Feeding Frenzy

[Strife767]

Only in your tiny brain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please explain where the science is in believing in a creator God.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Please explain where the science is in believing in a creator God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's easy. The eye, the motor by which bacteria propel, DNA, cell structure, gene sequencing, etc. etc. etc., are too complicated to have evolved simultaneously by happenstance, natural selection, mother nature, random selection or whatever else the Darwiniacs want to call it. The only rational explanation is Intelligent Design.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, 2dumb, I'm suggesting that science classes focus on SCIENCE. Which intelligent design is not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only in the Darwiniac world.

[Bryan]

Bryan, both of the counter-examples you suggest involve the denial of someone's humanity and the violation of their essential rights. You can't argue for a right to engage in human sacrifice or engage in revenge without advocating gratuitous violence or killing. So your argument collapses on itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A Satanist couldn't take revenge by keying your car?

For a lawyer, you have a great deal of trouble constructing a decent argument, Paul.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that LaVey Satanists cannot simply take revenge by lobbing stinkbombs down your chimney or cutting the buds off of your rose bushes. They must do so with gratuitous violence or killing.

How is than any less a restriction on the right of a Satanist to practice his religious as he pleases?

You offer us no argument, Paul. Just the smug assurance that the argument collapses on itself. That's empty rhetoric on your part. What we have, instead, is special pleading on your part (restrictions on religious practice will not be considered restrictions on religious practice where violence or killing result (I took the liberty of omitting "gratuitous" since it disrespects the religious nature of the Satanists' would-be behavior)).

Hopefully this very weak reply of yours is no reflection on your abilities as an attorney.

[Strife767]

A Satanist couldn't take revenge by keying your car?

For a lawyer, you have a great deal of trouble constructing a decent argument, Paul.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that LaVey Satanists cannot simply take revenge by lobbing stinkbombs down your chimney or cutting the buds off of your rose bushes.  They must do so with gratuitous violence or killing.

How is than any less a restriction on the right of a Satanist to practice his religious as he pleases?

You offer us no argument, Paul.  Just the smug assurance that the argument collapses on itself.  That's empty rhetoric on your part.  What we have, instead, is special pleading on your part (restrictions on religious practice will not be considered restrictions on religious practice where violence or killing result (I took the liberty of omitting "gratuitous" since it disrespects the religious nature of the Satanists' would-be behavior)).

Hopefully this very weak reply of yours is no reflection on your abilities as an attorney.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is such a ridiculous and insulting post, and I can tell from the increasing amount of posts making a statement to this end that we're all getting tired of your nonsense.

Bottom line is that one's freedom to practice their religion is granted up to but not including the point where it would infringe on anyone else's civil rights. Simple as that. That's why public school teachers aren't allowed to preach their religious beliefs to their students during class. Duh.

[Guest Guest]

A Satanist couldn't take revenge by keying your car?

For a lawyer, you have a great deal of trouble constructing a decent argument, Paul.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that LaVey Satanists cannot simply take revenge by lobbing stinkbombs down your chimney or cutting the buds off of your rose bushes.  They must do so with gratuitous violence or killing.

How is than any less a restriction on the right of a Satanist to practice his religious as he pleases?

You offer us no argument, Paul.  Just the smug assurance that the argument collapses on itself.  That's empty rhetoric on your part.  What we have, instead, is special pleading on your part (restrictions on religious practice will not be considered restrictions on religious practice where violence or killing result (I took the liberty of omitting "gratuitous" since it disrespects the religious nature of the Satanists' would-be behavior)).

Hopefully this very weak reply of yours is no reflection on your abilities as an attorney.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The more you post, Bryan, the more you reveal yourself a fool. You know how to construct a sentence, but your argument is without content. Case in point: if a Satanist, or anyone, lobs a stinkbomb down someone's chimney, the lobber of the stinkbomb violates the victim's humanity. Your argument still collapses on itself, and only you seem not to see it.

[Calybos]

That's easy. The eye, the motor by which bacteria propel, DNA, cell structure, gene sequencing, etc. etc. etc., are too complicated to have evolved simultaneously by happenstance, natural selection, mother nature, random selection or whatever else the Darwiniacs want to call it. The only rational explanation is Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as soon as the majority consensus of credible scientific minds agree with you, then it'll be worthy of consideration for a public science curriculum.

Don't hold your breath.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Intelligent design has a place in Catholic Schools. It does NOT have a place in public schools. It's easy to demonize "Loony Left Kool-Aid drinking Darwiniacs." I think if anyone would have made a loyal Nazi, it would be you, especially with that mindset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank You !! It IS easy to demonize "Loony Left Kool-aid drinking Darwiniacs"' like taking candy from a baby.

[Strife767]

That's easy.

Oh, I can't wait. *reads on*

The eye, the motor by which bacteria propel, DNA, cell structure, gene sequencing, etc. etc. etc., are too complicated to have evolved simultaneously by happenstance, natural selection, mother nature, random selection or whatever else the Darwiniacs want to call it.

Despite the fact that every single one of those things has an adequate explanation already, and that you've been shown it (especially for the eye--despite all advice, you just won't drop that tired argument that has failed over and OVER ever since people started misquoting Darwin's statement about it), DESPITE all that, you do realize that even if we had NO explanation for any of these things, that it wouldn't prove JACK toward your argument.

It's nothing more than a fallacious argument from incredulity. When your "proof" that X is the cause (your "Designer" (don't have the guts to call it "God" anymore, huh?)) is nothing more than "well, it couldn't have been Y (evolution)," even if I for the moment ignore that evolution DOES provide an explanation, even ignoring that...it not only doesn't prove a "Designer," but it isn't science either.

Science works by creating theories that are in alignment with the evidence we find. NOTHING in science has ever been proven by simply stating "well, this other thing couldn't have done it." Say it with me, now:

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. I asked for science--you did not provide it. Care to try again?

The only rational explanation is Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. The best one could do by refuting evolution (and believe me, no creationist has ever come close--every last claim falls apart under even the most casual scrutiny)...is eliminating it as a possibility. There is no dichotomy here--there is no way to 'prove' ID by process of elimination, even granting the ridiculous condition that evolution is somehow refuted.

You have absolutely nowhere to go. Even if all your dreams come true and evolution, as well as every other natural possibility, is found to be allll wrong, guess what? Not only do you now have to deal with opposing ideas about SUPERNATURAL causes, but you are just as outside science as you always were--it's just more obvious now.

Also:

<-- "Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long exposé of the claims of intelligent design and the tactics that creationists employ to get it shoehorned into the American school system."

Watch that. I dare you.

[Guest WilliamK]

Intelligent design has a place in Catholic Schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Completely aside from the question of whether it is religion or science is the simple fact that it is garbage by either measure. Like numerology, phrenology, and lysenkoism, ID does not belong in ANY school other than as an example to help students learn to recognize bunkum.

Private schools are free to teach it, of course. And that is as it should be. But they are foolish to do so.

[Guest A christian]

Oh, I can't wait. *reads on*

Despite the fact that every single one of those things has an adequate explanation already, and that you've been shown it (especially for the eye--despite all advice, you just won't drop that tired argument that has failed over and OVER ever since people started misquoting Darwin's statement about it), DESPITE all that, you do realize that even if we had NO explanation for any of these things, that it wouldn't prove JACK toward your argument.

It's nothing more than a fallacious argument from incredulity. When your "proof" that X is the cause (your "Designer" (don't have the guts to call it "God" anymore, huh?)) is nothing more than "well, it couldn't have been Y (evolution)," even if I for the moment ignore that evolution DOES provide an explanation, even ignoring that...it not only doesn't prove a "Designer," but it isn't science either.

Science works by creating theories that are in alignment with the evidence we find. NOTHING in science has ever been proven by simply stating "well, this other thing couldn't have done it." Say it with me, now:

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. I asked for science--you did not provide it. Care to try again?

Nonsense. The best one could do by refuting evolution (and believe me, no creationist has ever come close--every last claim falls apart under even the most casual scrutiny)...is eliminating it as a possibility. There is no dichotomy here--there is no way to 'prove' ID by process of elimination, even granting the ridiculous condition that evolution is somehow refuted.

You have absolutely nowhere to go. Even if all your dreams come true and evolution, as well as every other natural possibility, is found to be allll wrong, guess what? Not only do you now have to deal with opposing ideas about SUPERNATURAL causes, but you are just as outside science as you always were--it's just more obvious now.

Also:

<-- "Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long exposé of the claims of intelligent design and the tactics that creationists employ to get it shoehorned into the American school system."

Watch that. I dare you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just watched Ken Miller's talk on I.D. Everyone should watch it. It proves beyond any doubt that evolution is not happenstance or random mutation, it was designed. Clearly, evolution was and is God's way of designing the world and it's inhabitants. It's obvious God didn't wave a wand and create everything, GOD CREATED EVOLUTION in all it's beautiful forms. Atheists would like to take God out of the equation, but to suggest that this world with all it's life forms is an accident without any planning involved is foolish and short-sighted.

[Guest Guest]

This is such a ridiculous and insulting post, and I can tell from the increasing amount of posts making a statement to this end that we're all getting tired of your nonsense.

Bottom line is that one's freedom to practice their religion is granted up to but not including the point where it would infringe on anyone else's civil rights. Simple as that. That's why public school teachers aren't allowed to preach their religious beliefs to their students during class. Duh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife, I think we are the ones getting tired of your nonsense. I am still shocked tha you work for the town of Kearny. I don't know what you do, I just hope that I am not one paying your salary with my taxes.

[Bryan]

This is such a ridiculous and insulting post, and I can tell from the increasing amount of posts making a statement to this end that we're all getting tired of your nonsense.

If only you had the argument to back up your whining.

Bottom line is that one's freedom to practice their religion is granted up to but not including the point where it would infringe on anyone else's civil rights.

Let's say you are correct.

How do you stretch that position into the claim that all religions are treated equally (as Paul had claimed)?

Isn't it completely obvious that religions that advocate something that conflicts with whatever rights you enumerate are not receiving equal treatment?

Simple as that. That's why public school teachers aren't allowed to preach their religious beliefs to their students during class. Duh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your response doesn't justify the claim that all religions are treated equally (duh).

Try again?

[Strife767]

Just watched Ken Miller's talk on I.D.  Everyone should watch it. It proves beyond any doubt that evolution is not happenstance or random mutation, it was designed.

Evolution does have a designer...but not a top-down/supernatural designer. It has a ground-up, natural (and NOT sentient) 'designer' that basically takes these mutations and "keeps what works" and tosses out what doesn't...this is oversimplified, but should give people a general idea.

Clearly, evolution was and is God's way of designing the world and it's inhabitants.

("Clearly?" To suggest something with no evidence supporting it is obvious in any way is "jumping the gun" defined) It might be. But there is no evidence (and scientifically speaking, there CAN'T be any evidence, since God is supernatural and therefore unscientific--how can science prove the existence of something that's unscientific) to that end.

It's obvious God didn't wave a wand and create everything,

I agree.

GOD CREATED EVOLUTION in all it's beautiful forms.

It's a possibility, but such a conclusion is unscientific, as it is not falsifiable. Therefore, it's functionally/practically meaningless and worthless, since such a conclusion doesn't explain anything, nor give us any sort of real understanding.

Atheists would like to take God out of the equation,

On the contrary--theists would like to put God INTO the equation.

but to suggest that this world with all it's life forms is an accident without any planning involved is foolish and short-sighted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoa, what? Sorry, but here you just leaped headfirst into logical fallacy.

First, and most obvious, the argument from incredulity, one of the "big ones" as far as creationist fallacy...I am ashamed for anyone who still tries this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Second is the false dichotomy. If evolution were wrong/disproved, it would not do a thing to suggest that "God did it." And not just because God is not science--but because that's not how science works. A hypothesis is proven (and can eventually become a theory) by the evidence, not by the lack of evidence of an opposing theory (of course, in this case, it's just an imagined lack of evidence--few scientific theories are as strongly established evidence-wise as evolution).

[Strife767]

Strife, I think we are the ones getting tired of your nonsense.

Please give me an example of this "nonsense." The statement in the post you replied to was "one's freedom to practice their religion is granted up to but not including the point where it would infringe on anyone else's civil rights. Simple as that. That's why public school teachers aren't allowed to preach their religious beliefs to their students during class."

Do you honestly disagree with this?

I am still shocked tha you work for the town of Kearny.

What's so shocking about that?

I don't know what you do, I just hope that I am not one paying your salary with my taxes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you live in Kearny, yes, your taxes are paying my salary.

[Bryan]

The more you post, Bryan, the more you reveal yourself a fool.

Do tell, "Guest."

You know how to construct a sentence, but your argument is without content.

How do you intend to support your claim about my argument?

Case in point: if a Satanist, or anyone, lobs a stinkbomb down someone's chimney, the lobber of the stinkbomb violates the victim's humanity. Your argument still collapses on itself, and only you seem not to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol

That was pathetic.

Let's use your criterion of violating a person's humanity as the limit of legal religious practice.

Let's create for the sake of argument religion A, for which all its tenets respect a person's humanity (however you wish to define it.

Let us create for the sake of argument religion B, for which all of its tenets violate a person's humanity.

Let's put both religions into practice in community C, which practices the line of demarcation you have recommended (religious practice must not violate human dignity as you define it).

1) How can it be said that religion A and religion B are treated identically in that society (without special pleading)?

2) How is it that my argument supposedly collapses on itself in such a scenario?

Face it, "Guest," your attack on my argument is based on wishful thinking. The attack is utterly incoherent.

My position is that a religion that just happens to respect a person's dignity as you define it is implicitly endorsed by the society that uses that criterion.

For the other religion, the reverse is true. That religion is saying that what you say is right is wrong (what society says is right is wrong, for purposes of the example). Unless you accomodate the religion, the society treats that religion as wrong--it cannot be seriously said that both religions are treated the same way by the civil authority.

[Calybos]

Just watched Ken Miller's talk on I.D.  Everyone should watch it. It proves beyond any doubt that evolution is not happenstance or random mutation, it was designed. Clearly, evolution was and is God's way of designing the world and it's inhabitants. It's obvious God didn't wave a wand and create everything, GOD CREATED EVOLUTION in all it's beautiful forms. Atheists would like to take God out of the equation, but to suggest that this world with all it's life forms is an accident without any planning involved is foolish and short-sighted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if you choose to believe that God is behind evolution, that's your right. Just don't expect to find such a claim in the realm of science, or in a science curriculum.

'Cuz it AIN'T SCIENCE, get it? Sheesh.

[Guest A Christian]

Completely aside from the question of whether it is religion or science is the simple fact that it is garbage by either measure. Like numerology, phrenology, and lysenkoism, ID does not belong in ANY school other than as an example to help students learn to recognize bunkum.

Private schools are free to teach it, of course. And that is as it should be. But they are foolish to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear William, you need to watch Ken Miller's lecture at Case Western U. on the subject of Intelligent Design on YouTube. It's clear that the complexity of so many aspects of life eliminate the possibility of blind serendipity or "natural selection".

To say that evolution occurs without God's hand is something atheists like to believe, and of course there's no evidence to suggest that evolution is the result of God's plan. But while there's no evidence to support God's involvement, certainly the variety and complexity of life leads one away from the notion of evolution being mearly serendipity .

[Strife767]

Dear William,  you need to watch Ken Miller's lecture at Case Western U. on the subject of Intelligent Design on YouTube.  It's clear that the complexity of so many aspects of life eliminate the possibility of blind serendipity or "natural selection".

Fallacious argument of incredulity (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html). X level of complexity does not rule out natural selection at all, once you take into consideration that it has had several BILLION years to 'do its thing.' Realize that no human can truly imagine a billion years--no human can even conceive of a millenium (and there are one million millenia in a billion years), considering the vast majority of us live for less than 10% of one--so I can understand a "wow" reaction, but not a "well, that has to be false" reaction. Mutations happen, and natural selection weeds out the detrimental and encourages the advantageous, as well as gradually eliminating stuff that used to be useful but is no longer--the primary reason why vestigial organs/limbs exist.

To say that evolution occurs without God's hand is something atheists like to  believe, and of course there's no evidence to suggest that evolution is the result of God's plan.  But while there's no evidence to support God's involvement, certainly the variety and complexity of life leads one away from the notion of evolution being mearly serendipity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a straw man. Evolution is not a function of "chance" or "luck" or "randomness" or (I admit this is a new one to me) "serendipity." The theory of evolution has never claimed this. Ever. To say that "evolution could not have happened randomly" (which is the equivalent of saying "the laws of themodynamics do not adequately explain the Holocaust") as a way to 'lean' toward another (especially supernatural) conclusion is frankly, ridiculous.

[Guest Graduate Student]

Fallacious argument of incredulity (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html). X level of complexity does not rule out natural selection at all, once you take into consideration that it has had several BILLION years to 'do its thing.' Realize that no human can truly imagine a billion years--no human can even conceive of a millenium (and there are one million millenia in a billion years), considering the vast majority of us live for less than 10% of one--so I can understand a "wow" reaction, but not a "well, that has to be false" reaction. Mutations happen, and natural selection weeds out the detrimental and encourages the advantageous, as well as gradually eliminating stuff that used to be useful but is no longer--the primary reason why vestigial organs/limbs exist.

This is a straw man. Evolution is not a function of "chance" or "luck" or "randomness" or (I admit this is a new one to me) "serendipity." The theory of evolution has never claimed this. Ever. To say that "evolution could not have happened randomly" (which is the equivalent of saying "the laws of themodynamics do not adequately explain the Holocaust") as a way to 'lean' toward another (especially supernatural) conclusion is frankly, ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been following this thread for the last month or so with interest because I'm a grad student at Lehigh, preparing for my PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to jump in here with my two cents. Some of the things you've said are accurate, others are not. Research and discoveries over the last ten years have pointed away from natural selection and more toward intelligent design. The latest equipment allows us to see structures at the molecular level (something Darwin couldn't have even imagined). I could write for hours on this, but suffice to say that the molecular make up at the cell level is so amazingly complex that I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level. This is not to say that evolution is not valid within species on a micro level, there is much evidence to support it. However, all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument. There, that's my two cents. Thanks.

[Strife767]

I've been following this thread for the last month or so with interest because I'm a grad student at Lehigh, preparing for my PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to jump in here with my two cents.  Some of the things you've said are accurate, others are not. Research and discoveries over the last ten years have pointed away from natural selection and more toward intelligent design.

Nonsense. I'd like you to find me any mainstream scientific community that believes this.

The latest equipment allows us to see structures at the molecular level (something Darwin couldn't have even imagined). I could write for hours on this, but suffice to say that the molecular make up at the cell level is so amazingly complex that I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level.

Fallacy of incredulity in so many words. Go watch Ken Miller's talk on creationism on youtube (

) and pay close attention to where he addresses these claims--not only are cell structures not irreducibly complex, but no credible scientist in the world would ever do something so fallacious as assume any level of complexity in anything would serve as any sort of proof for ID.

This is not to say that evolution is not valid within species on a micro level, there is much evidence to support it. However, all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument. There, that's my two cents. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's my two cents: you're lying. Evolution is not a theory in crisis--it's stronger now than it's ever been. There is also no sort of 'widespread move' by scientists to support for intelligent design.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Not only that, but it's ridiculous and contradictory to accept microevolution but not macroevolution--they're the SAME process. The only difference is the time scale you look at.

[Guest Steve_C]

I've been following this thread for the last month or so with interest because I'm a grad student at Lehigh, preparing for my PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to jump in here with my two cents.  Some of the things you've said are accurate, others are not. Research and discoveries over the last ten years have pointed away from natural selection and more toward intelligent design.  The latest equipment allows us to see structures at the molecular level (something Darwin couldn't have even imagined). I could write for hours on this, but suffice to say that the molecular make up at the cell level is so amazingly complex that I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level.  This is not to say that evolution is not valid within species on a micro level, there is much evidence to support it. However, all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument. There, that's my two cents. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

THE BRAIN IS COMPLEX. DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS DESIGNED!

Of course biology works on a molecular level... doesn't mean the structures seen NEED a designer.

You should know better.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've been following this thread for the last month or so with interest because I'm a grad student at Lehigh, preparing for my PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to jump in here with my two cents.  Some of the things you've said are accurate, others are not. Research and discoveries over the last ten years have pointed away from natural selection and more toward intelligent design.  The latest equipment allows us to see structures at the molecular level (something Darwin couldn't have even imagined). I could write for hours on this, but suffice to say that the molecular make up at the cell level is so amazingly complex that I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level.  This is not to say that evolution is not valid within species on a micro level, there is much evidence to support it. However, all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument. There, that's my two cents. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. Read it and weep, Strife & Calybos.

[Strife767]

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You.  Read it and weep, Strife & Calybos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=42949

[Calybos]

I've been following this thread for the last month or so with interest because I'm a grad student at Lehigh, preparing for my PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to jump in here with my two cents.  Some of the things you've said are accurate, others are not. Research and discoveries over the last ten years have pointed away from natural selection and more toward intelligent design.  The latest equipment allows us to see structures at the molecular level (something Darwin couldn't have even imagined). I could write for hours on this, but suffice to say that the molecular make up at the cell level is so amazingly complex that I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level.  This is not to say that evolution is not valid within species on a micro level, there is much evidence to support it. However, all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument. There, that's my two cents. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"It's too complex to have evolved" is not a scientific claim; it's a personal opinion. There's no basis in science for such a conclusion, just your "hunch" that there's gotta be, MUST be, some sort of designer behind it.

If that were a scientific claim, it would be testable and falsifiable. Is it?