The Threat From Intelligent Design

[LuvRPgrl]

ID is a completely rational idea. It isn't testable, though, so it has no place in a science classroom.

who said it belongs in a science class?
The first form of life coming about by evolution is testable? Hmm, what, you think they will find a mini cam in some primordial soup that just happened to record it? You know, thats just as feasable as the idea that all those chemicals came together to form a single cell.

If the best you can do to defend your argument is simply to define science as being a sort of religion, you have surely run out of decent arguments..

who said its the best I can do? I have had others, but you fail to see that it is regarded as a religion by many today.

Religion involves belief in a supernatural being or beings, or God or Gods. At a stretch, you might consider atheism a kind of religion. But science, which neither acknowledges nor denies the existance of a God or Gods, isn't even in the ball park.

Can you count to FOUR? OUCH!
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You aren't a very practical person, are you? Does this mean that if one kid's parents want their children taught that the Earth is flat, another kid's parents want their children taught that ghosts and fairies and gnomes exist, and another kid's parents want their kids taught that Jews are evil people, its the school's responsibility to teach all the kids that?.

Your concerned about parents wanting their kids taught the earth is flat, about ghosts and faries and gnomes and Jews are evil, AND YOU THINK IM NOT PRACTICAL?

Please show me your calculations..

0 X 0 = 0

What's with the irrelevant analogies? Clearly, complex molecules can spontaneously form, as we have observed this in a laboratory setting. So your general argument that
complex things cannot form out of simple things without intelligent intervention is just plain false..

How can it be false since I didnt make that claim.

You can think up all the useless analogies you want, it remains a fact that some complex things can and DO form from simple things. Happens everytime water freezes for crying out loud..

Hmmm, water freezes, therefore a bunch of chemicals came together at one time to form a cell that suddenly had a mucous membrane, a nuclei telling that muceous membrane what chemicals to allow in and which not, golgi complex, rhimzones, etc, etc, etc. then to top it off, it "accidentally" for some weird reason "knew" to have some more chemicals float together within it at the EXACT SAME TIME, to form DNA, something so complex that not until recently was science able to use it to identify people, and something so complex that scientists spend their entire lifes studying it and dont really understand it. Yea, I bet you play lotto too.

Now show me your calculations for the probabiliy of single celled prokaryotes forming without intelligent intervention. You can't scientifically claim that 0 is the answer without showing the details of your calculations.

0 0 = 0

Hey, do you think dog shit tastes bad? have you ever tasted it? so, how do you know? There are some things that smell absolutely terrible, but actually taste good.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/abortion02.html

hmmmmmm......tulsa takes funds from the feds and teaches about abortion.....

hahhahahhah, I bet you were just waiting to post that!

 

[manu1959]

hahhahahhah, I bet you were just waiting to post that!

damn you found me out......tubby is an easy mark

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm having trouble finding where in the link it says anything about what is wrong and what isn't.

"I have no dilusions about changing the minds of the fundamentalist
students. But it really bothers me that they've made up their minds
without any real knowledge about what abortion is REALLY about "

She admits she would like to change their minds (their current minds believe abortion is wrong,) going from wrong to right is, well,,,,,,,

Manu, note she also calls them ANTI CHOICE, while the girls who agree with the so called teacher are "pro choice"

and she claims their beliefs arent rooted in thinking or rationality, yet she states, the girls say "a fetus is a human, its wrong to kill humans, thus its wrong to have an abortion",,,,Hmmm, sounds like sound logic and THINKING TO ME.

SHE is the one with a problem of having her emotions overide her rational thinking. My god, knowing there are teachers like that is scary.


WOW, here is another thing. I think these liberals must think we wont check up on their claims, like Mariner claiming Delhi is safer than American cities until I cited the "monkey man" to expose his lie.
Check this out, she claimed " I will make
sure they know that abortion is very common in this country - that over
40% of American women will have at least one abortion in their
lifetimes. [See Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Facts in Brief, Induced
Abortion," Feb. 2002,
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html ] "

I just read her link to that "Supposed fact" twice and I cant find it. She made it up, out of thin air.

Propagandistic, intolerant, judgemental liar is what she is. Right up tuba and mariners alley's.

 

[liberalogic]

who said it belongs in a science class?

So do you think it should be in a science class or not? I've said a million times that it can be in philosophy or anything of that nature. So can you at least agree that the science classroom is not the appropriate place for it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

spiderman said:
"The purpose of the 1st amendment is to divorce the church from the state and make our government secular."

Oh, so they wrote the 1st amendment knowing in advance that years later the 14th amendment would be added?

No, mr. dense, they wrote the 1st amendment to divorce the federal government from religion, then 4 score and a few years later they decided to go ahead and extend the 1st amendment to the state governments as well. You are aware that the intent of the founders doesn't matter in cases where an amendment changes the constitution, aren't you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

who said it belongs in a science class?
The first form of life coming about by evolution is testable? Hmm, what, you think they will find a mini cam in some primordial soup that just happened to record it? You know, thats just as feasable as the idea that all those chemicals came together to form a single cell.

Since when do you need a camera to prove something true? Last I checked we don't have any footage of the America Revolution.

Can you count to FOUR? OUCH!
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Can you say "I, LuvRPGrl, use arguments laden with fallacies that even a 4th grader could see" ?

Unless your argument is that the intent of the 1st amendment was that congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" - I fail to see your point. You need to understand this really simple concept that most people with an IQ over 80 do, called "context". I argued that teaching religion in school is illegal because of the 1st amendment. Therefore, in the "context" of my statement, "religion" refers to definitions 1, 2, and 3 - those definitions of religion actually banned from government by the Constitution - and NOT definition 4, which is NOT banned from government by the Constitution. For you to come back and say that "well hey, but science is a religion by this definition #4," that is not banned from government by the Constitution, is sophmoric at best, and certainly not deserving of the term 'Ouch!' Unless you're trying to impress a 7 year old.

Your concerned about parents wanting their kids taught the earth is flat, about ghosts and faries and gnomes and Jews are evil, AND YOU THINK IM NOT PRACTICAL?

No, you are concerned with parents wanting their kids taught those things. You are the one who said parents should decide what is taught. Several million people believe we never landed on the moon, even more think they've been abducted by aliens. Since you want the schools to teach what parents think is truth, you want children to be taught that alien abductions are real and that we may or may not have landed on the moon.

0 X 0 = 0

Where did the two zeros on the LHS come from? I'd like to see the actual details of your calculation, not the last line. You might start by stating your assumptions.

How can it be false since I didnt make that claim.

Well, OK then, what's with the irrelevant analogies? So houses don't spontaneously build themselves, what's your point? Are you simple Master of the Obvious, pointing out irrelevant facts that you for some reason think others don't see because it makes you feel smart?

Hmmm, water freezes, therefore a bunch of chemicals came together at one time to form a cell that suddenly had a mucous membrane, a nuclei telling that muceous membrane what chemicals to allow in and which not, golgi complex, rhimzones, etc, etc, etc. then to top it off, it "accidentally" for some weird reason "knew" to have some more chemicals float together within it at the EXACT SAME TIME, to form DNA, something so complex that not until recently was science able to use it to identify people, and something so complex that scientists spend their entire lifes studying it and dont really understand it. Yea, I bet you play lotto too.

Hmm, houses don't spontaneously build themselves, therefore, theories which oppose my religious beliefs are wrong.

0 0 = 0

Wow, you've stated a specific case of one of the fundamental axioms of algebra. Way to go. Now show me your calculations.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"I have no dilusions about changing the minds of the fundamentalist
students. But it really bothers me that they've made up their minds
without any real knowledge about what abortion is REALLY about "

She admits she would like to change their minds (their current minds believe abortion is wrong,) going from wrong to right is, well,,,,,,,

So what if she would like to change their minds? I thought we were talking about actions, not thoughts. A teacher is free to have whatever political mindset they won't, what they are restricted from doing is bringing it to the classroom.

Now once again, show me where it has actually been TAUGHT that abortion is morally acceptable, in a class at school?

Manu, note she also calls them ANTI CHOICE, while the girls who agree with the so called teacher are "pro choice"

Those opposed to abortion rights are anti-choice.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So do you think it should be in a science class or not? I've said a million times that it can be in philosophy or anything of that nature. So can you at least agree that the science classroom is not the appropriate place for it?

liberal ogic, what do you think of a supposed "philosophy class" where all they teach is ID, they don't actually spend the class talking about Aristotle or Plato.