A Victory...
-
thealj wrote:
ID endorses theistic religions
In the same way, "evolution" endorses athiestic religions. So, they should kick it out of schools, too. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote:
"evolution" endorses athiestic religions
it also endorses black whites, hot colds, honest politicians and men with ovaries. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum.
But what exactly are they supposed to debate? For example...
espeir wrote:
Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived?
OK, I'll have that debate with you... First, we are not hairless apes. We have the same amount of hair, more or less, as any other ape. It is just very greatly reduced in size in most places on our bodes. One reason for that reduced hair length might be due to the fact that humans adapted to a life style that required covering greater distances than other ape species - we ran. To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin. Your turn. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:06 Wednesday 21st December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin.
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain! This is another example of how people can treat evolution as a religion. Your claim is completely incorrect, and yet you accept it because it more conveniently fits into your belief system. You don't have the slightest idea why humans are hairless, and yet you turn to a fabricated answer because you immediately think it "fits".
-
espeir wrote:
You sure do employ a lot of stereotyping
sheesh. practice what you preach. you haven't gone a single post without making giant sweeping claims about some group.
espeir wrote:
don't have the answers and are too chicken to admit that their religion (as they have turned it) is incomplete
ah.. "evolution is a religion". more ID talking points. sigh. who do you think you're fooling ? and more importantly, why bother ? just come out and admit it - you'll feel a lot better.
espeir wrote:
It shakes their faith.
who ? the stereotypical scientist ?
espeir wrote:
However, a true "scientist" will evolve his theory, not attack those in a political environment who challenge it.
who are the scientists attacking people in a "political environment" ? are they the people who wrote the Wedge Document ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Your arguments are typical of an atheist. Founded on nothing and providing just as much.
-
espeir wrote:
Well it turns out that Newton was wrong
No, Newton wasn't wrong; his theories we only an approximation, which is not the same thing. Einsteins theories do not negate Newtons; they simply extend them. What you seem to be missing here is that it's OK to challenge science in a credible way. The Intelligent Design crew is not using science to challenge science; they're using religion. They have absolutely no credibility in the scientific community.
I'm not saying ID is correct. I'm saying Newton was wrong and he was. Einstein's theories are not an extension of Newton's, but a reconstruction. Newton's theories turned out to be an approximation, but saying that a line is straight because you can only see part of a logarithmic curve is simply wrong. It's right as far as you can tell (which is the key here) but the problem is you can't always see everything or even know what you can't see. That is why there is no such thing as scientific fact...only theory.
-
Your arguments are typical of an atheist. Founded on nothing and providing just as much.
espeir wrote:
Your arguments are typical of an atheist
wait, was that a stereotype ? no way. that would make you a hypocrite. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Your arguments are typical of an atheist
wait, was that a stereotype ? no way. that would make you a hypocrite. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
I was being ironic...And it worked well.
-
I was being ironic...And it worked well.
you're a fraud Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin.
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain! This is another example of how people can treat evolution as a religion. Your claim is completely incorrect, and yet you accept it because it more conveniently fits into your belief system. You don't have the slightest idea why humans are hairless, and yet you turn to a fabricated answer because you immediately think it "fits".
The answer is.. we don't know. There are a number of theories (such as the rather dodgy aquatic ape theory), but they ammount to not much more than just-so stories until we find paeleontological evidence to support them. What we do know is that it must have imparted a reproductive advantage at some point in our history, so the temptation is to work backwards from that knowledge. Good for producing hypotheses, but obviously not all that is required. Could we use ID theory to determine that God is hairless?
-
you're a fraud Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Hypocrite.
-
Hypocrite.
:laugh: :rolleyes: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin.
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain! This is another example of how people can treat evolution as a religion. Your claim is completely incorrect, and yet you accept it because it more conveniently fits into your belief system. You don't have the slightest idea why humans are hairless, and yet you turn to a fabricated answer because you immediately think it "fits".
espeir wrote:
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain!
OK, thats your counter point. Now, since we are having a debate, you give me your explanation of why humans are "hairless" so that I can offer my counter point. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
The answer is.. we don't know. There are a number of theories (such as the rather dodgy aquatic ape theory), but they ammount to not much more than just-so stories until we find paeleontological evidence to support them. What we do know is that it must have imparted a reproductive advantage at some point in our history, so the temptation is to work backwards from that knowledge. Good for producing hypotheses, but obviously not all that is required. Could we use ID theory to determine that God is hairless?
That's my point. Evolution is built on conjecture and mere invention. Might this work? Might that work? Maybe? That's likely. That sounds good. etc... The truth is you're correct about evoloution being paleontology (which is based on a social science...not "real" science). That's how the theory of evolution is structured. You're wrong that we know that hairlessness has imparted on us a reproductive advantage because, just like ID, that's a circular argument. The theory that evolution is the result of reproductive advantages comes from such conjectures made above. In truth we haven't the slightest idea of the cause of such evolutionary progressions, but we arrogantly assume we do. There is surprisingly little evidence for natural selection as a means of evolution, other than the notion that animals "fit" their environments. ID doesn't provide any answers, however I think it contributes to a much needed debate in the scientific community about how evolution actually occurs. This debate is being ignored in favor of ludicrous conjecture about apes being hot.
-
espeir wrote:
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain!
OK, thats your counter point. Now, since we are having a debate, you give me your explanation of why humans are "hairless" so that I can offer my counter point. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
We don't know for sure...and we can't. That's my point. Evolution is built upon random conjectures like the one you just enthusiastically spit out. It isn't science. It's just people making stuff up as you just did. The one redeeming quality of ID is that it correctly points out that evolutionary theory as it currently stands is inadequate and needs to be challenged...not blindly accepted as a religion of sorts. One thing you need to know about academia is that professors invest their reputation in ideas and will defend them even in the face of crumbing evidence. They cannot be relied on for intellectual progress. I bring up the old aquatic ape theory because it got me thinking when I read the book many years ago. Teh African savannah theory does not seem to fit our body structure, yet academia shunned the theory because it was contrary to where they had invested their ideas. Granted there isn't much proof the aquatic ape theory is true (besides our hairlessness, uneven fat deposits, webbed fingers as compared to other monkeys, upright posture, etc... that is unseen in savannah animals), there isn't much proof that we evolved on an open savannah either. The whole thing is on such shaky ground with me, I welcome any challenges to force "scientists" to actually defend their ideas against contradictory ones.
-
We don't know for sure...and we can't. That's my point. Evolution is built upon random conjectures like the one you just enthusiastically spit out. It isn't science. It's just people making stuff up as you just did. The one redeeming quality of ID is that it correctly points out that evolutionary theory as it currently stands is inadequate and needs to be challenged...not blindly accepted as a religion of sorts. One thing you need to know about academia is that professors invest their reputation in ideas and will defend them even in the face of crumbing evidence. They cannot be relied on for intellectual progress. I bring up the old aquatic ape theory because it got me thinking when I read the book many years ago. Teh African savannah theory does not seem to fit our body structure, yet academia shunned the theory because it was contrary to where they had invested their ideas. Granted there isn't much proof the aquatic ape theory is true (besides our hairlessness, uneven fat deposits, webbed fingers as compared to other monkeys, upright posture, etc... that is unseen in savannah animals), there isn't much proof that we evolved on an open savannah either. The whole thing is on such shaky ground with me, I welcome any challenges to force "scientists" to actually defend their ideas against contradictory ones.
espeir wrote:
We don't know for sure...and we can't.
Well, then, thats the end of the debate isn't it? I gave you a logical hypothesis to explain human hairlessness and you were able to logically counter it. You give me no such opportunity in return. So, as I asked before, what is there to debate? (EDIT - I mean, we started off with a debate about human hairlessness and all you could do was rant about my theoritical framework without offering one of your own. You have no explanation at all for human hairlessness so what exactly are you going to teach in school? Is it a question we are simply not supposed to ask?) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:36 Wednesday 21st December, 2005
-
andy brummer wrote:
You might have fun debating a brick wall
That's just dumb. Reasonable people can come to their own conclusions. If someone decides to believe ID, then what does it matter? It's not like evolution provides a whole lot of practical applications. In the long run, a logical debate will bring out the winner. The political arena is not the place for this, and it's atrocious that "scientists" would resort to that.
andy brummer wrote:
Hawking as mentioned it in his popular writing, but you won't find god mentioned anywhere in is scientific publications.
Because those are technical journals. God is implied in physics but is not (and likely never will be) proven. Physics has turned many atheists into theists.
espeir wrote:
That's just dumb. Reasonable people can come to their own conclusions. If someone decides to believe ID, then what does it matter? It's not like evolution provides a whole lot of practical applications. In the long run, a logical debate will bring out the winner. The political arena is not the place for this, and it's atrocious that "scientists" would resort to that.
No, it is an accurate analogy. There can be no scientific debate with ID since there is no way to disprove it. Disprove my universe is only 5 minutes old statement and I will accept everything you say about ID.
espeir wrote:
God is implied in physics but is not (and likely never will be) proven.
Not in any of the physics that I have learned.
-
That's my point. Evolution is built on conjecture and mere invention. Might this work? Might that work? Maybe? That's likely. That sounds good. etc... The truth is you're correct about evoloution being paleontology (which is based on a social science...not "real" science). That's how the theory of evolution is structured. You're wrong that we know that hairlessness has imparted on us a reproductive advantage because, just like ID, that's a circular argument. The theory that evolution is the result of reproductive advantages comes from such conjectures made above. In truth we haven't the slightest idea of the cause of such evolutionary progressions, but we arrogantly assume we do. There is surprisingly little evidence for natural selection as a means of evolution, other than the notion that animals "fit" their environments. ID doesn't provide any answers, however I think it contributes to a much needed debate in the scientific community about how evolution actually occurs. This debate is being ignored in favor of ludicrous conjecture about apes being hot.
espeir wrote:
The theory that evolution is the result of reproductive advantages comes from such conjectures made above.
No, it originated from far clearer examples. Evoloution has very subtle effects, it does not give us the ability to play time backwards to illustrate every step. Evolutionary theory alone cannot account for the exact balance of selective pressures that produced specific traits any more than than physics can account for the colour of the moon. This does not invalidate it. 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)
-
We don't know for sure...and we can't. That's my point. Evolution is built upon random conjectures like the one you just enthusiastically spit out. It isn't science. It's just people making stuff up as you just did. The one redeeming quality of ID is that it correctly points out that evolutionary theory as it currently stands is inadequate and needs to be challenged...not blindly accepted as a religion of sorts. One thing you need to know about academia is that professors invest their reputation in ideas and will defend them even in the face of crumbing evidence. They cannot be relied on for intellectual progress. I bring up the old aquatic ape theory because it got me thinking when I read the book many years ago. Teh African savannah theory does not seem to fit our body structure, yet academia shunned the theory because it was contrary to where they had invested their ideas. Granted there isn't much proof the aquatic ape theory is true (besides our hairlessness, uneven fat deposits, webbed fingers as compared to other monkeys, upright posture, etc... that is unseen in savannah animals), there isn't much proof that we evolved on an open savannah either. The whole thing is on such shaky ground with me, I welcome any challenges to force "scientists" to actually defend their ideas against contradictory ones.
BTW, the real answer to your question is that panting, as with leopards, is simply not sufficient to regulate the temperature of a large brain. The larger the brain, the more efficiently heat needs to be dissapated from the body. Sweating becomes increasingly necessary as the only possible mechanism efficient enough to carry that heat away. That is why we are hairless. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:48 Wednesday 21st December, 2005
-
espeir wrote:
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
I first read this in history class about 30 years ago. I'll find references in my library if I have the time. It's not important. You're dodging the point that the word "God" does not only appears in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear at all in the Constitution. Why, if the founding fathers' only aim was to keep the government out of religion, would they not bring their religion explicitly into these important documents? That's a rhetorical question, as most of them gave reasons for this omission. I'll cite references if you like, but I can't imagine at this point that anything would change your mind.
espeir wrote:
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
I have to think that public school science programs kick ass all over Amish science programs. Actually, public schools aren't allowed to be as strict in qualifying teachers as private schools, both secular and religious. I imagine that has much more to do with any disparity -- if there even is one ("I like your lack of a reference," I believe the man said) -- than whether or not religion is taught. As for segregating theists: atheism is not a religion, theists are not segregated, and you're an idiot. Show me evidence to the contrary on any of those points.
espeir wrote:
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
Take your head out of this thread (or wherever your head happens to be), and look around. You will see people -- usually Christians, usually creationists -- asserting all over the place that atheism is a religion. That would seem to constitute co
Of course atheism is a religion. There is no need to provide evidence. That's like asking to prove that a dog is a dog. Atheism is a deity belief system that simply asserts the opposite that most (not all) major religions assert and is therefore, by definition, a religion. However, I'm unsurprised by your unwillingness to admit that atheism is a religion, because all your church and state arguments immediately fall by the wayside...as they should. I would also expect that athsists would vehemently deny that it's a religion every chance they get, just as I would expect those who adhere to a different religion to make this obvious point (though I have never heard this argument made in a legal battle, which is actually what I meant by "discussions"). I think those from other religions are just tired of you atheists trying to shove your religion down every one else's throats. It's very tiresome.
-
That's my point. Evolution is built on conjecture and mere invention. Might this work? Might that work? Maybe? That's likely. That sounds good. etc... The truth is you're correct about evoloution being paleontology (which is based on a social science...not "real" science). That's how the theory of evolution is structured. You're wrong that we know that hairlessness has imparted on us a reproductive advantage because, just like ID, that's a circular argument. The theory that evolution is the result of reproductive advantages comes from such conjectures made above. In truth we haven't the slightest idea of the cause of such evolutionary progressions, but we arrogantly assume we do. There is surprisingly little evidence for natural selection as a means of evolution, other than the notion that animals "fit" their environments. ID doesn't provide any answers, however I think it contributes to a much needed debate in the scientific community about how evolution actually occurs. This debate is being ignored in favor of ludicrous conjecture about apes being hot.
espeir wrote:
That's my point. Evolution is built on conjecture and mere invention. Might this work? Might that work? Maybe? That's likely. That sounds good. etc...
As I have previously indicated, I think debating you is a waste of time since you are clearly a religious dogmatist. However, I will waste a little time. Conjecture and invention are standard techniques of the open-minded seeking to solve puzzles. Thus their use suggests that evolutionists are the opposite of the dogmatists you claim. At the end of the day, science requires that the conjectures be confronted by the facts and if they don't fit them, then the scientists must search for a better explanation. Various explanations have been offered for hairlessness and these have been subjected to critical scrutiny, just like they should be. A recent explanation is that hairlessness offers protection from parasites that lodge in fur. Humans, owing to their intelligence, can wear clothing that, if infested, can be discarded. It is also suggested that sexual selection may have played a role (humans with less hair were more sexually attractive and hence more likely to reproduce). As always, these ideas must be confronted with the facts and they have been and will be. Evolutionary science is alive and well and doing what it should do. The more fundamental point is that the operation of natural selection has been well established, both in the laboratory and in the field, but that doesn't mean, and one should not expect, that its detailed operation can be known for each and every characteristic of each and every species --- barring time machines and unlimited resources to devote to their use. Explanations of historical events are constrained by the availability of data and by the limits to human ingenuity in coming up with the right explanation. It is very much like a detective puzzle involving a crime; both evidence and the creative imagination to make sense of the evidence --- and, often, to tell where to look for more evidence --- is required to solve the puzzle. Inevitably, there will be cases where scientists can't come up with a good explanation, just as criminal investigators cannot always identify the guilty party. However, enough cases can be solved in order to understand how these things work in general.
espeir wrote:
ID doesn't provide any answers, however I think it contributes to a much needed debate in the scientific community about
-
Of course atheism is a religion. There is no need to provide evidence. That's like asking to prove that a dog is a dog. Atheism is a deity belief system that simply asserts the opposite that most (not all) major religions assert and is therefore, by definition, a religion. However, I'm unsurprised by your unwillingness to admit that atheism is a religion, because all your church and state arguments immediately fall by the wayside...as they should. I would also expect that athsists would vehemently deny that it's a religion every chance they get, just as I would expect those who adhere to a different religion to make this obvious point (though I have never heard this argument made in a legal battle, which is actually what I meant by "discussions"). I think those from other religions are just tired of you atheists trying to shove your religion down every one else's throats. It's very tiresome.
If you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Would that be a yes? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith! If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith? If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion. Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so ;P Rhys In the 60s, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.