Serious question related to ID...
-
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
I have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being. Or, for that matter, anything else other than a slightly different virus. While I have no problem with the mechanics of evolution as viewed from the perspective of the "DNA machine", I do not feel that science has adequately explained evolution from the "here are bunch of molecules randomly jiggling around in some toxic soup" to "Behold Man". Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
Marc Clifton wrote:
have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being
Have you been watching for millions of years?
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax,
Where do you want the government to get their money from? Capital gains taxes? Consumption tax? Pure sales tax? A combination of the three? The money has to come from somewhere...
If the government was small as it is supposed to be under the constitution, it would not need an extreme amount of money to run.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
If the government was small as it is supposed to be under the constitution, it would not need an extreme amount of money to run.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Uh, right. Unfortunately, the division of 51 states into regional governments precludes that idea. Well, that and a population approaching 300 million... Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty.
I can see why a conservative would support the death penalty, but a libertarian*? I thought the whole ethos of libertarians was one of you can do what ever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or impinge upon their freedoms.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime. * Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Just for the record, I agree with all of that. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Uh, right. Unfortunately, the division of 51 states into regional governments precludes that idea. Well, that and a population approaching 300 million... Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
John Theal wrote:
Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
And the constitution was designed to change right along with the times - in a democratic way. The big problem in the US is that such change is no longer controlled by the people but by the courts that have usurped our power to control it. I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider that to be an improvement over how things were down 300 (closer to 230 isn't it?) years ago. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you.
I've been to the United States several times. One time I hired a car in Denver. When I asked how the four-way stop junctions worked (we don't have them here and I got a little confused the previous time) the answer was, in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america
I dunno. A lot of statistics I see says you have a higher than average crime rate. And because of all the guns, the crimes are much more violent and result in death (often of an innocent party) more frequently than elsewhere.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Show me a single post here where someone claiming to represent christianity has referred to someone as a 'raghead'. The only use of the term I've heard is from some lefty putting words into other people's mouths in order to self-validate his own bigotry. I have almost universally found Christians to be just about the most tolerant people on the planet - and liberals to be quite the contrary. You are a perfect example of that - as throughly incapable of entertaining an opinion beyond your narrow minded secular world view as a pig is of understanding physics. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Just for the record, I agree with all of that. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Cool. It is good to have someone here that thinks the same way. :-D
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you.
I've been to the United States several times. One time I hired a car in Denver. When I asked how the four-way stop junctions worked (we don't have them here and I got a little confused the previous time) the answer was, in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america
I dunno. A lot of statistics I see says you have a higher than average crime rate. And because of all the guns, the crimes are much more violent and result in death (often of an innocent party) more frequently than elsewhere.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
You dont really think that is the way it is here do you? If you threaten someone with a gun in traffic, you are on your way to jail. And, your right of way has nothing to do with your gun rack. America is not some feudal country uncivilized people running around with guns shooting at each other, like people who want to ban guns would like to think.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
All that is philosophy and doesn't really have anything to do with evolution as a scientific theory. There is no silly in science.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
I have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being. Or, for that matter, anything else other than a slightly different virus. While I have no problem with the mechanics of evolution as viewed from the perspective of the "DNA machine", I do not feel that science has adequately explained evolution from the "here are bunch of molecules randomly jiggling around in some toxic soup" to "Behold Man". Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
Evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the development of all life from the simplest self replicating molecules (which would not have been DNA). What these molecules actualy were is another matter, as we will have no fossil record to work from. If abiogensis still occurs on earth, the results would be quickly consumed by existing organisms.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I do not feel that science has adequately explained evolution from the "here are bunch of molecules randomly jiggling around in some toxic soup" to "Behold Man".
Hopefully, that is because modern evolutionary theory has abandoned the notions of progress towards complexity and the resulting ascent of man. The assumption that evolution was a process somehow geared up to produce man was common during the 19th century and was mainly due to people trying to smuggle God into the process of evolution (sound familiar?), along with the contemporary themes of human progress. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
John Theal wrote:
Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
And the constitution was designed to change right along with the times - in a democratic way. The big problem in the US is that such change is no longer controlled by the people but by the courts that have usurped our power to control it. I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider that to be an improvement over how things were down 300 (closer to 230 isn't it?) years ago. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote:
The big problem in the US is that such change is no longer controlled by the people but by the courts that have usurped our power to control it.
I agree with this entirely. I think the courts have no business in dictating how people should live their lives (in a general, not legal sense).
-
andy brummer wrote:
The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else.
I'm not sure that I think that basic education can or should ever be much more than that. Some people like learning, some don't. Those who do will learn in almost any kind of an environment, while those who don't won't. I'm not sure that I think a hell of a lot of resources should be wasted on getting those who simply wish to live their lives fixing flat tires to understand philosophical abstractions. I was always bored in school as a child and generally made very poor grades until I got into college. Yet, I have always loved reading and learning. But, I cannot think of anything my teachers could have done to have inspired me to learn the way they wanted me to learn. No given teacing philsophy is ever going to reach every child. Therefore, I think it is better just to stick to time tested methods and teach the basics in a basic way. By trying to make education entertaining you are more likely to encounter the very issues I was referring to when I started this thread - the popularization of knowledge in a way that is more appropriate for a disney movie than for a classroom. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
I'm lucky to have been given a Montessori education. I don't think it is a perfect system, but I think it is a better system then what passes for education in most public schools. I think one of its advantages is that it accepts that everybody learns in a different way and has different capabilities. Since you have a class of different age groups with students learning independently it can handle a greater variation in talent and aptitude then forcing students to all work at the pace of the slowest one. Mixing education and entertainment is just lazy teaching and doesn't do anyone any good. Whatever happened to learning something because it was worth knowing. It has nothing to do with Montessori education. Montessori teaches concepts using multiple senses to young children. They are taught to trace shapes and textures of objects like bead rods to learn the concept of number. You learn letters by tracing them out from sandpaper shapes. You learn maps by putting map puzzles together and then duplicating them later on. This is part of the recognition that students learn in different ways and you can't teach everyone the same. There is a distinction between classroom behavior and going outside to have fun and play. Every student works in the classroom and knows what work they are required to do by the end of the day. It teaches personal responsibility and discipline. Learning isn't fun, it is rewarding in its own right.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I know not many people agree with me
Just for the record, I am another that agrees with you. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
-
I'll only give you a partial point for that. "Ragheads Suk" is probably a stealth liberal lamely trying to sound like a "conservative". "Irate Pirate" did not claim to be speaking as a Christian. Mike is the only one who has used the term who also presents his religious beliefs. But his posts clearly indicate he is referring to the terrorists and no one else. So, if thats the best you have, I stand by my statement. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you.
I've been to the United States several times. One time I hired a car in Denver. When I asked how the four-way stop junctions worked (we don't have them here and I got a little confused the previous time) the answer was, in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america
I dunno. A lot of statistics I see says you have a higher than average crime rate. And because of all the guns, the crimes are much more violent and result in death (often of an innocent party) more frequently than elsewhere.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
One time I hired a car in Denver. When I asked how the four-way stop junctions worked (we don't have them here and I got a little confused the previous time) the answer was, in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
:laugh: You need a little more experience with that droll redneck sense of humor! Everyone knows that it is who ever has a girl friend with the biggest rack... :rolleyes: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Actually, both radheads suk, and Irate Pirate were two usernames I used to try to stir up trouble back when people were arguing over islam. If you go to the profiles and look at some of the past messages, you can see that it was me. Back when I was trolling, people seemed to think that I was more than one person.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 15:54 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
You dont really think that is the way it is here do you? If you threaten someone with a gun in traffic, you are on your way to jail. And, your right of way has nothing to do with your gun rack. America is not some feudal country uncivilized people running around with guns shooting at each other, like people who want to ban guns would like to think.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
You dont really think that is the way it is here do you?
Well, every day I'd watch one of the news channels when I was in my hotel. And every day there would be a story about some guy shotting at a gas station, a convienence store, at someone withdrawing money at an ATM or some such thing. In Scotland that kind of stuff only happens maybe once in a blue moon. There are more stories on the news about car crashes in poor weather conditions than gun crime.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I saw something about that on PBS. Maybe not the same thing that Discovery did since the only thing I remember was that it was really pushing what evidence they had. I think even in the conclusions it stated that it was unlikely.
The evidence is fascinating though. The oldest artifacts so far found in North America date from about 17,000 years ago and are found on the east coast, and are identical to artifacts found in France from exactly that same time period, but completely different from those known to have been used in Siberia. Also, at least one eastern woodlands tribe, the Ojibwa (Chippawa), have genetic markers that appear only in European populations. It is also known that a permanent Ice sheet stretched from France to the area of Virginia and would have been rich with sea life at a time when land game in Europe was becoming increasingly scarce.
Tim Craig wrote:
And a lot of scientific hypotheses are thrown out there, I think, with the intent "prove me wrong". They stimulate additional research and thinking. 100 years after being postulated, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still being tested as is Quantum Mechanics. The day that someone produces clear, repeatable evidence either theory doesn't work in a certain situation will be the end of it as "the" theory. However, that doesn't necessarily signal that the theory is worthless. We've known Newtonian mechanics are "wrong" for 100 years but they're still taught in schools and they're great if you know when to apply them.
I suppose this is an issue where I simply do not trust either side. Certainly I do not want children taught ID as science. On the other hand, I also do not want some over inspired secularists teaching psuedo-science in order to purposefully undermine the faith that parents might otherwise wish to impart to their children. I think the latter probably does more harm to science than the former. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Have you heard the saga of Kennewick man? Here we have a potentially contributing piece of evidence to the early European visitor but it's mire down in a quagmire of religious and ethnic politics.
Stan Shannon wrote:
On the other hand, I also do not want some over inspired secularists teaching psuedo-science in order to purposefully undermine the faith that parents might otherwise wish to impart to their children.
I really don't see this as a rampant problem. I see the opposite as the norm. The religious right in this country and others trying to force their beliefs on others through law and the educational system.