"ID is definitely a more morally acceptable theory than evolution. "

Did you actually see someone say this at one time?

openfry

I mean it's nice that mormons are so cheeful and all... but honestly their religion is well beyond absurd. They can't even make an argument for it in the face of it's historical origins.

That's pretty much the same way I feel about it... I've had two jobs where I had extensive dealings with companies based out of SLC, and 99% of the salesmen & techs they sent out were Mormons. All were really great guys and extremely friendly, but seriously, people, c'mon... you're not even in the ballpark.

it blows my mind that Weaver95 can at times seem so intelligent, and other times be a complete waste of brain matter.


/wonders if he's schizophrenic

hailstorm:

Is this a true or false question? If the operative words are "great thinkers" I'm guessing false. Great thinking is no substitute for informed thinking.


"Many great thinkers are certain that evolution is completely rubbish. "

mikaelhg
mandatory course in logic and scepticism in your schools of journalism anymore?
Ha ha, that's a good one. Where/when on earth since the beginning of news has it been free from promotion of superstition? We have homeopathy, psychics, every sort of religion imaginable, astrology, Creationism/ID and other nonsense all treated with utter credulity. I think the only answer may be to teach scams as well as logic, so that students can see how easily people are fooled and detect when people are attempting to trick them.

2005-09-03 05:38:29 PM Steak
They have not positive evidence for ID.

Of course there is no evidence of ID. That's the problem. Religious beliefs are just that: beliefs. You can't prove the existence of God, at least not until you are dead or Armaggedon.

You mention that ID tries to poke holes at least partially in evolution that just aren't there. I've heard this before. All I am saying is that, generally speaking, they aren't mutually exclusive.

And, I've never suggested ID should be taught in school, to begin with. I may have thought so several months ago, but having read more about it, there is really no place for it scientifically speaking. Maybe the teaching can mention it in passing ("some scientists believe that an intelligence had a hand in the evolutionary process").

A a well-rounded curriculum should make evolution into a thematic unit (which crosses multiple subjects). Social Studies or reading could talk about different cultural creation stories. math could cover statistics, or some other math functionality that is used in evolution, etc.

This way, in science class the kids can learn about the currently accepted theory, and in another class, they can (hopefully) have a thoughtful and mature discussion about how evoltuion affects religious belief.

What's the point of discussing ID? Either you see how dumb it is, or you're too stupid to see how dumb it is. Until arguing with people can make them smarter, let's give it a rest.

wydok:

2005-09-03 05:38:29 PM Steak
They have not positive evidence for ID.

Of course there is no evidence of ID. That's the problem. Religious beliefs are just that: beliefs. You can't prove the existence of God, at least not until you are dead or Armaggedon.

You mention that ID tries to poke holes at least partially in evolution that just aren't there. I've heard this before. All I am saying is that, generally speaking, they aren't mutually exclusive.

And, I've never suggested ID should be taught in school, to begin with. I may have thought so several months ago, but having read more about it, there is really no place for it scientifically speaking. Maybe the teaching can mention it in passing ("some scientists believe that an intelligence had a hand in the evolutionary process").

A a well-rounded curriculum should make evolution into a thematic unit (which crosses multiple subjects). Social Studies or reading could talk about different cultural creation stories. math could cover statistics, or some other math functionality that is used in evolution, etc.

This way, in science class the kids can learn about the currently accepted theory, and in another class, they can (hopefully) have a thoughtful and mature discussion about how evoltuion affects religious belief.


"Creationism is obviously a more elegant theory than evolutionism. "

Wake 'n Bake:

What's the point of discussing ID? Either you see how dumb it is, or you're too stupid to see how dumb it is. Until arguing with people can make them smarter, let's give it a rest.


"George W Bush said that Charles Darwin was wrong because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "

Smallberries:

hailstorm:

Is this a true or false question? If the operative words are "great thinkers" I'm guessing false. Great thinking is no substitute for informed thinking.

"Many great thinkers are certain that evolution is completely rubbish. "

Where did you find these quotes? Are these from Bevet's site?

2005-09-03 05:47:16 PM gameshowhost

Even if you do not believe in God, the concept of a supreme diety goes back thousands of years. You are not that old, therefore you did not create God.

wydok:

2005-09-03 05:47:16 PM gameshowhost

Even if you do not believe in God, the concept of a supreme diety goes back thousands of years. You are not that old, therefore you did not create God.


"Evilution encourages racism. "

"Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."

That was his freakin point the whole time!!!

dakarpsi:

"Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."

That was his freakin point the whole time!!!


"Evolutionism encourages eugenics. "

The streets shall turn red with the blood of the non-believers...



...so it has been spoken, so shall it become the law.

/RAmen

I found one:

Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice.

Henry M. Morris

2005-09-03 05:48:24 PM Smallberries

"Creationism is obviously a more elegant theory than evolutionism. "

You completey missed my point, and are you using bevets in an attempt to counter my argument? Wow, the left think I'm a religious nut and the right think I am a heathen. How'd that happen.

I do not know enough about ID or evolution to make a decision on the subject, so I cannot argue over whether it is "elegant." But creationism encompasses more things than just ID.

All I know is that science seems to think that evolution is correct (based on the evidence at hand), and I believe that God created the universe and the life within it. That is a belief, not a scientifict theory. It should be talked about in philosphy class, not biology.

wydok
A a well-rounded curriculum should make evolution into a thematic unit (which crosses multiple subjects). ... they can (hopefully) have a thoughtful and mature discussion about how evoltuion affects religious belief.
You just sparked an idea in my brain - it would possibly be helpful to have a course pointing out the lies made by the anti-evolution movement, and explaining why they are not true. That would probably be more interesting for the students, would show them the errors in Creationist arguements, and would help them to know how to distinguish science from non-science. The trick would be how to keep the class from becoming anti-religion (or, at least being percieved as anti-religion by fundamentalists).

wydok:

You completey missed my point, and are you using bevets in an attempt to counter my argument? Wow, the left think I'm a religious nut and the right think I am a heathen. How'd that happen.

I do not know enough about ID or evolution to make a decision on the subject, so I cannot argue over whether it is "elegant." But creationism encompasses more things than just ID.

All I know is that science seems to think that evolution is correct (based on the evidence at hand), and I believe that God created the universe and the life within it. That is a belief, not a scientifict theory. It should be talked about in philosphy class, not biology.


"Kent Hovind said that Darwin was wrong because of Biblical inerrancy. "

Having finally read smallberries profile, I think I finally understand. He is trying to parody bevets, or is just a troll. Not doing a good job of it, though.

Steak:

wydok
A a well-rounded curriculum should make evolution into a thematic unit (which crosses multiple subjects). ... they can (hopefully) have a thoughtful and mature discussion about how evoltuion affects religious belief.
You just sparked an idea in my brain - it would possibly be helpful to have a course pointing out the lies made by the anti-evolution movement, and explaining why they are not true. That would probably be more interesting for the students, would show them the errors in Creationist arguements, and would help them to know how to distinguish science from non-science. The trick would be how to keep the class from becoming anti-religion (or, at least being percieved as anti-religion by fundamentalists).

Simple, call the course rhetoric, lies, and cults.

/sarcasm

wydok:

Having finally read smallberries profile, I think I finally understand. He is trying to parody bevets, or is just a troll. Not doing a good job of it, though.


Not me, it's a primative bot.

http://creation.boldlygoingnowhere.org/

2005-09-03 05:57:17 PM Steak
You just sparked an idea in my brain - it would possibly be helpful to have a course pointing out the lies made by the anti-evolution movement, and explaining why they are not true.

We are on two different wavelengths here. You are talking about some group of people that understand and agree with ID and you want to teach them how it is incorrect. I'm talking about 7th graders.

wydok:

We are on two different wavelengths here. You are talking about some group of people that understand and agree with ID and you want to teach them how it is incorrect. I'm talking about 7th graders.


Indoctrination is easiest before the age of reason. It gets easy again in the age of emotion, ~13 to 22.

"Evolutionism encourages promiscuity. Dembski says so! "

Hehe. That's funny

wydok: "Evolutionism encourages promiscuity. Dembski says so! "

Hehe. That's funny


"Evolution encourages homosexuality. Bush says so! "

sixdays::

I cant think of any other scientific THEORY which is taken and defended as FACT and freakin refuses to even listen to any discussion about it.

Wait, what? Scientists are in debate about evolution all the time. Not about its extistence, but about the fine-tunings of its workings.
It's accepted among SCIENTISTS because it explains the origins of human life and fits what we've observed better than any other theory. If someone comes up with a better theory based on observation and not resignation, then it will be looked into. That's how science works.

You know your state sucks when Utah looks civilized and forward-thinking in comaprison.

Yeah, I'm talking to you, Kansas.

And though I may be way too late to comment on Weaver's latest strawman and out-of-the-blue attempt to villify something which is completely off-topic, I just couldn't post in here without acknowledging his stubborn habits.

wydok
We are on two different wavelengths here. You are talking about some group of people that understand and agree with ID and you want to teach them how it is incorrect. I'm talking about 7th graders.
I don't understand, maybe you read my post too quickly? From my post:
"That would probably be more interesting for the students, would show them the errors in Creationist arguements, and would help them to know how to distinguish science from non-science."

Are you saying that wouldn't apply to 7th graders?

WHAAAAA!?!?!?!

this happened in UTAH !?!?!?!?

/is really, really surprised

DJ Scratch 'N' Sniff Hitler:

Wait, what? Scientists are in debate about evolution all the time. Not about its extistence, but about the fine-tunings of its workings.
It's accepted among SCIENTISTS because it explains the origins of human life and fits what we've observed better than any other theory. If someone comes up with a better theory based on observation and not resignation, then it will be looked into. That's how science works.



"500 great scientists have concluded that evilution is completely immoral. "

PC LOAD LETTER:

Christianity never taught that it was flat (except for some isolated nuts who were acused of Heresy by the church. Most people knew the Earth was round. If you didn't you were pretty dumb even by the standards in the early Rennaissance.


"Many intelligent people are certain that evolution is completely unfounded. "

Smallberries

Not me, it's a primative bot.

I hope your bot evolves then!

wydok:

True. But ID doesn't attempt to prove that evolution is false. It just suggests that an intelligent being was involved in the evolutionary process.

And, the fact that it suggests that an unknwown, all-powerful intelligent being was involved in evolution means that it's not testable, nor is it falsifiable.

Therefore, it has no place being introduced into a science classroom.

IMAGINE BEA ARTHUR'S CLITORIS wins something or other for that log-in.

/me and my imagination need some time alone now

IMAGINE BEA ARTHUR'S CLITORIS

I think we have a new winner for most disturbing fark name.

SchlingFo: Therefore, it has no place being introduced into a science classroom.


"Evilution can't explain music. Pat Robertson says so! "

PC LOAD LETTER:

And who says the design's intelligent? I ride the subway every day and think "if the design was intelligent, there would be fewer morons on the train (and the planet in general)"


"300 great people know for a fact that evilution is completely evil. "

Smallberries: "Many intelligent people are certain that evolution is completely unfounded. "


And many complete retards believe the exact same thing. So what.

The Shoveller:


"Creation theory is clearly a much better theory than Darwinism. "

Her clit bows to swahnhennessy and Abagadro.

/splash

I agree completely. It's totally settled then. I'm glad we had this talk.

The Shoveller: And many complete retards believe the exact same thing. So what.


"Michael Behe said that Gould was wrong because of irreducible complexity. "