Kitzmiller vs Dover Board of Education 11/11

[vito1964]

Hey, Buckingham, bore false witness lately?

[vito1964]

Pat Robertson needs to shut the hell up.

[alo754]

: / I want to debunk a pair delusional clowns and get a million dollars. Either way I'm glad that reason won over superstition.

[RadAntelope]

ID taught in science classes? Fine.

Evolution taught in Sunday School.

Fair compromise, creationists?

[tiaxanderson]

He should have said "Garbage in, garbage out. Never a miscommunication, you can't explain that." xD

[Kingucktoad]

I wanna see Pastafarian taught in science classes... teach the controversy!

[24secproduction]

2+2=4 is an opinion don't be a close minded fool!

[danthrplgst]

@24secproduction please tell me your being sarcastic.

[CntrBrdr]

dubya dubya dubya dot liars for jesus dot com

[OddOpinion]

Okay so basically they should teach : 2 + 2 = 4 ooor some people think 2+2 = 22?

[tricklessmagic]

lying for jeebus!

[Zeuts85]

Good on you judge Jones! Way to show a brain and a spine in the same breath!

[H4L0K1LL4]

i thought you coldn't show rape on youtube XD

[Valizan]

Wow... Buckingham ends with sour grapes. Clown college? Who lied in court, sir? Who is wearing the red nose?

[knobcheese22]

There is going to be real controversy when introduce my "scientific theory" in schools that the invisible pink unicorn from Venus created the world with teh lazers and teh pew pew!!!

Seriously what a joke that there was a lengthy trial over such an obvious conclusion........Creationism, sorry Intelligent Design is a crock of shit!!!!

Actually all religion is a crock of shit!!!!

[knobcheese22]

"I think he's a jackass"

Take a look in the mirror, you are the jackass!!!!!!! Stupid creationist moron, go fuck yourself!!!!

[gwmgbwi]

Bill Buckingham may be the dumbest man on the planet. Isn’t it adorable when the lunatics think their fantasies are reality? Reminds me of Don Quixote dueling with the windmill…

[tbdonnelly67]

Hey Buckingham! The only jackasses here are YOU and that other idiot Bonsell!

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs Does this mean that all four-door cars came from one common ancestor? No. Likewise, the homology of structures in biological machines and organisms is evidence for intelligent design every bit as much as it is evidence for evolution. If a designer invents a good design that is useful for a variety of applications, why would he not integrate it into his work? Intelligent design "threads it all together" just as well as evolution, if not better.

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs Next you argued that taxonomy shows homology, and that this is "very very conclusive". However, is this not also evidence for design? Think about the homologous components in many man-made machines. The wheel-and-axle pattern, for example, is found in most machines' moving parts. Does that mean that all the machines "evolved" from one machine that used the wheel-and-axle system? Of course not. Similarly, most 4-door cars use the same basic body plan. Continued...

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh your analogy of biological beings to designed machines is absurd. machines do not reproduce, nor as a result are they subject to conditions where the genes mutate and selective pressures are placed on them. the ID line comes basically comes down to arguing irreducible complexity. ie. we dont know how it happened therefore a god did it. however the problem is that there is NOTHING that complex. during the trial they tried to use flagella, but they showed they have MANY uses when simpler

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs Well it seemed to me like this last comment was a conclusive one, indicating that you were summarizing your arguments. If you have had enough of this argument, just say so. But, I'm game for continuing this discussion as long as you are. In response to your last argument: You said that geology shows that the fossils are of different ages, and paleontology shows sequence. This is true, yet there is little evidence of actual transition from one taxon to the next. Continued...

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs So in conclusion (yes, this really is the last post in this response :), I think it's clear that intelligent design is a much more plausible explanation than evolution for the universe and all the life on earth. It bears the clear mark of design, and there are far more unexplained gaps in the theory of evolution than there are in ID. In addition to this, my personal relationship with God (yes, I actually know him), combined with physical evidence is the source of my well-tested faith.

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs In other words, the theory of Darwinian evolution has gaping holes in it. The fossil record, for instance, while it shows that more primitive organisms came first, does not show nearly enough transitional forms to account for macro-evolution. Furthermore, there probability of any life forming by chance in the first place is incomprehensibly small. That's not to mention the incredibly small probability of an inhabitable planet. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs I know you're an atheist, but I would encourage you do simply say to God "If you exist, please reveal yourself to me." That is one way you can test this. If you give him time, and if you are TRULY open minded about it, he will. Now to get back to evidence that's observable to everyone, you asked that if the appearance or notion of design can be explained in detail by other means, then what's the purpose of intelligent design? Those "other means" are not adequate. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs So I am essentially applying the scientific method on a very personal level. I think that God exists (forming hypothesis), I see the evidence of miracles happen over and over (testing hypothesis), so I draw a conclusion. Of course, the pier review aspects of the scientific method can't be applied here, but that doesn't matter since it's a personal process anyways.... (continued)

[necronomicon009]

@Kuploosh Wow, "So I am essentially applying the scientific method on a very personal level." I love how Christians make science so convenient for your own beliefs. It makes me proud thatI am more intellectually honest than that.

Scientifically speaking God/intelligent creator is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be testable it must be falsifiable. [Miracles and God are non-falsifiable] YOU ARE NOT DOING SCIENCE! If peer-review cannot apply, then hypothesis cannot be tested.

[necronomicon009]

Imagine if we based all scientific medical knowledge on your hypothesis that miracles happen. Lets say, a girl is suffering from diabetes and her parents supplemented an belief in miracles over an acceptance of medical science.

The above example is based on true accounts. Watch the video: 'There are no theists in hospital waiting rooms.' This girl died because her parents believed in prayer over applying insulin shots. Imagine how backwards our society would be if we accepted your hypothesis.

[Kuploosh]

@necronomicon009 I was not attempting to make any sort of scientific argument. My point in that post was to respond to mjhallfs statement that I was deluding myself. I was explaining that I was not deluding myself. More of a claim and explanation, less of an argument.

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs So how do I know that my God is real and not just a delusion? God doesn't expect us to have faith and trust in him for no reason. He is more than willing to prove himself. The reason I believe in my God is because I have seen Him work miraculously. I have personally witnessed people with serious physical impairments be healed instantaneously. I won't bore you with details, because evidence like that is only useful if witnessed first hand. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs However, this 2,000 year old written account is not enough for many people (including me). The reason I have such faith is because of more personal experiences with God. I realize of course, that the placebo affect and human imagination are incredibly powerful, so even compelling emotional experiences might not be enough to convince me that God is real and loves me. Applying the scientific method is instinctive to humans. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs ... Because they have faith in the laws of physics related to buoyancy. It is not blind faith, of course, because they have seen it tested many times and it has shown itself to be reliable. It's no different with Christianity. The Christian faith is certainly not blind. The Bible claims that Jesus died and then rose back from the dead (a phenomenon that would certainly be more than convincing if you actually witnessed it!) Continued...

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs The statement you made that religion and science are not compatible implies that at least one of them is not reliable. I think your perception of religion is that it is based on faith. In some areas, I suppose that is so. However, it is not a blind faith. To have blind faith is just plain folly. Furthermore, every human being has a lot of faith in a lot of different things. For example, why would someone dare to sail a boat across a wide lake? (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs What I'm trying to say in all this, is that neither intelligent design nor religion is anti-science. They simply are suggesting explanations that can't be seen, which is not at all unusual for scientific theories to do. Many people think it's folly, but it's really no different than any other scientific theory. When the Wright brothers were trying to fly, most people laughed at their "folly". Just because it doesn't "seem" plausible, doesn't mean it isn't.

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs Is there bacterial life on Mars? If there is, humans don't yet know about it. Does that make it mythical or magical? Of course not! Your example about the germ theory of disease can be used as another example. Could the people directly observe or detect the germs (without the aid of microscopes) before then? No. Does that make the germs mythical or magical? No. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs Intelligent design does not rely on mythical or magical explanations. It does not try to explain HOW or WHO created life, it simply says that life and all the observable evidence appears to be designed. If, for example, there are creatures or living organisms that are somehow in a different "realm" or "frequency" of matter and energy, that wouldn't make them mythical or magical. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs First of all, I am not questioning the scientific method. When used properly, the scientific method will always lead to truth. What I am saying is that it would be incorrect to assume that something doesn't exist just because we can't sense it with our five senses. There is a lot scientists don't know about the way things work. Take dark matter and energy, for example. As with my radio wave example, we cannot directly sense everything with our senses. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs (continued) Yet, we know that the radio waves are there. How do we know this? Because we can perceive evidence of them with our physical senses. A TV allows us to see evidence of the radio waves with our eyes. We cannot see the waves themselves, but we can see evidence for them. It's no different with science. We can't sense anything supernatural, but we CAN look at physical evidence and draw supernatural conclusions. To find truth, science needs to be open to ANY possibilities.

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs (continued) Look at it this way: Suppose that when Mendel first studied genetics, he ruled out any explanations involving an organism having two genes for each trait. Obviously, he would never find the truth of how genetics work. Science is the same way. We humans have five senses. Is there any reason to believe that we can thus perceive every natural thing? Certainly not! We cannot see, hear, smell, touch, or taste radio waves. (continued...)

[Kuploosh]

@mjhallfs There is a problem with your reasoning here (assuming I correctly understood what you were trying to say). If science is the study only of the natural world, then logically, IF there is a supernatural realm, science would not always lead to truth. Logically speaking, science cannot automatically rule out any supernatural explanations. Look at it this way... (continued)

[Kuploosh]

(continued #5) Ruling out ID simply because it involves supernatural and untestable explanations is illogical and unconstitutional. After all, some people would say that it is in fact testable (take story about miraculous healing, for example). I'm not saying these did or did not happen, I'm simply saying teach the students the whole spectrum, and let them draw their own conclusions! Science must not eliminate explanations on the basis of convenience of testing.

[Pjl1192]

@Kuploosh They ruled it out because it isn't science. Invoking "supernatural" means is inherently unscientific as science is the study of the natural world. How is it unconstitutional to stop teachers from teaching nonsense to students?

[Kuploosh]

@Pjl1192 What you said makes sense. Science, as you put it, is "the study of the natural world". Intelligent design IS the study of the natural world. Sure, it has supernatural or even religious implications, but that's not where the study is focused. A theory regarding communication with spirits, for instance, would certainly not be scientific. However, with science, just because the study is of the natural wold, that does not mean that supernatural conclusions can't be drawn.

[Kuploosh]

(continued #4) With such a controversial and long lasting topic, 9'th grade students should be permitted to think for themselves. By ruling out the presenting of ID, the students are essentially forced into taking a view on one side of a battle that's lasted 150 years. THAT, is establishing one religion over another. (Yes, evolution is a religion because it is a belief about God, namely that he doesn't exist). To be continued...

[MrAndocalrisian]

@Kuploosh

Who told you evolution is a belief that God doesn't exist? I've read many books on the subject and nowhere was that ever mentioned.

[Kuploosh]

@MrAndocalrisian Sorry, I meant atheism, which usually results in a belief of evolution, and vice versa. I know that there are theistic evolutionists out there, but generally evolution and atheism go hand in hand. The point I was making though, is that neither belief should be presented by itself. Both intelligent design (which means belief in God) AND evolution (which usually means disbelief in God) should be presented to students, since it's such a controversial issue.

[MrAndocalrisian]

@Kuploosh

I kind of like things the way they are. Public school is no place for religious-leaning discussion. That's what private Christian schools are for. What if (assuming you are a Christian) your kids teacher was a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc..? I don't think you would want them teaching your child intelligent design. It would be too easy for them to inject their personal beliefs into the lesson.

Thanks for watching the videos btw.

[Kuploosh]

@MrAndocalrisian You have a good point. True, if the teacher was a Muslim etc., I would not like that. However, teaching my kids about evolution would be just as bad. Plus, the book Of Pandas and People, while it may have been written by Christians, is not a Christian book. It makes no references to the Bible or HOW God created the world. It simply looks at the evidence of design in the natural world. The school didn't require teaching ID, only stating that Evolution is not the only theory.

[Kuploosh]

@MrAndocalrisian P.S. Thanks for posting the vids!

[Pjl1192]

@Kuploosh What "battle"? There is no serious debate on this subject whatsoever, primarily because Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It's not even a scientific idea.

[Kuploosh]

@Pjl1192 Uhmm.... Yes there is. This is one of the most controversial topics out there.

[necronomicon009]

@Kuploosh "Evolution is a religion because it is a belief about God, namely that he doesn't exist."

Science has never said anything about God because God is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Science is wholly agnostic on the view of God because he cannot be tested. Get it? Neither scientists, nor "evolutionists have ever stated that God doesn't exist. They admit there's a possibility, but IT CANNOT BE TESTED!

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh why should schools waste time teaching things that are unscientific? the fossil record, our genetics and observations in the laboratory ALL confirm that evolution is true. modern medicine is developed based on evolutionary genetics and the evolution of pathogens. there is NO battle in the scientific community, because all the evidence indicates it is true. and it is a completely lie that evolution leads to atheism. Kenneth R. Miller, famous evolutionary biologist is religious

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics I think I've made my point about this in previous posts, mainly in my argument with mjhalfs. Read the previous posts. The main answer to your question is: Because science in its current definition is illogically biased and therefore is in danger of being blinded to the truth.

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh the only people who make those claims are those so infatuated with their religion they do not care that they do not have a shred of evidence to back it up and insist on forcing children to be taught about it. that is not science, it is and always will be religion.

if evolution is a lie then im sure you wont mind next time you get an infection asking for the original antbioitics because you dont believe bacteria can evolve

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics To respond to your last comment, I never implied, nor do most reasonable religious people, that evolution is a lie. Yes, it has been proven many times that living organisms CHANGE over time. The part that is a lie is that they increase in complexity. Aside from homology, speciation, etc. there is NO living evidence that one form can evolve into a higher, more complex form, much less that life can emerge form non-life. (continued)

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh sigh the creationist lie that there is nothing that increases complexity is so pathetic it is laughable. you do realise we have mapped the genome of bacteria and exposed them to conditions that caused them to evolve NEW traits to deal with this and at the end of this time we found MORE genetic information. the changes like speciation which we have observed over a LONG time lead to big differences. thats why the fossil record shows creatures going from less to more complex

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics Further, you mentioned us not caring if we have a "shred of evidence". For some people, this may appear to be true. BUT, it would be completely illogical for any person with a brain to believe something and not care about evidence. Really, people who appear to not are actually not caring about evidence that's visible to other people. (continued)

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh we have many many transitional fossils showing how a lot of modern day organisms evolve. that along with the genetic evidence which lets us determine relatedness between species is utterly overwhelming evidence. if you really want to disprove evolution you just need to find one fossil: find a bunny in the Cambrian. if you found that it would completely destroy evolution. since you see evolution is testable and falsifiable unlike creationism.

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics What I mean is: If someone has a broken arm, someone else prays for it in the name of Jesus and it is instantly, completely healed, that person probably isn't going to care much about the fossil record. He simply is going to believe in God because his arm got healed, which brings me to another point. How do you atheists explain the countless miracles (healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.) that happen every day?

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh first of all there are many evolutionary biologists who are christians and accept evolution. so its a false distinction you are making. secondly every single religion claims that its god interferes and performs miracles which are essentially things we did not understand.

finally, why doesn't jesus ever heal amputees?

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics Okay, to directly respond to your arguments: First, the Bible states that God created man. It nowhere says or implies that man might have evolved. Taking only the bible into consideration, the evolution of man is absurd. So, evolutionary biologists who are "christians" aren't reading their bible. Macro-evolution completely goes against christianity. Secondly, every religion 'claims' to have miracles, but christians actually do. Third, what do amputees have to do with anything?

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh first of all the christians who have reconciled evolution have recognised that god was not going to give a modern science lesson to a primitive group of people. the bible is full of metaphors and not everyone chooses to read every work completely literally. Kenneth R. Miller has written a number of books on the topic and is an expert of evolutionary biology.

secondly the claims of all these great "miracles' and healing are utterly laughable. if god heals people why never any amputees?

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics To respond to the miracle being laughable, I'm not seeing your point about amputees. Aren't broken bones, cancer (that is far along), sudden release from decades of drug addiction, and RAISING THE DEAD just as amazing as healing amputees? I'll admit I haven't heard of any cases of amputees being healed, but I have heard all of the other cases. AND I've witnessed first hand the healing of broken bones, cancer, out-of-place vertebrae, etc. There are three explanations. (continued)

[Kuploosh]

@Kuploosh The first explanation: I could be out-right lying to you. But, I'm a logical person seeking the truth, and I have nothing to gain by lying here. Further, MANY, MANY other people will tell you that they've seen miracles. The second explanation: I'm totally insane. Again, MANY people have seen and experienced miracles, so that option isn't likely. The third option: miracles do happen! Once you experience God personally, you know he's real.

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh there is a reason why you cannot heal amputees. the placebo effect does not work nor can you fake the treatment. all the people who go around saying god has healed all these diseases - why has he never gotten a person's leg to grow back? if god can raise people from the dead why cant he do this? oh and by the way, muslims, atheists, christans etc etc ALL have cases where the cancer goes into spontaneous remission. but none of them either have limbs grow back.

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics How do you know he's never gotten a person's leg to grow back? Besides, raising the dead is more impressive than growing back a leg.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh You didn't bother watching the entire show, did you?

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 What makes you think that? Yes, I did.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

And you're making the same logical fallacies as the people who were sued. Didn't you learn anything?

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 What logical fallacies am I making? Please point them out and explain why they're illogical.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

You said evolution is religion, which it is not. There are no gods demanding it be accepted like with how the bible says one must beleive god on the basis of eternal torture. There is no holy scripture either. Calling Origen of Species such is wrong since it discusses how things could have come about by natural means. Hardly a doctrin unlike forcing people to bend over and swear eternal loyaly to a being that may not really exist.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh Also, being an athiest means having no faith in any god, and is hardly a religion either. Besides Christians are athiests to hindus, who are athiests to muslims, who are athiests to jews, who are athiests to christians, and vice versa. I hardly see the point of persecuting poeple for having no beleif in a god/godess/gods because the argument is flawed for the reason I stated. We are all athiests one way or another.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 "Christians are atheists to hindus, who are atheists to muslims..." What????!!! Not sure what you're even trying to say there... you also "hardly see the point of persecuting people for...." True Christians don't persecut people for not believing. That's TOTALLY against Christianity. Jesus never persecuted anyone. They persecuted him! I think you definitely have a warped understanding of what it means to believe in God.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

WRONG. YOU have a messed up view on God. the god I beleive in would never tolerate this level of bullshit from his supposed followers. Jesus hated ignorance, hypocracy, and the rich. all three things are what make up the most prominant creationists. And my point of us being athiests to other religious folk is totally valid. You don't worship any of the Indian deities do you? Or what about the gods of the roman pantheon? There are a few ho still beleive in Zeus I hear.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 The god you believe in???? I thought you were an atheist?! And where did you get the idea that Jesus hated the rich?? Jesus loves everyone, that's why he did what he did. He doesn't save everyone because not everyone WANTS to be saved. No, I don't believe in the gods of the roman pantheon, but that doesn't make those who do atheists. An atheist is someone who believes there is NO god.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Need I remind you of Ken Miller? He was a lead witness in the trial depicted here after all. He's catholic but he is an evolutionary biologist. I recall Jesus hated the rich because I remember a story in which he overturned tables that foolish merchants set up in a temple of god and turned it into a market place. That pretty much spells it out to me, doesn't it to you? And yes, we are athiests to people of other faiths. Even to other denominations of Christianity.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Jesus overturned the tables because they were doing a detestable thing in the temple of the Lord. He was angry at what they were doing. For example, if a woman does something a man doesn't like and he gets angry at her, does that mean that he hates all women? About the atheist thing, clearly we have different definitions. When I say atheist I refer to someone who believes there is no god at all. So no, muslims are not atheists to christians. They're muslims. Atheists are atheists.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

The rich in Jesus' day are no different than the rich in today's time. What's worse is these egomaniacs say they're christians too. The fact we don't beleive in Zeus means we're athiests to those who worship Zeus. the fact we have a different god means no difference. Even though Islam and Christianity are very similar the core beleifs are different and Muslims are ordered to kill all infidels by order of their fucked-up prophet, Mohammad. Christians are ordered to do the same.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Like I said, we have different definitions of the word 'atheist'. Also, WHERE IN THE WORLD did you get the idea that Christians are ordered to kill the non-Christians???!!!!

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

The bible says "Convert unbeleivers, or kill them in the name of god" does it not?

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 No, it does not. There are several places in the Qu'ran with similar commandments (though I could not find that exact wording), but anywhere in the Bible that mentions the death of unbelievers was simply a prophecy or account of God's doing. Also, there are places in the where people were to be killed or otherwise punished if they committed certain sins or crimes. NOWHERE in the Bible does it instruct Christians to kill non-believers just for being non-believers (continued)

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh What about Sodom and Ghomora? They allegedly blasphemed against the lord and god commanded people to kill everyone; man, woman, and child.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 This is indeed an interesting story. If you recall, God told Moses that for the sake of just 10 righteous people he would not destroy it. This was a wicked city, and EVERYONE in it was hopelessly evil. Still, God did not command people to kill anyone. It was God who destroyed the city by raining down burning sulfur.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

A newborn child has no idea of anything so how would he/she be evil? A child can't be evil unless he/she conciously knows the difference. The very idea god destroyed innocent kids implies god is not benevolent, but rather it implies God is the devil.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 In fact, throughout the Bible (mainly in the new Testament), it teaches just the opposite. Christians are supposed to love non-believers, and treat them fairly. They are to bring the "good news", and be ambassadors for Christ, but if non-believers refuse to accept Christ, it is up to God and God only to deal with them, and Christians are instructed to love them, as God does. God loves everyone and wants them to come to him out of their free will, but if they refuse (continued)

[globalist1789]

@Kuploosh Ya the bible says lots of stuff. That filthy rag would NEVER get printed under modern hate speech laws if it were written today.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 ... then God does not force them. Hell is what happens when God's presence is absent. The reason he created evil was so that humans would have a free choice whether or not to love him. If yes, then they will receive the greatest love, joy, peace, etc. imaginable: Himself. This is what humans were MADE for, and that is why it's so good! But if they choose not to love him, he grants them their choice, and hell (the absence of God) is what naturally follows. (continued)

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Hell is what's present when god is absent? Then why is America the shithole it is now? It's because this is the most fundamentalist christian country on the fucking planet. Other nations who have Christianity as a dominant religion are no where near as bad as we are because unlike you, they learn from history. Want a free lesson? The middle east was once the world's center of science, culture, and understanding. Then people like you fucked everything up.

[LordMalice6d9]

@NUTCASE71733 America is becoming a shithole because of all the 3rd world scum and illegals we allow in this country.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 That is the opposite of what humans were made for, and that is why it is the worst thing conceivable. It all makes sense if you think about it. God doesn't sentence people to hell because he harsh God, people go to hell because that's THEIR choice, and God let's people have their will. If God was harsh, he wouldn't even give us the option of coming to him, since we are already born evil and imperfect, and since it cost him a LOT to give us that option.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh Intelligent Design was exposed to be a sham, as it's proponents don't do their own research. Behe may have done research to a point but he never bothered to look into the type 3 secretory system Ken Miller mentioned. That alls his credibility into question, especially when he considered Alchemy and Atrology valid sciences, yet they haven't been in use ever since modern chemestry and astronomy were invented.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Okay, so the phrase Intelligent Design was born with a sneaky and perhaps dishonest intent.... What does that prove? And what does calling Behe's credibility into question have to do with Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design/Whatever you want to call it?

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Behe refused to accept the evidence placed before him, saying it wasn't enough to proove evolution in his eyes. The discovery institute even claims themselves that no amount of evidence will convince them as they beleive it isn't real. If Behe were any bit the scientist he claimed to be, he'd be more open minded to the evidence shown in the trial.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Look, Behe and the discovery institute are obviously already biased, so no they're not going to be TOTALLY open minded. Even the evolutionists and atheists are totally open minded. If they were, they wouldn't be so quick to call miracles lies. Furthermore, I'm not Behe, so I don't see your point in continuing to discredit him.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Behe is a moron and a tool, trying to use his religion to push an unproven theory into school textbooks to undermine the educational system. Whos to say science wont be the only thing Creationists will overturn if they get hold? Already here in Texas these right-wing maniacs have managed to erase the first ammendment of the constitution from school textbooks as well as several key figures of American history to fit their agenda; political, religious, or otherwise.

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh how do i know he has never gotten a persons leg to grow back? can you think of any medically verified accounts of a man who has not had a leg for years and all of a sudden it grows back instantly when a man prays over him? spontaneous cancer remission has been documented but it has occurred in chrstians, muslims, atheists etc so either there are lots of gods helping people or there are natural explanations.

[Kuploosh]

@AussiePolitics You nor I have any medically verified accounts of a leg growing back instantly. But, how do you know that it hasn't happened gradually (but relatively quickly considering how long it's been gone)? Also, what about the instantaneous healing of a broken femur, for example? There certainly isn't a likely natural explanation for that. Even so, like I said in earlier posts, the main reason I know that God is real is because I know him like I know my own mother. I know him personally.

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh grown back gradually? right while people were praying the whole time?

my point is if god supposedly can cure cancer then it should be pretty easy for him to cause limbs to grow back. but he just cant do it. so either god hates the disabled or it just so happens to be an area where the placebo effect or trickery does not work.

right you know god personally, just like every muslim, jew, ancient greek, roman, etc etc knew their specific gods and believed they were completely true.

[AussiePolitics]

@Kuploosh finally you keep harping on about raising the dead. righto here i assume you are talking about the gospels here right? you do realise that they were written many years after the death of jesus by people who were not even there. a book a read called "the case for christ" laughable claims that the gospels are authentic because an historian writing in 125AD said they were. furthermore many events described in the gospels are wrong and nobody else seemed to notice jesus during his life

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh And while I'm on the subject of Ken Miller, you need to drop the "Can't accept evolution and beleive in god" nonsense. That's a false dichotomy seeing as how scientists before Darwin have disproven many things wrtten in the bible. Galileo found the earth was not the center of the universe, Colombus proved the earth was not a circle but rather a sphere. Furthermore Linneaus, the man who made our taxonomic system, while a creationist, saw humans as primates.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Where in the Bible does it say anything about the earth being the center of the universe, or the earth being flat? Sounds more like you're the one who's not being logical here.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

The bible states the earth is a circle. A circle is a flat, round shape. A sphere is what a ball is. It has been found that the bible was wrong in that claim, and geocentrism, the beeleif Earth is the center of all the universe is similarly claimed in the bible, and debunked.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Where are those to claims found in the Bible?

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh Creationism is a lie, it has no evidence. Creationists instead of offering evidence of creation try to use bad analogies of human-made objects which cannot count as an argument since they aren't alive. What's so hard to accept about the earth being older than you think it is? And what's so bad about humans being classified as animals? The very definition of an animal is a eukeriotic life form (Multicellular) that eats plants or other animals to survive.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 I have no problem accepting that the earth, and maybe even life, is old. I also don't have a problem with humans being classified as animals. There is a lot of evidence for the universe being old, and for the progression of species from bacteria to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, then humans. But, this is ALSO the exact order of creation found in the Bible (which was written before any of this was scientifically known), so it's also evidence for creationism.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

The bible also classified bats as birds and said rabbits chew cud like cows do. I'd be very wary of any sort of claim in it that even remotely resembles a scientific fact. Creationism cannot be proven as there is nothing identifiable, such as God's name written on each individual fossil like with how a artist writes his/her name on a painting. No identifiable marks of any sort have proven the myth of creation.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 "There is nothing identifiable"? Read Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Myer

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

If this "signature" reffers to DNA, there's a perfectly logical explanation to that. Even if not the explanation still encompasses it. Carbon is an organic compound, and when mixed with other organic compounds makes the basic building blocks of life which then mix together.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Also, specifically mammals have hair (Human have sparse hair on our bodies and most of it is on our heads), we also have four limbs, mammal females produce milk (Humans do so as well), mammal females give live birth, and sometimes human babies are born with tails as the bottom of the spinal chord in humans is what made up the primate tail our predecesors once had. The genes sometimes leave the tail in place instead of switching off to remove the tail.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Okay, so we have similar bodies to those of animals. That still doesn't prove anything.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Yes it does. We are animals. We have bones, we have blood, we eat plants and animals. We have eyes, mouths, extremeties (arms and legs), we're mammals, we're warm-blooded, we have hai, we are born, and eventually die. That is the very definition of a living thing in nature, and specifically the primate family of the mammilian group of animals. We are animals.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 We also walk on two legs, wear clothing, invent machines, and have a mental capacity that reaches WAY beyond that of any other animal.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

And that happened because all other primates use tools themselves. Tool making is a signature skill of all the great apes. Humans only got so much better as standing erect changed everything. It freed our hands to do more than walk around, this made us come up with new ideas to use tools, this increased our brain size in turn at a very VERY fast rate for evolutionary terms. As a result humans are born underdeveloped and are helpless for a few years until our bodies mature.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh Another argument that creationists need to lose is the "no fossils" lie. Darwin lived 150 years ago. You honestly think we haven't learned anything from everything we discovered since then? Besides even without fosils, careful study of DNA has proven the theory without a doubt.

[Kuploosh]

@NUTCASE71733 Very few transitional fossils have been found, considering the number of stable fossils we have.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Kuploosh

Wrong. We have hundreds of examples in every catagory we could hope for. Even if it isn't a complete record, we have enough to prove the common ancestry fact without a doubt. Look up DonExodus2's transitional form playlist.

[Kuploosh]

(continued #3) Neither theory has solid accepted evidence. Sure, if you exclude supernatural explanations, then ID doesn't have much of a stand. However, that's not logical, as I pointed out earlier. What I'm trying to say here is that, for such a controversial topic, people should be permitted to think for themselves. If they want to rule out supernatural explanations, that's up to them. But, there is and can be no evidence AGAINST supernatural powers. (to be continued)

[Kuploosh]

(continued #2) If a theory is untestable, what's the point of considering it? Back to the topic in question, ID vs. Evolution, ID is not totally untestable. If it were some small wacko theory made up by some guru, then it would be understandable to exclude it from school education. However, it has remained on the battle field for the past 150 years. The point here is that NEITHER theory has absolutely solid accepted evidence. (to be continued)

[Kuploosh]

(continued) So the scientists rejected a false idea. But now suppose that astrology is true. To reject it purely on the basis that it involves supernatural powers would be a dreadful mistake. You may argue that there is no way to test it. Fine, but that does not in ANY way mean or imply that it is false. I'm not an astrologer, I'm just being logical here. Just because you can't test something doesn't mean it's false. On the other hand, what's the point then? (to be continued)

[Kuploosh]

Whether or not you believe in ID or evolution, think hypothetically for a minute. Michael Behe was criticized because he said that under his definition of science, astrology was a scientific theory. Now, pretend that you have no bias for or against astrology. Suppose that astrology is false. Under the more accepted definition of science (excluding supernatural), astrology would not be accepted and therefore rejected. Score! Scientists rejected a false idea. TO BE CONTINUED....

[lewisner]

9.37 Bad loser.

[NUTCASE71733]

John E. Jones is a true patriot.

[TiTSxxMcGEE]

I remember in my 9th grade biology class my teacher told the class that evolution is only a theory with inconsistency’s and holes in it. The curriculum gave equal amount of class time to teaching it’s concepts and it’s flaws. That was in Texas while George W Bush was still governor

[MrAndocalrisian]

@TiTSxxMcGEE

That's too crazy. Right now I'm reading an article about the Texas Board of ED.

I love science because It's dynamic. Always room for improvement.

Religion is static and in my opinion....in allot of instances... downright abusive.

[Pjl1192]

@TiTSxxMcGEE Your 9th grade biology teacher was a moron.

[TiTSxxMcGEE]

@Pjl1192 the texas board of education. they're the ones that are truly the der-ta-deps

[BobbynEdward]

I just realized something. The division between science and religion has nothing to do with the existence of God. The devout could embrace the idea that evolution is the means for how God creates, but for one obstacle; science discounts their Biblical teachings (and, THE BIBLE is what the church puts forward as claim for its authority). This battle is not over TRUTH; it is the same old story. It is the church's WILL TO POWER over our minds.They don't care about our soul, they want our hearts.

[MrAndocalrisian]

@BobbynEdward

Most don't, Ed.. I've met some christians who I've honestly felt cared about my salvation. It's funny, because those are usually the ones who, in no way feel threatened by darwin's theory. Most however, have that hive mind mentality. I mean the judge was a Christian and people were calling him leaving death threats??? And how about what Pat Robertson had to say? That guy is pure concentrated evil! They should give him a plaster of paris enema.

[BobbynEdward]

@MrAndocalrisian People embrace the faith for good reasons. Reasons believed by many as being "from God to man", but institutional religion is often the other way round.