Wtf!?!

[no1tovote4]

As for you "sicentific slapstick", that is more appropriate to ID. Evolutionary science has a rather larger and more extensive body of evidence in support of it than ID, which has only opinion and hyperbole as its sole supports.

I still don't see how evidence in support of evolution denies that a Higher Power might have had a hand in that evolution...

I still think that Science is just a way to figure out how the Grand Architect did it, a Mystery Novel so to speak, rather than a way to disprove that there is a Grand Architect. There is no more evidence to support an active "theory" that there was not an Architect of the Universe, than there is to support there is one.

It seems more "slapstick" to me to attempt to use discoveries of science as "evidence" that a Creator doesn't exist...

 

[musicman]

fan·ta·sy pl. fan·ta·sies. 1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. 2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy. 3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit. 4.a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

Earth tilts at precisely 23 degrees. One degree, one way or the other, and it would be an uninhabitable chunk of rock. Scientists are learning more every day about the incredible complexity of life - ANY life, let alone human life. The odds against all this having just HAPPENED are incalculable, and those who stubbornly cling to this fantasy because it suits their politics are the ones engaged in a pitiful conceit. But, what the hell - enjoy yourself.

 

[mrsx]

Earth tilts at precisely 23 degrees. One degree, one way or the other, and it would be an uninhabitable chunk of rock. Scientists are learning more every day about the incredible complexity of life - ANY life, let alone human life. The odds against all this having just HAPPENED are incalculable, and those who stubbornly cling to this fantasy because it suits their politics are the ones engaged in a pitiful conceit. But, what the hell - enjoy yourself.

How did you calculate those odds? Just curious...

 

[musicman]

How did you calculate those odds? Just curious...

They can't BE calculated; they're ludicrous. Maybe you'd like to take a stab at it.

Friendly advice: pack a lunch.

 

[musicman]

They can't BE calculated; they're ludicrous. Maybe you'd like to take a stab at it.

Friendly advice: pack a lunch.

Better yet, go find a farm with cows and chickens, wheat fields, and some nice tomatoes growing in the garden. Then, just have a seat. Maybe a sandwich will evolve.

 

[mrsx]

They can't BE calculated; they're ludicrous. Maybe you'd like to take a stab at it.

Friendly advice: pack a lunch.

So we've gone from statistics to pontification. No wonder you think ID is science.
P.S. You're a little sketchy on the declination of the earth's axis - not that it matters to either evolutionary theory or ID fantasy.

 

[mrsx]

Better yet, go find a farm with cows and chickens, wheat fields, and some nice tomatoes growing in the garden. Then, just have a seat. Maybe a sandwich will evolve.

I suspect the sandwich would evolve long before the jackass in that barnyard understood that "irreducible complexity" is easily understood within Darwinism or that there is no teleology to biology.

 

[musicman]

So we've gone from statistics to pontification.

So, statistics are the final determiners of fact? That's strange; it's been my experience that deceitful persons with an ax to grind can make statistics say anything they want - "lies, damned lies...", and all that.

No wonder you think ID is science.

The terms "science" and "common sense" are not mutually exclusive. To quote Robert Bork: "Most people would say that religious belief requires an act of faith while a belief that science can compass all reality does not. A belief that science will ultimately explain everything, however, also requires a leap of faith.Faith in science requires the unproven assumption that all reality is material, that there is nothing beyond or outside the material universe...but [that] cannot be proven and therefore rests on an untested and untestable assumption...the belief that science has demonstrated the falsity or improbability of religious beliefs is itself false.

P.S. You're a little sketchy on the declination of the earth's axis

Enlighten me, please.

- not that it matters to either evolutionary theory or ID fantasy.

And you, in turn, appear a bit fuzzy on the whole theory/fantasy thing.

 

[musicman]

I suspect the sandwich would evolve long before the jackass in that barnyard understood that "irreducible complexity" is easily understood within Darwinism or that there is no teleology to biology.

The jackass possesses no means to understand - and never will; hence, the problem with Darwinism.

 

[nakedemperor]

Religion is the means by which we attempt to understand the transcendent - that which exists outside ourselves. Secularism is such a means; particularly the type of secularism practiced by modern liberals (aptly described by Hillary Clinton as "the politics of meaning"). It is, then - most assuredly - a religion, and not a very tolerant one, as we're seeing. It demands the exclusion of all others from the public arena - ESPECIALLY Christianity.

'It is, then' makes it seem like you offered an explanation of why secularism is a religion. Secularism includes people who are indifferent, who don't *try* to understand transcendence; hence, definitely not a religion.

It demands exclusion of religions from the public arena, all of them, not just Christianity. (Not "other" religions, because its not a religion). Its not a competitive thing.

If that's what a community decides - yeah. But, there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the forced exclusion of religion from public discourse by a hateful, fanatical minority; I don't care how many figure-eights the Judiciary tries to twist the XIVth Amendment into. Americans are supposed to be free to govern themselves; the founding fathers were ADAMANT about that. Believe in God or don't; it's no skin of my nose. But, why are secularists so desperate to silence Christians - is our rejoicing THAT painful to their ears?

Secularists aren't desperate to silence Christians, or anyone's, rejoicing. If you force people to pray in schools or if you teach Intelligent Design in science class you're supporting religions of prayer and deistic religions. Therefore, you can't bring religion into the public sector. Believe in God or don't, its no skin off my nose, but dont ask that my children be forced to do or learn your religion outside of a religious studies classroom.

Then strive to locate or build a community of like-minded individuals and vote precisely those policies into your local law. It's your money; they're your kids. I'd be wrong to try to gangster my minority views onto your community; you'd be well within your rights to tell me to piss off.

Now - why can't that hold true for Christians, where they represent a majority?

Because the constitution defends the rights of the minorities, too. These rights include the freedom to not a) be forced to participate in religions that aren't their own b) be forced to participate in religion, period c) to tolerate their government sponsoring any particular religion, regardless of that religion's majority status. That sounds a lot like the middel east, to me.

Have you ever pondered the scientific improbability of your own existence? If ID is "without scientific merit', evolution is scientific slapstick.

The reality is that I do exist, and I have no frickin' clue how I got here. But to teach that there was a creator God who flipped the switch is crazy; there is no evidence. None. The logic of 'I can't understand this so God must have created it' is utterly ludicrous. I know the limitations of the questions I can and cannot answer, and I also accept that existance (could be, and as far as we know is) possible without Magic, or deities, etc etc

 

[no1tovote4]

'It is, then' makes it seem like you offered an explanation of why secularism is a religion. Secularism includes people who are indifferent, who don't *try* to understand transcendence; hence, definitely not a religion.

There are many that believe in it so strongly that it becomes a religion. However, the SCOTUS ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion, therefore it should be treated as such when dealing with legal and constitutional issues.

It demands exclusion of religions from the public arena, all of them, not just Christianity. (Not "other" religions, because its not a religion). Its not a competitive thing.

Except itself, therefore it becomes laws based on one specific "religion" or an "establishment of religion" by fiat.

Secularists aren't desperate to silence Christians, or anyone's, rejoicing. If you force people to pray in schools or if you teach Intelligent Design in science class you're supporting religions of prayer and deistic religions. Therefore, you can't bring religion into the public sector. Believe in God or don't, its no skin off my nose, but dont ask that my children be forced to do or learn your religion outside of a religious studies classroom.

I expect you to teach them tolerance, in order to have tolerance a basic understanding of the religion is necessary.

Because the constitution defends the rights of the minorities, too. These rights include the freedom to not a) be forced to participate in religions that aren't their own b) be forced to participate in religion, period c) to tolerate their government sponsoring any particular religion, regardless of that religion's majority status. That sounds a lot like the middel east, to me.

It also protects the rights of the Majority, it is not a dictatorship where the minority can define the actions of the nation to the detriment of the rights of the majority.

The reality is that I do exist, and I have no frickin' clue how I got here. But to teach that there was a creator God who flipped the switch is crazy; there is no evidence. None. The logic of 'I can't understand this so God must have created it' is utterly ludicrous. I know the limitations of the questions I can and cannot answer, and I also accept that existance (could be, and as far as we know is) possible without Magic, or deities, etc etc

Understandable, but don't expect the religious to be excited about the teaching of non-faith or secular humanism as the national religion.

 

[freeandfun1]

Naked,

When has anybody ever been "forced" to pray in school or anywhere else.

 

[musicman]

NE:

No1tovote4 gave such comprehensive answers to your post that I find it necessary only to touch on a couple of points.

A running theme throughout your thought process seems to be that nobody should be forced to pray, or have religion forced down their throats. Problem with that is , the only ones I see doing any forcing are the secular humanists with their statist religion.

Second, I believe that your views on "government-sponsored religion" are colored by what has become a widely-accepted misconception. Dishonest, agenda-driven judges have twisted the meaning of the XIVth Amendment to where "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a state religion" is now interpreted as, " No government, at any level - from the U.S. Congress to the board of directors of a lemonade stand - shall as much as mention God's name in public". That's a lie, and it completely ignores the constitutional principle of self-government. Outside a small handful of clearly enumerated duties and powers, the job of central government is to stay the hell out of the everyday affairs of the American people. The power to conduct matters of behavior such as religion devolve to the states, the communities, and - ultimately - to the individual. The XIVth affords protections under the Bill of Rights to ALL Americans, but it is only the cynical and agenda-driven fantasy of statists that allows judges to interpret "Congress shall not..." as "No one shall".

When the Constitution is allowed to function as it should, the people ARE the government.

 

[mrsx]

So, statistics are the final determiners of fact? That's strange; it's been my experience that deceitful persons with an ax to grind can make statistics say anything they want - "lies, damned lies...", and all that

You brought up the probablility of things being as they are by chance. Probability is a branch of mathematics. Mathematics is the language of science. You made the probability argument and then declared the number is incalculable. This assertion is not correct. More to the point, your idea that the physical world could (or could not) come into being as the result of a one-in-a-million (or one-in-a-googgleplex) chance shows that you do not understand the functions of random mutation and natural selection in Darwinism. I respect your religious beliefs; the junk science produced by pretending your religious assumptions are science is pathetic.

 

[musicman]

You brought up the probablility of things being as they are by chance. Probability is a branch of mathematics. Mathematics is the language of science. You made the probability argument and then declared the number is incalculable. This assertion is not correct. More to the point, your idea that the physical world could (or could not) come into being as the result of a one-in-a-million (or one-in-a-googgleplex) chance shows that you do not understand the functions of random mutation and natural selection in Darwinism. I respect your religious beliefs; the junk science produced by pretending your religious assumptions are science is pathetic.

What is your response to Robert Bork's observation on science to the exclusion of religion?

 

[mrsx]

What is your response to Robert Bork's observation on science to the exclusion of religion?

He's got a point, but not as big a point as he thinks he has. The word "belief" has a range of meanings. It certainly applies to adherence to a specific set of propositions, as in "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth etc. etc." It is also possible to use "belief" to describe assumptions that underlie the ideology by which we manage daily life. "I believe that if I jump off the Golden Gate Bridge I will drown," isn't an article of faith, just an assumption based on generalized experience. (Hell, I might actually die from the impact rather than drowning.) That science can explain all natural phenomena is an axiomatic postulant necessary for the tautology that is the scientific method. It isn't the same sort of "belief" as thinking Jonah spent three days in a whale's tummy.

 

[musicman]

He's got a point, but not as big a point as he thinks he has. The word "belief" has a range of meanings. It certainly applies to adherence to a specific set of propositions, as in "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth etc. etc." It is also possible to use "belief" to describe assumptions that underlie the ideology by which we manage daily life. "I believe that if I jump off the Golden Gate Bridge I will drown," isn't an article of faith, just an assumption based on generalized experience. (Hell, I might actually die from the impact rather than drowning.) That science can explain all natural phenomena is an axiomatic postulant necessary for the tautology that is the scientific method. It isn't the same sort of "belief" as thinking Jonah spent three days in a whale's tummy.

Yeah, but it throws quite a wrench into Darwinism - to the exclusion of Intelligent Design - which you seem to be advocating.

 

[mrsx]

Yeah, but it throws quite a wrench into Darwinism - to the exclusion of Intelligent Design - which you seem to be advocating.

I am afraid I don't follow you. Could you explain what you mean a bit more?

 

[musicman]

I am afraid I don't follow you. Could you explain what you mean a bit more?

Do Darwinism and ID necessarily exclude one another? Perhaps evolution is - to a degree - the means the Designer chose to employ.

 

[no1tovote4]

Do Darwinism and ID necessarily exclude one another? Perhaps evolution is - to a degree - the means the Designer chose to employ.

Exactly, the process of evolution is not necessarily exclusionary to those who believe in ID.