Hello, Joe Moe here your friendly theist! I just watched a special on Intelligent Design Vs. Evolutionary Sciences....Holy Crap!

moemed99
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hello, Joe Moe here your friendly theist! I just watched a special on Intelligent Design Vs. Evolutionary Sciences....Holy Crap!

Joe Moe theist here, and I keep being really suprised at how much I (a theist) have in common with you and yours.

I just finished watching,"Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", a documentary by Randy Olson. This guy traveled around the U.S. looking for the so called experts on Intelligent Design and questioned them (very carefully so as not to turn them off immediately) about why they believe what they believe. Their answers were very much like the ridiculous answers gotten from Kirk Cameron during the debates with Mr. Sapient. These people refuse to allow Evolution sciences to be taught in their schools, and are very much pro Intelligent Design. The evolutionitst are geting tired of showing up to debates wiht these people and I don't blame them. You have to see what  they are put up against. Evolutionists bring science and proof to the table, and they are confronted with pastors and preachers who refuse to believe anything that isn't in the bible. I can see as  scientists who are usually open to any idea as long as it is presented in a way that can somehow be proven through some scientific method, would get angry and frustrated by people and ideas that are unwaivering, but can't prove anything!!!!

Most of the time in this particular documentary was spent in Kansas, and the focus was on the Board of Education there which was made up of 10 elected members. This board, who decides what is and isn't taught in the public schools in that state, has a makeup that should absolutely not be allowed to exist in a society where we have a separation of church and state. On the board are at all times at least 6 strict conservatives, 2 of whom are religious. Right there I see a huge problem, 2 religious authorities making decisions about what is taught in a public school.  It goes back to my last post about how scary it is that religion plays such a role in government. Larry from your network had some things to say  about that topic and  I for one didn't realize how not subtle it is in some places. This place in Kansas there is no hiding it!! They have pastors making decisions about public concerns!!!!!

I will get back to this, I have suddenly ran out of time. If anyone can find it, I suggest that you watch that documentary I mentioned earlier. I think it is something that you would be very interested in!

Joe Moe


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
moemed99 wrote:

moemed99 wrote:

Joe Moe theist here, and I keep being really suprised at how much I (a theist) have in common with you and yours.

I just finished watching,"Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", a documentary by Randy Olson. This guy traveled around the U.S. looking for the so called experts on Intelligent Design and questioned them (very carefully so as not to turn them off immediately) about why they believe what they believe. Their answers were very much like the ridiculous answers gotten from Kirk Cameron during the debates with Mr. Sapient. These people refuse to allow Evolution sciences to be taught in their schools, and are very much pro Intelligent Design. The evolutionitst are geting tired of showing up to debates wiht these people and I don't blame them. You have to see what they are put up against. Evolutionists bring science and proof to the table, and they are confronted with pastors and preachers who refuse to believe anything that isn't in the bible. I can see as scientists who are usually open to any idea as long as it is presented in a way that can somehow be proven through some scientific method, would get angry and frustrated by people and ideas that are unwaivering, but can't prove anything!!!!

Most of the time in this particular documentary was spent in Kansas, and the focus was on the Board of Education there which was made up of 10 elected members. This board, who decides what is and isn't taught in the public schools in that state, has a makeup that should absolutely not be allowed to exist in a society where we have a separation of church and state. On the board are at all times at least 6 strict conservatives, 2 of whom are religious. Right there I see a huge problem, 2 religious authorities making decisions about what is taught in a public school. It goes back to my last post about how scary it is that religion plays such a role in government. Larry from your network had some things to say about that topic and I for one didn't realize how not subtle it is in some places. This place in Kansas there is no hiding it!! They have pastors making decisions about public concerns!!!!!

I will get back to this, I have suddenly ran out of time. If anyone can find it, I suggest that you watch that documentary I mentioned earlier. I think it is something that you would be very interested in!

Joe Moe

Interesting. I'll have to remember the name of that documentary.

Yes, I knew Kansas was bad. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was actually invented as an Open Letter to the Kansas School Board. Pastafarianism is mostly about keeping ID out of schools...or at least it was, at first.

It's up front and in your face in Kansas, but how do religious nutbars affect what is taught in other regions? There has to be a reason why so many people don't believe in evolution when its reality is so difficult to deny after just a bit of research.

A couple of years ago I needed to visit an ear, nose and throat specialist. As he was signing a prescription, I noticed his signature, like that of most doctors, was completely illegible. I asked if a course on "reverse penmanship" was required in medical school and speculated that his penmanship had devolved. He told me that it had actually gotten worse in stages and I said, "Aha! Punctuated equilibrium."

He didn't laugh. I didn't know if it was a bad joke or if he'd never heard of the reference. "You know what punctuated equilibrium is, right?"

He said, "Yes, but I'm a creationist."

I should have expected that. This is a very fundy county, after all, and the hospital is run by 7th Day Adventists. Ack! Compartmentalization or not, I decided not to go back to someone who didn't accept evolution as fact. After all, medical science is, at least in part, based on the fact of evolution.

One area of concern is bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. It is thought that if you hit them with two different types of antibiotics at the same time, it is likely that there will not be two mutations simultaneously present that will allow resistant bacteria to survive.

This is just one example. I'm sure there are more.

Some people got on my case for not wanting to see a fundy doctor, but I've had some bad experiences with other fundy doctors. Bleccch! No thank you!!!

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
PR

Quote:
There has to be a reason why so many people don't believe in evolution when its reality is so difficult to deny after just a bit of research.

The documentary went a bit into this: one likely answer appears to be that the creationists have better PR.

Biologists and science advocates don't do a good job of popularizing evolution, and they don't do a good job of boiling down the evidence to a pithy, memorable phrase. They always want to explain everything--which is admirable, but it doesn't do the PR job.

The creationists, in contrast, use their huge funding resources to hire fancy PR firms who figure out the best way to present their side.  For example, they develop talking points.  "Teach the Controversy."  "No New Information."  "Gaps in the fossil record."  Everybody in their bloc all up and down the line from Kirk Cameron to the local schoolboard administrator to the kids who made their GodTube video on the Museum of Natural History all use these phrases (and others) consistently.  All of these phrases have counter-arguments that are convincing, but people don't remember that: they just remember the slogan. 

 So by spending their money on PR rather than scientific research, they circumvent the scientific review process and sell their position directly to the public.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
moemed99 wrote: Joe Moe

moemed99 wrote:

Joe Moe theist here, and I keep being really suprised at how much I (a theist) have in common with you and yours.

I just finished watching,"Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", a documentary by Randy Olson. This guy traveled around the U.S. looking for the so called experts on Intelligent Design and questioned them (very carefully so as not to turn them off immediately) about why they believe what they believe. Their answers were very much like the ridiculous answers gotten from Kirk Cameron during the debates with Mr. Sapient. These people refuse to allow Evolution sciences to be taught in their schools, and are very much pro Intelligent Design. The evolutionitst are geting tired of showing up to debates wiht these people and I don't blame them. You have to see what they are put up against. Evolutionists bring science and proof to the table, and they are confronted with pastors and preachers who refuse to believe anything that isn't in the bible. I can see as scientists who are usually open to any idea as long as it is presented in a way that can somehow be proven through some scientific method, would get angry and frustrated by people and ideas that are unwaivering, but can't prove anything!!!!

Most of the time in this particular documentary was spent in Kansas, and the focus was on the Board of Education there which was made up of 10 elected members. This board, who decides what is and isn't taught in the public schools in that state, has a makeup that should absolutely not be allowed to exist in a society where we have a separation of church and state. On the board are at all times at least 6 strict conservatives, 2 of whom are religious. Right there I see a huge problem, 2 religious authorities making decisions about what is taught in a public school. It goes back to my last post about how scary it is that religion plays such a role in government. Larry from your network had some things to say about that topic and I for one didn't realize how not subtle it is in some places. This place in Kansas there is no hiding it!! They have pastors making decisions about public concerns!!!!!

I will get back to this, I have suddenly ran out of time. If anyone can find it, I suggest that you watch that documentary I mentioned earlier. I think it is something that you would be very interested in!

Joe Moe

 Its quite common to find unintelligent proponents for intelligent design, and the same can be said about proponents for almost any field of thought or faith.  I've met reasonable atheist and unreasonable theists (i'm a theist btw), so one shouldn't generalize.  If you want intelligent discussions or topics regarding intelligent design, why not check this site out.  Its a webpage owned by no less than the Discovery Institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/ 

These people seem to be capable enough to answer many questions regarding Intelligent Design as well as links you might want to check out and I hope that you would benefit from it. 

 Good luck!


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
The judge of the Dover

The judge of the Dover trial possibly plagerizing for a speech constitutes proof that goddidit?  I'm confused.

Plus, given DI's history concerning honesty and integrity, if they told me the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow morning, I'd set my alarm and put a compass next to it just to make sure. 

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge050476

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

 If you want intelligent discussions or topics regarding intelligent design, why not check this site out. Its a webpage owned by no less than the Discovery Institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

These people seem to be capable enough to answer many questions regarding Intelligent Design as well as links you might want to check out and I hope that you would benefit from it.

You're kidding, right? There is no intelligent discussion about ID and if there was, it wouldn't be coming from the Discovery Institute. Those people are quacks and frauds.  


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
That's funny.  The

That's funny.  The documentary Flock of Dodo's mentioned the Discovery Institute as the main political action (not scientific) force behind the teaching of creation/ID in schools. 

The documentary showed the difference between the multi-million dollar budget of the Discovery Institute (partly funded by Reverend Moon, btw) and the comparatively tiny budget of their main freethought rivals, the National Center for Science Education. 

Finally, the film made the point that instead of spending their huge budget on actual scientific research, the Discovery Institute spends its money on media and hiring expensive PR firms to get its message out.  They are the source of all those pithy talking points like "teach the controversy" that all the ID drones spout.

If you actually investigate the Discovery Institute, you'll find that although a lot of its bigwigs have Ph.D.'s, they're mostly not in biology.  They have a mathematician, a chemist, that one Australian biologist who's still pushing the "feathers are irreducibly complex" argument, and Behe.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
kellym78

kellym78 wrote:
curiousjorge050476 wrote:

If you want intelligent discussions or topics regarding intelligent design, why not check this site out. Its a webpage owned by no less than the Discovery Institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

These people seem to be capable enough to answer many questions regarding Intelligent Design as well as links you might want to check out and I hope that you would benefit from it.

You're kidding, right? There is no intelligent discussion about ID and if there was, it wouldn't be coming from the Discovery Institute. Those people are quacks and frauds.

Isn't that a rather sweeping statement about ID?  Have you read all the literature, articles and arguments for and watched the media footage regarding ID, as well as looked up at the credentials the its proponents?  I've looked up the credentials of the people involved there and they've got a rather interesting resume.  Now that doesn't necessarily mean that everything they say is dogma or that i agree with them 100%, but it does mean that they might have something worthwhile to say regarding ID.

Also, i don't think that the scientific community would let the discovery institute get away with promoting quacks and frauds considering the amount of PR these guys get. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge wrote:

curiousjorge wrote:

Also, i don't think that the scientific community would let the discovery institute get away with promoting quacks and frauds considering the amount of PR these guys get.

Well, I am part of the scientific community, and I say the Discovery institute is a site of quacks and frauds. I have read the literature on ID. I have read Darwin's Black Box, as well as corresponded with Behe, Dembski and Ross. (None of whom has responded in months) I remember the Dover trial where Behe tried to convince the jury that ID was fact based on the lack of evidence for the evolution of the complex immune system.

He was presented with nine books and fifty eight journal articles on immunology from qualified professionals. He first dismissed them as unfruitful, then when pressed admitted he had not read them. Dishonesty at its peak.

 

As a biologist, I am embarassed that someone of Behe's credentials is promoting this nonsense. Just out of boredom, I personally shredded one of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5975

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: That's

Textom wrote:

That's funny. The documentary Flock of Dodo's mentioned the Discovery Institute as the main political action (not scientific) force behind the teaching of creation/ID in schools.

Well, if you put into account the fact that the documentary Flock of Dodos is against creationism in the first place, its quite natural for it to point to the Discovery Institute in a bad light. Besides, how can you say that their goal is a political and not scientific in nature? I can understand it being political (the word being rather broad in definition and can be connected to religion, government and /or science depending upon which school of thought one bases it on) but unscientific? Did they give specific instances to prove such a statement, or did documentary simply state it outright without proof and you then take it wholeheartedly and without question? If that was so, then would that be naturally considered a rather irrational response?

Textom wrote:
The documentary showed the difference between the multi-million dollar budget of the Discovery Institute (partly funded by Reverend Moon, btw) and the comparatively tiny budget of their main freethought rivals, the National Center for Science Education.

Is it wrong for one institution to have more funding than another? It just means one is luckier or better than the other in getting funds i guess.

Textom wrote:
Finally, the film made the point that instead of spending their huge budget on actual scientific research, the Discovery Institute spends its money on media and hiring expensive PR firms to get its message out. They are the source of all those pithy talking points like "teach the controversy" that all the ID drones spout.

How did they get to this conclusion? Did they check on the financial reports of the Discovery Institute themselves? Did they show actual snapshots of such reports? What percentage of their budget did they use for PR compared to the use for actual scientific research? Is it wrong to use PR to promote something one considers worthwhile? It is not uncommon for industries, institutions or even govenments to spend billions in PR/Advertising to promote something, so i don't think that there is anything questionable or shady for the Discovery Institute to spend for PR.

Textom wrote:
If you actually investigate the Discovery Institute, you'll find that although a lot of its bigwigs have Ph.D.'s, they're mostly not in biology. They have a mathematician, a chemist, that one Australian biologist who's still pushing the "feathers are irreducibly complex" argument, and Behe.

I did check on the people there and one can find a list of scientists working with them in this link:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

Based on your statement, one would think that the Discovery Institute has only a handful of scientists working with them, when there are actually about 42 of them in various scientific fields including Behe who himself is a biologist, most of them publishers of multiple books and articles and the like in various scientific journals. Besides, how many biologists does an institution need to have a credible voice in the scientific field?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge wrote:

curiousjorge wrote:

Based on your statement, one would think that the Discovery Institute has only a handful of scientists working with them, when there are actually about 42 of them in various scientific fields including Behe who himself is a biologist, most of them publishers of multiple books and articles and the like in various scientific journals. Besides, how many biologists does an institution need to have a credible voice in the scientific field?

42 is only a handful, a pitiful handful, really. "Strength in numbers" is something that the ID/creationist should not bring up when compared to respectable scientific institutions. For instance, the top 75 scientific institutions who have signed a petition against Intelligent Design all have over 500,000 members. Just for fun, you should look at this hilarious prank started by the worlds most respected scientific instituion, the NCSE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

curiousjorge wrote:

Also, i don't think that the scientific community would let the discovery institute get away with promoting quacks and frauds considering the amount of PR these guys get.

Well, I am part of the scientific community, and I say the Discovery institute is a site of quacks and frauds. I have read the literature on ID. I have read Darwin's Black Box, as well as corresponded with Behe, Dembski and Ross. (None of whom has responded in months) I remember the Dover trial where Behe tried to convince the jury that ID was fact based on the lack of evidence for the evolution of the complex immune system.

He was presented with nine books and fifty eight journal articles on immunology from qualified professionals. He first dismissed them as unfruitful, then when pressed admitted he had not read them. Dishonesty at its peak.

 

As a biologist, I am embarassed that someone of Behe's credentials is promoting this nonsense. Just out of boredom, I personally shredded one of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5975

 

 1) I cannot quite comment on Behe nor his actions on the dover trial since i haven't seen it myself and don't know the guy personally.

2) I read your link regarding your post on one of Behe's examples, and i have to admit that was rather deep for me.  I won't pretend to understand most of what you wrote, so i can't give an honest answer to it.  I therefore respectfully decline to comment on that one. 


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

curiousjorge wrote:

Based on your statement, one would think that the Discovery Institute has only a handful of scientists working with them, when there are actually about 42 of them in various scientific fields including Behe who himself is a biologist, most of them publishers of multiple books and articles and the like in various scientific journals. Besides, how many biologists does an institution need to have a credible voice in the scientific field?

42 is only a handful, a pitiful handful, really. "Strength in numbers" is something that the ID/creationist should not bring up when compared to respectable scientific institutions. For instance, the top 75 scientific institutions who have signed a petition against Intelligent Design all have over 500,000 members. Just for fun, you should look at this hilarious prank started by the worlds most respected scientific instituion, the NCSE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

History is abound with true stories of a pitiful handful of people or even mere individuals going against ridiculous odds in various situations be it military, political, ethical or religious and eventually succeed and in given situations, been proven to be right all along, even when everybody else didn't or refused to believe or support them.

Now i'm not saying that ID proponents are like the 300 spartans, but what I am saying is that might does not automatically mean right and that strenght in numbers doesn't necessarily mean strenght in reason.  Just imagine how much scientific advancement was stunted by the fanatical religious institutions during the dark ages.  They did so because they didn't give the scientists during their time  an opportunity to air their views and an environment for meaningful scientific exchange.  Denouncing creationism outright without even a formal series of debates held in a national scale would be like declaring yourself the winner of the war even before any major battles are fought.

I long to see the day when a nationally televised series of  debates between theism/ID and atheism would be aired, with the major news networks covering them.  That way the pertinent views aired in this and other forums would be given the attention due them.  Oh there have been skirmishes before with both sides claiming victory, but none really at the level of even the US presidential debates.  Its possible that it will never happen actually, but one can always hope for the best.

Btw, i noticed deludedgod that you only comment on certain portions of my responses.  Does that mean that you agree with those portions that you didn't comment on?  Or am i being overly optimistic? Laughing


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
you fail to understand the

you fail to understand the the goal of the discovery institute is not scientific but to sway public and political opinion, and they are deceptive in doing so.

 

Example.  Intelligent design cannot get peer reviewed by any serious science journal, so the discovery institute just created one and rubber stamps all of the articles they publish.  They then claim the articles are peer reviewed.  The 'journal' has a deceptive name "darwinism, design and public education and is not edited by scienctists but rather philosophy phd's, and of course has Behe and Dembski as contributors.

 

They then go around touting their ideas as peer reviewed.  See a problem yet?

 http://www.darwinismanddesign.com/index.php

still further, on the discovery institutes own website we find what they really are about:

 

"The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership"

 

If this isn't far enough from a legitimate scientific foundation, there is more...

 Mission Statement

"Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website"

 

In other words, they are pimping their god ideas and not really interested in objective science.  This is why no one interested in real science has any respect for them. 

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge

curiousjorge wrote:
Besides, how can you say that their goal is a political and not scientific in nature? I can understand it being political (the word being rather broad in definition and can be connected to religion, government and /or science depending upon which school of thought one bases it on) but unscientific? Did they give specific instances to prove such a statement, or did documentary simply state it outright without proof and you then take it wholeheartedly and without question?

You don't have to believe me, or the documentary.  You can check out the Discovery Institute's own mission statement on it's Web site, www.discovery.org:

Discovery Institute wrote:
The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the word "science" anywhere in their mission statement.  I also don't see the word "research."  Their own materials appear to be telling us that they are a PR organization, and not a scientific one.

curiousjorge wrote:
How did they get to this conclusion? Did they check on the financial reports of the Discovery Institute themselves? Did they show actual snapshots of such reports? What percentage of their budget did they use for PR compared to the use for actual scientific research?

According to their 2005 form 990, which is available from your library's Web site as public information because they are a 501(3)(c) charity, their income from 'public support' for that year was $2,784,188 (although they spent over 3.8 million that year). Bruce Chapman, their president, was paid over $144K in compensation that year.  Their highest-paid employees have titles like "program director" "program policy director" and "program manager," but not "researcher."  I got this info directly off the pdf of their tax form.

I found this information with five minutes of Web searching.  If I were a trained journalist with access to a real Lexus-Nexis database, I could find out everything I wanted to know about the income and expenditures of any non-profit in the country.

curiousjorge wrote:
Is it wrong to use PR to promote something one considers worthwhile? 

Not at all.  I do it all the time.

My point is that it is wrong to think of the Discovery Institute as a scientific research organization.  It is a public relations organization.

Deludedgod already amply handled the point that 42 scientists is a laughable number.  42 scientists from different fields is good for a community college, not for a scientific movement.  It's actually good evidence that they don't have any support from the legitimate scientific community. 

 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge050476

curiousjorge wrote:

I long to see the day when a nationally televised series of  debates between theism/ID and atheism would be aired, with the major news networks covering them.  That way the pertinent views aired in this and other forums would be given the attention due them.  Oh there have been skirmishes before with both sides claiming victory, but none really at the level of even the US presidential debates.  Its possible that it will never happen actually, but one can always hope for the best.

 Why?  Science shouldn't be decided on consensus or who has the slicker attorney or argumentative style.  Still further, most of the time debates, especially close debates, don't convince anyone to change their minds.

Debate is fun but in the final analysis what is lacking in this country is education.  People just parrot what they hear, and this is why 'intelligent design' is so strong, it can be repeated in sound bites and stupid people can build up a sophisticated sounding argument around it.  Not to mention it is a 'feel good' type belief that re-enforces one's religion.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of the Discovery

Speaking of the Discovery Institute, has anybody checked out the "Cascadia" project on their Web site?  Apparently they have this big project afoot to build a high speed train from Vancouver to California?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Maybe it's part of some clever plan to show that Intelligent Design must be true.  If the train to Vancouver has a designer, God must exist.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


moemed99
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hi all, Joe Moe your friendly theist here, Curious jorge is not

When I came here and started my first discussion, it was well recieved. I said right away I was a Catholic, and allthough I don't go to church and confession every week I still have faith, and I don't think anything is going to change that. I also made it clear that I was not here to start fights,or come under a false pretense(which is what I believe  curiousjorge050476 has done).

I started this discussion because I saw the movie documentary that has drummed up a bit of contriversary here, and I am glad that it has had people thinking. I hope some of the rated members here have had a chance to see this movie/documantary so you can see what makes its way to the people because of money!!!!!

I brought it to the attention of the RRS, because they told us straight out that the money is with the conservatives  in this fight.

IT IS $700,000 PER YEAR FOR THESE INTELLIGENT DESIGN NUTBAGS TO $50,000 FOR THE EVOLUTIONISTS. This is nuts!!!!!!!!!

In the Doc the Evolutionists call for it to stop being called ,"The Theory of Evolution.", and call it what it is, which is the FACT OF EVOLUTION.

I am very excited that Kelly responded to my message, and she is absoultely right!!!!!!!   Any Information provided by the Discovery Institute is going to be tainted. It is going to be blindly one sided, and it is going to be from those without thoughts of their own.

Intelligent Design was a way to try to circumvent the separation of church and state. They are saying that God did it , without saying that God did it!

Curiousjorge050476 has nerve thinking that the people here posting arecompletely stupid, If he had any respect for those with different beliefs than his own he wouldn't have tried to pull a Bugs Bunny type mind trick on the membership here to prove that God exists, it is getting so silly now that these morons are really, really making a theist like myself look bad, and really bad.

I am actually suprised that he didn't try to say that the childrens book about Curious George didn't prove that evolution didn't exist because otherwise he would have been wearing the yellow hat!!!!!!!!!! lol Samw as saying that the mona lisa had a creator, so we must have one!!!!!

LOLOLOL

Joe Moe,

Theist, but realist at large!!!

Thanks


moemed99
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Joe Moe here, Sorry it has been a while!

Has anyone seen the documentary that I was talking about?   " Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus"

This is basically what I was talking to you guys about and then some idiot called "

curiousjorge050476"Decided to take my welcoming by you guys and turn it into  somthing really really bad.If anyone recalls I am Joe Moe, I am a Roman Catholic, and after a bit of research, was suprised about how much we had in common. The debate between the "Intelligent Designers" and normal rational human beings, the "evolutionists", has sparkeda particular interest in me, and watching Kelly and Chris debate asshole Kirk Cameron and his asshole partner really made me think twice about what the hell I was doing!      When I left off last time, there were at least 3 of your members who said they were going to try to see the movie/documentary "Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", a documentary by Randy Olson. (Olson is on your side BTW)      I looked up my responders last time and no one seemed to have responded.      The main reason that I am so interested is because of how much I agree with you, and how different we appear to be. I have faith, I don't think that that makes me a retard or anything, it has helped me through some hard times. You guys don't believe in any higher power, especially that of any organized religion, and we still have alot in common.       I believe the Intelligent Designers are a bunch of fucking retards. You Agree. It is a ridiculous way of trying to circumvent the laws pertaining to the separation of church and state. The want to teach children that there is an amazing force out there who has designed life in all aspects. The rational people of the world know that there is a scientific explanation for these things, and evolution is a fact! Not a theory, a fact! The people who make the books need to stop calling it the "theory" of evolution, and start calling it "Evolution, the fact that is the basis for all life." The money situation is ridiculous, $700,000 /year budget for the holy rollers to smash ID down everyones throats, and about $50,000 to get the word out about evolution sciences.    For everyone who has no idea about who I am and what I have had to say before, I will let you know again. I am a Roman Catholic, I have faith in God. I do, however believe in the realism of this world, and the scientific facts that exist to better our knowlege of everything.    I hope someone has seen this movie, and I hope you respond to me with an open mind, I am not the enemy. The fact that I have faith, and agree with you on most of your issues only makes you stronger!!Joe Moe


moemed99
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Joe Moe here, Sorry it has been a while!

Has anyone seen the documentary that I was talking about?   " Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus"

This is basically what I was talking to you guys about and then some idiot called "

curiousjorge050476"Decided to take my welcoming by you guys and turn it into  somthing really really bad.If anyone recalls I am Joe Moe, I am a Roman Catholic, and after a bit of research, was suprised about how much we had in common. The debate between the "Intelligent Designers" and normal rational human beings, the "evolutionists", has sparkeda particular interest in me, and watching Kelly and Chris debate asshole Kirk Cameron and his asshole partner really made me think twice about what the hell I was doing!      When I left off last time, there were at least 3 of your members who said they were going to try to see the movie/documentary "Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", a documentary by Randy Olson. (Olson is on your side BTW)      I looked up my responders last time and no one seemed to have responded.      The main reason that I am so interested is because of how much I agree with you, and how different we appear to be. I have faith, I don't think that that makes me a retard or anything, it has helped me through some hard times. You guys don't believe in any higher power, especially that of any organized religion, and we still have alot in common.       I believe the Intelligent Designers are a bunch of fucking retards. You Agree. It is a ridiculous way of trying to circumvent the laws pertaining to the separation of church and state. The want to teach children that there is an amazing force out there who has designed life in all aspects. The rational people of the world know that there is a scientific explanation for these things, and evolution is a fact! Not a theory, a fact! The people who make the books need to stop calling it the "theory" of evolution, and start calling it "Evolution, the fact that is the basis for all life." The money situation is ridiculous, $700,000 /year budget for the holy rollers to smash ID down everyones throats, and about $50,000 to get the word out about evolution sciences.    For everyone who has no idea about who I am and what I have had to say before, I will let you know again. I am a Roman Catholic, I have faith in God. I do, however believe in the realism of this world, and the scientific facts that exist to better our knowlege of everything.    I hope someone has seen this movie, and I hope you respond to me with an open mind, I am not the enemy. The fact that I have faith, and agree with you on most of your issues only makes you stronger!!Joe Moe


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I was one of the first to

I was one of the first to see Flock of Dodos when it premiered at Darwin Day earlier this year. I wasn't impressed by it at all. It was being shown as part of the Darwin Day festivities so I assumed it was going to be a documentary explaining evolution, but it turned out to be about the evolution/creation "controversy." I think the documentary gives way too much time for the creationists to spew their nonsense and assumes the viewer already knows enough about evolution to answer the creationist's ridiculous claims.

 

JoeMoe wrote:
The people who make the books need to stop calling it the "theory" of evolution, and start calling it "Evolution, the fact that is the basis for all life."

People just need to be properly educated about what a scientific theory actually is. 

As for you making us stronger, while I certainly commend you for speaking out against creationism, when you say you're a Catholic who supports science it sounds similar to me as if you told me that you're a good Nazi.


moemed99
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I have made posts in the

I have made posts in the past that have been well recieved. For you to compare me to a good Nazi because I have faith is ridiculously short sighted, and very insulting. I don't know what happened to you to make you hate organized religion so much, but my religion is a part of my life, and the fact that I agree whole heartedly with Rational Responders, and Athiests in general about issued like the separation of church and state doesn't make me the enemy, it lets you know that you have allies in the world, which is dominated by religious people, whether we like it or not. All I said is that I was Catholic, but we had similar beliefs outside of the religious ones, and you went for the jugular for no reason. Did I tell anyone here that they were wrong? Did I try to change the minds of anyone here? Did I even try to slip in a positive about my beliefs?  No, but you compare me to a Nazi, because I am Catholic? That is ridiculous, I don't expect to have many allies here, but up untill now I have had the respect of the rest of the people here because I don't try to say anyone is right or wrong, I just say who I am and then I state my business.   SO Mr. Wonderland, I really wonder if you are who this organization wants as it's spokesperson, cause the last 20 people who have responded to my posts have not only not caled me a Nazi, but have said that they appreciated the input from someone other than someone who believes exactly what they believe.

Joe Moe


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheistInWonderland

AtheistInWonderland wrote:
when you say you're a Catholic who supports science it sounds similar to me as if you told me that you're a good Nazi.

This is the sort of thinking I'd expect from fundies. You may not like Catholics, AtheistInWonderland, but lumping in science supporting Catholics in with "good" Nazis speaks of a narrow mind that thinks in absolutes. You're like my Dad who thinks bra ads in the newspaper are pornography.

Oh, and Goodwin's law says you loose the argument.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
The Media is liberal and is

The Media is liberal and is commited to their agenda.

THE CASE FOR THE CREATOR, edited by Strobel, is now on DVD. Top scientists are consulted (geneticists, bio-chemists, astronomers, physicists). Evolution debunked. Creation proven. A MUST for all lovers of science.



CREATOR AND THE COSMOS, by Hugh Ross. Proves creation.



P.S. Worlds leading philosophical atheist, Anthony Flew, author of 40 books on atheism, has recently denounced atheism. He is now a theist.Wink

 

(mod edit - fixed ridiculous formatting)

(mod note - next time just write what you want to say but don't make it look like an advertisement flyer for a circus)

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Typo: "The Case for A

 Typo: "The Case for A Creator." Not "The Case for the Creator."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
I missed this topic until

I missed this topic until it was bumped by Apotheon.

 

First thing's first Atheistinwonderland:

 

 

 

 

Next order of buisness

 

 Apotheon:

Read this topic

 

It explains ID/creationism. 

 

 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Sure it explains it from

 Sure it explains it from an atheist position. Evolution is dead. New discoveries are pointing to an intelligent creation. This is clearly a sign from God as we approach the end of history. He's giving people one last chance.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  Sure it explains

Quote:

 Sure it explains it from an atheist position. Evolution is dead. New discoveries are pointing to an intelligent creation. This is clearly a sign from God as we approach the end of history. He's giving people one last chance.

I beg to differ. I work on the cutting edge of molecular biology, where we make the "new discoveries" you have a fetish with. I can tell you only that we are discovering evolutionary mechanisms for life. If you wish for me to show you, read these:

 Please do not speak about that which you are utterly ignorant, and worse, know you are ignorant, such as molecular biology or neuroscience.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Since you have an

 Since you have an interest in molecular biology, explain this one:

 

Chemical Evolution: The Problem Of Improbable Proteins

Let’s attempt a calculation of the likelihood of the formation of a single protein by random chemical reactions within a hypothesized “primordial soup” on the primitive Earth. For a relatively short protein of just 100 amino acids, we can calculate a separate probability in relation to each of five specific difficulties.

  1. Cells select from a list of just 20 specific amino acids to make proteins. But many other varieties of amino acids also exist. For example, some 70 different amino acids have been discovered in meteorites, which astronomers suggest could have delivered extraterrestrial organic compounds to the primordial soup. Using that figure, the chance of a given amino acid in the chain being an allowable one would be ; the probability of the whole protein being composed of allowable amino acids would be .
  2. Most amino acids exist in equal amounts of two alternate forms (“isomers”), referred to as left- and right-handed (or L- and D-). But proteins are made from only L-amino acids. Each amino acid added to the growing protein has only chance of being an L-isomer. (Actually, since glycine exists in one form only, the probability can be stated more correctly as , assuming equal concentrations of all the types of amino acid.) For the whole protein, then, the chance of all amino acids being proper isomers is .
  3. Amino acids in proteins are joined together by a specific linkage called an a-peptide bond. The a-amino group of one amino acid is linked by dehydration synthesis to the a-acid group of the other amino acid — that is, the reacting functional groups must be the ones attached to the central carbon (a-carbon) of the amino acid. But some amino acids have more than one acid group or amino group (or polar nitrogen acting like an amino group). Among the standard twenty amino acids, the total number of such groups not attached to an a-carbon is about ten. We can therefore approximate the chance of forming a correct bond between amino acids as . The total number of such bonds will be 99, so the probability of all bonds being the correct a-peptide bond is .
  4. The “primordial soup” must certainly contain other organic compounds in addition to amino acids, including amino compounds with no acid group, organic acids with no amino group, and many others. Let us generously estimate the chance that every compound within the chain would be an amino acid (and not some other molecule) as . The probability of the entire chain consisting only of amino acids would then be .
  5. Protein function requires that only certain amino acids are usable in at least some portion of the protein. In some cases, a mutation that changes even one amino acid in the active site of an enzyme will destroy the function of that enzyme. Supposing, rather generously, that only 5 amino acid sites out of 100 in our protein are critical, and that any of 4 amino acids will be acceptable in such locations, the probability of obtaining a functional protein will be .

Combining all of these independent probabilities related to the forming of one short protein molecule by random chance processes, we estimate the overall probability as

=

Now, it has recently been determined that a minimal functioning cell (an obligate parasite) must have no fewer than 265 protein-coding genes (Clyde A. Hutchison III, Scott N. Peterson, Steven R. Gill, Robin T. Cline, Owen White, Claire M. Fraser, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter. 1999 [Dec 10]. “Global Transposon Mutagenesis and a Minimal Mycoplasma Genome.” Science, Vol. 286, pp. 2165-2169). Assuming that each gene codes for a single protein, this implies that the cell requires at least 265 proteins to operate as a “living cell.” In that case, considering proteins only, the probability of a complete living cell coming into being through random, chance processes would be

If we ponder that the whole universe is estimated to consist of only about subatomic particles, that fewer than seconds have elapsed since the alleged “Big Bang,” and that mathematicians reckon that an event with a probability of less than is effectively impossible, the above calculation easily destroys any hope whatsoever of a random, chance chemical origin of life! (It’s interesting that the noted astronomer Fred Hoyle arrived at a similar figure of through a different route [1981. Evolution from Space. New York: Touchstone. p. 24].)

Of course, many biomolecules other than proteins are required for a fully functioning cell to be able to metabolize nutrients and reproduce itself. The above calculations have considered only proteins, and have not looked at carbohydrates (needed by cells as nutrients), lipids (constituents of cell membranes), or nucleic acids (extremely complex information molecules such as DNA and RNA, found in all cells).

A further difficulty is that random chemical reactions are more likely to lead to the destruction of any partly-formed protein than to its continuing increase in size! As stated by evolutionary biologist and Nobel laureate George Wald: “In the vast majority of the processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis” (Scientific American, Aug 1954, pp. 44, 49-50).

 

Article from: www3.telus.net/csabc/

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
An interest in molecular

An interest in molecular biology? Are you insulting me thinly? It's my job! I see, that you simply ignored my links and decided you would debate me on abiogenesis instead of evolution, which makes you dishonest and ignorant. You are trying to change the subject of the debate to chemistry because you are too ignorant to bother to go through my links on biological evolution.

Since you did not do me the courtest of writing something for yourself, I sure as hell will not do you the courtesy of giving you some of my own writing. Instead, I will refer you to a recent Scientific American article of abiogensis and the generation of proto-cecullar components: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/7946

Now, let us return the debate to evolution. Your copy-and paste had nothing to do with biological evolution. Also, please do not copy and paste again.

Now, please read my links, which unlike you, I wrote myself. I refuse to engage in debate with someone who cannot even be fucked to compose his own responses.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Apotheon wrote: Sure it

Apotheon wrote:
Sure it explains it from an atheist position.

 

I'm not atheist. 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
Sure it explains it from an atheist position.

 

I'm not atheist.

 

Ouch. =)

 

Deluded:

 

Thanks for linking the article about RNA as a precursor to DNA. I haven't had the opportunity to read very much about abiogenesis (I've heard of the Miller-Urey experiment and very little about proteins being found in meteorites, but that is all), and I can't say that I understand all of it since my knowledge of chemistry is verging on unacceptable, but I at least enjoy hearing about the advances being made.

 

Oh, I guess hamby posted that originally, so credit goes to him too. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
People have taken my

People have taken my comment way out of proportion:

Quote:
As for you making us stronger, while I certainly commend you for speaking out against creationism, when you say you're a Catholic who supports science it sounds similar to me as if you told me that you're a good Nazi.

 A Catholic who supports science is a contradiction like being a good Nazi is a contradiction is what I meant by that. A Catholic believes some things that are contrary to what science tells us. A Nazi believes some things that are contrary to what most of society has agreed upon is good. I never compared anyone to a Nazi...sheesh.