Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > the post ID world

Pages: (13) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 >

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:25    Quote TD:  I digress, science, by your own implication, cannot give us an answer on issues of OOL.  Now who should we look to for the answer?  Science is out of the game. Then later.... Quote Me: I don't think science is out of the game, myself.  But since you're so sure, why don't you tell us? Next, Quote ...[TD spams us with a lot of doubletalk, avoiding a direct request for clarification...] Wellll?  Please, Mr. Thordaddy sir, do tell us who we should look to for the answer, if not science.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:59    Quote So now knowledge can be gained even though the observation doesn't need verification or experimentation?  Interesting? No, you dolt.  It is entirely possible (and easy) to observe, verify, and perform experiments to prove that people have made these claims. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:26    Quote You're not representing the entire definition, but only the part that helps define science. Quote PuckSR:  Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed. Quote So if science can not do these things then it makes no sense to use the scientific definition for empirical.  It only assures ignorance. OK....at this point...your being purposefully obtuse..... We are talking about science right? So we use the scientific definition of empirical.... just because a word has "multiple" definitions...that doesnt mean that you get to use whichever one you want.... Besides...you completely misunderstand why science cannot answer the above questions...go back and read the thread...I thought I was discussing this with someone who was intellectually honest...or at least attempted to be...my mistake Quote BTW...once again your logic sucks "just because A means originating in B doesnt mean anything B is A"...absolutely correct just because humans originate from a sperm and ovum doesn't mean anything from sperm and ovum based is human... (-1) Bad Logic So even if we use your definition of the word empirical...your logic still sucks.... RIGHT? Quote But do you agree that science and religion are at least fundamentally identical in that they share the same mechanism, function and very similar structure? I will agree that the both share the same function. They both seek to explain reality. The mechanism is entirely different... science gathers information and then tries to rationalize an explanation religion develops an explanation and then attempts to gather evidence Structure? Umm last time I checked, you do not pay tithings to a scientist. Last time I checked, competing religious opinions do not reconcile through experimentation... So i will grant you that they both seek to explain reality....and that is the only similiarity...the rest is in your head. Quote What you also have said with this concession is that ID could be a "valid natural explanation."   This is equivalent to saying empirical evidence for an IDer exists in the natural world, but science as of yet is not an endeavor of sufficiently advanced intelligence. Wow....can I call you a liar...YOUR A LIAR This is equivalent to saying: "empirical evidence for an IDer might exist in the natural world." What planet do you live on... You think denying ID(t) denies an IDer... You think admitting the possibility of ID admits that there is definately an IDer... Lewis Carroll would have even been dumbfounded at this point.... The only "intelligence" that I can discern from that statement is that you are arguing that if God could possibly exist...then he must exist... If that is your purpose....just let me know.... OK...to clean all of this mess up...lets go back to empirical one last time... You are correct, empirical refers to knowledge gained by experience and observation. You are also correct, any time a person observes anything they are gather empirical data. Here is why we are altering the definition Science is based on empirical data...good Science must be capable of scrutinizing the data... so...a scientist normally refers to empirical data as that which is verifiable or testable.... However...you are correct...the data that science is based on is not always empirical by our definition... Here in lies the rub, though People seeing Jesus, seeing aliens, and all of that other stuff are not examples of empirical evidence for what they observed. Why? Besides the fact that we cannot verify their claims.... They are already attempting to define the observation... If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky...you may consider that empirical evidence for lights in the sky.. If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky, and that those lights are aliens...you may consider that empirical evidence that they saw lights in the sky. A belief is not an observation or an experience....therefore belief cannot be empirical. Sorry it took so long to explain that to you...but i finally realized what you were misunderstanding.  I hope that helps Thordaddy

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,11:48    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,189691,00.html Perhaps this is one of the statistics that young Thordaddy thinks we should teach? Quote NEW YORK — In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. I mean, as long as we're teaching statistics, Why limit ourselves to ones that stroke the homophobic mouth-breathing, smooth brained, inbred, hillbilly ego? http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm Quote Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University. As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,19:02    I was wondering when Thordaddy was going to explicitly commit the fallacy of equivocation with all this empirical stuffs.  At least he hasn't stooped to equivocating a scientific theory for a colloquial theory... yet. . . .

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,22:24    PuckSR opines, Quote OK....at this point...your being purposefully obtuse..... We are talking about science right? So we use the scientific definition of empirical.... just because a word has "multiple" definitions...that doesnt mean that you get to use whichever one you want.... Besides...you completely misunderstand why science cannot answer the above questions...go back and read the thread...I thought I was discussing this with someone who was intellectually honest...or at least attempted to be...my mistake Actually, we are talking about finding greater truth.  And of course I can use whatever definition of empirical I want as long as it's the actual definition. I don't care why science can't answer these questions.  These questions demand answers regardless.  If science wants to take itself out of the game, it can't expect to continue to make the rules. Then you say, Quote So even if we use your definition of the word empirical...your logic still sucks.... RIGHT? WRONG!  Just because I use the primary definition of empirical (originating in observation and/or experience) doesn't mean the strawman you create and destroy impugns my logic.  I have only ever stated that "faith" in an IDer represents an interpretation of empirical evidence (originating in observation and/or experience).  I'm bewildered to read those rebutting this assertion.   I have not said that this interpretation represents incontravertible proof of an IDer.  What I have ASKED is how this interpretation can equate to "NO empirical evidence" for an IDer.  I have yet to get a clear cut answer. Then you say, Quote I will agree that the both share the same function. They both seek to explain reality. The mechanism is entirely different... science gathers information and then tries to rationalize an explanation religion develops an explanation and then attempts to gather evidence Structure? Umm last time I checked, you do not pay tithings to a scientist. Last time I checked, competing religious opinions do not reconcile through experimentation... So i will grant you that they both seek to explain reality....and that is the only similiarity...the rest is in your head. I was under the impression that at the fundamental level both function and structure are essentially indistinguishable and only with modification does the structure evolve and become distinguishable from the function. So when I say that at the fundamental level religion and science are indentical and you agree they both share the same function (search for greater truth) then it assumes their structures to be the same at the fundamental level.  The structure of religion has evolved by adding a slight modification.  One could argue whether the modification was beneficial or not, but the new structure simply added prediction and experimentation to an interpretation of empirical evidence and renamed itself science. As for the mechanism, for both religion and science it remains human intelligence. Lastly you say, Quote Wow....can I call you a liar...YOUR A LIAR This is equivalent to saying: "empirical evidence for an IDer might exist in the natural world." If you say ID could become a "valid natural explanation" one assumes that the existence of empirical evidence for an IDer must exist or you could not make that statement.  If you are unsure whether empirical evidence exists for an IDer (might exist, as you say) then you SHOULD have said ID may or may not become a "valid natural explanation." Quote What planet do you live on... You think denying ID(t) denies an IDer... You think admitting the possibility of ID admits that there is definately an IDer... Lewis Carroll would have even been dumbfounded at this point.... The only "intelligence" that I can discern from that statement is that you are arguing that if God could possibly exist...then he must exist... If that is your purpose....just let me know.... That is interesting.  If you admit the possibility of an IDer this does not prove an IDer, but only proves that you think empirical evidence for an IDer exists or how else could you claim the possibility of an IDer?  You seem to dig your hole ever deeper. You are actually arguing that an IDer could become a "valid natural explanation" while asserting "NO empirical evidence" for an IDer.  If there is "NO empirical evidence" for an IDer, on what basis are you asserting the possibility of its existence and its validity as a "natural explanation?" Next you say, Quote You are correct, empirical refers to knowledge gained by experience and observation. You are also correct, any time a person observes anything they are gather empirical data. Here is why we are altering the definition Science is based on empirical data...good Science must be capable of scrutinizing the data... so...a scientist normally refers to empirical data as that which is verifiable or testable.... However...you are correct...the data that science is based on is not always empirical by our definition... Here in lies the rub, though People seeing Jesus, seeing aliens, and all of that other stuff are not examples of empirical evidence for what they observed. Why? Besides the fact that we cannot verify their claims.... They are already attempting to define the observation... If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky...you may consider that empirical evidence for lights in the sky.. If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky, and that those lights are aliens...you may consider that empirical evidence that they saw lights in the sky. A belief is not an observation or an experience....therefore belief cannot be empirical. Sorry it took so long to explain that to you...but i finally realized what you were misunderstanding.  I hope that helps Thordaddy You've already conceded the possibility of an IDer as a "valid natural explanation."  The question is why you have conceded this when "NO empirical evidence" exists and millions of believers "cannot be empirical?"  On what are you basing this possibility for an IDer? And how do you figure that "belief" isn't based on observation and experience?  If I believe my son will be athletic, is this not based on my observations and experiences with him in athletic situations?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,23:23    Seven Popes, Your emotional rant is quite unpersuasive. Can you explain to me why teaching children about the normalcy of a high-risk and deadly activity is justifiable is not reprehensible? I do find it interesting though that in the IQ debate, the scientists are trying to exclude a genetic cause in favor of environmental factors while in the homosexual debate, scientists are trying to exclude environmental factors and find a genetic cause.   Hmm??

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,00:17    Avoiding the question, TD, doesn't help your case, and probably hurts. Quote TD:  I digress, science, by your own implication, cannot give us an answer on issues of OOL.  Now who should we look to for the answer?  Science is out of the game. Please elaborate.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,02:40    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,05:23) Can you explain to me why teaching children about the normalcy of a high-risk and deadly activity is justifiable is not reprehensible? Making #### up doesn't help your cause. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,04:41    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,05:23) Seven Popes, Your emotional rant is quite unpersuasive. Can you explain to me why teaching children about the normalcy of a high-risk and deadly activity is justifiable is not reprehensible? I do find it interesting though that in the IQ debate, the scientists are trying to exclude a genetic cause in favor of environmental factors while in the homosexual debate, scientists are trying to exclude environmental factors and find a genetic cause.   Hmm?? Thordaddy, enough with this crap already. Define precisely this "high-risk, deadly activity" you speak of, and how exactly it relates to homosexuals and AIDS. Also explain what makes this activity a trait originating exlusively from the homosexual "lifestyle" (define that, too). Also, tell us about this IQ "debate". Tell us which exactly scientific research has provided any evidence of intelligence "inferiority" between races, regardless of educational, financial, cultural and geographical factors. Try to exclude craniometric studies of the 1800's, if possible. Put up or shut up. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,06:11    Ok, Thordaddy, I'll bite Quote Can you explain to me why teaching children about the normalcy of a high-risk and deadly activity is justifiable is not reprehensible? I say it's not.  We must be very carefull how we teach kids about AIDS.  Once they see the statistics, they will come to the unavoidable conclusion that Lesbians are Gods chosen people.  He has spared them the horror of AIDS.  We can't teach about the old Racial IQ studies, because white supremacists are embarrassed by data showing that groups of Asians consistantly outscore whites.  I have to believe that you are a Asian lesbian, furthering a radical, intolorant agenda. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,07:35    Thordaddy. Can I assume that you a reffering to the book "the Bell curve" when talking about IQ differences between races? I would agree that from IQ measurements that there is a small mean difference between races. IIRC. Blacks scored worst, then whites with Asians scoring best. But the rub is. The mean scores showed a slight difference however the IQ "spread" of each race was enormous. The reason for the "mean" difference could be many things other than race. Wealth, education social advantages/disadvantages or culture come to mind. The spread of each group was so large and overlapping that you could not judge anyones IQ to any reasonable degree of accuracy by race. Do you seriously want to teach kids that they can infer IQ by race? The evidence is against that. The problem with these studies is that it is easy for people to justify racial discrimination by miss-interpreting the data. Do you know many people of various races? If so, it is easy to determine that each race provides such a wide spectrum of ability that judging on racial grounds is absurd.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,18:19    Stephen Elliot, When we don't like the science (such as IQ differences) we look for other science to usurp it.  When we can't find the science (as in the gay "gene") we still make the appropriate assumptions (gayness is inborn).  The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system. Certainly there is much controversial science to be had and yet we hear only crickets in the hallways.  Why is that?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,18:27    jay ray, I did not state the science was out of the game.  It was implied by another poster.  I asked him if this was his stance then by what rationale did he have for determining the rules of the game? I think science is still in the game, but will have to lose some of its ideological rigidity if it's to attain consensus on far grander questions like that of OOL.  Both the scope of empirical evidence interpreted and the technology devised to give it meaning (measurability/observability) will have to liberalize and evolve, respectively.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,21:14    Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,23:19) Stephen Elliot, When we don't like the science (such as IQ differences) we look for other science to usurp it.  When we can't find the science (as in the gay "gene") we still make the appropriate assumptions (gayness is inborn).  The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system. Certainly there is much controversial science to be had and yet we hear only crickets in the hallways.  Why is that? What doe you want schools to teach about homosexuality or IQ tests? Please try to give a clear answer (anyone willing to give odds on that happening?).

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,02:38    Quote The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system. There recently was a debate between the public school system and science.  It was a debate about Intelligent Design.  The Intelligent Design proponents put their best case forward.  They did the very best they could,  with some witnesses openly perjuring themselves in a desperate effort to win at any cost (Oxycontin, anyone?).  The I.D. movement got its ass handed to them.  They lost so conclusively, so totaly, that I.D. will not see another court case for a while.  Idealogically, ID has many adherents.  They are usually not terribly clever, and they can't defend their stance in a debate without running away from most arguments, but they cling to it like a fat kid to cake.  Sad really. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,02:46    Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,23:27) Both the scope of empirical evidence interpreted and the technology devised to give it meaning (measurability/observability) will have to liberalize and evolve, respectively. You should get right on that.  Please let us know as soon as you come up with new empirical evidence and analysis tools. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,03:41    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 04 2006,02:14) Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,23:19) Stephen Elliot, When we don't like the science (such as IQ differences) we look for other science to usurp it.  When we can't find the science (as in the gay "gene") we still make the appropriate assumptions (gayness is inborn).  The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system. Certainly there is much controversial science to be had and yet we hear only crickets in the hallways.  Why is that? What doe you want schools to teach about homosexuality or IQ tests? Please try to give a clear answer (anyone willing to give odds on that happening?). Trolldaddy can't put up, but he just won't shut up. Betting that he'll actually point out eventually (and try to produce some evidence for) these "controversies" in science is like betting that Greece will win the next Champion's League as well (and I should know). -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,03:50    Thordaddy: Quote When we don't like the science (such as IQ differences) we look for other science to usurp it.  When we can't find the science (as in the gay "gene") we still make the appropriate assumptions (gayness is inborn).  The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system. Certainly there is much controversial science to be had and yet we hear only crickets in the hallways.  Why is that? Thordaddy, we refuted (with PEER-REVIEWED) studies the I.Q. difference by race nonesense you keep repeating.  Get a teacher or an adult to help you read it.  As far as a "gayness gene", it is being persued because there is a powerful statistical correlation between homosexuality and birth order. http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_050812_3.asp What you are looking for is science that supports you world-view.  Since your world view is contrarian, I suggest you visit sites dedicated to that wordview. That will save you from the cognitive dissonance issuses that plauge you.  Your pseudoscience will be welcomed there. (edit: I apologize for the Timecube link.  I was weak) -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:12    Stephen Elliot asks, Quote What doe you want schools to teach about homosexuality or IQ tests? How about the truth?  In the US, the practice of homosexuality is inherently dangerous and deadly.  AIDS contraction, STD contraction, domestic violence and lowered life expectancies are all correlated with homosexual behavior.  How can this be taught to elementary age students as "normal?"  As for IQs, you don't seem to see the incentive for the school bureaucracy to poo-poo this science as WAS READILY DONE.  Imagine, evolutionists detaching intelligence from genetics? Seven Popes, I said a debate between the public school system and science and not science and the public school system versus ID.  This debate has science and the school system hand and hand like ALL other debates.  Science is obviously being corrupted by ideologues.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:20    Seven Pope, Please do tell me how one can define the sexual orientation of an undefinable entity (what I call a human being).  And wouldn't a "gay gene" be an example of a bad mutation?  There is certainly no rationale for a gay mutation to be naturally selected in order to survive.  In fact, a "gay gene" seems to be a contradiction of all that we are told about evolution. But again, you've have readily proved my point.  The "gay gene" needs to be found so the ideologues can win the argument and genetic IQ differences must be refuted in the same manner.  Science is a secondary consideration.  Your science merely fits your ideology.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:27    Quote I said a debate between the public school system and science and not science and the public school system versus ID.  This debate see science and the school syatem hand and hand like ALL other debates.  Science is obviously being corrupted by ideologues. Quote Jones was particularly grieved that board members denied using the term "creationism" before switching the term to "Intelligent Design," and that some board members claimed not to know how copies of the book Of Pandas and People were donated to the school when Buckingham personally raised funds for the books at his church. Which corruption are you talking about?  The corruption practiced by the school board members? I think that Kitzmiller v dover was a debate between science and the corrupt religious fanatics that infiltrated the school system.  Science won. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:45    Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,20:20) Seven Pope, And wouldn't a "gay gene" be an example of a bad mutation? Please do tell me how one can define the sexual orientation of an undefinable entity (what I call a human being).   There is certainly no rationale for a gay mutation to be naturally selected in order to survive.  In fact, a "gay gene" seems to be a contradiction of all that we are told about evolution. But again, you've have readily proved my point.  The "gay gene" needs to be found so the ideologues can win the argument and genetic IQ differences must be refuted in the same manner.  Science is a secondary consideration.  Your science merely fits your ideology. Thordaddy Quote Please do tell me how one can define the sexual orientation of an undefinable entity (what I call a human being).   Uhh, I dig chicks? Quote And wouldn't a "gay gene" be an example of a bad mutation? Yeah, if you are arguing for intelligent design.  Evolution states that this happens.  By the way, It's not a "gay gene", it appears to be a series of hormonal interactions.  Evolution claims that there is pressure toward more functional designs, but never claims that what you see is optimal. Quote  Science is a secondary consideration.  Your science merely fits your ideology. Sorry, like the recent prayer study, science don't much care. And I really want your Aids info taught in schools.  It proves that the lord or the designer loves lesbians most.  He spared them from Aids. PS, my favorite line from the Kitzmiller decision: Quote "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." Judge Jones -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:48    Seven Pope, Science didn't win!  The ideologues in the public school system won.  Science was merely used in this occasion. The thing that amazes me is that the Dover school board only sought to have a single statement read before the 9th grade biology class that said there were alternative theories to evolution.  That's it!  Science thinks it won, but the public school system merely displayed how ideologically-inclined it is and how it will use whatever tools necessary to retain it rigidity, including naive scientists who fear ID.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:04    Your reading comprehension skills are poor.  Or you didn't read the last couple of posts. Quote The thing that amazes me is that the Dover school board only sought to have a single statement read before the 9th grade biology class that said there were alternative theories to evolution. Which put them at odds with science. Because ID fails the Lemon test.  And it's not science.  You know this, It's been explained to you several times.  Simply tell us which bits you can't follow, and we will explain those.  Or are you a troll? -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,18:02    Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,20:12) How can this be taught to elementary age students as "normal?" You cannot produce a single example of an elementary age student in a public school being taught that anal sex is not dangerous. Good day sir. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,20:55    Seven Popes opines, Quote Which put them at odds with science. Because ID fails the Lemon test.  And it's not science.  You know this, It's been explained to you several times.  Simply tell us which bits you can't follow, and we will explain those.  Or are you a troll? If you can equate this statement DOVER statement with promoting a particular religion then it becomes ever more obvious that the ideologues are corrupting science. There is no teaching involved let alone a promotion of a particular religion. You want to claim that ID is being used by "creationists" to corrupt science while right under your nose science is being used by political ideologues in the public school system to advance their agenda and thereby corrupt science in the process.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,22:54    *sigh* Quote Thordaddy, enough with this crap already. Define precisely this "high-risk, deadly activity" you speak of, and how exactly it relates to homosexuals and AIDS. Also explain what makes this activity a trait originating exlusively from the homosexual "lifestyle" (define that, too). Also, tell us about this IQ "debate". Tell us which exactly scientific research has provided any evidence of intelligence "inferiority" between races, regardless of educational, financial, cultural and geographical factors. Try to exclude craniometric studies of the 1800's, if possible. Put up or shut up. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,02:21    Quote (Seven Popes @ April 04 2006,20:45) It proves that the lord or the designer loves lesbians most. I've got to admit, I'm pretty fond of lesbians too.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:14    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,04:24) Quote So when I say that at the fundamental level religion and science are indentical and you agree they both share the same function (search for greater truth) then it assumes their structures to be the same at the fundamental level. My pencil and my printer both perform the same function, namely that of marking paper with letters.   Does that mean their structures are fundamentally the same?  No, of course not.   Quote And how do you figure that "belief" isn't based on observation and experience?  If I believe my son will be athletic, is this not based on my observations and experiences with him in athletic situations? The way you have phrased it makes no sense.  If you say "I believe my son will be athletic" when he is 2 months old, you may be wrong.  If you see him aged 16 being athletic, you would actually say "I believe my son is athletic".  Not "Will be", "IS".  Note the difference in tense.  One is predicated on observable future events, but is not definitely correct; judgement is actually suspended.  The other is about observed past events, and thus is correct.   Anyway, as for belief, I believe there is a large pink spider sitting above your computer, on the ceiling.

Pages: (13) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard