[WMCoolmon]

Just because someone 'intelligent' designs something doesn't mean it works perfectly.

Case in point, Windows (Or SCP. )

Edit: Hmm, not that I'm conceited or anything...

[Nuke]

then theres the nihilistic view that intelegence does not exist. i dont think there is a way to scientifficaly test free will. can we decide how the vast chain reactions in our brain operate, or do they just run and create the illusion that we do? was technollogy invented or is it a natural evolution? does the scientiffic process work in a beyond 3 dimentional universe, a universe which works in many more dimentions according to quantum mechanics and string theory? by this reasoning one cant even confirm the existince of the universe.

another thing. all things being equil the way shcools teach greek, norse and egyptian 'mythology' (all of which were and still are practiced religions), they should teach christian 'mythology' as well. you can thank the christian churge for erasing thousands of years of pagan ideaology only to teach it as mythology in school and in a negative light. the church operates as a cult in some cases, they try to dictate personality, control what knoledge you can learn, how to interpret scripture, as well as punish and discredit anyone that thinks independantly. the first thing they should teach in school is that all human knoledge is not written in stone, and is subject to change. the focus needs to get away from the details and focus on creating a mindset that promotes more open and effietent learning process.

[aldo_14]

I think panda thumbs and the human urethra are examples that run contrary to the concept of intelligent design.  IMO the creationist 'arguement' is simply a series of over-simplificiations or sheer untruths intended to attack existing evidence and conclusions, rather than to actually derive some factual scientific conclusion.

That's why I tend to get pissed off at it; it's an attempt to destroy something they don't like rather than actually examine it and see what the proveable / evidence-able alternatives are.

This, incidentally, I find very disturbing;

[q]
It would not be far-fetched, said William S. Harris, a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design, to conclude that DNA itself is the work of an intelligent being. Students, he said, should be told that.[/q]

That's not science (there's simply no evidence, no way proving it); that's religion, and should be taught in religious education.  That's what RE is for, after all.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Night Hammer


people down here(texas) say the same thing about our neck of the woods(new jersey/newyork)

edit: ()for clarification

You nuke Jersey, you lose all your prescription drugs. You nuke New York--well, I don't think I need to finish that one.  Oh hell, that goes for Jersey too, since most of us are former New Yorkers.

Jeez, you know this is serious when Penn and Teller get involved.

Ha! Intelligent design! As usual the Judaeo-Christians are trying to disguise something. One just needs to look at the origin of Christmas or Easter to see this. We'd be taking a step backwards if ID were taught as science. You might as well tell me not to go into the woods, because a dragon lives there. If it must be taught, teach it in religion. They don't belong together. Teaching it as science would be an insult to the entire field of study!

[Ford Prefect]

a universe which works in many more dimentions according to quantum mechanics and string theory? by this reasoning one cant even confirm the existince of the universe.

String theory is far from being accepted science. It still doesn't hold water too well; it's a big, clumsy, over-complicated idea.

As for proving our existence, all I have to say is: Cogito ergo sum.

[WeatherOp]

You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by Bobboau
click on me, I am important

Y'know, that's the first time I've EVER seen P&T's show. Is it still aired?

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.

Don't even get started on this...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.

So are you promising us that stupidity and ignorance in Kansas would stay there? The have the internet in Kansas too you know.

Of course the various random hottie threads would probably get HLP branded as pornographic and we wouldn't have to see them

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by karajorma


So are you promising us that stupidity and ignorance in Kansas would stay there? The have the internet in Kansas too you know.

Naw, I'm just saying that it is the people in Kansas' choice I would think.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.

Precedence.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by karajorma


So are you promising us that stupidity and ignorance in Kansas would stay there? The have the internet in Kansas too you know.

Of course the various random hottie threads would probably get HLP branded as pornographic and we wouldn't have to see them

Not in my school. We, instead, get HLP under the category "Games" and "Violence."

What violence they mean, I'll never know

Originally posted by karajorma

Naw, I'm just saying that it is the people in Kansas' choice I would think
 

Irrelevant, since Creationism is religion and not Science.

It's kinda like cancer. First they teach it in some form of Religious Education, then Science, and next, it'll be World History.

[Annorax]

So apparently there's some kind of law against teaching the evolutionary theory that Gil Gerard used a time machine, went back in time, and ejaculated in the primordial ooze?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Annorax
So apparently there's some kind of law against teaching the evolutionary theory that Gil Gerard used a time machine, went back in time, and ejaculated in the primordial ooze?

Yep. The F**k Rogers in the -10,000,000th Century theory was disproved a few years back. Didn't you see the paper in Nature?

[IceFire]

Here's how I see it.

Science class teaches science.  Theories, practices, concepts, etc.  History class teaches history.  English teaches English.  Religion teaches religion.

Some people get that religious perspective from their school (if its say a Catholic school or whatever) and some people get that from church.  And some people don't get it at all...which works too.  But lets not confuse them.

These schools must not have a terribly multicultural background either as teaching just one creation concept as taught by religion is bound to make someone annoyed.  I find the science version sufficiently neutral from any religious belief so that people can either use it or integrate it or not.

I like from what I read in this instance that there is at least an attempt to use integration.  They aren't denying DNA or evolution...they are mostly offering a way to incorporate their religious beliefs into practical science.  Which is fine...on an individual level...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by IceFire
Here's how I see it.

Science class teaches science.  Theories, practices, concepts, etc.  History class teaches history.  English teaches English.  Religion teaches religion.

Some people get that religious perspective from their school (if its say a Catholic school or whatever) and some people get that from church.  And some people don't get it at all...which works too.  But lets not confuse them.

These schools must not have a terribly multicultural background either as teaching just one creation concept as taught by religion is bound to make someone annoyed.  I find the science version sufficiently neutral from any religious belief so that people can either use it or integrate it or not.

I like from what I read in this instance that there is at least an attempt to use integration.  They aren't denying DNA or evolution...they are mostly offering a way to incorporate their religious beliefs into practical science.  Which is fine...on an individual level...

but in the science classroom?

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.


It's kinda like cancer. First they teach it in some form of Religious Education, then Science, and next, it'll be World History.

Kinda what happened to evolution.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WeatherOp



Kinda what happened to evolution.

Eh?

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

String theory is far from being accepted science. It still doesn't hold water too well; it's a big, clumsy, over-complicated idea.

As for proving our existence, all I have to say is: Cogito ergo sum.

Descartes was full of ****. that statement cant really be scientiffically proven.you cant correlate thinking to existing, we cant even define thinking and existing scientiffically. i find it a shame that it is the anthem for so many scientists. as for string theory being overcomplicated, it is, and to a simmilar degree as theology. you shouldnt teach what to think you should teach how to think. the context is irrelevant.

[Ford Prefect]

"Cogito ergo sum" is a philosophical proof. Simply the act of thinking is, in and of itself, something. It doesn't prove that we exist in the sense we assume we exist, but our experiences are self-evident. The basic fact that we experience, in and of itself, means that something, in some way, shape, or form, exists.