"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“Mutt, I'll debate you on either point, using science - no bible - if you can do so without personal attacks, including attacks on my religion.

Only your and my posts will be considered.


Are you capable?”

“That's a refreshing change, Sarge. Usually getting you to put forth what you believe is like pulling teeth. I asked in good faith, and will refrain from insulting you. However, I have seen both before (from creationists/IDers). Do you have any you consider not very well discussed? Or a product of your own intellect?”

“That's a refreshing change, Sarge. Usually getting you to put forth what you believe is like pulling teeth.

Obviously you didn't read this thread, and note the difference between me, trying to stay on topic, and others, such as yourself, trying to talk about me.

Do you have any you consider not very well discussed? Or a product of your own intellect?

My intellect is incapable of understanding what the hell you just asked me.”

“If you're asking me which of the two scientific pieces of evidence that I listed above are not very well discussed, I would say the second one, for sure. In fact, I have never seen a scientist willing to discuss it. (that does NOT mean a scientist has never been willing to discuss it, it's just from my experience that they have shyed away) (sp? "shyed"??)

The first one is discussed from time to time, but in my experience, the scientist tries to change the subject when asked specifics.”

“Those are two of the more common talking points I've seen from IDers/Creationists. I'm just wondering if had come up with something on your own.”

“No. Although I would say that I am the only IDer that I know of that consistently insists on staying on topic instead of talking about evolution, which is off-topic.

So, are you going to pick one? They are both "science", and should easily meet your criteria.”

“Oh, I've seen the "mathematical impossibility" time and again. Sometimes it manifests itself in terms of abiogenesis, sometimes in the cosmological sense.”

“still waiting on you to pick one ...

Oh, and your claim on the other thread that I only argue from the Bible, and not science, is wrong, as you can plainly see.

awaiting apology .....”

“I never said you argued from the Bible. I said (implied) that what you consider scientific facts are in fact not.”

“
� � As the Worm Turns.....

”

“So Mutt, you're not willing to debate this scientific angle on the topic?”

“Sure you can troll Sarge anytime with this stuff, but what's the point?”

“See what I mean Mutt? I keep trying to discuss the scientific implications, but all I get in feedback is (1) being ignored, (2) personal insults.

The whole thread reads like that.


typical
last edited: 3/17/08 11:53:42 AM”

“Go on Mutt, poke him again.”

“If you'd have brought up anything that wasn't a dead horse, I just might take you up on the debate. As it was, I was just curious what you considered "scientific fact".”

“Didn't mean to "ignore" you, Sarge.”

“Ok, so we understand each other - you accused me of not debating using science, but when I showed you that I do (some of these arguments are on this thread previously, in fact), and asked you to debate those scientific facts, you will not debate? Right?”

“Wrong - I mocked you in the other thread. In this thread, I honestly asked you what you considered to be a scientific fact in support of a designer, and you responded with two common ID arguments. Thank you for your forthrightness. Those arguments are NOT "scientific facts" in support of ID, and they've been beaten to death already, as you indicate.”

“You'd both have plenty dead horses to put in a circle if the Globe warmers came in for a raid. silly conliberatives.”

“Those arguments are NOT "scientific facts" in support of ID

Like I said, I will be glad to provide the facts surrounding those arguments if you want to debate either one of them.

and they've been beaten to death already, as you indicate.

I indicated that people like you are unwilling to debate them, as you've demonstrated once again.

Thank you.”

“�Sure you can troll Sarge anytime with this stuff, but what's the point?� - Tilt

Tilt, your perception is that you're either trolling Sarge, or not. That's fine. If you think on that level, that's your problem. I am here, willing to debate somebody who is also willing to debate this without name calling and personal attacks. (if you read this thread, you'll see that is a scarce thing)

Life for you might be one giant troll, but there are adults who like to discuss adult topics. Don't impose your trollish view of the world on me. I'm not so stupid that I don't recognize people who are trying to inflame. I might right back at them, or just play it straight and continue the debate just so my view gets heard even with their trolling, or I'll ignore them. That's my choice. Your bubble isn't all that exists.

My views get heard either way, regardless of Mutt's or yours, or anybody else's intent on trolling.
last edited: 3/17/08 12:59:17 PM”

“I indicated that people like you are unwilling to debate them, as you've demonstrated once again. - Sarge

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that when there's a clear distinction between not debating a point within a debate and choosing not to debate in the first place. I've done the latter. All I was interested in was what you considered scientific fact.”

“"......adults who like to discuss adult topics."

Wrong thread, Sarge.”

“I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that when there's a clear distinction between not debating a point within a debate and choosing not to debate in the first place. I've done the latter. All I was interested in was what you considered scientific fact.

I'd love to see where you've debated the debate. On this thread, I see you mocking and calling names, that's about it.

Examples?

Here we go, right from the git-go ...

“I wonder if this is going to be the new strategy, now that ID has been irrefutably shown to be non-scientific religious crap.”

“Wow - those ID hucksters have sure had a series of setbacks lately. I guess people are fed up with their crap.”

"Since no one has posted it yet, I'll post the newest b1tch-slap to the anti-evolotuion hucksters:"

"Idiot religionists.”

That's just the first 2 pages. You're not interested in anything other than libelous banter. You went silent for a while after that (no debate), then continued on by starting back up with "Funny! Aren't you going to smoke a turd in hell for that one,though, xl?”



MarkO is right, wrong thread. Just not for the reason he presupposes.”

“ You're not interested - Sarge

LOL - that's what I've been trying to tell you in the past dozen posts.

I asked a question and you answered. Anything beyond that is in your head.”

“Anything beyond that is fact.”

“http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html

"Scientists" think they know where our universe came from. Another universe just like it. Wow, that clears it up. LOL

I wonder if they can be called scientists, since they have no way of verifying or testing their theory. Maybe they will in a few thousand years ... just like maybe we'll have the technology in a few thousand years to test if their was a creator.

Scientists redefining the definition of "science" to "fit" their needs.

Most of you people are pretty logical. I refuse to believe you don't see the hypocrisy in that.”

“at least they came to their conclusions using math and reasoning

a lot more sciencey than "gawddidit"”

“So the past few years when I kept hearing it has to be "testable" to be called science, you guys were kidding around?”

“thats the main problem, just like with string theory. i dont see how it could be tested if nothing of the "pre-bounce" universe exists

still a far sight better than "goshdidit"”

““My argument is that just because we don't currently have a scientific way to measure a theory, does not mean there isn't a scientific method of measurement for that theory - it just means we're currently too ignorant to know what that is. - Sarge


then it may someday be a scientific theory, but until then it is pure speculation”
crash bang
6:37:20 AM
8/16/07”

“thats the main problem, just like with string theory. i dont see how it could be tested if nothing of the "pre-bounce" universe exists

Same with the big bang. Which is why, if the Big Bang is taught in school, there is no reason that intelligent design shouldn't be either.”

“oh you think youre clever

well i hate to do THIS to you

but

in my opinion, the twin universe guys are just speculating

BOO YAH!”

“wow. you really take all this to heart, dont you? theres no way i could come up with an 8 month old post at the drop of a hat. i bet youve got everything everyone has ever said alphabetized, categorized, and scategorized”

“Are they using science?

Are they being scientists?

Come on crash. These guys are practicing science. We all know it.

We can't change the definition of science to fit our biases. That's why the ID-haters are doing.”

“wow. you really take all this to heart, dont you? theres no way i could come up with an 8 month old post at the drop of a hat. i bet youve got everything everyone has ever said alphabetized, categorized, and scategorized

Nothing that scientific. I just prayed and it came to me.”

“oh brother”

“Ha-ha.”

“Which is why, if the Big Bang is taught in school, there is no reason that intelligent design shouldn't be either. - sarge

So this is what it comes down to. You're personally too ignorant of physics and cosmology to distinguish between scientific speculation and religious mythology. One is based on math and the best understanding of the physics to date, the other on nothing more than wishful thinking. Should scientific speculation be taught in public schools? Maybe. Should speculation born of religion? No, unless in a comparative religions class. The *only* (lame) argument from the creationists is the improbability of the univers/evolution, which has been shown over and over again that it does not point directly or indirectly to a creator, and in fact is a red herring. Combine that with a willing obfuscation of what a scientific theory is, stir in overall religion-inspired ignorance, and you produce people like Sarge, blithering about things of which they have no real understanding.”

“Once again, "scientists" redefine the meaning of "science" so that it suits them at the time.

typical”

“OK: Teaching about the Bible, the Torah, or other sacred texts and their influence on human behavior. No one denies that religion has strongly motivated behavior in the United States and around the world. Acknowledging that fact in the curriculum does not raise First Amendment concerns.

Wrong: Teaching sacred documents with devotion or as singular truth. It crosses the line when a teacher or school district portrays one religion or religion in general as the preferred belief.”

“LOL - no one is redifining science except you.”

“�LOL - no one is redifining science except you.� - Mutt

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. crash (from wikipedia)

Big Bang - Where is the experiment to test? Where is the emperical observation?

Twin Universe - Where is the experiment to test? Where is the emperical observation?”

“In case you didn't know (from wiki) - "Emperical" is A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.”

“minish - Nobody here is advocating the schools teaching biblical texts.”

“Didn't they just close an ID school in Tejas?”

“There's a difference between a model and a theory. Read up on the philosophy of science, Sarge. Your ignorance is astounding.”

“You left out the word "scientific". You meant to say, "There's a difference between a "scientific" model, and a "scientific" theory."

If you want to call the Big Bang theory a "scientific model", or the Twin Universe theory a "scientific model", ... fine. Then I'm calling ID a "scientific model", and it would be subject to the same criteria, where no testable or emperical evidence is necessary.”

“No, a scientific model is a mathematical extrapolation of a scientific theory. ID is not a scientific theory, and frankly, there's nothing there at all from which to derive a model.”