[Mefustae]

I think you scared him off. We need some more creationists on this forum.

[NGTM-1R]

I think you scared him off. We need some more creationists on this forum.

Don't say things like that.

[Bobboau]

but it's boring without enough of them to put up some sort of fight, can't we at least get someone who trys to use the second law of thermodynamics, or maybe a full on young earther or something.

[jr2]

As long as you guys don't bother being considerate in how many responses you give one post, no one will be likely to bother much.  One point at a time.  Niiice, and slow... you might get places.  Although this thread doesn't have this problem, yet.  But if enough people get going on this, you'll have a Evolutionist / Creationist post ratio of 10:1  .... no thx.  No point trying to keep track of what ten people's points are.

[Mefustae]

As long as you guys don't bother being considerate in how many responses you give one post, no one will be likely to bother much.  One point at a time.  Niiice, and slow... you might get places.  Although this thread doesn't have this problem, yet.  But if enough people get going on this, you'll have a Evolutionist / Creationist post ratio of 10:1  .... no thx.  No point trying to keep track of what ten people's points are.

You may not have noticed, but therein lies a deliciously ironic point. Creationists try to argue that they know how the universe/world/life began, and either can't be stuffed or just downright refuse to actually read any of the large amount of easily-obtainable information about either side of the issue. It's no small surprise that that behavior is mirrored in discussion threads.

But yes, having every pro-Creationist post followed by a barrage of 10+ posts each pointing out different ways in why the original poster was wrong can be somewhat disheartening.

[jr2]

*cough*  Not to mention, this is done in one's spare time.  Ten Evolutionist posters may have fifteen minutes each, but I sincerely doubt the Creationist poster is going to take two and a half hours to respond.  (Well, G0atmaster might try... I'll give him credit for that.)  Then, when the Creationist's response fails to answer all of the points raised (at least to the Evolutionists' satisfaction), they claim that the Creationist didn't read what they posted.  Hmm... maybe he didn't... who's to blame him?  Proper debates have ground rules... I suppose we could set some of those up, it'd make it a whole lot nicer.

[Mefustae]

Proper debates have ground rules... I suppose we could set some of those up, it'd make it a whole lot nicer.

Well, except for the fact that a "proper debate" would legitimatize creationism or, God forbid, Intelligent Design as an actual alternative to the current scientific models.

Remember, children: Science is for how the nuts and bolts fit together, philosophy is for why the nuts and bolts fit together.

[karajorma]

Kinda makes nonsense of the creationists favourite claim that evolution is still a highly controversial or scientifically debated theory if pretty much everyone says the same thing about it too.

[TrashMan]

All I'm gonna say is, that as much as I love science, it has it's limits and flaws.

People who balantly go against it without thinking are idiots - no question about it. But not even science is allways right and can be as dogmatic and blind as the worst of religions.

[Wobble73]

All I'm gonna say is, that as much as I love science, it has it's limits and flaws.

That's because science is conducted by humans and we all know how they make mistakes, it's why they put the eraser at the end of a pencil!

[Ace]

But if enough people get going on this, you'll have a Evolutionist / Creationist post ratio of 10:1  .... no thx.

gg, no re.

Really the ratio should be 5.6 billion: 0

Until then, none of us are safe from...

THE LAND OF NOD!

...and other such bibleverse threats to humanity.

Yessiree that's right. Tons of nasty threats:
1. Land of Nod
2. Ezekiel's Wheel People/Things/Xeno Scum
3. Seraphim

...and it goes on!

[jr2]

  Duuude.. where'd you get that catnip from?  Seems like it's the bomb.

[Ace]

Hey, if you guys say you believe every word of that book as literal truth, then you gotta account for those bits too.

[Kosh]

What about the Brotherhood of Nod?



EDIT: OMG! You're right! We have so much to ph34r!!!!!!!!!!111111111111oneoneoneone

http://www.landofnod.com/

[TrashMan]

  EGADS! The HORRORS! Kane is making a new army for himself!

[hip63]

To believe in the invisble man or everthing popped out of a big galactic firecracker?

I think everybody is stupid.

The real answer? NOBODY FREAKIN' KNOWS, OK???!!!!

Except maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

hip63

[Stealth]

she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

Shes a director of science and saying ID isnt science. Whats the problem? Its with the morons that decided that ID should be given immunity just because some religious people cant deal with the fact that it isnt scientific. Apparently faith isnt enough for them

i'm sure there were procedures for presenting a new idea, or a new 'fact' or whatever you want to call it.  procedures she clearly didn't follow. she obviously didn't play by the rules.  she broke them.  and for that she was fired.

[Stealth]

Sigh. The question I ask myself is do I have time to argue the same thing with a new person.

Faith doesn't mean suspending our logical faculties, or believing in things that are patently false. 

Apparently though faith isnt enough for these religious types in this case because they need to pretend their religious views are scientifically supportable

If anything, the evolution curriculum in schools and the mindset among scientists is far more faith then science.  We teach unproven conjecture as truth, employ circular reasoning to reach conclusions, utilize known to be faulty methodology, and make colossal assumptions about things we can't prove because we didn't watch them happen.  

"Prove", you keep using that word. I dont think it means what you think it means.

We cant observe anything in forensic science in the same way either, but its still science. FYI, all science is theory even science we do observe with our own eyes.

Then when something comes along that poses a serious problem for our mindset, we gloss over it or bend ourselves backwards making the theory work without requiring the intervention of a deity.

Then provide a good reason why we should assume a supernatural explanation.

And that's why evolution isn't really science: It refuses from the start to acknowledge the possibility of more then mere physical reality, even if such a possibility is more likely then the alternative.

Thats not just Evolution, thats the case with all of science. Science cant start with the assumption there is more than "physical reality" if it has no reason to presume it.

When you know the conclusion before you start, how is that not faith?  True objective reason precludes rejecting potential conclusions out of hand.

Very true but thats the case for religion and why ID and Creationism isnt science.

I don't think instruction in ID should be a mandatory part of the classroom, but teaching the arguments against Darwinism should be.  

And what arguments would that be? Im all for that if it were true, but arguments IDists and Creationists put forward are usually not only false but dishonest misrepresentations and usually completely wrong about damned near everything.

All too often groups of scientists campaign against curriculum that merely detailed problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory, without mentioning ID at all.  Sounds an awful lot like religious behavior on their part.

ID is just way to get Creationism into class without calling it Creationism, as they knew they couldnt win another court case.  The Discovery Institute even used a Creationist text book and slowly changed all the references from creator to designer over several years. Thats what Pandas to People became. They didnt even bother to use new arguments. I dont think theres any new argument that wasnt just a rehashed version Creationists hadent been using for decades. After the Dover trial which ruled that you couldnt teach ID  as it wasnt scientific, Dr Kenneth Miller said they now want to try just emphasising the "problems" of evolution rather than mentioning ID at all! Its just a new tactic, but it all comes from the same dishonest origin.

Calling ID "bunk" because "Scientific Journals" have published articles that claim to "disprove" their ideas is a lot like suggesting Louis Pasteur was crazy because all the other doctors didn't believe in germs and said as much.

Pasteur had real scientific evidence which is why they had to accept it, same with every scientific theory. ID has no scientific evidence. Prof Behe admitted in the Dover trial that ID is a scientific theory like Astrology was, when asked to explain his definiton of a scientific theory.

Ed

[Bobboau]

i'm sure there were procedures for presenting a new idea, or a new 'fact' or whatever you want to call it.  procedures she clearly didn't follow. she obviously didn't play by the rules.  she broke them.  and for that she was fired.

ok, two points, she forwarded information about a speech someone else was going to give, she didn't say much herself.

but much more importantly, she is the science director, does it not make since that she would try to defend science, is that not a good quality to have in some one who's job it is to make sure that the science curriculum is in good order? are these policies not in fact in conflict with each other? it's like telling the captain of a ship, 'ok it's your job to make sure the ship doesn't hit any ice bergs, but your not allowed to change the ship's speed or heading'

[Edward Bradshaw]

she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

Shes a director of science and saying ID isnt science. Whats the problem? Its with the morons that decided that ID should be given immunity just because some religious people cant deal with the fact that it isnt scientific. Apparently faith isnt enough for them

i'm sure there were procedures for presenting a new idea, or a new 'fact' or whatever you want to call it.  procedures she clearly didn't follow. she obviously didn't play by the rules.  she broke them.  and for that she was fired.

There are new procedures and ID doesnt follow them they want to bypass the scientific process. So she did nothing wrong  but if she was in a Creationist school she should have known they would fire her.