There's one thing that none of these IDeoloigsts(haha) factor in:

What if science gathers a mountain of evidence against ID?

What if scientists engage this topic and thoroughly discredit it per scientific protocol?

8/12/2005 1:15:15 PM

Quote :

"And again, I don't have to know what we could be overlooking, because man has collectively not known such things many times in the past until they found it."

Sure we have, for example, plate techtonics was not an accepted theory a few decades back. People couldn't believe we were on sliding plates, which they had good reason to, the theory hadn't been completely developed. But there was one thing that couldn't be explained by anything but plate techtonics, this is the moving of the continents. There was concret fossil and geologic evidence that the continents had been in different positions in different points in time. Opponents of plate techtonics explained it through really crazy and quite silly explainations such as the earth's rotation and the gravitational force of the moon caused these continents to phyiscally shift around. Later through oceanographic study the specifics of plate techtonics were discovered.

There isn't nearly a controversy at this level surrounding evolution. Evolution is the only explaination, thus it is the only one that should be taught, and it should be taught as true untill it is proven to be false (which isn't going to happen). Now inside evolution there are controversies on how the mechanism works specifically phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibria. But these theories are taught as uncertainties because we are uncertain about them. Evolution, however, we are certain of, and that is why it is taught as such.

Quote :

"How are the chances decreasing? We're becoming less likely to run into this and not just staying at the same level of unlikelihood?"

Because each day less and less people are coming back from the dead, thus making the chances of coming back from the dead smaller and smaller. 1 represents jesus assuming he did come back from the dead, 'n' represents all the people who haven't come back from the dead (a HUGE number), which continues to approach infinity by the second.

[Edited on August 12, 2005 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2005 1:20:10 PM

Quote :

"Sure we have"

I don't think you understood. I was saying that there have been times in the past where man has known only one possibility, or perhaps several equally implausible possibilities, often for longer periods of time than we have "known" evolution, and then they have come to find out that their one possibility was bunk. That the earth was flat was supported by the observations of primitive peoples -- I mean, the thing bloody well looks flat -- and the idea that it might be round didn't really occur to anybody for some time.

Quote :

"Evolution is the only explaination, thus it is the only one that should be taught, and it should be taught as true untill it is proven to be false"

I'm more or less with you for the first two parts, but the third does not follow from anything you have said. Teach it as a virtual certainty, because that is what it is.

Quote :

"1 represents jesus assuming he did come back from the dead, 'n' represents all the people who haven't come back from the dead (a HUGE number), which continues to approach infinity by the second."

That one exception still indicates that the possibility exists, though. The odds are approaching zero, but they are not zero.

Of course, the various ways in which your arguments misrepresents the Christian take on resurrection might be brought into play, but I have to go shoot guns now.

8/12/2005 1:40:05 PM

Quote :

"That the earth was flat was supported by the observations of primitive peoples -- I mean, the thing bloody well looks flat -- and the idea that it might be round didn't really occur to anybody for some time."

Well in this hypothetical you would need to teach the earth is flat untill there is some kind of controversy or someone can prove something wrong about it, because, face it, it's teach that or teach nothing, if children are taught this wrong idea they will understand the concept so they may be able to prove it wrong. I know it sounds kind of silly, but if our observations prove something to be true, we have to accept it as true untill someone can purpose sceintific conjecture, which no one is able to do agianst evolution. Basically we have to teach what we know, because it's that or nothing.

Quote :

"I'm more or less with you for the first two parts, but the third does not follow from anything you have said. Teach it as a virtual certainty, because that is what it is."

EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS A VIRTUAL CERTAINTY, I've explained that before. Tigers may not even exist, they could be products deeply embedded inside of the human subconcious that we all pretend to see. They could actually be a cloud that eats animals, and in fact not a mamal at all, it just makes itself appear to be a tiger. Should we teach tigers as a virtual certainty? No, tigers are a fact, and untill someone can prove they don't exist we will accept it as such, and it will be taught as such, evolution applies in the same way.

Quote :

"That one exception still indicates that the possibility exists, though. The odds are approaching zero, but they are not zero."

This is a difficult concept I think everyone struggles with when learning basic calculus, asymtopes, and limits and such. I know I did. But something can be so small it actually IS zero, even though logically you may think it's still there. The explaination teachers always use is the walk to the door trick. In order you to walk to a door you have to travel half the distance from you to that door. In order for you to travel that half distance, you must travel half of that distance, and half of that distance, and half of that distance, etc, etc. Thus mathmatically you will never actually reach the door because there will always be a tiny fraction between you and that door right? Of course not, you can reach the door, thus there is a point in which a fraction gets SO small it actually becomes zero, not relatively zero, not almost zero, but actually zero.

8/12/2005 4:00:10 PM

lets say a trillion people have lived on this earth. it's probably nowhere near that. 1/a trillion is a very real number. not zero. what you're talking about is limits. as time approaches inifinity (assuming humans stay around) the probability of rising from the dead is zero (assuming some medical breakthrough doesn't allow this). but this part of the argument is totally irrelevant. i just can't allow people to bullshit around like they understand calculus when they don't.

8/12/2005 4:27:39 PM

^^My roommate and I were arguing over that (among other mathematical things, one of them being .9 repeating)

Quote :

"But something can be so small it actually IS zero, even though logically you may think it's still there."

No it can't. Pick a number, any number. Then I'll tell you if it's zero or not(it won't be). The limit of a function can be zero though. I think sarijoul has it.

Now, tell me if this applies, something I came up with:

Other than reaching heaven or hell, your life is completely meaningless(under Christian beliefs). Eternity goes on forever. So when comparing your life, just like you would compare two people's age... limit((time lived on earth)/(time lived in heaven or hell))=0

I don't really know if that makes any sense, but I like it.

8/12/2005 5:53:50 PM

Quote :

"lets say a trillion people have lived on this earth. it's probably nowhere near that. 1/a trillion is a very real number. not zero. what you're talking about is limits"

Yes, I am talking about limits, sequences are a little easier to show the application, which is why I used them. Basically we are taking the limit of the function of coming back to life, which is represented by 1/(the number of people who don't come back to life), This is ever increasing at an exponential rate. It's not a real number because in this function it is represented by zero. You can note I said the probability of coming back to life is zero, obviously we have assumed that one person has come back to life.

Quote :

"but this part of the argument is totally irrelevant."

Nope, actually that is what we are discussing, you just jumped in and started reading a little late.

Quote :

"No it can't. Pick a number, any number. Then I'll tell you if it's zero or not(it won't be). The limit of a function can be zero though. I think sarijoul has it."

We were talking about a probability, which is represented by a function. sarijoul didn't read the discussion.

8/12/2005 7:24:30 PM

Quote :

"Nope, actually that is what we are discussing, you just jumped in and started reading a little late."

i was in this conversation before you, Kris:
http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?iframe=true&topic=338534

your whole presumption that the possibility for life after death being exactly zero is based on the idea that the sum of all human deaths throughout history is infinite. this is not true. it is a finite number. while i don't think that anyone has ever come back to life, if someone did, then there is some set of circumstances for which someone CAN come back to life after death.

perhaps it would be easier if it were a more practical example. let's say its the possibility of a person being born with exactly one hair on their head. let's say this happened once in 1612 and hasn't happened since. we can't say that the probability of this happening again is zero. it is just very small. hell even if it had never happened before, the probability still wouldn't necessarily be zero. if you subscribe to quantum mechanics (and i'm very shaky on this stuff) then its my understanding that lots of seemingly impossible things COULD happen but are extremely unlikely (like being able pass one solid object through another).

and again: this is OFF TOPIC. the topic of the thread is about ID and creationism. all that this proves is that there are lots of possibilities out there. people rising from the dead is unlikely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility (just like ID). it doesn't mean we should teach about the resurrection of christ and zombies in biology class. there is no way to absolutely disprove any theory, however outlandish. Science is about providing the most accurate explanation based on evidence.

[Edited on August 12, 2005 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2005 9:08:20 PM

what's the probability of someone being exactly 6' tall?

8/13/2005 6:46:26 AM

9 pages of this crap. wow

8/13/2005 8:44:00 AM

did you get lost?

http://www.brentroad.com/message_section.aspx?section=13

8/13/2005 12:04:27 PM

Quote :

"What if scientists engage this topic and thoroughly discredit it per scientific protocol?"

that depends. are they going to prove that God doesn't exist?

8/13/2005 12:40:49 PM

Why should scientists have to prove ID or any other off-base idea (not theory) wrong? Should they have to prove that magic and witchcraft aren't real? That ghosts don't exist? That people don't rise from the dead, no matter what the Bible or George Romero say? That the moon isn't made from cheese?

If I decide that I don't believe in electrons, should the scientific community go out of its way to prove to me that I'm wrong?

Maybe scientists should drop everything and spend all of their time proving that the world really is round to this guy: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

8/13/2005 12:54:18 PM

you don't need to prove God doesn't exist to make a case against ID, especially in a scientific field

8/13/2005 12:54:22 PM

Quote :

"your whole presumption that the possibility for life after death being exactly zero is based on the idea that the sum of all human deaths throughout history is infinite."

No it's not, it aproaches infinity.

Quote :

" let's say its the possibility of a person being born with exactly one hair on their head. let's say this happened once in 1612 and hasn't happened since. we can't say that the probability of this happening again is zero."

First off, I think you underestimate the number of humans who have died. Secondly, the example does not apply, as I could scientifically show the possibility of someone only having one hair, you can't show the scientific possiblity of someone coming back to life. The same goes for quantum mechanics.

8/13/2005 12:57:53 PM

Quote :

"you don't need to prove God doesn't exist to make a case against ID"

haha. really? prove to me that the earth is more than 6000 years old.

8/13/2005 1:02:47 PM

fossil evidence

8/13/2005 1:06:35 PM

you keep citing the possibility that god made it look like the earth is older than it really is

first off

fuck that, if God did do that, did he really expect us to believe in him?

and second off

don't you see this whole god trying to confuse us as directly conflicting with ID, being we can see that the earth was made by God?

8/13/2005 1:40:34 PM

why God would choose to do such a thing has no bearing on whether or not he actually did it.

Quote :

"don't you see this whole god trying to confuse us as directly conflicting with ID, being we can see that the earth was made by God?"

No, not exactly. Its not so much of a thing of "God trying to confuse us," as opposed to "God not leaving irrefutable evidence of his existence."

8/13/2005 2:07:47 PM

but that's exactly the thing

the whole point of ID is "look here, you can see evidence of God, look here, this looks like only God could have made it"

at the same time you are also saying that God could have made it look like he does not exist

8/13/2005 2:12:47 PM

Quote :

"This is akin to the debate I was having with aaronburro, where he believed that because obvservations have the possibility of being untrue that science itself is untrue."

I need to point out that I NEVER claimed science was untrue. I don't even believe it is untrue. Thank you for putting words into my mouth, dumbass.

My point was that our measurement of age could be suspect if a creator being made things appear older than they were. Such a possibility is a "hole" in science that can't be 100% accounted for. Of course, basing science around that hole is also stupid, so we go on what we can see and observe for science. For a gov't run class, though, its different.

now is where you come back and say OMFG ID IS STUPID AND SO ARE YOU FOR BELIEVING IN GOD!!! OMFG!!!

Quote :

" It will put our students behind those of other nations, further decreasing the value of american labor."

But its OK to send the whole school on a class trip to go bowling

8/13/2005 2:28:32 PM

what a great christian you are. i suppose christ called a lot of people "dumbass".

8/13/2005 2:40:19 PM

Quote :

"Well in this hypothetical you would need to teach the earth is flat untill there is some kind of controversy"

Well, shit, folks, I think we have a winner.

Quote :

"EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS A VIRTUAL CERTAINTY, I've explained that before."

You know it and I know it, but in spite of your attempts to build up middle schoolers into paragons of free and philosophica thinking, they do not.

Quote :

"The explaination teachers always use is the walk to the door trick."

Yes, that little nugget of brilliance has always been one of my favorite examples of how mathematicians need to know the boundaries of their field.

Only one man in history has been the tallest man ever. He probably doesn't exist either. Please, continue to use math to demonstrate to me that things which are quite obviously true are untrue.

8/13/2005 3:10:36 PM

Quote :

" [quote]In fact IDs primary effect is to teach students about god. This fails the lemon test."

Actually, no. its primary effect is to teach an alternative possible explanation for the creation of the universe. Nice try. You are arguing almost verbatim what you discredited me for saying earlier. Pick a side...

Quote :

"Because there isn't any conflict with the establishment cause I've already proved that."

On ly you never proved it. You have NOT proven how saying "your religion is wrong" in a gov't run school doesn't violate the principle of "the gov't shall tell no one its religion is wrong."

Quote :

"First off, where the hell did this "Earth = 6000 years old" BS come from, and what the hell does it have to do with this conversation? We have plenty of scientific evidence indicating the Earth is billions of years old."

Sure we have the evidence. But we also can't say for sure that that evidence is 100% true and accurate. THATS WHAT IVE BEEN FUCKING ARGUING THIS WHOLE GOD DAMNED THREAD!

Quote :

"Science isn't advocating atheism. It's advocating what is RIGHT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. The fact that the results conflict with the Bible is of no consequence."

It doesn't have to advocate a religion for it to violate the establishment clause. good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"Since evolution is not a religious doctrine, you have no right to either A) censor it"

Remind me again where I said "censor evolution." good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"I went through painstaking detail to outline my argument, unlike your one-line rambles."

And your argument was against something I never claimed. Thus, IT IS A STRAWMAN! good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"but would be inappropriate in say a textbook..."

Really? Why? That ALSO would reinforce my point that evolution is being taught as fact. "Its not in a science textbook, thus it must be false."

Quote :

"I believed that too, except the Bible says some pretty weird things that most people seem to ignore unwittingly. Did you know a woman is unclean 14 days after she gives birth to a daughter, and 66 days more due to the loss of blood? (Lev. 12:5) Have you ever sacrificed an animal for your sins? Do you seek out a priest when you have a skin sore? DO you believe women should be subservient to their husbands? Do you do no work on the Sabbath? The Bible says all this, yet its pretty much ignored universally. Strange..."

Wow, except for the part about women being subservient, you REALLY DID MISS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF JESUS, DIDN'T YOU? good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"what would you have us scientists do when everybody believes something thats wrong. not teach it?"

When was the last time a scientist was teaching a high school class? I don't recall ANYONE saying scientists should study ID or not study evolution. Rather, I recall many people saying TEACHERS should not be teaching as fact something which directly contradicts religions.

Quote :

"youre teachers were idiots, and shouldnt be teaching in the first place. "

Thats funny, my textbook also said "Evolution is a fact." Now lets consider that this textbook was used in all of guilford county. Starting to get a bit bigger than one or two rogue teachers, isn't it?

Quote :

"And I believe we've already shown how evolution passes the lemon test"

Passing the lemon test doesn't make you constitutional. Failing the lemon test DOES make you unconstitutional. good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"there is NO controversy. almost all biologists believe it happened."

Hey, Christianity isn't controversial either. Almost all Christians think it is true! good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"since creationism is controversial too, i think in sunday school it should be mandatory that it be thought as just a theory"

Remind me again, what gov't agency is responsible for teaching sunday school? good try, dipshit.

Quote :

"It's not philosophy, it's just knowing that science doesn't explain everything, which any child knows. "

Take a survey. Ask kids which one is "truer:" science or religion. You'll be surprised when most of them say "science." Then, ask them which one is more likely to be fact. They'll say science is. Then, ask them if science and religion disagree, which one is right? They'll say "science" again. If that aint thinking science is bloody fact then I don't know what the fuck is. good try, dipshit

Quote :

"Evolution quite plainly is the theory of how the randomness inherent to genetic processes affects life; it is NOT in and of itself a theory of how man came to be."

That'd be all fine and dandy, except that evolution then goes on to say that this randomness is how life became diverse. Thus, evolution is not simply a study on randomness and genetic processes. Thats almost akin to saying that watching the television is actually a study of electrons and their interactions with various circuitry.

Quote :

"That chance is so small it is meaningless."

Meaningless to you, maybe. Still not zero. good try, dipshit

Quote :

" thus making it scientific."

Great, science can believe its fact. Just don't let the gov't tell school kids its a fact. good try, dipshit

Quote :

"lets teach everything in the bible that modern 'science' has contradicted. "

Thats whats so fucking convenient about ID. Just mention it for an hour and it covers your ass for the whole year. good try, dipshit

Quote :

"I bet if you asked them if science can explain everything they'd give you the right answer."

Only because posing the question that way goads them into saying the "correct answer." good try, dipshit

Quote :

"it's teach that or teach nothing,"

do i detect false dilemma? good try, dipshit

Quote :

"what you're talking about is limits."

Kris thinks that limits are the same as actual values.

Quote :

"Why should scientists have to prove ID or any other off-base idea (not theory) wrong?"

WHY? Well, lets see. If you are going to teach something as fact, then you must disprove all other explanations. You know. The definition of "fact" and all. good try, dipshit[/quote]

Oh, and 30thAnnz, I never claimed to be perfect, much less a shining example of a "good Christian." good try, dipshit

8/13/2005 3:17:56 PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

8/13/2005 3:31:53 PM

when one is espousing christian dogma, i would think one would try to at least portray themselves as a good christian.

you fucking hypocrite.

8/13/2005 3:42:57 PM

Quote :

" 1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion."

1. FAIL
2. FAIL
3. FAIL

You do realize that the only reason you are giving for having ID in a classroom is to place a religious competeting view to something that is not directly or explicitly about religion, right? So what is ID's purpose? Well, if you could summarize ID in one sentence, I don't think you could do it without "God." Not secular in the least.

Quote :

"Actually, no. its primary effect is to teach an alternative possible explanation for the creation of the universe."

If you thought this wasn't about God, then you wouldn't be bitching about science "saying there is no God." You're just a fucking walking oxymoron, hyprocrite... whatever

8/13/2005 3:55:44 PM

You know, I thought you had actually accepted defeat.

But no, you're coming back, being not only a moron, but an asshole as well.

DON'T TELL ME ABOUT RELIGION

YOU'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2005 3:58:50 PM

Quote :

" Such a possibility is a "hole" in science that can't be 100% accounted for."

Nope, there are no "holes" in science. If a creator did try to trick us (which he doesn't exist, and if he did, he'd have no reason to trick us), then it doesn't matter anyways, because we'll never know. I believe there's an invisble elephant thoat no one can interact with but me. Should science account for that invisble elephant? No, because it doesn't matter.

Quote :

"But its OK to send the whole school on a class trip to go bowling"

That at least teaches them something that has a usefulness in the real world.

Quote :

"Well, shit, folks, I think we have a winner."

That's right, in that situation, you have two options, teach them the world is flat, and they will understand the concept so they can disprove it. Or you teach them nothing, and they can't disprove the theory and we stay in the dark ages.

Quote :

"You know it and I know it, but in spite of your attempts to build up middle schoolers into paragons of free and philosophica thinking, they do not."

They do know it, ask them if science can explain everything. They'll give you the right answer.

Quote :

"Yes, that little nugget of brilliance has always been one of my favorite examples of how mathematicians need to know the boundaries of their field."

No, that little nugget proves why we need calculus. The walking to the door isn't a limitation anymore, calculus explains how we reach the door, the fraction becomes so small it actually becomes zero and you are at the door. lim(x->infinity) 1/x is used to explain this.

Quote :

"Only one man in history has been the tallest man ever. He probably doesn't exist either."

Once agian, the problem is improperly applied. Hint hint, your x must approach zero, if it doesn't, the problem doesn't work.

Quote :

"Actually, no. its primary effect is to teach an alternative possible explanation for the creation of the universe."

You could say that about teaching creationism. The point is your explaination involves god.

Quote :

"You have NOT proven how saying "your religion is wrong" in a gov't run school doesn't violate the principle of "the gov't shall tell no one its religion is wrong.""

Science doesn't say religion is wrong. Science never says that.

Quote :

" But we also can't say for sure that that evidence is 100% true and accurate."

We can't say anything is 100% accurate but our own existence. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach anything.

Quote :

"It doesn't have to advocate a religion for it to violate the establishment clause."

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

Evolution passes all three.
ID passes none of the three

Quote :

"Thats funny, my textbook also said "Evolution is a fact.""

Evolution is a fact. You can observe it yourself if you want.

Quote :

"Passing the lemon test doesn't make you constitutional. Failing the lemon test DOES make you unconstitutional."

If it passes all three than it is not unconstitutional. If x = 0 | 1 and x != 0, then x = 1

Quote :

"Hey, Christianity isn't controversial either."

You sure about that?

Quote :

"Take a survey. Ask kids which one is "truer:" science or religion."

Why? that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Ask them if science can explain everything, since that's what we are talking about. That wasn't even a good strawman.

Quote :

"Meaningless to you, maybe. Still not zero."

I proved it zero.

Quote :

"Only because posing the question that way goads them into saying the "correct answer.""

Funny espeically after reading your arguement a few lines up

Quote :

"Kris thinks that limits are the same as actual values."

I've explained that, a probability can be represented as a function.

8/13/2005 3:59:15 PM

I still think aaronburro is shouting complete and utter bullshit, but Kris,I also don't really think you've got a full concept of probability.

You're whole 1/x thing...

The door problem is actually one of Zeno's paradoxes. Interesting stuff there. I believe it actually is better represented by the series

(1/2)^n where n goes to infinity and the limit will equal 0

But how can you use 1/x to represent the possibility of someone coming back to life. Do you understand what the 1 even means? If x is the number of people that have lived, then the number on top (1) is the number of people coming back to life. And if you do accept that one person has come back to life, then why are you saying that it's not possible? Even so... unless you assume humanity goes on forever and that no one else will ever come back to life, the probability still exists as non zero.

Here's some other ones. If you have a PDF of height, what is the probability someone is 6' tall? I say, 0%, but we both know someone could be exactly 6'.

And by the example you're using, no one has ever been on Mars, so 0/infinity or even 0/howmanypeoplehaveeverlived is zero. But it certainly it is possible.

That said, it is impossible that someone can come back to life...

8/13/2005 4:23:57 PM

Quote :

"Once agian, the problem is improperly applied. Hint hint, your x must approach zero, if it doesn't, the problem doesn't work. "

There's only been one guy in history who was the tallest, and he's dead, assuming my Guiness and memory is accurate and up-to-date. How are these situations dissimilar?

Of course, it's possible that someone else will eventually be that tall or taller. We don't necessarily have any reason to believe that's the case, but it could happen. So I'm guessing you've already assumed away the possibility that anyone else will come back to life in your presentation of this argument.

Quote :

"No, that little nugget proves why we need calculus."

I know, man, life sucked before someone came up with calculus and we could mathematically justify ourselves moving from point to point.

Quote :

"They do know it, ask them if science can explain everything."

There exists a difference between these two questions:

"Can science explain everything?"
"Is what science has explained wrong?"

8/13/2005 4:49:28 PM

Quote :

"If you thought this wasn't about God, then you wouldn't be bitching about science "saying there is no God.""

Strawman much? I never complained about science saying there is no god. I complained about a science class saying a religion is wrong. there is a difference.

BTW, I could make an argument that evolution taught as a fact fails the 2nd part of that lemon test, and evolution by itself fails the 3rd. Which, by the way, passing doesn't make you constitutional...

Quote :

"(which he doesn't exist, and if he did, he'd have no reason to trick us)"

Thats a bold fucking statement there. Evidence much?

Quote :

"Should science account for that invisble elephant? No, because it doesn't matter."

Nope. Science is not science class, number 1. And number two, you have brought up a fantastical fictional belief which makes it even less relevent. Try bringing up something relevent next time.

Quote :

"That at least teaches them something that has a usefulness in the real world."

Ahhh yes. And what would that be again? Seems to me that religious tolerance is a fuckload more useful than whatever one could learn in bowling.

Quote :

"That's right, in that situation, you have two options, teach them the world is flat, and they will understand the concept so they can disprove it. Or you teach them nothing, and they can't disprove the theory and we stay in the dark ages."

False dilemma much?

Quote :

"They do know it, ask them if science can explain everything. They'll give you the right answer."

And again, you are GOADING them into the right answer. Its like walking into a sunday school class and asking a question. You will get the Jesus answer everytime, but it won't be what everyone really thinks.

Quote :

"You could say that about teaching creationism. The point is your explaination involves god."

And mentioning the potential existence of a creator deity in clas is not against the 1st ammendment. of course, saying that he is real does, but so does saying that the earth is more than 6k years old.

Quote :

"Science doesn't say religion is wrong. Science never says that."

So you deny that science says the world is older than 6k years?

Quote :

"We can't say anything is 100% accurate but our own existence. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach anything."

Strawman and false dilemma much?

Quote :

"Evolution passes all three. ID passes none of the three"

Wrong. on both accounts. You use bullshit logic to say that evolution passes the first and second ones by saying "Well, its supposed to teach kids something primarily!" and then you don't allow ID to use the same bullshit logic. One could also make the argument that evolution by itself fails the third test, because it is needless to teach evolution by itself and thus cause a "religious controversy" when there is a legitimate way to address that controversy, namely ID. Certainly you can agree that evolution DOES tangle gov't and religion (unless you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend like evolution doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible). The only question is whether or not this entaglement is necessary. I'd say it isn't, because there is a legal and legitimate way to "untangle" them.

Quote :

"You sure about that?"

Absolutely, if you read the rest of my fucking point. Selective reading much?

Quote :

"If it passes all three than it is not unconstitutional."

I seem to recall the wording of that decision being a bit different. I seem to recall it being "if it fails any of the three, then it is unconstitutional." And that being all it said. The natural result of this is that it is possible to pass all three conditions and STILL be unconstitutional. Its just it is not possible to fail any of those tests and be constitutional. Because if one tried to argue that passing all three of those tests makes it constitutional, I could bring up a damned good example of something that passes all three and yet is clearly NOT constitutional. Besides, just to be a fucking stickler for details, I don't recall the 1st ammendment having the word "lemon" in it anywhere. Thus, I'd be more inclined to believe that the lemon test is not the end-all be-all that you want it to be. I'd also be inclinedd to believe that the lemon test was a convenient way to actually shirk the first ammendment.

Quote :

"Why? that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Ask them if science can explain everything, since that's what we are talking about."

Well, when I say "asking them that directly won't yield the truth," then what I said following is QUITE relevent. Of course, you don't know the difference between a limit and and actual value, so why should I expect you to comprehend this difference either?

Quote :

"I proved it zero."

only you didn't. Because
1) a limit's value is not the same as an actual value
2) there are not an infinite number of existing people, and there never will be.

Quote :

"Funny espeically after reading your arguement a few lines up"

So explain to me how that goads them into anything? It asks a series of legitimate questions which helps us arrive at how they really think science and religion are without showing them the obvious answer that we wish to derive. You know, thats a big point in psychology. But again, you think a limit's value is the same as an actual value.

Quote :

"I've explained that, a probability can be represented as a function."

thats great. that has nothing to do with a limit.

8/13/2005 11:36:02 PM

blahblahblahblah

you ppl are idiots for wasting your time arguing. it is what is it.

8/13/2005 11:40:26 PM

Quote :

"Certainly you can agree that evolution DOES tangle gov't and religion (unless you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend like evolution doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible)."

Ha. A literal intrepation of the bible is disproven by A SHIT LOAD of science, not just evolution. The literal intreptation of anything not related to science has no bearing on science.

8/13/2005 11:45:39 PM

8/13/2005 11:53:24 PM

Quote :

"you have brought up a fantastical fictional belief which makes it even less relevent. Try bringing up something relevent next time."

Now you now how the rest of us feel everytime you talk about ID.

8/14/2005 12:08:04 AM

Quote :

"I never complained about science saying there is no god."

Quote :

"It doesn;t say it explicitly, no. But it says it implicitly. If science says "every living being is descended from one organism," then that wholly disagrees w/ the Bible where it says that Adam was the first human and that he was created from scratch. AKA, no ancestor. Thus, science disagrees w/ religion."

COCAINE IS A HELL OF A DRUG

Not the first time this has happened to you in this thread, mind you.

You've repeated this argument to death because it's the only false leg you have to stand on. You keep saying evolution in a science classroom implies that there is no God. And so you want ID to come in and compete by saying "Yes, there is a God." But at the same fucking time you're ignoring the fact that its entire purpose is to promote a belief in God. You can't pick both of these. ID fails either way. Either evolution doesn't disagree with religion, or it does and ID saying that there is a God fails the second criterion.

Quote :

"BTW, I could make an argument that evolution taught as a fact fails the 2nd part of that lemon test, and evolution by itself fails the 3rd."

No, you couldn't. Evolution passes easily. The primary purpose of evolution is not to say anything about God or no God. Jesus. Why is this so hard to understand? Science classrooms don't give a fuck about saying anything about this. So how can you possibly say that the primary purpose of evolution
is nonsecular?

Quote :

" Which, by the way, passing doesn't make you constitutional..."

I just know you put this little gem in because you knew what you were saying was bullshit.

Quote :

"And number two, you have brought up a fantastical fictional belief which makes it even less relevent. Try bringing up something relevent next time."

Just in case you were wondering, practically no one thinks that ID is relevant. And I like how you use the phrase fantastical fictional belief...

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT ID IS... I realize what you're saying, not that I think it matters how many people actually claim to be under a certain religion. I think using theoretical situations as a tool works. However, if I leave one mistake in here, you'll respond to that and ignore the rest of my post.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2005 12:59:51 AM

My favorite part about middle school biology books is the big boldfaced sentence that says THERE IS NO GOD.

8/14/2005 1:44:38 AM

Quote :

"That said, it is impossible that someone can come back to life..."

Are we sure about that? Isn't it theoretically possible that you could store all the data about a person and then someday recreate them? Obviously we can't do it now but...

8/14/2005 2:00:22 AM

Quote :

"So you deny that science says the world is older than 6k years?"

What.... the fuck.... is this BULLSHIT?! You think that asserting the world is more than 6000 years old is the ONLY way science conflicts with the Bible? Science has determined with more than reasonable certainty that the earth is over 4 billion years old. It thinks this because the evidence dictates it. That it conflicts with the strict interpretation of the Bible is OF NO CONSEQUENCE. If it matters that the evidence conflicts with Christianity, then obviously religious beliefs are relevant to scientific discussion.

Do you realize what this means? It means an end to objective thought, suddenly religious conjecture stands on the same level and real, rationally determined field work by scientists. Furthermore, for some reason you want ironclad proof that every FUCKING detail of evolution works out, but with with ID all you need is to assume not everything in the world has a scientific explanation. WHO IS THE HYPOCRITE HERE???

You demand hard evidence from everyone else and remain exceptionally broad on your own opinions. This is why everyone despises you, even those that actually agree with you, but if you want to read about that just go to my new thread....

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=341225

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 2:21 AM. Reason : link]

8/14/2005 2:21:19 AM

So is it possible to believe that God created the universe and that the earth is more than 6000 years old? Mind you, this is all based off the idea that one Genesis day is thought to be one regular 24 hour day. The first people reading the bible couldn't fathom the concept of millions of years or natural selection therefore in order to be believable don't you think it had to be written to their level of understanding?

As I said before, why limit God's imagination and powers to the confines of human understanding?

8/14/2005 3:34:52 AM

^I guess God never knew we too would be reading the bible...

8/14/2005 11:47:56 AM

^^^^ Do we have a definition for "coming back to life"? I don't think that I would consider recreating someone--possible or not--the same as coming back to life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resurrect
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=recreate

There's a couple of definitions for each one, but here's what I get out of it:

recreate: starting over again, i.e. building something from scratch

vs.

coming back to life: taking something that's dead and making that very same thing alive

So, no the possibility of recreating someone does not mean that it's possible to bring someone back to life. Yes, the end result of recreating and resurrecting may be the same, but I think that we're more interested in the process here.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2005 12:43:39 PM

you know what's really unfathomable?

the red seas parting, a flood that killed all humans and animals except for those on an ark, a man walking on a water, a man coming back from the dead, places that we will never physically find and that we can reside in for eternity, and a supreme being that is invisible, odorless, and tasteless.

oh, but yea, people before us could not even fathom some extra zeros on how long the earth has been around

nor could they go out and see with their own eyes, the quite obvious process of natural selection

and what really pisses me off is that it's not fair in the least. Old testament people got to see miracles and shit happen, they got to see God intervene all the time, and now I hear people saying the bible was written so it would be believable to them. But fuck us. We just got abandoned. Doesn't seem fair, especially if you accept the notion that God is trying to "make the earth look more than 6,000 years old."

And then, even beyond that, what pisses me off is... some of you guys act like fair doesn't even exist. Like God doesn't share the same emotions or values as us. How is there any hope of someone finding God if this is true?

8/14/2005 12:47:00 PM

if evolution means christianity is wrong, and you believe that everything in the bible must be literally true, then you have to live with that

evolution wont be going any where.

find a new religion. stop bitching. we have science now. if you dont like science, go back to aftica.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 1:46 PM. Reason : -]

8/14/2005 1:45:21 PM

I mean, there isn't a fucking firmament, either.

If that makes you question your faith, then you have pretty weak faith.

8/14/2005 1:52:51 PM

Quote :

"So, no the possibility of recreating someone does not mean that it's possible to bring someone back to life. Yes, the end result of recreating and resurrecting may be the same, but I think that we're more interested in the process here."

Hmm... okay. I just think the cruciforms from the Hyperion Cantos are pretty cool. It'd take a shit ton of data storage and energy though...

8/14/2005 2:02:21 PM

Quote :

"I never complained about science saying there is no god." Quote : "It doesn;t say it explicitly, no. But it says it implicitly. If science says "every living being is descended from one organism," then that wholly disagrees w/ the Bible where it says that Adam was the first human and that he was created from scratch. AKA, no ancestor. Thus, science disagrees w/ religion.""

thats about the biggest nonsequitur EVER. My second quote there says nothing about science denying there is a god.

Quote :

"You've repeated this argument to death because it's the only false leg you have to stand on. You keep saying evolution in a science classroom implies that there is no God."

Strawman much?

Quote :

"But at the same fucking time you're ignoring the fact that its entire purpose is to promote a belief in God."

Nope, its purpose is to teach. If evolution's attack on religion can be explained away with that bullshit line, then so can ID. Beside, I don't think IDs ostensible purpose is to say "there is a god."

But then again, your argument is m00t, because I NEVER said that science says there is no god. Strawman much?

Quote :

"No, you couldn't. Evolution passes easily. The primary purpose of evolution is not to say anything about God or no God."

THen I can use the same argument for ID. Its primary purpose is to give an explanation for speciation.

Quote :

"So how can you possibly say that the primary purpose of evolution is nonsecular? "

I never did. Strawman much?

Quote :

"Just in case you were wondering, practically no one thinks that ID is relevant."

Too bad. the 1st ammendment begs to differ.

Quote :

"My favorite part about middle school biology books is the big boldfaced sentence that says THERE IS NO GOD."

Strawman much?

Quote :

"What.... the fuck.... is this BULLSHIT?! You think that asserting the world is more than 6000 years old is the ONLY way science conflicts with the Bible? Science has determined with more than reasonable certainty that the earth is over 4 billion years old. It thinks this because the evidence dictates it. That it conflicts with the strict interpretation of the Bible is OF NO CONSEQUENCE. If it matters that the evidence conflicts with Christianity, then obviously religious beliefs are relevant to scientific discussion."

You really are dense, aren't you? What science itself thinks doesn't really matter to me, because science isn't the gov't. SCIENCE CLASS IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IS.

Quote :

"Furthermore, for some reason you want ironclad proof that every FUCKING detail of evolution works out, but with with ID all you need is to assume not everything in the world has a scientific explanation. WHO IS THE HYPOCRITE HERE???"

Strawman much? I don't want ironclad proof. I know it doesn't exist. FOR EITHER THEORY. I just don't want the gov't teaching as fact something that goes contrary to religion. You know. 1st ammendment.

Quote :

"So is it possible to believe that God created the universe and that the earth is more than 6000 years old?"

Such a thing is possible, considering that I believe that very thing. Taking the Bible literally, though, would make such a thing rather difficult.

8/14/2005 6:35:40 PM

Quote :

"Beside, I don't think IDs ostensible purpose is to say "there is a god.""

Then what creates life in ID, if it's not god?

8/14/2005 6:41:24 PM

that might be a secondary effect, but that is no different than evolution's secondary effect of saying that the timeframe put forth by many religions is wrong.

8/14/2005 7:50:58 PM