so called scientific morones

[martinexsquaddie]

just read kansas is having some debate regarding "intelligent design" should be taught in schools :roll: :roll: :( . As science :roll: its about as scientific as my belief that the internet is run by tiny japanese fighting robots that deliver free pizza rofl.
I take it seriously if they could find a scientist who belived in it who was'nt also a member of a fringe christian church :( . you want to belive god made the world fine thats a faith postion and ok ( i'm not going to respect that view because frankly I'm an athesit but I'm not going to demand that my views on god bothers should be taught in sunday schools as swearing at young children is a bad idea :( .
the barking fringe of the christen right seems to have a problem with the enlightment and possibly the reformation although there not that keen on the catholic church :lol:.
teaching school children religious beliefs as science is a bad bad move what next the sun goes round the earth. the earth is flat. nasa faked the moon landings :roll: .
the bible possibly has some important lessons to teach people but there not about physical science and compostion of the universe :-*$

[Uhlan]

just read kansas is having some debate regarding "intelligent design" should be taught in schools :roll: :roll: :( . As science :roll: its about as scientific as my belief that the internet is run by tiny japanese fighting robots that deliver free pizza rofl.
I take it seriously if they could find a scientist who belived in it who was'nt also a member of a fringe christian church :( . you want to belive god made the world fine thats a faith postion and ok ( i'm not going to respect that view because frankly I'm an athesit but I'm not going to demand that my views on god bothers should be taught in sunday schools as swearing at young children is a bad idea :( .
the barking fringe of the christen right seems to have a problem with the enlightment and possibly the reformation although there not that keen on the catholic church :lol:.
teaching school children religious beliefs as science is a bad bad move what next the sun goes round the earth. the earth is flat. nasa faked the moon landings :roll: .
the bible possibly has some important lessons to teach people but there not about physical science and compostion of the universe :-*$

Well said, these people want to take us back into the middle ages...and how do I get my free pizza delivered?

[martinexsquaddie]

you have to have my faith my brother rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Herrmannek]

its teached here in Poland at least was when i was in school of course acompanied with classes about evolution and totaly incidental creation of life... I don't see nothing wrong when all aspects will be shown. In teaching science hostorical background never hurts.. Same with geography there is few theories about how continents where created don't remember details. Chemistry(atom construction), physics(astronomy believes) and with every other ****... I don't get what all that hype is about...

[Thom]

The fundamentatlists are just using this as a backdoor to pedal their beliefs. they must have forgotten the scopes trial by now? they lost back then, and we have much much more evidence for the support of evolution... and what is the evidence for intelligent design?

"it looks complicated.. therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED!! :D"

fraid not, that just shows a extreme lack of understanding of science and processes.

by all means teach of intelligent design in religious education classes, but please keep it away from science. in science for something to be generally accepted it has to have lots to back it up. evolution does, intelligent design doesn't. do you really want psudo-science teaching your kids?

[MEGR]

Morones. [Sp.]
An inferior olive size having a woody pulp and a large
clingstone pit, growing in the mountainous and high-valley
districts around the city of Moron, in Spain.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I think this months American Scientist has a couple of pages on the struggles of science teaching in US schools pre 50's era.

[caridon]

@ Uhlan

witch game is your picture from ?
/C - boardgamer

[Uhlan]

@ Uhlan

witch game is your picture from ?
/C - boardgamer

See here

LINK (http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/jbull.html)

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/BritVet.gif

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/CanFenc.gif

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/FanInd.gif

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/Kent.gif

And for a change of pace...

LINK (http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/redactions.html)

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/cosscd.gif

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/polecd.gif

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/INDCAV.gif

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/JPNS.gif

[fdt]

For me all this american creationists vs evolutionists crap is helplessly shallow. Donleys and elephants have opened a new front of eternal struggle... problem is they both don't understand what they are quarreling about this time... :cantbeli:

ID isn't a scientific theory and it isn't an alternative to natural selection or any other scientific theory, but it can be considered as one of the many possible logical metaphysical extensions. The universe would appear the same to us whether it was designed by God or not. Empirical theories are about how the world appears to us and have no business positing why the world appears this way, or that it is probably designed because of how unlikely it is that this or that happened by chance. That is the business of metaphysics. ID is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical theory. The fact that it has empirical content doesn't make it any more scientific than, say, Spinoza's metaphysics or so-called creation science.

ID in it's American mutation is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on observation or experience. Empirical theories can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical. Neither the whole of Nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently or unintelligently designed. A design theory and a natural law theory that makes no reference to design can account for Nature as a whole and for individual eco-systems.

Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the least of which is that the universe follows laws. But Science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant to strictly scientific explanations. Science is open to both theists and atheists alike.

If we grant that the universe is possibly or even probably the result of intelligent design, what is the next step? For example, assume a particular eco-system is the creation of an intelligent designer. Unless this intelligent designer is one of us, i.e., human, and unless we have some experience with the creations of this and similar designers, how could we proceed to study this system? If all we know is that it is the result of ID, but that the designer is of a different order of being than we are, how would we proceed to study this system? Wouldn't we be limited in always responding in the same way to any question we asked about the system's relation to its designer? It is this way because of ID. Furthermore, wouldn't we have to assume that since God, the intelligent designer, designed everything, even us, that no matter what happens, it is always a sign of and due to intelligent design. The theory explains everything but illuminates nothing.

[von_Moo142]

It's interesting to argue about clocks in deserts, or about the thermodynamics of forming life from a bunch of precursers (anyone care to think about the entropic implications of forming some of the polymeric structures needed for the first self replicating life/life-precursor structures?). These are good thought experiments, but to get the most out of them they must be presented in the correct context for learning. It's not so good to use these concepts out of that context to spread ignorance, and I see many similarities between this and popular "pseudoscience" crank faith.

[nagant_m44]

They are both theories that cannot be proven, and they both require faith to believe. No one has observed evolution and no one has observed creation.

[martinexsquaddie]

thats weasal answer from somebody who has'nt read Darwin :(
if ID is a scientific theory then why can't my theory of mini pizza delivering japanese robots be used instead of tedious TCP/IP PROTOCOLS reguarding
how the net works?
answer because its wrong and mad
rofl
ah my breakfast pizza has arrived I'm off

[Herrmannek]

thats weasal answer from somebody who has'nt read Darwin :(
if ID is a scientific theory then why can't my theory of mini pizza delivering japanese robots be used instead of tedious TCP/IP PROTOCOLS reguarding
how the net works?
answer because its wrong and mad
rofl
ah my breakfast pizza has arrived I'm off
Fact one theory seems to be more doubtfull than oter doesn't tear its right to be theory :)

[martinexsquaddie]

yes one theory is an accepted scientific theory

ID isn't an accepted scienfific theory its faith based puesdoscience pushed by fanatics who can't get anyone to belive creationism is valid science anymore.

[dangerclose]

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Conjecture: Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

Last I checked, evolution was just a theory and is nothing but guesswork.
It's claims have been refuted time and again e.g. Nebraska Man. Yet the biblical historical record continues to be corroborated by archeological discovery among other things.


The DNA strand is a language - a code and in itself evidence of intelligent design hence an intelligent Designer. To believe that the universe just happened by random chance is analogous to walking along a beach and coming across the words "John loves Mary" written in the sand and attributing that to natural causes.

It takes a great deal more faith (blind faith) to believe in evolution than to believe the eyewitness account - Genesis.

[martinexsquaddie]

oh my god :roll:

[martinexsquaddie]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
so much for that being a rebuttal try a bit harder

[Herrmannek]

I actualy don't think ID is much contradicted with Evolution..Ever heard of evolutionary algorithms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
It would be cool if we would be subject of such experiment made by Inteligent creature...

[The Chap]

They are both theories that cannot be proven, and they both require faith to believe. No one has observed evolution and no one has observed creation.

Due to the phenomenal amount of generations of single cell life forms such as bacteria, one can observe evolution. E.g. of bacteria that become drug resistent. Also the fact that we share 99% of our DNA with monkeys (can't remember which exact species), about 94% of our DNA with mice, is also a strong indicator of evoultion since we know for a fact that the genetic makeup of an animal is passed on to their children. Also as someone mentioned above, in certain Artificial Intelligence techniques, Evolutionary/genetic programming has been produced.
Weigh all this up with the evidence of creation, and you can guess which theory I believe.

[Kilgor]

Due to the phenomenal amount of generations of single cell life forms such as bacteria, one can observe evolution. E.g. of bacteria that become drug resistent. Also the fact that we share 99% of our DNA with monkeys (can't remember which exact species), about 94% of our DNA with mice, is also a strong indicator of evoultion since we know for a fact that the genetic makeup of an animal is passed on to their children. Also as someone mentioned above, in certain Artificial Intelligence techniques, Evolutionary/genetic programming has been produced.
Weigh all this up with the evidence of creation, and you can guess which theory I believe.

The christian talliban dont see it that way. Since when is established facts important... blind faith and obedence to god is needed !

Oh yeah.. the world is flat, in the centre of the universe, and was made 6000 years ago.

[Hawaii_Light]

DUDE (martinexsquaddie), you have so many smilies in your post :lol: :lol: :lol:
:D

[martinexsquaddie]

let them get away with this and whats next.
the whole cosmos thats whats next next bible says the earth is the centre of the universe Hubble says no. but I'm sure they can fix that with enough faith close down the astronomy classes and burn the books. torture the data enough and it will confess the truth. The Universe is a put up job the stars have lied about there age all of creation an illusonary after image :roll:.
to think tony let one of these snake oil scum bags into the uk :(

[moughoun]

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Conjecture: Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

Last I checked, evolution was just a theory and is nothing but guesswork.
It's claims have been refuted time and again e.g. Nebraska Man. Yet the biblical historical record continues to be corroborated by archeological discovery among other things.


The DNA strand is a language - a code and in itself evidence of intelligent design hence an intelligent Designer. To believe that the universe just happened by random chance is analogous to walking along a beach and coming across the words "John loves Mary" written in the sand and attributing that to natural causes.

It takes a great deal more faith (blind faith) to believe in evolution than to believe the eyewitness account - Genesis.

not to be down on your faith or anything but can you actually back that up, what archeological evidence, or is this the same evidnce that showed either the dinosaur's never existed or worse walked among human's?, genisis was an eye witness account!?!, evolution can be observed in lower form's of life, what make's you think man is any different?

[combat jack]

They are both theories that cannot be proven, and they both require faith to believe. No one has observed evolution and no one has observed creation.

I believed you nailed it. One more option, right? Nothing wrong with a well rounded education, though. Retarded monkies makes the most sense to me right now, if you must know. Just sounds like more homework to me.

[martinexsquaddie]

evolution is a scientific theory you can use if for predictions
Id isn't a scientific theory :(

[Legion]

Science class is for Science.

Sunday school is for ID.

Problem solved.

[dangerclose]

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Conjecture: Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

Last I checked, evolution was just a theory and is nothing but guesswork.
It's claims have been refuted time and again e.g. Nebraska Man. Yet the biblical historical record continues to be corroborated by archeological discovery among other things.


The DNA strand is a language - a code and in itself evidence of intelligent design hence an intelligent Designer. To believe that the universe just happened by random chance is analogous to walking along a beach and coming across the words "John loves Mary" written in the sand and attributing that to natural causes.

It takes a great deal more faith (blind faith) to believe in evolution than to believe the eyewitness account - Genesis.

not to be down on your faith or anything but can you actually back that up, what archeological evidence, or is this the same evidnce that showed either the dinosaur's never existed or worse walked among human's?, genisis was an eye witness account!?!, evolution can be observed in lower form's of life, what make's you think man is any different?


In the book of Job in the old testament God describes a dinosaur (40:15-19), reveals the structure of an atom, the polar ice caps (unknown to anyone in that region at that time), undersea springs (again .. unknowable at that time but later discovered). The existence of some cities described in the old testament bible were at first disputed and scoffed at by archeologists but have since been discovered and corroborate the biblical account. The book of Isaiah describes the round earth. And all of this isn't counting fulfilled prophecy.

Yes, evolution is just a theory and can claim to be nothing else.

The bible does not present itself as a theory but as an eyewitness record.
Yes, God was there when He created the earth.



- The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false.

[The Chap]

In the book of Job in the old testament God describes a dinosaur (40:15-19), reveals the structure of an atom, the polar ice caps (unknown to anyone in that region at that time), undersea springs (again .. unknowable at that time but later discovered), the existence of some cities described in the old testament bible were at first disputed and scoffed at by archeologists but have since been discovered and corroborate the biblical account. The book of Isaiah describes the round earth. And all of this isn't counting fulfilled prophecy.

Yes, evolution is just a theory and can claim to be nothing else.

The bible does not present itself as a theory but as an eyewitness record.
Yes, God was there when He created the earth.



- The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false.


Evolution can claim to be a lot more, due to the fact that it is a scientific model that is able to predict the outcomes of various events (see my last post on this thread). It was the Greeks that first came up with the rudimentary concept of an atom (an indivisible sub unit). The Greeks also discovered the Earth was round due to scientific reasoning. They wondered why when a ship was on the horizon, you could only see the mast and gradually the whole ship would come into view. They concluded that the ship would have to be travelling on a curved surface for this effect.

To suggest that the Bible as an eyewitness record is also rather naïve. What about accounts of various miracles that were performed?. Are we to believe them because the bible says so?. As anyone that studied history would realise, all written accounts always contain some degree of bias due to the various motives of the people writing them.
I’m afraid you will have to do a tad better than “Yes, God was there when He created the earth.”

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

And are all of the above are clearly stated and unopen to interpretation?

EDIT:

Ok you mean this version.. The King James version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div)



15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16: Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17: He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18: His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19: He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Or this one... The revised standard version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div1)


15: "Behold, Be'hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox.
16: Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18: His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.
19: "He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword!

Some key differences there.

[Lazy Lob]

When I get old and senile :( and my prostate packs up, my liver shrivels, my hearing is non existent and I'm shaking like a dildo I'll swallow a bible and I'll get better. Thank god for theory.

[dangerclose]

And are all of the above are clearly stated and unopen to interpretation?

EDIT:

Ok you mean this version.. The King James version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div)



15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16: Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17: He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18: His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19: He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Or this one... The revised standard version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div1)


15: "Behold, Be'hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox.
16: Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18: His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.
19: "He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword!

Some key differences there.

What are key differences in the parts you highlighted? ?

Both translations have God describing a behemoth land herbivore with a tail like a cedar tree (Brontosaurus?) There are no contemporary animals that share those characteristics.

That passage is in response to those who think the bible denies the existence of dinosaurs and thus the fossil record refutes the bible. In fact, the fossil record has bolstered biblical claims while being an embarrassment to proponents of evolution (Where are the transitional fossils?)

[The Chap]

Both translations have God describing a behemoth land herbivore with a tail like a cedar tree (Brontosaurus?) There are no contemporary animals that share those characteristics.

That passage is in response to those who think the bible denies the existence of dinosaurs and thus the fossil record refutes the bible. In fact, the fossil record has bolstered biblical claims while being an embarrassment to proponents of evolution (Where are the transitional fossils?)

Thats a simplified view of the fossil situation. Personally I wouldn't even consider a book that claims that the Earth was created in seven days (on the fringes of the Universe, this is being proved wrong), and jesus managed to feed 5000 people with some crumbs, worthy of even wiping my arse with.

Just look at my last two posts, which you conviently ignored.

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

And are all of the above are clearly stated and unopen to interpretation?

EDIT:

Ok you mean this version.. The King James version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div)



15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16: Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17: He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18: His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19: He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Or this one... The revised standard version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div1)


15: "Behold, Be'hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox.
16: Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18: His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.
19: "He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword!

Some key differences there.

What are key differences in the parts you highlighted? ?

Both translations have God describing a behemoth land herbivore with a tail like a cedar tree (Brontosaurus?) There are no contemporary animals that share those characteristics.

That passage is in response to those who think the bible denies the existence of dinosaurs and thus the fossil record refutes the bible. In fact, the fossil record has bolstered biblical claims while being an embarrassment to proponents of evolution (Where are the transitional fossils?)

The two key differences are as follows...

The King James version (the older translation) says


He is the chief of the ways of God

Where as the revised version says


He is the first of the works of God

Now it is obvious that the revised version adapted this line purely to account for Dinosaurs.

The original line mentions nothing of being first created. In fact, in it's context it is referring to an "enforcer" type creature working for god.

Quite how that was adapted to say "the first of the works of God" I don't know. I'm guessing that the adapted version was created purely to iron out obvious flaws in the bible story.

It's a shame that there are no other mentions to the most significant creatures to walk the earth before humans.

You'd think God would be more proud of these magnificent creatures than to totally disregard them in the bible.