun worshipers one would use the term "a god" as most of those who considered the sun as a god (small g) worshiped many gods.

So maybe it was a bunch of mistakes. If it was, don't make them a second time.

Here is your quote in part:


> as the evidence trail runs cold and things aren't explained by modern science, you chalk it up to God. This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 9, 2010)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/ame]

*This is what happened.*  There's no need to speculate further.  In a sense, there was intelligent design, but not the kind you're talking about.  It's natural selection.  Most mutations are harmful to the next generation; These bloodlines simply die.  Occasionally a mutation is better than it's predecessor and lives on.  These eventually evolve into the species we see today. These include primates, which in turn include all of us.

I recommend anyone who hasn't seen this, go ahead and watch the whole series.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> And I am of the opinion, that you don't win many hearts for God by consigning folks to hell.  I prefer to show them God's love and something of His eternal design.


And thus we finally get back to the conclusion I and everyone else was able to draw from your first post, which you skirted and failed to mislead people away from: your belief in ID is nothing short of a religious fanaticism, and NOT based on evidence. 



> And no form of I.D, even that embraced by scientists, can be taught as science.  But For me it is criminal to allow science curriculum and/or teachers to not at least explain that I.D. is at least one means of explaining gaps in knowledge that science cannot answer, and that the concept is not irrational or without logic.  The students should be told that I.D. will not be included in science class.  But science should never be used to destroy their faith either.



No form of ID is embraced by scientists because it is not science.   It is religion.  It has absolutely no evidence to support it, and thus it has no scientific backing. How is it that you say earlier in that post that creationist ideas from any religion shouldn't be taught in the classroom any more than another religion, and yet here say it is CRIMINAL to not explain ID?  It's the same thing!  ID = creationism. 

ID in no way has evidence that explains the gaps in knowledge science can't explain, because it has no evidence behind it at all.  The correct answer for not knowing something is "I don't know", not "here's what some quack believes, so I'll pass it off as the next best thing".  If a doctor doesn't know what's wrong with you, GUESSING IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE.  

Science remains the objective investigation of evidence to explain the physical world.  ID is a biased creationist movement with absolutely no evidence behind it.  Why should such a thing that so drastically contradicts the core principles of science be taught in a scientific classroom?

Science doesn't give a crap about your faith, including but not limited to caring to disprove your faith.  It only cares about conclusions drawn from the evidence of the physical world.  If that contradicts your faith: too bad. Religions around the world are made by humans, and the evidence of this world doesn't care what garbage you've been spoon fed and asked to blindly believe.  If world evidence so easily tears down your poorly constructed belief system, then you have a few options: ignore the evidence in a classic stereotype of ignorance, change your world view to accept the evidence, or make up some coerced fabricated explanation to allow the two ideas to co-exist.  Just don't expect the science and evidence to change based on your irrational belief system.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  it has escaped the  'superior'   minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most  basic of logic dictates there are others.
> ...




You're the one who said that if one god exists, there must be more than one. Hence, following your 'logic', monotheism (including xtianity) is bunk.

But feel free to dig yourself a little deeper.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

Please understand that I am not going to respond to your posts further STH.  You refused to answer the one question I posed to you, and you obviously are not reading my posts in context and you are absolutely not representing what I have posted honestly.

Thank you for understanding.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> marksinvirginia said:
> 
> 
> > In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS,  it has escaped the  'superior'  minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others.  Our, so called, "laws of physic" apply only to the dimension we occupy.  In cross-dimensional logic,  each dimension has its own laws... none of which our pathetic occupants have the remotest clue.
> ...




*******************************************

The depths of science are devoid of substance when God is excluded.  God is the alpha and the omega in all that exists.  But God, by His own design, always remains a conscious choice.   If you will re-read, in syntax,  what I wrote... you will see that I consigned no one to hell.   I was just a sign stating: 'Danger, The Bridge of Humanism is Washed Out;  Detour While You Still Can.'  

*FoxFyre*,  I thank you for reading my thoughts,  and for your insightful reply.  It's always a pleasure to find dialog with another thoughtful explorer.


~Mark


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> You might want to go back and take a look at your post. You called Foxfyre (who I do believe is a Christian?) ignorant, and in the same breath stated that it was ignorant people like him that attribute the sun to God.


Yes.  Emphasis on the qualifier "ignorant" to describe him and "people like [him]".  He has tried his darndest to keep his religion out of this thread, going to great lengths not to mention it and flat out claiming he hasn't spoken about it. So once again we find YOU making the assumption that ignorant people = Christianity.  Actually I take that back.  To reach that conclusion, you had to ASSUME he was Christian, THEN you had to ASSUME Christians were ignorant. In fact, I was simply pointing out ignorant people believe things they can't explain are proof of a deity.  This is and has been factually accurate since the first time I've said it.  

Your remarks on the matter are a desperate and pathetic attempt to prove something of mine incorrect.  And since you can't actually poke a hole in the actual argument being made, you string together these poor assumptions and start whining about something completely tangential to the actual discussion in order to play victim in your usual fashion. In the end, it is YOU who makes the connection between "ignorant" and "Christian".  Don't go blaming anyone else for your own moronic insecurities.


----------



## antagon (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > i couldn't speak for others, but i make this connection because God is the only identity I attribute the capacity which you lend to your IDer.  i don't have a prejudice against God or a religious belief.  i believe in God and have religious belief myself.  i think i've made some specific indictments of ID.  are you one of those who is incapable of answering to those, resorting instead to claims of persecution?
> ...


this is because you have taken it upon yourself to employ the term intelligent design in a manner beyond the scope which its progenitors have established it.  i dont know what it is supposed to mean according to you or other folks on this thread that subscribe to it in this new abstraction.  i posed a question about it, and you responded with what i described as a mindset which presents a mutually exclusive relationship between creation and science.  rather than addressing that, you have claimed twice now that some kind of narrow mindedness or reticence to faith has prejudiced beliefs dissenting your own on the matter.  this habit is the appeal to persecution which i'm criticizing for its persistent derailment of dialectic efforts to examine your idea of ID.


> So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong?   What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered?  Not one of those believed in/believes in a personal God or identifiable Being.
> 
> I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.


any idea of creation falls in the purview of faith.  this is the basis which the idea was introduced to me and many others, and science holds no evidences for creation, nor benefits from the recognition of a creator or non-creator.  your characterization of einstein's idiomatic references to god as teleological is a joke, and more of your co-opting of ID and now teleology to those who aren't alive to clarify their positions.  the fact is that the majority of scientists have some background in faith, but a very very stark few in modern history have taken these belief systems to the extent of teleology or ID whereby they attempt to incorporate their belief in deity into their scientific conclusions.  einstein never came close to doing that, whatsoever.  it is dishonest to include einstein among those who have.

even as a philosophy, i dont think creation/non-creation could be argued to any end.  it always seems to fall back to faith.  my faith is accompanied by doctrine which precludes any validity of an IDer or an anonymous god expressly The God's commandments.  God in the judeo-christian sense does have an identity and religion associated with Him such that what antiquity's philosophers or einstein or thomas jefferson believed about deity is not supported.  this is where my faith is.  without being militant toward folks with other faiths, i dont think there's any validity to what they believe about a god or IDer if it is not expressly God.

with no place to contribute or evidence derived from science, ID and teleology is not science.  as a philosophy, it defers to theological philosophy, failing even to qualify as scientific philosophy for its moot if not disruptive contribution to the field.  with the realm of faith left, i already have a God with a place central to creation, but one which doesn't necessarily project human-like involvement or thought into the nature which science  explores, so i am not your 'rationale mind' beyond basic tolerance for what you believe.  one of the ways which i judge rationalism is converse to yours, and involves the application of extra-rational matters of faith to rational matters of science.  

this leaves your teleology or ID as an irrational belief set from my perspective.


----------



## antagon (Oct 9, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.
> ...


i'm agreeable with this from a scientific perspective, and i can see how both religion and science communities would care to insulate one from the other.  where christianity is concerned, i think the traditions of christian communities often find the basis of faith in ignorance and the awe that accompanies it.  where that seems more excusable to me as an archaic pre-enlightenment mechanism, modern application of this deference to ignorance is not acceptable.  i could see how one might stretch the lessons of the bible to promote ignorance, but i dont think that is honest work of God.  i think education to include science has facilitated the system of values associated with christianity, and that there is less bliss and more deceit in promoting it.

but then again, that is just self-righteousness.  i would like to feel i'm a good person despite spending a lot of time and money on learning how things work instead of ignoring them.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 9, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing??




Thats a priceless sentence construct, light.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be.  The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one.  Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?

So long as you insist on confining I.D. to purely a matter of religious faith, you dismiss some pretty powerful scientists who consider it differently than you do and ignore the fact that they are not coming from a religious perspective.  Some of our friends here want to go so far as to diiminish it as a 'creation' of religious faith and therefore in their eyes 'looney tunes'.  That is their prerogative too, though I do not enjoy discussion with those who accuse or diminish people who think differently than themselves.  I prefer to discuss concepts with people who are at least willing to explore their own prejudices and think outside the box a bit.  That is not a 'persecution complex' either.  It just fits with my personal choice to not engage in exercises of futility.

You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism.  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and at least one Buddhist sect did not include any concept of creation in their theories that cannot be defined as anything other than intelligent design.

As Einstein once wrote:  &#8220;I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.&#8221;  Einstein would elaborate on that thought that he does not believe man lives beyond this earthly existence, he did not accept an anthropomorphic god that is involved in the affairs of man and beast, and he did not accept a concept of a god who rewards and punishes in any way.  But as Spinoza did, he was not opposed to a sense of intelligence being behind the intricate and improbable order of what exists.

Einstein never suggested that the 'intelligence' created what we have, but through logic and reason could accept that there was an intelligence within the whole of it.

The JudeoChristian advocate would then likely go one step further and make that a matter of religion--the intelligence within the whole of it is the Creator God.  Einstein did not go that additional step and did not believe in the "Creator God" even though he did study Judaism and eventually rejected it as 'unbelievable'.

And if you say that it requires a measure of faith to believe that there is an order and purpose in the universe that seems unlikely had it all been left purely to chance, that is true though I would not label that 'religious faith'.  It requires a measure of faith to accept all scientific theory for which we have not yet discovered means to verify, falsify, or explain.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

> You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism



It is. Unless you think your 'intelligent designer' came about *after* that  which you credit it for designing.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be.  The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one.


Oh do gravity next.  I want to hear you explain it in the way you believe.  After that I'm interested in hearing your beliefs on how microwaves work.  It's fun to make things up in complete distinction to the actual underlying definitions!



> Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?


You're missing the second part of that.  You need to be open to new ideas, AND have the evidence that support such ideas.  Jumping to conclusions with NO evidence goes against every scientific teaching out there. 



> So long as you insist on confining I.D. to purely a matter of religious faith, you dismiss some pretty powerful scientists who consider it differently than you do and ignore the fact that they are not coming from a religious perspective.


Except, it IS purely confined to matters of religious faith.  The very concept of ID was started by those from a purely religious perspective, without science whatsoever.  Pointing out long gone scientists or philosophers and trying to project an isolated quote onto "proving" their belief of a concept THAT DIDN'T EXIST during their time is foolish.  But let's face it, you do that because you have absolutely no modern evidence or argument to make. You HAVE TO retreat to such ancient stretches of the imagination. 



> Some of our friends here want to go so far as to diiminish it as a 'creation' of religious faith and therefore in their eyes 'looney tunes'.  That is their prerogative too, though I do not enjoy discussion with those who accuse or diminish people who think differently than themselves.


Make no mistake: I diminish your argument because it has absolutely no underlying evidence.  You avoid entering such logical discussion with me because you can't face such truths, and your ignorance demands it to maintain your unsupported ideas. 



> You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism.  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and at least one Buddhist sect did not include any concept of creation in their theories that cannot be defined as anything other than intelligent design.


Defined by you.  Interpreted by you to mean they really believed in ID.  When they didn't.  The fact that you need to stretch their quotes AND stretch the boundaries of ID should demonstrate that. 



> Einstein never suggested that the 'intelligence' created what we have, but through logic and reason could accept that there was an intelligence within the whole of it.


Which again comes back to a point you can't seem to understand: order in nature does not necessitate some deity placed it there. Order can just exist.  ID by definition requires that the intelligence was specifically designed by some being and put in place.  You appear to be confusing admiration for the order of the universe with ID. Most scientists admire the order of their fields.  That doesn't make your argument.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> order in nature does not necessitate some deity placed it there. Order can just exist.  ID by definition requires that the intelligence was specifically designed by some being and put in place.


see: emergence


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Unless you think your 'intelligent designer' came about *after* that  which you credit it for designing.



In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.  I have been very careful not to do that.

But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from?  What was the origin.  Did it all appear from nothing?  Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.  And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

> In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.


'


To design, your designer must exist before it designs, yet along before its design is realized. This necessarily places it outside the universe you assume your 'unmoved mover' or 'uncaused causation' designed. This places it squarely in the realm of the supernatural, in the real of deity.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.
> 
> 
> '
> ...



Not necessarily.  Plato's concept was that it has all always been here.  The "idea" of rock.  The "idea" of dog.   The "idea" of tree.  A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it.  And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D., I think that's pretty much how Einstein most likely perceived it too.

Again let's look at my post in its full context:



> In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.
> 
> But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.
> 
> ...



So again I ask, where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from?  What was the origin?  Did it all appear from nothing?   And what force set it all into motion to produce the universe that we now have?

I'm hoping that if I ask the question of enough people, somebody will finally have the guts to say they don't know.  And because they don't know, that leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.
> ...





Who or what held this idea?





> A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it



A supernatural intelligence beyond human comprehension... we're back to deity again. 



> .  And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D




His concept was nothing like the ID you're equating it with, although it was equally moronic.


> Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from



I already answered that. Twice in this very thread.



> Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?




No. Even TFLOTD only can be affirmed as applying within this universe. Id M-Theory or any other multi-universe model is correct, then we cannot know what laws apply within the greater medium itself, outside of our own universe.


Also, under Lambda-Colt, the total value of the universe is actually... nothing. 


And phantom particles do appear to pop in and out of existence all the time on the quantum scale- and both TBB and Lambda-Colt trace the universe's beginnings to the quantum level.


> However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.




You mean TFLOTD? Congrats. the rest of us learned about that back in middle school.





> So again I ask, where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from?  What was the origin?  Did it all appear from nothing?   And what force set it all into motion to produce the universe that we now have?




I've now addressed that three times. If you still don't get it, you're either willfully stupid or just plain stupid.


> I'm hoping that if I ask the question of enough people, somebody will finally have the guts to say they don't know.  And because they don't know, that leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.


Fail. Just because I don't know who took the last Coke doesn't mean we give any merit to the crazy notion that robot Dick Cheney and Batboy snuck in, stole it, and sold it to the Annunaki so they could use it as a superweapon to kill Thor, summon the Sword of Akasha, and record the season finale of Code Geass season 3.


----------



## antagon (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be.  The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one.  Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?


i think science is also predicated on a level of precision with terminology.  by employing the term intelligent design you are specifically making a reference to a movement and a tradition which maintains presumptions which you contradict.  while you put forward that i'm hung up on the idea that ID = creation, i offer that this is because creation is inherent in ID, except that you have taken a different tack with the same term.  if i put a lump of iron foward in an argument and referred to it as gold, how scientific would that discussion be, no matter how open-minded the parties try to be?  if you deny the magnetic properties associable with the iron, that doesnt change the facts of iron any more than your attempt to employ an established term to encompass meanings which you establish in a piecemeal way now changes the likelihood that people would seek the implications of design and creation from ID.

what is your point in associating einstein, determinists, and stoics, etc with ID?  while there are ways which most all philosophies are communicable, co-opting their progenitors or adherents to a new concept with teleological aims is some kind of malpractice.  if you adhere to ID and to spinoza's deism at the same time, that is one matter, that does not, however, empower an association with spinoza or einstein with intelligent design.  that's ridiculous to me, yet this is the basis of your argument.  in so arguing, you superimpose greater meaning than ID was constructed with, and ignore the teleological implications associated with that, which einstein never advocated. make it stop.

inform your perspective:





> The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things _are best explained_ by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


The Discovery Institute

the proposal which_ i've emphasized_ is a corrosive scientific philosophy which holds that satisfactory explanations to the subjects of physical scientific exploration might constitute as simple as a reference to this IDer, while putting forward that what we know about natural selection, or the evolution of chemicals are inferior descriptions to this 'best' description.

is this what you are advocating and expect for me to believe that einstein would advocate, or are you using terminology which is not fitting to your perspective, while claiming that others don't understand you or are not open minded?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.  I have been very careful not to do that.


And yet it still doesn't matter.  As long as there is some DESIGNER outside of the universe, it is a deity.  By definition.  You can try to backpedal all you'd like to claim you really aren't talking about God, but you are.  What else designed it in your mind then?  I've asked you this question countless times, and you've had to avoid it every step along the way.  So much so that you had to completely stop responding to my posts because you have absolutely no manner in which to address this point.  And that's why you were negged: not for disagreement, but for blind avoidance, so please stop whining on my wall. 



> Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from?  What was the origin.  Did it all appear from nothing?  Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?


Several people have answered this question throughout the thread.  Another fact you seem to continue to ignore. But if you did take the time to read the explanations offered to you, you would clearly see that it is NOT "something coming from nothing".  You have a poor understanding of the concept, with the inability to learn.  But all of that aside, the fact still remains that IT DOESNT MATTER.  Science is allowed to say "don't care" or "don't know", and neither invalidates any other scientific theory.  



> Plato's concept was that it has all always been here. The "idea" of rock. The "idea" of dog. The "idea" of tree. A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it. And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D., I think that's pretty much how Einstein most likely perceived it too.


Except these things do NOT describe ID.  ID has two parts to it: ordered intelligence AND a designer who created that ordered intelligence.  The things you are referencing ONLY speak to the former and in no way support the latter.  

As I've said previously, which you also ignored: scientists in just about every field marvel at the order of their research.  In fact the very purpose of research is generally to discover the underlying order of the world.  *But that in no way means the order was intelligently created by a designer.*

So now that we've taken the time to explore your misconceptions about ancient philosophers because you are still incapable of providing recent evidence to support your claim, even THAT seems be shot down. 







JBeukema said:


> Fail. Just because I don't know who took the last Coke doesn't mean we give any merit to the crazy notion that robot Dick Cheney and Batboy snuck in, stole it, and sold it to the Annunaki so they could use it as a superweapon to kill Thor, summon the Sword of Akasha, and record the season finale of Code Geass season 3.


That was epic.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be.  The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one.  Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?
> ...



No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community.  You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be.  It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious',  as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition.   We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.

But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.



> *what is your point in associating einstein, determinists, and stoics, etc with ID?*  while there are ways which most all philosophies are communicable, co-opting their progenitors or adherents to a new concept with teleological aims is some kind of malpractice.  if you adhere to ID and to spinoza's deism at the same time, that is one matter, that does not, however, empower an association with spinoza or einstein with intelligent design.  that's ridiculous to me, yet this is the basis of your argument.  in so arguing, you superimpose greater meaning than ID was constructed with, and ignore the teleological implications associated with that, which einstein never advocated. make it stop.



You must not be reading my posts very carefully as I have gone into some detail to explain my point.  My point is that I.D. is not science and should not be included in the science curriculum.  But neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are.

And going further beyond my point to my purpose in makiing it:   I object to any science curriculum that presumes to discount I.D. as a reasonable explanation and thereby presume to attack or destroy the faith of children.  Science can quite competently be taught without doing that.



> inform your perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I reject that as I and millions of others accept I.D. AND natural selection.  One is not exclusive of the other.



> the proposal which_ i've emphasized_ is a corrosive scientific philosophy which holds that satisfactory explanations to the subjects of physical scientific exploration might constitute as simple as a reference to this IDer, while putting forward that what we know about natural selection, or the evolution of chemicals are inferior descriptions to this 'best' description.
> 
> is this what you are advocating and expect for me to believe that einstein would advocate, or are you using terminology which is not fitting to your perspective, while claiming that others don't understand you or are not open minded?



I think anybody who has his/her mind made up and his/her mind closed and is unwilling to even consider a different point of view is indeed closed minded.  I think those who make unsupportable accusations and unflattering conclusions about where another person is coming from are even more close minded as well as bigots.  Disclaimer:  I am NOT accusing you of either of these things.

My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection.  Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory.  I have taught the concept myself in the classroom.  I have written and can write a pretty darn good paper on the concept from memory.  And, in my opinion, it has no quarrel whatsoever with intelligent design.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection.  Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory.


Congratulations. The Pope made that announcement some time ago.

We've heard it from a number of other liberal religious figures.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection.  Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory.
> ...



Are you going to continue to avoid the direct question(s) I asked of you?

Good for the Pope.  He obviously doesn't confine science to some preconceived box.  And he shares some scientific views spanning well over two millenia now as well as theory embraced by a lot of people re natural selection.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

Your stupid question was answered thrice by myself and several times by others. If you can't read, that's your problem.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Oct 9, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to go back and take a look at your post. You called Foxfyre (who I do believe is a Christian?) ignorant, and in the same breath stated that it was ignorant people like him that attribute the sun to God.
> ...


 
So there are athiests who believe in a "Creator"?

I'm not denying that. It's just that I didn't think that you thought there were. I could be wrong though.



> Your remarks on the matter are a desperate and pathetic attempt to prove something of mine incorrect. And since you can't actually poke a hole in the actual argument being made, you string together these poor assumptions and start whining about something completely tangential to the actual discussion in order to play victim in your usual fashion. In the end, it is YOU who makes the connection between "ignorant" and "Christian". Don't go blaming anyone else for your own moronic insecurities.


 
Just asking you to go back and look is all. And reminding you that if you use the word God with a capital 'G' with your nonsense I will no longer take it as an innocent little mistake.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Your stupid question was answered thrice by myself and several times by others. If you can't read, that's your problem.



The only ones who have indirectly addressed it are those who assert that 'energy has always been here'.  If that is your opinion also, how do you support that?  And did those rocks and whatever other substances that exist result from that 'energy'?  How?  If so was that according to natural selection also?

For me intelligent design encompasses the whole of the universe, and not just conditions existing on one relatively insignificant planet in a relatively insignificant solar system.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

Twice I linked you to information on M-Theory. I also mentioned the Lambda-Colt model, which some others adhere to.

I also mentioned how, according to L-C, the sum of the universe is zero and the relevant appearance and disappearance of 'virtual particles' that has been observed.

Learn to read.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Twice I linked you to information on M-Theory. I also mentioned the Lambda-Colt model, which some others adhere to.
> 
> I also mentioned how, according to L-C, the sum of the universe is zero and the relevant appearance and disappearance of 'virtual particles' that has been observed.
> 
> Learn to read.



Learn to read what is asked.  I am familiar with all the 'theories'.  I want your explanation for the questions asked.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

I already told you my answer.

Five times now.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community.


In other words: you're giving a different meaning and definition to an established term. 



> It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious',  as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition.


Yes, it is your "right" to make up definitions and then apply them to previously defined terms, thereby allowing yourself to encompass the ideas of ancient philosophers into the term despite the fact that they have never supported the original meaning of the term.  Poor communication and making up definitions is your "right".  Just don't expect people to agree with things when you make them up. 



> My point is that I.D. is not science and should not be included in the science curriculum.  But neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are.
> 
> And going further beyond my point to my purpose in makiing it:   I object to any science curriculum that presumes to discount I.D. as a reasonable explanation and thereby presume to attack or destroy the faith of children.  Science can quite competently be taught without doing that.


Once again: science doesn't give a crap about faith.  It is not a science teacher's job to teach things without a lick of supporting evidence.  There is no reason to dismiss ID anymore than to dismiss the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster, but there is similarly no reason to acknowledge these unsupported fairy tails in a scientific classroom either.  If that lack of acknowledgment blows your faith, I recommend home schooling your children so you can offer your own form of ignorance directly. 



> And I reject that as I and millions of others accept I.D. AND natural selection.  One is not exclusive of the other.


Actually, *ID and evolution ARE mutually exclusive*.  Either evolution is driven by natural selection, OR all animals were specifically designed by some magical creator and placed on the Earth as they currently are.  The ID movement was born as a plot to discredit and spread false rumors about evolution.  This is the very foundation of "Intelligent Design".  Don't go backpedaling now and claim they can be cooperative ideas.  RELIGION and SCIENCE can be cooperative.  One can believe in god and evolution, certainly, but ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. 



> My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection.  Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory.  I have taught the concept myself in the classroom.  I have written and can write a pretty darn good paper on the concept from memory.  And, in my opinion, it has no quarrel whatsoever with intelligent design.


Once again you are making broad sweeping generalizations with absolutely no supporting evidence or even a scrap of logic. IF a creator designed the universe and its atoms, and even the first life form on the planet, evolution without a creator can still exist.  You can claim the creator "designed" natural selection if that makes you feel better at night, but ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.

But this idea of going back until you can't figure something out, claiming that part is God, and then claiming that therefore God did all the things you CAN figure out is poor logic.


----------



## antagon (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community.  You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be.  It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious',  as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition.   We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.
> 
> But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.


no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application.  if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [_removed due to potential for disrespect_].  if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [_removed due to potential for disrespect_].  that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter.  it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism
> ...


That question has been answered over and over again and IGNORED by you over and over again.

All the stuff in the universe is ENERGY in its various forms!!!!!!!!!!! ENERGY IS NOT NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something coming from nothing does not fly in the face of all scientific THEORY, it flies in the face of scientific LAW!!! Specifically the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!!!!!! The very Law, which you now pretend to accept, that you have been ignoring and flying in the face of when you keep asking where energy/matter, the stuff of the universe, comes from!!!!!!

The FLoT says energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!! If energy cannot be created that means it can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed that means it can't decrease. Since energy can't increase or decrease that means energy is a CONSTANT. Energy can only change from but the sum total of all the energy in the universe in all its forms is ALWAYS exactly the same.

You seem to have no problem with the concept of an Intelligent Designer always existing even though there is absolutely no proof, but you can't seem to accept the fact that energy always exists even though it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that you can repeat YOURSELF and CONFIRM for yourself.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Something coming from nothing does not fly in the face of all scientific THEORY, it flies in the face of scientific LAW!!! Specifically the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!!!!!!




With the caveat that TFLOTD aplies within the familiar universe. The hypothesized 'plane' in which M-Theory's branes operate or the pre-splitting-of-0-into-1-and-(-1) of the Lambda-Colt model would fall outside the realm of the universe in which TFLOTD had been proven to be in effect.





> The FLoT says energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!!



-Within the universe it describes.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Emphasis on the qualifier "ignorant" to describe him and "people like [him]". He has tried his darndest to keep his religion out of this thread, going to great lengths not to mention it and flat out claiming he hasn't spoken about it. So once again we find YOU making the assumption that ignorant people = Christianity. Actually I take that back. To reach that conclusion, you had to ASSUME he was Christian, THEN you had to ASSUME Christians were ignorant. In fact, I was simply pointing out ignorant people believe things they can't explain are proof of a deity. This is and has been factually accurate since the first time I've said it.
> ...



Where on earth are you drawing that conclusion!?  Where in the above text can you possible gather that inherently self contradictory garbage?  

Perhaps the issue you're having is not realizing that other religions exist in the world besides Christianity?  You tell me how you could have POSSIBLY drawn that conclusion from the above text.  

Atheists, by definition, do not believe in a creator.  As soon as an atheist believes in a creator, they are no longer an atheist!  However, ignorant people in the past who didn't understand the sun and believed it was a deity were not atheists!  You see how that works?

Have fun victimizing yourself on that one.



> Just asking you to go back and look is all. And reminding you that if you use the word God with a capital 'G' with your nonsense I will no longer take it as an innocent little mistake.


Went back.  Pointed out where you're still wrong.  Don't care about capitalization.  No, it has nothing to do with being "dishonest" or a "liar" or making a "mistake" or even being disrespectful.  It just doesn't matter to me, and the meaning of the word is still just as relevant, proven by the fact that you still understand what I'm saying.  Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and it has nothing to do with ANYTHING we're talking about. 

Now, if you'd like to actually return to the discussion instead of going on about more tangential fluff, let me know.  While you decide, here's a recap:


Foxfyre constructed his own definition of "Intelligent Design", twisting it in a manner that actually falls away from its original meaning
He then applied it to ancient philosophers as support to his theory, taking their meaning out of context, and claiming they agree with his reasoning
He offers absolutely no supporting evidence of the actual meaning of ID or his own
He continues to ask the vacuous pitfall of "but where did that come from", never satisfied with the answers, and claiming proof of a creator as soon as he fails to read the scientific understanding
While he was incapable of accepting "it doesn't matter what came before that", he has no problem accepting a creator without asking "and what made that?"
He avoids and ignores anyone who asks him legitimate questions that challenge his new definition of ID

Let me know what part of that conversation you'd like to jump into, LIGHT.  Even as a fellow believer, I don't think you can really support his newly constructed definitions.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.
> ...


Damn you are stubborn!

All the matter in the universe is a form of energy which cannot be created or destroyed. Energy is not nothing!
Get that through your thick head!


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community.  You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be.  It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious',  as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition.   We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.
> ...



Well actually the term "Intelligent Design" was modified and its meaning shifted to get away from strictly a "Creator" designed concept and this was mostly by the same religious folks who originally identified it with a Creator.  Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum.  But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science. 

If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?

By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them.  JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them.  It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

I think the problem here is that he sees matter and energy as two completely distinct concepts, where in all actuality they are linked phenomena. Even if he were to accept the fact that energy has always been around, he wants to know where all the "stuff" came from, not realizing matter is a form of energy related by the speed of light squared that can only exist stably in certain forms.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum.  But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.


There is no such thing as an "anti-religious educator".  There are religious educators, and there are people who don't care about unsupported claims, yours being one of them.  It has nothing to do with being against religion, as most teachers are religious, so much as not teaching unfounded garbage in the classroom. There are a myriad of unsupported ideas in the world.  Yours is no better than the rest. 



> If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?


Why try to classify them at all?  Why not just quote them for what they said instead of squeezing the context into a completely different meaning?



> JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them.


Still false.  I negged you because you aren't mature enough to stay in a conversation when the questions being asked of you clearly tear down your entire argument, resulting in you needing to ignore such questions and the people asking them.  I had been disagreeing with your stupidity for a long while.  I only negged you when you decided to put your fingers in your ears and stop responding to the arguments you didn't like.  Please stop crying about this already.  It's just a neg.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 9, 2010)

I think the problem here is that he has his head up his ass.


----------



## antagon (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


this is how i understand the term's etymology in the context of science, too.  this modification is the central and stickiest use of the term, however, and like the impact of einstein's conservation, antagon's conservation proposed above, has a long way to go before it's useful in a conversation.  worse yet, you're using ID in the same context as originally proposed. 


> Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum.  But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.


i think the idea of intelligent design is bad science in itself for the implications which i characterized as corrosive to scientific method earlier.  apart from a primer on scientific method, scientific philosophy isn't too central to sciences until it's explored in-depth in university.  at that level, approaches to exploration are tackled, like reductionism vs holistics, and the value and application of each.  what could ID afford science, whatsoever?


> If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?


 deism or spinoza's deism, einstein's deism. 


> By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them.  JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them.  It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.


you're welcome.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 9, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum.  I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum.   Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.

Deism assumes a Creator God who puts the forces of nature into motion and then leaves it to work itself out and does not involve itself in it.  Neither Spinoza nor Einstein embraced Deism or any concept of a Creator God or god.

And however 'sticky' is the definition of Intelligent Design, it really comes down to who gets to set the parameter of the definition doesn't it.  You reject my definition.  I reject yours as the only way to look at I.D.  I believe my point of view is more broad minded and less prejudicial than yours, but I won't fault you for your definition.  I will fault you for not allowing me mine.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum.  I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum.   Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.



Looks like you say that right here:


			
				Foxfyre said:
			
		

> we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science





			
				Foxfyre said:
			
		

> neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are


Either something is or is not in the classroom.  You don't want ID in the classroom and yet you don't want it dismissed.  How do you reconcile the contradictory nature of that argument?  Besides, you can't really dismiss something you don't acknowledge in the first place.



> And however 'sticky' is the definition of Intelligent Design, it really comes down to who gets to set the parameter of the definition doesn't it.  You reject my definition.  I reject yours as the only way to look at I.D.  I believe my point of view is more broad minded and less prejudicial than yours, but I won't fault you for your definition.  I will fault you for not allowing me mine.


Unfortunately for you, the parameters and definition of ID has already been set.  Perhaps you need a new term to better encompass your distinct form of crazy. His definition is the standard definition of the word, which anyone can look up on wikipedia or cheap online dictionaries.  Your definition is something you made up in your head recently that has no relation to the actual meaning of the term. Similarly, I don't go defining evolution as "the process made by the flying spaghetti monster to make stuff".  A definition is already established for that word, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I WANT IT TO BE.   Perhaps you need some help with the basics of human communication.


----------



## antagon (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum.  I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum.   Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.


i based that assessment on this statement about educators, which i assumed was a science educator with an onus to promote 'good science':


> we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science


if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so.  any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study.  it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.

this is in the realm of philosophy or religion itself.  i'm not sure how i'm convoluting what you are proposing.  it is still not clear what place ID might have in good science if dismissal of it were bad science.

i dont know much about spinoza or einstein in the context of their thoughts on deity.  i know spinoza was an enlightenment thinker, and brushed on his proposals over a decade ago in university, but wasn't a fan per sa.  i presumed they were deists.

here is wiki's definition of deism:


> Deism (pronounced /&#712;di&#720;&#618;z&#601;m/, us dict: d&#275;&#8242;·&#301;zm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for either faith or organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.


Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's the quote which you produced from einstein earlier:



> I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.



reasonable suspicion and probable cause, at least.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 10, 2010)

antagon said:


> if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so.  any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study.  it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.


Exactly.  I mean, what's the multiple choice question on that one?

Which of the following is the best reaction you should have for the way the world works?
A. It sucks. Maybe there was a designer.
B. It's amazing!  The designer is awesome!
C. It just is, without bearing on how I should feel about it
D. The bible is wrong
E. The world allows for much grandeur right down to the smallest molecules.

I know what you're thinking: oh crap, I've narrowed it down to two......

Seriously, what kind of learning is a student supposed to get out of such a thing?  This is not science.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 10, 2010)

To Antagon, you aren't much on nuance are you.     (Just teasing.)  My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach:   God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things.  It is foolish to even think that.  And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.

Gotta go.....late for church, but will address the rest of your comments upon return.


----------



## antagon (Oct 10, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so.  any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study.  it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.
> ...



one of my students will come away with the idea that if they wanted to get an A, they would have to go with C, exclusively, as far as how they present a conclusion.  i'd inform my kiddies that persuasion in science is in the evidence and would expose them to theses and journal contributions with earthshaking implications, but which delivered evidence supporting conclusions with the necessary sterility to make them shine on their own.

teaching the matter, there is plenty of room to embrace and encourage secular awe and enthusiasm over the way the world works.  if i was teaching at a religious school, i could imagine that awe would be permitted (or encouraged?) outside of secular bounds.  i dont remember that ever happening in high school, at a catholic school, but there wasn't a zeitgeist of religious zeal whereby religious themes would be pressed into english, math, history or poli-sci either.  we had religion classes.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach:   God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things.


Science teachers don't give a crap about those things enough to teach them in the classroom.  Science doesn't care about religion.  You still keep missing that.  You perceive science completely ignoring religion as somehow "anti-religion".  When was the last time you have EVER heard of a science teacher preaching "God is a myth"?  What evidence do you have to support your fantasy-persecution?



antagon said:


> teaching the matter, there is plenty of room to embrace and encourage secular awe and enthusiasm over the way the world works.



There's room, certainly, but what would someone LEARN from presenting such OPINIONS in a science classroom?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 10, 2010)

life came from a rock                                      12            66.67% 
life came from an intelligent designer                 6            33.33% 

Yaaay! that proves it, life came from a rock...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach:   God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things.  It is foolish to even think that.  And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.



I would be very suprised if any science teacher brought up a god, as it has nothing to do with science. It would be like teaching maths in an English class.

I absolutely think god is a myth as is ID, and I absolutely believe neither have any place in a science class. Want to talk religion, go to church or maybe a social science class. Where I grew up we had compulsory Religious education once a week...


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 10, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach:   God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things.  It is foolish to even think that.  And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.
> ...



But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all.  How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately?  As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\

The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test.  While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test.  Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth.  But it is not science.  And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it.  However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test.  The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it.  And they will be tested on it.

In this way the teacher does not compromise the student's faith and he does not compromise the science curriculum.   And he does not indoctrinate his students but leaves it up to them to learn the information and then make up their own minds.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all.  How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately?  As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\
> 
> The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test.  While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test.  Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth.  But it is not science.  And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.
> 
> ...



You make some interesting points, but at the end of the day, history has shown over and over again that certain scientific theories have turned into fact. Nobody has even proven - in a believable, peer-reviewed manner - that a God exists. Only faith.

I don't know why ID has to be even mentioned on any test. Sure, if the science teacher explains the Big Bang Theory, and a kid puts his/her hand up and says "I, and many others, believe the Universe was created in seven days.", the teacher goes "As is your right. And I will not say anything to dissuade you from you beliefs. Here, we are talking science. If you want to talk religion, then there is an appropriate class for that." And there ends the discussion IMO...


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 10, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But you are the kind of person who needs the guidelines because most or at least many of your students are likely to be believers, and at least some will have been taught that a Creator deity created it all.  How, as an Atheist, can you handle that appropriately?  As a schoolboard member, we finally achieved a consensus with the teachers.\
> ...



Yes you would handle it mostly appropriately if you handled it that way.  If you look again on my post, the teachers were instructed to advise the students that I.D. would not be on the test and would not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.

The whole thing can be handled if everybody just respects everybody and do not impose their personal beliefs on each other.  The teacher cannot allow the religious fundamentalists to take over the class or control the discussion, but neither should he or she have license to direct the students in their religious beliefs or even express an opinion about them.

I received an excellent education in which I'm guessing 90% or more of my teachers DID believe in I.D.  But never once was that concept pushed on us nor did it ever appear on a test.  And except for one or two, I couldn't tell you what religion they were, what political party they supported, or anything about their personal religious or political beliefs.  That's the way it ought to be.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> The teachers could bring up the subject in a scientific manner by explaining that the so-called 'big bang' and 'natural selection' and related theories have broad support in the scientific community and yes, these things will be on the test.  While there are many other theories that can fill in the gaps that science cannot fill, those things that cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested will not be on the test.  Intelligent Design in some form is believed by billions of people on Earth.  But it is not science.  And it will not be accepted as a correct answer on the test.



Why bring it up in the first place?  Dr. Gump made a very good point: keep it out of the science classroom because it has nothing to do with SCIENCE.  If a student brings up religion in a science classroom, the teacher should direct that student to their respective religious leaders, not acknowledge or dismiss beliefs but rather refer to the appropriate outlet. A science teachers is NOT there to acknowledge anything outside of SCIENCE.  

This role has been established and re-established through the court systems.  You cannot push your non-science agenda into a science classroom.  Sorry.


----------



## antagon (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


if a student in english class insists upon interjecting 'nawamsayin?' every 4-5 words, should we validate that  because millions of people follow suit?  should we lend to the tradition of scientific illiteracy any differently than to english literacy?  does this really support a characterization of a teacher as anti-religious or culturally intolerant.

if a kid thinks the world was made in seven days, he's an ignoramus, and embodies misinformation.  a teacher wont have the time to refute his perspective, but i'd think its sufficient to say that's not what science has established, nor what he'll have to account for in the class.  hasn't this kid been paying attention for the weeks preceding, or does this hypothetical depart from the realities of a science class?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 10, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



We KNOW that 'nawamsayin'' is poor English.  But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.  We DON'T know how the universe got from point A to point B.  We have a lot of scientists with various theories about that that have been evolving and developing over the period of time that we have records of scientific theory and discovery.  We don't know whether something will turn up to amend or replace those theories in the next hour, next day, next week, or next eon.   We certainly don't know all there is to know about science.  We certainly don't have all the science that we will ever have to work with.

I don't believe the Earth was created in six 24-hour days--Genesis says six, not seven--a little precision please --as we define a 24-hour day.  Few people do.  But whatever a student believes about that is absolutely not the teacher's business to either affirm or deny.  And if the teacher does not believe in Intelligent Design of any sort, that is his prerogative, but it is not his business to impress his religious beliefs on the kids.  If I.D. cannot be supported via science, neither can it be denied via science.   It is not the teacher's job to affirm or deny it.  A good teacher will be honest with his I.D. students and agree with them that billions of people on Earth share their beliefs at least in part.  But the belief itself is not science and therefore will not be included in the curriculum.

I simply don't understand why some people are struck by such apolexic responses to this stuff.  It is so simple. And so harmless.  And so inconsequential to science curriculum, why not peacefully co-exist with it regardless of your personal convictions?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> We KNOW that 'nawamsayin'' is poor English.


Just like we KNOW intelligent design is NOT science. 

You can repeat the example with any other area.  If a kid in math class asks the teacher about social studies, should the teacher stop to acknowledge the comment, or just refer to the social studies teacher?  If a kid in a Spanish class wants to discuss spiritual beliefs, the teacher should SIMILARLY refer the child elsewhere as it has nothing to do with Spanish.  And if a kid in a science class wants to bring up ID, the teacher should ALSO refer because ID has nothing to do with SCIENCE. 

All of these examples have one thing in common: not dealing with things outside the realm of the class.  The role of education is not to teach kids what we don't know.  Society has no reason to promote things that lack knowledge or support. 



> But whatever a student believes about that is absolutely not the teacher's business to either affirm or deny.


That's completely false.  If a child believes "nawamsayin" is part of the English language, it is very much an English teachers business to deny it.



> I simply don't understand why some people are struck by such apolexic responses to this stuff.  It is so simple. And so harmless.  And so inconsequential to science curriculum, why not peacefully co-exist with it regardless of your personal convictions?


Stupidity IS NOT inconsequential in education.  The purpose of science class is not just to teach facts, but process as well.  That process dictates how we understand the universe, and is heavily driven by evidence based conclusions.  ID directly contradicts that goal, and teaches that completely unsupported guesses are reasonable options, when they're not. 

There is no reason to "peacefully co-exist" with ignorance and misinformation.  Your beliefs have no validity.  And that's the way they will remain.


----------



## antagon (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > if a student in english class insists upon interjecting 'nawamsayin?' every 4-5 words, should we validate that  because millions of people follow suit?  should we lend to the tradition of scientific illiteracy any differently than to english literacy?  does this really support a characterization of a teacher as anti-religious or culturally intolerant.
> ...


what part of what curriculum do you contend to be exploring these matters?  somehow, i think the hypothetical of the fundie kid in an conceptual astrophysics or physical cosmology course is not worth preparing for.  because the big bang model is representative of what we do know -- the basis of science altogether -- i think it is more valid than the credit you've attributed it.  in highschool, this is a cursory exploration of the observable facts about the extent of the universe and what we know about its expansion from a central point.  like kids who believe that they're justified in saying 'like, nawmsayin', kids who believe that science is presenting any disposition for or against a god, are missing the point that english has a structure and a style of communication, and respectively that science puts forward what is known, to the contrary of what you've contended, and that the proposals of scientific theory are based on the implications of that knowledge.


> Genesis says six, not seven--a little precision please


you started it 


> If I.D. cannot be supported via science, neither can it be denied via science.   It is not the teacher's job to affirm or deny it.  A good teacher will be honest with his I.D. students and agree with them that billions of people on Earth share their beliefs at least in part.


 if ID is a model whereby scientific discoveries elicit necessary recognition of intelligence in their nature, rather than merely the observation of the nature itself, without proposing the mechanism whereby intelligence effected the design or was availed the capacity to do so, _the proposal of ID is deniable_ and an honest teacher would remain within their expertise in pointing out that science can't support the student's belief, notwithstanding the hordes which might.  it overturns the claim which is inherent in many concepts of ID, to include some ways of interpreting einstein in his quote, that scientific discovery does lend to the conclusion that there is ID involved in the nature of the observation.  because it is not a religious belief, i dont think a teacher would be anti-religious in dispelling it for its invalidity in a scientific forum.  this is among reasons why einstein was not a teleologist.  he enforced this discipline on himself, and that same discipline should be presented to younguns aiming to incorporate ideas of deity or this designer guy into science (as in into the classroom where science is taught or a paper which science is discussed).

this is not harmless because students should come away from science familiar with the confines of its purview and the methods of its acquisition of knowledge, as well as a primer in the masses of knowledge already available and the theories at its cutting edge.  like any course, a non-sequitur like deity or design might reinforce what is central to the concept, but only if the instructor can recognize it and make that reinforcement, rather than some capitulation to an argumentum ad populum as you propose.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 10, 2010)

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be.  The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period.  He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there.  But neither does he *TEACH* that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain.  If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.  But he does not teach it as science.  It is not science.  He explains that it is not science.  And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing.  Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know.   And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be.  The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period.  He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there.  But neither does he *TEACH* that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.



You make statements like this and then go on to show how and when it should come up in classroom teaching.  Let's walk through this:



> The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain.


This is perfectly fine.  Scientific teachings allow for us to say "I don't know".



> If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.


No. Bad.  This is not science.  This in fact defies the basic tenants of science by acknowledging blind theories without supporting evidence.  The GOOD science teacher simply points out the areas we don't understand, and moves on.  If a student asks about those areas, the teacher once again states "we don't know", AND MOVES ON. 

We do not make up ideas to fill in the gaps, nor do we acknowledge the ideas that other people made up to fill in the gaps.  This is contradictory to scientific teaching.  Similarly, the English teacher does not acknowledge or overview other forms of grammatical syntax.  There is proper English syntax, and there is stuff that is not English. 



> In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know.   And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.


Oh stop your sad victimization.  Your crap doesn't belong in the classroom in any capacity.  The only "evil" here is your attempt to push your unsupported fanatical religious beliefs into a public school. The poor teacher is one who takes the time to acknowledge the countless ideas that similarly have no scientific background.  

Or did you think yours was the only religion in the world?  My guess is that you don't really want science teachers going over what Muslims believe are the missing pieces?  What about Taoists?  Buddhists?  How many minutes should actually be put aside, in your mind, to acknowledge religious fairy tales from around the world so as to avoid "destroying" a weak faith that is so easily crushed by truth?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.



However, over the past 500 years there have been plenty of unexplainable things, that, with time, have been explained due to science. A god, or gods, or whatever have never been explained or seen or even one iota of tangible proof been given in evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> But we DON'T know where* space *came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or *whether our concept of time is the same universally.*


Again you show your lack of understanding of basic science.

Space/time is not a universal constant! It is RELATIVE to MOTION. As motion accelerates time slows down. Again this has been proven experimentally, so it is not debatable!


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But we DON'T know where space came from, how the matter of the universe got there, or whether our concept of time is the same universally.
> ...



There is no scientific evidence for god or gods or whatever.  But that does not mean there is no evidence.   There is no scientific proof for feelings of love or hope or speculation either.  But we know such things exist because people consistently testify to them.  The fact that hundreds of millions if not billions of people testify to experience with a deity cannot therefore be rationally discounted.  Even science, if it acknowledges that people do feel love or hope or speculate despite sciences inability to falsify or verify that, then it has to rationally consider the possibility that people who testify that they have experienced a deity have in fact done so.

After all we have presumably some scientific evidence for the presence of ghosts or paranormal activity, but certainly science is not in universal agreement about whether the evidence is credible yet.  But no scientist worth his salt would say that science has disproved or falsified such presence either even if the scientist himself is not a believer.

So again it comes down to a competent science teacher teaching science that we know to be science, explaining to the class that many of our concepts of our best science may be changed at any time when we make new discoveries and learn new things,  and there are many things that science is not able to explain nor falsify at this time.   Science cannot answer all questions of the universe.

And the teacher should also explain to his skeptical 'religious' students that they are not required to believe the scientific explanations that we have for creation, etc., but they will have to know them.  And they will have to pass the test.  In that way he teaches good science and he does not inappropriately attack the faith of his students nor do inappropriate indoctrination.  And his students will be educated regardless of their religious views.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 11, 2010)

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2010)

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Intelligent Design outside of religious faith. There's no evidence to support it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> There is no reason whatsoever to believe Intelligent Design outside of religious faith. There's no evidence to support it.



I have already illustrated using undisputed history to show that Plato, Einstein et al embraced it sans religious faith.

But even if you say they were just denying religious faith, there is no evidence whatsoever with which to falsify intelligent design either any more than dreams or imagination can be falsified and we believe those things exist even though we cannot prove it or falsify it.

Therefore no science teacher should be dismissing I.D. as only religious faith any more than he should dismiss any other reported phenomenon that falls outside the realm of accepted science.


----------



## antagon (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be.  The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period.  He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there.  But neither does he *TEACH* that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.
> 
> The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain.  If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.  But he does not teach it as science.  It is not science.  He explains that it is not science.  And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing.  Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.
> 
> In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know.   And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.



rather than making anything difficult, i flatly disagree with what you contend.  to start with, the evil might be at the hand of those who have informed a child's belief in something which juxtaposes their faith with the facts of the world we live in.  our ideas on good teaching and bad in the sciences vary, but so do good and bad teachers.  i guess that's a fact of life, too.

i see ID as an opportunity for a good teacher to explain what science is for a kid who's got as far and not picked that up.  to any extent which something is a observation of fact, science can inform them about the implications by examining causation and effect, conforming with other facts we've observed.  good science is about searching for answers in this manner, not filling gaps with arbitrary theories.  unlike religious beliefs in deity which are commonly seated in faith, ID (unless you have yet again altered or diluted convention on the definition) seats these beliefs in science or the subjects of science.  because science cannot support an arbitrary theory without cause effect and conformity, ID or a claim that science empowers atheism is an opportunity to set a student straight on what nature implies in the context of science.

billions dont believe in ID.  you'd have to take your rose-tinting of the conventional use of the term far further to capture that many subscribers.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be.  The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period.  He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there.  But neither does he *TEACH* that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.
> ...



If I had any power in the school system you teach in, you would not be speaking against any religious beliefs or suggesting that they were 'fairy tales' or some such in the classroom or in school related activities.  If you insisted on doing so, you would be removed from  your position.

If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught.  And what the students believe as a matter of religion, spirituality, etc. are absolutely off limits.   The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.--we can verify that--you cannot verify that billions do not believe in I.D.   The teacher should not suggest in any way that I.D. is science or include it as science in the lesson plan, but neither should he mess with the student's faith.

I would have no business trying to dissuade you or anybody else from anti-religious beliefs either, and if you brought them up in my classroom, I would acknowledge that yes, many people do not accept any form of I.D.

It is not within the scope of your job description or any of your business as a teacher to discuss whether a student's religious beliefs were a bad thing, and you would be WAY off base to do so.   The only way that should become an issue if the student was acting out his/her religious beliefs in a way that was inappropriate or detrimental to other students.


----------



## Bill Angel (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



A number of aspects of American political policy were driven by faith based perceptions of reality. In particular I am thinking of the concept of "Manifest Destiny" , which has been
characterized as:

"Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid 1850s."
See: Manifest Destiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that belief in "Manifest Destiny" and "Intelligent Design" are associated. I doubt that a 19th century American citizen would believe in the first without also believing in the second: i.e that man was created for a purpose, and "Manifest Destiny" is an expression of one of the purposes that the Creator (God) brought forth the nation of America. I also think that Zionism is a faith based form of Manifest Destiny.

So when one discusses what science teachers should teach, should not that discussion be broadened to also include what it is appropriate for POLITICAL scientists to discuss in the classroom?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



It is as foolish to remove religious history from the total history of the country and the world as it would be to remove Darwin's theory from the science curriculum.  Americans are by and large spiritual and/or religious people and religion has played a huge role in the development of our laws, customs, ethics, and culture as a people.  That history would of course include the debates over abortion, Intelligent Design, conscientious objectors, etc. etc.

My interest in education is to ensure that accurate and appropriate material is included in the curriculum and that the teachers teach the facts impartially and without prejudice.  I do not want education to be indoctrination of anybody's preconceived notions about anything.  I do want education to give students sufficient information about all aspects necessary to arrive at informed opinions.


----------



## antagon (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



billions do not believe in ID.  how would you verify that if you've just proposed your concept of ID a few days ago?  bear in mind that outside of this thread, ID is not a pervasive concept, nor is it understood to be anything like what you have described it as.

ID is not a religious belief by your own insistence.  i am agreeable with this characterization.  beliefs empowered by faith such as religious beliefs are their own device which science mute on.  ID or an argument that deity is disproven by science are mischaracterizations of science, and while you insist there is no scientific quality to ID, it does propose that natural phenomena are explained via the input of a designer.  science does not support this concept, favoring instead, scientifically significant evidence for such conclusions.  if a student believes that their grammatical choices should be respected in the classroom or their scientific notions are as well, a school system should not bend its standard to accommodate it, no matter the fallacy presented by your distantly false claim that billions believe in ID.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

You still don't see that for most of us I.D. is not an either/or thing, Antagon.  For most of us I.D. and the natural order go hand in hand.  I.D. does not interfere with or complicate the natural order.  The only thing that has to be rethought is that natural selection is purely by accident or chance.  Those, like Einstein, were/are not convinced that pure accident or chance  produced the incredible intricacies, order, magnificence, and beauty that is observed in nature; ergo there is room to rationally suppose some sort of intelligence behind it all.

Einstein required nobody else to buy into his conclusion.  Nor do I.  It does not bother me in the least that some don't see it.  It is a bit puzzling and even humorous at times though that some seem so desperate to disprove or deny any such concept.  If nothing else convinced me that we were on the right track with it, that would.


----------



## antagon (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> You still don't see that for most of us I.D. is not an either/or thing, Antagon.  For most of us I.D. and the natural order go hand in hand.  I.D. does not interfere with or complicate the natural order.  The only thing that has to be rethought is that natural selection is purely by accident or chance.  Those, like Einstein, were/are not convinced that pure accident or chance  produced the incredible intricacies, order, magnificence, and beauty that is observed in nature; ergo there is room to rationally suppose some sort of intelligence behind it all.
> 
> Einstein required nobody else to buy into his conclusion.  Nor do I.  It does not bother me in the least that some don't see it.  It is a bit puzzling and even humorous at times though that some seem so desperate to disprove or deny any such concept.  If nothing else convinced me that we were on the right track with it, that would.


nah.

i don't think people who know what ID is as it was coined in the context of science feel as you do about ID.  it is semantic, but your insistence on engagement with the term makes your argument incredible if only because you include others in what you can only evidence to be a personal defiance of the original context of the word.  your co-opting of any company in your position is not supported on those lines.

shifting goalposts as creationists did with the coining of the term of ID in the first place, or your shift in characterizing einstein as supportive of teleology or co-opting his support for ID as if it is remotely plausible that he would ever condone the widely accepted connotation of the phrase is dishonest.  it is not standing up for your rights or what you've contended by my measure.

if you can present your argument from exclusively your own perspective, clearly define your definition for ID as those who coined the term have, or establish that your argumentum ad populum, while fallacious, is not also dishonest, hyperbolic and inaccurate,  we could maybe get somewhere in understanding one another.  from where i am, the target moves from one post to the next, and your argument uses dead guys who dont support your position as shields.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 11, 2010)

How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?


----------



## antagon (Oct 11, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?


i guess i could have just said that.  it took me a paragraph instead *sigh*

i always thought he was a she as well.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 11, 2010)

Can I vote for _stupid design?_






Pity we can't arrest them for drinking while designing.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

antagon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?
> ...



Well as long as you're stuck on the definition you want and won't budge off that to see the concepts expressed by the great minds of Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Einstein et al or even try to see where they were coming from, we're pretty well stuck period aren't we.  You were offered a chance to coin your own phrase or word for their point of view and didn't.  And you won't accept I.D. as any way other than you have decided it must be defined.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point.  I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument.  You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours.  So lets let it go at that.  This has now become too circular an argument to be very interesting at this point.  I have appreciated the exercise, however.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 11, 2010)

HEY, EVERYONE, EAGLE'S NOT DEAD!


----------



## antagon (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



i offered deism or species of deism as being more accurate and subsequently defended the fact with a 3rd party definition aligned with einstein's quote corroborating spinoza.

i've offered _the_ 3rd party definition of ID which i've entertained your dissent to, but which precludes your inclusion of anyone but yourself in support of the term itself.  i've characterized your consistent inclusion of others whose names or arbitrary quantities you've alluded to as a dishonest tactic due to your choice to coopt an established term or the beliefs of those whose support for its alternative use has not been established.  

i've challenged that you define your term plainly as the established version so that when you say fire, i could be certain you dont mean flame.  its a simple challenge, but one which you'd have to rise to in order for your 100% validity to have any value as dialectic argument, rather than a schizophrenic one.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> There is no scientific evidence for god or gods or whatever.  But that does not mean there is no evidence.


Actually that's EXACTLY what it means.  Or are you actually proposing that non-scientific evidence should be passed off as valid in a scientific classroom?  Did you miss the fact that it's not scientific?



> There is no scientific proof for feelings of love or hope or speculation either.


Sure there is.  fMRI studies can show which parts of the brain light up.  We can tell what neurotransmitter allows for "hope" and have made pills to help people who lose it. Please stop making up crap and putting it forth as supportive evidence.  NONETHELESS, things such as love and hope ARE NOT TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 



> After all we have presumably some scientific evidence for the presence of ghosts or paranormal activity, but certainly science is not in universal agreement about whether the evidence is credible yet.


This is also false.  There is no scientific evidence regarding ghosts or paranormal activity.  There is absolutely universal agreement on the topic: ghosts aren't real. I can't tell whether you're gullible or just incapable of understanding the underlying concepts of scientific investigation. 



> And the teacher should also explain to his skeptical 'religious' students that they are not required to believe the scientific explanations that we have for creation


Why on earth would we employ science teachers across the country to teach things to kids that shouldn't be believed?  More ridiculousness.  Scientific evidence is what is taught as correct, so that some bright minds can begin to forge their careers and passions, not as something arbitrary to pass a test. 



Foxfyre said:


> But even if you say they were just denying religious faith, there is no evidence whatsoever with which to falsify intelligent design either any more than dreams or imagination can be falsified and we believe those things exist even though we cannot prove it or falsify it.


Still false.  EEG can monitor both dreams and imagination as real and occurring, without specifics. Please stop making up science to suit your needs. There is no evidence on the tooth fairy, sleeping beauty, the Christian story of creation, and the flying spaghetti monster. It is not the role of public education to pander to such fairy tales and unsupported ideas. 



> Therefore no science teacher should be dismissing I.D. as only religious faith any more than he should dismiss any other reported phenomenon that falls outside the realm of accepted science.


Agreed, which is why science teaches dismiss all unsupported crap equally.  



Foxfyre said:


> If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught.


That IS good science.  It has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, and has no reason to acknowledge them whatsoever.  If well established evidence messes with a child's faith: too bad. Either you can raise your kid in similar ignorance, or they can learn from intelligent reasoning. 



Bill Angel said:


> I think that belief in "Manifest Destiny" and "Intelligent Design" are associated. I doubt that a 19th century American citizen would believe in the first without also believing in the second


Good thing it's not two centuries ago. 



Foxfyre said:


> So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point.  I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument.  You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours.  So lets let it go at that.


Good thing the policy makers in the country are 100% convinced you're wrong. 

Religion has no place in a science classroom.  Not in the teaching.  Not in the acknowledgment.  Not in the student responses. None. 

Many people sharing your beliefs have tried to change things and failed over and over again.  And that's how it will stay.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.



Proof?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> ...also include what it is appropriate for POLITICAL scientists to discuss in the classroom?



outside of college, is political science even a subject in schools? Under social studies or social science maybe?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



And I've used any number of great thinkers' analogy to describe what I mean by I.D.   Sorry you think we're all schizophrenic because we don't narrow down the concept to a nice neat one sentence explanation.  It is far broader than that.   You must have missed all that.

Briefly I used Plato's "cave metaphor' to illustrate that the 'idea' of all that exists has always been here.   I used Spinoza and Einstein's concept of some kind of intelligence power--not one emitting from a Deity--but an intelligence incorporated into the whole.  In the simplest possible terms, As student of Plato, Aristotle was one who considered that all things have always been here--and while he did not conceive of a Creator, he could conceive of a prime mover--certainly not a Deity or being or person but rather a consciousness or force that made it all work.  I could come up with others who developed other variations on these themes, but if you don't get the gist from this, there wouldn't be any point.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 11, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Do you mean like ENERGY?


----------



## antagon (Oct 13, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


for me language is more powerful that many give it credit.  in summary any detailed concept can be describe succinctly.  in this case, it is important because there is a line between what constitutes a belief derived from faith and one derived from science.  science has an obligation to constrain beliefs derived from within it to theory presented within a specific paradigm.  without this, the credibility of the study is undermined by those who would aim to establish that their faith in a god or in the absence of a god is supported by science.

i feel that your predilection for the term ID is disingenuous, and that you aim to blur this line in argument as to propose that what is included in the concept of ID or teleology is also inclusive of those who i would characterize as deists or stoics, despite the latter characterizations being safely outside of this threat to scientific integrity.  it is plain, however, that you will persist in co-opting adherents to something very different than what you support through persistence in making your position as ambiguous or shifty as needed to do so.  what to do?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 15, 2010)

So let's recap the thread:


Yet another religious zealot tries to push ID, a non-scientific concept, into a scientific classroom.
He has to warp the actual meaning of the term to start.
He can then apply his twisted meaning to pull the quotes of previous thinkers out of context and claim their beliefs are in agreement.
He doesn't understand basic scientific methods, and can't realize that science has nothing to do with acknowledging beliefs that have absolutely no supporting evidence.  
He must ignore anyone who thoroughly shoots down his misconceptions of science.
He doesn't acknowledge any of the other millions of crackpot ideas that similarly have no scientific basis as things that similarly should not be brought up in a scientific classroom.
He therefore concludes that science is attacking the weak faith of children everywhere, when science is too objective to care about his personal religious beliefs. 
No compelling reason is given to actually include ID in any classroom for any reason.
Well that was fun.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Oct 15, 2010)

The oxymoron in this debate is _Intelligent Designer_.  Some say He/it exists and some say He/it does not.  If a designer existed in a void of nothingness,  how would He/it possess intelligence (which compares to nothing that then existed) or how would He/it maintain a capacity to design anything (without any points of reference).

God is the Almighty and eternal God of the imaginable and the unimaginable.  He is not limited to man's ignorant references to "intelligence".  God is not within the confines of man's stupid criteria of structural engineering... nor is He subject to the framework of the laws of singular dimensional physics.  

God laughs at your arguments as it were freeking ants on a railroad track arguing as to whether or not the railroad has a president.

Don't degrade your mentality by believing that what you see and feel is all that exists.  


~Mark


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 16, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> God laughs at your arguments



I laugh at your arguments.  Guess which has more of an affect on this world?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 16, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> God is the Almighty and eternal God of the imaginable and the unimaginable.  He is not limited to man's ignorant references to "intelligence".  God is not within the confines of man's stupid criteria of structural engineering... nor is He subject to the framework of the laws of singular dimensional physics.  ~Mark



How do you know all this, you just think it up?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 16, 2010)

God looks like this:


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 16, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



It is obvious that you don't accept my explanations for different concepts of I.D.  That's fine.  It does make you one who will accuse another of disingenuousness, however, rather than open your mind and see that there might be more than the narrow and rigid definition that you have adopted.  My observations and conclusions have not been developed in a vacuum or without considerable thought, debate and MUCH reading.

I have not even gotten into what definition of I.D. I personally embrace as that, to me, is irrelevent to a discussion of how Intelligent Design can be defined, described, and understood.  That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 16, 2010)

If God is such an intelligent designer....Why do men have nipples?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?


Some versions of ID have God ejaculating upon the Earth.

Some versions of ID have God speaking at the Earth.

Some versions of ID have God creating lots of little gods, who do the majority of the designing.

---

I have never seen a version of ID which acknowledges the existence of evolution as a process in the natural world.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 16, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?
> ...



Then you have never sat down and read or discussed the wonderful theories of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Wm. Provine, Blavatsky, Bene, Dembski, Spinosa, Einstein, or the concepts of the Dalai Lama who does not embrace the idea of a god or gods, but does hold a concept of a 'cosmic mind' that is shared by a number of Buddhist sects.

My goal here is to enlarge the narrow Abrahamic deifnitions and/or some pagan sects that the Atheists and anti-religionists wish to assign to "Intelligent Design" and show that it can be far larger and more logical and reasoned than that.

My goal here is not to incorporate intelligent design into science curriculum because it does not belong there.  But neither is there any room in science curriculum to suppose that we know all there is to know about anything and dismiss intelligent design as having no part of the larger picture that includes science and everything else.

I would vigorously oppose Creationism being taught as sicence.  I would vigorously oppose science presuming to dismiss any form of intelligent design including creationism.  Keep the two separate and we have no quarrel whatsoever.


----------



## antagon (Oct 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?


i contend that the narrower mind is the one which persistently uses a term established with a different connotation than the historical concepts she describes.


> What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?


your understanding of individual's beliefs don't seem to recognize the point when science is responsible to maintain the integrity of conclusions based on science itself.  as i have pointed out, it is not acceptable to portend that science supports these beliefs.  some concepts of ID -- the prevailing concept for example -- to include your references earlier to teleology, constitute this sort of trespass which science is responsible to defend the baselessness of what is concluded.  science should be clear that nothing scientific as yet supports the belief that there is certainly or theoretically is or isn't a god.  by maintaining ambiguity about your nebulous ID, which being a philosophy, at least, can be defined as others have, you include ideologies which maintain that science provides evidence of a designer, for example, with those which clearly don't.  this is obstinacy or dishonesty in light of the obvious conflict of science, faith and ideology among your 'billions'.  this is what's disingenuous.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 16, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?
> ...



But I have not been mixing science and Intelligent Design.  It is only you who have been doing that in this discussion.  I keep them 100% separate.  I.D. is not science and should not be included in any science curriculum.  Science is not I.D. and has no way to verify or falsify I.D. concepts and therefore is not concerned with I.D.

If you hold only to science and what we know from science, however, you leave out most learning there is to know.  And I think that would be unfortunate.


----------



## antagon (Oct 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



actually, you presented some hypothetical kid and advocated that a science teacher should support his belief that an IDer explains how nature is. remember?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> It is obvious that you don't accept my explanations for different concepts of I.D.


Could it be because you made it up and stuck a previously established term onto your made up "explanation"?  Yeah, that MAY be why people don't accept it. 



> My observations and conclusions have not been developed in a vacuum or without considerable thought, debate and MUCH reading.


You mean your opinion was developed from reading other people's opinions and "debating" by talking at people regarding your opinion?  Your "observations and conclusions" have not been developed in a vacuum.  I'm quite sure there's air between those ears of yours.  What your "observations and conclusions" lack is EVIDENCE.



> What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?


Except you're not considering all the many versions.  You are in fact REJECTING all other versions, including the established version of the term.



Foxfyre said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > I have never seen a version of ID which acknowledges the existence of evolution as a process in the natural world.
> ...


No.  These authors have NEVER acknowledged nor mentioned evolution.  Only one of them was even alive to see the birth of molecular genetics, which is the underlying basis to modern evolution understanding.  So no, you can't cite ancient thinkers with out of context quotes as linked to a concept THAT DIDN'T EXIST WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE.



> My goal here is not to incorporate intelligent design into science curriculum because it does not belong there.  But neither is there any room in science curriculum to suppose that we know all there is to know about anything and dismiss intelligent design as having no part of the larger picture that includes science and everything else.


The science curriculum does NOT presume that we know everything.  You once again show a lack of knowledge on the topic. * Scientific reasoning promotes the identification of areas which we don't know about, so as to AVOID propagating false and unsupported beliefs such as the ones you are proposing.  

Please do not begin to pretend you are interested in preserving persecuted but valid ideas which have not been proven incorrect.*  You cannot disprove the existence of ANY fictional story, and it's clear you have no interest in ANY other possibility that similarly has absolutely no evidence.  So drop the act that you are advocating such a principle.  You are nothing but biased, failing to push ONE idea.  Nothing more.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 17, 2010)

Monism as Connecting Religion and Science by Ernst Haeckel - Full Text Free Book


----------



## chikenwing (Oct 17, 2010)

The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 17, 2010)

chikenwing said:


> The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.



Hold on a minute there bald eagle, there is no evidence supporting the notion of a god, there is massive evidence supporting the scientific explantions of the universes existence: notice the difference...


----------



## chikenwing (Oct 17, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.
> ...



No not at all,you haven't done much research then have you,there is plenty from both schools from the moment man started recording events.Its called looking with an open mind,judging from your post,you are ot employing that tactic.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 17, 2010)

chikenwing said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



Opening your mind does not produce evidence.  Examining the physical world does.  Notice how science can accomplish that task to come up with evidence based conclusions, and religion cannot.  In fact, religion has historically IGNORED evidence in the physical world to preserve ignorant beliefs.  This has produced such beliefs as the sun revolving around man, the earth being flat, "witches" should be burned, genetics doesn't exist, evolution doesn't exist, etc.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 17, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



No sir.  I did not do that.  And you'll have a damnedly difficult time finding any post of mine that even suggests that.  There is a world of difference between a science teacher not presuming to destroy a student's religious beliefs and in supporting them.  I believe, however, that I was quite clear in saying that the science teacher should do neither.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 18, 2010)

chikenwing said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



I done a bit of research alright, chicken, an its not looking too good for creationists .


----------



## antagon (Oct 18, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


this is where you propose handling fundiekid in a way which understates scientific findings to (what i would call) support the scientific plausibility of theory which is not scientifically plausible:


> When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it



you've also proposed that a good teacher might propose the belief in ID in the classroom them self.  i think your good teacher invites the misunderstanding that science and religious faith are juxtaposed in the way ignorant pastors miseducate their flocks.

apart from going to great length to separate ID from a religious belief system, you conversely propose that it should be treated as a religious belief in the context of a classroom.  this type of direct contradiction is characteristic of your ambiguous, shifty definition of ID.  i have pointed out that there is a huge difference between religious and faith-based beliefs and science or natural observation-based beliefs like mainstream ID.  the latter constitute mischaracterizations of science.  mainstream ID proposals present fallacies like irreducible complexity which employ misinformation to empower their conclusions.  lending credence to such concepts in your billions-served umbrella of ID constitutes a breach of obligation for a science teacher, and as you have argued part of the time, ought not offend religious belief at all.  this would merely be a correction to a misunderstanding or malpractice of science, much like correcting the nawmsayn kid i hypothesized.  

nawmsayn?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 18, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



If you interpret not disputing a thng or accurately affirming that millions do believe a thing as being the same thing as affirming it, there isn't much I can do for you here.  I know these to be entirely two separate things.   But I suppose some are unable to make the distinction.

And there is also a world of difference between a science teacher accurately explaining that there are holes in the evidence and many unanswered questions in all theories of the origins and evolution of the Universe and origins and evolution of the species on Earth and that teacher also embracing Intelligent Design.  Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those.  I have had science teachers who in fact did that.   But he would also be accurate to explain that I.D. and some other theories are outside the disciplines of science and therefore will not be included in the coursework.

And if you cannot see how this is an honest approach to neither affirm nor deny a student's religious beliefs, then again, there isn't much I can do for you.  And if he, as many of my science teachers have already done, explained the theories of Plato, Aristotle, et al as components of the very large scope of all of scientific knowledge, some of which has stood the test of time and some that has not,  I would count him as a brilliant and capable teacher.

I advocate educating students and not merely indoctrinating them.


----------



## antagon (Oct 18, 2010)

somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 18, 2010)

antagon said:


> somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.



Not central to my posiition since I can't remember EVER believing the universe was created in seven days.  Nor do I believe it was the six days as stated in Genesis.  (Six days, not seven.  Even after I pointed out your error earlier on that, you still aren't precise.)

That passage was actually one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament.  Did you know that?  And it was later further clarified by revelations that a thousand years--a very VERY long time in Jewish vernacular--is but a day to the Lord.  So I think I'm on pretty safe ground believing that only a small number of fundamentalists take that passage literally.

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.  Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 18, 2010)

Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## Bill Angel (Oct 18, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.  Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.
> 
> And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.



It isn't true that "natural selection produced human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species".

For example:
The Symbiotic Relationship Between Pistol Shrimp and Goby Fish

"The Goby fish and a shrimp:  The shrimp digs and cleans a burrow in the sand in which both the shrimp and the Goby fish live. The shrimp is almost blind and this leaves it vulnerable to predators. The goby fish touches the shrimp with its tail to warn it of impending dangers, and both shrimp and goby fish quickly retreat into the burrow."


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 18, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.  Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.
> ...



I didn't say human beings were the only creature with capacity to form relationships with or become friends with other species.  There are countless observations of such in nature; some of most unusual varieties.

But unless you can convince me that those shrimp care about any other shrimp or any Goby fish other than those they directly interact with, then my opinion stands as unrefuted.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 18, 2010)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GexkLLlHTaE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GexkLLlHTaE[/ame]


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 18, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> But unless you can convince me that those shrimp care about any other shrimp or any Goby fish other than those they directly interact with, then my opinion stands as unrefuted.


Would you be happy with a Goby fish wearing a PETA shirt?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 18, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But unless you can convince me that those shrimp care about any other shrimp or any Goby fish other than those they directly interact with, then my opinion stands as unrefuted.
> ...





Okay, if they start protesting at drilling platforms or marching with PETA, I'll have to rethink my position on that.


----------



## antagon (Oct 18, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.
> ...


 c'mon, this is a direct quote from one of your posts.  when you pointed it out earlier, i alluded to the same.


> That passage was actually one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament.  Did you know that?  And it was later further clarified by revelations that a thousand years--a very VERY long time in Jewish vernacular--is but a day to the Lord.  So I think I'm on pretty safe ground believing that only a small number of fundamentalists take that passage literally.


again, this was your hypothetical kid.  i've never heard of these situations ever happening in a classroom.  furthermore, a great deal of fundies do contend that the world is but several thousand years old.  this isn't one of your gaps either.





> So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.  Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.
> 
> And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.


these 'gaps' are severally the basis of scientific theory which aims to explain each.  these theories have a basis in observation and/or physical laws we understand more intimately.  a science teacher should be up on these theories on a cursory level, such that their students are familiar with what cutting edge science is about rather than merely relaying science for its longer-established theory.  my idea of a good teacher is one who invites students into scientific exploration rather than your alternative gaps, optional belief and rote test competency method.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 18, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those.


Except ID is NOT a valid theory to fill in those holes in any type of scientific manner.  A teacher may affirm that several unfounded crack-pot theories exist, and ID is one of them, but it is negligent to explain ID as a valid scientific alternative to a lack of information.



Foxfyre said:


> So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.


There ARE gaps in scientific knowledge.  That does NOT mean we should just GUESS at things we don't understand.  ID is not a valid scientific alternative.  



> Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced


False.  And still irrelevant to the conversation. 



> And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself


Yes, truth and logic can be consistent like that.


----------



## antagon (Oct 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those.
> ...


obviously i agree with this.  i feel strongly that what a science teacher says is assumed by their students to be science.  the recognition of these gap fillers in science class is misleading students into a misunderstanding of science and what is supposed to be plausible in that context.  

what science does with 'gaps' aka questions, is propose theory based on what we do know.  my idea of a good science teacher would be one who reinforces the role of this method.  without good teaching of my flavor, science will be about memorizing theoretical history (as Foxfyre has proposed), rather than understanding the process whereby theory is derived in the first place.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 19, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



But you alluded to something that isn't in it.  That was my objection.



> > That passage was actually one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament.  Did you know that?  And it was later further clarified by revelations that a thousand years--a very VERY long time in Jewish vernacular--is but a day to the Lord.  So I think I'm on pretty safe ground believing that only a small number of fundamentalists take that passage literally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of which answers the questions posed to you.  So just admit you don't know.  Admit that I.D. is at least one way to explain the gaps whether or not you or anybody else believes in I.D.  And we'll be done here.

I hate circular arguments.


----------



## antagon (Oct 19, 2010)

Fox, the rest day is part of creation, an important lesson carried through the bible with implications to the sabbath being an important part of the week.  whatever your interpretation.  you were the first person to mention seven days.  i've only gone along with that, and i dont even think that's wrong.

for me, these aren't gaps like you contend.  these are subjects of scientific theory in each of cosmology and physics, and evolutionary psychology and ethology, respectively.  ID is not a plausible explanation for physical phenomena for me because irrelevant to a designer or design, everything in our universe has a physical explanation up to this point, and it is the purview of science to examine these relationships.  

if ID or creation were evoked as the answer to sexual reproduction, it would not change the mechanics of that creation which we understand through science.  this does not displace the possibility that this is the work of God, but it does displace the acceptibility of an argument whereby phenomena are explained through ID.  ID is not an answer to a question about how the universe works.  it is equivalent to a declaration that birth occurs by the graces of god, when science has explored how those graces, if they've contributed to the issue, have specifically effected reproduction.

that's what science does.  that's what science classes are for.  that's what science teachers ought to teach.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 19, 2010)

You're repeating yourself again and again Antaon and so far have refused to directly rebut any of my arguments.  So again, I get really bored repeating myself.  I've spoken my opinion and have been called stupid and neg repped because I'm so 'stupid' and otherwise insulted and attacked, but so far nobody has offered any rebuttal for the points I've made.

I have no quarrel with any scientific theories out there, but the thesis of this thread is Intelligent Design and I have focused on that.  When you and/or others who aren't idiots, numbnuts, or exercises in futility decide to address the points I've made about that, I'll re-engage.  Until then, again, I hate circular arguments.


----------



## antagon (Oct 19, 2010)

you've not made arguments, Foxfyre.  you've stated what i consider to be falsehoods in ways which i feel to be disengenuous, and i've just pointed that out with consistency commensurate with your insistence in this sort of presentation of your case.  having addressed your contentions with the position which i feel science and instructors of science are obliged to maintain, you've shifted from arguing that point to arguing that i dont have anything new to offer.  

have you considered that you've not offered any substance to how you define ID or faced with my argument that ID is not an explanation of physical phenomena, that you haven't defended how it might be?  i know that it might require breaking from your insistent ambiguity as to what you mean by ID, but declaring that ID could have this facility seems like an affirmation of the definition which ID originally possessed prior to your hijack.  i thought there was supposed to be something different.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 19, 2010)

Fact is, science cannot comment on the supernatural, by definition.

Thus, you a free to hatch whatever magnificent creation stories you wish to believe regarding the creation of the universe. Just make sure that it doesn't contradict any of the known natural laws of the universe, and you're set.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4[/ame]


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 19, 2010)

antagon said:


> what science does with 'gaps' aka questions, is propose theory based on what we do know.  my idea of a good science teacher would be one who reinforces the role of this method.  without good teaching of my flavor, science will be about memorizing theoretical history (as Foxfyre has proposed), rather than understanding the process whereby theory is derived in the first place.


The explanation you provide is one of higher learning and better understanding of the methods and logic behind science; an understanding that appears to not be shared by Foxfyre, who most likely only achieved an elementary overview of science which appeared as if it was only memorized facts.



Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


So it's not that he was wrong, it was that in this SPECIFIC instance he alluded to something not in a quote which you previously stated.  That "objection" of yours is pretty desperate. 



> None of which answers the questions posed to you.  So just admit you don't know.  Admit that I.D. is at least one way to explain the gaps whether or not you or anybody else believes in I.D.  And we'll be done here.


Yes, of course ID is one way to explain a gap.  The idea of space monkeys vomiting out the earth and its first life is another way to explain a gap.  Note how neither is more valid than the next explanation, being that neither is based in any sound reasoning or has a lick of supporting evidence.  We can make up explanations about the gaps all day long.  Why should any teacher claiming to focus on science ever present such fictional creations of the imagination in a classroom?

You still haven't answered this question.  You never will.  In fact, you can't.  So you ignore people like me and questions like that, and claim no one can present a good reason.  



Foxfyre said:


> You're repeating yourself again and again Antaon and so far have refused to directly rebut any of my arguments.  So again, I get really bored repeating myself.  I've spoken my opinion and have been called stupid and neg repped because I'm so 'stupid' and otherwise insulted and attacked, but so far nobody has offered any rebuttal for the points I've made.


As stated, the rebuttal has been made and is solid.  You choose to ignore it or overlook it.  Perhaps if antagon makes the same exact point as I, and you are left with absolutely no one to respond to, you can continue convincing yourself that no one has presented a clear counterargument.   Such is called ignorance.


----------



## antagon (Oct 19, 2010)

even space-monkey vomit puts forward a mechanism by which the question can be explained.  proposing ID is like saying 'just cuz'.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 19, 2010)

just found this. real game.  I feel enlightened.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 19, 2010)

antagon said:


> you've not made arguments, Foxfyre.  you've stated what i consider to be falsehoods in ways which i feel to be disengenuous, and i've just pointed that out with consistency commensurate with your insistence in this sort of presentation of your case.  having addressed your contentions with the position which i feel science and instructors of science are obliged to maintain, you've shifted from arguing that point to arguing that i dont have anything new to offer.
> 
> have you considered that you've not offered any substance to how you define ID or faced with my argument that ID is not an explanation of physical phenomena, that you haven't defended how it might be?  i know that it might require breaking from your insistent ambiguity as to what you mean by ID, but declaring that ID could have this facility seems like an affirmation of the definition which ID originally possessed prior to your hijack.  i thought there was supposed to be something different.



Yes I have defined it through the eyes of many different individuals now.  I have purposely not expressed my own belief about it despite the fact that you repeatedly tell me what I believe.  (And THAT is disingenuous.  )

But you are still repeating yourself over and over and it is becoming quite tiresome.  Again, when you come up with something new, or when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D. I will be interested in discussing that.

Ya'll do have a great evening.


----------



## antagon (Oct 19, 2010)

you have expressed your own belief: that gapfiller secular ID proposes explanations for physical phenomena which science cannot refute.  i dont find that any explanation is offered through gapfiller and that the proposal that there are gaps is not scientific in the first place.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 19, 2010)

antagon said:


> you have expressed your own belief: that gapfiller secular ID proposes explanations for physical phenomena which science cannot refute.  i dont find that any explanation is offered through gapfiller and that the proposal that there are gaps is not scientific in the first place.



I think that's because you aren't even trying to see anything other than a religious or deity based Intelligent Design that you assign with certain characteristics that you believe are refutable.  I have given several examples and, because you blew off every one, I won't go back and look for them.

Again do have a great evening.


----------



## antagon (Oct 19, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > you have expressed your own belief: that gapfiller secular ID proposes explanations for physical phenomena which science cannot refute.  i dont find that any explanation is offered through gapfiller and that the proposal that there are gaps is not scientific in the first place.
> ...



think again.  none of those examples empower you classroom argument.

good evening to you, too.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 19, 2010)

A classroom argument which you have yet to accurately characterize which, among similar mischaracterizations, is what has made this discussion so damnedly frustrating and now uninteresting.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 20, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D.



There are various concepts of ID? I am suprised, do tell...


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 20, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D.
> ...



We already did tell.  You'll have to read the thread though because I sure as hell am not going to say all that yet again.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 20, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Yes I have defined it through the eyes of many different individuals now.


False, you have defined it yourself and then attempted to recruit long dead thinkers into your definition.  They did not define it.  You did.



Foxfyre said:


> I think that's because you aren't even trying to see anything other than a religious or deity based Intelligent Design


False again.  Regardless of the nature of the "gap filler", it remains to be soundly outside the realm of science, having absolutely no supporting evidence.  My space monkey idea has nothing to do with religion and yet is an equivalent gap filler. 

Once again you claim no one understands when......  you give bad examples.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Urbanguerrilla said:
> ...



Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in?  No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> there is no evidence whatsoever with which to falsify intelligent design either any more than dreams or imagination can be falsified and we believe those things exist even though we cannot prove it or falsify it.




That is true, just like you cant falsify santa clause or the tooth fairy


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Read all that guff are you kiddin me, but you do believe in ID...


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Urbanguerrilla said:
> ...



Antagon likes to make things up when he can't refute what was actually said.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Urbanguerrilla said:
> ...



I haven't said what I personally believe because what I personally believe about I.D. is irrelevent to the discussion.  Antagon is doing his damndest to make the thread about me, and I haven't taken that bait.  Not gonna take it from you either.

You will either join the trolls, numbnuts, and/or exercises in futility in flailing about in some anti-Christian screed that is every bit as faith based as anything Christians might believe, or you will give a reasoned plausible argument for why I.D. is not plausible and why all those great minds who have embraced it are idiots.  And you will be able to explain why they are idiots and why their instincts and imagination is inferior to your own.

Or maybe you will join with the open minded who accept that their instincts and imagination is as good as anybody else's who draws conclusions about anything without being able to prove those conclusions.

I am of the school that a mind functions competently only when it is open.   It seems so far all the anti-IDers here have closed minds on the subject so all they have is attack mode.

If you are anti-I.D., do you have anything substantive to offer?


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



oh, i've refuted this:



Foxfyre said:


> The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain.  If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.



who made that up?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Yep I said that.  And if you were an honorable man, you would have acknowledged the full context of the discussion in which I posted that which would fully explain what I was saying there.

Perhaps you were never blessed with teachers who provided the history of scientific theories held by brilliant people of the past but which have subsequently been shown to be in error.  Perhaps you didn't luck out and get a teacher who explained those things that we don't yet know, but here are some theories about them.  Perhaps you approve of a teacher who would presume to question or destroy a student's faith in order to support his own faith based beliefs.  Perhaps you disapprove and would even censure a teacher who honestly admitted mysteries that science cannot yet explain or who admitted that many popular scientific theories supported today may be shown to be in error tomorrow or next year or in the centuries to come.

I approve of teachers who would not presume to attack a student's faith and who know that science cannot answer everything.  I fully defend a teacher who acknowledges that we have a tiny fraction of the science that there is yet to know and be revealed to us.  I support teachers who educate students and respect them as intelligent beings capable of drawing reasoned conclusions once furnished with accurate information.  I would fire a teacher in a heartbeat who presumed to tell a student what he should or should not believe in matters that cannot yet be tested.


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

but you've said all that already, Foxfyre, but you've never answered to what science teaching is actually about and the reality that your perspective on it does not keep with prevailing scientific philosophy -- specifically your concept of gaps.

like your attempt to characterize my summation of your position as dishonest was shown above to be itself disingenuous, i feel your characterization of my 'honor' in debate to be similarly founded in fantasy or dishonesty.  the statement in your quote is clear support for the characterization which i made:  "[ID is taught] not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact."  if there is any sort of context which contradicts this, then it is likely an example of the contradiction, the shiftiness, which i've pointed out in your presentation of your case.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

And no, my characterization was not disingenuous Antagon.  You have been fairly regularly dishonestly characterizing what I said, what I intended, what I implied even as you take whatever statement out of its full context.

And I'm not going to make the same arguments again that I've already made and that you now say that I did not make.

If you have a direct question that has a specific answer, ask it.  Or if you have a specific comment that applies to the topic, make it.

Until then, we cannot move on from where we have already been.


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

direct question: despite my obvious exhibition that you've indeed supported my characterization of your argument, what else supports your claim that i have consistently misrepresented what you've put forward?

i don't need to twist anything that you've said to lay my argument against it.  i don't want to, either.  i argue that i haven't done so and that your insistence in claiming that this has gone on is a lie of yours.  

substantiate it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

antagon said:


> direct question: despite my obvious exhibition that you've indeed supported my characterization of your argument, what else supports your claim that i have consistently misrepresented what you've put forward?
> 
> i don't need to twist anything that you've said to lay my argument against it.  i don't want to, either.  i argue that i haven't done so and that your insistence in claiming that this has gone on is a lie of yours.
> 
> substantiate it.



I refer you back to the discussion from which you lifted the quote.  That is my substantiation.  And you affirmed it with your statement "but you've said all that already, Foxfyre."


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

that does not substantiate your accusation, your lie:

"You have been fairly regularly dishonestly characterizing what I said, what I intended, what I implied even as you take whatever statement out of its full context."

that you've laid out your gap concept -- which i've argued is not keeping with scientific method -- central to scientific philosophy -- is no substantiation of this falsehood.  remember?  i considered these to be gaps in your own understanding.  i later explained that this is not only lacking understanding or awareness of theory on the books, but of the spirit and philosophy of science and its method -- what i argued science is all about.

you never answered to any of those arguments.  you've just restated your own above after claiming that i've lied about what you said because i couldn't refute it.  the blackboard calls the chalk black.  

that was your first bald-faced lie.  i've shown how.  now you've laid another one without substance.  i didn't know that ad hominem dishonesty was your style, Foxfyre.  this is all brand new to me.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

Fine Antagon.  Scratch a liberal long enough and invariably the mud slinging comes out.  I don't want to play.  Have a good day.


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

that's rich.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Or maybe you will join with the open minded who accept that their instincts and imagination is as good as anybody else's



I'm sure your imagination is as good as any other 5th grader.  But science is not founded on imagination.  It sits in the realm of evidence.

It appears that you have found yourself completely refuted on this topic.  At first you responded by claiming you wouldn't respond to the people asking specific questions about science and your ideas.  Now it seems even the last person you were willing to respond to has thoroughly shot you down, and so you cowardly run from the conversation based on yet another falsified victimization.

Let me give you some advice for the future: if you're so incapable of supporting a point, and get so easily hurt by people proving you wrong, don't bother joining the discussion in the first place.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 21, 2010)

Well SmarterthanHick has now neg repped me twice for expressing my opinion.  Isn't that special?  And Antagon thinks I lie without supporting that assertion with anything credible either.  Even more special.

You two should get together more often.  You were made for each other.

Have a good evening gentlemen.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 21, 2010)

I negged you both times you decided to ignore people in the discussion you disagree with, seeking some victimization role to  "justify" avoiding reason and logic.  As I stated in both negs, I disagree with your avoidance and ignorance in that way, not the fact that you have a different opinion, regardless of how ridiculous it may be. 

You will continue to receive negs every time you do that.  I still don't care how much you whine about it, and no one else believes yet more victimization from you anyway.  Go cry wolf somewhere else.


----------



## Queen (Oct 21, 2010)

No one believes life came from a rock. 

What a stupid poll. Figures though, from a Jesus Freak. LOL!!!!


----------



## antagon (Oct 21, 2010)

straight-up lie number one:



antagon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



my characterization of what you've argued lines up with the very words which i've based it on even though you said i made that up.  you incorporated another falsehood that you'd presented an argument which i could not refute.

lie number two:


> You have been fairly regularly dishonestly characterizing what I said, what I intended, what I implied even as you take whatever statement out of its full context.



this isn't true either.  in fact, i would describe my debate as an exercise in trying to goad a precise position from you which could inform me whether or not there were points of agreement/disagreement between our perspectives.  i made this known in my rebuttals.

i have no problem agreeing with people, recognizing misunderstanding or how i am wrong.  to the extent that i am right about things, i owe to this disposition.  for this reason i wonder what would motivate me to twist your arguments as you claim.  your retreat mechanism is claiming persecution and that explains the accusations.  now you have twice claimed that i am dishonest and not once supported that.  then you called me names, a liberal at least, on top of these ad hominem and false accusations, then accused me of slinging mud!  that's another lie! 

not a drop of credibility left, Foxfyre.  its all right there to see.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 22, 2010)

Queen said:


> No one believes life came from a rock.
> 
> What a stupid poll. Figures though, from a Jesus Freak. LOL!!!!



Lol, the next poll will be "Do you think life evolved or did it come from magic fairy dust"


----------

