Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Florida schools to add the phrase "scientific theory of" before evolution, the Big Bang, and the Female Orgasm   (blogs.orlandosentinel.com ) divider line
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

6446 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2008 at 8:38 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



760 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-16 04:26:51 PM  
abb3w: "I agree with you; however, there's a fraction of the relgious nutjob population that evidently disagrees with us."

Man, I wish. Actually the slight majority of U.S. Christians are creationists. Lucky for us, the majority of U.S. citizens on the whole are not.
 
2008-02-16 04:27:12 PM  
improvius: improvius: shocker66s: ninjakirby: shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know. There are great arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Do you believe you are the direct descendant of your parents? Do you believe you breathe oxygen? Do you believe that Unicorns exist? Do you believe you just read what I typed?

Yes. Yes. NO. Yes.

But you COULD be wrong about all of those. So you don't really "believe" so much as you think that your answers are all logically "highly probable".

I was seriously hoping for shocker66s to respond to this...


Yes
 
2008-02-16 04:30:46 PM  
improvius: "But you COULD be wrong about all of those. So you don't really "believe" so much as you think that your answers are all logically "highly probable"."

I believe because of high probability. Probablistic proof is the only kind there is outside of math or logic.
 
2008-02-16 04:32:46 PM  
Kome: shocker66s: Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.

The Roman empire? Seriously? The guys who went around conquering the known world and having them all convert or be put to death? The same people who threw Christians to the lions, literally? That doesn't sound very peaceful or tolerant.

Let's see... the Ottoman empire. Yea, how tolerant. They had a special tax for people of the wrong religion.

And yet people still lived in peace in those empires with their religion. United States, Great Britain.. Need more??
 
2008-02-16 04:36:00 PM  
shocker66s: "And yet people still lived in peace in those empires with their religion."

Kome already explained that they didn't, there was a great deal of interreligious persecution. How exactly do you define "lived in peace"?

shocker66s: "United States, Great Britain.. Need more??"

Both of those have secular governments. Great Britain is even demographically secular as well. Those examples support Kome's position, not yours.
 
2008-02-16 04:39:21 PM  
Zamboro: My bad, mistook you for one of those "Why can't evolution coexist with theism?" people. My answer applies to that position, sorry for the confusion.

I'm not a theist, but I suppose I do count as one of the "Why can't evolution coexist with theism?" people. I don't understand why, if you believe in god, you couldn't believe that god set everything in motion and that evolution was part of how he does things.

/Bolded the if because you seem to ignore that part.
 
2008-02-16 04:40:11 PM  
shocker66s: Kome: shocker66s: Hmmm, I disagree. I believe they are the rule not the exception.

And if it weren't for things like Socrates being put to death for not worshipping the right gods, the Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades (episodes 1 through 7), September 11th, about 90% of what Scientology does, the brutality of the Aztecs on the cultures they conquered, the brutality of the Conquestadors on the Aztecs that they conquered, the Holocaust, Aum Shinrikyo, and just about every other week in Irasel someone blowing themselves up in the name of their God, I'd agree with you.

So, fine you can disagree with me all you want. You're still wrong. Religions enacting peaceful co-existence with those who are not of the same religious background is the exception, not the rule.

Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.


I think you mean he COULD be incorrect. And the history you've read could be wrong.
 
2008-02-16 04:41:29 PM  
JuggleGeek: "I suppose I do count as one of the "Why can't evolution coexist with theism?" people. I don't understand why, if you believe in god, you couldn't believe that god set everything in motion and that evolution was part of how he does things."

You could believe that. But you could also believe anything. The question is whether that belief is supported by evidence.
 
2008-02-16 04:42:21 PM  
Kome: shocker66s: Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.

The Roman empire? Seriously? The guys who went around conquering the known world and having them all convert or be put to death? The same people who threw Christians to the lions, literally? That doesn't sound very peaceful or tolerant.

Let's see... the Ottoman empire. Yea, how tolerant. They had a special tax for people of the wrong religion.


They COULD have had a special tax. You can never be sure.
 
2008-02-16 04:42:59 PM  
shocker66s: And yet people still lived in peace in those empires with their religion. United States, Great Britain.. Need more??

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, people live incredibly peacefully with others who are of the same religion. Not so much when you have people that are (or at least are perceived as) different, religiously. In the US and Britain, you say? Abortion clinics have been bombed for religious reasons killing doctors, churches, temples and mosques have been set aflame, and people have been beaten up, maimed and killed just for having a different religion. Gay people are also routinely persecuted on religious grounds. You can't be a successful politician and be open about being atheist, which just further shows how tolerant the religious people in this country are.

Look at September 11th. Religious f*ckwits who had been living in this country for years flew planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent "infidels". After that, how many Muslims (or people who were mistaken for being Muslim) were attacked and killed in the US in retaliation? Not necessarily because anyone thought they had anything to do with it, but just because they were "the other."

Even within a country that seperates Church and State like the USA, religious persecution goes on all the time. The only reason there is the illusion of religious peace is because about 80% of this country is some form of Christian. It's easy to be at peace with people who fundamentally agree with you.
 
2008-02-16 04:43:13 PM  
JuggleGeek: I don't understand why, if you believe in god, you couldn't believe that god set everything in motion and that evolution was part of how he does things.

I suppose that depends on how you define God. I usually find that people who use this sort of rationalization end up admitting that their God is really no more than some sort of ultimate undiscovered scientific theory of the universe.

If God used evolution to make his creations, he really wasn't a very good God was he? 99.9% of everything he's ever created has gone extinct.
 
2008-02-16 04:50:49 PM  
shocker66s: Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.

Alexander the Great kept local religions but he died pretty young. Seleucid later banned Judaism.

The Romans allowed some religions to exist, as long as it was under their control or monitored by them. However, they persecuted Christians, dispersed the Jews and later banned Paganism under penalty of death.

Ottomans allowed all religions, but levied a heavy tax against non-Muslims. The local populace usually were the ones that made living as a non-muslim a deadly risk regardless of what the official stance was.

Byzantines were the foundation of Eastern Orthodoxy, which was the official religion. Islam was the enemy who they fought against constantly.
 
2008-02-16 04:55:08 PM  
shocker66s: Kome: shocker66s: Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.

The Roman empire? Seriously? The guys who went around conquering the known world and having them all convert or be put to death? The same people who threw Christians to the lions, literally? That doesn't sound very peaceful or tolerant.

Let's see... the Ottoman empire. Yea, how tolerant. They had a special tax for people of the wrong religion.

And yet people still lived in peace in those empires with their religion. United States, Great Britain.. Need more??


Well, they might have lived in peace. The bottom line in this discussion is that the ultimate answer is "I don't know". Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect. You can have all the degrees in the world and when it comes down to historic events, you only think you know.
 
2008-02-16 04:55:58 PM  
Zamboro: SkinnyHead is more intriguing to me than Bevets.... I seriously think that if you could sit him down and have him watch/read transcripts/films of the Dover trial proceedings, he'd no longer be able to believe in creationism. The Dover trial saw the accessible presentation of so much compelling probablistic proof of common human/ape ancestry that I don't think any human being with a working brain could simply ignore it.

SkinnyHead is a mendacious, equivocating, manipulative, intellectually dishonest assclown. He will never listen to reason or engage in honest debate because he knows there is no substance to his claims. He's a deliberate, transparent liar.

The difference between Skinny and Bevets is that whereas Bevets is merely deluded, Skinny is sociopathic.
 
2008-02-16 04:56:27 PM  
Kome: shocker66s: And yet people still lived in peace in those empires with their religion. United States, Great Britain.. Need more??

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, people live incredibly peacefully with others who are of the same religion. Not so much when you have people that are (or at least are perceived as) different, religiously. In the US and Britain, you say? Abortion clinics have been bombed for religious reasons killing doctors, churches, temples and mosques have been set aflame, and people have been beaten up, maimed and killed just for having a different religion. Gay people are also routinely persecuted on religious grounds. You can't be a successful politician and be open about being atheist, which just further shows how tolerant the religious people in this country are.

Look at September 11th. Religious f*ckwits who had been living in this country for years flew planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent "infidels". After that, how many Muslims (or people who were mistaken for being Muslim) were attacked and killed in the US in retaliation? Not necessarily because anyone thought they had anything to do with it, but just because they were "the other."

Even within a country that seperates Church and State like the USA, religious persecution goes on all the time. The only reason there is the illusion of religious peace is because about 80% of this country is some form of Christian. It's easy to be at peace with people who fundamentally agree with you.

Acts of violence against people of different religion is not the norm here in the United States or in Britain. You know that. You simply can't deny that people of other religions live at peace here.
 
2008-02-16 04:57:49 PM  
improvius: shocker66s: Kome: shocker66s: Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.

The Roman empire? Seriously? The guys who went around conquering the known world and having them all convert or be put to death? The same people who threw Christians to the lions, literally? That doesn't sound very peaceful or tolerant.

Let's see... the Ottoman empire. Yea, how tolerant. They had a special tax for people of the wrong religion.

And yet people still lived in peace in those empires with their religion. United States, Great Britain.. Need more??

Well, they might have lived in peace. The bottom line in this discussion is that the ultimate answer is "I don't know". Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect. You can have all the degrees in the world and when it comes down to historic events, you only think you know.


hmm, not bad.
 
2008-02-16 04:59:27 PM  
The_Religious_Left:
There's also many things that are real that you can't scientifically test. Love, compassion, heroism. Is your consciousness testable? Are your emotions?


All of those are testable. That you think they're not show how shockingly ignorant about science you really are.

 
2008-02-16 05:06:43 PM  
shocker66s: You simply can't deny that people of other religions live at peace here.

Shades of grey all around. You can't deny that a Jewish person has a slim chance of living peacefully outside of areas with a significant Jewish population. For example, my wife's experience in South River, NJ which is a Polish Catholic community. Despite her family trying to Celebrate Christmas and Easter at least in the non-religious sense, they still got a swastika painted on their garage. So much for trying to blend in. Then there was the time when she drove through a Satmar area in Rockland County on a Saturday afternoon. They actually threw rocks at her car for breaking the Sabbath.


Or my atheist friend in Georgia. They got a brick through their window with a cross on it.

For the most part, this is true, people do live peacefully together, but it's not chocolate puppies and rainbow trees by any stretch of the imagination.
 
2008-02-16 05:07:13 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: Actually you are incorrect sir. Religious peaceful co-existence is everywhere. It is when there is no tolerance that violence flares up. Read your history. Alexander the Great, Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine.... List goes on.

Alexander the Great kept local religions but he died pretty young. Seleucid later banned Judaism.

Nice so for his time there was peaceful co-existence.

The Romans allowed some religions to exist, as long as it was under their control or monitored by them. However, they persecuted Christians, dispersed the Jews and later banned Paganism under penalty of death.

And because of their intolerance the empire declined but when there was tolerance the empire thrived. You need to finish the thought.

Ottomans allowed all religions, but levied a heavy tax against non-Muslims. The local populace usually were the ones that made living as a non-muslim a deadly risk regardless of what the official stance was.

Once again there was peaceful co-existence. Not the greatest but what can you do when dealing with people.

Byzantines were the foundation of Eastern Orthodoxy, which was the official religion. Islam was the enemy who they fought against constantly.


Once again finish the thought or you leave people with a false idea.
Due to intolerance of Islam, Byzantine was eventually destroy by the Ottomans who were more for peaceful co-existence.
 
2008-02-16 05:08:01 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: You simply can't deny that people of other religions live at peace here.

Shades of grey all around. You can't deny that a Jewish person has a slim chance of living peacefully outside of areas with a significant Jewish population. For example, my wife's experience in South River, NJ which is a Polish Catholic community. Despite her family trying to Celebrate Christmas and Easter at least in the non-religious sense, they still got a swastika painted on their garage. So much for trying to blend in. Then there was the time when she drove through a Satmar area in Rockland County on a Saturday afternoon. They actually threw rocks at her car for breaking the Sabbath.


Or my atheist friend in Georgia. They got a brick through their window with a cross on it.

For the most part, this is true, people do live peacefully together, but it's not chocolate puppies and rainbow trees by any stretch of the imagination.


I agree with you:)
 
2008-02-16 05:13:58 PM  
shocker66s: Acts of violence against people of different religion is not the norm here in the United States or in Britain. You know that. You simply can't deny that people of other religions live at peace here.

Didn't say acts of violence were the norm. Just that peaceful co-existence with other religions isn't. There isn't much peaceful co-existence here in the USA between religions (or between people who are just perceived to "not be one of us" because of religious doctrine, like the perseuction against gays - most of them identify themselves as Christian, but the homophobes in this country resort to the "no true Scotsman" line). Since 9/11, Muslims are scrutinized more than ever. You have guys like Fred Phelps picketing outside funerals in the name of God because God apparently hates fags. There has always been, in this country, a suspicion against "the Jew" and atheists have always been a nice scapegoat. George H.W. Bush said that atheists should not even be considered American citizens. How f*cking peaceful or tolerant is a statement like that? To just backhand 10% of the population of the country with a comment like that? F*ck him. Then there's this uneasy tension between science and religion; tension that is exacerbated mostly by the theists (although I will grant that guys like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens aren't helping matters).
 
2008-02-16 05:14:15 PM  
shocker66s: Once again finish the thought or you leave people with a false idea.
Due to intolerance of Islam, Byzantine was eventually destroy by the Ottomans who were more for peaceful co-existence.


Once again finish the thought or YOU live people with a false idea. Do you know what Dhimmi is? It's the peaceful co-existance you were talking about. Well....as with everything in history, it's all shades of grey. For the most part (whatever that means) it held true, but damn, to say there was peace between religions under the Ottomans was very far from the truth. Humanity is one big FAIL when it comes to peace and tolerance.

From Teh Wiki on Dhimmi:

Freedom of religion and forced conversions
Maimonides (pictured) narrowly escaped death during the massacre of dhimmis in Cordoba
Maimonides (pictured) narrowly escaped death during the massacre of dhimmis in Cordoba

From an Islamic legal perspective, the pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. Furthermore, the dhimmis were also serving a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic, which was another point of concern to jurists.[55] Indeed, in the first several centuries after the Islamic conquest and subsequently in the Ottoman Empire, forcible conversions were rare. Subsequently, rulers occasionally broke the pledge and dhimmis were forced to choose between conversion to Islam and death. Forced conversions occurred mostly in the Maghreb, especially under the Almohads, a militant dynasty with messianic claims, as well as in Persia, where Shi'a Muslims were generally less tolerant than their Sunni counterparts.[56]

In the 12th century, rulers of the Almohad dynasty killed or forcibly converted Jews and Christians in Al-Andalus and the Maghreb, putting an end to the existence of Christian communities in North Africa outside Egypt.[57][58] In an effort to survive under Almohads, most Jews resorted to practicing Islam outwardly, while remaining faithful to Judaism; they openly reverted to Judaism after Almohad persecutions passed.[59] During the Cordoba massacre of 1148, the Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician Maimonides saved his own life only by converting to Islam; after Maimonides moved to Egypt, this conversion was ruled void by a Muslim judge who was a friend and patient of Maimonides.[60] As a result of Almohad persecutions and other forced conversions that took place in Morocco afterwards, several Muslim tribes in the Atlas Mountains, as well as many Muslim families in Fez, have Jewish origin.[58]

Although Lewis claims they were very rare overall, most forced conversions of dhimmis that did happen occurred in Persia.[61] In 1656, Shah Abbas I expelled the Jews from Isfahan and compelled them to adopt Islam, although the order was subsequently withdrawn, possibly because of the loss of fiscal revenues.[62] In the early 18th century, Shia'a clergy attempted to force all dhimmis to embrace Islam, but without success. In 1830, all 2,500 Jews of Shiraz were forcibly converted to Islam.[63] In 1839, Jews were massacred in Mashhad and survivors were forcibly converted.[64] The same fate awaited the Jews of Barforoush in 1866, even though they were allowed to revert to Judaism after an intervention from the British and French ambassadors.[63]

The Almohads and Muslim authorities in Yemen practiced forcible conversion of children. Ye'or and Parfitt believe that this practice was based on the belief that every child is born a Muslim.[65] Suspecting a lack of sincerity on the part of Jews who were forcibly converted to Islam, Almohad rulers took Jewish children from their parents and raised those children as Muslims.[66] In Yemen, a 1922 Zaydi statute known as the Orphans Decree obligated the state to take under its protection and convert any dhimmi child whose parents had died (later extended to include fatherless children).[67] Although possibly intended to alleviate the plight of orphaned children, the Jewish community was dismayed,[68] and Jewish leaders who helped hide orphans were imprisoned and sometimes tortured.[69] Despite this, the Jews in Yemen generally continued to feel that their position in society was secure.[70]

Sporadic waves of forced conversion occurred at different times and places: for example, in Libya in 1558-89, in Tabriz in 1291 and 1338, and in Baghdad in 1333 and 1344.[58]
 
2008-02-16 05:15:40 PM  
shocker66s: Once again finish the thought or you leave people with a false idea.
Due to intolerance of Islam, Byzantine was eventually destroy by the Ottomans who were more for peaceful co-existence.


Islam isn't a religion, all of a sudden?
 
2008-02-16 05:19:18 PM  
Zamboro: You could believe that. But you could also believe anything. The question is whether that belief is supported by evidence.

Since you continue to misrepresent what I've said, I can only assume you are trolling, so I won't be wasting time on your nonsense.

whatshisname: If God used evolution to make his creations, he really wasn't a very good God was he? 99.9% of everything he's ever created has gone extinct.

Anything that lives has a limited life span. Saying that "Since things died, that means god failed" is silly. It's like saying "Hey, you were playing Starcraft, but since a lot of your zerg got killed when you zerg-rushed, you lost."

My grandfather was a rancher most of his life. Every cow he ever raised is now dead. That doesn't make him a bad rancher, it just means that some people got to eat some steak.
 
2008-02-16 05:22:07 PM  
JuggleGeek: whatshisname: If God used evolution to make his creations, he really wasn't a very good God was he? 99.9% of everything he's ever created has gone extinct.

Anything that lives has a limited life span. Saying that "Since things died, that means god failed" is silly. It's like saying "Hey, you were playing Starcraft, but since a lot of your zerg got killed when you zerg-rushed, you lost."

My grandfather was a rancher most of his life. Every cow he ever raised is now dead. That doesn't make him a bad rancher, it just means that some people got to eat some steak.


Difference between the individuals in a species dying and the species as a whole going completely extinct because it could no longer survive in their environment.
 
2008-02-16 05:24:14 PM  
JuggleGeek: Anything that lives has a limited life span. Saying that "Since things died, that means god failed" is silly. It's like saying "Hey, you were playing Starcraft, but since a lot of your zerg got killed when you zerg-rushed, you lost."

My grandfather was a rancher most of his life. Every cow he ever raised is now dead. That doesn't make him a bad rancher, it just means that some people got to eat some steak.


Do cows still exist? There is a difference between a kind of an animal and an individual animal. Roaches have survived hundreds of millions of years, but not Mammoths. Let's assume a Divine Plan is in play here. Why would a God include death of a species as a requirement of some "divine plan"? Is God bound by some external rules that prevent him from creating a plan that does not involve death? Or is he not willing? (see "Question of Evil" falsely attributed to Epicurus)
 
2008-02-16 05:25:37 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: Once again finish the thought or you leave people with a false idea.
Due to intolerance of Islam, Byzantine was eventually destroy by the Ottomans who were more for peaceful co-existence.

Once again finish the thought or YOU live people with a false idea. Do you know what Dhimmi is? It's the peaceful co-existance you were talking about. Well....as with everything in history, it's all shades of grey. For the most part (whatever that means) it held true, but damn, to say there was peace between religions under the Ottomans was very far from the truth. Humanity is one big FAIL when it comes to peace and tolerance.

I agree that humanity has been one big fail as you put it but please understand that an empire or any type of government cannot exist for long without peace with different religions. If I alluded to it all being puppies and rainbows then I apologize.
 
2008-02-16 05:34:35 PM  
shocker66s: I agree that humanity has been one big fail as you put it but please understand that an empire or any type of government cannot exist for long without peace with different religions. If I alluded to it all being puppies and rainbows then I apologize.

Hope you find the lost end tag. Try under the chair.

Any Government needs two ingredients: internal peace and power. The pogroms against the Jews in Europe show that as long as the majority get along with each other, screw internal peace.

I get your point, but I think you chose a shaky argument, personally, but obviously you don't need my approval to state it.
 
2008-02-16 05:47:00 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: Any Government needs two ingredients: internal peace and power.

Society is based on morality.

Morality rests on consensus and requires the use of power to remove those who will not accept that consensus.

The continued existence of a shared morality rests upon the forbearance of every single individual within a society from claiming the whole fruit of his or her labour.

A society's ability to achieve consensus is inversely proportional to the size and complexity of society, to the degree of technological advancement, and to the speed of internal communications.

Power cannot be maintained and effectively exercised, without a moral structure accepted and practiced by all, because power attracts the corruptible, and corruption destroys consensus.

Certain individuals are born incapable of forbearance; so are certain cultures.

Thus the continuation of society rests on: the willingness of each individual to accept the shared values of the society, the willingness and the ability of those in power to remove those who do not support the morality of the society; and the willingness of all to limit the size and complexity of the society to the scope of the consensus required.
- The Paradigms of Power, from Modesitt's Adiamante

New thread is live, but not lively.
 
2008-02-16 05:51:54 PM  
JuggleGeek: "Since you continue to misrepresent what I've said, I can only assume you are trolling, so I won't be wasting time on your nonsense."

What? I meant no offense. My reply was entirely pertinent to what you said.

(disclaimer: Beyond this point, "you" is being used in a generic sense to refer to anyone holding such a position.)

I meant only to point out that while if you believe in god you'll be inclined to macguyver anything science discovers into your personal belief system, that doesn't mean that the resulting belief system is what the evidence points to. You can stick any god you like into our scientific model of the universe, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the notion that your God exists. You've simply plagiarized the whole of science and integrated it into your religion as though it were always a part. It should at the very least raise a few red flags in your mind that the reason you're plugging science's answers into your religion is because your religion tried and failed to provide those answers. It should also raise an eyebrow that science currently has found no evidence of divine intention in the cosmos. Of course because the religious standard for disproof is intentionally impossible to satisfy, there's still room for God. But then there's room for anything. To take what amounts to a 404:Evidence not found and from that jump to a conclusion as specific as "A supreme intelligence that created the universe and preserves our consciousness after death" is the most obvious sort of wishful thinking.
 
2008-02-16 05:54:51 PM  
abb3w: New thread is live, but not lively.
I'll respond there
 
2008-02-16 06:01:46 PM  
I have posted this before but it is still a valid point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QMFQ22erKI
 
2008-02-16 08:47:31 PM  
SkinnyHead: Billy-Bob Kenobi: Not exactly what I'd call a win for your side.

Removing a bad case from the books is a win. And it has ramifications for another bad case.

Activist Judge Jones relied heavily on the Selman decision in deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover. He cited it 15 times. Since Selman has been vacated as unsupported by the evidence, it no longer exists on the books. Because Activist Judge Jones relied so heavily on a vacated case to decide Kitzmiller, his decision in Kitzmiller has become worthless.


Never read the opinion have you. Jones is not an activist judge.

Selman was not exactly reversed. The appeals court wanted more testimony so he sent it back. The defendents knowing that they would lose gave up completely. If what you thought had any merit they would have continued the fight like they wanted to.

Selman was a victory for the pro-science (i.e. pro-evolution) side.
 
2008-02-16 11:21:27 PM  
The thread has gotten this far without any XKCD references?

For shame, Fark.
 
2008-02-16 11:37:38 PM  
SleepyMcGee

You still need to edit your web page. That second Patterson quote needs the addition of an asterisk and a statement to the effect of "This is taken grossly out of context due to the fact that one paragraph later he says the exact opposite of this.

Bevets

You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? ~ Dennis Miller

Bevets 2008-02-10 12:08:58 PM
Bevets 2008-02-04 12:29:39 AM

Bevets

We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson

SleepyMcGee

ONE PARAGRAPH LATER

The general theory of evolution is thus neither fully scientific (like physics, for example) nor unscientific (like history). Although it has no laws it does have rules, and it does make general predictions about the properties of organisms. It therefore lays itself open to disproof.

I can't believe how f*cking dishonest you can be. Doesn't your Holy Book say something about bearing false witness?

So, here is an example of ANOTHER one of your f*cking quotes taken horribly out of context. Mark this timestamp. Update your quote-scripts. And again, stop being an intellectually dishonest asshole.

Bevets

Please list the parts that are not scientific.

SleepyMcGee

Yeah, you never defended against my accusations in those linked threads. You produced a bunch of non-sequitur statements like this one making a red herring as a response.

You have to quote Dennis Miller to try and convey that you are bored? Really? If you want to drop this, that's fine. I just wish you would actually address what people ask instead of linking to threads full of non-sequitur quotations.


You have a funny way of 'asking questions'. I suspect most who read the original post perceived my points. You might have better luck understanding the 'non sequiturs' if you did not begin with the assumption that I must be lying.
 
2008-02-17 12:17:31 AM  
SleepyMcGee: Who exactly is claiming to understand the universe?

bevets.

/holy carp was I drunk last night.
 
2008-02-17 12:26:39 AM  
mbrother: cyber_slacker: Also, I think sometimes Science is a religion for all intents and purposes.

Well, you're plain insane then sometimes.


Woah. I didn't mean to insult your prophet.

Chill.
 
2008-02-17 12:35:04 AM  
mbrother: The religion side, on the other hand, has NOTHING objective supporting it. Believe what you want, but keep your eye on the target. You're being stupid and insulting to make this fallacious point.

All human life having intrisic value is far from an insultingly fallacious point.

To be brief about it, kindness is inherent to man, and kindness is good.

I didn't mean to insult your beliefs, and if I dissed your prophet by atributing inalienable dignity to all of humankind then I am sorry.

/also Canadian
//Canadian apolgies are passive aggressive
/sorry if that thurts your feelings
 
2008-02-17 12:39:15 AM  
ButteryDamage: "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
Anonymous


40 000 quatloss on natural stupidity.
 
2008-02-17 12:39:51 AM  
Bevets: I suspect most who read the original post perceived my points.

Word of the day: pareidolia.
www.macalester.edu
 
2008-02-17 12:55:09 AM  
things I do to my cats...: cyber_slacker: Also, I think sometimes Science is a religion for all intents and purposes.

The world is round and not flat? Yes, I agree. But go ahead and prove it. Being scientifcally schooled we all accept that the world is round, but we very unscientifically haven't the wherewithal to prove it. Instead we accept that the world is round because everyone who teaches us says it is and all our books tell us that. So we accept this fact religiously.


Eratosthenes and Co. (poppity)

um... no. see we have these things called "geometry" and the like. which have the word "science" associated with them. a long time ago, these guys used clocks, and sticks, and shadows, and FOUND AKA DEOMSTRATED that the Earth is roughly spherical.

they used some sticks (actually, wells) and angles and a certain time of day and year. that is how we know.

*bzzzzz* but thanks for playing!


I wasn't saying that it can't be proven that the worl is round. I was saying that most people can't, off hand.

Oh, and you're more than welcome but i'll thank you to be somewhat less intolerant intolerant in the future.

not everyone thiunks like you, and that's a good thing.
 
2008-02-17 01:07:24 AM  
Damnhippyfreak: Do you know off the top of your head what the proof is? Could you reproduce it without having to look it up? Is this evidence the most important reason why you believe the earth is round or are other processes more important? That's the point I think cyber_slacker is trying to make here.

yes. thank-you. (it's not rocket surgery... or well, some might believe it is)
 
2008-02-17 01:15:26 AM  
cyber_slacker: I wasn't saying that it can't be proven that the worl is round. I was saying that most people can't, off hand.

That the majority are ignorant seems poor reason to indulge their ignorance.
 
2008-02-17 01:15:49 AM  
TheMysteriousStranger: Never read the opinion have you. Jones is not an activist judge.

I did read the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion. And I also read the ACLU briefs that the judge copied from. When a judge copies extensively from the brief of an activist group like the ACLU, it is fair to say that the judge is an activist.

Selman was not exactly reversed. The appeals court wanted more testimony so he sent it back. The defendents knowing that they would lose gave up completely. If what you thought had any merit they would have continued the fight like they wanted to.

The Selman decision was vacated by the court of appeals. That means it was erased from the law books. It is void.

Selman was a victory for the pro-science (i.e. pro-evolution) side.

The district court decision was a victory for the evolutionist side, but the appellate decision in Selman was a victory for the pro-science (i.e. pro-ID) side.

When the district court decision in Selman first came out, evolutionists claimed victory. They relied heavily on Selman in arguing the Dover case. Selman was cited over 30 times in the ACLU brief. The Court of Appeals pulled the rug out from under them. That cannot be seen as a victory for the evolutionist side.
 
2008-02-17 01:22:44 AM  
SkinnyHead:

... but the appellate decision in Selman was a victory for the pro-science (i.e. pro-ID) side.

That is maybe the funniest thing I have ever read on the intertrons.

If the very definition of science excludes supernatural causes, how can intelligent design be considered scientific?

You may claim that ID is science, but by the very definition of science, it is most demonstrably not science. Please show everyone here you have a shred of intellectual integrity for once and acknowledge this elementary truth.
 
2008-02-17 01:34:47 AM  
abb3w: Science Be Praised: There really ought to be a generic cut and paste response we can roll out everytime Bevets adds his repetitive nonsense.

His opening remarks are sufficiently routine that I have this in a file these days. I'm working on something more general...


hey y'all, lay off bevets, he's autistic.

/going to h-e-double-hockey-stick
 
2008-02-17 01:52:31 AM  
SkinnyHead: When a judge copies extensively from the brief of an activist group like the ACLU, it is fair to say that the judge is an activist.

No, it's when a judge ignores the First Amendment and allows religion to be taught in public schools - THAT would be an activist judge.
A judge who stands up for the Constitution is called a conservative.

/ID is religion. To say otherwise is to bear false witness.
//If you bear false witness, it means you hate Jesus.
///Why do you hate Lesus?
 
2008-02-17 02:03:19 AM  
abb3w: cyber_slacker: I wasn't saying that it can't be proven that the worl is round. I was saying that most people can't, off hand.

That the majority are ignorant seems poor reason to indulge their ignorance.


Deeming all those who can't, off hand, prove the world to be round ignorant makes you a judgemental individual indeed. Seeing this particular point of fact as being central to the argument makes you foolish.

I still believe very firmly that all human kind has instrinsic value.
 
2008-02-17 02:21:18 AM  
cyber_slacker: Deeming all those who can't, off hand, prove the world to be round ignorant makes you a judgemental individual indeed. Seeing this particular point of fact as being central to the argument makes you foolish. I still believe very firmly that all human kind has instrinsic value.

Myers-Briggs suggests otherwise; I score as Perceiving, not Judging. We all have areas of ignorance. As for being central to "the argument", I don't see how one can talk about education without the corresponding question of ignorance being central.

As for the intrinsic value of all humans... while a decent general approximation, I'm not convinced it's an absolute rule. The trouble comes from imprecise definition of "value", which in turn rests on the nature of "good".
 
2008-02-17 06:07:51 AM  
Kome: Difference between the individuals in a species dying and the species as a whole going completely extinct because it could no longer survive in their environment.

Again, I'm *not* arguing that there is a god.

But I can see how someone that believes in god could also believe that god created everything, including evolution.

Maybe he likes watching it, just to see what happens. People have aquariums, ant farms, etc, just so they can watch.

Or maybe he used some species for a purpose (perhaps to evolve another species, or to provide another life for with food, or so that there would be oil a few million years later, or something that I would never imagine. My granddad's cows are gone, because they served their purpose. Maybe those species which have died out also did what they were supposed to do.

Maybe this is the first universe god ever made and he's experimented along the way, and those are failed experiments.

*IF* you already believe in god, then unless you believe you understand exactly who god is and how god works, that might be a reasonable theory. More reasonable than denying all of the evidence of evolution, at least. More reasonable than "The world was created in 6 days, around 7,000 years ago."

PC LOAD LETTER: Why would a God include death of a species as a requirement of some "divine plan"? Is God bound by some external rules that prevent him from creating a plan that does not involve death?

I don't believe in god. I'm not arguing that there is a god. If there was a god, I wouldn't expect to understand who he is or how he works. If I did believe, though, I'd still not want to ignore scientific facts. Pretending that dinosaurs never existed, or that they existed in the past few thousand years, would require ignoring facts and making up some very odd story about why god would create the evidence that we've found. Therefore, if I believed, then my concept of god would probably try to cope with that evidence.

Obviously a lot of believers just deny the evidence. I doubt it's 100% of them though.

Zamboro: You can stick any god you like into our scientific model of the universe, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the notion that your God exists.

And I'm not arguing that god exists, or that it's a credible idea. I'm hard-core atheist and hard-core agnostic. I don't know, and I don't believe. God seems incredibly unlikely to me. Like drawing a natural royal flush 20 billion times in a row unlikely.

Arguments that are designed to prove to me that god doesn't exist are a waste of time, because we already agree on that.

SkinnyHead: The district court decision was a victory for the evolutionist side, but the appellate decision in Selman was a victory for the pro-science (i.e. pro-ID) side.

The ID side is the pro-science side? That's amusing.

cyber_slacker: Deeming all those who can't, off hand, prove the world to be round ignorant makes you a judgemental individual indeed. Seeing this particular point of fact as being central to the argument makes you foolish.

If you don't know something, then by definition, you are ignorant on that subject. Maybe that's what he means, though I don't think so.

I don't think he's judging them as ignorant because they haven't done the proof themselves. I think he's saying that if they say "The earth is obviously flat and all of this circling the sun nonsense is clearly a lie the scientists made up" that they are ignorant. But maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

I've never tried to prove it myself, and if I were going to, I'd start by doing research about how to go about it. I'm willing to trust the textbooks, teachers, scientists when they all tell me the same thing.

As the saying goes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

I've never been to Africa or Australia, but I'm pretty darn confident that they exist. I could travel there to prove it. Or I can trust the experts.

I've played around with a small telescope, but it's really just a toy. I haven't seen all of the planets in our solar system, and I haven't tracked the positions on the ones I have seen. But I know that a lot of scientists have, and I'll trust that the 8 (Pluto no longer counts) planets in our solar system all go 'round pretty much the way they tell me.

I don't know how they make a microprocessor, and I feel absolutely no need to build my own.

I have a friend who is a "Mr Fix It" kind of guy. If your car, truck, motorcycle, AC unit, plumbing, etc have problems, he can fix it. I don't know nearly as much about that kind of thing. But that friend can't program, and I can. Neither of us has any medical background, but we have another friend who does. We all have different specialties, different knowledge bases. And different ignorances.

Nobody knows everything, and everybody trusts a lot of information as "fact" because that's what the experts in that field tell them.
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report