Some front line views of the war against God.

[imitator]

Icarus, it is apparent you have misjudged something here, because I have not once viewed you as anything other then what you are debating right now. You have stated numerous times that you are not a creationist, and I have no reason to not believe you.

Just the same as I think you misjudge my standpoint. I havent once argued that ID shouldnt be something taught to children in schools as a possibility, I just dont see how its viable to do so in any meaningful manner if its going to be non religion based, which it has to be in this country for public schools to teach it.

ID and Evolution do not remove the ability for the other to exist, and I dont know of too many people in these thread who have tried to claim otherwise, most certainly not myself if nothing else.

As a philosopher, as I have said before, I believe above all else that everything should be taught to our youth, to give them the chance to learn to judge for themselves, and develop them in ways that is not possible if they are not exposed to everything.

The problem is, in my mind, that there isnt a viable way to teach creationism in the public school system without involving religion. And I see it as doing no good to state that something should be a viable option shown to children alongside the other theories, if there is no attempt to do something about it, or figure out a way for it to work. I apologize, but it seems like nothing more then idle chatter, which is a shame because its a valid point, at least in my eyes, and something deserving of figuring out a solution.

You speak of wanting to look at every angle and every question, well I think this is a valid one, and one that I would love to engage you in... the question being how is it possible to teach this to children without involving any specific religion? We both agree that they should be shown every angle possible, but the how... thats the important part, thats the part that we should be focusing on, because if we can figure that out, we have figured out a way to do the very thing we are saying should be done.

[Delta9 UK]

Damn you are Stupid at times

I said (and I quote)

Do your research more thoroughly as this is a typical error that creationists might make

Think about that - I said it was an error that a creationist might make - YOU made the error - let that one sink in. I didn't say you were a creationist - I just said you are making the same mistakes.

Think More - Post less.

I'm not arguing with you as a creationist - I'm arguing with you as someone who doesn't understand science. This you have unfortunately made rather clear - hence the responses you get.

Seriously this is getting lame - I don't even think YOU know what you are arguing about anymore.

If you are going to ignore the VAST mountain of evidence then you are a completely impossible to debate with and rather boorish.

[Delta9 UK]

Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature


Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles

[Delta9 UK]

I would address your points in tun but it seems, well, a bit pointless.

You don't actually seem to want to argue the merits (or otherwise) of evolution because either -

A. You lack the technical ability and understanding of the topic
or
B. You have already made up your mind

To be honest if A or B is true then this whole "debate" is utterly pointless.

ID has no evidence - is NOT science and should not be taught in school as science. Sorted!, we can all go home now and roll a joint.

Well, if I had some weed I could - but thats another story I'm not attacking you Fallen_Icarus - understand though that I AM attacking your ideas, and I will continue to do so.

If I see BS I WILL call it.

Now, about my appendix....

[Fallen_Icarus]

Icarus, it is apparent you have misjudged something here, because I have not once viewed you as anything other then what you are debating right now. You have stated numerous times that you are not a creationist, and I have no reason to not believe you.

Wrong, again I ask you to actually read the entire thread with respect to the items I have discussed, I also state how little evidence or any at all ID is based upon.

Just because I question evolution, which is as viable as questioning anything does not make me a creationist, I could believe in co existence or any other theories out there.

Why must I be categorized either a creationist or an evolutionist? Cant you understand that maybe just maybe the entire story of our existence is a mix of both theories?

This is all I am saying, im sorry to reveal to you that you have been looking for a fight, I said this earlier on.

Just the same as I think you misjudge my standpoint. I havent once argued that ID shouldnt be something taught to children in schools as a possibility, I just dont see how its viable to do so in any meaningful manner

I never said, once that ID should be literally "taught" to children.

ID and Evolution do not remove the ability for the other to exist

I have covered this point in my previous point about stereotypes and educational systems of science, please read it.

The problem is, in my mind, that there isnt a viable way to teach creationism in the public school system without involving religion.

I did not say we must teach creationism, I never said this, the missunderstanding has been on your part im afraid to say, but this is also covered in my previous post.

Please read it.

Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature

Im not trying to literally "prove" intelligent design with these sources, I am no believer of ID, im just saying... oh forget it, I give up trying to get through to you delta.

Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles

I only presume you are being offensive to me lol.

the question being how is it possible to teach this to children without involving any specific religion?

Incase you did not understand my previous post I was talking mostly about the points you are making here based upon stereotype view of creationism being always a theory which incorporates religion..

thats the important part, thats the part that we should be focusing on, because if we can figure that out, we have figured out a way to do the very thing we are saying should be done.

Im not saying we should "teach" ID lol.

Think about that - I said it was an error that a creationist might make - YOU made the error - let that one sink in. I didn't say you were a creationist - I just said you are making the same mistakes.

Think More - Post less.

My understanding was correct, the reason I said "I am not a creationist" (pardon for being so blunt) was because a CREATIONIST MADE THEM STATEMENTS.

Just because I posted them does not mean that I agree with them 100% or even the slightest bit, this is the core of the "debate" - that there is no debate, I do not agree with creationism, I neither agree with evolution I simply say we should rule NEITHER OUT.

I'm not arguing with you as a creationist - I'm arguing with you as someone who doesn't understand science. This you have unfortunately made rather clear - hence the responses you get.

Seriously this is getting lame - I don't even think YOU know what you are arguing about anymore.

If you are going to ignore the VAST mountain of evidence then you are a completely impossible to debate with and rather boorish.

Okay, so you state that there is a vast degree of evidence for evolution, right, what are you trying to achieve by telling me this? That evolution is true?

When did I say evolution was not true?

And how on earth does this mean we should rule out intelligent design?

Think about that, and also think about, when you say I have no undertsanding of the subject of evolution (that is personal) when you yourself look at the evidence, when YOU look at the evidence you will be suprised to find that scientists EDUCATED scientists are starting to point to CO EXISTENCE as opposed to THE ORTHODOX THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

And yes, it is personal when you assume people have no understanding about subjects, next time you go to your bank and ask for financial advice, and they tell you - you are stupid and have no understanding of finance (which may be true) try telling yourself that they are not launching a personal attack.

You don't actually seem to want to argue the merits (or otherwise) of evolution because either

I said this from the beginning, that I did not want a debate, why would I when i neither agree with either theory?

Or do we HAVE to have a debate about the two theories?

Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature


Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles

I actually did say in the previous post that the source I used had a substantial level of flaws to it.

But my reasons for putting it out was that, yes we should question theories such as evolution (like this one does).

I'm not attacking you Fallen_Icarus - understand though that I AM attacking your ideas,

Your not attacking "my ideas", your attacking other peoples ideas lol.

Your attacking creationists and the authors of such material such as "mathematical proof for intelligent design".

Which is clearly NOT TRUE because ID is still not an absolute.

So I think you've got it wrong there, your not attacking my ideas.

If you were to attack my ideas, you would attack the idea that we should be open minded and question every theory even the new co existence theory put forward from significant evidence of evolution, and evolution itself, and even.. GRAVITY!

I also think we should not rule anything out (Intelligent design) until we know for sure it is not true.

So what ideas of MINE are you attacking?



So what am I debating about you ask?

IM NOT, I did not come here for a debate, people suddenly jumped in with ignorant moronic presumptions that I want creationism literally TAUGHT in schools.

Im sorry if you've wasted your time, but I guess you'll learn not to prejudge and presume so much in the future.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Just a request from you bro, can you quote people properly? It's hard to dissect a long long post and make sure to reply to all the point directed at me without clear indicators. Not that it's impossible, it's just difficult, we don't all have super memory like you.

Yes it does have negatives, it does not have to be exactly related to the example of evolution, but I could use another analogy which would suit your oh so accurate requirements.

I already willingly pointed out a few negatives of shit, I was agreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that there are no moral negatives associated with it.

Because if my memory serves correct you are clearly a master on analogies, ones you yourself cant even understand lol.

Okay, lets use, totalitarianism, there are positives of this system being it would create a more secure state and increase the speed of decision making etc.. But there are a few lol moral negatives lol, I hope this is good enough of an example.

Because do you think if we actually taught this in our schools and not looked at the negatives, would you recommend that?

There are moral negatives with Totalitarianism. Of course they should be taught.

Donâ??t try and refute my previous example of SHIT, your attempts are just parallel to the content of the example, clearly if I held you down and suffocated you in shit there would be moral issues which must be addressed in the classroom lol.

Correct, moral issues with your behaviour. You could use any instrument of suffocation you'd like, like bubble wrap, eggs and bacon, a grocery bag... whatever you'd like. It reflects badly on you, not the instrument of suffocation.

Your giving me links to creation science and how to disprove it, im talking about intelligent design here.

How on earth can you, with your vast degree of evidence behind evolution even think of ruling out intelligent design?

I am not and cannot rule out ID. I sent you the link because there was simple information on evolution there, not specifically for the creationist parts.

An intelligent designer could have intervened at certain stages of evolution, an intelligent designer could have created the force of evolution.

Why do we have the belief in schools that this is not so?

In philosophy class, this is fine. would have/could haves are common place. In science class, we use evidence. Even in things that aren't proven, they give a laymen theory and they show the evidence pointing toward that theory, and generally point out why it's not an actual scientific theory as of yet.

My beliefs in intelligent design would attract the amazing nature and open thinking of evolution, and many other theories, the ability to disprove intelligent design will in itself bring answers and create other posibilities. A staggeringly profound theory to develop and imploy ALONGSIDE intelligent design and evolution.

This is all I ask.

If we want to teach ID alongside science, we need proof of it, that's all I ask.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is â??universal.â?� Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, â??the moon goes around the earth.â?�

This of course, is correct in it's first statement. No one's measured gravity for every atom.

Case in point, Newton vs Einstein. Newton proposed his theory, which was tested, and fit into all measurable instances. Einstein proposed his theory, which put newton's to rest, because of Einstein, which tested in different way, like near light speed.

Gravity is real, the theory on how it works may change if there is conflicting information that can be tested. Infact, Newton was so close that NASA still uses Newton's theory in it's equations because there's no point in using Einstein's theory, as they won't be put in a situation where it deviates more than and insignificant amount.

If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

Really? Only if you ignore distance. Weird how they use the theory of gravity, amongst other things, to keep over 2000 man made satellites in orbit.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's â??gravityâ?� were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time?

Gravity is only a theory kids, and so is evolution!

Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.

Do you ever actually look into the things you assume are false? Is this how you assume scientists talk?

Sci1: Well, maybe the moon pulls the water using gravity, thus making tides
Sci2: What about the fact that there are two tides for every one revolution of the moon?
Sci1: Fuck it, no one will ever know!

"The tidal force and is responsible for the is a secondary effect of the force of gravitytides. It arises because the gravitational field is not constant across a body's diameter."

Tidal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth.

This is patently absurd.

How so? If the moon only revolves once every time it makes a revolution, rotating in the correct direction, then that's what happens.

Do you have any alternate theories that have proof?

Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk.

Care to elaborate on why?

Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible.

For someone who isn't a creationist, you sure like to use their arguments.

" Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder (although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics). There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word."

CF001.1: Disorder by neglect

I think we have grasped the fact that evolution is a theory, and so is intelligent design and so is gravity.

No, we haven't. Only in your head have we equated them.

For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity

We already use the inverse-square law to describe how how gravity works, it's just used differently than the theory you're proposing to me.

If these charges are actually measurable, then it'd be worth looking into. But then if this is so, the sun has a positive charge, the planets a negative charge, do satellites such as the moon have a positive charge as well? How about man made satellites? What about man made satellites that have orbited around both the moon and the earth? An accommodating charge with no observable intervention?

Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.

Because regardless of what your girlfriend tells you, size matters. (...and electric charges too).

So yes, hardcore thank you for bringing up the issue of the theory of gravity, because it really is another example of the plain ignorance of the educational system by not looking at other theories.

No problem. Oh wait...

Why do you play into the hands with so much trust the educational system? Do you seriously think that there is no hidden agenda and cencorship of information within the educational system?

Yeah, I see corruption, they're trying to make ID a scientific study!

They don't teach the bad effects of pot in science class, they teach it in phys ed, at least where I'm from. I trust science a lot more than our schools.

Research on a guy called Norman Dodd who exposed the cencorship of education in America. Then come back to me with the same trust you place within the educational system.

Always willing to research.

The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists?

Homeopathy? And which (or whose) definition of natural law are you using?

It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

Probably because they're using flawed science, just as any ID study will lose it's funding, because they're not operating on proof.

Wow great observation, what this has to do with the fact that intelligent design should be just as viable as evolution I have no idea.

Because you keep stating the equivalent of the arguement "since evolution is only a theory" shows that you have no understanding of what theory means in regards to science.

Infact hardcore newbie, I have a few questions for you.

Are you an evolutionist?

Do you completley disagree with the theory that there just might have been an intelligent designer?

By evolutionist, you mean someone who believes that the process of evolution is real and observable? yes.

And of course it's impossible to rule out an intelligent designer. Just because I'm not ruling it out, that doesn't mean I believe it, or that it is 'just as viable' as things with proof.

-------------------------------------------------

Anyways, my friend has just arrived so I'll answer the rest of your post when I get time. I'm telling you this so you don't preempt me with questions in bold asking why I didn't answer the rest of your post.

[Canadian_Cron]

Religion, in all respects, is also a theory...a theory that many logical minded people have faith in, just like evolution. If this is a supposed reason for allowing evolution to be discussed in the classroom, then religion should also be allowed the same courtesy. Neither are infallible, and each are supported by people with strong views on the subject matter at hand...regardless of the fact that it's all hypothetical anyway. For this reason, either both should be discussed with unbiased neutrality, or neither should be discussed at all. You can't simply choose one over the other because a theory seems more logical, while in fact, the theory is unsupported by any real 'scientific' conclusions. This was the basis of the original argument, yet many of those who've responded did so to attempt to support their own personal conclusions. Even though none of said conclusions were backed up by any scientific fact whatsoever. You can't support an idea by conjecture alone...that's biased. You can only present your views, then have the courtesy to let others do the same...and eventually agree that none of the conclusions are any more relevant than the other in the eyes of the person you're debating with.

I disagree... religion is a faith not a theory... a theory and faith are similar but not the same. you follow a faith, its more like a lifestyle, its not a theory. you'll never see people that belive in evolution or gravity for example saying things like dont steal, comit murder, comit adultry, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc.

believeing in a theory doesnt have conditions, beliveing in a faith does.

[Hardcore Newbie]

So some people may make the relation of evolution being just as stupid for the fact that it too is based upon no evidence, the way you percieve the theory is up to you, you may think jumping off a 100 story building and dieing from the collision as an absurd theory.

Evolution is built upon evidence. You clearly show that you don't know what evolution is when you refer to lack of interspecies breeding to be a hinder to evolution, nor the need for dogs to have monkeys. Evolution does not claim those things for it to work. If evolution did claim those things, then yes, it'd be a layman's theory, because there's no proof for this.

There is little evidence to prove its absurdity yet there is little evidence to prove that we evolved from apes, I was just making a religion to the two theories evolution and astrology.

so evolution = astrology.

When you learn what evolution means, you won't make these kinds of assumptions.

Creationism = Astrology

Questioning everything and considering every angle = common sense

Why not consider it? There's nothing wrong with considering things but science that is taught in class rooms shouldn't be based on suppositions.

Why? Because the theory is founded upon such a high degree of certainty - by you?

You quote this again, later, and actually make points.

Send me the link to the study please, sounds interesting.

The meaning of the word deduce is to form an opinion from a solid base of fact.

Do you think the opinion that we evolved from apes is based upon solid fact?

From what I've read, we have a common ancestor with apes, if that's what you mean. I think this is based on solid fact, yes.

Why do you keep rambling on about the positions of the stars? The fact remains that the two (astrology and evolution) are related due to the fact that neither can be proven to any certainty to call it a universal law of science.

Clearly you're not accepting any proof whatsoever.

No, your talking about devolution.

Evolution would not take away elements we would need to survive, because it then defies the point in evolving, you donâ??t evolve and become a less adaptable being.

Its called natural selection, select the bits we need and throw away the ones we dont.

I mentioned it because you brought up silver reflective skin, a detriment. Adapting silver skin would be devolution.

The sun is also not the only element to provide us with vitamin D food sources of vitamin D are milk and other dairy products fortified with vitamin D. Vitamin D is also found in oily fish (e.g., herring, salmon and sardines) as well as in cod liver oil.

There are plenty of ways we can get Vitamin D, but whatever condition (I don't know what kind of fish were around wherever we evolved) we got the sun to help us with our vitamin D.

So why did these people in very cold climates lose their fur to begin with?

Because our species originated in Africa.

Is it because they felt it more efficient and better having to go out, kill animals clean the fur and animal and wear the coat over their natural body hair? Thus natural selection felt this a better option as oppose to simply "growing a permanent coat".

The easiest explanation (tho I actually haven't looked into how fast and far on the timescale man emigrated from africa, so bear with me) is that man was smart enough to do it, so we did it. If you move a lot further north, are you going not wear fur so that you can hopefully evolve with it some unknown amount of generations? No, you're going to wear fur because you're cold. If man weren't smart enough to get into those regions, man wouldn't be there.

Fur would fluctuate in its tenacity according to the outside conditions, it would literally keep you warm as well as cool.

But too warm for our situation in africa.

So when you go skiing you wont get a tan because the snow reflects light (NEVER AT YOU) but always away back into the atmosphere.

It's also possible that they haven't been there very long.

You have to be literally in an area covered with soil to have any effect from the sun on your skin? I mean, me putting mylar in a grow room wont help, lets all take newbies advice and cover the walls in soil.

Increase light efficiency.

The "more" was an understatement. Snow reflects lots. Soil reflects little to none.

The way you term evolution - and the evolution you are talking about its just "change", why dont you just use this term instead of darwinist evolution and natural selection in our story?

Evolve sounds better to us egotistically because we see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution. "Change" would mean that we're on an equal level with all the other animals and plants and organisms today. Who said scientists can't be egotistical?

Read this carefully, because sometimes it really does take the use of different fonts, bold and colours to make people understand.

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST

No one ever calls you a creationist except people who aren't actually involved the whole way through the discussion.

In what way can you call the viewpoint that intelligent design should not be ruled out as flawed? Evolution does not even rebuke intelligent design.

Nothing ever rules out ID. Just because it can't be ruled out, doesn't mean it should be considered as viable as evolution. One has proof (evolution or "change") and one is just a supposition.

What if your scientific evidence and all of your evolution evidence actually in the end supports intelligent design?

What if?

As I have said before, dont rule out intelligent design

You could be wrong.

If there was evidence, then it would no longer be nothing more than a supposition. But there's not.

The level of relationship between the thinking of creationism and religion is so intense that people will always refer to intelligent design as some kind of religious belief. But what about when you mention aliens or some other kind of being creating or even intervening in our path of evolution? That does not bring thoughts of religion.

When you mention aliens, you're just supposing. Coulda been boogy men, coulda been elves, coulda been magic, coulda been ghosts. Why mention the alternatives when they offer no more proof than any religion?

Newbie you dropped yourself in it here, I mean, with this silly equation your showing that orthodox human evolution (the one which says we evolved from rats into monkeys into humans etc etc) is as obvious as the existence of apples.

EVOLUTION = APPLES

what?

Do you understand now? After 5 posts of discussing this?

Do you get it?

This is your forumla and I have used it against you, I cant wait to see how you dig yourself out of this one.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. seriously. they were ape-like ancestors. There's nothing to dig out of because that equation needs to be juxtaposed with it's corresponding derivations.

Evolution is to eugenics as
Apples are to space alien ghost apple monsters

that's what the equal sign means. there's nothing to dig out of.

Oh and remember, I by no means disagree with the theory of evolution OR intelligent design, I simply wish to look at every angle and every question which can possibly be asked to be asked.

This is all.

I listen to any idea, but then I'll ask for the proof.

Questions.

Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in ID?
If you do believe in ID, do you make any personal suppositions?
If you were to explain ID as it relates to "how we got here", what would you say?

I dont see the point in any of you (Imitator, Delta, Newbie and others who clearly have not read the entire thread) actually argueing with me as if I am some creationist christian.

Read it a few times now. No one that you mentioned is calling you a creationist, we're just saying that your arguments greatly resemble a creationist arguments. "Like" is not analogous to "equal", like means "Similar but different"

[Hardcore Newbie]

CreationismBothTheories on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

let's teach all of the theories!

[Delta9 UK]

Think about that, and also think about, when you say I have no undertsanding of the subject of evolution (that is personal) when you yourself look at the evidence, when YOU look at the evidence you will be suprised to find that scientists EDUCATED scientists are starting to point to CO EXISTENCE as opposed to THE ORTHODOX THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Are you serious? You mean the "idea" that we co-existed with Dinosaurs? That theory of co-existence?

I mean, really?

You surely don't mean this load of bunk?
Implications of Dino-human coexistence: EVOLUTION OBLITERATED!!!

I'm sorry if you took offence at my posts but I take offence at your constant goal-post shifting, your hilarious attacks on well grounded scientific theories and your use of bold text in an attempt to somehow hammer home your various and rather dubious points.

Slowly we are (sort of) getting to the bottom of what I think your point is - BUT - you cloud everything by jetting off in different topic directions, only to change direction again when one angle gets shot down in flames.

Also you continually use Creationist source material and copy-paste it into the thread - then complain that you are being called a creationist (which you are NOT) even though you continually cite their pseudoscientific sources.

Sources like this:
Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False and Impossible.