School district in MI votes tomorrow night whether or not to allow ID

[Gigantopithecus]

Where's your letter, Rip? Still waiting.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Contrary to your letter, Dembski's arguments are based on mathematics and science and do not assume the actions of a supernatural power, nor do they make any claims regarding a personal God, faith or morality.

Your letter is radical secularist tripe.

At least it's my own thoughts expressed in my own words, not just mealymouthings of 'authorities' who tell me what I like to hear.

Again, Dembski's argument is a negative - you can call it math, but his postulations on chance amount to nothing more than one long, effete, pseudointellectual reason why he doesn't accept evolution by chance. Then, he assumes biological complexity must be intelligently designed. Science requires positive evidence. Where is yours?

Want to play a game, where I make a testable prediction with evolutionary theory, and you make a testable prediction with ID, and we see who can name more? I won't copy/paste from websites, but you can feel free to do so if you find any predictions on any ID website.

And I'm still waiting on your letter - since my views are restricted to radical secularists it would probably be good for me to read what the majority thinks - 'cause, you know, what's popular is right.

But I won't be the least bit surprised if you don't post it - Rip, you can't think for yourself, so why should I expect you to be able to speak for yourself? You're nothing more than a coward who trolls and runs. No wonder you embrace the beliefs you do.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Contrary to your letter, Dembski's arguments are based on mathematics and science and do not assume the actions of a supernatural power, nor do they make any claims regarding a personal God, faith or morality.

Your letter is radical secularist tripe.

At least it's my own thoughts expressed in my own words, not just mealymouthings of 'authorities' who tell me what I like to hear.

Again, Dembski's argument is a negative - you can call it math, but his postulations on chance amount to nothing more than one long, effete, pseudointellectual reason why he doesn't accept evolution by chance. Then, he assumes biological complexity must be intelligently designed. Science requires positive evidence. Where is yours?

Want to play a game, where I make a testable prediction with evolutionary theory, and you make a testable prediction with ID, and we see who can name more? I won't copy/paste from websites, but you can feel free to do so if you find any predictions on any ID website.

And I'm still waiting on your letter - since my views are restricted to radical secularists it would probably be good for me to read what the majority thinks - 'cause, you know, what's popular is right.

But I won't be the least bit surprised if you don't post it - Rip, you can't think for yourself, so why should I expect you to be able to speak for yourself? You're nothing more than a coward who trolls and runs. No wonder you embrace the beliefs you do.

Did your parents always given in to you everytime you threw a temper tantrum?

I think we have too many kids here raised on Dr. Spock's principles.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Contrary to your letter, Dembski's arguments are based on mathematics and science and do not assume the actions of a supernatural power, nor do they make any claims regarding a personal God, faith or morality.

Your letter is radical secularist tripe.

At least it's my own thoughts expressed in my own words, not just mealymouthings of 'authorities' who tell me what I like to hear.

Again, Dembski's argument is a negative - you can call it math, but his postulations on chance amount to nothing more than one long, effete, pseudointellectual reason why he doesn't accept evolution by chance. Then, he assumes biological complexity must be intelligently designed. Science requires positive evidence. Where is yours?

Want to play a game, where I make a testable prediction with evolutionary theory, and you make a testable prediction with ID, and we see who can name more? I won't copy/paste from websites, but you can feel free to do so if you find any predictions on any ID website.

And I'm still waiting on your letter - since my views are restricted to radical secularists it would probably be good for me to read what the majority thinks - 'cause, you know, what's popular is right.

But I won't be the least bit surprised if you don't post it - Rip, you can't think for yourself, so why should I expect you to be able to speak for yourself? You're nothing more than a coward who trolls and runs. No wonder you embrace the beliefs you do.

Did your parents always given in to you everytime you threw a temper tantrum?

I think we have too many kids here raised on Dr. Spock's principles.

Are you saying you're a conservative christian because your dad hit you when you were a child?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Yes, and his arguments amount to nothing more than rehashed red herrings as old as Paley's watchmaker arguments. His primary argument is a negative - he isn't convinced biological complexity can exist without intelligent design, therefore, he assumes it must be intelligently designed. Science requires positive evidence it is intelligently designed, which he doesn't provide in any of his books or lectures.

Science also requires testable predictions - Dembski makes absolutely no testable predictions.

Also, his 'law of information conservation' that is supposedly violated by evolution is nothing more than the same, tired misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics Creationists have been using for decades.

Evolutionary biologists have been piling up mountains of evidence for over 100 years in favor of what is now the modern synthesis. Creationists have simply become more sophisticated and verbose in their willful rejection of reality.

:thumbsup: How very true. Reality is a mystery.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Thanks for the heads up, I just the the school board a letter of my own.

Did an angel deliver it for you or did you use the internet? Which is faster btw? I heard those angels aren't what they used to be with all the global warming and what not.

I wrote one as well. That for the heads up.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Did your parents always given in to you everytime you threw a temper tantrum?

I think we have too many kids here raised on Dr. Spock's principles.

Asking you to post "your" "letter" is hardly a temper tantrum.

You said you were going to write a letter

Thanks for the heads up, I just the the school board a letter of my own.

He asked you to post it.

Quite simple.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Hey, the Neanderthals don't deserve that.

(And chimps don't deserve to be compared to W.)

your right what a insensitive clod I am heh

 

[Steeplerot]

Well rip?

 

[Forsythe]

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[sbacpo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: sbacpo
Plenty of people who learned ID have made the world a better place. History is full of them.

Give me one example. Just one.

Furthermore, I would question the ability of any scientist who believed in ID to the exclusion of evolution. Their ability to discern between a testable theory with a mountain of evidence to back it up and religion dressed up in some vague pseudo-science would lead me to believe that they had no business being a scientist in the first place.

OK. How about the guys who wrote this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Shall I go on? Let me know.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Dembski outlines a generic chance elimination argument. Through this process, one can infer whether an event occured by chance or not.

This approach has application in a variety of disciplines.

Applying it to the physical universe, one is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.

If the creation of the universe is due to "design" (an event that is not explicable in terms of natural law or chance), then it's warranted to infer that the event is the result of a Cosmic Designer.

anything is possible through chance alone. a sequence of events being unlikely doesn't mean that some higher power is needed - and on top of this it does nothing to further science (and since we are talking about the study of science this seems to be the most important goal).

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

No Answers in Genesis

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Contrary to your letter, Dembski's arguments are based on mathematics and science and do not assume the actions of a supernatural power, nor do they make any claims regarding a personal God, faith or morality.

While the ID community is enthusiastic about Dembski because the innumerate are easily impressed by mathematics, his writings have little relevance to evolution. His specified complexity arguments rest on the assumption that evolution has a pre-specified goal, which it doesn't. His use of the No Free Lunch theorems has been denounced by one of the creators of those theorems, David Wolpert, as "fatally informal and imprecise," which has caused Dembski to back off from his claim that the NFL theorems refuted evolution.

 

[Valkerie]

City schools have this, so they can avoid gangsters coming into the school and wrecking havoc, don't be alarmed if they start using metal detectors like they do in government buildings.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Valkerie
City schools have this, so they can avoid gangsters coming into the school and wrecking havoc, don't be alarmed if they start using metal detectors like they do in government buildings.

Did you read anything in this thread?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Valkerie
City schools have this, so they can avoid gangsters coming into the school and wrecking havoc, don't be alarmed if they start using metal detectors like they do in government buildings.

Did you read anything in this thread?

i don't think you really need to ask that question haha

 

[Moonbeam]

I really don't care for the idea that when I die I'm dead and gone, especially since I wasted my life never having any fun for fear it is a sin. So I believe in God and Intelligent Design and am so thankful that there are folks out there saying stuff I don't even begin to understand claiming it's true. As long as I can convince me, my kids, and the people around me to think the same as me I won't be bothered by nasty little doubts. Nobody should ever come up with stuff that threatens my belief. I will simply become delusional if need be. You scientific types have the luxury of playing with options, but I HAVE TO BE RIGHT. Too much riding on it. And if I stop believing the Devil wins and the universe will be consumed by evil. And I spent a lifetime ridiculing psychiatry so I'm not going to be able to go there. Please make evolution go away. Please Please Please makd it go away. There, that's better now.

Now where do I send my letter?

 

[NJDevil]

reading through this forum made me laugh out loud at how ridiculously close minded people can be.

Hey, I believe in God AND Evolution! I don't think that I'm very unique. I find it interesting how people take "7 days" so literally but ignore all of the old testament punishments (ie, stoning for infidelity etc.). How can you honestly believe that God's day was 24 hours? His day is as long as he wants, he's God! I take everything written in the Old Testament (the part that I follow as a Jew) literally, rather I take the lessons and try to apply them to my life. I find nothing in the Old Testament that conflicts with science when one looks at what is written with an open mind.

I don't understand you Rip, you claim to be such a good Christian but then resort to accusing him of having a "temper tantrum." All he asked was that you post the letter so he could more understand your arguments.

Maybe you didn't write the letter :Q. Would that make you a liar? Lying is not something a good Christian would do.

 

[cquark]

It's worth noting that the ID propagandists have expanded their agenda to include attacks on astronomy, cosmology, and physics. The Discovery Institute, a well-funded group of anti-scientists, has announced the spread of their misinformation efforts:

Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it?s important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

so it's important for scientists to realize that religious attacks on science aren't limited to biology.

Bad Astronomy Blog has a summary of why all scientists and most Christians should be concerned about the DI's anti-science efforts:

There is no room for debate with young-earth creationists like those at the Discovery Institute (who, despite their bluster, have made it very clear that?s who they really are). Their ideas are absolute, and there is no shade of grey. If you are a Christian, and not a fundamentalist literal-Bible Christian, then you should be aware that these creationists are not on your side. To them, you are just as wrong as Muslims, Jews, and atheists. They may paint scientists as evil atheists who want to steer your children from The One True Way, but remember that this is their ?True Way?, and probably not yours. They have no problems distorting the truth, egregiously and often if it so suits them.

Young Earth creationists have let slip the dogmas of war. In the ensuing battles they will use a host of weapons, including misrepresenting facts, mining of quotes, belaboring outdated theories, and dancing around to avoid answering direct questions. Mark my words: their history is clear.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: cquark
It's worth noting that the ID propagandists have expanded their agenda to include attacks on astronomy, cosmology, and physics. The Discovery Institute, a well-funded group of anti-scientists, has announced the spread of their misinformation efforts:

Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it?s important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

so it's important for scientists to realize that religious attacks on science aren't limited to biology.

Bad Astronomy Blog has a summary of why all scientists and most Christians should be concerned about the DI's anti-science efforts:

There is no room for debate with young-earth creationists like those at the Discovery Institute (who, despite their bluster, have made it very clear that?s who they really are). Their ideas are absolute, and there is no shade of grey. If you are a Christian, and not a fundamentalist literal-Bible Christian, then you should be aware that these creationists are not on your side. To them, you are just as wrong as Muslims, Jews, and atheists. They may paint scientists as evil atheists who want to steer your children from The One True Way, but remember that this is their ?True Way?, and probably not yours. They have no problems distorting the truth, egregiously and often if it so suits them.

Young Earth creationists have let slip the dogmas of war. In the ensuing battles they will use a host of weapons, including misrepresenting facts, mining of quotes, belaboring outdated theories, and dancing around to avoid answering direct questions. Mark my words: their history is clear.

The last little paragraph describes a certain someone quite well.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Let's just be glad they didn't name it "Stupid Design", that would have been much easier to find pseudoevidence for and gain public support. After all, if design was intelligent, why does light have to go through so many layers to reach the nerve endings on the retina? This proves that eyes were designed by an incompetent engineer!

I think it might have been better to say that "teaching students ID will not help them to make the world a better place or to find employment" rather than saying the students themselves would become incapable of making the world a better place once exposed to ID. Otherwise I thought it was good. Students taugth BS do sometimes see through it after all. My wife had a nutty teacher once that claimed that "if someone tried to copy the bible with a mistake, God wouldn't let him." Well then how do you explain why there are so many different versions?

Considering that much of the bible is collections of stories that were passed down orally for centuries before finally being written down, it defies all logic that anyone would think it should be taken literally. Did these people never play telephone? So if to the lord a year is a day and a day is a thousand years, how long were the seven days of Earth's creation if you plug it into that formula? For that matter, how fast was the Earth spinning back then?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So I believe in God and Intelligent Design and am so thankful that there are folks out there saying stuff I don't even begin to understand claiming it's true.

So basically what you're saying is that even though you don't understand, you like how it sounds, therefore it must be true and should be taught in public schools. The mind boggles.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: cquark
It's worth noting that the ID propagandists have expanded their agenda to include attacks on astronomy, cosmology, and physics. The Discovery Institute, a well-funded group of anti-scientists, has announced the spread of their misinformation efforts:

Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it?s important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

so it's important for scientists to realize that religious attacks on science aren't limited to biology.

Bad Astronomy Blog has a summary of why all scientists and most Christians should be concerned about the DI's anti-science efforts:

There is no room for debate with young-earth creationists like those at the Discovery Institute (who, despite their bluster, have made it very clear that?s who they really are). Their ideas are absolute, and there is no shade of grey. If you are a Christian, and not a fundamentalist literal-Bible Christian, then you should be aware that these creationists are not on your side. To them, you are just as wrong as Muslims, Jews, and atheists. They may paint scientists as evil atheists who want to steer your children from The One True Way, but remember that this is their ?True Way?, and probably not yours. They have no problems distorting the truth, egregiously and often if it so suits them.

Young Earth creationists have let slip the dogmas of war. In the ensuing battles they will use a host of weapons, including misrepresenting facts, mining of quotes, belaboring outdated theories, and dancing around to avoid answering direct questions. Mark my words: their history is clear.

Luckily there is little controversy over teaching public school kids that the Earth is neither flat nor the center of the universe. 400 years ago people thought a heliocentric model of the solar system was radical, hopefully in another few hundred years (or even sooner!) people will realize evolution isn't some crackpot idea perpetuated by atheists to undermine religion.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Contrary to your letter, Dembski's arguments are based on "mathematics" and "science" and do not assume the actions of a supernatural power, nor do they make any claims regarding a personal God, faith or morality.

Your letter is radical secularist tripe.

When you're discussing the ramblings of an ID proponent, please remember to use "" around such terms as "mathematics" and "science." I fixed the above for you.