P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 25-10-05, 02:31 PM   #21
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Lol. I don't moderate, I incite.

Liberalism vs. Superstitionism. Which is more out of touch with reality?

Whales would be a great example of evolution since they've changed so radically from land animals to marine mammals. And of course liberals love whales.

Genesis on the other hand - creating man out of dust and spittle - how could anyone think that's absurd?
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-05, 02:42 PM   #22
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Show me proof of speciation and I'll see what I can come up with.
i'm not trying to make a case for evolution - i'm just saying that intelligent design is not science and has no place in science class. you say it does...so where are the facts that would validate it as a scientific theory??
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-05, 04:06 PM   #23
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

In that case, I don't have to cite a scientific experement on ID in order to prove that it is a theory. To do that I only have to cite the common definition of theory.

Wikipedia has an extensive article in which it states:
Quote:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
Observable facts supporting the theory of ID include the Watchmaker Analogy I cited earlier as well as the Teleological Argument. These facts are flimsy, I agree, but ID barely qualifies as theory under this definition.

The article later states, "Claims such as intelligent design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience," but then the article contradicts itself when it describes two types of theory:
Quote:
There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.
ID is mostly conjecture, and evolution is definitly hypothesis. Both qualify as theories under this definition.

Now I'm not suggesting that ID and evolution get equal time in classrooms, lets be reasonable. Evolution is a complex theory and has matured greatly over the past 150 years, while Intelligent Design is simplistic and hasn't evolved much over the past two millennia. More attention should be paid to those theories for which good tests can be devised, and the other theories that are yet untestable or otherwise falsified should get nothing more than an honorable mention. This is, after all, how we learn about such things as Newton's laws of motion, the four elements of nature, how people thought the earth was flat, alchemy, eugenics, etc. These things are taught in school all the time, and some things like Newtoinan mechanics are taught in great detail. If they don't belong in a science class then they're still important as history, but that's for the school boards and the teachers to decide among themselves. I just don't like the idea of excluding a concept from a curriculum just because some people don't like it (yes, I think those people who banned evolution lessons from their schools were a bunch of wackos).
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-05, 04:58 PM   #24
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
so where are the facts that would validate it as a scientific theory??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Observable facts supporting the theory of ID include the Watchmaker Analogy I cited earlier as well as the Teleological Argument.
FOUL--An analogy isn't a fact. An argument also isn't a fact. --Deceptive snowjob--repeat the post.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-05, 09:07 PM   #25
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Alright, observations then. I don't have to repeat everything.

Does theknife get a penalty shot?
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-05, 10:08 PM   #26
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

No. You got to repeat the play and come up with a fact supporting Intelligent Design but you failed to make a completion so knife wins.


ID was just conjured up without any scientific basis at all, only the premise that life is complicated so god must have made it. Little different from an old theological argument that since everything exists then god also exists because everything had to be made by someone.


Knowledge has increased considerably along with the freedom to communicate it since the days when religious authorities had a chain and a pile of firewood for the people who dared to openly disagree with them. But a resurgence of superstition in society can once again stall mankinds progress in understanding the universe.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-05, 12:27 AM   #27
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Well alright. I admit that I know much less about ID than evolution, I'm not a very good devil's advocate but I tried.

Complex is the word people use to describe the universe, not complicated. It's the idea that no matter how random a natural phenomenon may first appear, if you study it thoroughly enough you'll eventually be able devise a logical or mathamatic way to describe it. Then you might realize that almost nothing in nature is random, it's simply chaotic. If follows that if natural phenomena are not random accidents then the universe itself is not a random accident.

But then along comes man with his free will, mucking up natural selection by creating civilization. Complexity may or may not be of God's design, depending on who you ask, but life's complications are our own doing.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-05, 05:11 AM   #28
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

once you call ID by it's true name - creationism - it becomes pretty clear where it does and doesn't belong.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-05, 10:31 AM   #29
Repo
Registered User
 
Repo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 123
Default

In Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn argued that science is ruled by paradigms, worldviews that fit the available knowledge and according to which scientists operate. But intelligent design is not part of any current scientific paradigm, and besides a few fringe elements, no serious evolutionary biologists accept it. Moreover, it is hard to call ID an emerging scientific paradigm when its leading proponent is a University of California, Berkeley law professor, Phillip E. Johnson, who is not a scientist at all...

The only scientific theory of life's origins thus far is the theory of evolution. ID may have a genuine role to play in the classrooms of philosophers or comparative theologians, but it certainly does not belong in the science lab. If creationists want to have their views taught, they must first meet the biggest challenge in history: proving the existence of God...
Repo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-05, 10:57 AM   #30
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

That's not a challenge it's a game. Or it used to be. Christianity has gradually changed the 'properties' it attributed to god as science and logic advanced and philosophers used those claimed properties to show there was no god. So the existance of god using the present attributes of modern religion - that he has absolutely no physical effect on anything - is throughly unprovable.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-05, 11:38 AM   #31
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

some people feel that there is a wider range of possibilities than just evolution or ID. certainly these should get equal classroom time as well, no?

Quote:
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:

CC:
DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)

OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD

RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)

GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)

COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)

SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)

CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)

NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)

DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)

BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)
(note -- who am I missing?)

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. (see graph below)

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
indeed, one has only to read this letter to feel the touch of His Noodly Appendage.
Attached Images
  
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-06, 08:52 PM   #32
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Churches Celebrate Darwin`s Birthday

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Nearly 450 Christian churches in the United States are celebrating the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin Sunday.

The churches say Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science, the Chicago Tribune reported.

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both,' said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who organized the 'Evolution Sunday' event.

A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, are participating in the event, which grew out of Zimmerman`s The Clergy Letter Project, another effort to dispel the perception among many Christians that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive, the newspaper said.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1096932.php/Churches_celebrate_Darwin`s_birthday
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-06, 07:33 PM   #33
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default This is an important question...

Which are worse ~

preachers

or

teachers?
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)