AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: PuckSR

form_srcid: PuckSR

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: PuckSR

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'PuckSR%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/01/22 20:16:37, Link
Author: PuckSR
In the strangest journalism I have ever seen....DaveScot is now linking to the forum that is discussing the site that DaveScot is linking to the forum from?!?!?

I love DaveScot.  Honestly.

Sorry if some of you dont know me....I havent really posted frequently.  

William Dembski originally banned me....and told everyone on the blog that he had done so.  I almost felt honored.  Then DaveScot decided to try to insult me after I was banned?  That was honestly the lowest I have ever seen anyone sink.  Insulting someone without actually allowing them to reply.

Apparently at some point I was allowed to reregister my I did.  I was then banned for answering...with completely correct information...a question that DaveScot had asked.  I was promptly banned again. one cares that you ban people.  No one cares that you decide to moderate.  People are upset with you, and Bill because you guys seem to do it with only a vague set of boring is it when everyone in your little world agrees with you?

Date: 2006/01/26 05:57:45, Link
Author: PuckSR
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 25 2006,20:47)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:25)
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man™, into an active engineer of evil machines.

That only applies if you subscribe to a biblically based religious philosophy, which I don't. Amongst religious philosophers that problem is sometimes called "the problem of evil". It or a variation of it is a common philosophical argument people make against the existence of a God. Variations of it include: If there is a God why isn't everyone good? Why is there apparent mistakes in biological systems? Why do bad things happen to good people? etc.

Hmmm...i think your misunderstanding something here.

The problem of evil is much different than the malicious or flawed designer argument.

You said it best yourself, the problem of evil is only a real problem if you believe that God is totally and completely good, and that he would never do anything to hurt us.

Theistic Evolution posits a designer of reality, but also gives us a perfectly acceptable reason why there is bad design and malicious design.  It may have been necessary for the total reality to exist.

ID suggests that the designer can be detected through his design.  This works perfectly well as a philosophy, but when it becomes science it causes problems.  
You cannot have a scientific theory that only works occasionally.  Sure, ID explains well-designed systems rather well, but it readily admits that the same standard cannot be applied to poorly designed systems....
If an algorithm for determining design cannot be established, then all that you are left with is a bit of observation.  It is not a case of necessary evil, it is a case of being incomplete....maybe if the ID supporters can go establish a clear set of rules for determining design, the we will all take them more seriously.  Bad design, however, is not necessary evil....not if the designer could do anything he wanted....necessary implies that the Designer was working inside a strict set of rules....if that is the case...then perhaps you should look into Deistic evolution...#### dirty pantheist(just kidding)

Creationism actually has a much better solution, and it does happen to be the same solution that they use for necessary just happens

Date: 2006/01/26 14:13:41, Link
Author: PuckSR
No I didn't say that. You may want to go back and read what I did say. I said that the problem of evil is only a problem if you don't believe in reincarnation and karma.

Sorry to have summarized your statement...but Karma takes God out of the mix...therefore God allows evil to happen because you were evil...actually going off of allow evil to happen because you are God.

The point is still the same...necessary evil is only a problem for theology if you believe in a God who frequently and constantly interferes and a God who is good. the flawed designer scenario...the designer does not have to be perfect.  In ID, complexity is contributed to design.  This makes some sense, but it is fundamentally wrong.  Even if the Designer was not perfect, we should still be able to detect intelligent input due to simplicity.  If you are not searching for simplicity, and only complexity in design, then you are not searching for an Intelligent Designer, you are simply searching for a Designer.  This is known as the Unintelligent Designer argument.  Unfortunately an algorith is completely capable of design, and Evolutionary Theory posits an algorithm for design.  Therefore Evolution already has a designer, and flawed design is proof of the stupidity of the this case the algorithm of evolution.

Dembski recently suggested that ID could be used to detect manmade biological agents from natural biological agents.  If we do begin to develop biological agents from scratch, then the litmus test will be the simplicty of the agent, rather than the complexity.  A "designed" organism will have relatively less genetic instructions.  The hallmark of design is simplicity.

Date: 2006/01/27 06:14:05, Link
Author: PuckSR

The hallmark of good design is often simplicity, however the only hallmark that really applies for design is - does the designed object actually do what it's designed to do, and do it efficiently enough to be useful.  

The hallmark of intelligent design is simplicity.  Let me give you an example that is software related.

Most modern processors can either have code written for them directly in assembly, or they have software that will convert a higher level code into assembly.  If I gave you two pieces of assembly software, and you took the time to read through the assembly software(which would be annoying), how would you determine which one had been written by software(compliled from a higher level language) and which one had been written by hand?

Normally you would assume that the code that had the most unneccesary steps had been created via software, while the "simpler" code had been written directly.  

Organisms are designed...that is a given.  The question is...were they designed by a process or by an entity.  This is why the problem of the flawed designer is much more serious than the problem of necessary evil.  The more flawed the designing agent is, the less intelligent the agent.  

Evolution already posits a designer....just an unintelligent designer....IDers need to prove the intelligence of their designer.  I am sure everyone here would agree that a "designer" exists(i.e. natural selection)  

All IDers keep doing is trying to prove a designer....they ignore the word intelligence.  Intelligent beings do make mistakes, but they should make considerably less mistakes than an automated process....and if they do make more mistakes than the automated process....they should use the automated process

Date: 2006/01/27 06:55:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
Stevestory....I do agree with you....why would you think i didnt?

Date: 2006/01/27 07:00:21, Link
Author: PuckSR
I believe I have one of the great "DaveScot is an ass" stories

This occured after Dembski banned me for attacking plans to teach ID in public schools

Uncommon Descent Post

Date: 2006/01/27 13:45:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
You believe that they use unnecessarly bad design.  You, therefore, are a superior designer.

Therefore do you believe that some second-class God designed our reality, but that their is a superior God who could fix it?

Or are you claiming to be more intelligent than God?

Most unnecessary complexity in design is the result of ignorance.

Date: 2006/01/28 09:16:27, Link
Author: PuckSR
You know...I originally started posting on UD to test something.  In my rather short life experience, I have found that many people hold beliefs without any reason.  I thought that this might be the case with a lot of the Intelligent Design crowd.  When i first learned the "true" definition of ID I was appalled.  I got the impression that most people who supported ID were either creationists who knew what they were doing, or completely ignorant.

Then I met DaveScot.  I dont particularly enjoy DaveScot, but I think we can all agree that he isnt a complete fool.  DaveScot is not a creationist.  Im rather sure of this fact: either DaveScot honestly is not a Creationist, or he ignores the 10 commandments.  He also is not ignorant, he actually understands ID, and still apparently supports ID.

This man has bothered me for quite some time.  Every other person I have ever met holds ID beliefs because of either religion or ignorance....and I dont believe DaveScot honestly  falls into either category. I suggest that people like DaveScot are the reason for ID succeeding at all.

The loch ness monster does not exist...despite the beliefs of many people.  Many, many people ignorantly see the loch ness monster....they are either completely unfamiliar with water or marine life or both.  Many people see the loch ness monster because of some confirmation bias, they believe there to be a monster so they see one.  Most people probably fall under both categories.  A very few people who are familiar with the loch and who have no previous belief in the monster see something they cannot explain and contribute it to the loch ness monster.  If no one else had seen a monster...then these people might easily find a more rational explanation for what they had just seen.  They really cannot be blamed, the are reliable witnesses, but thanks to the support of every other "Nessie" sighting they decide that they saw a "monster".

DaveScot might legitimately believe in ID in all of its glory without any religious context, but he only believes in it because of all of the other supporters who do have religious motives.  They, however, can point to people like him.  They can say "look, he is a smart guy who understands all of this and who has no religious motivation".  It seems to be a cycle of support.  Just like UFOs and the loch ness monster.  Only a few people have any real reason to say anything, but their opinion is jaded because of the thousands of less scrupulous supporters.  The less scrupulous supporters look to the "authentic" believers for their support.  

At least....that's DaveScot in my lil nutshell.  Maybe someday he will become more of a skeptic and seek more rational solutions for his problems, but right now the ID/creationist movement has a guy on their side who they can hold up as a posterboy....despite the fact that he represents only a very, very, very slim minority of ID believers

Date: 2006/01/28 16:01:10, Link
Author: PuckSR
When i referred to DaveScot as a posterboy for ID....i didnt mean DaveScot personally...I was referring to people with the same characteristics as DaveScot.....

ID would love to flaunt agnostic, non-ignorant believers

Of course you may quote me....but please try to keep things in context....

Do you know why common descent and common design resemble each other so much?  Because they are the same thing.  The difference is purely theological.  Common design posits a very active theistic God.  Common descent avoids making a comment about God.

It is just a case of atheism/deism  vs theism

I dont really see the scientific implications of a theistic system that is completely undistinguishable from an atheistic/deistic system.

Date: 2006/01/29 06:20:56, Link
Author: PuckSR
Im completely he claiming that somebody hijacked his account?  Or is he claiming that someone is knocking off his account?

Date: 2006/01/29 16:57:53, Link
Author: PuckSR
Wow....I was allowed back on UD....for one comment

Immediately DaveScot threatened you can all see...but then he banned me again for the following comment.


Im sorry….but what exactly would make you regret giving me a “third chance”?

I am going to continue to call things as I see them. If making non-offensive editorial statements is going to get me “banned” then is there really a point to letting me back onto the site?

I think that this incident illustrates a very valid point…that ID can lead people to a belief about a designer. The problem is that it doesnt illustrate how ID can lead people to a scientific belief in a designer.

I have, and will always continue to be a deist….but i acknowledge that the line between front-loaded Deism and Theism is so vague that it more a matter of opinion rather than a truly debatable position. The difference between Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design is comparable.

Now....from my understanding...DaveScot allowed me back onto the site because i stroked his ego and called him the posterboy for ID....apparently he didnt understand that I meant he was the posterboy because everyone else involved in the movement has to hide from sunlight.

He bans me though as soon as he realizes that Im not going to stroke his ego...???

I could understand being banned for a lot of things....but he banned me for commenting on the non-scientific quality of converting a philosopher to ID?

Date: 2006/01/29 18:01:45, Link
Author: PuckSR
Actually...i would say the entire argument for a superior entity by design is a fairly sound philosophical argument.

It isnt scientific....and it is very, very, very old....but maybe they will get so bogged down in philosophy that they will discover Humean this point...they will begin to cast as much doubt on their own beliefs as they cast on the beliefs of others.....

Maybe allowing creationists to shoehorn philosophy into the argument will be a good thing in the end.

Date: 2006/02/01 06:54:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
Actually....I think you guys are misunderstanding Sal's claim

Sal, from my understanding, is talking about decoding genetics.  In other words, being able to use genetics as a programming language.

His reasoning, which is flawed, is that if genetics contains a "language" of sorts.....then it would be proof of a designer.  

This is just another ID guy who doesnt understand the difference between random and Evolution

Date: 2006/02/02 17:36:46, Link
Author: PuckSR
I am an engineer, and as an engineer I have encountered many of the IDists

Actually...its really simple.  

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are all doing the same thing.  

A mathematician is working with numbers
A physicist is using the numbers with real objects
An engineer is using the physics in real-world applications

They are all wonderful degrees and normally the sign of an intelligent individual.

The problem:  They are not biologists.  As a general rule engineers think that they can do do math and physics guys.  Their studies were so difficult that they have this mindset that they could have learned and been experts in anything.

They use this superiority complex to bolster themselves into the argument.  You can normally tell the engineer.  Their vocabulary may be weak, but they seem intelligent.  They make old arguments repeatedly...remember...its still new to them...and they are so smart that they came up with it on their own.

So...give an engineer a hug
Engineers need love too
Engineers are not biologists.

I have a friend who is a physicist turned electrical engineer.  He argued for ID, first on the "controversy" side.  Then when i knocked that down...on the "incomplete evidence" argument...once again he lost.  Finally he argued that he simply was smarter than me....which he was, I was just more skeptical.  It ended with a fun conversation about his Christian Fundamentalism....

I have never argued with an IDist who wasnt a Theist
And a Theist...despite what he says

Date: 2006/02/02 19:01:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
Sorry to double post...but this was hilarious

I just got a post moderated because i actually suggested a way that people would quit bringing up religion in the ID argument.

If Dr. Dembski was to stand up and say, "ID is not about God.  If God exists, he most certainly would not have been the intelligent agent.  He would be far too powerful and far too busy.  The Intelligent Agent is not God, and anyone who believes that the Intelligent Agent in ID theory is God, is lacking in theological and scientific education.  The Intelligent Agent is a naturalistic entity, that is responsible for slowly shaping the life of the Earth."

Of course....I am fairly sure if IDists kept making that statement, ID would lose ALL of its supporters

Date: 2006/02/03 16:26:02, Link
Author: PuckSR
Avocationist.....I can understand your concern....but you seriously misunderstand

We are concerned about Religion overstepping its boundaries...and getting involved in Politics and Science.

I fear creation science for the same reason that I fear a theocracy.  I can always argue against a scientific idea....if there is an alternative and rational idea.  Just as I can always debate in the political sphere.  The problem is that in religion...there is not much room for debate.  Granted, some religions allow a little bit of leeway.  Fundamentalists, however, always seem to grab the power.

Secular science isnt trying to claim moral superiority...they just fear religious encroachment into the sphere of science.  If you dont believe that this is a very logical position, I invite you to investigate the theocracies of the middle east....then please reply with an explanation of how they maintain a perfectly healthy and strong scientific and political system....despite the involvement of the theocracy.

Date: 2006/02/04 07:17:02, Link
Author: PuckSR

I completely understand your idea of "proving" God.  I am a rational person, and I do believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God rationally.  The problem is that all current proofs for God are purely philosophical, and not scientific.

If Dr. Dembski proves that there was an Intelligent Agent, that agent would most likely not be God.  Let me see if I can explain this

God---> Absolute Supreme Being
Science--->  Does not deal in absolute certainty
Intelligent Designer--> If an entity, most likely a superior entity, yet not Supreme

So, lets get this totally clear, both sides should agree that the Intelligent Agent is not GOD.  The 'atheists' and the 'theists'.  The Intelligent Agent may be a creation of God....but then again....evolution would be considered a creation of God by the same criteria.

So ID is not an attempt to make a scientific case for God.  ID, at the best, is a rework of some very old philosophy that justifies the existance of God.  If you would like some reading material I would be glad to provide it.

You, however, stumbled upon why 'atheists' want to get ID yanked out of everything.  ID could never honestly suppose that the designer was God, yet many people believe that is what they are suggesting.  Even from a theological standpoint, ID is cheating.

Let me explain the position of almost every person you will ever talk to who is anti-ID.  They are not against your 'idea'.  They most likely take issue with any case of teaching young people bad science.

They dont want biology classes full of the loch ness monster, or Yeti, or anything else that isnt totally verified.  We should not be teaching young people 'fringe science'.  

It is not productive to their very limited time inside of a science classroom.

That being said, I encourage the ID scientists to continue their work.  Many times in the past, something that began as 'fringe' science later became accepted scientific principle.  A great example of this would be "Darwin's Theory of Evolution".  But Darwin never asked grade school teachers to give his lesson plan.  Darwin never demanded a public discourse on his theory.  Darwin and his colleagues continued to collect evidence.  They eventually collected so much evidence for evolution, that creationism was destroyed in the context of science.  I know that you feel that Dr. Dembski and others have already produced the evidence and that we are just putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring them.  The problem is that we are not putting our fingers in our ears.  Many people have obviously read, and critiqued their papers.   If this was a religious thing, ID could just sit back on its previous work and say.."We will wait till you believe us".  This, however, is Science.  All the IDist should be worrying about is producing better evidence.

Date: 2006/02/04 07:38:07, Link
Author: PuckSR
Hey....dont lump them in with other religious, fundamentalist, "OUR AGENDA IS MOST IMPORTANT" people like Christian Fundamentalists.

These guys are just really upset about another article that appeared on page 7 of the same paper about red being the new black.

Oh and besides, Christians have a long history of enjoying satire.  They had a great sense of humor about the whole Spanish Inquisition.  If you could have been there at the Salem witch was a laugh a minute.

Come on....did you really think the IDists believe their own story.  They are just waiting for the right time to yell "gotcha".

Date: 2006/02/04 08:41:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
nah....that was just a little joke about religion....

it was meant to be a lighthearted comment on the current cultural divide between the middle east and the west.

I really dont know how else to approach the is humurous.  Countries like Jordan cannot understand why Denmark is not capable of censoring media.  Denmark cannot understand why Jordan cannot understand this.

I was simply remarking on the fact that despite what is perceived as a vast difference between Muslim and Christian ideology....they have several similiarities...especially when comparing fundamentalists of both faiths.  As a general rule, fundamentalists lack the ability to understand the necessary evil of things like "freedom of the press".

Sorry if the joke was in bad taste

I have been following this story for awhile, and I think it portrays the difficulties of having a freely democratic theocracy.  Or, for that matter, any strongly religiously motivated ideas in government.

I imagine that is why you posted it into this forum...because of the obvious statements it makes in regards to the ID movement.

Once again Steve...sorry if it wasnt relevant...I hadnt had my coffee yet

Date: 2006/02/04 12:21:14, Link
Author: PuckSR
Are you kidding? Their work is entirely political. You don't think any of the DI's $4 million/year budget was spent on *test tubes* do you?

I said scientists....your right...i need to clarify...i hope the ID scientists continue their scientific work.

I dont know if they are doing any scientific work or not....but I will always encourage people who are doing scientific work to continue,  no matter how crazy I believe the concept to be.

I honestly believe the best way to stop the whole ID movement is to encourage them.  If ID scientists are constantly dismissed for being frauds....they get to develop a persecution complex....and people go along with that.

Date: 2006/02/04 17:08:39, Link
Author: PuckSR

I claimed that ID is cheating from a theological perspective because:

If we both agree that the Intelligent Agent could be the product of God....and not God believe it is one of God's creations.  Theistic evolutionists believe the exact same thing.  You are cheating from a theological perspective because both scenarios have an equal amount of validity from the theological perspective.

It doesn't matter if ID is a rework, oldies are goodies, but now there is much fresh data.

There is fresh data...but it is in the exact same category as the previous data.  Therefore it is still subject to the same counter-arguments.  This is still Paley's watchmaker argument.  There is no new perspective....just different examples.

Avocationist...if you could provide me with new data that doesnt fall into the category of the classic watchmaker argument....I would appreciate it.

Now, you say an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same but I disagree. This is my opinion--evolution that teaches random unguided processes is only compatible with atheism, and no form of deistic or theistic belief is compatible with it. I consider Ken Miller a very confused IDist.

Hmmmm....this is a serious fallacy.
Do you think a dice game is atheistic?
It is a random event...repeated over and over to eventually arrive at a winner.  Do you favor the idea that God chooses a winner beforehand...and that the dice are just all part of his elaborate plan?

You are arguing that if something does not involve God...then it makes for an atheistic worldview.  Evolution is truly agnostic.  ID, on the other hand, is firmly theistic.  It supposes that either a God exists...or that he created an entity to take care of it for him.  If you remove the term "God" from ID...and suggest that a form of intelligence is responsible for all creation....then you basically just advocated natural selection.

Most IDists aren't pushing for the classroom, and Darwin's time moved slower than ours but they pushed soon enough.

Alright...then can you explain to me why no ID organization...or scientists has every advocated NOT teaching ID in school?

Plus, and lets not get confused here...Evolutionary Theory was pushed....many decades later...after it was established scientific principle...and only against BANS on its teaching.

Date: 2006/02/04 17:59:00, Link
Author: PuckSR
Syria is not a theocracy....but almost all of the middle eastern countries have theocratic overtones.  Almost like George Bush, he may not be a religious leader.....but he knows that he has to cater to the religious voters if he hopes to do anything.

Date: 2006/02/05 09:49:18, Link
Author: PuckSR
then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.

Correct...basically.  ID posits that God is actively involved in the evolutionary process.

Theistic Evolution-God created evolution....therefore God still created you...just in a less direct sense.

It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

This addresses a serious misconception about the use of naturalism in science.  

If i tell you that water has suddenly started flowing out of a would you explain it?

Would you attribute it to the same phenomenon that is reported in the bible....or would you attempt to find a natural source for the water?

You would most likely try and find a natural source for the water.

You may not find one...and at that point you may attribute it to a supernatural cause.

Science, however, always attempts to find the natural solution.  They may never find one....and that would validate your belief in a supernatural cause.....but because they learn nothing from a supernatural cause....they will always strive to learn more.

You cannot fault science for taking this approach.  If you do fault science for assuming a naturalistic world...then you are faulting them for being skeptical.

Date: 2006/02/06 12:54:25, Link
Author: PuckSR

I have to congratulate you....I was working my way up to using Hume...and you beat me to it.

Puck said that if we admit that an intelligence that is less than the Supreme created life forms, that I have admitted natural selection. But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence.

You didnt specify, and I dont believe any IDist specifies, the form of Intelligence necessary for ID.  Going back to Paley's nowadays could be designed, tested, and manufactured without any human interference.  The computer programs necessary for this would most likely have to be written by a human....but that is just an analog for Theistic Evolution.  The only difference between the watchmaker analogy and evolution is that the watchmaker requires a certain product...Evolution does not require any particular end.

Let us say I cannot find a natural explanation for the water. Does that mean it was supernatural? Well, it might mean that some other being caused it, or that sometimes human beings (Moses for example) tap into some forces in nature that we had hitherto not known about. Should our dogs regard our actions as supernatural because they cannot fathom how we did them? By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.

Aye, there's the rub....

You got it exactly....We shouldnt regard the unknown as supernatural.  We should continue to seek "natural" explanations of phenomenon.  We know that the world has to be natural.

Now, here is the problem with ID.  
Evolutionary Theory claims things evolve over time.  It suggests the method and the means for evolution.  Scientists constantly strive to refine our understanding of the methods of evolution...i.e. natural selection
Intelligent Design claims that an Intelligent Agent designed life in some form....either directly or ?indirectly?.  It doesnt say anything about how only claims that "something" caused us to evolve.
All of ID theory is based around detecting the "Designer".  In ID the "Designer" is the theory.

Let us go back to the rock in the desert.
If a regular Evolutionary Theory Scientist was there....we would attempt to discover the source of the water..the pathway the water took.  He would ask about the "how".

An IDist would claim that water was flowing from the rock.  He would claim that something caused the water to flow from the rock.  Then he would pronounce that "Something" has caused the water to come out of the rock.  He would then seek to prove that the water could not flow out of the rock suddenly without a catalyst.  He would ask the "who"

The difference is....we all know that "something" caused the water to flow out of the rock.  A catalyst was most likely necessary.  The problem is that the IDist is ignoring "how" the water is flowing out of the rock.  It doesnt further our understanding at all to claim that "something" caused something else.  It furthers our understanding when we try to figure out "how" "something" caused something else.

Who is a  great question for philosophy...and that is why I keep mentioning it.  ID is a wonderful philosophical viewpoint.  It is one that is shared by many rationalists...and includes the Catholic Church.  It is not a very good scientific viewpoint....because it never bothers to ask how?

Science right now believes that Evolution occurs because of natural selection.  If evidence, not sheer probability pointed towards an entity controlling would have problem theorizing one.

Let me explain...if we kept finding organisms that were not well-suited to their environment(if polar animals froze to death all of the time)...that would indicate natural selection had flaws.

If we kept finding that organisms were perfectly designed...such as a complete lack of vestigial organs....or more efficient design...we would suggest some interference.  

Right now, however, organisms seem designed...but not horribly well-designed.  You have to remember that natural selection is a design algorithm.

Date: 2006/02/06 16:07:04, Link
Author: PuckSR
Serious Question....and Im not trying to insult you in the least avocationist.

Avocationist and DaveScot seem to be fairly distant from ID.  They seem to accept most of the science of evolution.  They only take issue with the finer details of mutation and adaptation.  

I would like to know why they support ID as a scientific endeavor.  I fully understand their support for the philosophical side of ID....but why ID(besides the fact that it refutes Evolutionary Theory)?

Date: 2006/02/07 05:23:34, Link
Author: PuckSR

Hume argued that there is no such thing as a miracle.  Anything that is observed enough times becomes a natural fact.  Therefore, there is nothing that can ever be proven that will not be natural.  Its just an interesting tangent you seem to be working off of in your arguments.

You mentioned Newton.  I hate when people reference Newton to explain a symbiotic existence of religion and science.  
There are two flaws with this comparison.
1.  Newton was NOT a fundamentalist....he did not believe much of the bible....and when he applied his scientific scrutiny to the bible....he decided that Jesus was not divine.
2.  Newton never used religion to explain the world.  You might say that he attempted to use the bible during his exploration of alchemy....but he completely failed at alchemy.  So, in other words, when he attempted to use religious and scientific knowledge together....he wound up in a basement practicing alchemy.  When he was simply observing the natual world....he created calculus.

BTW...I am a Deist....and my religious beliefs have no bearing on my scientific ones.  If science claimed to be the "supreme" answer...then I might have conflict....but Science only claims to be the most appropriate answer based on the data that we currently have in our possesion to explain the natural world.

The only work that has been done to "prove" ID is statistics.  Behe theorized that life was too complex to have arisen by chance....which is a completely unsustainable claim.  Dembski later analyzed the probability of such a chance.  The problem with Dembski's probabilities are well-cited...but let me point out the fundamental flaw. you so eloquently stated earlier, except in this is the hubris of the statistician.  

Lets have a little excercise.  Flip a coin..was it heads or tails?  Let's pretend it was heads.  What are the odds that you would get heads? 1:2
You now have heads....what are the odds that you have heads? 1:1

It is always assumed that the current course of evolution is the only appropriate one.  Of course the odds are very rare that we would wind up in our current state.....but only if you compare the current state to everything else.  There were, of course, many different oppurtunities to change the current state.  They might have all been equally successful, they are simply ignored because they are impossible to calculate.

Also, if the probability of our existence seems to rare for you...then maybe you are right.  Perhaps we did win the grand lottery of the universe....since we have yet to meet any other lucky contestants.....perhaps we are simply a fluke.

Hubris encourages us to believe that our existence is the correct one.  Hubris is also responsible for "the meaning of life".  Life doesnt require could be accidental.  Most dont want to accept that, but their only reason is their belief in their own self-importance.

You also missed the point of the rock...and the question of how or who?

Science would readily accept that a person caused the rock to pour out water.  However, science would not care who had struck the rock.

It shouldnt matter.  Moses, his brother, Abraham, or Jeff; they all could have done it.  It doesnt help our understanding of the phenomenon to attribute it to any particular person.  After science decided that striking the rock had caused water to pour out....they would still explore the nature and source of that water.  They would also explore how striking the rock had caused water.

You either misunderstood, or were trying to skirt the issue.  ID would then sit back and say.."we know who struck the rock, but we cannot tell may not like Him."  IT shouldnt matter....they still need to tell us how the rock is producing water.

Date: 2006/02/07 05:56:28, Link
Author: PuckSR
oh....i think it is fairly clear that this man is not very intelligent when he refers to the "intelligence" of bees.

Apparently...intellect has become a popular word to throw around lately.  

A word that can describe the programmed actions of bees and the nature of the creator of the universe.  My god....this word is great.  

I have learned quite a few things from the IDists...that i use every day.

1.  Mistakes can be intentional...I choose to trip and was not an accident
2.  Intelligence is a very vague when possible, always describe yourself as obviously takes intelligence to think of yourself as intelligent.
3.  Old arguments are better than new ones.  Sure, everyone knows your argument....but if it is old enough....they might be shocked....and they might be too shocked to answer
4.  Never directly state your political or religious affiliation....people are less likely to give you money if you do tell them
5.  The ends justify the means....wait...they might have stolen that from someone else
6.  10,000 crazy people are much louder than 10 sane people.
7.  If all else fails....blatantly lie
8.  Keep lying
9.  Lie until you believe the lie
10.  Never quit lying

Date: 2006/02/08 15:41:28, Link
Author: PuckSR

Sorry I havent been online lately...but i have been rather busy.

I have been reading the posts....and i noticed something
You said this earlier
Darwinism or neoDarwinism, (which is not actually dependent upon whether or not Darwin himself believed in God) is the idea that all processes were random, life is an accident, and no God is needed to explain anything anywhere.

You seem to repeat the comment about unguided, unplanned processes rather frequently.

I fully agree that Science should not weight in on the purpose of life....however, the recent language being used is more of a defense against ID/creationism.  Your definition seems rather atheistic....but only because of one word...unplanned.  Science cannot determine if there is a plan....and therefore Science will not suggest a Theological plan.

Let me address a rather important part of your comment.
"No GOD is needed to explain anything."

God may be required to explain many, many things.....but I have never heard of God being needed to explain how something happens.  Science is strictly concerned with how something happens.  I tried to make this point earlier....but you may have missed it.

Lets consider the last 15 you need God to explain anything that has occured?  Probably not.  

You seem to be most upset with the "atheistic" side of Science.  I dont really know how to help you reconcile this problem.  Science, as a rule, will never choose Theism.  If forced to make a decision between Atheism and Theism, Science must side with Atheism....even though Science remains an agnostic system.

I would like to suggest an experiment Avocationist...and everyone.

What if we quit using the words "think, believe, lean towards"....and what if we quit mentioning the works of others?

If you would really like to discuss this topic....dont mention Meyer's paper....mention his ideas on the Cambrian explosion.

That way....everyone can at least tell you what they think about his ideas on the Cambrian explosion....

Too often in these conversations...generalities are thrown around.  If you can keep it more narrow... conversation will be more fluid.

Date: 2006/02/09 08:16:30, Link
Author: PuckSR

You also can't distinguish between evolution and any other science as to why it is more atheistic, except to say Dawkins and Gould, which is rubbish reasoning since there are atheists in all scientific disciplines.


We are on the verge of calling one another dishonest. I said a lot more than D and G. I said that it is pervasive in our academic culture and taught in school texts. I am pretty glad that you and Puck insist that this problem is overblown, but you've got your head in the sand and seem to be simply pretending that it isn't going on.

Avocationist....I can understand your concerns.  You believe that the current state of Science is atheistic.  You believe that this is intrusive to your belief system.

I will not argue with you that Science has, on occasion, stepped away from the agnostic and approached the Atheistic.  If your concerns are simply the atheistic nature of science, and the apparent flaws in Evolutionary Theory....then you are not really doing anything to help.
If a great machine is should attempt to fix it.  If Science has become toO atheistic.....don't try to make science theistic.....try to make science agnostic.  

If the current Evolutionary Theory is inadequate....then attempt to refine it further.  Don't try to replace it with a completely untested theory that is incapable of making predictions or explaining phenomenon.

Let us be truly critical here....I would accept ID as a valid theory....if ID theory contained a mechanism that could explain all the evidence as well as Evolutionary Theory....and explain further unexplained evidence.  However, ID theory claims that all phenomenon are attributed to a Designer....and ID theory makes no statement about Who, How, or Why the Designer works.

That requirement of a mechanism is bothersome....but necessary.  The requirement of a testable and explainable mechanism is what seperates Science from Mythology.  Im sure many mythological explanations of nature are far better at explaining phenonenon....but they completely lack a mechanism that can be analyzed.

I really do understand your problems with the current state of Science Avocationist...Atheism has no place in Science....but neither does Theism.  We should be working on solving the problem....not working towards making the problem worse.

There may very well be a new theory to explain all past biology in the future....but it will not be ID....because ID does not actually explain a rational, physical, testable way.

Behe says that something that is IC is impossible to occur by chance, but he can't know that.  In order to know that, he would have to know all the chance occurances we know about, plus all the ones that we don't know about, which he can not do. missed the point.  To prove Behe correct....we would have to know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING.  Lets assume that it is impossible to know EVERYTHING.....that is a safe assumption.

You were right, they are on there way to knowing EVERY possible chance....but they will never get there.  It is completely irrational to believe that at some point we will know EVERYTHING[QUOTE]

Date: 2006/02/09 11:24:31, Link
Author: PuckSR

Your green-cheese moon analogy is just bad.

But...I think I can give you a good analogy.

Long, long, long ago....people had no idea where heat came from...they debated it a great deal and finally...they developed a theory.

The suggested that Heat was a weightless, invisible liquid(the concept of gas also escaped them).  They continued this line of thinking for a very long time.  One day a man suggested that they were wrong and that it was insane to assume heat was a weightless, invisible liquid.  They told him that he was just ignorant.  They asked him what his theory was, and he actually told them.  They then asked him why his theory was better, and once again he told them.

This man developed an which he generated heat using friction.  He made sure that no chemical reaction was occuring...and made sure that the two pieces of metal that were rubbing against each other were isolated so that nothing could "enter" them.  When he demonstrated this little experiment...everyone accepted his work.  He had presented a situation where the old theory had a hole, and demonstrated the superiority of the his theory.

However, if he had merely suggested that heat was a form of energy...without demonstrating the further explanatory power of his theory, or the superiority of his theory; then no one would have any reason to take him seriously...even if he was correct.

Better analogy, and it actually happened.

Date: 2006/02/09 11:43:21, Link
Author: PuckSR
I think toejam got it right....

Theists originally tolerated Science, because they probably thought that the Scientists would run out of things to study and admit that God did most of it.

Unfortunately, science has just encroached further and further into the traditional religious realm.  Without fancy mythologies, most religions begin to devolve.  If you could prove Jesus was not divine....that really shouldn't matter.  Chrisitianity is still a valid philosophical offshoot of Judaism.  The problem is that people are not philosophical Christians...they are Baptists, Lutherans, and Catholics.  They have attached a complex belief structure onto a good bit of nothing.

Science doesnt really attack Theism....Science attacks Christianity/Islam and perhaps to a lesser degree Judaism.

The philosophical religions of the east are perfectly safe even if science discredits their mythologies.  Their religions are only loosely based around those myths.  The reasoning and thought are the true meat of the religion.

Science does promote atheism, at least from the Theist perspective.  Science breeds skepticism.  The entire scientific endeavor is to be skeptical.  Skepticism often leads to atheism, since theism requires faith.  Indirectly, therefore, science promotes atheism.

I love the whole situation, modern people love the fruits of the scientific labor, but they resent the same practice that has given them the time to reflect.  If it wasnt for science, I doubt anyone would have the time to be anti-science.

Date: 2006/02/09 14:07:41, Link
Author: PuckSR
to throw in 2 cents about the whale and jonah

I was always told that it wasnt actually talking about a sea mammal...but rather a sea monster.

It would most likely be a shark....not that this makes the story any more believeable(the survival part)...but it may have been the animal the author was originally thinking of...since sharks dont always chew their food.

Date: 2006/02/09 17:59:10, Link
Author: PuckSR

I would like to point out, however, that so long as that is true it means we are in ignorance. For either spirit is not true and we should come to know that of a certainty, or it is true and science will come to know of it.

This is wrong.  No one is claiming that they are totally seperate spheres....they only seem that way.

God could have created Reality 5 minutes ago.  You would have no way of knowing if he did or not.  You assume, however, that the world is not an illusion.  You assume that the world has been here for awhile.  Science simply assumes that there is no Divine intervention taking place.

God could easily have "evolved" all living things.  He could have stepped in and done it all, and simply made it appear to be "natural selection" and mutation.  It could all just be an illusion.  This, however, is a situation better left to philosophy.  In reality 2+2=5....but since all of our empirical evidence points towards 4 it is most helpful to assume 4 is the correct answer..

You want predictions. I predict that our knowledge will, hopefully soon, show more clearly what makes an organism what it is, and that it will be proof that a species cannot become another species, in other words, limits to change.

This isnt what kind of prediction we are asking for, and I hope this was more of a joke than an honest answer.

The theory of gravity predicts that objects will fall at an acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s^2

The theory of Evolution predicts that animals have and will evolve from each other through a process of natural selection.  This predicts that in the future animals will adapt and evolve, and that as we search through the fossil records of the past, we will find more and more related organisms that display a timeline of evolution.

Your prediction is not a prediction made by is a prediction about ID.

You know, the bit about ID not identifying the personal attributes of the designer - it just has been said so many times. ID is a design inference, and while it may leave some unanswered questions or lead to new routes of inquiry, that is as far as ID goes.

So....ID is in no way in competition with 'Darwinism'?  If your statement is true...then ID has absolutely no opposition to current Evolutionary Theory.  'Darwinists' already attribute design to "natural selection"....therefore ID is simply reinforcing the current theory.  
Good....I was under the impression that ID was an alternative theory to biological Evolutionary Theory....its good to know that it simply a theory that is capable of reinforcing Evolution.

Date: 2006/02/09 18:52:39, Link
Author: PuckSR
But remember what happened to Semmelweis. He actually did studies before presenting to his colleagues how they were killing new mothers but they didn't want to hear it and hounded him to his sad grave.

Good example.....but there were 2 problems.  
1.  Semmelweis never really tried to present his argument.  
2.  He actually had evidence on his side.  He could predict that if doctors washed their hands...they could save lives.  

What are IDists suggesting?  If we attribute creation to a designer we can?....lose our current theory....and have no working theory?

You dont get to stand on a soap box and scream intolerance until you have actually done something.  ID is not a theory...ID is just an idea.  Its a pretty interesting idea....but it is just an idea.

If ID established clear criteria for IC, or for determining design....besides quoting some rather absurd statistics and claiming a new version of Paley's watchmaker argument.

You have repeated 2 things over and over again Avo....
1.  you keep mentioning that many of the arguments against ID are the  Unlike the arguments against dont actually have a response
2.  You keep mentioning the atheistic nature of Evolutionary Theory....why?  you said yourself that it doesnt why mention it?

You need to realize that most of these arguments against ID are not attacking the "finer" points of ID....they are attacking the entire concept of ID.  They need to be addressed....not dismissed because you have heard them too many times.

Date: 2006/02/09 19:25:25, Link
Author: PuckSR
I think this entire situation is hilarious....

I think one day we will learn about this story...but I imagine it goes somewhat like this

Dr. Dembski and an Atheist are sitting around talking about God.  The Atheist asks Bill why he believes in God.  Dembski counters with a traditional "grand design" remark.  The Atheist asks Bill if he can prove it.  Dembski knows that he cannot prove it, and tell the good Atheist that he cannot prove it.  Then Bill thinks about it for a moment.  "The one form of mathematics that is not absolute is statistics.  Math is normally considered a completely objective matter, but with statistics you must introduce subjectivity."  The Atheist asks Dr. Dembski if he can prove his belief statistically.  Dembski says that he can, but that it would be merely a farce.  The Atheist suggests a wager.  If Dr. Dembski can provide a 'proof' of a Grand Designer, and people will actually take him seriously...then the Atheist will buy Bill a bible.  If Dembski cannot convince people of his new 'proof' of a Grand Designer, the Bill has to buy him a pocket watch.

I imagine that the origin of Specified Complexity was thus, but then when Bill Dembski published a book and people actually bought it...he decided that he should continue the farce.

I dont honestly believe that Dr. Dembski believes in his particular idea.  He may not accept evolution, but I think deep down inside he knows that his particular contribution is rubbish.  I dont know if his motivation is Machiavellian or simply spiteful, but I think he knows.  

Any ideas?

Date: 2006/02/10 07:19:03, Link
Author: PuckSR

it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is.

Im sorry, but what arguments are you referring to?  Maybe the people on this board could explain the responses to you.

If you havent noticed, scientists, in general, are very prompt with responses to criticism.  I know you think that most biologists are blindly following evolution, but this is hardly the case.  So I would invite your criticism of Evolutionary Theory.

But if there is a God, then presumably this God has something to do with causation of this universe, probably s/he would have something to do with the Big Bang, for example. So if our reality includes a God, then it is naturally possible that there are clues or evidence of that.

Im sorry, but there are some massive flaws with your logic.  You believe that their is evidence of God, which is a perfectly sane assumption, but it has serious theological implications.

If God exists, and he wants to leave evidence of his existence that is irrefutable, then why doesn't he simply appear?  Do you believe that the people who do discover the proof of God are more entitled than the people who previously had to work off of blind faith?  I cannot say that I would completely disagree with the idea of God making the knowledge of his existence absolute; but to date, I dont believe he has done that and I dont really know why he would suddenly change his mind.

You may be suggesting, however, that God had no choice but to leave his 'signature' upon reality.  If this is the case, then your conception of God is fairly limited.  You believe in a God that could create all reality, but who couldn't hide his fingerprints from his creation?

Avocationist, have you ever figured out if ID is a conflicting theory to Evolution?  I have yet to see you make this claim, so Im still curious as to your opinion.  If you do believe that ID is an alternative theory, in what ways does it deviate from our current theory of Evolution?

Date: 2006/02/10 07:35:44, Link
Author: PuckSR
Einstein frequently attributed the simplicity of natural laws to God.  He realized the sheer complexity and paradoxical grand simplicity of the Universe...and realized that it was truly a great design.

I share his admiration for our Reality, and I have long used it to justify my belief in a Supreme Being.

This is why I am so totally offended by ID.

If ID was simply a philosophy, then I would endorse it whole-heartedly.  They could still calculate their figures about the rareness of existence, but with philosophy it is left as a conjecture.

The problem with ID is that they suppose that their philosophical assumptions are actually scientific.  Science does not make assumptions, nor does it operate in the vague world of the word "appears".

Also, if we were dealing only with the philosophical ID, then absolutely no conflict would truly exist with current Evolutionary Theory.  The fact that IDist oppose Evolutionary Theory indicates their very clear anti-science motives to me at least.

So, AIT, please realize that most people do not oppose the philosophical idea of an "intelligent Designer".  Most people oppose trying to make a philosophical idea into a scientific theory.

BTW....consider the vast number of people who support the philosophical idea of ID.  These people easily get confused by the difference between believing ID and proving ID.  They are offended when they hear that people are trying to discredit the idea of a "Designed Universe".  The problem, and you need to realize this, is that no one is trying to discredit the IDea.  People are simply trying to explain that the idea is not scientific.

Date: 2006/02/10 07:59:48, Link
Author: PuckSR

Your missing the point.  

If I call you an idiot...that is a smear...because you have been a very intelligent and thoughtful speaker to this point.

If I call DaveScot a jerk...then I am at least being somewhat honest, even if I am being slightly harsh.  DaveScot has been rather jerkish...even if it is wrong to call him a jerk.

When ID is attacked, it is attacked for good reason.  They may exaggerate the problems.  They might overstate the implications....but they are still alluding to valid points.

When ID frequently does so blindly....and without proper provocation.  For example:  You think that their are massive unaddressed flaws with 'Darwinism'...yet you cant tell us what they your claim of these flaws is unwarranted until you can actually list these flaws.

If, however, someone claims that dropping Evolution and replacing it with ID will push medicine into the dark ages...they actually have a reason.  It may be hyperbole, but since many, many modern medical advances are based on the Theory of would not be false to claim that if Evolution was false...then many medical discoveries would be invalidated.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:12:32, Link
Author: PuckSR
I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.

First off...gradualism is not part of the current theory of Evolution

Second....I dont know if you are aware....but the mechanism behind all drugs must be rigorously demonstrated.  The FDA will not approve a drug if you cannot explain how it works.  If evolutionary theory was invalidated...then you could kiss your flu vaccine goodbye.  I will allow someone with a slightly better understanding of modern medicine explain the finer points...

some other mechanism....first you have to suggest another mechanism.  Newtonian physics had flaws...but we didnt replace it until a better system existed....

Date: 2006/02/10 12:55:44, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well....i might have been a little harsh to condemn gradualism....but this might help a little bit.  Basically, the current argument is that a good deal of evolution is not accounted for by a strict gradualism mechanism.  It might have occured, but evidence points to an alternative in many cases.

Evolution is not just a theory of is a tool most Biology.

Date: 2006/02/10 13:02:29, Link
Author: PuckSR
Human "everything" is most definately flawed.  

Unless we all wish to accept Descartes proof of God...through skepticism...we have to work with our imperfect worldview.

If our view of the world  is incorrect, and we have falsely assumed that it is absolutely correct, then we have commited a horrible crime against the truth.

If, however, we admit our flaws, and claim only empirical knowledge of the world...then we have committed no crime.  This is the common fallacy that science deals in absolutes, instead of acknowledging that science refuses all absolutes.

Date: 2006/02/10 13:24:19, Link
Author: PuckSR
It was not a joke. I don't think animals can evolve into different genii by small mutational steps. And if I'm right, then no doubt that will be discovered as our knowledge of evo devo improves. What kind of predictions do you want? That one's mine by the way.

Lets imagine for a second that ID is a true alternative to Evolutionary Theory.  ID could predict that totally artificial organisms can not be created.  They could claim that mutations do not occur at all.

It is a completely different thing to say.."I dont think that your idea works...I have no just doesnt sound feasible."

If God interferes at certain points, it really takes the fun out because consistency is lost. We would be in pursuit of an incoherent reality with chunks missing. I think that would make scientists feel trifled with. It is all making sense to me now and I think I have answered my earlier question.

Actually you almost got it.  If God interferes all the time...then empirical science is completely unreliable.  God could have tricked us...and things may occur that we could not have predicted.  If things can and will occur all the time whenever God feels like it....then why bother trying to figure out why things occur.  They dont have a is just God.  Basically, lets revert back to mythological belief systems...since that is ID...a mythological belief in a wholly overactive Theisitic entity. the last couple of centuries...we havent really seen God interfere...maybe he is on vacation?
Let us know when he gets back.

It would be more accurate to say that God hides in plain sight. Faith is merely a weak form of knowledge. It isn't an end but a means. Faith leads to knowledge, for those who want it to.

Basically you're a pantheist?  If this is the case...have you ever studied hinduism?  It supposedly is more spirtually fulfilling than Christianity, and it has your favorite flavors....only bad news is that the Earth is very, very, very old.

Did you notice said that Faith leads to knowledge.  If I learn something olny after believing in it, then am I not forcing myself to know something?  Isnt it entirely more likely that I have tricked myself into believing something if I must have faith in it first?

Sorry my rationalism offends you, but I honestly think that I can continue to believe in God without having faith in him.  

Let me just sum up your argument though...and tell me if i misunderstood anything.

1.  Science is atheistic in nature
2.  Atheism forces people to be skeptical of God
3.  People who know God exists will be better people
4.  Science should want to do the most good.
5.  Science should say God exists
6.  More People believe in God=More people are Good
7.  Science should now go back and prove He exists.
8.  Total proof of God's existence will......????

The reason I think society would be benefited by knowledge of God or spirit is that it would strengthen faith. would destroy faith.  If we "know" God exists...then we do not have "faith" in God.  

Unless you are only referring to the extreme misuse of the work "knowledge" in religion?

Date: 2006/02/11 07:47:31, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ah yes, Ken Ham passing off a religious pep rally as science.

Ummm....I dont think he is even trying to pass this off as science.  I think he is being purely religious here.


Let's make Science, History, and English Literature Classes optional.  The kids dont have to take these classes...if their parents do not want them to take these classes...but they get a different diploma....

Something that says....This kid has absolutely no education in the following fields:blah, blah, blah.  Why fight them, if the parents want to screw theses kids up, they will more than likely succeed.

BTW, they can mention that it was only theories and narratives when they apply for a job or college.

Date: 2006/02/11 07:56:28, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well, there's the study of primate psychology...

Studied by humans....still flawed

he only reason ID is even getting a sniff of publicity is because of the over 50% of the population in the USA who are creationists.

I beg to differ.  I believe ID is getting publicity because of a very simple confusion.  ID(science) sounds a lot like ID(philosophy).  Many very intelligent Theists believe in ID(philosophy).  People who have not followed ID(science) in the news believe that they are the same thing.  They get really offended because they believe ID(philosophy) is a perfectly rational and intelligent view.  I have spoken to many, many, many people who originally supported ID(science), but once I explained the difference between ID(science) and ID(philosophy) they quickly changed their mind about the whole topic.

Fundamentalists think that theistic evolutionists are sell-outs. They simply cannot understand how you can be a fulfilled Christian if you believe that Genesis didn't actually happen the way the Bible says it did.

For a great example of this...notice how many times ID/creationists get offended/freaked out when the Catholic church comes out in support of Theistic Evolution.  It drives them insane.  It is a complete shock to them that the biggest denomination of Christianity does not share their worldview.

Date: 2006/02/12 17:53:56, Link
Author: PuckSR
They like to throw around really big numbers. 15 billion years is just one breath of Brahma. And they said there are 8 million life forms, and I respect them for that. They're in the ballpark a couple of thousand years ago.

Hmmm...Ive always heard the word Trillion being tossed around when talking about Hindu creationism

ID could predict that totally artificial organisms can not be created.

I was just trying to give you examples or actual predictions...the problem is that if ID could make a prediction that would prove Evolutionary Theory wrong....ummm...they would have already done it.

you never answered my querry about your logical proofs of God.

I wasnt discussing my logical proofs of God...I was discussing logical proofs of God....Start from Aquinas...and go forward in philosophical history.

If you have faith in your buddy in a dangerous situation it's because you know you can count on him because you've observed his character before.

If you are referring to the word "faith" then you are correct.  Faith, based on empirical information, is a great thing.
Blind faith, or religious faith, is completely different.  If God suddenly appeared....set the record straight...and explained that the best religion was mormanism....then you wouldnt have faith based on empirical data, you wouldnt have blind would have absolute truth.  That would destroy only exists when their is a possibility that you could be wrong.  I do not have "faith" in math.  I have "faith" in sub-atomic theory.  If you know that God must remove faith.

Do you know what the difference is between a Theist and an Atheist is?  
An Atheist believes in randomness and chance.  
A Theist believes that God probably has some control over chance

Both are rational views....but given this rather minor difference of is ID different from Theistic Evolution?

The Difference is that Theistic evolution believes that for all intensive purposes God=random chance.  since you cannot know the nature of God...his decisions appear random.  ID, well ID is just hogwash.  They can spot can I...but that doesnt really help.  They should carefully analyze the pattern of design...and then make careful observations about the design choices that were made...and attempt to simplify the Designer to an algorithmic process....wait....some people are already doing that...Scientists.

Date: 2006/02/13 08:20:02, Link
Author: PuckSR
Actually GCT you are being too harsh

We say that a rock is dead...we say that in the long time that we have been studying rocks...we have never seen one exhibit any signs biological life.  We point to the several examples of life...and say "We understand life, and the rock is not alive."  We cannot actually prove that the rock is not alive, but we just do not have any reason to believe that it is.

He is arguing that a rock could be alive....and that mere absence of evidence does not prove his theory invalid.  As long as his theory is based on solid principle(i.e. the definition for life is questionable at best, and that rocks could simply have very different and very, very long lifestyles) then we should reasonably entertain his idea.

The problem, and a serious one at that, is that it would seem that an open-minded person must be available to the idea that the rock might be alive.  The problem is that science is not open-minded in the traditional sense.  Modern science does not believe anything until sufficient evidence exists to support that idea.  Science might consider for a fleeting moment that a rock could be alive, since nothing totally rules out the possibility; but without evidence to prove that a rock is alive....Science will dismiss the idea.

This is a serious problem for a lot of people.  As Avocationist has stated many times...people believe that Science speaks about truth.  Science does not speak about truth, science speaks about observations.

A scientist might believe that Science is the search for absolute truth, but this would only be his personal belief...

Science is in search of observations and rules based upon observation.  Science does not deal in the realm of truth...since as someone pointed out somewhere else....all of our observations could be flawed...and then so would all of our conclusions.

Religion and Philosophy deal in the realm of Truth and this is why so many people, like Avo, get upset and believe that Science is spreading an Atheistic message.  

A sports announcer is not considered to be spreading an Atheistic message if he never attributes anything in a sporting event to God.  He is simply observing the event and explaining to his best ability why something occured.  He attempts to view statistics and analyze patterns, but he never claims to really know why things happen.  He doesnt know if the Yankees truly are bothered by cold...but he does know that in 54 out of the last 56 games played in weather below 20 degrees....the Yankees have scored more runs than average.  This knowledge and information may help him clean you out at the bookie....but it doesnt actually mean that he knows any Truth...he just has observations.

Date: 2006/02/13 08:32:37, Link
Author: PuckSR
Once again....

ID(philosophy) != ID(science)

This ID nonsense has to be promoted through our government. No one else is that corrupt with as many resources. If this is a nod to the uneducated Christians who follow the "Fundementalist" paths, it is sickening. I am signing off at this point, probably for good (this is not my lifes work) but for God's sake, follow reason, logic and truth and you will not lose God if you already have him.

I actually feel sorry for people like AIT.  He had to waste a great deal of his time learning that ID is a trick.  He had the best of motivations.  He had heard the rumors...and was excited at the oppurtunity of reconciling religion and science.  Now, if only other people could begin to understand the absurdity of ID we could move on to building bridges between religion and science....

Date: 2006/02/13 08:46:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
Why do fundamentalists read the KJV bible?

If you really thought that the bible was the absolute text of truth....wouldnt it make the most sense to learn Hebrew...and read it for yourself?

If your only going to listen to other people's interpertation of the bible....shouldnt you just avoid reading it all together and only discuss it with biblical scholars?

Date: 2006/02/13 20:15:12, Link
Author: PuckSR
Before this entire conversation devolves

I have not gotten a clear idea why evolution theory is necessary to medical research. Nothing convincing.

This entire line of reasoning is relatively subjective.  You are right...if we kept our current knowledge of medical science, and abandoned Evolution...we probably wouldnt see the medical community completely evaporate.

Im going to get back to this...but first we need to address something else.

ID simpy claims that we are designed.  The "Designer" could be completely mundane and natural....such as natural selection...or the Designer could be a heavily involved Theistic God.  ID does *not* make any claim about the Designer.  ID could easily co-exist with Evolution....but...that is not what you are referring to most of the time.  

Avo, you firmly place yourself in the belief that natural selection is not a sufficient enough mechanism for design.  You also claim that mutation is not sufficient enough to cause massive changes over long periods of time.

If those are not your beliefs...then please be more specific...since everyone including you knows that ID is incredibly vague.

Mutation is incredibly significant to several fields of science.  If you would like examples of fields that require the concept of random genetic mutation....we can compile a list

Natural Selection is probably less important to the study of biology.  Why?  Because most scientists tend to work in controlled environments....natural selection doesnt really apply in botany....botanists do most of the selecting.  This is very misleading though....because the principle of selection is still applied.  It would be fairly simple for anyone who has ever dealt with mating animals or plants to understand the concept of selection...and in particular the effects of natural selection.  In other words...we could probably live without natural selection in several fields....unfortunately the work done in most fields reinforces the concept of natural selection. now that we have broken down Evolution to the actual parts you disagree with....can you understand why the Theory of Evolution is important to many fields of study?

The "History of all living organisms and how they came to be" is not important to most people in Medicine...but several of the "chunks" of the theory are independently important to most fields.

As for all of that ancient stuff...about dinosaurs and their friends....we probably dont need that for modern medicine....but for that matter we probably dont need to know most things about ancient history...or anything from the is simply human to want to understand where things came from and how they got here.

Date: 2006/02/13 20:32:24, Link
Author: PuckSR

Let me ask you a question about skepticism.....

If you are just now reading the literature on ID....should you not be an ID supporter?  I dont mind the skepticism about Evolution....but shouldnt you grant an equal amount of skepticism to ID and its proponents?

This just strikes me as odd.  When we first began this conversation you had limited experience with a very short list of ID books....yet you were convinced of the correctness of ID.

Its just seems to me that you threw your support behind ID in some form of a Pascal wager.  You believe that if ID is correct...then you will be keeping your God happy.  In all honesty you should doubt both "opinions" until presented with valid proof of one or both.  Judging by your responses...and the statements you have made...I dont really think you have come across the proof of ID yet.  I ask you to revert back and remain skeptical until you have more information.

Date: 2006/02/13 20:42:51, Link
Author: PuckSR

Then I found TalkOrigins. and Funny reason, but I was trying to get hold of some Mark Twain writings to read. Then I found Robert Green Ingersol, Thomas Paine etc.

Your really going to have to explain that one to me.  I didnt realize Mark Twain was particularly popular with the  Christian really dont understand why you were looking for Mark Twain at TalkOrigins.  I am hoping that a hilarious story is behind this one.

Ok...back on topic.
I dont think that the kids are going to be put through a traumatic experience if they ever get out....
I have a friend who was raised with the strict fundamentalist upbringing....and now he rejects most religion.  The funny thing, however, is that he still doesnt believe that WE are apes.  He is ok with all of evolution and that stuff....but we did not come from Apes....he is confident of that.

I think the only real side effect of the hyper-religious upbringing is that you wind up with shattered traits.  You might have a kid who refuses to drink alcohol...but he doesnt have any reason for his action.  You might have one who refuses to believe in Evolution...despite being an agnostic(??an agnostic who believes in God??-->DaveScot).  Im not worried about the ones who stay least you understand their is the ones who get "free" but maintain some of their religious beliefs.

Date: 2006/02/14 17:57:52, Link
Author: PuckSR
and what happens when you try to challenge his belief on this issue?

bet he gets all defensive, eh?

Actually he doesnt.  He takes a position that I believe many people take.  He has his beliefs, and he really doesnt care. He is not strictly pro-ID...he just doesnt understand the big deal.

We frequently interact with people who are very hostile to the opposite side....but many Americans are simply ignorant of the very plain and rational arguments against ID.

AIT was actually in this camp....he didnt see why we had to be sooo mean to ID supporters....then he finally realized that we had a good reason for being hostile.  The people who honestly believe in ID are few and far between.  Most people are either Fundamentalist Christians who have an agenda....or they just think that secular scientists are being mean.  We have no hope of changing the Fundamentalists minds...they are already firm in their beliefs.

Date: 2006/02/15 08:19:05, Link
Author: PuckSR

Hey....I hope we didnt scare you off....I actually found your posts interesting.  In no way was I trying to be derogatory....I just come off like that sometimes.

Come on back to the discussion if you get a chance....I think we can both learn from each other.

Date: 2006/02/15 12:58:49, Link
Author: PuckSR

That is like saying that he set it up, but it doesn't really matter if he did, because from what we observe about the functioning of nature, nature could have done it on her own.

Ok....i think you misunderstand...and I see your problem now.
Deism is not claiming that God "made it look" like he was not involved.  The claim is that "it doesnt matter".  To the Deist...or I suppose the Theistic is what it is...

They are claiming that tend to get hung up on this.  Let me try and put it into a different context....does God make things fall to the ground?

Gravity makes things fall to the ground...but a Deist would claim that God created gravity...therefore God is responsible for things falling to the ground.  You seem to think that either "God is making things fall to the ground" or "God is not involved with things falling to the ground".  You ignore the 3rd option....God invented a mechanism to do it.  This option does not limit the power of God, nor does it make God any less important.  We routinely use mechanisms instead of being "directly" involved.  If the 'Designer' is a sentient being....then why would he directly do everything?  Unless the 'Designer' is a severly limited intelligent being.

Lets get back to gravity for a second.  It may be very important to you to determine "why" things fall to the ground.  God or nature or something....but to Science it doesnt matter....they just say..."Things fall to the ground...they always fall at the same rate...we are going to name this force gravity and describe it to the best of our ability."  Now...Im sure God would be more than capable of taking care of gravity.....but no physicist really cares...unless he is trying to figure out why large masses are attracted to each other.

Does this analogy help in any way?  

If this whole setup here were designed by an incredible intelligence, then how can it possibly mimick something that wasn't?

Im sorry....but what?

We only have 1 reality....if you find another one that was created by different means please let me know.  Your saying that we can compare our current reality to one that is either devoid or full of God.  We cannot, therefore this reality doesnt mimick an ID reality...this reality doesnt mimick a naturalism one....this reality is our only point of comparison.

That being said....can you build something that looks undesigned?  Of course you can also do it very carefully.....the only difference between the two is that you built yours with a goal....and the random one had no goal.

You could painstakingly build a pile of you might decide to build a perfect pile of rocks....or you might decide to build one that was highly irregular...its your decision.   The only real difference between your pile of rocks and a random pile of rocks is that you had a reason for building yours....even if your reason was whimsy.  Now, if we waited 10,000 years and you only used rocks you picked up, could anyone definitely figure out which pile was designed by Avo? Probably not....they might have some ideas...but they would all be based on the reason for the pile of rocks.  Unless you know the purpose for the is impossible to determine if something is designed.

BTW...excuse my reference to Pascal...I was not implying that you were basing your religious beliefs off of horrible reasoning....I was implying that you were basing your Scientific beliefs off of horrible reasoning.

but isn't it also true that many of these pathogens have kept their identity as a species for millions of years?

I actually love this line of reasoning...and I will fill in the rest for you...

Ummm....we dont really have a lot of samples of microscopic organims from millions of years your question is kind of ummmm... pointless?

Lets keep this up though....this is the classic question of why havent we seen a germ evolve into a sea sponge.  Why do we not see the organisms evolve into higher species.

The answer is we have sea sponges?  If your a construction might get hired to design a house.  If their are no available architects around...they might ask you to do it.  If you do really well, they might let you keep doing it.  
They are not going to ask a construction worker to draw up blue prints to a house if their are plenty of architects and civil engineers lying around.  
This is why germs dont evolve...something else already evolved.

Also...Evolutionary Theory tells us that an organism will stay in its present state until either its current state ceases to be sufficient or a far superior adaptation is found(the latter is considered to be the rarer event.)  We still get sick...the 'Designer' apparently didnt do a very good job with immune systems, therefore there are still germs.

Date: 2006/02/15 21:00:34, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ummm...quick question....why do you say this?

I don't think we can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution.

Ive never really understood this comment.
Why couldnt we?
microevolution says that small changes add up to big changes(using ID definition).  Perhaps a species of fish develops longer fins...big change...from gene mutation...small change

Macroevolution says that big changes add up to bigger changes....fins develop into limbs

The logic is pretty sound.  We observe microgravity...and then assume that most of the universe operates using gravity.  Sometimes scale introduces some new elements; such as the current debate over "dark matter".  However, most of the universe still operates using gravity.

Maybe math?
1 x 10^29 + 1x10^29 = 2 x 10^29

seems that logically we can imply that general rules can be derived from smaller instances.  
Unless you think someone has actually manually added those two large numbers?

This seems to go back to 2 problems
1)Completely incapable of comprehending large numbers...billions of years for example
2)Somehow thinking that  biology works in strict terms...such as species and genus

If you have problem with either of the above, you will have a hard time understanding Evolution

**Thought Experiment**
How long will it take you to count to a billion Avo?
What is a species...and how do you tell the difference between two different species and two subspecies?

Date: 2006/02/16 08:46:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
The point is that folks such as Avo (and indeed, people like Dembski and Behe, etc.) honestly believe that the difference between, say man and chimp isn't a quantitative difference ('2' vs. '3x10^113' ), but a qualitative difference ('2' vs. 'B' ).

Oh...I know....but i was using this in reference to using smaller scale observations to determine larger scale predictions.

I just hate the comment on microevolution != macroevolution.  In almost every observational theory a smaller scale example is used to demonstrate a grander principle.  It is completely dishonest....and a cheap shot.

***side note***
I once mentioned the whole microgravity vs macrogravity when discussing this topic with a friend.  He informed me that I misunderstood gravity.  Gravity, according to my friend, was caused by the attraction between the sun and the earth.  Our attraction to the earth was merely a by-product of the larger attraction....and if the sun did not exist....we would float off into space.

Suffice it to say I immediately ended the conversation with my friend....and decided that it might be better to simply discuss different types of beer.


Date: 2006/02/16 09:04:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well I have always loved a good argument(especially if I am drinking) and I have been a skeptic all of my life.  I moved to Lubbock, TX for college...and quickly met a number of people that scared me to death.  I had at one point considered becoming a priest, so my knowledge and understanding of theology and philosophy was never lacking.  These people(fundamentalists) seemed lacking in every intellectual category.  I argued with them, hung out with them, and even dated one.  I eventually decided that ignorance was bliss for these simple folk and just left it alone.

About 1-2 years ago I started to hear the words "Intelligent Design" pop up all over the place.  I did what everyone does...I read up on ID.  Now...Ive always liked the idea of Intelligent Design.  If you asked me for my rationalization for my belief in God...I would probably point to the design of our Universe.  This is why I was so upset to find out about ID.  It is an absolutely wonderful philosophy....but a horrible scientific theory.  I also became fascinated with Dembski.  I have an undergrad degree in math, and I could not understand why he was acting like this.  I mention Pascal alot when I talk about Dembski.  They both tried to rationalize their belief in God through statistics.

Anyways....I still live in Texas...and when I found out one of the EE professors at Texas Tech was advocating Intelligent Design....I decided that I was going to rip him a new one.  Im an EE by the way. He perhaps made the worst arguments I have ever heard....and they all sounded really, really familiar.  They were all old creationist arguments.  I eventually left it alone, because the "debates" turned into "witness" sessions for Christ.

I have no problem ignoring creationists and fundamentalists....but I become incredibly concerned when they try to influence every major field of empirical study.  

So....I got into this whole fun event because I was offended that ID was basically raping a wonderful philosophical idea.

Date: 2006/02/16 10:18:14, Link
Author: PuckSR
hey...fair is fair....i beat you to the punch :p

Date: 2006/02/16 19:46:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
let me preface this post by explaining that I have been this might not make a great deal of sense

Paleontoogy is not considered Darwinism's strong suit

Really...because I dont think dinosaur bones are supporting creationism or Intelligent Design....unless the ID makes mistakes...massive billion year old mistakes

Miller gets down on his knees before a man in a dress and funny hat, and lets him put a little white disc on his tongue, because he believes the prayers of the man in a dress has miraculously changed it into the body of Jesus. So that can't be the whole problem.

Wow....that just sounded incredibly spiteful.  I thought you liked Jesus.  Did he give you the idea that being a jerk was ok?

But Dawkins didn't do the calculation. And I have to ask myself - is it because he has no feel for probability, or is he dishonest? According to Spetner, if the being played 100 hands of bridge every day for 100 million years, the chance of seeing a perfect hand of bridge just once in his life is one in a quadrillion. Definitely something to write home about.

Odds against receiving a perfect hand (13 cards in one suit) = 169,066,442 to 1


the funny thing is that the number of times you perform an action do not effect the probability.  If you flip a coin a million times....your odds of getting a head are still 1 in 2 every time you flip.....

unless you are referring to the law of large which case it is indicated that the odds will eventually balance out if the chance event occurs frequently enough.

Either way...the math is flawed....

But Dawkins didn't do the calculation.

Of course he didnt....only an idiot would assume that he could quantify the probability of all random occurences that have ever occured.  He can guess...but unless he was there...he cant really give you odds.

No, it doesn't seem preposterous at all. What seems preposterous is that a creature could have 7% of a wing, or 22% of a wing. a penguin?
Hmmm...maybe you are referring to 25% of an a light sensitive organ that cannot detect shape or distance.  It would really kill your cause if we found one of those.

but everyone knows that - it apparently upset some people in Newton's day.

Newton didnt upset anyone with his theory of one that didnt concede under the heap of evidence.  Who are you talking about?

A cell is many orders of magnitude more complex than dropping balls off a tower. It would be better to compare a cell to the entire working of the cosmos. If you landed on an empty planet, and found structures like the pyramids but no people (perhaps life got wiped out) you might study many things about their composition and structure, but wouldn't the question of whether they were placed there intentionally be of interest?

Hmmm i suppose if we found grids of rocks existing and someone told you that they were wouldnt believe them either.

In the case of the mysterious fail to mention something.  Pyramids, from our point of reference do not occur naturally.  We have never seen giant complex structures arise from nature....however, you have no point of reference for the cell....except to point to your own, rather humble experiences.

       We still get sick...the 'Designer' apparently didnt do a very good job with immune systems, therefore there are still germs.--me

That isn't how it works. Everything is food. The system would crash if the balance were unbalanced.  Hmmm... how would it crash if germs ceased to exist?

Germs do not "consume" organisms...they use organisms.  Germs and computer viruses have a lot in common....would the internet cease to exist if we didnt have computer viruses?

Alright, I was going on memory. I am pretty sure that TB and other pathogens have been identified from bodies that are thousands of years old. But somehow I am not sure you are right.

You said "millions"....obviously you dont understand that millions is very different than thousands.  Once again, you cannot conceptualize such large numbers.

Your question about counting to a billion tells me you haven't read what IDists have to say on the topic of probability. Time is not a miracle worker.

I dont really care about time....the question...and a rather simple one at how long would it take for you to count to a the top of your head.

Ill change it to 3 questions
1) how long to count to 1,000?
2) how long to count to a million?
3) how long to count to a billion?

the point...if you care to take this excercise any that you probably dont comprehend the massive difference between a thousand and a billion

Date: 2006/02/16 19:57:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
Why refuse to consider that one more parallel is that both ontogeny and phylogeny start from a cell programmed to diversify in a defined sequence of events with the environment serving only as a trigger to initiate the next programmed stage?

Brilliant you found the program? found evidence of organisms evolving after a trigger, even after being moved to a new enviroment?

hmmm....maybe you found something else....

Look...its a great idea....but your really going to have to give me more to go on that an idea.  I have a great idea.  What if all politicians are robots that were programmed by the Illuminati?  Its just an idea till i find proof....but why dont you go ahead and start telling everyone about my idea....since apparently irrefutable ideas=proof in your world?

Date: 2006/02/17 07:17:11, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ummm apparently mars rovers and pyramids and other manmade goods can be examples of design.

I have a question, that I hope DaveScot answers at some point.

Besides biological can Bill's math be applied to any other "designed" artifact?

Avo mentioned pyramids somewhere..a pyramid is not an incredibly complex how does Bill apply his "complexity of design" algorithm to a pyramid?  They arent perfect, the resemble objects we know are not designed, and yet we can tell that they are designed.  How can Dembski tell that they are designed?  Pyramids dont seem to fit any of his mathematical criteria for design.

Ah well...I was just thinking.......

Date: 2006/02/17 07:33:10, Link
Author: PuckSR
Sorry to double post....but I just read the PEH

Im going to abstain from commenting on the technical aspects of the paper....

If you are proposing a hypothesis....shouldnt you avoid really subjective terminology?  Davidson, even though he could have avoided using words that are clearly subjective, seems to be very proud of the subjectivity of his paper.

The paper should not say:
"I find it difficult to imagine"
The paper should say:
"It is not reasonable to assume"

I really dont think anyone, including IDists, care about the limits of Davidson's imagination...or what he thinks, or about any of the more personal aspects of his perspective.

I applaud his attempt to try and rationalize his belief, but using old research and highly subjective wording are just plain annoying.  :angry:

Date: 2006/02/17 20:08:58, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok....once again im drunk

Yes, this is the problem exactly. We are discussing living systems that reproduce. If not for that, there wouldn't be confusion. missed the point.  If you point to a watch and say....this is obviously are using everyone's knowledge that a watch is designed.

If you point to an ocean, and say "this is obviously designed", everyone will laugh at you.  No one has ever seen a "designed" ocean.  In a million years if aliens land on earth...and they find the ruins that were Mount you think the design will be obvious to them?

You cannot point to complexity and say...."this is designed"...pi is incredibly it designed?

The designer couldnt make pi=3?

BTW....sorry if I offended you....I wasnt trying to be rude...I was just trying to lighten the mood

Date: 2006/02/18 06:52:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
wait....Dembski actually said that?

thats hilarious......

Robin Goodfellow said, "If you find horrible reasoning in a person that can be independently given and cannot reasonably find any means it could have come about through intentional misinformation then you’ve detected stupidity."

Date: 2006/02/19 08:58:12, Link
Author: PuckSR
We could find strange objects and know they were designed


Give me an example of an object that you could determine was designed without being familiar with the object.

Let me explain....flint arrow heads are designed...we know they are designed because we know we used to make flint arrowheads.

Give me an example of an object that you know is designed without having familiarity with the object.

Date: 2006/02/19 09:32:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
I'm finding your reaction to the bridge hand question pretty unsupportable, way over the top.

We did not miss the point. Dawkins made a simple statement  of chance and probability that was false, and he made it precisely to illustrate the point that it failed to illustrate. It illustrated indeed the opposite. His example if anything strengthens the argument he was trying to refute. Since the calculation is not one of very advanced math, and since Dawkins should certainly have spent a fair amount of time pondering exactly what chance can and cannot do, I find it pretty odd.

Alright....lets begin by assuming that both Russel and Dawkins assumed that Spetner meant a "perfect hand" of bridge and not a "perfect deal".

You are indeed correct Avo, Spetner did get his calculations somewhat correct.....You would not normally use probability in this way.  Your very old individual would have 1: 4 x 10^28 odds of getting a perfect deal every time.  He might get his perfect deal on the first deal...even though the odds are very much against it.  He would, however, have the exact same odds of getting a "perfect deal" on the second hand, and on the third.  His odds would not diminish or increase with repetition.  If you believe diminishing odds with repetition then you are committing what is commonly known as the "gambler's fallacy".

Russel and Dawkins however took Spetner literally to refer to a "perfect hand" of bridge....and a hand only refers to the cards dealt to one player.  You should, at least, forgive them for this misunderstanding.

The point, however, is still perfectly valid.  If the probability exists that something could occur and it is given a very large number of trials, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it could happen.

Avo, a royal flush in poker is very rare in a 5 card stud game.  If, however, you are dealt a perfect one would suggest that the odds make such a hand impossible.  Yes, you were very lucky, but the mere fact that it is improbable does not mean that is does not occur.

This is the point of the entire "perfect bridge hand disccusion".  Spetner is trying to suggest that while a chance exists for such an occurence, that the high improbability makes it impossible.  Dawkins is trying to demonstrate that if the possibility exists....then you must accept that it could potentially occur.

Date: 2006/02/19 14:46:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
MY bad....i thought Dawkins was criticizing Spetner...

That should explain most of my post

Of course, Spetner could have made the odds even worse....if he had specified that the hands were dealt in order, or that the suits had to proceed in a certain order.

The funny thing Avo, is that in this case we all know what cards we have and what hands we are trying to achieve.  You cannot provide either of those details when trying to calculate the complexity of life.  I suppose you could specify the current state of all life, but why deny alternate paths?  That would be like artificially increasing your odds by requiring that the hands are dealt in numerical order.

Date: 2006/02/20 07:18:36, Link
Author: PuckSR
You know....I think its funny that Dembski missed all of the incorrect statements made in the Powerpoint....

he is a mathematician and theologian right?
Isnt this more specifically in his area of expertise than anything else in the world?

Yet a bunch of random people on his blog have to point out the glaring inaccuracies?

The world truly does seem amazing when you:
1. Manipulate facts
2. Become incredibly selective with your facts
3. Avoid checking the truthfulness of your information
4. Avoid information that would contradict your "beatiful" world view

;) does anybody think this might be a hidden message from Bill?  Maybe he posted this as a way of answering one of our biggest questions.

IS Bill Dembski exploiting people, or does he honestly believe himself?????

I think I have my answer.

Date: 2006/02/21 11:41:21, Link
Author: PuckSR

You completely missed the point of both Behe, Dembski, and Miller.
I dont believe that an incredibly long and detailed post would be very fruitful, so I will simply provide a summarized post.

1)Of course all components of a system are necessary for that system to be that system.  The classic example:  A mousetrap.  The argument from the ID crowd is that the parts of a mousetrap are non-functional.  The argument from the 'Evolutionist' crowd is that they are functional.  No one claims that a mouse trap sans spring is still a mousetrap.  They are arguing that a mousetrap sans spring is either useless or useful.

2)  The true chronological order of development is unimportant for almost everything.(unless your DaveScot).  A car is based on several simple principles....Boyle's Law, the concept of the wheel, simple machines(gears)...etc.  No one actually needs to explain the chronological development of all of the technology of the car to assume that it 'evolved' from these other concepts.  You might claim that the concept of the wheel predated the concept of pressure systems.  Further anthropological evidence might discover that the concept of steam energy predated the wheel.  It really isnt important to the concept of automotive evolution.

3)  You were incredibly insulting regarding the entire Spetner Vs. Dawkins argument.  You should apologize profusely, you were clearly misinformed....

4) Russel has already tried to explain, but I am afraid you might have missed the point.  You seem incredibly concerned that the Theory of Evolution provide detailed information regarding the evolution of organisms.  You seem to ignore the fact that ID cannot provide any of this information either.  ID proponents cannot even agree on how organisms came to be in existence.  The Theory of Gravity does not explain why masses are attracted to each other.  It simply explains that they are attracted and  describes the attraction.  I keep mentioning the theory of gravity because it draws so many parallels with evolution.

We do not know why gravity works
We have only observed gravity on a small scale
We base almost all of our understanding on empirical evidence
They are both used to refute theistic ideas

Avo, if you have any problems with any of my points, please refer back to the number, and I will provide a far more detailed explanation.

Date: 2006/02/21 12:13:15, Link
Author: PuckSR
i think you seriously misjudge the agnosticism of the rest of the world.

Think of a religious agnostic.  Most of the religious agnostics I know distance themselves from atheism.  They want to ignore the whole issue of God....but they dont want anyone to dislike them and associate them with evil "Atheists".
Even if their views are most closely related to Atheism.

Same thing with those who are agnostic about evolution.  Their views are more closely associated with Evolutionists, however they dont want to seem "evil" and so when pressed they will lean towards the creationists.  It is the "evil" connotation that should really concern pro-science people. If your agnostic, but you  notice that one side villifies the fu** out of the other are probably going to want to remain popular, and will side with the "good guys".

Date: 2006/02/22 06:55:27, Link
Author: PuckSR
I think you guys are waisting your time with Avo. "Nobody is as deaf as those who do not want to hear". He is not here to listen... nothing you say has any weight with him.

Actually, I think your wrong.  I am not trying to sway Avo's opinion on the matter.  I simply believe that it is my civic duty to attempt to inform Avo of the facts.

I have absolutely no problem with Avo continuing to believe whatever (s)he wishes.  I only hope that in the future Avo avoids false information.

After our conversation with him, I would hope that Avo never again tries to use the example of the bridge hand to call Dawkins dishonest.

I hope he fully understands the concept of IC, and the refutations of it.

I also hope in the future he avoids making arguments and accusations from rather weak source material.

Remember when you were a young person, and you attempted to discuss something with an adult.  We almost all made ridiculous statements, and were exhaustively educated on the inappropriateness of our style and tactics.  I dont really want to change Avo's opinion.  I simply want to raise the level of debate to something that resembles honest and intelligent discourse.

Date: 2006/02/22 11:20:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok quick question.....

what exactly is a systems engineer?
Im familiar with the job, but Im not familiar with the education.

Did Dave get a degree in another field of engineering?
Do systems engineers take the FE?
Are they true engineers or are they like Industrial Engineers?
or are they like "audio engineers"?

Just curious....since most engineers have at least a general understanding of science.....and I was wondering if DaveScot is a physics whizbang with an argument to pick with biology....or if he never really was required to display a basic scientific knowledge....or perhaps even a mathematical knowledge.

Anyone know?

Date: 2006/02/23 06:41:28, Link
Author: PuckSR
I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum?

Ok....lets clear some things up.

The flagellum was an example of an irreducible complexity(IC) system.  The argument behind IC is that they are examples of systems that cannot be reduced down to simpler parts, and therefore only could have been created by a designer.  

You can think about the mousetrap, or about Paley's watch.  The argument of IC is that none of these systems could exist as any form of subsystem.  
Wikipedia article explaining IC

The type 3 system is an example of a simpler system that could be considered a subsystem of the flagellum.  It may not actually be proof of a previously existing system, but it is proof that the flagellum could function without all of its parts.

There seems to be a misunderstanding AVO
Avo thinks-to prove that a system is not IC, you would have to prove every stage at which the system evolved.  This is nearly impossible, even if we were to try and do this with an organism that we know evolved.
i.e. how did the wheel involve into a harley-davidson motorcycle?

We all know that the basic wheel(and wheeled transportation) is the great-grandfather of the harley, but even the greatest of historians would have a hard time giving you a complete and total time line for its evolution.

Everyone else is simply saying that if you can reduce something to a simpler form, then you have proven that the original was not irreducibly complex.  This seems to make sense, but realize that they are not claiming that a type 3 system proves that the flagellum evolved, only that it proves that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Now going back to my "points", why dont you apologize Avo?  It would show a great deal of goodwill on your part, and it would be the right thing to do.....

Date: 2006/02/23 06:57:14, Link
Author: PuckSR DaveScot is a basic level computer guy....

He isnt an Engineer....he is a guy who calls himself an engineer.  Now, I dont want anyone to take offense to this comment; its just that a Bachelor's in engineering requires a fairly intimate understanding of mathematics and physics.  I now know that Dave lacks both of these skills.

Also, his "engineering" job at Dell made me think that Dave was fairly experienced with design.  I thought maybe he had designed motherboards or some other logic-related i understand...he was a code jockey.

Is there some minimum number of generations that NeoDarwinian theory requires for these features to emerge?  

Ummm....yeah......1.....the more appropriate question to your argument would be "is their a maximum?"

Does NeoDarwian theory predict the impossibility of a flagellum or nucleus evolving in a laboratory culture?

By far the best quote I have ever read.  Seriously...I hope this is a joke, because that may be the stupidest question I have ever read.  Forgetting the whole Religion/Science debate for a moment....that question doesnt even make sense.

Date: 2006/02/24 11:34:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
thank you for apologizing.  It seemed rather honest, but dont chase after Russel for attack Spetner.  Either Spetner was horribly negligent or intentionally malicious.  I would like to err on the side of caution, and assume he was just negligent, however, Spetner should still be chastised heavily.

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 24 2006,08:18)
I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses.  Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are?  What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did.
Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument.

You do realize that you never actually answered his question.
We all know that you think the ID crowd has done some actual scientific work....the problem is that you cannot give us examples.  I am entertaining the hope that you still know what the terms "objective" and "open-minded" mean.  A lot of great scientific revolutions have originally met with harsh criticism and doubt; but they all eventually produced so much evidence, and such strong evidence that the scientific community was forced to accept the new ideas.  They didnt rely on public opinion and social moods.

So...pony up and start LISTING  some hypotheses and the objective scientific tests of these hypotheses.

You already admit that random mutation and natural selection can be proven.  You just believe that they are being used too liberally to explain all of biological development.  Fair enough....but you had better provide something that is just as good at explaining the evidence and just as testable as our current theories.  Then IDers need to prove that it does an even better job of explaining the evidence.

So...what are the hypotheses?
how do we test them?
how do the hypotheses do a better job of explaining evidence than current theory?

I have heard several times that ID is about design detection and not a theory on biological diversity.  That sounds great. what other systems has ID been tested?
Can ID detect design in "known" tests?
If I was to present William Dembski with two 1,000,000,000 digit long binary numbers could he determine which one had randomly occured and which one had been "designed"?
How would he determine which one was designed?

I would ask Bill Dembski myself, but he has banned several people for asking that question.

Date: 2006/02/24 11:54:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
Immanuel Velikovsky

Did they bring this up just so that they will finally have a response to the whole micro-gravity, macro-gravity joke?  Velikovsky thought gravity was wrong too?

Its good to see that the more "hardcore" crazies are supporting ID nowadays.  Now we just need to sit down all of the rational sane people that support ID and hopefully turn them into creationists again.

I liked creationists....they had a really, really, really strong argument.  It was also fairly obvious that they couldnt teach in science classrooms.

Date: 2006/02/25 08:36:54, Link
Author: PuckSR
"evidence points away from gradualism"

He may just be mentioning the classic punctuated equilibrium stuff.  The fact that we dont see smooth and steady progression from one organism to another, but rather "steps" from each previous organism.  Im not really sure what he is talking about though because he has a tendency to "say something" and then not explain, provide examples, or give evidence for what he is talking about.

He kinda reminds me of a lot of bar arguments.  That guy your talking to read somewhere, something that is relevant to his argument.  He just cant remember what it was, where it was, or how exactly it helped his argument.  Normally, when you finally get around to figuring out what he is talking is either nonsense, or it doesnt really have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

i.e. we wasted almost 2 days trying to figure out the whole Spetner/Dawkins debacle.

Well, essentially, you are saying that life could have evolved successfullyi n myriad ways. That may or may not be true. According to books like Nature's Destiny, that is not really true. Also, it is not simply a matter of finding a working combo. Life as it is, the cell, when we try to figure out how it could have occurred against the difficulties that it must have surmounted, is difficult to account for. Your argument is better if we speak of some specific protein with its hundreds of amino acids - there might be several other ways it could have been put together to solve its task. does "Nature's Destiny" know that life could not have evolved in a different way?  Have they tried?  All that they can say is that in all of our research we have never seen life evolve in a different way.

Second, all of these statistical analyses of life are incredibly dishonest.  Why do you believe that only "fringe" scientists do these sorts of calculations?  Honest mathematicians and scientists know that these calculations are bogus.  These statistics take way too many liberties with the numbers and make far too many assumptions.  It is interesting to see the numbers they come up with....but it is hardly scientific.

Issac Newton was a brilliant scientist.  He had a way of realizing the physical world that was simply brilliant.  He also researched ancient religious texts heavily and decided that Jesus was not divine, based on the accounts of several people.
Why am i mentioning this?
Issac Newton never claimed that he had scientifically proven the non-divinity of Jesus.  He may  have used the "scientific method", and he may have had a great deal of evidence.  He realized, however, that he was basing his decision largely off of unfounded assumptions.  Assumptions that could not be evaluated objectively.  Learn a lesson from Newton, and realize that Dembski and his crowd are frauds.

Date: 2006/02/25 09:06:54, Link
Author: PuckSR
Did any of you ever stop to think that the ID/NeoDarwin clash might involve science, religion, and politics all at the same time?

Yeah....but it should be just about science.

Just like that "new conservative judge" on the Supreme Court.  His decisions shouldnt be based on politics or personal agenda, but rather on the interpretation of the Constitution.  

Remember how mad the ID/Christian right got when a certain judge sided with the facts instead of with a personal agenda in Pennsylvania?

The one thing that is going to split the whole Religious/Conservative pact is the fact that true conservatives still believe in the law....and Christians dont give a ####.  They want their agenda, and they want it now.  

It is funny Cap, your the one who thinks of this world in a "black and white" manner.  You dont see the obvious differences between politics, religion, and science.

BTW...quit calling yourself have never done anything with a capacitor in your life....except use one without understanding how it works.

Date: 2006/02/25 09:21:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
If we got a chance to teach ID to every high school kid IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY THEORY OR CRITICISM like NeoDarwinists have been allowed to do for 50 years how many Darwinian dogmatists would there be? know and I know that high school kids will swallow whatever they get fed.  Thats the only reason you want to teach it in high school.  You want those open-minded young people to suck up your horsesh**.

Besides, high school biology classes arent the place for debate, or for detailed theory either.  A high school student doesnt have a complex understanding of evolutionary biology.  We all know thats the only biology class you ever took, and we can all tell how severly lacking you are in your understanding of evolution.

Hey, why dont you push to make HS biology classes more voluntary, that way kids dont have to be exposed to "science", and you can drag them into a religious studies class instead.  

You know, its funny, before Darwin most of the biologists of the world were creationists....yet they abandoned that worldview because of the overwhelming evidence.  The fact that their creationist views were strongly supported by religion and society didnt matter.  They changed based on the evidence.....where is the evidence pico?

Too stupid

Date: 2006/02/25 11:20:13, Link
Author: PuckSR
please quit calling him an engineer....he isnt an engineer.

I suggested that you didnt have any knowledge of biology....but then again I dont have your college transcript in front of me.  Kudos to you Dave, you took multiple classes in the biology department.

The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about how many generations it should take.

Even William Dembski would chastise you for making this comment.  This is just plain silly.

If you want to make a comment of this nature, you should say that
The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about  the probability of it occuring in a certain number of generations.

Still wrong, but at least it makes sense

Im sure you have played poker at some time Dave.  If you are playing 5 card draw poker, can you tell me how many hands it will take for you to get a straight flush?  
Of course you cannot tell can tell me the probability of it occuring.  You can tell me the probability of it occuring in a certain time period.  You cannot tell me how many hands it will take.  Why?  Because it involves a "random" factor.  Evolution argues a "random" factor, and therefore cannot predict the number of generations it will take to occur.

Obviously not an Engineer, or the math behind your ridiculous comment would have been obvious to you.

If you dont believe me, email Dembski, and he will tell you the exact same thing.

But I'm an advocate of teaching both so what they'll "swallow" is that there is more than one tentative answer.

Hmmm...what else do you advocate teaching children?

Maybe we should teach them that Hinduism/Buddhism is much more spiritually fulfilling that Christianity.

Maybe we should teach them in graphic detail about homosexual sex....since it is a valid alternative to heterosexual sex.  

Maybe we should teach children that if there is a God, he must be mean, because he has introduced evil into the world, and has brought a great deal of pain and suffering.

These are all more logical than ID, but what about other fringe science.

Teach them about the electric universe theory
Teach them about planet X on the opposite side of the sun
Teach them about Ghosts and spirits
teach them about alien abductions
heck, teach them about scientology.
teach them about the bermuda triangle

We do not teach kids about these kinds of things in HS science classrooms.  Heck Dave, we dont even teach them about bleeding edge science in HS.  We give them the basics, and they can build on it later.  If you want to "teach the controversy", why not do it at the University level?  There are obviously plenty of professors who believe in ID according to you....oh wait...i forgot....they are being persecuted.  Despite the massive amounts of evidence in favor of ID(that you are keeping hidden like the Mormon golden tablets), they are being persecuted.....just like.....

NO ONE....this is science buddy, the whole point is that if you can give enough evidence, no one can shoot you down.  The problem is that all of your evidence comes from philosophical argument.  ID has no other direct evidence, except for the philosophical ramblings of Dembski and others.  Arguments that he stole from Aquinas and others.

Date: 2006/02/25 12:02:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
hey hey hey....lets keep everything Nazi related out of this conversation

You could ask him if he thinks HS history classes should be required to teach about:
the JFK assassination conspiracy
his brother's assassination conspiracy
the moon landing conspiracy
the "new world order" conspiracy

Date: 2006/02/25 12:45:29, Link
Author: PuckSR
the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about “god” or a “guiding force.” Instead, it merely proposes that there is good evidence that some features of nature–like the intricate molecular motors within cells and the finely-tuned laws of physics–are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause, not chance and necessity. Whether this intelligent cause identified through the scientific method is (or is not) “god” cannot be answered by the science alone and is therefore outside the scope of the theory of intelligent design.
--Uncommon Descent, John West

Ok, so now we have the actual, factual, scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  It apparently "merely proposes that there is good evidence".  This may perhaps be the weakest statement of a "scientific" theory EVER.

It also includes the "finely-tuned laws of physics".  Excuse me, but how do we determine that the laws of physics are "finely-tuned".  Oh wait, thats completely speculative and subjective.

I notice that the "official" theory of ID also allows for the "Intelligent Agent" to use laws of nature.  He "finely-tuned" the laws of physics.  He must have also "finely-tuned" the laws of genetics.  Therefore the Designer designed evolution,  seems logical to me.  Hmm, so I guess the "official" ID theory doesnt conflict with modern biology.

So...Dembski=Pascal.  He is trying to rationalize and mathematically represent what is clearly a philosophical issue.

Date: 2006/02/25 21:42:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
I am skeptical of the claim that evolution was an unplanned, unguided process.

I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.

hmmm....let me help you out then

unplanned-it was unplanned in the sense that it is not a causal system.  There is no definite causal process.  It is not a system of A->B->C.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the theological side of the issue.  I know you think the term "unplanned" in some way refers to God, but it doesnt.

unguided->it was unguided in the sense that it was not severly restricted.  The options for the diversification of life were not limited to a very select few.  This is basically saying that there is no "intelligent design".  This term, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the theology behind creation.

Quit getting the phrase about "unplanned, unguided process" confused with some denial of God.  It is a denial of ID, and it only is used in the terms I described above.  I think it is wonderful that you are fully exploring theological debate Dave, but you really are lacking in your skill.

Sorry, but this little perv thinks your a little ignorant of science, math, and philosophy.  

Im sure that job as an "engineer" taught you a lot, but it obviously didnt expand your knowledge of the physical world.  Your experience with ID hasnt really taught you much about theology....

My God your stupid Mr. Springer.

Date: 2006/02/26 06:23:14, Link
Author: PuckSR
Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

Hmmmm....i dont think you have ever seen a blueprint either.  A blueprint is a diagram.  The diagram may contain notes explaining what something is, and may specify specific dimensions.  It does not contain notes about "how to put things together" or "what order to do it".

"This is too easy"
It is so easy, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Date: 2006/02/27 18:48:46, Link
Author: PuckSR

You used a term that suddenly striked me as very, very, very odd.

You referred to the deck "being stacked".  Interesting.
I pose a question to you....
Could you tell the difference between a deck I had stacked and a random deck?

Since a deck of cards could randomly exist in any order at all, then there is no way to determine that the deck is "stacked".  It could have been shuffled properly, and still wound up in that order.  You might assume that I am cheating, because I got 4 Aces on the first draw....but you couldnt actually know that I was cheating.

This is basically the problem with ID(philosophy) and ID(science).  ID(philosophy) thinks that the deck is stacked; ID(science) claims to be able to prove that the deck is stacked.

Well what do you mean by designed. If you simply made up a number and called it designed but it didn't do anything, then of course he couldn't. If your number, however, was a specific set of information that accomplished something complex, and if Dembski were able to discern the relation of the number to some sort of task or other form of meaningful information (there being the possibility that he could not decode it and therefore it would continue to appear random to him) then yes, he could.

Hmmm, thats not what Dembski says, he simply says that if the pattern of numbers is complex enough, that it proves design.  I do not believe that Dembski has any new relationship with respect to biological organisms.  He simply calculated that their chance of existence was too rare to be random.

You might want to write to Dembski and get a better explanation of his math.  Your answer for detecting design seems very rational, however, it is not the one that Dembski used.

As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that.

The reason you think that Miller is a confused IDist is because you confuse ID(philosophy) with ID(science).  Miller actually believes in ID(philosophy).

You also seem to want us to either acknowledge God, or acknowledge that there might be a God.  The only help I can offer you in this particular regard is to read the works of  Siddhartha Gautama.  The nature of God is unimportant, so is the question of his existence.  It is an unanswerable question that you will waste your life exploring.  You should divert that energy towards making yourself a better person.

In other doesnt matter....if we acknowledge God, or His possibility of existence.  It doesnt change anything.  Your right, if God exists, then all of science is probably wrong; but God seems to either allow things to continue to hold up to natural laws....or he doesnt exist.  Either way, natural laws seem to exist, and they seem to be lets stick with the natural laws and ignore God when dealing with natural laws.

I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it.

Oh my God......
That is very wrong.
The similarities between humans and chimps is not exaggerated, nor is it based on the fact that we are all "made up of the same stuff".  I like your book analogy....but you completely misused it.  The similarities between chimps and humans are not bit by bit comparisons.  It consists of large chunks of identical code.  

Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?  You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?  
My God, are you telling me that Rottweilers and Pomeranians have more in common that Chimps and humans?

Date: 2006/02/28 05:33:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
Hmmm....apparently I pissed off JAD.

The point of mentioning dogs was not to say that humans and chimps are more closely related than different dog species.

The point, and I have made it several times, is that humans and chimps are remarkably similiar.  If I was going to choose two animals as examples of how evolution was impossible....chimp/human would be fairly far down the list.  Ignoring the genetic similarities.....they are physically very similiar.  They are also both highly intelligent. They are both social animals.  

I frequently hear IDists/Creationists admit that some diversification(microevolution) most likely occured.  Domestic dogs are a fine example of this.  I just cannot comprehend if they admit that a minimal amount of diversification occured...why they cannot admit that two animals that are obviously so similiar are related.

What I find most amusing is that this guy PuckSR has actually claimed that humans amd chimps are more closely related than are Rottweilers and whatever the other dogs were, let's say Chihuahuas shall we. You tell this illiterate Darwimpian mystic that all dogs are wolves and are exactly the same species as proved by the fact that they all produce fertile hybrids with each other and with the wolf and the coyote too.

All i said
Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?  You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?  

I never said that chimp/humans are closer related than dogs
I never said that they could not copulate.
The entire purpose of that statement was as a thinking exercise.

Date: 2006/02/28 10:14:38, Link
Author: PuckSR
ummm....I dont even think that DaveScot could refute that the Martian taxonomy would consider humans/chimps in the same genus. further your train of thought.....if our friendly martian was conducting field you think his initial assumption would be that chimps/humans were able to cross-breed?

And when he discovered that this was not possible, he would consider this quirky, rather than seperate them further in his taxonomy?

Date: 2006/02/28 10:26:39, Link
Author: PuckSR
I still love the fact that Dave attacks Dawkins for not comprehending what a blueprint is.....

and then gives an example of something that isnt a blueprint.

**Side Note**

I attended a discussion on ID was held in the electrical engineering building of my University.  About 2 questions into the discussion...I learned that the "presenter" was actually a creationist....he told us this.  Then he explained that he has no understanding of ID theory.  Then he explained that ID should be taught in school...despite not personally believing it or understanding it.  Then when it was all over, another student(who was very friendly) thanked me for attending their "bible study".

Now, Im not trying to be mean.....but something is wrong here.  If your advocating something you dont believe...(he was a YEC)....and that you dont understand(he couldnt tell me where ID stood even on the few points that they have a position on)....shouldnt you just shut up?

I dont advocate for the teaching for or against "dark matter"...why?  because I am not nearly informed enough to have an opinion.  If i started a grass-roots advocacy group to have "dark matter theory" taught....both the proponents and the opponents of the theory would tell me to get lost.

Why dont ID proponents tell the creationists to shut the #### up?  They obviously dont understand the "theory of ID", #### they dont even believe in it for the most part.  They are usually undereducated about the topic, and while it is ok to have an uneducated should probably keep that to yourself.

Date: 2006/03/01 09:29:17, Link
Author: PuckSR
Sure, with four aces you couldn't tell. But with sufficent levels of unlikelihood, one comes to the conclusion a thing was not random. And the ID proponents, in their arguments, always acknowledge that you cannot prove in any absolute sense that something or other could never have occurred. But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation, it does raise the incredulity quotient.

Exactly....and I would most certainly agree with you that if all the cards came in a specific order....that i probably stacked the deck.  The problem is....those would both be assumptions.  Pay attention...Im going to keep bringing this up.  We would assume, and probably correctly, that if the cards kept coming up in a specifically good order...that the deck was stacked.  This is why you believe in ID, this is why I believe in God.

The problem is that you couldnt prove that I stacked the deck.  To prove that I stacked the deck, you would have to see me stacking the deck, or explain how I was cheating.

The only argument between Miller and Behe is the amount or placement of interference.

Totally wrong.  Miller might actually believe that God takes a stronger hand and more direct hand in his involvement.  That is not the difference, and this is the source of a great deal of your confusion.

Behe thinks that he can prove that God interferes.  Miller doesnt know if you can prove God or not, but he does know that Behe's proof isnt any good.

Let me see if i can explain how Behe and Dembski are trying to prove God:
Assumptions are important to science several things have to be assumed.  Normally theories based on observations can be considered assumed.  They are based on a lot of observations....not just 5-10, but normally thousands before they are even considered theories.

Behe and Dembski are abusing the typical assumptions of science.  They are providing an assumption...then providing 2-3 cases of that assumption possibly being correct.  The 2-3 cases that they provide;flagellum, eye, etc. are all heavily contested.

Going back to my playing card analogy Avo.  You even agreed that if I got 4 aces right off the draw, while it might be a bit curious, you probably wouldnt even feel comfortable accusing me of cheating.  Behe got 3 aces, and then claimed that he had proven that the deck was stacked.

Dembski was even worse, he realized that 3 aces dont provide very high odds against.  He also knew that IDist wouldnt be able to find thousands of examples of ID.  He therefore provided incredibly high odds for a single case.  He showed that the odd of life evolving in the way that it has is very rare.  The problem with Dembski's approach is a little bit harder to grasp.
You know that the odds of all of the cards in a deck being in  a perfect order(like when they come out of a box) are very rare.  What you probably dont realize, is that if you go get a shuffled deck of cards, and deal them all out, the odds of them being in that order is just as rare....
Doesnt make sense?  Well, odds dont deal with the desirability of the results.  Sure, to us, the odds of a perfectly arranged deck are much higher than a random deck.  The problem is that statistics says that the odds are the same.
Dembski abuses this little trick.  He shows that the odds of life evolving are very, very slim.  He ignores the fact that it doesnt make the evolution of life extraordinary.  You dont consider most decks of cards "extraordinary" despite the fact that it is incredibly rare that they will be in that order!

Yes, I think that for argument purposes, the similarities are exaggerated, and when the fray settles, I don't believe the similarity will be 99%. It think the truth is closer to 95%.

No, you completely missed the point.  The original research placed the similarities at around 95%.  Better analysis, and a better understanding of certain genes moved the percentage up 99.4%

Why did it move up?  It wasnt because they fudged the numbers, it was because they better understood what genes to compare.  Better analysis does not mean that they changed the numbers to advance an argument.  You really seem to attach a lot of paranoia to the scientific community.

the difference is both profound on the one hand, and less than for all other species on the other.

Why is the difference profound?
Your just a hairless walking talking ape.
It should be kinda obvious, we have constantly found apes that are showing more and more hairless. with a more bipedal stance, and even eventually talking apes.
So your an ape, there isnt anything profound about it.  
My dog comparison, which everyone seems to miss, is that domestic dogs are physically very different.  We do not see anything profound in the fact that a rottweiler and a pomeranian are strongly related, but start telling a human he is related to a chimp....and suddenly you have a profound relationship?

So if that fine day comes, we will not have philosophy and science in separate realms. It is only our ignorance that causes them to appear separate.

Science and philosophy are not seperate realms because of topic, they are seperate realms because of procedure.

Lets go back to the beginning, and bring this all full circle.
A philosopher would say that if you got 4 aces right off the bat on a deal, that you were probably cheating
A scientist would say that if you got 4 aces right off the bat on a deal, that you got 4 aces right off the bat

Philosophers are free to assume away, as long as the assumption pertains slightly to logic.
A Scientist must either prove, or display to a great degree that he is correct, and is not nearly as free to make claims.

This is why ID belongs strongly in philosophy.  I can look at this wonderful world, with all of its beauty, and say that God must have designed it.  This is a perfectly valid philosophical statment.

A scientist cannot say the same thing...he cannot even say anything close.  He deals in emperical evidence and absolutes.

Science, Philosophy, and Religion will never merge, because they actually approach the question from different perspectives.  The simple fact that you think they will is highly dubious.

Date: 2006/03/01 09:53:30, Link
Author: PuckSR
You know what I think is interesting.....that they rarely do come over here

We would absolutely love to go over there and crash the party.  We would love to denounce their false claims, and stop all of this silliness.

UD sits there, protected in a lil cocoon of denial, and bask in each other's glory.

Of course, we do the same thing here, we rarely get a dissenter, and we just all agree with each other....

The only difference is that UD is moderated to make it one-sided, while AtBC cant get enough IDists in here to make us happy.

Why do you think that they so rarely venture over here, yet we would love the chance to go over there and engage them?

Nevermind, we all know the answer, I just wanted th piss Dave off.

Date: 2006/03/01 19:32:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
wait.....when did i say that domestic dogs evolved?

Every nutjob on the web has apparently misunderstood that post....

I was simply pointing out that more drastic differences in physical and behavioral characteristics exist than those between a chimp and a human....yet we recognize that they are not even unique species.

Date: 2006/03/02 10:40:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!

I have noticed for a long time that proponents of ID seem to fall in a very particular theological circle.  They cannot understand religious beliefs outside of their own, nor can they attempt to understand the rational behind such a belief.

Miller's God and Avo's God are basically the same.
Avo, you believe that your God created you.
Miller believes that his God created him too.

The difference is that Miller's God created him in a somewhat indirect fashion.  Do not misunderstand the usage of the word "indirect" here.  Miller believes that his God used a tool to create him, while Avo believes that God acted directly.

Miller believes that his God is omnipotent(all powerful) and omniscient(all knowing).  One major advantage of being omnipotent and omniscent is that you can make incredible shots in pool.  Miller's God didnt have to go pick up the 9 ball and drop it in the corner pocket.....Miller's God made an incredibly complex shot that seemed almost impossible.

They are both the same God, Miller just recognizes that with His omnipotence and omniscience...God could have been far more elaborate with his creation.

If you think that it is silly to believe that God would go to all of this trouble....then why did he create all of the stars?
We know that life does not exist around most stars, and that from our perspective they are just points of light.  God didnt just create points of light....he created a massive, complex, and grandiose Universe.  If you ask me....He likes to show off....

Date: 2006/03/02 20:05:29, Link
Author: PuckSR
I guess all I can say is that I think the evidence and the reasonings of ID have more merit than you think they do. And I don't think the case is as tight by the other side.

Avo, Im going to keep this uncharacteristically short.

I think ID has tons of evidence, and I believe that it has a great deal of merit.  Ken Miller would agree with me.

The problem, and you seem to completely miss this, is that ID is a philosophical conjecture.  
You think we are attacking the belief in design.  We are not attacking the belief in design, we are attacking ID as a scientific theory.

New scientific theories are not created because they make a lot of sense....they are created because they have explanatory value, and because they are testable and provable(either absolutely or empirically).
ID skips all of the "meat" of a scientific theory, and just relies on a fairly reasonable(and might I add popular) philosophical conjecture.  No one is telling you that ID is wrong....NO ONE....we are just telling you that ID is not science.(well except the atheists....and they reject it for philosophical reasons too)

A God universe is ten trillion times better.

This is an invocation of Pascal's Wager.  In case you arent familiar with the fatal flaw of Pascal; he attempted to rationalize a belief in God.  There are several problems with the actual wager, but the lesson is that you cannot rationalize beliefs.  Read up on Pascal please!!!!

Alright, one last thing....I apologize, I believe i misunderstood you.
Miller is closer to Behe in the theological department.
Of course, in the scientific department, Miller is nowhere near a confused IDist....ID is scientific right?

Date: 2006/03/02 20:35:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
Didn't their average genetic content change over time?

Yeah, but i will give JAD credit, domestic dogs were forced to evolve.  We all know that the big problem that IDists have is not with random mutation of genetic material, but rather the whole natural selection thing.  (just kidding)

Im willing to give JAD that domestic dogs are not a "great" example of evolution.  He just has to admit that a pomeranian and a rottweiler have a greater degree of physical seperation than a chimp and a man.

Heck, shave a chimp, put some make up on him, and I bet you could pass him off as a mute midget....with really long arms.

Shave a pomeranian, and you still have a dog with a completely different body shape, who is about 1/12th the size, and who cannot "speak" either(totally different bark).

And all dogs are still in the same species....weird eh?

Date: 2006/03/03 07:47:40, Link
Author: PuckSR
hey, act like a child...

Now, I know you are at least a somewhat intelligent person.  You may not be an Engineer, you may not be a scientist, but your not an idiot.  Why do you behave so childishly?

When i first met you on UD, you seemed to be a very rational, if somewhat confused, individual.  Lately, you have completely flipped and become a completely irrational and mean-spirited individual.

Is it because you realized that ID was false?  Im sure its not an easy thing to grasp. It takes time to set in, and you have to push yourself through it all.  That must be why you are so cranky lately, it is getting hard to be wrong, and at the same time you do not want to admit that you were wrong.

Its ok Dave, if you admit that you were wrong, I personally will promise no ridicule, and I imagine that most of the other people here will grant you the same gesture.

Date: 2006/03/03 10:13:31, Link
Author: PuckSR
Wow....the second law of thermodynamics seems to be drastically reinterperted.....

I guess the fact that it is a "law" makes it "absolute".

I actually understand thermodynamics, I have applied the laws of thermodynamics to real work.  

Saying that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the most twisted and insane thing that I have ever heard.  It only makes sense if you completely misunderstand the law, and you completely misapply it afterwards.

I actually listened to a little bit of the "lecture" that is posted on UD.  All i can say is that if Dembski wanted to claim any credibility he would remove that post IMMEDIATELY.

Date: 2006/03/06 07:26:16, Link
Author: PuckSR
well....he may be a genius...but he doesnt understand anything about water.

Dye and heat are not the same thing and you can heat or chill that uniformly colored glass of water all you want and it won’t undistribute the dye.

Actually....he is wrong.  If i freeze the water...I will undistribute the dye.  This is one of the rather fun properties of water.  It falls into the same category of solid water(ice) being less dense than water.

If you freeze water, the H2O will freeze first, pushing the impurties out of the ice core.  This is actually used as a process to purify water.  

So, ummmm Davey, you have officially stated the exact opposite of the truth.

BTW...I was completely unaware of "information entropy".  So at least i learned something....even if i didnt learn it from Dave

Date: 2006/03/06 08:48:29, Link
Author: PuckSR
quick question

i thought you couldnt unbake a cake because of chemical reactions.....wouldnt Dave's "entropy" analogy only be valid if we were dealing with chex mix or something.

Date: 2006/03/06 12:01:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
good improvement on his analogy.....

but one point would remain the same.....and this is what avocationist and others seem to miss.  No matter how you shuffled, and how you taped the cards together.  The odds of having the cards in the final order are exactly the same.

This is how Dembski can get such a high "improbability" for life.  

Once you understand statistical probability....his argument, and almost all arguments of a similiar nature seem remarkably ridiculous.

Hopefully....we can just help Avo understand the math....analogies are inherently flawed, the actual example is almost always what you are trying to explain ;)

Date: 2006/03/06 12:05:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
If that is the case then Dave's analogy goes out the door since one cannot observe the cake to determine if it has reverted to its components.

Hmmm....maybe Dave is a Buddist....and he is simply trying to free us from our thoughts......

Notice that a lot of his questions sound like koans?

Date: 2006/03/06 15:45:30, Link
Author: PuckSR
honestly how hard can writing the book be?

you dont have to do any experiments
you dont have to do any research at all for that matter
you dont have to make logical arguments
you dont have to tell the truth at all
you dont have to worry about peer-review
You probably dont even need to worry about an editor

####....Im thinking of writing a book on ID....If i could make enough money to sit around all day editing a blog, that would be great.  I guess my only other responsibility would be teaching kids in seminary.  That shouldnt be very hard either...its not a catholic just make stuff up....and make them read the bible constantly

Date: 2006/03/08 08:21:00, Link
Author: PuckSR
If someday the mask comes off and Davetard, DougMoron, etc all announce that this has been an elaborate performance piece, I will lead a standing ovation.

Im fairly sure that it is a performance least for some of the advocates.  After reading Dougmoran's recent editorial statement....Im convinced that his work is parody.

His initial assumption that Christianity requires intellectual honesty is completely unfounded...and anyone who has ever met a Creationist can confirm this as false.  Christians notoriously ignore naturalistic evidence in favor of theological/philosophical beliefs.  Im sure that he is aware of this problem.  

Next, he admits that Science and Religion are two entirely seperate spheres.  Science cannot comment on religion. Religion lacks the ability to comment on Science. This is usually considered the "breaking point" for a creationist....once they realize this distinct seperation....they are capable of ignoring the supposed conflict between the two.

He, however, finishes his breathtakingly intelligent understanding of the conflict between religion and science with 2 completely false statements.  Religion requires objectivity.....Naturalism requires atheism.  He finishes up the whole essay with complete a logical, if false, argument.

I do not believe that anyone could honestly make the mistake of assuming that Christianity is based on objectivity and rational thought.  I, therefore, tend to believe that this was written as a farce.  Either it is parody, or the delusion of ID advocates is superior to any that I have ever encountered before.

Date: 2006/03/08 17:31:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
the trick....if you want to hang around UD for any substantial period of time while asking real questions.....

pretend to be a confused creationist.

I was on UD for over a month, and I was able to do this back in the day before DaveScot had mod powers by pretending that I actually believed in ID(i do, but only the philosophical).  Then I mentioned my strong religious convictions(but failed to mention that I wasnt a fundamentalist)....and I was on the blog for a month.

I probably could have stayed longer....but i got so upset that I actually posted the suggestion that Dembski keep "new scientific" theories out of the hands of children until validated by the scientific community.  He didnt like that keep posting on UD but have a brain....
1.  keep mentioning your religious
2.  randomly support ID to some degree
3.  avoid mentioning that DaveScot or JoshBozman are idiots....not because of their "beliefs"....but because they lack certain standard mental facilities.
4.  Be VERY polite that it hurts
5.  Defend the catholic church...this worked best when Dembski was in charge.  Most of those knuckleheads dont understand catholicism...and Dembski likes the assist.
6.  Never pull and DaveScot and insult the creationists

Date: 2006/03/09 05:01:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
just for anyone unfamiliar with Davey's religious beliefs

Normal agnostic=has no opinion on the nature of God, or if he exists

DaveScot agnostic=God exists, and its probably the Christian God.  As long as I dont make any definitive statements about my religious beliefs I can remain agnostic.....even if I do believe that God exists.

Is it really a suprise that DaveScot misunderstood something?
He doesnt realize that an agnostic has NO BELIEF in God.

Date: 2006/03/09 10:54:45, Link
Author: PuckSR
well picofarad/SirRamicCap/capacitance is back

This whole debate over the temperature of a single proton is interesting.  Im still trying to find material over it....

But, wasnt the original point that temperature !=energy, nor is it a measure of energy?  

2) Potential Trouble - newly registered users go on this list at least for their first comment and if you are an ID-critic you’ll probably stay on it. Anyone from the trusted list who has gone astray also ends up here. People on this list must have all their comments approved by an editor before they show up on the blog.

But DaveScot violates this....because he alters "ID-critic" to mean..."anyone critical of DaveScot, Dembski, and ID proponent, or ID".  I also find the fact that DaveScot has banned all users who "question" his authority a bit odd.  Dont get me wrong...if he is in charge...he has every right to ban people who insult him....
But Dave bans or threatens to ban ANYONE who questions him.

DaveScot has no background in mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, philosophy, or theology.  The fact that he responds to so much of his criticism with unexamined google searches should tell you alot.

He "thinks" he knows the answer....and he might be right....but because he is a typical christian faith=knowledge to Dave.  He can believe that he understands the nature of thermodynamics as much as he wants....but DaveScot has no experience in the field...and is just guessing.

I know a lot about biology....but that doesnt mean that I know what the #### Im talking about.  I will always defer to a better source....DaveScot doesnt do that....he just differs to himself.

Date: 2006/03/09 11:20:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
hey....who bet me a fifth of rum that DaveScot and some of the others were just part of an elaborate joke?

I will take the bet....but i really think i have you at an advantage....the hoax could continue indefinately....i might never pay up

^^By the way...I dont think his disguise is that cheesy^^^
he follows a rule...he posts as some reference to a capacitor

Date: 2006/03/10 08:06:57, Link
Author: PuckSR

You are so close to "getting it", but you just need to take the final step.

Science cannot believe in the supernatural, for a very simple reason.  Science is based on observing the natural world.  Supernatural "things" do not occur in a natural world.....this means that if angels really exist, and they are observable in some way....then they are natural

Lets go back to Miller, Behe, and Dawkins:
Miller and Behe both believe that God could be involved in our world....
Miller, however, doesnt care.  Why doesnt he care?
Because Miller is only interested in the best possible explanation of observations.  Miller will readily admit to you that the earth might only be 6000 years old, and that the evidence is all misleading.  Miller is not searching for the "truth", he is searching for the best explanation of the evidence.
Behe is searching for the truth.  He "knows" that there is a God, and so he believes he must find the evidence that points towards God.

I know that you think that all theists are IDists.....but your totally wrong.

An IDist doesnt believe that God interfered.  An IDist believes that there is definative evidence that God interferes.
Miller is not an IDist because he doesnt believe that there is any evidence.
I am not an IDist because I dont believe that there is any definitive evidence
Many people on this forum are theists but not IDists.

The reason that more than 50% of the population support intelligent because they fail to see this difference.  I personally believe that this confusion comes from the common fundamentalist Christian position of faith=knowledge.
You can have as much faith as you want in will never have knowledge because of faith. can believe all that you want that the intricate nature of this reality is evidence of a designer.  You can point to the incredible complexity of life and the overwhelming odds of it being created.  You can look at all of that and say..."There must be a God".  That is perfectly alright.  No one on this site will fault you for that belief
An IDist says...the only possible conclusion that you can make based on the evidence is that a God exists...and that he interferes is a fact...that cannot be denied.  God is a scientific fact.  Now, if you hold this position we will argue with you at great length.

Date: 2006/03/20 18:13:10, Link
Author: PuckSR
Sorry ive been absent from this "interesting" discussion.

Im a University student....and therefore was enjoying my spring break....

These nice people have spent a great deal of time discussing ID and Evolution with you.  They have pointed out several logical fallacies with your position and they have admired your general civility in these discussions.

You seem to miss a few point, and i would like to clarify them

1)  Your personal insight into the "likelihood" of scientific theory is completely meaningless.  Evolution's insight into the likelihood of God is completely meaningless.  It doesn't change a darn thing.  

2)  There is no way to "prove" God...there is no way to claim that the "evidence" points towards God.  All you can claim is that YOU think that God exists.....

3)   Just because something is IC....doesn't mean that it couldnt evolve.  IC is the most meaningless statement that ID has.
i.e.  A motorcycle evolved from a bicycle.  However a motorcycle is IC....even though it is comprised of several pieces that clearly can exist without the motorcycle...such as wheels, motor, transmission, lights, etc....they dont however function independently of the the motorcycle is still IC.
So according to Behe....a modern motorcycle was simply designed from scratch by an engineer.  It couldn't have evolved from a lesser motorcycle...because that motorcycle wouldnt function very couldnt have evolved from a bicycle because its too perfectly designed.

4)You use an incredible array of subjective words.  Your favorite word seems to be "improbable".  Im going to attempt an explanation
The moon:  long ago several rather strange theories explaining the moon existed.  Some people thought it was a giant star, some thought it was a rock, others thought that it was made of cheese.  Until we landed on the moon...we didnt know who was right...but we generally dismissed the people who thought the moon was made out of cheese.  Why?  Was their theory more improbable than any of the others?  No!
We dismissed it because they couldnt explain how or why the moon would be made out of cheese....they couldn't even explain why they thought it might be made out of just made more sense to them than to think it was a giant rock.
You think ID makes more sense than evolution...but we dont dismiss ID because it seems improbable to Scientists...we dismiss it because it doesn't do just claims the "moon is made out of cheese"

5)  Intelligent Design is not Deism....Intelligent Design cannot believe in a Deistic entity...front-loading is a Deistic idea....ID is a theistic idea.  If ID is Deistic...then it believes in evolution...which it doesnt

6)  You make way too many assumptions about the nature of God.  If God doesnt exist....we could still have souls and reincarnation.  Heck...Im not going to laundry list it all for you....but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism...

7)  Quit using that tired old line about Darwinism being just as religious as ID.  Evolution looks at evidence....millions of fossils and billions of living organisms....and proposes an explanation..the explanation does not defy the known natural laws...the explanation seems to be applicable to almost all of the evidence.  It makes absolutely no direct theological or philosophical suggestions.  It may have theological/philosophical implications for you....but that is completely beside the point.  ID, on the other hand, observes the data...comes to the same conclusion(that life is designed) but then goes to great lengths to try and explain the nature of the designer...explanations that are completely beyond the data.
**Evolutionists believe in design too, just design by Selection algorithms***

Date: 2006/03/25 09:14:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
Today I was eating a grilled cheese sandwich...and i started thinking about IDists and Evolutionists.

An IDist would look at my grilled cheese sandwich and say..."Do you see how it is perfectly melted? Do you see how the cheese meets perfectly with the bread? Do you see the uniform toasting pattern?  This sandwich was obviously cooked by an experienced grilled cheese maker....maybe even a professional chef"

An Evolutionist would look at that same sandwich and might say..."Do you see that burn pattern on the sandwich?  that is the same burn pattern that would be generated in a Teflon skillet preheated to 1000 degrees F and left on each side for 20 minutes.  That cheese is the same aroma and color as Brie.  The bread is obviously old stale can tell by the appearance of fungal spores."

Now, they may both be wrong.  I made the grilled cheese...and Im no expert.  Also I didnt make the grilled cheese at such an insanely high heat for such a long period of time.  I also didnt use Brie cheese and it wasnt moldy bread.

What is the difference though if they are both wrong?  Well, we can run some experiments and show the Evolutionist that it wouldnt require those temperatures or that type of cheese.  Since all of his conclusions are based on empircal evidence....As soon as the scientist observes that the pattern could be made with a much cooler skillet and a much shorter time....he will change his "theory".

The IDist however based all of his "theory" on opinion.  He used a very subjective  Now,  how do i convince the IDist that an expert didnt cook the grilled cheese?  I guess i could show them a videotape of me cooking the grilled cheese.  I guess i could then show them that I am not an expert(i dont know how?)  How do I convince them that the grilled cheese just "looks" perfect...that it actually isnt?

Either way...Im still eating a grilled cheese sandwich

Date: 2006/03/25 14:29:54, Link
Author: PuckSR
Hmmm.....this always bothers me.....

First, what I.D. theory is not: It is not creationism. Full disclosure here: I am a creationist. As a Christian, I believe God is the author of life. But I.D. theory is a science-driven enterprise.

The only person who strongly supports ID that I know of who even claims not to be a creationist is DaveScot.

DaveScot however believes in a Christian God?  Well...he doesnt say this...but if you read his posts for awhile...its painfully obvious.  He is what I like to call a "Christian agnostic".  He believes in some degree....but he isnt quite distinct on his christian beliefs.  This doesnt actually make him an agnostic....he has an actual belief system...but rather a "Christian agnostic".

Otherwise....every person I meet who loves ID is a creationist.  Its funny...we all believe in design too....but slap that word "intelligent" on it...and suddenly all of the creationist qualms with evolution are erased....

of course...they dont claim what "intelligent" means.  by shear definition
intelligent(noun)-Endowed with the capacity to reason
but I dont see how the capacity for reason is derived from complexity?

Date: 2006/03/26 21:01:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
In response to ID being deistic

I don't know about all that. Front-loading is a newish idea, but some ID folk are interested. But I do agree that it's hard to imagine a front-loaded flagellum. I find it hard to imagine a front-loaded cell. I think if there is front-loading, it was not just at the big bang, but at the start of life also. Perhaps the inanimate followed by the animate frontloading event.

Hmm...let me see if i can explain
If you understand Deism, it claims that the Creator/Designer got it all setup and then allowed it to unfold in a planned way.

If he allowed it to unfold, he allowed it to unfold following natural laws.  The natural, "stupid" laws would have created all of reality.

ID suggests that God poked...and kept poking.
OR, ID doesnt even deal with this stuff, and just notices design.

So either ID is not an alternative for Evolution at all, and in fact may confirm evolution
ID claims that God kept poking...which is theism

SO which one do you believe Avo?
ID as an alternative?
or ID as a theory that has nothing to do with Evolution?

If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere, and focus on particular systems is the only way to go anyway, to gain the deepest understanding.
I know I already responded to this post. I'm trying to figure out where I left off.

Completely wrong
First, random mutation can explain the flagellum...and all of the other "IC" systems...
Your just not satisfied with the explanation....its isnt a case of Evolutionary Scientists being completely dumbfounded
Second, if Evolutionary Theory cant currently explain something it doesnt mean that the theory is debunked...
it may mean that theory doesnt apply to that particular example, or that the theory needs to be expanded
This is a completely illogical statement.

If an arm is a partially evolved wing, then anything is anything.

You almost got the point.  
You like your biology in nice, neat, clean definitions...
but biology isnt nice, neat, or clean
Its vague, blurry, and doesnt apply itself well to definition

No, Henry, I will never submit to simply picking the least objectionable of two objectionable theories. Better to just hold out.

So your agnostic on this whole issue?
As I see it you already picked a theory, a theory that you know has problems, and now you wont listen to people explain a rational reason to abandon your current belief.

Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position.

Go ask Behe
Intelligent Design isnt religious.
Intelligent Design claims that complexity due to a designer can be detected.
Miller thinks that this idea is absurd.
You would be more accurate to call Miller a confused Creationist rather than a confused IDist...
You really are stretching good reasoning on this claim

but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism...

You have claimed several times that a reality with God is much better than a reality without God.
But that is only true if your God is good and loving.
What if God is mean and hateful?
Then that universe is worse.
There are rational arguments for God
There are not any rational arguments for a Christian God..thats pure belief

If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible.

This is horrible reasoning, the reason you have 2 "original" causal occurences is because you cannot even imagine for a moment that God does not exist.
If you are arguing for God because of a causation argument, then there is absolutely no proof of YOUR God.  Any original causal event would be your God.  He might be completely devoid of consciousness.
Once again...this is horribly flawed reasoning
mainly because you suppose that we must address this problem from your perspective.  You believe in God, so therefore there must be a God.  If something else started the Universe...then what was God doing?  Maybe He didnt exist? or doesnt?

I dont know if you have noticed Avo, but a lot of people are beginning to get tired of this.  They can tell that your not truly being open-minded.  Your not even considering the alternative opinions to your own.  We are all wrong and you will always be right.  While strong conviction is admirable, blindly following a belief is just foolish.

Ive told more Creationists than you can even imagine the same thing.  Creationism is a more rational and honest belief than ID.  ID is rubbish.  At least creationism has something to stand on...the bible.
ID is a phantom of a thing.
Everyone from the Creationist to the confused philosopher can support ID.  It has no clear "theory"...just something about design.  Behe and Dembski dont bother explaining...that would be too much trouble.

I have yet to hear a real reason that ID opposes evolution.
At the very worst ID is suggesting that a more complex process(not God) is involved and at the very best it is confirming evolution.  It only refutes evolution because its proponents want to refute evolution.

Go back to being a creationist...we will all respect you much much more

Date: 2006/03/27 13:08:58, Link
Author: PuckSR
Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution?

Why do you even bother asking this question Russ?
Here is the answer

"I think that several people reject Darwinism because of actual flaws with the theory, the fact that they have almost all turned to creationism in response is mere coincidence"

Then you will say:
"What flaws?"

Then if your lucky, Avo will list some:
"List of of logically unsound, or thoroughly debunked 'flaws'"

We will say:
"Those are not actually flaws, those are either misunderstanding or completely irrelevant"

Avo will say:
"I dismiss your rebuttals, you have not debunked my 'flaws' enough for me, therefore they are not debunked"

You know where this is going.....
Its only on a rare day that you meet a closeminded person who admits that they are closeminded

Date: 2006/03/27 13:29:33, Link
Author: PuckSR
Interesting discussion...

I still consider myself a fairly religious person, a Christian even...

I just finished a paper on religion and morality, and I have to admit that I find stevestory's comment hilarious
We have the idea of eternal torture because it was compatible with the ethical systems of the primitives who wrote the bible.

Actually Steve, the whole concept of "eternal torture" was absent from the barbarian book(i assume your referring to the older texts of the bible).  The whole graphic concept of #### came out after the Greeks(a fairly enlightened people). The name "####" is a derivative of the Norse term for the afterlife.  The New Testament of the bible actually refers to Hades...literally.  The Muslims did a fairly comprehensive job of describing ####, but they stole a lot of that from popular early christian literature.

The reason I mentioned morality earlier:
It actually has a lot to do with evolution, the best explanations of modern morality contribute our morality to a genetically acquired trait that is found in most social animals.  Now, granted, this idea is a little disturbing if you dont like the idea of determinism; but I think it explains a lot of human behavior

We rarely behave in an "evil" way, but generally find a way to rationalize an act.

Jesus had a great idea, and if more modern Christians would actually try to get the whole point, I think we would have a much happier place.

Jesus, like Gautama Siddhartha, had a great message, a message that transcended theological and metaphysical discussion.  Just quit thinking about all of that other crap, and just be a better person.

BTW, if you never got the whole 'Jesus message'; its simple...quit making rationalizations for 'bad' actions, love good to everyone...but mostly just love

The whole reward/punishment thing that Fundies preach has an even simpler motivation.  Buddha and Jesus's ideas require thought...several of our fellow hairless apes are kinda...well..dumb.  If you really want to get the masses behind a have to throw in some heaven/#### or samsara.  Its not their fault that they cant get beyond such a basic level of reasoning, but it does keep them in line....until you let the dumb start ruling the dumb...
Southern Baptist Convention?

P.S. i never believed in Santa, i got my fix when i figured out that roswell wasnt really any alien crash site.

Date: 2006/03/27 15:50:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
Whichever barbarians came up with the idea first, everlasting torture is all over the bible, and the people who follow the bible are influenced toward barbarism.

Not really, Judaism has a much more communal karmic sense than an idea of everlasting torture...

But once again....if someone is soooo stupid that all they use their higher(in relation to other societal animals) intelligence for is to validate evil actions...aren't you glad they they are also dumb enough to be afraid of ####?

A common question:
"Shouldn't Atheists be completely immoral?"

Of course, the only people who ask this question are the people who cannot comprehend morality without fear of ####...

Be really, really, really glad that someone thought up the threat of #### for these morally corrupt bastards....

Date: 2006/03/27 17:06:56, Link
Author: PuckSR
I had to leave the room after the Veggie Kids were dropped into a 'fiery furnace' (no joking) for standing up for what they believe in.

Ummm....dude...that's part of the story
it wasn't an illusion to he!! is from the bible....its a story about some guys being persecuted, and then "dropped into fire" for "Standing up for what they believe in".  The trick is that they weren't harmed...divine will of God and all.....
I may have missed something...why are you so offended?

its probably a good idea to expose your kids to different allows them to be more well-rounded in their literacy.

Date: 2006/03/27 17:29:56, Link
Author: PuckSR
oh come on...IDist to use words that are almost impossible to define...

Intelligent=??? having the capacity for thought and reason?  An ant has intelligence to some degree...could an ant have designed the universe?

life=you do realize that this is one of the most difficult terms in the our current lexicon right?  The point that all of the people are trying to make is that at conception there is no higher degree of life than can be found in a sperm.  Go further, you do not possess a greater degree of "life" than that a zygote....

Science explains that it cannot define any greater quality of life to any "living" organism...therefore some other criteria will have to be used to determine morality of ending life...

Of course...thats why they brought in philosophy, and we get fairly creative the catholic one

Date: 2006/03/28 05:03:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
The long-term lesson isnt that your parents lie to you

The long-term lesson is that people will sometimes give you bad information, and it wont always be malicious....

sometimes people will give you bad information with good intentions....sometimes they wont even realize that they are giving you bad information....

any kid is going to realize pretty quickly that all parents tell their kids the same thing....and learn that a lie does not become more true if it is told more often...

Date: 2006/03/28 09:57:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
I say for the purpose of this argument it would be smart just to settle on the fact that YOU began at conception.  Since you don't know when you became conscious and human life, as far as I know, must first exist before there is consciousness then it stands to reason that conception is a very important matter, indeed.

Alright...I will give Thordaddy +3 points...he is correct
YOU began at conception.  Conception(in the way he is referring to it) is the point that 2 seperate organisms(ovum and a spermatozoon ) formed 1 organism(zygote).  

Problem(-1): "must first exist before there is consciousness then it stands to reason that conception is a very important matter"

True, but it could be argued that since the whole is made up of the parts, the parts are just as important....
Therefore, the egg and the sperm are equally important.
This is the stance of the catholic church, since creation of a zygote is just as important as the zygote, it is equally immoral to kill sperm, or prevent sperm from getting to the ovum.....
We could go back even further....but i digress

Logical flaw:(-1)
It is a very important matter, if you wish for consciousness to develop.  Otherwise it is not an important matter at all.
Your entire argument is based around the fact that at conception it becomes "life".  We give the life a new definition(zygote), but it doesnt become life.

Scientific facts(-1)
You are actually not quoting "scientific facts", your quoting statistical facts.

Statistical fact:  In the last 300 years the number of pirates has had an inverse relationship with the average temperature of the earth.

Scientific fact: There is a direct correlation between the number of pirates and the average temperature of the earth.  IF we had more pirates the temperature would go down.

or to use your example

Statistical fact: homosexual males have a higher percentage of AIDS cases than heterosexual males

thordaddy's "scientific" fact:  Homosexual males are the primary carrier of AIDS and are responsible for spreading AIDS.

Of course, science needs more than just statistics to draw a conclusion....if not...then we need more pirates

Total Score=0

Date: 2006/03/28 16:19:38, Link
Author: PuckSR
Oh dear. I seem to have accidentally stumbled into the abortion discussion area. Could someone direct me to where they're discussing science education issues?

Actually, this does apply to the whole ID discussion....

Several people, including thordaddy, lack a clear way of seperating philosophy from science....
a scientific proof=a philosophical proof in their minds

(PuckSR)Your entire argument is based around the fact that at conception it becomes "life".  We give the life a new definition(zygote),but it doesnt become life.

(Thordaddy)Huh?  You give "life" a new name, but then claim it isn't "life?"

Completely wrong thordaddy...
I explained that it was life before conception
I claimed it was life after conception
I claimed that it doesnt become already was alive

It is a fact that a zygote is or will become conscious.  Afterall, you are conscious because you were a zygote.  But as of know there is no evidence to suggest that consciousness emerges anywhere other than at conception.

It is a fact that an ovum and sperm will become conscious too....if they are allowed to interact

Actually...consciousness must emerge after conception
consciousness-An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.....
lets make it easier
sentient-Endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness

either way you put need to be some way.
A zygote doesnt have a brain, a mind, or even a neural network....
it cannot be concious...i would go as far as to give you conciousness as soon as neural cells begin developing...but that still doesnt happen for awhile

If you havent noticed yet, this is all incredibly interesting stuff...but not scientific....

thordaddy....if you think the issue of the zygote is scientific...and that you have the answer...I have an equally scientific question that is remarkable similiar

If you take an old car and start fixing it up; you might have to replace some parts.  At what point does it become a different car?  If I replace every part in the car, one at a time over several it a new car?

Date: 2006/03/28 16:32:26, Link
Author: PuckSR
Empirical is ALL that is observed and/or experienced.  When a scientist claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer, he is merely saying that he knows of no measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  He is not actually saying that an IDer DOES NOT EXIST.  But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure).

Wow....I thought you were an idiot, guess not...nice usage of hume thordaddy...all things are natural right ;)

Its a good thing that NO ONE is trying to prove that an IDer does not exist....
What is the point of this explanation of why you cannot prove a negative?

BTW...all we are saying is that ID has not presented evidence for an IDer
ID may very well be true, and if it is true I wish you guys would get to work on proving it....
all of this anxiety is killing me

Date: 2006/03/28 18:19:10, Link
Author: PuckSR
IME, kids that age can't distinguish between the make-believe in Mother Goose' tales and the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.  So, I wasn't offended so much as I was irked.

Im still really confused.....

you realize the story that the Veggie thingies were alluding to?

The people who got thrown into the fire were the GOOD guys
The bad guys threw them into the fire......
the 'fiery furnace' was actually a 'fiery furnace' in the original story too...
the 'fiery furnace' was not he!!
it wasnt a threat to nonbelievers....

It could be myth or fact...its still a story about the extremes of religious intolerance....
I dont see why it "irked" you....

Im familiar with the story...and I honestly cannot see anything at all offensive about it
I get the very strong impression that you were unfamiliar with the story, and based on a limited understanding of what was going assumed something

Date: 2006/03/28 18:42:44, Link
Author: PuckSR
Really?  I don't see much difference in saying ID(T) is not science and an IDer does not exist obviously hold this belief because you have a severe misunderstanding

ID could possibly be science...
The current thing you refer to as ID(T) is not science, that does not mean that ID cannot be science

Let me change some of the words, and see if you can observe the fallacy of your logic.

You have a work of art(world)
You tell us that it was made by a sculptor(IDer), and you tell us that the work of art is a sculpture(ID[t])
We look at the work of art, and ask you how you can prove it is a cannot tell us
It just looks like a sculpture....
We say...we will not hang it in our museum and say it is a sculpture until you can prove it is a sculpture
Now...did we deny that it was made by a sculptor?
Did we deny that it could be a sculpture?
NO get very angry...and ask us what a sculpture is...
and we tell you that a sculpture is a 3 dimensional work of art.
Your art looks more like a 2 dimensional work of art, a painting(philosophy) perhaps?
But if you can prove that it is a 3-dimensional work of art, we will hang it in our museum(scientific community).

Now did we deny that it was made by a sculptor?
NO....remember Michelangelo
Did we deny that it could be a sculpture?
NO...we just want proof that it is one...not just you telling us that its obviously a sculpture

Date: 2006/03/28 18:52:32, Link
Author: PuckSR
Buddhists have recognizable supernatural beliefs like rebirth, a recognizable godhead in Buddha, consistent rituals, ceremonies, devotions, chantings, offerings, and etcetera.

LMAO..... you have to try to be this stupid...
Besides the obvious point that Buddha rejected the metaphyscial...and some people have compared Buddism to a form of religious agnosticism?

What consisten rituals and ceremonies?

the god of Buddhism is the god of hinduism...
and since hinduism is basically a pantheism...we are all God...

Sorry...that was so blatantly false...I just had to laugh

Is it possible to donate money to DaveScot....
I would love to see the crazy stuff he writes when he is drunk...and i would gladly buy him some alcohol

Date: 2006/03/28 19:03:32, Link
Author: PuckSR
but I am aware of no child, teenager or adult that has claimed consciousness at birth.

You obviously misunderstand 2 things....
1)  You wouldnt have to remember consciousness
2)  Do you see a baby interact with their surroundings?  They possess conciousness......that is why they can interact...
Ive never heard a dog claim consciousness either...but im fairly sure they are conscious beings..

I guess it all depends on what you mean by different.  If only the owner gets to decide then he will decide.  If many others are allowed to pontificate then I guess we will have many different answers.

Hmm...then i guess you see the problem with this whole conversation....we all "opine" cannot prove when that car becomes a new car....
you probably think that if you replace one part it is still the same car
you probably think if you replace every part...that it is a new car...

but you cannot tell me when it changes....such is a question for philosophy....
all science can tell us is that you replaced 20 parts...

But neither the sperm nor the ovum will become you or the zygote that was once you.

But the sperm and ovum do become the zygote that once was you????
What are you trying to say...?
Either your a cleverly disguised teacher feeding me koans...trying to put me on the path....
or your really, really confusing....

Date: 2006/03/28 19:20:52, Link
Author: PuckSR
Oh...i know that Buddhism is without a god...
but Buddha was a hindu, and if the metaphysical beliefs of buddhism are going to be attributed to anyone...i would think they would go the pantheistic route....

besides....thats where Buddhism gets samsara.....

"rituals and ceremonies"- buddhists have rituals and ceremonies....buddism far as i know

DS was trying to link "rituals and ceremonies" to something more akin to least that was the confusion that i got out of it

Date: 2006/03/28 20:11:31, Link
Author: PuckSR
If one cannot remember being self-aware at birth then how can you make a claim of consciousness at birth? You must either assume a period of unconsciousness that erases all previous moments of consciouness.  Or you must assume that the interaction with one's environment is a sign of self-awareness.

Do you remember when you started remembering?
Was it a sudden moment, or do you remember it at all?

For the sake of this conversation, please define conciousness....

My definition of conciousness has absolutely nothing to do with memory


When did your life begin if not at conception?

Wonderful question....I dont even know if there is an answer...but i certainly dont know...and neither do you
The point, which you have missed, is that life may start at conception...but no one...including yourself knows when it starts...we just have opinions...

This is a big mistake some Christians make...
knowledge does not mean strong conviction about your beliefs...
You do not know god just believe that he does

Date: 2006/03/29 06:50:00, Link
Author: PuckSR
You say ID(T) has not presented evidence for an IDer.  What evidence would suffice?  If ID(T) could become science as you stated then you have to be aware of some evidence that would applicable outside of "faith" of course.

Im absolutely aware of scientific evidence that could exist for ID theory.....

Have the IDer design something...anything...for observation
or...better yet...find an organism that doesnt just "appear" to be designed....but that you can prove was designed....
I would accept a pocket watch inside of a cell as proof.
I would accept a message inside of DNA as proof...perhaps a long series of prime numbers?

I, nor science, will accept things that "look" designed as proof.
Let me explain....
The classic example of scientific revolution is the concept of was originally considered a gas...then we developed a theory of energy...
Here is the point...when Joule wanted to replace the current theory with a new one...he couldnt just point to an explained phenomenom under the old theory and use his new theory to explain it as well...
he had to find an instance where the old theory failed and his new one succeeded....

You havent done point to things like the eye...and offer an explanation...and so does guess what...the theory that we currently have is not going to be defeated because you "enjoy" your explanation more than ours...

Find something that completely baffles Evo...and that your theory explains..methodically and fully...and we will start taking you seriously...

BTW...after you point to the "unexplained" then give us a couple years to develop an explanation under the old theory...and if we cannot...then you get validation...sorry that is how it works..

Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence.

Just because the definition of empirical included the word observation, doesnt mean that anything observed is empircal.

Empirical-Derived from experiment and observation
Empirical doesnt just mean observed....millions of people have said that they saw aliens...does this prove aliens?
Empirical knowledge refers to the knowledge being derived from experimentation and observation....
i.e. the gravitational constant was arrived at empirically
the alternative is absolute knowledge...which is still observed knowledge...but it is known without testing.
i.e. 2+2=4

As I said, I don't see much difference between saying ID(T) isn't science and an IDer does not exist.

Because you dont understand science....
This is a huge problem for a lot of you people...
Science isnt saying that they are absolutely right...
science is saying that they have the best natural explanation currently....

When we say that ID(t) isnt science....we are not denying that it is possible...far from it
We are saying that it is not a valid natural could very easily be true....but since it isnt currently testable or proveable within the realm of scientific definition...we are claiming it isnt scientific right now

Thought Experiment:
If i claim that socks disappear in the dryer because of a wormhole that dryers that scientific

plenty of people have observed socks disappearing
wormholes might exist
it explains what happened to my socks...
but it isnt science....until i actually observe the a testable, repeatable way...either directly or indirectly..

The wormhole might still be in my dryer....and I can feel perfectly free to claim that it is there...I can even start an organization promoting the idea....
but the scientific community will not accept my claim until they can all go out and find wormholes in dryers....
no matter how confident my friends and I are about the wormhole......

Date: 2006/03/29 07:17:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
I can't understand how PuckSR and KeithS could stay posting for so long, and I would get the chop after a few posts, before I had a chance to whip out that witty one liner that would leave pervyDavy speechless.(Have you heard about the peeping tom trips Dave organises).

I posted a lot back when Dembski ran the site.....
I didnt get banned until I insulted the "wedge document"...or something like that...

Now under DaveScot...
I get banned and unbanned constantly....
At least Dembski understood math, physics, and religions
So if you pointed out an obvious flaw....Dembski wouldnt care....he was at least honest in that respect...

DaveScot doesnt really understand anything...
So he flaunts his ignorance like a banner....
Come on...he bans people for correcting him...when he is wrong...
So i get banned a lot...:)

Date: 2006/03/29 09:09:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
No no no are all just being silly
There is absolutely nothing scientific about sock gnomes....
bunch of creationist nonsense....

I have a verifiable scientific theory....its called DWT(Dryer wormhole theory)...
I verified it with extensive research...
this doesnt involve "mythical" or religious gnomes...
this is real science...

Date: 2006/03/29 11:14:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
People....this thread is currently mocking the idea that a claim of "flawed reasoning" is the same thing as discrediting the idea that the "flawed reasoning" is in support of....

Leave the mockery of DaveScot to the Common Pissant thread...
Otherwise....thordaddy may become very confused about everything.....

Date: 2006/03/29 18:59:18, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy opines:

You beat that strawman up pretty good.  Have I made any mention of souls or supernatural qualities to bolster my debate that my life, your life or anyone's life begins at conception?

Well, let us have constantly referred to "undefined" qualities....

You readily admit that life and consciousness are vague and difficult to define properties that humans inherently possess.
You fail to realize the point, or maybe you do...and if so, kudos to you sir....
Science cannot, and does not enter into debates of this nature, for a very obvious does not hold opinions.....
Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed.

It is absolutely hilarious, thw whole reason you follow ID is because you want "science" to recognize your beliefs....
you get mad because science will not recognize your beliefs, because as you have stated several times..."attacking your reasoning for your beliefs is the same thing as attacking your beliefs"..

You need to calm down for a moment and realize that science isnt claiming atheism or that abortion is 'good'....
Science, by sheer nature, holds an agnostic view on these issues....
Then think an agnostic=atheist...IDiot

The original point, which you do not remember, is that science avoids teaching controversial ideas in school...except evolution...

It is wonderful that you have provided us interesting philosophical proofs for pro-life.....
but you have completely failed to make your point about science....
Could you please link to some scientific studies on this topic Thordaddy...or at least attempt to get back on topic

Date: 2006/03/29 19:25:54, Link
Author: PuckSR
Now this is a doozy.  Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical?  OK... now I see the problem.  Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias.

Umm actually...we are using the one that applies to scientific study....
empirical can also mean
[archaic] Relying on medical quackery

gravity can be used to refer to "a manner that is serious and solemn"...
but if we are speaking of gravity in the scientific cant start mouthing off about our obsession with "a serious and solemn manner"
(-1) bad definition
BTW...once again your logic sucks
"just because A means originating in B doesnt mean anything B is A"...absolutely correct
just because humans originate from a sperm and ovum doesn't mean anything from sperm and ovum based is human...
(-1) Bad Logic

Science merely attempts to take subjective experience and observation and give it objective truth.  Yet, this is exactly what religion attempts to do.  Science claims superiority because it has formalized a method (scientific method) to take the subjective experience/observation and give it objective credibility.  The problem is the definition of objective and the amorphous nature of the scientific method.

Really, cause last time I checked the 2 major world religions are based on books not observation and experience...the only rational faith system I am currently aware of is Deism....but I will give you Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucism if you ask nicely;)

How could something that "could very easily true" also be considered "not a valid natural explanation?"  ID was the "natural explanation" for many centuries and was debated amongst some of the most brilliant minds in human history and scientists think that people are buying the "no empirical evidence" line?  You can't see that the extremity of the science community's position is merely fuel added to the fire.

(+1)  fallacy on my part
What I should have said is that ID could very easily be true, but no empirical evidence has been submitted...your comment didnt make any sense

Now, almost every debate pro-ID in the past, by brilliant minds was made from a philosophical perspective....
I can think of at least one pro-ID guy in the past who was a brilliant mathematician...but he didnt argue it mathematically...he argued it philosophically

BTW...the same people who supported ID in the past...a lot of them also espoused the virtues of man-boy love....
So i guess there is empirical evidence for the benefit of having homosexual relationships with teenagers....
There was also huge support for bleeding people who were sick....i guess we have a lot of evidence for the medical advantages of that too...????
(-1)  Just because it was popular in the past, that doesnt indicate any particular advantage to the belief

BTW, if a mother drowns her children one by one in a family bathtub, how does psychology (branch of science) "observe" the murders "in a testable, repeatable way...either directly or indirectly..?"

I'm sorry...but what is your point....
This was a rare occurence....we study rare occurences
We try to get as much information on these rare occurences as possible...
I havent heard any psychologist claim that they have "empirical evidence" about anything related to this....
I havent heard any "child drowning theory" come from this...

Yes they are studying this case

Total Score = -3

Date: 2006/03/29 19:40:03, Link
Author: PuckSR
OK...just for the record....I hate the veggie tales thingy...
I watched one for 10 minutes, and I found enough racist, hateful, and just plain wrong remarks to make me wish I had never watched it....

One thing though UnMark...just thought I would mention...dont be so quick to judge....
In this case, Im pretty sure you misunderstood 'fiery furnace' as a comment about ####.

Parents will almost always attempt to install their own beliefs into their children....
Think about it...You will raise your kids to be moral without a fear of God
Your fundamentalist neighbor will teach them to be moral because of a fear of God
Your Buddhist neighbor will teach them that God is not important...the only important thing is being moral

You cannot really get mad at an animator for filling a need...parents wanted to teach their kids christianity...they wanted to do it in a fun way...they created veggie tales..
Im sure you will have interesting ways of teaching your children too....

Now, to wrap it all up, never ever ever ever ever show your kids that show....unless you want your children to grow up with some incredibly twisted 24-hour news stations...they are just creepy

Date: 2006/03/29 20:14:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
I'll make it quick....

Deism is a form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation.  

None of the others are arrived at through reason alone, and while they are grounded firmly in reason...they all can potentially have their mystical side....I have never heard of mystical Deism.  I think Dao-Chiao would be a good example of mystical Daoism

I excluded several of the others because of some involvement with metaphysics, well except Buddhism, but seriously if you figure out where to Buddhism let me know.

Date: 2006/03/29 20:53:38, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy....let me ask you an abortion question

if you had to choose between the mother definately dying or an abortion...which would you choose any why?

Let's see some Kant.....

Date: 2006/03/30 05:40:08, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy opines:

My stance is very simple.  An innocent human being is not morally obligated to die in order to save another innocent human being even if it is one's child.  If a mother chose to die so that her child could live, I would consider that mother to be amongst the most noblest of people.

You would kill a sick can you possibly be.....
You would let a mother die...thats just morally outrageous....
How evil can one person be?
??? get the point ???

Is this equivalent to saying we can not find these answers or is it simply saying science is not an ample tool to answer these questions? is capable of finding answers to questions....the problem is that we have yet to define words such as "life" and "consciousness"
when you can tell us exactly what those two words other words...give us definitive qualities for each of those terms...Im sure we can answer your question

This is too good.  Ideal science is value-free, but we don't have ideal science.  We have value-laden science.  We have science that teaches controversial subjects it wishes to propagate and science that plays coy when its findings butt up against political ideology.

Really?  Then please give us some examples.
I already explained to you that your ideas on AIDS and different IQs among races are not examples of science....

What controversial subjects does science teach?
Controversial to who?
Why are they controversial?

I don't see the philosophical argument for claiming YOUR life began at conception.  What is this argument, exactly?


Date: 2006/03/30 06:26:53, Link
Author: PuckSR
You're not representing the entire definition, but only the part that helps define science.

PuckSR:  Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed.

So if science can not do these things then it makes no sense to use the scientific definition for empirical.  It only assures ignorance. this point...your being purposefully obtuse.....

We are talking about science right?
So we use the scientific definition of empirical....
just because a word has "multiple" definitions...that doesnt mean that you get to use whichever one you want.... completely misunderstand why science cannot answer the above questions...go back and read the thread...I thought I was discussing this with someone who was intellectually honest...or at least attempted to mistake

BTW...once again your logic sucks
"just because A means originating in B doesnt mean anything B is A"...absolutely correct
just because humans originate from a sperm and ovum doesn't mean anything from sperm and ovum based is human...
(-1) Bad Logic

So even if we use your definition of the word empirical...your logic still sucks....

But do you agree that science and religion are at least fundamentally identical in that they share the same mechanism, function and very similar structure?

I will agree that the both share the same function.
They both seek to explain reality.

The mechanism is entirely different...
science gathers information and then tries to rationalize an explanation
religion develops an explanation and then attempts to gather evidence

Umm last time I checked, you do not pay tithings to a scientist.
Last time I checked, competing religious opinions do not reconcile through experimentation...

So i will grant you that they both seek to explain reality....and that is the only similiarity...the rest is in your head.

What you also have said with this concession is that ID could be a "valid natural explanation."   This is equivalent to saying empirical evidence for an IDer exists in the natural world, but science as of yet is not an endeavor of sufficiently advanced intelligence.

Wow....can I call you a liar...YOUR A LIAR
This is equivalent to saying:
"empirical evidence for an IDer might exist in the natural world."

What planet do you live on...
You think denying ID(t) denies an IDer...
You think admitting the possibility of ID admits that there is definately an IDer...
Lewis Carroll would have even been dumbfounded at this point....
The only "intelligence" that I can discern from that statement is that you are arguing that if God could possibly exist...then he must exist...
If that is your purpose....just let me know.... clean all of this mess up...lets go back to empirical one last time...

You are correct, empirical refers to knowledge gained by experience and observation.
You are also correct, any time a person observes anything they are gather empirical data.

Here is why we are altering the definition
Science is based on empirical data...good
Science must be capable of scrutinizing the data...
so...a scientist normally refers to empirical data as that which is verifiable or testable.... are correct...the data that science is based on is not always empirical by our definition...

Here in lies the rub, though
People seeing Jesus, seeing aliens, and all of that other stuff are not examples of empirical evidence for what they observed.
Besides the fact that we cannot verify their claims....
They are already attempting to define the observation...

If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the may consider that empirical evidence for lights in the sky..

If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky, and that those lights are may consider that empirical evidence that they saw lights in the sky.

A belief is not an observation or an experience....therefore belief cannot be empirical.

Sorry it took so long to explain that to you...but i finally realized what you were misunderstanding.  I hope that helps Thordaddy

Date: 2006/03/30 06:46:31, Link
Author: PuckSR
So apparently Thordaddy is a neo-con religious fundie?
He may be obtuse
He may be purposefully being confusing
he may be manipulative

But as long as he claims agnosticism on religion...Im going to avoid attaching any religious claims to him.
I tried this, and he vehemently denied religious beliefs...

BTW Arden...
That comment about the religious-right was completely unwarranted

Date: 2006/03/30 10:20:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking.

ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence.

just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process.

Ok...the entire point of the flagellum "case" is one of poking.  The entire concept of IC insists poking was necessary.

ID without poking:  pointing to the exactness of the physical laws..
Every time you hear reference to IC...the point is that IC systems cannot have arisen without interference from an intelligent agent...AKA poking

That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries.

But, if you suggested to a scientist that his theory was flawed...and proposed an alternative that was a better explanation...he would alter his view...

i.e.  Before the whole Darwin revolution most scientists were strict creationists(not scientific creationists, they thought the origin of species was outside the realm of science)....they all changed their minds because Darwin and Geologists proposed  natural, accurate explanations for the natural history of the world.

Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable.

ID is the science of detecting and proving Design

So...Miller may believe that the world is designed....
but he doesnt believe in ID...which is they science of detectable and proveable design....
He doesnt believe either parts of that he is not a confused IDist.

You really seem to be missing this....
ID vs Naturalistic Science is not a case of design vs. non-design.  It is a case of detectable design vs undetectable design.  If something is undetectable, science obviously cannot advocate its existence...since the scientific endeavor is based around detectability.

Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination.

Not really.
When we compare the wings of mammals, dinosaurs, and birds we discover that they are all based on "arms"(actually hands)...they all, however, developed in different ways.

When does a hand become a dolphin's flipper?
They both have fingers, and the same bone structure that we find in most mammals....did it happen when the skin fused together?
Did it happen when they lost the ability to move the fingers independently....

You think of things in definitive terms: flipper, hand, wing
but when you really get down to it, they are incredibly similiar....we all know that a flipper helps you swim, a hand helps you walk/grab, and a wing helps you fly...

but you swim with your are your hands flippers?

It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't.

You also cannot see the possibility of random mutation....
But, clearly this is based on faith.  If it wasnt based on faith, you would be able to consider any possibility.

I can imagine a world without light, without gravity, and without God....but I still inherently know that all of those things exist in my world....but i can at least conceptionalize a world without.

I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter.

Sorry...i didnt mean to offend you.  I didnt mean Creationist in the typical "literal" bible sense...i meant the belief that God created some point

If that was never your belief, then i apologize......

Date: 2006/03/30 18:57:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
dude....sorry for all the huff....

like i said...i hate veggie tales....
im just trying to fix your phobia of every religious story that might mention fire

Date: 2006/03/31 05:39:13, Link
Author: PuckSR
If conciousness is defined as purposeful interaction with ones enviroment...

Then I was under the impression that fetuses exhibit at least some purposeful interaction with their enviroment.
I do not think I would compare Terry Schiavo to a new-born.  The main difference being that newborn babies have incredibly underdeveloped senses(not in the biological sense, but in the cognitive sense..they havent really been using those eyes to interpret complex visuals in the womb).  They do more than react to stimuli, they purposefully engage stimuli.  When you see a newborn moving around, it is actively seeking stimuli.  I dont believe I have ever seen someone who is in a vegetative state reach out looking for something to touch.

I would also accept the ability of an organism to 'learn' as an important capacity for conciousness.  A baby, while still in the womb, will actually gather rudimentary information.  It, for example, learns the sounds of its mother's voice.

I know this link is from a Catholic news agency...but it actually refers to peer-reviewed studies.
Cognitive Capacity of fetuses

The thing you need to realize Thordaddy is that we could have several points of genesis.
When does anything truly "become".
When does a seed become a plant?
When does a house become a house?
obviously as soon as they lay a foundation, we are building a house, and that foundation will become a house...but is it a house yet?  Obviously it becomes a house well before the  painters take care of the interior.  
Its also important to note that a house has major developments in its construction.
The foundation is important.  The framing is important.  putting the roof on is important.  closing the walls is important.  Its all important, but their isnt a single point of  "creation' for a house...its a process

Date: 2006/03/31 05:52:31, Link
Author: PuckSR DaveScot actually being witty here...or is he just an idiot?

This is illustrative of the mindset of Darwinists. Demonstrate simplicity and extrapolate to complexity. This is the stuff of science fiction - like imagining that because a cannon can launch a shell a few miles a sufficiently large cannon can shoot a manned shell to another planet. It might. And it might not. Imagining it isn’t the same as demonstrating it.-ds

Is this a joke?
Is he actually implying that the physical laws that govern the 'small' cannon could not be assumed accurate on a 'large' cannon until tested on a 'large' cannon?
Does he realize that almost all fields of scientific inquiry, are based around proving something on a smaller, "proveable" scale and then extrapolating them to a larger scale?
Even ID attempts to point to a few, small scale example as proof of concept?

I honestly think he is just pulling our chain...either he is the dumbest person I have ever met who can pretend to be somewhat intelligent....
or this is all an elaborate joke

I know Dembski is just making stuff up, and he knows I wonder if DaveScot falls in that category too

Date: 2006/03/31 05:59:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok...sorry to double post...but you must read this
Uncommon Pissant
Scientists discovered the minimal genome size needed for the first life increased by a factor of 2.

the article is here

Now, this is all fine and dandy....but you will notice something as you read the article....

The scientists who made this abiogenesis complicating discovery....used the theory of evolution.  If they didnt use the theory of couldnt claim that abiogenesis was more improbable.

So in other words...IDist are now celebrating a study based on Evolutionary Theory, because evolutionary theory proves that abiogenesis was more complex....
forget for a moment that they oppose the theory of evolution...and this all makes sense

Isnt irony fun boys and girls?

Date: 2006/03/31 06:36:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
If anything productive comes from this thread...and that is a huge IF...I hope we can at least guide thordaddy towards logical reasoning skills.  

Right now, he has more logical fallacies in his arguments than should be legally allowed.  Now, this doesn't mean that his thoughts on the subject are valid/ just means that his arguments suck from a logical perspective.

Also, if we can get him to understand logic...maybe after that we can get him to understand that even if your reasons for a belief are incorrect, the thing you believe in can still exist and be correct.

Finally, I hope we can convince him that several terms are  impossible to absolutely define, such as: life and consciousness

Date: 2006/03/31 06:57:41, Link
Author: PuckSR
did you just discover philosophy thordaddy?

This is like the 10th time you have posed one of these "classic" philosophical riddles.

How about this...can God create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?

Come on...this stuff is a lot of fun to think about...but it doesnt have any bearing on science....

I can point you to several lively discussions on these topics, some of them are several thousand years old....

Date: 2006/03/31 11:38:22, Link
Author: PuckSR
You say it's a matter of law, but it makes one wonder where all the biologists (those who study LIFE) are in arguing against a law that has no sound basis in science?

This might be sure you could find more if you looked:
Wikipedia article on defining life
Debate over Definition(in relation to biology and Philosophy)
yet another article complaining about the difficulty of defining "living"

You never answered my question Thordaddy....
when does a house become a house?

Date: 2006/03/31 11:42:34, Link
Author: PuckSR
Honestly, I have no idea, but it would seem that some of our cells are either conscious or create consciousness as a collective.

Well... i think the point has already been made that it is a quality of the collective ability.

Transistors are an excellent analog...

Date: 2006/03/31 12:01:22, Link
Author: PuckSR
The question is what evidence LEADS YOU AWAY from assuming this development DID NOT start at conception?  I say there is none!

So....If we do not have definative evidence against a concept...the concept should be accepted as fact?

Do you have any evidence Thordaddy that you are not living in a delusional state.  Do you have evidence that the entire world in which you exist is not an illusion?

Hmmm...guess not....

Oh well...guess its all true then...nothing exists...death doesnt really happen...and this is all an illusion....

So that would render your current argument pointless...since death is an illusion of your mind...and so are all other entities of existence...since there is no proof against this line of reasoning...

So if nothing exists but your "consciousness"  I guess nothing can die, and nothing else can have consciousness....

Glad we settled that

Yet, if we are simply for looking for evidence against consciousness at the zygote stage...
I would point towards the lack of any cognitive mechanism
The lack of any mechanism for motility
The lack of any mechanism to interact to typical "human" stimuli like sounds, light, and smell
And the fact that it is a #### "single celled organism" as a zygote

Date: 2006/03/31 12:24:44, Link
Author: PuckSR
I still awaiting you to pinpoint my logical fallacies.

If you go back to the previous thread...I have pointed out several of your logical fallacies....Do you really need me to post them again...they are normally near the point where i put
(-1) logical fallacy....

I dont really think you want me going back and point out every time you made a statement that was logically do it a lot....

As for your house question, I have a better one.

--Thats Thordaddy speak for..."I dont want to answer the question"

When did PuckSR become PuckSR if not at conception?

LOL...this is stupidly smart....

PuckSR was conceived at the beginning...and therefore became PuckSR....if i am using "conception" as the beginning.

This is a ridiculous argument that assumes that because conception is defined as the beginning, anything referred to as conception must necessarily be the beginning...(which, by the way is yet another logical fallacy)
Haha...very funny...its kinda like your "empirical" comments.  If you honestly have an inability recognizing that words can have entirely different meanings depending on context...please let us know...

It was cute at first quit obviously have enough of a grasp of reality to realize that "conception" in the sense of biology is the formation of the zygote.  The refer to it as conception because that is the point it become a single entity.  You also understand that the word conception refers to beginning.  This rather dull play on words is getting old...just let it about flowers, bugs, cars...tell a funny joke...but know what your doing and its just getting dull

Date: 2006/03/31 12:32:37, Link
Author: PuckSR

Im glad you gained some assured that most of us arent on a mission to change people's opinions...only a fool would try to do that....we are just trying to make sure that people base their opinions on good information and solid reasoning.

Good luck

Date: 2006/03/31 13:01:29, Link
Author: PuckSR

You apparently have misunderstood a very important part of this entire conversation....

I agree with you...for completely different reasons...
I think that the moment that life begins is not a definable moment...but that it does begin.  I believe in the sanctity of life...including nonhuman life.

I am strongly pro-life, and i agree with your logic of erring on the side of caution....

We diverge at the point that you claim that science has a definative answer to this question and refuses to discuss it because it is politically incorrect....

To science the question of the house and the human life are similiar...almost identical...
While I agree the question of human life is far more important than that of the house...the point of the analogy was to point out to you the absurdity of your position.

It is almost impossible to determine with any degree of certainty when life begins....this would be a fact
We should err on the side of caution...this is an opinion
We should protect life at the conception...this is an opinion

Everyone here will agree that you are entitled to your opinions...
But opinions are not scientific...

I was told in my science class as a child how a zygote was are most children...
I was also introduced to the incredibly complex issue of defining "living" were most children...

Science does not help anyone deal with the issue of best it can tell us when an entity comes into worst it informs us that the entity is far from "human".  It cannot speak to us of the morality of killing such an entity...
Science cannot even tell us if it is immoral to kill a baby...

Science doesnt deal with morality...philosophers/theologians deal in this area...and you should most likely discuss this with one of them

Date: 2006/03/31 13:31:01, Link
Author: PuckSR
But you still haven't answered the question.  What evidence, scientific or otherwise, has you conclude that human life begins anywhere other than at conception?"

What evidence do you have to conclude that it does begin at conception?

Philosophically I could claim that you are not a truly living, breathing human being until you can communicate...
If consciousness makes you living, and consciousness by your definition is being cannot be self aware until you communicate to someone else

If you can pinpoint how claiming that "human life begins at conception" is an absurd point, please do?  You've already conceded human life has a beginning and unless you claim that life started before conception then we must assume that is began at or after conception.

Im sorry...but where did i concede that human life had a specific point of beginning?
It must have a beginning...but you assume that a beginning implies a certain claiming that between the time a zygote is a created and the time brain function begins to occur...human life begins

Date: 2006/03/31 14:28:05, Link
Author: PuckSR about taking a Kantian approach to ethics....

lets minimize the suffering...and if the mother rationally concludes that the best way in which to minimize suffering is an abortion, then we respect her decision???

As long as her motivation is not eugenics but rational ethics...we should be ok...right?

Science says person A, standing here, is human, and person B, in the womb, is also human.

Actually this is a bit says that B is a mixture of cells in the human body, completely indistinguishable from a number of other things(other organisms)...except that it has the particular genetic structure of a human..

You are approaching this situation incorrectly.
It is human, because if you asked a scientist to tell you what it was..he would analyze the DNA and tell you that it was human.  He, however, could not distinguish anything that granted this entity 'human' characterstics except DNA.

Of course...the same argument could be made for ugly babies.  They might be incredibly hairy babies that look like apes...this is one of the reasons i dont like killing apes...

The sanctity of human life is at best a vague readily admit that we already have a long list of exceptions, and that we create new ones or destroy old ones depending on the culture.

One moral rule that remains constant...we do not kill functional human beings.  We can kill the old, the dying, those who wish to die, even those who we decide deserve to die...but all of the rationales are based around the idea that the human is no longer functional to society.

If you want to take the purely moral/philosophical stance...there is no imperative to protect the unborn...they have yet to function...

This gets cloudy because functionality becomes a rather vague area...but it is most definately not a quality of the zygote.  The idea that we are protecting something because it might later become functional is absurd.  A suicidal man may later become functional...but he has every right to die.

Date: 2006/03/31 16:08:22, Link
Author: PuckSR
This thread has degenerated into another illustration of what religious faith does to the reasoning faculties.

No...I disagree...Thordaddy is a perfect example of a person who attempts to reconcile his religious faith with the rest of the beliefs a normal person is supposed to hold.

The "creationist" has a problem.  He holds a religious belief, that he then attempts to reconcile with science/political/moral/philosophical beliefs.  Sometimes it works...and sometimes it doesn't.  I wish you guys would refrain from bashing the faithful though.

I can imagine your contempt...but there do exist rational, sane, and religiously faithful people.  Sometimes my science interferes with my religion(i.e.  morality seems to be more and more an intrinsic value to humans, more than extrinsic value.  We exhibit the same morality as many other animals, and we frequently cannot rationalize our morality as much as we would like to).  Sometimes the spheres cross paths...and you have to come to some form of reconciliation...but for the most part...they are independent belief systems.(Im not talking about the creationist who is a biologist...Im talk Ken Miller-style here)


I find the topic of morality hugely interesting, but at the same time...I currently dismiss morality as something we can avoid.  Morality, in my opinion, is simply the result of us being social animals.(To the Daoist...this makes sense...Im not Daoist).  Religion provides an interesting extension to our natural morality, and both politics and religion provide interesting solutions to our current state of affairs.  Our morality developed in an age that didnt present us with the complex, and disconcerting moral decisions.

We were simply not designed to deal with the complexities of the abortion issue.  Is it ok to kill something that could possibly become human?  This is a foreign concept to ancient humans and other social organisms.
We know that killing is wrong, especially murder of the defenseless....but this is not killing in the conventional sense.  We are ending the life of something, but....

See the problem...everyone admits that killing a newborn is evil.  Almost everyone admits that stopping a sperm and ovum from forming a zygote is not evil.  The gray area lies in that 9 month period in between.  Its the classic question of the boat...or the paradox of the transformation(the idea that if you replaced every board in a boat...when would it become a new boat...would it become a new boat...would it be the same boat....)

So...sorry Spike...but I was just countering your logic...I wasnt actually debating one way or another.

Date: 2006/04/01 10:05:39, Link
Author: PuckSR
My evidence is that MY conception was the beginning of the development of my CNS and the consciousness that apparently comes with it.

But...there were no neural cells couldnt we just as easily say that the creation of an ovum is the beginning of the development of your CNS?

It is UNDENIABLE that the zygotes that are now my children began their lives at conception.

It is very deniable...since you cannot even seem to give us a strict definition for life.....

So I didn't say you define a "specific point of beginning," but rather said that you "concede human life has a beginning."  Of course, a beginning is a specific point of time.

My point was that in the case of developing systems, that are transitioning from one to another, or are slowly being created...."speicific point of beginning" is not applicable...of course you can feel free to debate this....

a beginning is not always a specific point in time...and I have pointed that out to you several times.  I have mentioned houses, biological systems, and boats....
What is this twisted fascination with defining a word on your own terms and then refusing to use the common definition of the word?

Again, want evidence do you have that human life does not begin at conception?  I see NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and therefore assume that human life begins at conception.

This is your point and your arbitrarly chose conception as the "beginning of development" of being human.  Of course you could have chosen any point along the causal chain from the moment the mother developed ovaries to the point at which the baby started moving in the womb.  You just decided that you wanted to choose conception...because it is the first time that 2 become 1. you assume that human life begins at conception...because you want it to.  There is no logic to this position.  A zygote lacks every single feature that would normally classify an organism as sentient life.  You ignore this.  You ignore the fact that a zygote is not even capable of controlled movement....yet a sperm is in fact shouldnt a sperm(which more closely resembles a human) be considered the "beginning"?

You point to the lack of evidence in support of any other point of origin of humanity...and conclude that you must therefore be correct.  You are simply attempting to rationally validate your personal position...and despite all of the information we have kindly thrown your ignore it all and plod on ignorantly.

Good luck to you...but Im not going to argue with someone who thinks I am challenging his beliefs any longer...

I will never change the way you, or anyone else believes...but if you are a sane person...I can point out the fallacies in your reasoning.  I can correct your logical mistakes.  I can provide you with better information....

But you have forsaken all of those...because they attack your beliefs....
Simple, simple, simple man...standing in a room with his ears covered until it is his turn to speak.

Date: 2006/04/02 15:56:36, Link
Author: PuckSR
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what if the governments are planning something like this right now. I mean overpopulation is a serious problem (Mass genocide is not the answer to the problem, but the problem exists, nonetheless.) It’s not like they would announce their plans to the world. I’m sure if something like this were to be done, the “fittest” members of society would be the ones picked to be spared.

Comment by crandaddy — April 2, 2006 @ 5:12 pm

I had the pleasure of driving through Austin, TX recently(home of Dell) and I got to listen to a crazed radio DJ....

He was making almost the exact same point...except he was using Bird Flu as the example...which was funny...since Flu kills the strong.....

Im fairly sure that DaveScot was a listener...if not a contributor....LOL(im just kidding)

Date: 2006/04/03 11:13:27, Link
Author: PuckSR
My morality derives from my rationalist/scientific world view. I ask the other posters on this thread who are rationalists/scientifically minded how they developed their systems of morality.

actually most scientific evidence points to the fact that you cannot rationalize your morality....

The point of this whole abortion debate is your interpretation of when life begins....

Claiming you're pro/anti abortion isnt based on morality.
Let me give you an example...some people believe in partial birth abortion.  They believe it is an acceptable practice.
However, no one is pro-newborn baby killing.  No one claims you should be able to kill a baby once it is born.
Why?  Because everyone knows that murder is wrong.
The difference is that some people dont define partial birth abortion as murder.  It would be a moral issue if they did define it as acceptable murder....but they dont.

Anti-abortion people are not in possesion of a higher set of morals.  Pro abortion people have the same morals as anti-abortion people.  It's a question of how they define human life...which is not a question of morality.

It also isnt a question of science, as we have tried to explain to Thordaddy.  Science has a difficult enough time defining life.  They arent even going to begin to try and decide when the creation of a new offspring becomes an individual human life.

Its a question of philosophy/theology/law.  This is also why it is so heavily contested..because everyone is allowed to have their own ideas on philosophy/theology/law.  It is not a case of clear cut solutions.  IF it was, then it would not be a case of such heavy contention.

Date: 2006/04/03 14:12:03, Link
Author: PuckSR
I'll give you an example of a rational moral idea: I treat others as I wish for them to treat me. Why? Observation, hypothesis, theory, and "law."

Not quite what I was talking about....

Natural morality:
Dont kill people
Dont hurt people
Dont steal from people

Now...we all know that people kill, hurt, and steal from other people.  But, they all do so by rationalizing their actions.  A thief isnt really stealing, he is just reappropriating wealth.  The cop didnt really murder anyone..he was simply defending the community.

We can even go the extreme end of the spectrum and look at sociopaths....
we have found as a general rule that sociopaths lack the ability to recognize pain in other people.  If the sociopath could recognize that he was causing his victims pain...he would then have to rationalize his behavior.  It would be impossible for him to rationalize his he wouldnt be as sociopathic....

Humans are a societal organism.  We rely on society for our survival.  Our morality evolved.  Do you think it is odd that chimps have the same sense of morality as humans.  They generally avoid murder, inflicting pain, or stealing...but if they can rationalize that behavior(such as killing an enemy chimp) then they act.
Chimps obviously lack the cognitive capacity for reasoning out their moral decisions.  They dont communicate as efficiently as humans.  They also dont read philosophical ramblings about morality....yet they are just as moral as you or I.....

We have created "rational morality" to deal with all the modern issues that chimps dont have to deal with...such as abortion.  

By the way...Im not pulling this stuff out of my butt.  There is research being conducted into this area...and the general consensus is that morality has evolved in societal animals.  It is necessary for a society to exist....and animals without the ability to reason out the moral consequences have exhibited equal degrees of basic morality.

Hope this helps....

Anyway...we are selfish....all organisms are selfish
this instinctive moral code keeps us from going nuts and destroying ourselves....not our ability to reason

Date: 2006/04/03 15:56:18, Link
Author: PuckSR
Some people believe that if morality does not involve choice, then it is not morality at all. "Instinctive morality" is an oxymoron.

Ahhh very true....
but my argument is that a lot of what your terming "morality" is just instinct....
and if thats the case...then what is truly moral?

However, think about male lions. Perhaps there is new evidence to the contrary, but I learned that if a new male lion defeats the old pride leader, the new male will kill all the cubs, because the new male has no genetic stake in their survival. The females will not prevent the "mass murder" of their babies because, genetically speaking, the females will still have the same genetic stake in the new offspring (50%) and the risk of being killed themselves is greater than the energy investment they've made so far. At least that is what I recall from Dawkins.

Very true....
but lions are not a good example of a societal animal.
One male....females and offspring....

When I discuss a societal animal I am discussing animals that live in a cooperative society.  Dogs, Apes, Ravens, and Dolphins all are examples.  A pack of dogs is not one male and several females....A pack of dogs contains both males and females.  They work together, and their survival is dependent on each other.

We certainly don't call the adult lions immoral for behaving as lions. But if a human were to do the same, we'd lock him up and throw away the key, and we may even be in the ironic situation of defending that murderer's life against those who would seek vengence.

No we do not....but lets examine the second part of your point...the part that concerns defending the murderer.

Capital punishment is a fact of some societies and abhorred by other societies.  There is no standard moral code.  Incredibly advanced societies have had completely different opinions on the matter....
If logic and reason alone could arrive at a conclusion...wouldnt they have arrived at the same conclusion...or at least similiar conclusions?
If it was instinctual...then once again the conclusions would be fairly similiar

It is not...some societies have outlawed the death penalty...while others use it for relatively trivial crimes.  They both rationalize their actions, but I believe that this must be done after the fact... their actions are so different, it would seem to preclude rational conclusions.

Therefore...something irrational must be involved in the decision process.  An opinion?

You tend to think that your view of abortion is logical and can be arrived at by reason.
However, if it is so logical, why do we constantly see such drastic opposition.  

Now, the obvious argument against this is to examine a debate that is prevalent in all of our minds.  Obviously there is a great deal of seperation on the issue of religion vs. science.  But what is the difference between religion and science. Fundamentalists opine that the bible must be accurate, and therefore they logically make the conclusions from that opinion for all of their beliefs.  Science, instead, opines that it is important for knowledge that we only explore natural explanations of evidence.  They then logically and reasonably conclude everything else.  

Both viewpoints are based on logical conclusions from original opinions.  The same can be said for your current debate on abortion.
You both have an opinion, and are both rationally proceeding from your opinions.  The advantage however lies with Flint.  His logic is also applicable to someone who is agnostic on the issue.

The point of all of this is that some morality is disputable and some is not.
The morality that is not in dispute is either instinct or truly logical.
The morality that is in dispute is based on something irrational, and then concluded from that point on.

Now, remember, irrational doesnt mean wrong, or even without merit.  I am simply saying that it must rely on some opinion that is not a rational conclusion from the facts.

Date: 2006/04/03 21:08:45, Link
Author: PuckSR
And I tried to point out that your examples are not of "moral" acts, because a chimp can only do what chimps do, based on their chimpy instinct, a lion can only do what lions do, based on their liony instinct, etc. all throughout the animal kingdom.

The Dao of a Chimp and the Dao of a lion

As you pointed out, humans, on the other hand, can react in nearly an infinite variety of ways when they encounter the same events.

Not quite.....
If you are riding on a train...and the train is coming to an see 5 men trapped on the track....
you can pull a switch, and redirect the train towards another track with no one on it....what do you do?

The answer....and almost every human will you give you the same that you pull the lever....

Now, what if you have a particularly angry individual....he might tell you he doesnt give a ####...and that he would just let the people die....

Now, thats not a particularly human trait either.  Animals can be conditioned to be mean and spiteful of other animals......or humans

Moral codes and their practical applications know as laws and societal norms are, as you-all have pointed out quite accurately, a product of social interaction.

Now were talking about Confucius?

I counter-
Basic morality is instinct...
All other forms of morality are extensions of basic morality
Eating food is instinct....
Eating gourment food is an extension of that instinct that can take on entirely new dimensions....
You may eat sushi because it is a delicacy, or it is wonderfully tasteful...or a number of other reasons...
but you are still eating to fill that basic instinct...
So despite whatever "higher" notions we are attributing to an must always fulfill our basic instinct....
Coffee has little nutritional value....
no one drinks only matter how much they love it

We may have attributed higher thought to our morality, but we still are obliged to fulfill that instinctive morality...

If you think this is just pointless rambling...consider something for a moment.  No one says...murdering unborn babies is ok....
Almost everyone who supports abortion considers the unborn as nonhuman or at least not true living humans....
No one says that it is ok to murder babies because murder is instinctively wrong...unless you can find some reason that they deserve to die...and its hard to come up with a reason that a baby deserves to die.....

You think its horrible...because you see the unborn as a true living human.
Your whole err on the side of caution argument follows your opinion and not the opposition's.
If i gave you a sword...and told you to stab into 1 of 3 sheets, and behind one of those sheets would be your would never do it...even if i promised you a cake....
A pro-abortion person doesnt believe that anyone is behind any of those sheets...I dont tell him that there is a person behind there....and you are whispering in his ear...
"dont do it...there might be a person behind one of the sheets"....
"damnit...thats silly...why would a person be behind the sheet...get out of my way...i want my cake..."

Im not invalidating your opinion...but Im arguing that it is not a moral belief....
you both agree murder is wrong...just like everyone...
he just doesnt believe he is killing anyone....
and you do...and you both have beliefs...not different moral character

Date: 2006/04/04 18:13:07, Link
Author: PuckSR
Hmmm....ok...couple of points

The Greeks were gay,really gay,crazy gay,they loved the.....
You get the point...

They had kids and a healthy society, but how?
Well the gay guys still had wives.
Seem strange?  Not really
They understood that sex created children, and since most humans want children, they had heterosexual sex.

Now, if there was a Designer, then he must have designed homosexuals.  Now, he probably used the "gay gene" to design them.  In other words...God is a gay gene designer.

Either does, at first, reek of stupid...
Either Evolution let something slip in that doesnt benefit reproduction
Or a Designer designed organisms that have a difficult time reproducing.

I guess the only logic could be that the Designer preferred homosexuals...good luck selling that to the ID supporters...
But then again, from all the examples the designer sucks...

Everything aside though, there are obviously Evolutionary pathways as well as Designer pathways that could explain the presence of a "gay gene".  So its really a mute point

Date: 2006/04/05 19:03:38, Link
Author: PuckSR apparently missed the whole conversation Thor.

What exactly do you want science to define as life?
Things living? when do humans start living?
Well they come from life(sperm and ovum) does human life start when life becomes human(ceases not being human) or when non-living things create living things?

What makes life human?

Does human life start when a living independent organism exists with human DNA?

When you say you mean self-sustaining or do you mean single-celled?

So...answer these questions...and only these questions...and i will help you out

Date: 2006/04/05 19:13:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
two part question?

is defining life within the realm of science?  Possibly
is defining human within the realm of science? possibly

it really depends on how you are defining science...
Scinece analyzes empirical data.  We have empirical data for life, we have empirical data for humans...

So I imagine it is within the realm of science to define life and define human.

However you said
I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.

Which would seem to be asking if it is within the realm of science to define when life becomes human which case...I believe it is within the realm of philosophy.  Your asking science to assign a title to your "point of the start of human life"....

This is much like getting into a debate over when does a hand become a flipper.  Science can define a flipper, and it can define a hand....but it cannot tell you when a hand becomes a flipper, nor does it imply that a hand cannot be a flipper.  

Science has a difficult time with assigning particular definition.

Date: 2006/04/05 19:29:04, Link
Author: PuckSR
By saying that science has no say when "life becomes human life" then this must necessarily be held for ALL forms of life.  Then what is biology?  The supposed study of life?

Absolutely...but i think your confusing biology with taxonomy

You can study life without being able to define when life becomes a human.

When we look at early becomes apparent rather quickly that its a tricky subject. Humans came from apes...but you cannot tell me where the ape ends and the human begins...and perhaps that is best...since we are still an ape(maybe)

Date: 2006/04/05 19:47:25, Link
Author: PuckSR

you still didnt tell me when that boat becomes a new boat....

Date: 2006/04/06 11:37:16, Link
Author: PuckSR
When will that boat become a new boat?

According to your stance, never.  There is nothing to define it.

Au contraire....

I already told is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....

C.J. O'Brien already gave you a very good explanation of your problems answering this question when you are dealing in absolutes.

I am telling you that there is no "point" where it becomes a new boat....only a "section of points".  You, however, realize the nature of this question and refuse to provide any answer...if you ever answer this question truthfully, you will already have your answer for the scientific view of abortion.

Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)

Date: 2006/04/06 15:43:16, Link
Author: PuckSR
Hmmm...and to hear Ham radio for evolution...just listen for KE5DDA

Date: 2006/04/07 07:26:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
For the time being....let us leave abortion/human rights/ and all of that stuff that has cluttered the other threads out of this........


Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)

ME!  And I started at conception.

No...I want you to give me a definition of life.....
In other words....if i find something, I want you to give me a way to determine if that thing is alive or not alive.
It should be a fairly simple concept, it doesnt even need to be "scientific".  I just want you to tell me how I should decide if something is alive or not alive

Au contraire....

I already told is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....

Thordaddy....if you honestly believe that those two statements are contradictory....despite what everyone else has tried to explain to you...then I am fully convinced that you are an idiot.
Your basic misunderstanding of simple english sentences, and your complete inability to answer questions has me doubting either you sincerity or your intelligence.

Either you are purposefully attempting to twist and toy with everything everyone on this forum says....or you lack the ability to understand which case, please tell us what language would be more appropriate, and we will try to assist you....

Im still waiting for your answers...since your last ones didnt exist

Date: 2006/04/07 12:34:21, Link
Author: PuckSR

I completely agree with you....

except, I dont think that someone can be as "?blind?" as thordaddy simply because he is too emotional....

I have met a lot of very emotionally religious people, but I have yet to meet one who can just basically misunderstand common sentences.....
For example, when I asked Thor to define life...and he answered....ME...
Either he is attempting to make a profound statement(which given his track record I seriously doubt) or he didnt even bother to grasp the question in the first place...

I would have been more satisfied if he would have said..."an organism that is capable of reproducing" than "ME".
"ME" leaves us all standing with our mouths open...we cannot begin explaining things to him...we cannot try and communicate with him at all....

He is either a genius or an idiot, and if he is a genius, he needs to stop "playing" for awhile and speak to us in a normal tone....

Date: 2006/04/07 19:54:37, Link
Author: PuckSR
Just like we can't assume a newborn to be conscious because not one has ever proclaimed, "I am newborn, I am conscious," I can only definitely say that I am life (human life to be exact).  ME!  I can assume a lot of things are alive, but as you've so eloquently argued, you can't even say when you became human life and so how can I be sure about any life other than my own?

LOL...but you cannot definately say that you are human life?
You can definately say that you think...but you cannot claim you are an example of life....unless you define life only as things that think....
I think you did say that you define human life as "thinking" life...or maybe just conscious life...

Maybe you could take a break from all of this...and tell us all what "conscious" is....define it for us....

I didnt ask you to define human life though, I asked you to define life...and life definately does not require consciousness.  Flowers are alive, but they do not think, nor do they involve consciousness....

So please....define life.
define consciousness

And please explain how you twisted a brilliant argument about only being able to recognize your own ability to think...into a twisted version of defining life???

Thor....I hope that the flesh comes back again...I fear you might have flayed them for the last time

Date: 2006/04/09 08:07:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy you missed a point again....
You cannot argue that conception is important, because without it we would not exist...why?
Well because there are several points in history that could have changed the outcome, that does not make them important.

According to your logic, and just your logic, not your argument for anti-abortion.
If the egg hadnt been in the tubes, if the sperm had gotten blocked by a condom, that would have ceased your daughter's existence....therefore condoms are equally evil, because the impede human life.

If you choose to argue that conception is important because it determines and predates future existence, then your going to have to go with the catholic stance and say that condoms are an equally "evil" form of abortion.

Please continue your argument, Im not trying to stop you.  Just try to realize that problem with your current logical positioning

Date: 2006/04/10 20:38:37, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok, so if consciousness is emerging even before birth than an abortion is the killing of a human being, no?  In fact, isn't consciousness emerging right from conception?  If not, what evidence are you relying upon to assume it doesn't?

The other day I yanked a zygote out...and i performed some tests...
First, I flashed it with a bright light, no response....maybe this lil guy isnt bothered by lights. I then tried talking to response..well maybe he was a deaf zygote.  I poked him...but he didnt respond at all.  
Now, this particular zygote must have decided to be particularly rude, or maybe he was just hungry.  I offered him my chicken sandwich....he did not accept.
Now, what thinking entity would refuse a fresh chicken sandwich?
Maybe he didnt like chicken, so I offered him a candy bar, same response.  No response...
Now, what child doesnt want a candy bar?
I must tell you, he was the strangest child I had ever met.

I decided that even though he must be a very rude child, perhaps if I read him some Descartes he could tell me if he was help there...

Now, I must point out...I couldnt tell you if he was male or female...he didnt have any genitalia, or cells for that matter.  He was just a single cell.

Now the sperm on the other hand, was quite the life of the party.  He moved around, and seemed to have a goal(reaching his ovum friend).  He was active, and responded to stimuli.  His friend the ovum, she was somewhat of a dead fish though.  She just floated along, acting just like that zygote.

I must conclude, that based on our current information that the sperm is the beginning of consciousness and life.  He acts like a living animal, then he meets up with his ovum friend, and then she kills him.  That zygote doesnt even start moving again for quite some time.  So, if we are going to define the beginning of consciousness and life, we need to start with the sperm.  Its ok to kill eggs...they are just cells, but sperm....they are active, thinking, conscious little fellas.....

Do you agree thordaddy?

Date: 2006/04/11 14:31:25, Link
Author: PuckSR
well what do you expect....
sperm are obviously the males of the species....

most males have single track minds ;)

Date: 2006/04/15 17:46:41, Link
Author: PuckSR
No....Dembski isnt crazy....he is completely sane....

Holding an irrational theological belief is not "insane".  In fact, most theological beliefs are irrational.  
I am not insane if I claim that 1+1=3.  I may be incorrect, and I may be wrong...but I am not crazy.

William Dembski holds a religious belief.  His "crazy" ideas all stem logically from his religious belief.  His religious belief is not insane....only the consequences of his belief are crazy.

William Dembski, as well as several other Fundamentalist Christians, is simply rationally progressing from an irrational religious belief.  Most of these people are in fact very sane, if somewhat confusing.  It took me several years, but I finally got a grasp of the entire situation.  You cannot change someone's mind, it is impossible.  You may give them a reason to change their mind...but in the end it is the person who changes their own mind.  These people, as well as many similiar people, insulate themselves by merging their belief with their reasons for believing.  This is why a Fundamentalist Christian will become so angry if you challenge the scientific evidence for their beliefs.  Despite the fact that they could still be correct in their belief and still admit the "scientific" validity of the scientific evidence...they cannot do this.  In their mind it is all one and the same.  Normally when you get someone to change their convince them that the evidence supporting their belief is flawed.  These people have actually incorporated the evidence into their belief.  Why?  So that both the evidence and the actual belief are insulated from argument.  

Dont worry...Dembski is very sane...he just keeps his personal beliefs about God in the same jar as his science, philosophy, logic, and math.  It makes for a simpler defense of his beliefs...but it is fairly confusing for those of us who seperate our beliefs from our knowledge to understand..

**Note-This is also why these people "know" Jesus.  "Know" they are right.  "Know" that the bible is true.  Most people would admit that they only hold a high degree of belief...knowledge is an absolute word that is beyond the realm of beliefs.  These people however "know" they are correct though because beliefs and knowledge are equal

Date: 2006/05/02 10:32:10, Link
Author: PuckSR
I dont know about that relatively narrow window.....
But i believe that the discussion of her mental faculties might easily be resolved by adding an additional person to the equation....
In that case her original "thought" could be exchanged with a dialogue between the two...

I would tend to believe that she would assign supernatural properties to many of the natural phenomenom that she couldnt explain....however I believe she would fall short of assigning it all to a single creator.  Why do you think early, primitive religions were mostly polytheistic?  They saw the "supernatural" nature of several things...but at the same time they observed the conflicting and imperfect nature of the world.  They assigned the good to the supernatural, and the bad to either the evil supernatural, or conflict between the supernatural.....

Why do you think Christians have such a strong mythology around Satan and ####?  It easily explains much of the evil in the world....and does so without complicated theological debate....perfect for religions in short supply of theological debaters....

Date: 2006/05/02 10:45:36, Link
Author: PuckSR
The entire debate over gay marriage is ridiculous....but with good reason....

The definition of "marriage" has always been a social issue.  Some societies have promoted polygamy...while other societies have promoted monogamy.  Some societies(though rare) have had gay marriage...

The issue is completely dependant on the social climate...and in this case we have a divided and combative societal issue.
The standard claim pro-gay marriage is that since it is opposed without reason.  Those who oppose gay marriage oppose it without any legitamite reason.  This may be true...but so many other social practices are opposed without any real reason

Those who argue against gay marriage run the gamut from the religious right to the "why shake the tree".  It would be as equally as valid for them to oppose gay marriage because they "dont want gay marriage"...and in fact many of them argue reason...just opinion.

Those who support gay marriage need to admit that they are simply advocating violating social norms that serve no purpose and based simply on might hurt the cause...but it would give them much more solid ground to stand on.

Those who oppose gay marriage need to admit that their opinion is just that...a mere opinion...completely free of actual reasoning....and thats ok....
The issue is social norms....and social norms will always exist in a society without reason....they just exist...

The question really isnt "should we allow gay marriage?"...the question is "Should we build a society around rational facts and reason or around tradition and societal acceptance?"

Date: 2006/05/02 10:56:33, Link
Author: PuckSR
“Not to digress too far, but I assume everyone here is familiar with Thomas Gold’s theory that fossil fuel does not come from fossils at all:”

Fossil fuel did NOT come from fossils! It was intelligently designed to appear at a certain location. Tsk tsk….


Comment by shalini — May 1, 2006 @ 8:26 pm

This isnt as crazy as it sounds....
It may not be correct...but its not founded on irrational religious junk....

The argument is that oil can be produced by subjecting certain materials to heat and pressure.  The argument is that oil is mostly abiotic....

This has been researched and tested...and proven....
The question...and this is where most of the scientific community how much of our oil is abiotic and how much is biotic.  Most argue that only a small amount of the oil under the earth is inorganic....while a few argue that the vast majority is inorganic.

The man who originally proposed this theory, Thoman Gold, is no idiot...and it actually makes for an interesting read...

Date: 2006/05/02 11:41:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
There is centuries worth of evidence as to why OUR society elevated traditional marriage above all other unions.  The reasoning is quite solid and it's based on a clear understanding between both the different natures of man and woman plus the complementary effects they have as a union.

If the evidence is so strong...why do many cultures practice and promote polygamy?

Seven Popes lists the main motivation for both sides....Children.... a society where 50% of "traditional" marriages end in divorce, where child/spousal abuse is a serious issue...I dont think that we have any right(either side) to talk about protecting children....

Now, I actually oppose gay marriage....
not for any particular reason except that the "gay community" pisses me off....
They arbitrarily chose to make the word "faggot" offensive...
They suddenly decided to ask for gay marriage....mostly to allow them adoption rights...and completely ignoring the fact that even if gay marriage is allowed...adoption agencies might discriminate against "gay married" couples...
I dont dislike homosexuals....I just dislike the motivations and actions of organizations like GLAAD. finish my rant...if one more gay rights group compares the struggles of homosexuals to the civil rights struggles of african americans....Im going to get pissed.

Ok...back on topic...
Thordaddy...if your only rational reason for opposing gay marriage is "its different than heterosexual marriage" and tradition...then your just making the same dont want gay marriage because it is different.... would be actively seeking to ban homosexuals having children and families...since that would be subject to the uncomplimentary nature of same-sex parents.

Date: 2006/05/02 12:06:02, Link
Author: PuckSR
So although this theory may not have begun life that way, to many it's now classic fundie wishful thinking

Well, let them have it...
They can also have the whole "dinosaur bone marrow"
If its true, its true...and maybe their sudden interest in real science will help expose more people to the idiocy of fundamentalism

Date: 2006/05/02 12:41:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
how would they 'have' that?

They can pretend that it supports their views...

Date: 2006/05/02 18:36:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
In fact, it happened because we have been systematically devaluing all our cultural traditions for the last 40+ years.  What did you think would happen to traditional marriage and child and spousal relationships when we've erased any distinction between man and woman, devalued children through abortion and knock one social norm down after another?  Traditional marriage is dying because we are killing it. forgot to mention that we also allowed black people the right to vote.  We apologized to the native americans for taking their land.  We made it illegal to discriminate against people based on uncontrollable factors of their life(race, age, sex, religion).

Lets explore "social norms" that have been knocked down in the past:
Child Molestation/pedophilia
Spousal abuse
Govt sponsered Racism
Holy Wars
Capital Punishment for non-lethal violations
Economics systems that exploited the poor(feudal system)
Human Sacrifice
medical bleeding
Illegalized education(education is illegal)

Liberal-being broadminded....look it up....thordaddy

I have a question...about gay marriage and next-of-kin....
Cant a gay person specify through legal documents that their significant other is entitled to all of the same legal rights in death/incapacitation as a souse?
Also...what about children.....if Dave and Tom have 3 girls...and Dave is the biological father of the girls...and Tom is not...and Dave dies....
If Tom legally adopted the children...he would be the default guardian...
But if Tom had simply "married" the father of the children...he wouldnt adopt them by default....
In the event of the death of Dave....Tom and their biological mother would have equal claim....
All gay families are going to consist of no more than one parent being the biological parent.  Will this not lead to a rather complex legal affair....since every gay married couple would be in this situation...and the rights of the biological mother...and any legal agreements about custody made with her would have to be researched???

BTW...Thordaddy said 1-2% of the population earlier...I dont believe he was talking about homosexuals...rather he was discussing homosexuals who want to be married...

If the repression of homosexual marriage revolves so tightly around the repression of homosexuals in this country...then why did the most homosexual culture that I know of not advocate the virtues of homosexual weddings?

Date: 2006/05/02 21:17:05, Link
Author: PuckSR

Calm down....take a breath...drink a beer one is accusing you of being a "gay hater" or homophobe because of your stance on gay marriage....
They are accusing you of being a homophobe and "gay hater" because of other comments you made...

You referred to gay marriage as a "social evil"....and have clearly lost any distinction between the people and organizations that represent them...


You my moniker challenged hobgoblin, are an idiot.

Umm...why am i an idiot?
Unless i randomly lobed an insult at me after chastising Thordaddy?

Date: 2006/05/03 11:52:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
And please do provide the quote where I say that gay "marriage" is a "social evil," so I may respond.

In fact, it happened because we have been systematically devaluing all our cultural traditions for the last 40+ years.  What did you think would happen to traditional marriage and child and spousal relationships when we've erased any distinction between man and woman, devalued children through abortion and knock one social norm down after another?

Now...from my reading of that are claiming that homosexual marriage would be a further devaluation of cultural seem to be implying that this "devaluation" is harmful to society....
Wouldnt you therefore be claiming that gay marriage is a "social evil".(perhaps better refined as a societal evil).
You have a problem Thordaddy.  
If we are correct...then we are correct...even if you didnt directly make the claim....
You waste a good deal of your time arguing over your "precise statement"...but ignore the fact that people have accurately described your personal beliefs.
If someone mischaracterizes you...then by all means take them to task for their misunderstanding...but if they are accurate in their assumption about your personal views...then please quit making a big deal out of the fact that they "assumed" something.

You believe that gay marriage is harmful to society, correct?
You believe that it devalues cultural traditions, correct?
You believe gay marriage unfairly redefines the definition/purpose of marriage without the consent of the general population(collective redefinition), correct?
You believe that homosexuals are militantly requesting rights and privileges that are unreasonable and unjustified, correct?

Trust me, Thordaddy, if you ever clearly and concisely state your position and opinions...then we might be able to have a more constructive conversation.  It seems, however, that you purposefully disguise your true intentions/beliefs/opinions...for some yet unknown reason.

@BWE...sorry for the confusion...but my name is an alternative for hobgoblin

Date: 2006/05/03 12:09:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
The belief in the supernatural seems to be a universal trait of all human beings.  Without exception, cultures throughout the world believe in supernatural occurences.
(Yah...i know this sounds eerily familiar...but its actually a fairly good piece of evidence for archetypal other words...all cultures also know that floods can be disastrous)

It seems to me that the child would most likely believe in a supernatural explanation as well...since most children tend to believe in supernatural explanations readily.

The belief in the supernatural seems to stem from our ability to think.  A dog most likely doesnt consider the supernatural v. natural explanations of events.  He is simply concerned with cause and effect.  He simply doesnt concern himself with the complex thought of why something happens.  We have minds that think about this sort of thing...and we ask questions.

Early supernatural beliefs probably didnt involve "gods".  Think of luck, superstition, magic....
The entire concept of an entity behind "magic" must have come much later....

In all honesty...I would argue that naturalism is not inherent, but rather a worldview that must be taught.  Humans naturally pursue the best explanation, and in all honesty supernatural explanations are the most complete...

Naturalism asks one to reject supernatural arguments because of the irrationality of the belief, rather than the explanatory power of the belief.  With this in mind, no one is born an atheist(if we define atheism as the belief that the supernatural does not exist).  We all seek the "most complete" explanation at birth, it is only later that we learn to question the sanity and rationality of the explanation.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:05:04, Link
Author: PuckSR
What, in your opinion, is the 'radical homosexual agenda

Im actually going to side with thordaddy to some degree.....

While i fully support homosexuals being entitled to the same rights as everyone else...I think that a lot of their actions have been excessively forceful and their comparisons to previous civil rights issues are insulting.

The issue of homosexual rights is remarkably similiar to religious rights.  Even though it can strongly be argued that homosexuality is genetic....and not a choice like still bears a striking resemblance in regards to civil liberties.

Homosexuals do not physically display any trait of being homosexual.  Homosexuals are discriminated against because of a believed moral superiority...not a physical/mental superiority(with the minor exception being that they were classified as being insane...but several religious groups are considered cults).  Homosexual rights revolve heavily around altering the social norm, rather than recognizing them as equals to their fellow human beings.

The "radical homosexual agenda" would seem to be:
End all discrimination due to sexual orientation
End all derogatory remarks towards/about homosexuals
Allow any two people who love each other to marry
Allow any persons who wish to adopt the right to adopt
Guarantee that homophobia is wiped away

I am strongly opposed to this notion that Thordaddy is not allowed to dislike "gay people".  It is his right as an American citizen to dislike, speak out against, or denounce anyone he wants.  It is not his right to take any discriminating action against anyone.  I encourage him to take whatever position he wants on people who are homosexual.  It is his right.

It is not the right of any organization or group to try and stop people from hating one another via legal injunction.
The homosexual political organizations(such as GLAAD) seem to be dangerously close to proposing that homosexuals be granted "protection" that flies in the face of Constitutional liberties like free speech.

Date: 2006/05/03 19:44:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
Of the five "rights" you enumerate above, rights 1 and 3 are (or should be) relatively uncontroversial, 4 is unlikely to be part of anyone's agenda (should we allow the mentally ill to adopt?), and 2 and 5 are impossible in principle to achieve in any event (except that 2 is probably achievable at least in public venues like the workplace, where women, at least, are already entitled to such consideration under the law presently). I doubt any mainstream gay/lesbian organization seriously advocates 2 or 5 as anything other than an ideal to be aspired to.

That was exactly my point...Im not claiming that all goals are wrongheaded or impossible.  Ive just noticed a general tendency of 'overzealous' action by gay rights advocates.  
I also believe that much of the homosexual discrimination is warranted.  This may seem odd, but I feel that much of the homosexual discrimination is based around behavior rather than 'homophobia'.
You cannot fire someone for being gay or a Souther Baptist.  If the person's behavior is upsetting to the workplace, then you have every right to fire that person.  If the Southern Baptist is constantly discussing his "love of Jesus"...he might get fired.  This would not be religious discrimination...simply annoyance.  If the gay employee was constantly talking about being gay....she might get fired.  This wouldnt be homosexual discrimination, just annoyance.  I understand that in both cases the annoyance might have come from the predisposed attitudes of the other people in the workplace...but I firmly believe that if an argument can be made that the voluntary behavior of the hypothetical employee was annoying...that the boss should have every right to terminate employement.  Sorry, thats just me....
NOW, if the Boss discovers the religious nature or sexual nature of the individual and then decides to fire them on that fact all means scream discrimination....but once again Im going to have to relate the rights of homosexuals more closely with the rights of the religious...

What is wrong with you?
You just posted a lengthy rebuttal that was meaningless...followed by what appeared to be an accusation that homosexual=pedophile

You argue that 'liberals' are attempting to abolish social norms.  You have yet to admit that many social norms are now considered evil.  You also fail to realize that societal norms cannot be abolished.  Lets pretend that the gays get their way...and everyone is forced to become gay.....that would be the new social norm.  Social norms are fluid and always in existence...twit

You arbitrarily defined liberalism....with the most confusing and self-serving definition I have ever read...and one that is almost entirely wrong.

Homosexuals couples are seeking a SPECIAL LAW that sanctions their union and are willing to subvert the process and the American people to do it.

This is where you go off the deep end....
LAWs are created by the GOVERNMENT....the PEOPLE control the GOVERNMENT in our society.  If a "SPECIAL LAW" is created to sanction gay marriage, it will be representive of the will of the majority of the PEOPLE.
Your upset because homosexuals are pursuing legal and political avenues?
Im sorry, what process would you like them to pursue?
Religious?  Some religions recognize gay marriage?

This isn't about "hating" gays, but about radical gays hating the society they live in and their attempt to change it using any means necessary.

Im sorry, where are you from Thordaddy???
Im an American, and maybe that is the problem.
In America we are compelled to change the government and society when we believe that it is flawed.  We also are encouraged to do this through any means necessary.

Thordaddy's idea of advocating state sanction for inter-species or multiple-partner unions is, of course, pretty indefensible, but again, no one is really advocating any such thing anyway. Except, evidently, Thordaddy himself.

Actually your wrong.
Several religions consider it their religious right to be married to multiple partners.  In the case of the polygamist their actually banned from this practice by a law that is strictly enforced.  
I would say that you probably have an equal number of advocates who support polygamy and gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a fairly recent phenomenom, while polygamy is an ancient practice with strong historical tradition.  I get upset whenever anyone tries to exclude polygamy from the conversation, since polygamy has more of a right to exist than gay marriage(if any difference between their eligibility exists)

Date: 2006/05/04 11:44:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
It's not arbitrary... it's liberalism.  You could have easily quoted the exact parts you thought were wrong and why they were wrong, but instead you leave me with nothing but worthless opinion

I dont even know what to tell you...
I defined liberal earlier...using a dictionary...It would be interesting to know where you got your definition
Your entire definition was wrong...I

Also...what was this about the Catholic Church and gays?
Pedophiles(even those who attack same-sex) are frequently not gay...I know that doesnt make sense to someone like you...but let me explain...
Pedophiles are normally attracted to the youth of their victims, and do not discriminate about the sex of the victim.
Many convicted pedophiles in psychological evaluation do not characterize themselves as gay.
Hebephiles(like the greeks)  are more inclined to engage in their pervesion with victims that are inline with their sexual persuasion

The Catholic Church also is very tolerant of homosexuals.  While the Catholic Church in no way condones the activities of also teaches that all people should be loved.  It even allows priests who were previously sexually active(homosexually) to become priests after a period of abstinence from gay sex.

How is traditional marriage flawed and in what way is gay "marriage" a correction of that flaw?  Wouldn't such an obviously good idea pass easily through state legislature after state legislature?  And your last statement is truly breathtaking and one more reason I am compelled to reject liberalism. dont really just scan over statements and then begin typing.
"flawed" is a subjective term, and apparently gay-marriage advocates believe that current laws about marriage are "flawed"
It doesnt mean that I believe they are flawed, or you believe they are flawed.
I think gun control laws are "flawed", but you may not.
I think prostitution laws are "flawed", but you may not
I was making the claim that if you, as an American, believe that the current govt or laws are is your duty as an American citizen to try and "fix" them.
No judge can create same-sex marriage, but he can strike down laws that ban same-sex marriage.  
Lets go over this again...
Legislature creates laws
Judiciary interprets and enforces laws....and determines the validity of the laws.....
The Judiciary lacks the powers to create the laws, and the legislature lacks the power to enforce the laws....


You argue that 'liberals' are attempting to abolish social norms.  You have yet to admit that many social norms are now considered evil.

I assume you are referring to traditional marriage?  If this is the case, then gay "marriage" has absolutely no foundation in which to rest on to gain any kind of societal credibility.  It represents nothing more than the assertion of the individual will seeking state validation for his/her personally chosen "union."  Traditional marriage must be destroyed and gay "marriage" is the exact Trojan Horse.  The radicals know this.  Why don't you?

Im referring to hebephilia, genocide, opression, slavery, etc.
Your claim:
Destroying social norms is bad
"Traditional" marriage is a social norm
Changing traditional marriage is bad

Im simply explaining to you the fallacy in this logic.
You can still argue that Changing traditional marriage is bad, but please refrain from using the "destroying social norms" argument.
Several previous social norms have been altered...with very positive results....

Let me explain how most people discuss things Thordaddy.
They have a belief...
They give a reason for their belief
People either agree or disagree with their reason.
If the reasoning is flawed, people point out the flaws
The person with the belief goes back to the drawing board and finds another reason....and the cycle continues...

No one in the entire world is going to be able to discuss, debate, argue, or alter your belief.  We can only discuss, debate, argue, and/or alter your reasoning.  Thats why rational people(most people here) try and discuss reasoning...not the actual belief....
Stick with one reason at a time, and when you come up with a good will be length...

Now, one more condition, when you can give us a will have to accept the fact that we will attempt to debate that reasoning outside of the realms of the original argument....
i.e.  destroying social norms is bad...
I gave you an example of how it can be good...
This ceases to be a conversation about gay marriage(temporarily) and becomes a conversation about destroying social norms in general(temporarily).

This is how civilized, sane individual discuss things...
ok Thor?

Date: 2006/05/04 11:55:23, Link
Author: PuckSR
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 04 2006,10:13)
My suspicion is that the cultural ghettoization of gay men, i.e., the social unacceptability of male homosexuality, is more responsible for male homosexual promiscuity than anything about male homosexuality itself. I believe that if male homosexuality were as socially-acceptable as heterosexuality, there would be no significant difference in promiscuity between male homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I dont know if thats true at all....
I think we can find cultures in the past where homosexuality was acceptable, and I would definately say that they had a more active sexual lifestyle than heterosexual males

I agree with the wide discrepancy in male libido, but in my general experience males are the more active of the two sexes.  The simple thought is that since men normally possess a greater libido than women, that men who engage in sexual activity with other men will have a greater rate of sexual success.

Once last thing, as far as the wide discrepancy is concerned...remember that the physical strength of males also varies greatly...but males are still considered the stronger sex.  Despite the fact that some females are stronger than some males.

Date: 2006/05/04 14:52:58, Link
Author: PuckSR
Does anyone really see any value in engaging with a raving bigoted homophobic hypocrite like Thordaddy, or a quiet conniving one like GoP?

If Thordaddy was a raving bigoted homophobic hypocrite...I would find it much more acceptable....

Thordaddy is a thick-skulled, dishonest, lying, BSing, self-righteous ass.....
And I got that definition directly from Thordaddy himself :p

Being bigoted is ok....i may not agree with it...but it is his right
Being homophobic is ok....may not agree with it....but it is his right
We are all hypocritical at times....

But when he purposefully ignores people's posts that invalidate his argument....
I swear, I think the guy just scans through the posts looking for something to challenge....without reading at all

Date: 2006/05/04 18:07:25, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy kinda reminds me of a child....

I, for one, am done talking to him....
Why would you argue with a child...
If the child asks a question...feel free to answer it...
but if the child cannot or rather refuses to listen to the answer
The best thing is to just ignore the child....
He will probably throw a fit...but in the end he will calm down

Date: 2006/05/04 18:12:03, Link
Author: PuckSR
The fact that you have posted this same topic 5 times clearly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

BS is warm...and therefore subject to thermodynamic laws...
You are actually reproducing BS(entropy)  and therefore increasing BS(entropy)...

You need to stop...these laws exist for a reason...and you might piss God off by constantly breaking them....

Date: 2006/05/04 18:24:33, Link
Author: PuckSR
I read half of the book....that was about all i could tolerate...

If you havent noticed, Im a fairly obsessive guy(when I start something I finish it).  

To sum it up....
Garbage poured on top of an interesting idea.
The whole "alternative religion" stuff is interesting, but not originally Brown's work.  
The 'original' portion is only mildly entertaining...

The truly annoying part was the usage of Opus Dei...
Opus Dei is a real organization, and it seems as if Dan Brown attempted to create a controversy by using their name and then demonizing them....

He was already writing a book about Christian would think he wouldnt need to libel a real religious organization to get even more attention...

Like everyone else has said....
read the books that Dan Brown lifted the background from...
maybe catch the movie....
It just isnt a horribly interesting book....especially if you already doubt the accuracy of religious beliefs....

Date: 2006/05/04 18:29:54, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well thor....

Im going to help you out a little....
Reread my posts.....carefully....
Then, maybe, you will be able to see why i havent presented an argument "in favor" of gay marriage

Then....go find a dictionary...ask your neighbors...since I know you do not own one.
Look up the world every definition...
Then flip over and look up the tomato....
Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?
Most people think a tomato is a vegetable...does that make it a vegetable?

Date: 2006/05/04 19:12:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
Of course I know what Im talking about...
You think humans age...
but thats ridiculous...we dont age...we are merely changing..
I dont know why conservatives like you insist on calling it aging.

Aging means that you develop extra limbs...but that obviously doesnt happen

How dare you question my capacity for cognation

Date: 2006/05/04 19:15:30, Link
Author: PuckSR
Again, I ask, what in my definition violated your sensitivities?

Hmmm....why dont you tell me how your definition and the actual definition are similiar?

Also....did you finally find my argument pro gay marriage back in my previous posts..????

Date: 2006/05/05 07:24:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
actually, Thordaddy has introduced another problem by asking about aging....

Aging is different that "getting older".  Aging means that you are also showing signs of age.  
If we were asking about aging...I would argue that aging cannot occur at "conception".  Depending on your strict intpretation of the definition...
Aging either begins occuring when a fetuses cells first begin replacing themselves...
Or it occurs in your 20s, when your body/mind quit growing and begin deteriorating....

Thordaddy...seriously...this is an even worse question than your others...and it seems like all your trying to do is annoy everyone and make them talk to you.....

BTW....I will quit responding to your posts with inane jibberish when you start showing everyone the same courtesy....

Date: 2006/05/05 07:37:08, Link
Author: PuckSR
Honestly....I find Thordaddy interesting...
Let me explain...I have never, in my life(and i live in the bible belt) met someone who is so incapable of critical thinking.

Its not just thick-headedness.  He honestly lacks the ability to think.  How else can you account for his rants???

Ive seen trolls on the net too...but most of them lack the dedication.  They also normally go all over the place...but Thor has stayed in one place....

Thor is teaching me how stupid a human being can actually be....
Dont try to reason with him...or question his logic.  These concepts completely evade him.
He has a belief, supported by several reasons.  They exist as a single absolute entity.  It is impossible to alter someone's belief.  You can normally alter their reasoning though...but Thor treats them as one and the same.  His reasons are as sacred as his beliefs.  Just like a fundamentalist Christian, he insulates himself by merging belief and the reasoning for the belief.

Thor...just like his namesake....has oxen.  You can kill them, you can eat their meat.  You can leave only the bones...but they will always magically return to their full state.  It doesnt make any sense...but in his head...he is invincible....

Date: 2006/05/05 13:57:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy.....Im going to say something...
Im going to be very clear....
I dont want you getting confused...its also going to be very that you take the time to read it

Your logical argument is IRRELEVANT to the matter at hand which is whether society should sanction gay "marriage."  You say it should, but you don't say why?

Society should sanction GAY MARRIAGE if society wants to sanction GAY MARRIAGE.  If the general populace agrees that GAY MARRIAGE is ACCEPTABLE....then GAY MARRIAGE WILL EXIST.

I put up 6 rationales for opposing the state sanctioning of gay "marriages" and only Eldin had the cajones to respond to each one even though his responses, no doubt, left him more puzzled than before about his own belief system.

The only "problem" Eldin had was trying to reason with you....

You bumbling moron....
Every reason you listed is either irrevelant or wrong...
Some of them arent even reasons....#5 was just a lame excuse.....

Date: 2006/05/05 14:14:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
Did I advocate gay marriage here? I can't remember. I don't remember advocating it any more than I advocate interracial marriage. I've never thought much about making a clear argument for it since it's so senseless to continue discriminating against gay couples, just as it was senseless in the 20th century to discriminate against interracial couples.

The argument for gay marriage as similiar to interracial marriage is flawed.....
The entire issue of interracial marriage was based around equality....
The argument against interracial marriage is that somehow blacks weren't equal to whites.  

A white man could marry a white woman, but a black man couldnt marry a white woman....because they didnt consider a black man as the same as a white man.....

The arguments against gay marriage:
1.  Tradition
2.  Morality
3.  Unneccesary

Gay marriage has more in common with polygamy...rather than interracial marriage...

Also someone earlier made a statement about the lack of a desire for polygamy.  This would be wrong.  Several religions advocate polygamy.  It is actually even more offensive to deny the rights of polygamists since it has a rich tradition...and is a religiously justified position to many.
It has fewer arguments against it, and it is a religious right to many.  Just not are we discriminating against the polygamists rights to equality, we are discriminating against their religious beliefs.....
I would say that we need to legalize polygamy before we legalize gay marriage.

It would be similiar to the civil rights movement of the 60's fighting for african-american rights...but ignoring civil rights violations against Native Americans....

Date: 2006/05/05 14:22:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
So we agree that there is nothing scientific about starting the counting of aging at birth?

There also isnt anything scientific about the age requirements for US reps, Senators, and the President....

Science is applicable when the law is scientific.....
Otherwise it is completely arbitrary...
It isnt even based on the bible or the 10 commandments....

Date: 2006/05/05 19:33:59, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok wait....
Ignoring the psycho clown troll...
What was crap about my argument???

Do you honestly think it is fair to take away the religious and traditional rights of polygamy from mormons and muslims?

Agreed...not all factions of either faith fully promote polygamy...but it is a fact of both religions that several factions do support....

Are you honestly saying that we should allow gay marriage but not polygamy?

Date: 2006/05/05 19:39:02, Link
Author: PuckSR
wow...that was a huge rip on arbitrary...
Maybe i used the wrong word...but i was using it in comparison to scientific....

The definition and intpretation of most laws is at least *somewhat* subjective.....
Im not saying that most laws are just pulled out of a hat...but that the rationale behind most laws....not scientific...

Sorry if using the word arbitrary pissed you off....I didnt mean to...
If i get a chance...I will find a better word...but in the meantime...calm down

Date: 2006/05/06 10:27:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
Polygamy is a problem in a way that gay marriage isn't. That is, who would have "next-of-kin" rights? Straight-away, that would have to have a seperate document, thus canceling the "specialness" of a monogamous marriage.

That doesnt seem like a very good argument against polygamy.
Next-of-kin rights could easily be distributed.
i.e.  If a mother dies....who has next of kin rights?
one of her sons....or all of her children?

Gay marriage would also inherit difficulties with children...a gay married couple that had children would definately have no more than a single biological parent.  The biological parentage of the child would become important in custody disputes.  If one of the parents adopted the child, while the other is the biological and legal parent...custody would almost definately reside with the biological parent.  This is very different than a majority of heterosexual marriages where both parents are biological parents...and therefore given equal consideration at a custody dispute.

Date: 2006/05/06 16:15:27, Link
Author: PuckSR
If marriage is confined to 2 people then marriage rights are easy to bestow. That would be a problem if the marriage is a whole bunch of people.

But as i stated previously...the arguments for the difficulty of implementation can also be made for gay marriage....
The complication of something shouldnt be considered when disputing the merit of it from a civil liberties perspective.

Im sure ending slavery caused some complication too....
But that really shouldnt be a reason to keep slavery

Date: 2006/05/07 06:19:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well...the way i see it we either have two options

#1  Realize that as BWE said, "Life isnt fair"...and unless the unfairness violates someone's well-being or unneccesarily dehumanizes them...we ignore it as long as fixing it would be an inconvenience....

#2  We attempt at every oppurtunity to make life and the world we live in more fair.  This, unfortunately, has the side of effect of being a lot of trouble.

I understand that Thordaddy is a raging lunatic...
but why exactly are we making such a big deal about granting certain people in our society a "right" that has never existed before?
Gay marriage isn't going to allow homosexuals to live more productive or fulfilling lives.
Gay marriage isnt going to end discrimination
One argument that could be made against this line of reasoning is that women's suffrage was a "new" right as well.  However, women had never been treated like equals.  There have been societies that have treated homosexuals as equals...even encouraged homosexual activity...but gay marriage has never been an act equivalent to heterosexual marriage....even when it did exist it was more of a novelty or joke than an actual life partnership.

Marriage may even be considered an outdated concept that was much more useful in times when women were not the equal of men.  If this is the case, then why are we trying to expand on such a clearly biased institution?

It seems that the only useful purpose that marriage serves any longer is for the legal/structural purposes of family.  I honestly believe that this is the motivation for gay marriage as well.  The only problem is that homosexual couples have very different family/child issues than heterosexual couples.

Marriage at one time was the ultimate sign of commitment in a relationship...but with the ease and popularity of the really has lost a lot of its resolve in the commitement category.

Date: 2006/05/07 11:52:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
Im arguing that gay marriage is an entirely new "right"...
it has never existed before....
It isnt like equality before the law for all ethnic groups...that had existed before...our society just didnt allow it....
The greeks, who openly encouraged homosexual relationships, did not have a standard practice of gay marriage.
The reason?
Probably because it was completely unneccesary.
Homosexual relationships were not about "families"...actually that was considered one of the benefits of a homosexual relationship
They also didnt have to worry about the inequality of their partner....

Date: 2006/05/07 12:00:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
Massive, powerful, wealthy religious organizations have a 'fundamental human right' not to be criticized?

Im sorry, but what?
How are they being criticized????

They are pissed off because an author took liberties with facts, and then arranged them in such a way as to be libelous towards the catholic church and Opus Dei....

Then, after all of this, the author of the book still refuses to publically acknowledge that the characterization of the catholic church and Opus Dei are completely fictitious....

Dan Brown keeps trying to claim that his book is a fictional story based on facts.  I have a friend who is a member of Opus Dei...and he has gotten more grief since that book came out than you can imagine.  People honestly believe that Opus Dei is a religious described in the book

Date: 2006/05/08 12:56:31, Link
Author: PuckSR
That argument could be put forth for ANY and ALL consensual adult relationships whether they be bigamist, polygamist, incestual or bestial in nature.  So why STOP with gay "marriage?"  

Stop yourself thordaddy....
While bigamy and polygamy are comparable....

incest and bestiality are not....
They are illegal because they endanger....
Incest endangers the offspring...
bestiality endangers the animal...
animals cannot consent...and sexual relationships with animals are a form of animal cruelty....

To advocate for traditional marriage is to be a "bigot?"  

Aye...there's the rub....

Your advocating for "traditional marriage"......
I love stories....let me try one out...
a householder went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

The moral of this story?
Judge actions on their individual merit, and not on their comparitive merit.
Do not compare gay and straight marriage....or claim that gay marriage cheapens straight marriage
If you believe that gay marriage is wrong...then tell us why it is wrong....
But dont tell us that it is wrong because it undermines straight marriage...
It is either wrong or right...and the argument for/against it should be able to stand without mention of traditional forms of marriage....

Date: 2006/05/08 13:00:05, Link
Author: PuckSR
No... i think they are just pissed because people actually believe that fiction is true...

I dont care what organization you belong has to be annoying when someone assumes that a falsehood is truth

Date: 2006/05/08 13:19:16, Link
Author: PuckSR
I was just sitting here thinking....
Something occured to me...

Would it make the IDists/Creationists happy if we removed biology from the required education at schools?

Go with me here....
Sex education is voluntary at some schools...
You either take a sex-ed class...or you go take a "dissect animals sexual organs" class...

Maybe we could do the same thing for the religious...
Offer a "theological biology" class.....
They could teach the differing opinions of different religions as to the origins of life....
I think it would be fun to go one step further and teach a comparitive religions class....

I know this is old hat...and has been mentioned a million times before...but i suddenly realized something today...

AFDave is correct.
Science is only accurate from the scientific perspective...
If you deny the scientific perspective....which is very easy to do.... science is just a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash.
I think if a parent believes that the scientific method is erroneous, that they should be able to keep their children from attending science classes.
This, however, would mean that they cannot attend any science classes...and their degrees for graduation would reflect this fact.
Im sure that if ID/Creationism is so popular, they will easily find employement and higher education oppurtunities.
I just question AFDave's denial of only one aspect of scientific understanding....

He doesnt believe in evolution...but he believes that the stars are actually giant balls of gas with massive fusion reactions occuring...
We have so little evidence to support this viewpoint it is laughable...yet we teach kids this stuff in science class everyday.
We have never visited the sun....
We have definately never visited the stars...
The inside of the sun could be jello, and the stars could just be optical illusions for all we know...
Why allow the teaching of "fusion reaction stars"?
AFDave...please explain....will you join me in my resistance of teaching star theory?

Date: 2006/05/08 15:09:24, Link
Author: PuckSR
You want to argue in favor of gay "marriage" using "equal rights" and tolerance as your basis while you argue AGAINST other forms of adult unions using an inexplicable appeal to that part of traditional marriage you find useful.

You bumbling moron.....
I am against gay marriage....
Your too #### dense to even bother reading...

Unlike you...I argue with rational and logical arguments...
You just randomly throw together junk and hope that some of it sticks...
Because you obviously dont have any rational argument...and your basing your entire "belief" off of some pre-existing moral imperative....

How does two sisters getting "married" endanger the "offspring?"  You weren't referring to adopted "offspring" were you?

And since when do animals claim "rights" that usurp that of its owner?  And who said that "sexual" contact was a requirement for the sanctioning of marriage?  Or, is this another tradition you find relevant when it is convenient to do so?

The example of the two sisters is a mistake...first you would have to allow gay marriage before you could allow gay incestual marriage....

You may be right in your argument in favor of incestual marriage...but wait, isnt incest a crime?....

The bestiality one still bothers me though....
Marriage is a legal status...and by allowing bestial would be granting a human legal status to the animal....
I think we can agree that most laws have a tendency to only affect humans....and a marriage allowed to an animal would raise the rights of that animal....

Do you know why you didnt know I was against gay marriage?
Because i have disputed several of your arguments against gay marriage?
Does that strike you as odd?
That someone would argue with you while holding the same position?
Maybe you should learn to seperate your personal beliefs from your general reasoning before you make any more posts?

Date: 2006/05/08 15:16:31, Link
Author: PuckSR
actually i think they still do that.....

Date: 2006/05/08 18:11:24, Link
Author: PuckSR
But, I'm not arguing in favor of "incestual marriage."  I'm saying that by abolishing gender as a criteria for marriage then there is NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING ALL CRITERIA FOR MARRIAGE if one is arguing from an "equal rights" and tolerance basis UNLESS one is basing his argument on an inexplicable appeal to a "pre-existing moral imperative."

NO THORDADDY....this is wrong.....
This is the exact same argument that was used against interracial marriage....
Just because you do not feel that a particular criteria is unneccesary...that doesnt mean you can discard all criteria.

When the USA decided that age shouldnt be a requirement for employement.....
they didnt throw out all criteria for employement...
They simply made it illegal to actively discriminate against someone because of their age....

Polygamy and gay marriage would be seen more along these analog lines:
If you determine that age isnt a legal criteria for should also throw out gender, ethnicity, and non-interfering physical handicap...

****Defining words****
In the future thordaddy...please try to use the actual definition of a word....rather than your personal interpretation....
A tomato is still a matter how much you like thinking of it as a vegetable...

a couple examples

Date: 2006/05/08 20:56:36, Link
Author: PuckSR
What stands out almost immediately?  Are not the legitimate and illegitimate defining features of marriage BACKWARDS?

Yes... and now we are considering gay "marriage."  So those that argued that interracial marriage would lead to gay "marriage" were prescient.

First, sanctioning of interracial marriage is a fact of reality while gay marriage is not.

interracial marriage illegitimized race as a rationale for sanctioning marriage while gay "marriage" is trying to illegitimize gender as a criteria. i confused?
Am i misreading...or did Thordumbass just argue against interracial marriage?
From what i can read his only reason to support interracial marriage is that it has already occurred?
My goodness, I thought he might have a brain squirrelled away in there somewhere....I didnt realize he didnt approve of interracial marriage.....

You can call us all liberals all you want Thor...if supporting interracial marriage is a liberal issue...then i will proudly proclaim that I am a liberal

Date: 2006/05/09 18:16:34, Link
Author: PuckSR
I was under the impression that marriage us so exhalted in society because it has been demonstrated to be the best support for a family. The reason we ask for gay marriage but still want to see marriage as important is that this would then allow practically everyone in society to start a family, legalizing polygamy, incest or any other kind of marriage would have no positive effects but some negative effects.

I absolutely agree....traditionally this has been the goal of marriage....
I didnt want to say this....Im already afraid you will mistake me for some religious whack-job....
Polygamy is actually an excellent "family" scenario that is reciprocated throughout the animal kingdom.  

Going back to the Ancient Greeks....
While they were busy having all sorts of homosexual relationships...they were still getting married to women for the purposes of producing offspring.

I understand that current technology and the popularity of adoption have changed the landscape a bit....
But it still doesnt make much sense to have a gay marriage to raise a child....
Wouldnt it be entirely more productive for a gay male couple and lesbian couple to raise children together?
The children would be "their own" and the parenting responsibilities could easily be distributed amongst the 4 parents...

I will fully endorse homosexual cross-gender pairing marriages.  

I actually believe that gay marriage is cruel...
The idea that two people who love each other should be able to lock each other into a legally binding agreement requiring that they continue to be together seems barbaric.
It makes sense in the context of a family, to provide some extra incentive for raising the children together....but it doesnt make any sense when only one partner at most is technically the parent of the children.

Let people love each other and let them leave each other if they want....
We shouldnt force legal proceedings into loving relationships...or trivialize the relationships of those who do not wish to get married...
Want proof of all have been berating Thordaddy for not marrying the mother of his children...
I imagine the discrimination would be just as bad for a gay couple that didnt want to get married

Date: 2006/05/11 09:38:13, Link
Author: PuckSR
Origionally I was concerned about gay marriage because I wasn't sure what effect a gay couple, even with the best intentions, would have on the child. However several sociologists and psychologists have assured me it doesn't make any difference, and that a child brought up by a gay familiy is no more likely to be gay than one brought up by a straight family.

This was never really my concern,  even if the children were more likely to be homosexual, I would still argue for gay adoption rights.

Date: 2006/05/11 12:48:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
If a child is raised in Catholic family, would you say he/she has no more chance of being Catholic than one raised in a Muslim family?

Hey wait.....Thordaddy is right....
We should be able to take children away from religious extremists.
Think about it....if Fundamentalists were not allowed to raise children....the movement would die out almost entirely....

Good thought Thordaddy....make it mandatory to raise all children agnostically....and then allow them to decide on a religious belief later.

Date: 2006/05/11 21:31:12, Link
Author: PuckSR
Thordaddy....your logical reasoning sucks

Gay parents--->gay kids

So straight parents raise straight kids?
I thought 10% of the population was gay, and im sure a very small number of sexually mature adults were raised by gay parents.....

My personal theory on homosexuality, if you all do not mind me interjecting is as follows:
Homosexuality is a combination of both enviromental and genetic factors.
My sister is a lesbian.  She is an identical twin.  Her twin is not a lesbian, but "possibly" bisexual(no aversion to homosexuality).
I have another sister who is strictly heterosexual
I am strictly heterosexual, and so i my brother.

The twin scenario is interesting.
Twins with different sexual persuasion would tend to violate the genetic hypothesis...but at the same time would seem to reject "enviromental" hypothesis.
Several things fall into this category....
one of the twins also has severe psychological problems, while the other is perfectly healthy psychologically.
The girls were raised together and spend so much time together that they are frequently confused with the other. do we explain the homosexuality or psychological issues of these identical twins?
The best explanation seems to be that certain individuals are predisposed to certain things, but require an appropriate trigger.

An example:
Certain people have a high probability of lung cancer.  IF they become smoker's they increase their odds exponentially.  Other people have a very low probability of lung cancer.  Smoking does not alter their chances nearly as much as it alters the chances of those predisposed.

Homosexuality is not purely genetic, but it is not purely an enviromental reaction either.  It is best described as a combination of the two that still stronly relies on probability.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:29:20, Link
Author: PuckSR

I understand your "logic"....if someone was predisposed to homosexuality...then being raised by a homosexual would help them lean more in that direction.....

This logic, however "obvious", is flawed.

Children are raised all of the time by parents with unique traits.  The general rule is that the children are more tolerant of other people with these unique traits....they dont gain the trait themselves....

I have a friend, his mother was mentally unbalanced.  It made his young life very difficult, but none of the children in the family are mentally unstable.  They are all very tolerant of people with psychological problems, but they do not have any themselves.

We have already established, and many studies have been conducted, about the probability of a certain outcome with certain genetics.  Some genes seem to have a direct physical effect, while others seem to increase the probability of a development.

The only homosexual tendencies that children raised by gay parents seem to exhibit is a higher degree of openness about sexual persuasion.  A higher percentage of children do not wind up gay, but a higher percentage of children who are raised by homosexual families have a tendency to openly consider their sexual preferences.

We really need to resolve something right now though....
what does "homosexual" mean?

Is a homosexual someone who does not feel a sexual attraction to the opposite sex?
Is a homosexual someone who does feel a sexual attraction to the same sex?

It is this is a question to everyone....

Date: 2006/05/12 10:51:58, Link
Author: PuckSR seems that a few of you have completely missed the point of my question.....

im not actually discussing our current conception of "Gayness"...Im asking for a strict definition for arguments sake....

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same sex....but the question Im asking definition is a bisexual person a homosexual or not a homosexual.

Why do I ask??...genetics....
In some cultures "bisexuality" has been incredibly popular(perhaps 70% of the population practicing).
In our current culture, bisexuality is at a much lower rate...especially amongst men.

If homosexuality is defined as the attraction to the same sex...then what term is used for someone who is not attracted to the opposite sex?  Also...if the definition of homosexuality is simply attraction to the same the term bisexual truly necessary?

Date: 2006/05/12 14:33:38, Link
Author: PuckSR
So now our genetically-based sexual orientation changes involuntarily?  You don't even have a gentic basis for homosexuality and now you are claiming it transforms over the span of a lifetime.  Do you have a mechanism for this?

You should go tell the people at a mental ward to "quit being crazy"....most of them were sane at some point...then suddenly they became crazy.  Many of them "snapped" for no apparent reason....

I hear you asking "Let's create a platform from which to begin testing." Or "What are we using as our base assumptions." Or "Let's have a common definition from which to work." or something like.

And my point is, great. Lets. We can use that definition to begin to examine the circumstantial evidence for the "Gay" gene. But lets also establish what values we are assigning to the word. Because, as you point out in the culture bit there, the value has a lot to do with the definition. If Gay is "Bad" then any willingness to engage in gay sex is gay. If it is "Neutral", then being only attracted to the same sex is gay is why i was asking....

There are obviously several easily defined types of sexual preference.
heterosexual-->those who are only attracted to the opposite sex
bisexual-->those who find both sexes attractive
homosexual-->those who find only the same sex attractive

However, as you pointed out several people who consider themselves "homosexual" are also sexually attracted to the opposite sex.  Im simply arguing that we should have a clear definition...for the sake of lexical consideration.

A tomato is a fruit.  Several people consider the tomatoes that they eat vegetables.  This doesnt change the fact that a tomato is defined as a fruit.  Forgetting the social and political implications of a tomato being a vegetable(ask the Supreme Court)...a tomato is always defined as a fruit.

I understand that there are several shades of gray between being completely straight and completely gay....
Im just saying that a clearly defined term should exist when the distinction is painfully obvious.  If you are only attracted to the opposite sex....that is clearly different than being attracted to the same lets come up with useful terms to refer to these different types of sexual persuasion.

Date: 2006/05/12 16:20:27, Link
Author: PuckSR
ignore evolution, genetics, and everything about "gay rights" for a moment...

Im simply arguing that we need clear definitions, since clear boundaries obviously exist.  It doesnt make the person good/bar/ or anything....

Furthermore, isn't someone strictly heterosexual ONLY if he/she is attracted to the opposite sex PLUS have a corresponding AVERSION to sexual intimacy with the same sex?

I dont think "AVERSION" is necessary....just a lack of desire.
I have an aversion to cannabilism...I am not a cannable
I do not have an aversion to stealing candy....I still am not a thief...because I have no desire to steal candy....

Date: 2006/05/12 17:05:27, Link
Author: PuckSR
Then I would suggest you fall somewhere in that gray area with a leaning towards heterosexuality.

If you say you don't have a "desire" then aren't you saying you could have that desire, but don't at this point?

Are you kidding me???

Yes, in the future I might have a desire.  In the future, you might have a desire.  There is absolutely no way to predict the future.  Im arguing that you dont have to be extremely disgusted by homosexuality to be heterosexual.

I love thinking about doesnt normally involve normally involves 2+ women....
How can you be "disgusted" by the same sex?
You are the same sex as yourself.  Are you disgusted by yourself?

Okay, how's this sound: those people who have never, even slightly ever ever ever been remotely attracted to people of the same sex (not because they're culturally conditioned not to be, but because they really really really are not attracted to them)…those people can be heterosexual.

Then, those who have never, even slightly ever ever ever been remotely attracted to people of the opposite sex…those people can be homosexual.

Everyone else can be bisexual.

I like that...but i think we can add two additional categories that we currently lack terms for...

homosexuals who mildly enterain the thought of the opposite sex
heterosexuals who mildly entertain the thought of the same sex.
Bisexuality should most likely be exclusively for people who have an equal attraction to both sexes. you have 3 distinct lines...and two gray regions between those 3 distinct lines....
(actually we could add 1 more region....people who find no one sexually attractive....i just dont know where to draw it)
If we want to be pedantic about it, that's the only accurate definition for the terms.

But I bet you anything a significant fraction of humanity would object to being so classified. So I still think we're better grading on a curve.

A significant fraction of humanity objects to being classified as a primate...but that doesnt stop the classification from happening.

Date: 2006/05/12 18:28:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
Where do we place transgendered people on the scale? And how about this: there are m-to-f transgendered people who live as heterosexuals, i.e., they are attracted to and pair-bond with men. Slightly more common are m-to-f transgendered people who live as lesbians, i.e., they are attracted to and pair-bond with women. The same (or, I guess, opposite in some sense) is true for f-to-m transgendered people. So is someone who starts out life as a man, gets a sex-change operation, and dates women "straight" or "gay"? Do the terms even really have meaning in this context?

Completely meaningless.....when someone has a "sex change" operation they do not become the opposite sex...
This is just ridiculous.....

Transgendered doesnt enter into the conversation anyway because it is a sexual identity issue instead of a sexual partner preference issue like homosexuality.

Until a female-to-male transexual grows testicles and a reproductive system...all you have is a male with mutilated genitalia and hormone injections....

And then there are people who aren't technically transgendered, in that they haven't undergone sex reassignment surgery, but who live as the opposite sex they were born with. There's the same straight/gay/male/female Cartesian plane with these people, as well. And then there are transvestites (who are often straight men who like dressing up as women, but nevertheless are attracted to women). Then there are hermaphrodites, the legendary "she-males," drag queens, drag kings, Asian lady-boys, etc. A giant continuum of sexual preferences, predilections, affinities, orientations, and identities. (I can picture Thordaddy retching and making a dash for the head about now.)

I love the idea of physically upsetting thordaddy....
but once again...these are meaningless to the conversation.
If you were born with XX chromosomes your a female
If you were born with XY chromosomes your a male
if you were born with a strange chromosomal anomaly...then your a freak...and exempt from all categories....
And yes...I can exempt freaks from all categories...
We dont consider eye colors to be green,brown, blue, and cyclopia...because cyclopia is an anomaly that has occured on rare occasions

If your genetically a female....and you are only attracted to other females....your a matter what clothing you wear...or what you do to your vagina...or whatever...
If some of those females want to identify themselves as "males"...fine...a tomato is still technically a fruit...even if you want to call it a vegetable

Date: 2006/05/12 23:57:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well, what are we talking about here? Whether there's a "genetic" foundation for sexual orientation? Thordaddy's canard about a "gay gene" proving goddidit? Are we still beating the "gay marriage" horse to death with a shovel? Trying to slot all of humanity into one of three sexual categories?

Until you've decided on a context, you can't say what is, and what isn't, important in gender definitions.

No...but we can clearly define the variation between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
My only argument it is that currently too much gray area lies between the two...and too much confusion over the actual defining makes conversation difficult.

BWE might define a homosexual as someone who has an interest in same-sex...Thor might define it as someone who is sexually repulsed by the opposite sex...
It just makes for a rather difficult conversation when we are all throwing around very different, very vague terms...

The terms...perhaps not the people...are easily definable...

I personally think that the "level" of homo/hetero sexuality is important.  Obviously a certain percentage of the population is completely predestined to be homosexual.  They have a complete aversion to heterosexual relationships....and they generally tend to maintain the same margin of popularity in most societies...(somewhere below 10%)....
A certain percentage of the population is "open" to the idea of homosexuality....but it is not a necessity of their existence.  This is why the actual level of homosexual activities changes depending on the social acceptance of the act.
Another portion of the population is completely straight.  This opposite end of the spectrum cannot be "enviromentally" conditioned to engage in same-sex activities.

This is what I was eventually getting to...but i felt that strictly defining the different levels of sexual preference was important to any general conversation...
I wasnt discussing it just to make a point....

Date: 2006/05/13 10:17:43, Link
Author: PuckSR
Suicide bombers kill/wound as many as possible, they don’t know who the victims are, they don’t care whether the victims have done anything wrong (perceived or real), and in their indiscrete targeting even kill people of their own creed.

Conversely, in the United States there have been only two abortion doctors murdered (AFAIK) and in both cases the murderer knew exactly who he was killing, perceived the target as a serial murderer of innocent children, and didn’t kill anyone else.

Actually, if Dave had bothered to study Islam at all...he would realize that this is irresponsibly false.  Killing innocent people is more taboo for Muslims than Christians.

They target only those people that they believe are their enemy.  The current excuse being bandied about for suicide bombing(the indiscriminate kind) is that they are attacking democracies.  Democracies are representive govts, and therefore every citizen is responsible for the actions of their govt.

If you ignore the Israel bombings, most "Islamic Fundamentalist" attacks are carefully designed to be targeted only at those who are not innocent.

9/11...they could have crashed the planes in ways that would have caused a higher body count of innocents...but they were attempting to attack "greed" so they flew the planes into financial buildings and govt buildings.

Many of the bombings in Iraq are specifically aimed at either Americans or those working with Americans...they are not indiscriminantly killing people.

The USS Cole was a military not an indiscriminate attack

This "Christian" country bombed the #### out of civilians during WWII.  We destroyed many cities in japan.  It would be truly hypocritical for us to complain about collateral damages.

The KKK is a Christian organization that regularly has and still does practice terrorism, with an extremely racist viewpoint.
The entire white supremacy movement is normally based strongly around Christianity....
The entire "group" of Christian hate is known as the Christian Identity Movement....

So I guess Christians do indiscriminantly murder....
Between 1994-2004 there were 92 different attempted bombings of abortion clinics....bombings are indiscriminate
there were also 20 attempted murders(some successful).

Whenever you hear someone discussing how Islamic Terrorists indiscriminantly kill any westerner/Christian...I will guarantee they dont know what the #### they are talking about.

Some extremists are worse than others...but they would all be violating their religious teachings if they began killing indiscriminantly

Date: 2006/05/13 10:21:40, Link
Author: PuckSR
Yes, no one can truly say that they've joined the Club here until Dumbo's Man has banned you. Extra points if he also insults you. Get to work.

Do I get even more bonus points if I was banned by both Dembski and DaveTard....and if they both posted to announce my ban?

Date: 2006/05/13 10:52:54, Link
Author: PuckSR
(j) Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

Sorry to jump in so late...and someone please stop me if this has already been covered....but about your "hypothesis".

Do you believe that Jesus is God?  
Therefore Jesus is not distinct from God?
God just popped down to Earth for a bit and walked around?

Ive noticed your "distaste" for Catholics....but in all of my study of Christian theology I have yet to find any good remedy for the whole Catholic Trinity issue.  You seem to be please explain yourself...

Are you a Sabellianist and a Fundamentalist?
Just one or the other?

I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

Im going to jump in and explain the line of reasoning to you.
God allows incest, then He stops the practice.
You cannot claim that he changed his opinion of the practice, and you cannot claim necessity.
Change of opinion would be impossible for an omniscient God
Even Moses was the product of incest...even though the necessity was obviously long gone...
Incest is not condemned until Deuteronomy naturally must argue that God allowed it to continued until it presented a danger in the form of birth defects.
This is flawed...since that would argue marriages without children would be acceptable between close relatives.
You countered(predictably) that marriage is for the purpose of "having children".  
This is both pure speculation and totally false.  Marriage, at worst, is for "raising children".
Jewish law used to require brothers to marry the widows of their brethren....
If no brothers(of the husband) existed, and the woman's brother wished to marry her for the purposes of raising the children, and her brother had a vasectomy...would it be acceptable?
It would be for the good of children....which is acceptable
It would be void of any "birth defects"...which is good
The brother and sister could still have regular intercourse...which the bible promotes.

The point of all of this is to present you with an example of an obvious contradiction of the bible.  You can claim that dinosaur bones are the result of the 'flood' and we can argue until we are all blue in the face.  You cannot dance around this issue though.  Either God changed his mind, forget to tell the people soon enough after necessity, or doesnt care.  None of these possible scenarios are acceptable to your theology.

This is different than asking if God could create a rock so heavy that he couldnt lift it.  That is just a logical trap.  This is an actual contradiction between the bible and your perceived faith.
If you would like to discuss a contradiction that doesnt involve hypothetical situations...I suggest you start addressing the Trinity question earlier.

Date: 2006/05/13 10:59:14, Link
Author: PuckSR
Dembski banned be about 1.5 years ago.....
When Dave took over the blog....I was somehow unbanned.
So I was rebanned.

When Dembski banned me Dave went so far as to try and find "evil" facts about me from the net....such as my alternative sexual interests......
I think that counts as insulting...especially since he posted links to other websites to demonstrate my moral inferiority.

Dave actually used to behave when Dembski was around...even though I found his definition of agnostic to be mildly annoying.
The real nutjob used to be Josh Bozeman.  Thordaddy may be his brother.  Every time I talked to him I wound up calling him an idiot.  Not because of his beliefs...but because he was an idiot.  He couldnt read or comprehend other people's posts.  He didnt just ignore them because they ran counter to his beliefs...he honestly seemed to lack the facilities necessary to understand the posts.  Just like Thor

Date: 2006/05/13 14:56:37, Link
Author: PuckSR
You seem to be making arguments where absolutely none are necessary.

I defined homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual...and then allowed for gray areas between the categories....
The purpose of the discussion is to hypothetically discuss the reason for the massive variation in sexual preference.

As far as "gender identity" issues....I wish you would just leave it out of the conversation.  It truly isnt important to the discussion.  If you started life as a male...and found yourself attracted to other you had a sex change were still born a gay male and raised to be a gay male.  The fact that you later had 'sexual reassignment surgery' will have absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the genetic and enviromental factors that lead to your specific sexual preferences.
If I have "species reassignment surgery" we dont get to all sit around and figure out how a monkey was born from a human.

Also....actual sexual activity is unimportant to our conversation.  Our conversation is about sexual preferences.  If you have a sexual attraction to doesnt matter if you act on it.  This would be like arguing that we can only determine a characteristic as "beautiful" when we can find people who have had sexual relations with someone with these characteristics.

But I think even here you're not going to be able to draw hard and fast distinctions. Let's look at schizophrenia for a moment. It's thought that schizophrenia has a genetic component. However, someone who is genetically predisposed to schizophrenia is not guaranteed to end up mentally ill.

True....but a certain percentage of those who have the "chance"  of being schizophrenic are guaranteed to wind up that way.  Some of it could be considered enviromental...but I would be willing to bet that there are also a number of traits that can assist in counteracting the original "anomally".

For example....someone who is bisexual might have a strong desire for social approval.  The desire for social approval may force his bisexuality into remission.

Date: 2006/05/13 15:03:14, Link
Author: PuckSR
I believe that certain skills are necessary for debate...but these are not debates...

A debate generally occurs when some common ground can be agreed upon....
An example might be a debate between abiotic and biotic oil.
They both agree that oil exists, they both agree that the others idea is at least logical.  

These conversations are more of a theological/philosophical clash.  There exists no common ground.
AFDave's most important evidence is the Bible
Our least important evidence is the Bible

I will leave you with a quote...actually two quotes...and I will let you all guess as to the authorship....

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Date: 2006/05/14 08:15:25, Link
Author: PuckSR
Lastly, if one is to argue that there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality that can be triggered by one's environment then how does this square with the incredulous statistics claiming that children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to be homosexual than those raised by a mother and a father?

This is a stupid comment....because you have ignored everything that has been said.  The "environment" that could create homosexuality....doesnt necessarily mean that it is a homosexual environment.  A schizophrenic-potential child is not more likely to become schizophrenic if someone in his household is schizophrenic....that doesnt even make logical sense....

Your concept of gay parents producing gay children relies entirely on proposition that homosexuality is non-genetic, lifestyle choice.  Like fat kids....they learn to be fat from their parents and then they are fat.  We are arguing that almost every study conducted on this topic has shown that homosexuality is not a "learned" trait.  Some people will have homosexual tendencies even if they have never heard of homosexuality in their lives.  Children raised by homosexuals show an equal predisposition towards homosexuality.

BTW...this is where it becomes important to have clear definitions.  Children raised by homosexuals have a lesser chance of having an aversion to homosexual tendencies...but an equal chance of having a same-sex attraction.
So they are not strictly homosexual...but might be classified as bi-curious heterosexuals.

The openness towards homosexuality is most likely influenced by their parents....but actually being homosexual is strictly outside the control of the parents.

Date: 2006/05/14 12:02:46, Link
Author: PuckSR
AFDave....a question....
Do you want people to admit that the teleological argument is a strong indication of a designer?
Do you want us to admit that the teleological argument is a proof of God?

Everyone else?
Are you trying to completely debunk the teleological argument?
Are you trying to argue that the teleological argument is insufficient for scientific purposes?

BTW...the teleological argument is the classical "fine-tuned" universe argument...or simply ID(philosophy)

Date: 2006/05/14 17:38:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
Oh come on UnMark....
all AFDave needs to refute your arguments is a basic understanding of philosophy...and perhaps some light googling.

Heck...i will do it for him
1.  Omnipotence-all powerful...can god create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?  This is simply a contradictory statement.  This would be like asking...can God run faster than God?  Also given the fact that God is all-powerful he would be able to create a rock so heavy he couldnt lift it and at the same time be able to lift it.
2.  Free-will....this is more than just an issue of an omniscient God...basically just mention anything that has to do with free-will and determinism.  There are several good arguments arguing for free will and determinism...the most common is that just because i can predict your action doesnt mean that your action was without choice.  It was just predictable...
Besides....God could be all-knowing simply because He exists outside of time.  So the argument against omniscience is even less applicable to God
3.  Necessary evil...perhaps the most discussed theological debate.  The arguments range from "all pain is either necessary or an illusion" to the argument that death, pain, and suffering are not inherently evil.

Ok...that will save us some time.....

Date: 2006/05/14 17:45:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
simple question...instant ban

DaveScot are you an agnostic or a theist/deist?
You keep saying your agnostic...but yet you have also said you believe in some form of God...
You do realize that an agnostic has no opinion on any religious seem to have no particular persuasion within the Judeo-Christian belief structure.
Maybe you should change your claim to agnosticism?


Date: 2006/05/14 20:53:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
I’m not sure that “bigot” is any worse than “fundamentalist”

bigot-A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

fundamentalist-a person who believes in the interpretation of every word of sacred texts as literal truth

how in the #### are those two even similiar "attacks"...
especially since Dembski is a fundamentalist....and i believe he has claimed to be one on many occasions?
Its like calling someone gay....
Its an insult to a heterosexual....
but it is simply an accurate description for a homosexual...
( was the only example i could think of that is regularly used as an insult when the term does not apply to the individual)

Date: 2006/05/15 07:21:46, Link
Author: PuckSR
Dave, if your arguing for the "philosophical validity" of the teleological argument....then you may need to stop.  I, as well as most others, will admit that it is a valid argument.  I will even go as far as to say that the "fine-tuned" universe argument is my rational reason for believing in God.

You need to realize however that everyone you are talking with is arguing against the scientific validity of the argument.
In that case the teleological argument falls short of any sort of validity.  It makes a great deal of assumption, and while those assumptions may turn out to be true....they arent scientifically valid.

Do you understand the difference between validity and factual?  They are mutually exclusive concepts. never did explain your belief in the divinity of Jesus.  Im still a little curious about that.

Date: 2006/05/15 07:32:40, Link
Author: PuckSR
He can use the word creationist....even if he claims not to be...

He is arguing that censoring something is the equivalent of being intolerant of it....
What DS fails to realize is that it would only be intolerant if they were attempting to censor it everywhere....
They are only censoring it within certain realms...and that is all they wish to do...
I have yet to hear the NCSE claim that they want to irradicate creationism...or anything similiar to that....
Basically DS has been carefully redefining the word bigot so that he doesnt look like an idiot.

Date: 2006/05/15 07:40:53, Link
Author: PuckSR
"We want you to teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution"
"You mean Lamarkian evolution?"

You missed the best part of the joke....
IDists and Creationists constantly refer to Darwinian...
They dont realize that this distinction is unnecessary unless a competing theory of evolution exists(i.e. Lamarkian)...
another example would be Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics

Date: 2006/05/15 07:56:29, Link
Author: PuckSR
What if gayness is caused, not by a gene, but by the lack of a gene?

Im genetic biology is a lil rusty...but wouldnt that be exactly the same thing?

If a genetic sequence determined sexuality....then when that genetic sequence was in configuration A it would cause heterosexuality..if it was in configuration B it would cause homosexuality

Date: 2006/05/15 12:30:11, Link
Author: PuckSR
No...I meant to say mutually exclusive.....
The concepts of validity and factual are mutually exclusive concepts.  
A thing may be both valid and factual....

but validity is simply being logically valid
while factual is a comment on the actual truth of an idea.

They are independent criteria of a statement...but mutally exclusive concepts

Date: 2006/05/15 13:45:56, Link
Author: PuckSR attempt to save face was flawed.
Your right....i did use the wrong term...and independent is a more accurate term.

Date: 2006/05/15 18:06:33, Link
Author: PuckSR
No....Davey should obviously either become a Muslim or a Mormon.  They were both religions dictated directly by God himself.  They obviously have more validity than the New Testament of the bible which was thrown together by men.

Either that or maybe Buddhism/Hinduism, since almost everyone agrees that it is more spiritually fulfilling than Christianity...and it actually has an answer to the question of necessary evil

Date: 2006/05/17 12:56:18, Link
Author: PuckSR
I do believe that Jesus was in fact, the Creator in a human body.  Weird I know, but well supported I believe.  More on that as we progresss.

Well supported by what?
Jesus begging "his father" for an alternative to cruxifiction?
Jesus's constant reference to his "father"?
Jesus claiming he acted on behalf of his father?
Where do you find support for the insane position that Jesus was God in corporeal form?

Creationism explains everything MUCH better than Evolution does.  It explains designs in nature, it explains the human condition, it explains the fossil record, it explains coal beds and oil wells, it explains the races of mankind.  It explains dinosaurs and the ice age.  It has predicted many things including the ubiquitous gaps in the fossil record and support for the typological view of nature when the molecular data was examined.

What....sorry Im new.....
How does it explain a segmented fossil record?
How does it explain the ice age?
How does it explain dinosaurs?
I can see where your coming from on some of the other ones...but your really stretching the "book" to explain the former claims.

No.  As you will see if you stay with me, the Bible is in a class all by itself and is best explained as the sole, authoritative message of the Creator to mankind.

Really?  Then why does the New Testament have so many different authors?
If God really wanted to speak to mankind...wouldnt he have choosen just one man....perhaps "the mouthpiece of Allah"

I don't know many Buddhists and even fewer Hindus.  My sister tried Buddhism and later committed suicide.  I've read stories about Hudson Taylor in China and his encounters with Bhuddhism and they were not pretty.  Ditto for William Carey with Hinduism in India.  But that's about the extent of my experience with these religions.

Wow....3 people....
You may want to start telling the +1 billion people of the world who practice these 2 similiar religions that they are living a lie.....
And that they are miserable.....
They wont listen...because they are too happy....but you can try to tell them....


Date: 2006/05/18 06:01:36, Link
Author: PuckSR
I have given you three good evidences for the veracity of the Bible's claims about God, namely that Someone  Somewhere is a Brilliant Designer and Engineer, that Someone Somewhere probably set the parameters in the cosmos just right for life to exist, and that Someone Somewhere likely caused the universe to have a beginning because it looks like it did indeed have a beginning.  And I have shown you the plausibility of the concept of some Being "living outside of time and space."  Now if that is not evidence to you, then I cannot help that.  It is what it is and it's excellent evidence to me.  To all the lurkers out there, I trust you will have sense enough to read all my posts on this thread and make your own judgment.

And now we will look at the "Phenomenon of Morality in the Universe."  Why does this provide evidence of a Creator?

STOP...right there...and wait a moment....

You have not shown us evidence...
You have shown us reasoning....

Let me see if I can explain the difference to you...
You find a human body laying on the banks of a is beaten, bloody, and bruised.  You are a forensic investigator.

Evidence would be hair fibers from another person, skin cells under the fingernails.  It would be any "thing" that every single person presented with the same "thing" would come to the same conclusion if given the appropriate scientific knowledge to understand the "thing".

Assuming is quite different. Assuming would be the conclusion that the person was attacked and beaten.  Reasoning would be that since the body was found beaten in such an obscure location the person was most likely murdered.  Reasoning is a conclusion that might be shared by most people...but is not guaranteed to be shared by most people.

So before we go any have not provided us with evidence of anything.  The flagellum, for example, is not evidence of an Intelligent Designer.  The flagellum is an indicator of an Intelligent Designer.  Assumptions might lead one to believe that a flagellum is a reason for believing in an intelligent designer...but it isnt evidence of one.

An example of "evidence" would be dinosaur bones.  Without any difficulty almost anyone in the world would recognize that dinosaur bones are remains from a living animal.  The way the dinosaur lived, and the time at which the dinosaur lived might be considered assumptions...but fossils are evidence of dinosaurs.

Notice in your "evidence" that you use the words "likely", "probably", "looks like", and "plausibility".  These are not words used in evidence.  The are words used when making assumptions.  Quit lying and claiming that you have presented havent.
At best you have presented arguments...and weak ones at that. not mention "morality in the universe".  Morality does not exist on some universal scale.  When one planet destroys another planet...that is not immoral.  Morality is not even universal for animals.  Some animals kill their own young.  Some animals will readily commit cannabilism.  Morality is somewhat constant for 'social animals'....but this would tend to lend evidence towards evolution rather than creation.  An argument is that morality is the product of order for societal animals to survive they developed morality.  This natural morality would have evolved in different species at different times if it truly was beneficial.  If morality is the divine instruction of God...then either all animals would be moral or only humans.  He wouldnt have haphazardly handed out morality.

This is really about to become a painful event...your probably pulling your "universal morality" off of some website...which is even worse because it indicates that AFDave lacks original thinking skills....

Oh least this should be entertaining :(

Date: 2006/05/18 17:10:15, Link
Author: PuckSR
so BWE...your theory is that homosexuality is an issue of your sexual drive and oppurtunity??? its not a just means your open minded and horny as heck.....

Date: 2006/05/19 05:33:09, Link
Author: PuckSR
This person claims that my 'evidence' is not evidence at all ... he says evidence would be something like bits of hair or blood from a murder scene.  Where you go wrong is this.  The bits of hair and blood from the murder scene do the very same thing for the truth search that my evidence does.  They make it "look like" so-and-so committed the murder and the judge really can only say that "probably" this man is guilty--he really cannot say for sure and there have been plenty of people that were erroneously prosecuted, or the reverse--they were guilty, but got let off.

Hmm...but here is the problem AFDave.....
No one can dispute the fact that the hair and blood are from someone else.  If they DNA test the blood...and it matches or does not match a suspect....that still argue that the evidence was "faked".  The problem is that you never gave us "blood and  hair".  

Your not analyzing facts and coming to logical conclusions.  You havent even presented any facts.  You have wildly and irresponsibly made conclusions without even first presenting your "facts".

Your "proof" of God is a sad excuse even within the Theological realm.  Your arguments are neither original or creative.  The problem is that your also trying to pass off your philosophical proofs as "evidence".  Evidence would be if we found a section of DNA that was base-4 code for the ASCII characters that made up "Hello, my name is God and I am your Creator".  You can make perfectly sound arguments without evidence Dave.....but they are not arguments based on evidence.  Evidence is indisputable.

Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?"  Lewis dismantles this objection by noting that many times humans behave in a way contrary to our instincts, such as the man who dives into floodwaters to save a drowning man, or leaves a girl alone who he would like to have.

You really do not understand the concept of "evolved morality".  Diving into floodwaters to save a drowning man is our instinct.  People put themselves in harm's way all of the time to try to save someone.  It only runs counter to a "survival instinct"....and not to our general instincts.

All of the "morality" that all humans shared is also shared with dolphins, dogs, crows, and apes.  In some cases humans actually violate the "universal morality" more often than other animals.

It is our herd instinct evolved as a means of survival.  Good deeds and altruism helps the group survive....and that is why you feel good when you are charitable.  If you could step outside of your "little world" for a moment you would see that an old argument from C.S. Lewis is hardly persuasive in the face of new scientific studies.

Date: 2006/05/23 06:38:40, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok I missed the discussion over the weekend....
but i dont feel like I missed much....

AFDave is still trying to lecture...and not engaging in any form of intercourse....

He does hint at a truth, but completely missed the boat
Also, I have found that many evolutionary biologists really don't have much to say about theism at all--I guess they have never given it much thought

Now Dave is trying to make some implication that Evolutionary Biologists cannot be theists....but he does highlight an interesting point.
Many times these "discussions" turn into a Science vs. Theology debate.  Im not talking about Dave's Theology vs Science....many people on this forum are well-versed in the scientific realm.  Very few people on this forum are well-versed in the theological realm.  It makes for some of the most pointless discussions ever.

Now, Dave honestly doesnt care either way.
I could post a theological rebuttal of his position or a scientific rebuttal.  Dave is going to plow ahead.  I doubt he even cares if anyone listens to him.
Dave, your dishonest approach to intellectual discourse is embarassing.  I feel sorry for the religious denomination that claims you as a member.

Date: 2006/05/23 20:30:21, Link
Author: PuckSR
***Criteria for Marriage****

Throughout human history only ONE criteria has existed for marriage universally.  Marriage is designed to nurture families(either through forcing responsibility or legal protection and consideration).  Polygamy, incestual marriage, and gay marriage have all existed for the purposes of family.  The purpose may not always be "procreation"...but the well-being of the entire family unit has always been central to the theme of marriage.

1st argument
What about marriages that cannot produce offspring...and are legally incapable of adoption....
They probably shouldnt get married....their motivation is almost entirely "social pressure" and monetary.

2nd argument..
Should we allow two gay brothers to marry each other? or whatever other random scenario thordaddy can envision?

The validity of incestual marriage is completely irrelevant to the conversation...and I will address this concern later. the "univeral" criteria for marriage seems to be family.  Even the Christians would agree with me on this point.  Race, number, sex, age, degrees of ancesteral seperation, etc...are all arbitrary criteria that depend completely on the society.
So...Thordaddy quit referring to the "criteria" for just sound like an idiot.

Arguments against polygamy parallel arguments against homosexual marriage.  They mostly involve the practical implication of new laws...and cultural standards.  If one is allowed then the other should automatically be allowed...

Arguments against incest mostly involve morality.  Our culture condems incest...and we have absolutely no reason to break this precedent.

So...should two brothers who want to raise children be allowed to marry?
This marriage first violates our incestual "clause"...
Even if the guarantee against incest was in place...there would be absolutely no reason to legally "force" the two brothers to be mutually responsible for children.  If they were raising younger siblings their family responsibility would already be implied.

If you claim, and Thordaddy will, that I am now implying that "romantic" relations must be a criteria for marriage...then he is absolutely correct.  

Thordaddy you sit on a delicate fence.
If you claim that only families that can procreate should be allowed to exclude sterile couples from the mix
If you claim that families that wish to raise children should be allowed to marry...then we get all of your crazy hypotheticals....
If we begin to insert your laundry list of marriage "criteria" then we ban interracial marriage.

The best compromise of these positions would seem to be that any couple that is "romantically" involved and does not violate the incest/bestial clause should be allowed to be married.

This means that two people cannot marry each other if they are not romantically involved.  Therefore a gay man cannot marry a gay woman.  This would also invalidate the gay male couple/lesbian couple union.  This would however allow for gay marriage and polygamy.

I oppose gay marriage and polygamy on the grounds of practical implication....which is just about the only non-biased position that one can take in opposition to gay marriage.

Date: 2006/05/23 21:35:21, Link
Author: PuckSR
You didn't notice who the new FBI's most wanted happened to be, did you?

Its official...Thordaddy is insane...
I have no idea what he was trying to say....

You can't answer the above scenarios unless you stay within the confines of the liberal context.

"Confines of the liberal context"?
That doesnt even make sense....
But i did just answer the question...
I explained why your "scenarios" were flawed(they either dismissed the romantic nature of a marriage...or they were incestual)

Gay "marriage" must have either the effect of stamping out discrimination and intolerance completely or the institution of marriage IS STILL discriminatory and intolerant.

What is the "progressive" to do if he hasn't rendered the institution of marriage void of discrimination and intolerance?

Why must gay marriage "stamp out discrimination"?
I guess the progressive can go f*ck himself...because it honestly doesnt matter.

You're not viewing this issue in the eyes of a gay radical bent on social validation or a "progressive" seeking social superiority.

Absolutely not...
But I am viewing this as a rationalist....
Which is the same way i view everything.....
I can see obvious arguments in support of gay marriage that do not rely on "progressive" agendas or "gay radicals bent on social validation".
I can also see obvious difficulties in the implication of new marriage requirements.

Does it bother you that I refuse to argue with you from any position but the rational, sane, and logical?
Does it bother you that I have agreed with you...but for completely different reasons?
Does it bother you that I refuse to engage in an ideological debate?
Trust me...the logic exists...I just hope you can see it...

Date: 2006/05/24 09:18:00, Link
Author: PuckSR
AFDave...I'm an engineer(like you)...and I think I need to point something out to you....

Remember I said that Aerostars and Fiestas are 95% similar, like Chimps and Humans?  (Well, I don't know if it's 95, but probably close enough for the analogy).  OK.  Now all Fords have alternators, right?  And probably the Aerostar alternator is going to be a little bigger than than the Fiesta alternator, maybe even a few design differences.

Why are these cars so similiar?
Because the engineers modified the existing design rather than re-designing a new car.
The car has evolved....(with intelligent designers)
When an engineer has come along and re-designed a car from scratch..we wind up with drastically different cars.

Now...everyone will agree that a designer have missed this point as well.

Dave, when they invented the transistor....did we go back and completely redesign circuits?  No....
We substituted....
This actually caused massive problems...since simpler solutions frequently existed if we would have been working with the technology from scratch.  

You are positing a super-intelligent "engineer"...who obviously wouldnt take shortcuts and would redesign everything from scratch.  If the IDer is taking shortcuts(like your ford example) then I doubt he is God.  It sounds more to me like he is an idiot...maybe even a mindless algorithm?

Date: 2006/05/24 12:51:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
sorry...realized this was confusing...
"Confines of the liberal context"?
That doesnt even make sense....
But i did just answer the question...
I explained why your "scenarios" were flawed(they either dismissed the romantic nature of a marriage...or they were incestual)

Should read
Liberal=broad minded

Would you mind explaining this "practical implication" position?  I'm genuinely curious.

Your dealing with a union that is alien to the current rules and regulations regarding marriage.
No gay couple will ever produce offspring...(at least not together)
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony) you keep the common-law marriage laws as is...or do you modify them?
Basically...both polygamy and homosexual marriage have intrinsic complications when compared to current marriage laws.  Right now a homosexual or polygamist group can achieve almost all of the same rights and protection as "legal" marriage without actually getting married....

Plus...I find the "gay rights" movement mildly offensive....since they are requesting rights that don't exactly qualify as "basic human rights".  I am not going to allow my personal feelings about "gay rights advocates" get in the way...
They do annoy me though...

Date: 2006/05/24 14:42:22, Link
Author: PuckSR
No gay couple will ever produce offspring...(at least not together)

And a heterosexual couple that marries in their 70s will never produce offspring together.  Same for a couple that has an infertile partner.

Im not arguing that....
but the law generally applies to the majority of situations..and legal interpretations are made for app abnormal scenarios....

If your going to create gay marriage...certain legal precedents will need to be established concerning children...
And since every gay marriage will have more complicated child custody would be advisable to address these issues when establishing the new form of marriage

Basically...both polygamy and homosexual marriage have intrinsic complications when compared to current marriage laws.

Those "intrinsic complications" only exist in countries where polygamy and gay marriage is outlawed and/or a social minefield.

Actually...those complications would exist anywhere...
Im simply claiming that polygamy and homosexual marriage are more complex than heterosexual marriage....

Incestual marriage is outlawed....but it doesnt contain any "intrinsic complications" least from a legal perspective..

BTW...I will agree with Thordaddy on one point...
Gay marriage technically isnt outlawed(current state legislature excluded).  It has never existed...and really has never been considered until recently....
(Im ignoring current "laws" since they only exist as knee-jerk reactions to perceived 'future' laws)

You actually don't know, do you?  People who are legally married get the following:
Social security, medicare, disability, and military benefits of the spouses.
The right to make medical decisions for the spouse, should he or she become incapacitated.
The right to visit the spouse in the hospital during non-visiting hours.
The right of joint adoption.
The right to arrange a burial for the spouse.

Hmm...should we really care about "financial benefits"?
Is that really what the "gay rights" movement is about?

So...have you ever heard of "power of attorney"...that would cover many of the other benefits....
Joint adoption....change adoption laws
I once heard about a gay couple where the boyfriend was not allowed to visit in the hospital...despite prior legal arrangments....
What would a gay married couple do?
Would he have brought the marriage license?

Gay married couples want 2 things
1.  Financial breaks given to married couples
2.  Acceptance for their lifestyle

Every other "right" can be granted via alternative legal proceedings....
Im not trying to be inflammatory...but could you either point me towards a "right" that doesnt involve finances or acceptance....that they cannot obtain right now
(an example of acceptance would be "visitation in the hospital" or "co-adoption" rights)

Goshdarnit, gay people shouldn't have the right to walk down the street unassaulted!

Absolutely not...but I dont have that right either...
I have the right to press charges against someone who does assault me...but there is no guarantee that I will not be assaulted...

The explanation of "sexual equality" is self-explanatory

Date: 2006/05/24 16:10:00, Link
Author: PuckSR
Science does work with what we know now.  That's just it.  What we KNOW.  We don't know one way or the other whether fine tuning is remarkable or not.  So stop trying to claim it as evidence

It doesnt matter...
AFDave is a hyper-Christian...
hyper-christians are well-known for interchangebly using the words "know" and "believe"...they also confused "faith" with "fact".....
Dave isnt trying to make a logical argument...or a scientific one.
In Dave's mind....his belief is justification enough for it being true....
He is only humoring us(because we want rational justification for the obvious) and trying to provide us with enough justification that we will 'believe'(or in hyper-christian speak "know")

I would guess that in a couple of pages...Dave will try to use Descartes 'proof of God'....since it follows the same pattern of relying heavily on assumptions.

Date: 2006/05/24 17:46:22, Link
Author: PuckSR
skeptic...your missing the boat...

Lets take a look at a "theory" that has changed.

Newtonian physics was the working model...and for a long time most people assumed that it was correct.  All research was manipulated to fit within the Newtonian model.
The data didnt fit the theory though...and a great deal of effort was focused on solving this problem.  It was eventually solved with the help of Einstein.  
Currently we have new data that refutes both models...and a great deal of research is being dumped into explaining it.

If we start from scratch with our ToE...what do we have?
A long list of varying organisms, an obvious transition from one organism to another, and an obvious mechanism of adaptation.
Do we end up at the same conclusion?  Probably not at first.
If we really started from would probably still get Lamarkian evolution and other avenues...such as prescribed evolution(a NEW creationist favorite)...
All of the conjectures would then be tested....and since no evidence could be found that would support any of the alternatives we would eventually wind up "Darwinism" again...even though a more accurate term exists.

If someone develops a more complete theory that has better explanatory power...we will go with that...just like when we changed from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics.

Otherwise...we will need to propose a problem with ToE(which has happened...such as the time scale) or find a better explanation.  To date, almost every serious problem with the ToE has been explained or demonstrated to satisfaction of most.

You always interpret the data to the best of your understanding.  Radiological dating is meaningless if you dont have half-life....
If the "theory" was wrong...the data wouldnt refute the Theory...
it wouldnt be possible to scientifically rectify the data with the theory...

Just look at classical physics, ether, or early concepts of heat for examples of the data refuting the theory.

Date: 2006/05/24 18:32:46, Link
Author: PuckSR
Newtonian physics was law and no one really was looking for an altrenative and if they were they certainly weren't talking about it, people would have thought they were crazy.

Read before you speak...
Newtonian physics was was not law.....
Newton had 3 laws of motion...which generally hold true for all of classical physics....but Newtonian physics was far from law...
Do some research on it...
Newtonian physics was having a difficult time explaining planetary motion...but Einstein's Theory of Relativity provided a solution.

Einstein didnt drop a bombshell....Einstein solved a problem...and refined classical mechanics...

Just like the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium further refined the ToE.

Do you honestly believe that everyone was just sitting around twiddling their thumbs...content with Newtonian physics when this genius came around and proved them all wrong?
They knew a problem existed...and Einstein explained how to refine their current theory....

The problem...that is generally that normally when a scientific theory has weathered the test of time it will always retain some accuracy.  The theory may need to be refined or adjusted...but the basis of the theory must be accurate for it to have been able to explain so much data until the current problem was presented.

Newtonian physics is a simplification.  Einstein didnt destroy Newtonian physics...
He simply elaborated on the previous theory

I can say with a great degree of certainty that evolution occurs.  I can say with a great degree of certainty that evolution is adaptive.  I can say with slightly less certainty that some form of "random mutation" is necessary.
Nothing currently resists the concept of random mutation...

Another important point that you need to acknowledge skeptic is that modern evolutionary theory is hardly Darwinism....

Darwin may be the father of modern evolutionary theory...but the modern theory is Darwin's only in the vaguest sense....

Date: 2006/05/25 08:21:43, Link
Author: PuckSR
Did you really see the bit about medical care?  How is that in any way related to financial benefits?

Hmmm...because gay couples can still go visit a doctor!!!!
They just dont get the same medical insurance benefits....which is financial....

Wrong.  Many gay couples have made various arrangements, only to find them considered invalid by various organizations.

Those arrangements aren't seen as legal by many groups.

The courts decide if it is legal or not....and power of attorney(for example) is always matter if your gay or not.

The only way that gay couples will be getting joint adoption in those states is if the laws are struck down by the courts or reversed by the citizens

Right...but those same laws could be leveraged against homosexual married couples....did you even think of that?

Are you a moron?  He would be listed as a spouse and be allowed to visit.  Do heterosexual couples have to jump through hoops?

Really...because he was listed as a "Special visitor"...but they wouldnt allow him to visit.

You know, if people actually accepted gay people and didn't discriminate (something that's perfectly legal in many states), there wouldn't be the whole gay rights movement.  Would there have been a black rights movment if they weren't treated like second-class citizens. im calling you out.....
Blacks were treated as subHuman.  They were not afforded some of the most basic human rights.  After their legal rights to be "human" were passed...they still had to fight oppressive practices that tried to continue to label them as sub-human.
Black rights was never about acceptance....
Martin Luther King did not protest because people did not "accept" blacks as equals.  Martin Luther King protested because blacks were not being afforded the same basic human rights.
Gay people have never been denied basic human rights...
Yes, people have been mean to homosexuals...but tough

If you were attacked because of your ethnicity, sex, age, or disability, you would be protected under the law.  Many states do not have sexual orientation hate crime laws.

Right...if I was attacked for any reason I would be protected under the law.  If a homosexual is attacked for any reason they are protected under the law.  The law is known as assault.

Hate crime law?

Maybe we should let angry people go free...they were just too angry that day...
but if they committed a "hate-crime"...well then we should kill them
Shut up about hate crime laws.
They shouldnt exist...for any discrimination

No really, I don't know how you're using the phrase, as it's used in so many ways.  Sexual equality as in equal human rights?  Equal rights to a job?  Equality as in the same abilities across the sexes?  How does any of it have to do with marriage?

In any way...
Many marriage laws were created with the intent of "helping" women.  I am not discussing the validity of these laws.
Im arguing that the motive for these laws are meaningless in a same-sex marriage.

Date: 2006/05/25 12:24:53, Link
Author: PuckSR
I don't understand how PuckSR can be willingly blind to the fact that a minority is suffering because the majority is too hung up on their own problems, is scared of people who aren't "normal," and wants a scapegoat for current social problems

Hmmm....probably because no one is suffering....
I will readily agree that certain elements of modern society have become strongly anti-homosexual.  Their motives are normally questionable...
At the same time, a minority of the population has taken to grand standing and hyperbole to make a point.
Gay rights is a pathetic attempt to compare the current anti-homosexual sentiment to previous civil rights issues
Gay marriage is a modern invention of the "gay rights" advocates....(please show me a society that did not distinguish between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage)
Should we stamp out discrimination against homosexuals?
Is there a legitimate way to stamp out discrimination without violating civil liberties?  
Absolutely not...

I will, however, resign myself from this conversation.
I agree that we have completely lost track of the original topic..making fun of Thordaddy.

I just had to make the point that opposition exists to gay marriage that is not founded on bigotry. does Ladlergo know that Im not a homosexual?

Date: 2006/05/25 13:13:46, Link
Author: PuckSR
Second, the most obvious opposition to gay "marriage" is due to the effect of rendering marriage of any larger societal meaning.  This is the MAIN MOTIVATION behind the push for gay "marriage."

See....some people oppose marriage because of bigotry....or insanity.....

I do not.....
I also understand what the word "liberal" means...a definition that Thor might want to look up...
Oh Thordaddy redefining words again?
Thordaddy....are we supposed to use YOUR definition of liberal or Websters?

Oh...and dont get to complain that people consider all who oppose gay marriage are a bigot

Earlier you spoke out on interracial marriage

Date: 2006/05/25 18:18:39, Link
Author: PuckSR
Here is his entire its entirety.

Posted: May 05 2006,13:59  

Thanks for some reasoning that was actually cogent to the debate.

Unfortunately, stevestory thinks it's "crap."

The problem with the argument for sanctioning gay "marriage" and its supposed equivalence to interracial marriage is two-fold.

First, one is a fact of reality and has been, for most of us, a fact of reality for our entire lives.  Interracial marriage has no relevance because it just is.

Second, interracial marriage discredited "race" as a deciding criteria for marriage whereas gay "marriage" is trying to discredit "gender" as a criteria.

I think there can be little argument that the sanctioning of interracial marriage was the "slippery slope" towards abolishing other criteria for marriage, namely, the criteria of gender.

Although, interracial marriage DOES NOT redefine the one man/ one woman tradition of marriage whereas gay "marriage" DOES.

The question then becomes, what definition will be settled on for "marriage" if only numbers and relatedness within a union are legitimate criteria for marriage?

But as you have noted, the argument is based on "equal rights" and tolerance and if religion, race and gender are illegitimate criteria for defining marriage then so is numbers and relatedness within a union if one is arguing from the "equal rights" and tolerance perspective.

Gay "marriage" necessarily defines the institution of marriage out of existence.  "Marriage" would be nothing more than the individual will seeking state validation for his/her personally chosen "union."  It's not even feasible.

And it's why most "liberals" support it!

He apparently claims that interracial marriage started the "slippery slope" to gay marriage.
He argues that we just keep removing criteria(such as race) and that eventually we will run out(which apparently we are about to) of criteria

Its not directly racist...but the general theme of his post seems to be that interracial marriage does more harm than good

Date: 2006/05/25 18:26:03, Link
Author: PuckSR
I realize you're interested in staying popular within this forum, but since you oppose gay "marriage" and those that advocate for gay "marriage" absolutely deny any legitimate opposition to gay "marriage," this would DEFINE you as a bigot

I am hardly trying to stay popular...but if you notice NO ONE has attacked me like they attack you...
Because my posts can be read without giving the reader a headache
Because I respond to criticism, and I do it logically
Because I make all of my arguments with an appeal towards rationalism

It might also help that I am a member of a dying religion.

Who knows?

But trust me...Im also not a any definition
A bigot is someone with a strong opinion who refuses to even acknowledge anyone else's views on a topic.
Everyone can see that I obviously acknowledge the views of the people who disagree with me.

Most extremists are bigots...because they wouldnt be able to be "extreme" unless they refused to acknowledge those who disagree with them

Date: 2006/05/26 08:38:30, Link
Author: PuckSR
Not really....but that happens alot....
Apparently Dembski and I are both Theists....but I dont like to talk about it
Apparently Hitler and I both tried to be painters....but its embarassing.
Apparently Castro and I both love baseball....but he is older.

Oh....I may find Thordaddy to be a raving lunatic...but I'm not planning on letting that effect my viewpoint.

This is the exact definition for the gay "marriage" advocates

Great thordaddy...but I posted the definition in response to your claim:
I realize you're interested in staying popular within this forum, but since you oppose gay "marriage" and those that advocate for gay "marriage" absolutely deny any legitimate opposition to gay "marriage," this would DEFINE you as a bigot

Of forgot that you made this comment earlier...probably because you realized that no one would ever call me a bigot for my viewpoint.

Secondly, the only reason "liberals" are able to claim "racism" when the discussion of interracial marriage takes place is because they retain a narcissistic view of politics.  The personal is political.  Most "liberals" (especially the ones on this forum) have no real experience with real racism yet they pontificate like they were blacks in the 1960's or homosexuals in the 21st century.  Likewise, most real traditionalists have little experience with real racism because oppressing blacks or homosexuals is really only something "liberals" are always ranting about.  

Did you smoke some pot and not tell us?
Denying people interracial marriage was/is racist...
are you arguing this?
The personal experiences of the members of this forum with racism is so irrelevent that even you should be ashamed.

Date: 2006/05/26 13:22:41, Link
Author: PuckSR
You oppose gay "marriage" on "practical implications."  Some one asked what that meant and you still haven't given a straightforward answer.

1.  It is completely unnecessary...other legal action could grant the same rights and privelages
2.  It has almost no historical basis(universal sufferage, interracial marriage, polygamy all had previous historical basis)
3. It would complicate current law(which I wouldnt really mind...except refer back to #1)
4.  It would be biased against polygamists
5.  The idea behind it is firmly grounded in "gaining acceptance" for a certain group.  Acceptance is not a right...
Legal protection is not afforded for ACCEPTANCE

The only reasons I have currently had presented pro-gay marriage are:
1.  Acceptance
2.  Financial benefit
3.  Love(between the 2 getting married)

I find none of these as justifiable reasons to start screwing with legal institutions.
I find #2 as a perfectly legitimate reason to establish new financial laws
I find #1 as a mildly acceptable reason to more strongly enforce legally binding documents(such as the power of attorney argument)

Honestly...I'm not at all concerned about "destroying" the sanctity of marriage.  I am also not opposed to "opening the flood gates".  I am opposed to half-ass legal reform that is selectively beneficial to a very small minority(gays who wish to get married).

Let me see if I can give another example that is not as mired in controversy.
I believe in free speech...ALL FREE SPEECH.
I only make exception for "clear and present danger" scenarios.
Censorship is a violation of free speech....but if someone proposed a reform to current censorship laws that allowed the discussion of "anal penetration"(currently you can refer to someone as an "ass" but you cannot tell them to go shove it up their "ass")...then I would argue that unless the proposition advocated the end of all censorship...I would not endorse it.

Date: 2006/05/26 14:16:35, Link
Author: PuckSR
eh...if "civil union" is going to be exactly the same as marriage...go ahead and call it marriage

A better summary of my position is that I fully agree that the current law is flawed...but instead of solving the problem for a minority of the population...I believe we should solve it for a majority

Date: 2006/05/26 16:27:08, Link
Author: PuckSR
Well, if you're saying that all the stuff could be done in contract law, isn't that more or less a civil union?

Yes...but it is far short from instituting a new legal concept.  Such as gay marriage or civil union

The majority have a problem getting married?

but the majority have a problem with the enforcement of legal documents, commonlaw marriage, financial classification of marriage, work benefits for married people.

Date: 2006/05/27 06:57:44, Link
Author: PuckSR
A)  YEC proposes a Super-Intelligent Creator God.  Evidence:  
   (1) Finely tuned cosmos--Hoyle, Penrose, etc.
   (2) Biological machines--Dawkins, Alberts, Denton, Behe
   (3) Universal Moral Code--C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity
   (4) Laws of Relativity--Show plausibility of Biblical Theism claims

Hang on...I'm not actually going to roast Dave for presenting this as evidence...after all...he is just following in a long line of "god proofs"...

However, Dave you seriously need to consider the error of the "Universal moral code".  While several teleological arguments can be constructed from #1 and #2....#3 falls far short.

If you need some help with this...realize that C.S. Lewis is the only one who makes this claim.  While morality is a heavily studied topic in philosophy(Kant for example) one else has ever proposed universal morality.

AFDAVE...I am more than willing to engage in a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion on proof for God.  I will agree with everyone though that you are not providing "Scientific" evidence for God.

Let's take Darwin's Theory...since it seems to be popularly disputed as scientific among YEC types.
Darwin looked at nature, and formed a conjecture(that organisms evolved by natural selection).  He then looked for wonderful examples of this(finches).  He then proposed that we apply his model to all organisms and see if we could find exception.

The fine-tuned argument is not universal like evolution.
1. Your arguing on the uniqueness of reality(a singular thing)...this would be like Darwin creating his theory from only 1 finch
2.  Whenever an ID argument is presented....several less than ideal examples can be presented that do not represent a finely-tuned argument.  The role of the creator could be changed to fit these organisms(he is not a perfect-tuned creator)....but that then becomes an even vaguer term to prove

Date: 2006/05/27 11:50:10, Link
Author: PuckSR

I'm not so concerned with the labels we use for the discussion.  I'm happy to accomodate people in that regard.

My interest lies in the substance.

The labels are incredibly important AFDave....
Depending on the type of discussion we are having...
I could either argue that:
you cannot possibly prove anything(except your own existence to yourself)
you can prove anything with mere "common sense"
You can prove anything with empirical or absolute data

You seem to fall into the "common sense" category...which would be a philosophical category...where the data is not nearly as important as the logic.  The data can be assumed to be correct...and we are instead left evaluating your reasoning.

In science the data and the logic MUST be proven(to a degree).  You are completely avoiding the issue of proving your DATA...and honestly your doing a rather poor job of validating your reasoning(it can be done...your just not doing it).

Labels are important...if i punch you in the face it is assault...if we label the encounter as a "boxing match" then I'm merely being a good competitor...
So please...choose a label...

Are we having a philosophical discussion on the nature of God and everything...or is this a scientific discussion?

Date: 2006/05/27 11:56:16, Link
Author: PuckSR
But in lieu of that, for now, most gays would settle for the half-assed legal reform.

True...they would....
But I don't think that is right....

Think of blacks.....and reperations... would really help poor black people...but it would only help poor black people and therefore it discriminates against everyone else.

half-assed legal reform that is designed to only assist a selective portion of the population is discriminatory.
It discriminates against everyone who is not part of the minority it assists.

Date: 2006/05/27 16:28:35, Link
Author: PuckSR
It's a bit shocking watching people come up with halfassed justifications for their desires. "Allowing gays to get married discriminates against heteros" is disappointing.

Allowing gays to get married BECAUSE poorly written/poorly executed laws that effect everyone are flawed is discrimination against everyone who is not a homosexual planning on getting married.

Police officers are using highly inaccurate radar guns.
Out-of-state drivers are complaining that they get bogus tickets...and cannot fight them because they are out-of-state...and it is even more of a hassle for them to fight the tickets....
Should we stop the police from writing speeding tickets for anything less than 20 mph over the speed limit for out-of-staters?
Or should we create legislation that requires police to use accurate radar that everyone(both in and out of state) benefits...and justice is served?

I agree that homosexuals may be more effected by the current legal system...but as long as it is a burden on everyone(to some degree)...we should seek to fix it for everyone.

Date: 2006/05/27 18:22:11, Link
Author: PuckSR
Painful to watch, Puck.

Ahh...but isn't self-expression a beautiful thing

Date: 2006/05/28 09:16:25, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok AFDave...
Im sure your getting heavily roasted for your evidence of a 10,000 year-old earth....

I'm simply going to point out the problems with your "hypothesis"
Mine is this ...

1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
2) God created mankind perfect, a complete Homo Sapiens
3) The first man Adam was taught how to write directly by God
4) All of Adam's kids learned to write from their dad
5) And so on ...
6) Adam recorded the events of Creation on stone tablets
7) Adam's descendants also recorded the events of Creation and other events
8) These tablets were carefully preserved and eventually handed down to Moses, who recorded them on in the Pentateuch

No evidence exists of any of this...
Even most "very creationist" biblical scholars would debate this scenario
If Adam(and friends) wrote down the early history of humanity(and I assume that is where we get the bible) then how do we know that the bible is accurate?
The bible is only accurate if considered as "divinely inspired" and if God "divinely inspired" the Bible...then he could have written it much later...(perhaps when the bible is assumed to be written, after the time of Moses).
What language did Adam write in?
Also...if God taught Adam the "One" language that was eventually split out the tower of Babel...then how do you explain the existence of other written languages before the tower of Babel?
Also...How do you explain the fact that the Tower of Babel event occurred only 102 years after Noah's Flood?  In 102 years, Noah's descendents rebuilt the population enough to have a large enough workforce to build the Tower of Babel(and split into all of the different languages of the world?)

Date: 2006/05/28 16:46:57, Link
Author: PuckSR
PuckSR, it's obvious discrimination only if you're an obvious idiot. Earlier in the same post, you said that you and your girlfriend have chosen, absent progeny, to "live in sin" -- which is perfectly fine. Gay couples don't have that choice. You're arguing that since homosexual couples are barred from legal marriage, they should also be deprived of any of the benefits of marriage, such as partner or family dental coverage. (Please note that one of the arguments against gay marriage is the availability of legal or policy work-arounds, such as those at wherever your non-missus works.)

Does that make any sense at all to you?

I dont even know how to respond....since that wasnt my post....
Also...that wasnt my argument....or anything near my argument....
Sorry...but I think you were aiming that comment elsewhere..
Im the pooka

Date: 2006/05/30 06:34:53, Link
Author: PuckSR
hey can someone start posting updates on this in another thread.
Its getting really grating to read through all of the topic just to watch Dave make an ass out of himself.
AFDave is clearly more delusional than Dembski and Co..
So could we have a "watcher" thread for this too?

Maybe giving a day-to-day update on what insanely bad argument Dave is making this week?
I think even Will Dembski would stand mouth agap when watching someone claim that C.S. Lewis presented evidence for God.....with Universal Morality.

AiG doesn't even get this crazy....
They once tried to explain the stars with the concept of "degrading C" or variable C(which is actually at least partially grounded in actual physics)....
But to claim evidence via C.S. Lewis?
That is just hilarious

Date: 2006/06/12 05:53:16, Link
Author: PuckSR
Some of the 'geneticists' here have taken my 'measley 1/2% difference' argument and said basically 'Davey, davey ... doesn't your small, 'maths' challenged mind understand that 1/2% of 50 gazillion nucleotides equates to a very big number?'  

To which I reply ...

'Of course.  But 1/2% of ANYTHING is still 1/2%'

and 1/2% is the relevant number here for what we are trying to say.  Of course if we are talking about NUMBERS OF SUBSTITUTIONS, then sure, chimps may have 40% more or whatever the number is.  But all this  calculation does is COMPARE SUBSTITUTIONS, not give an honest picture of how much more similar to humans chimps are vs. gorillas.

It's amazing to me that I'm having to debate this concept with guys who call themselves scientists.  This is utterly ridiculous.  And if that weren't ludicrous enough, Jeannot has the gall to attack my math skills??!!  And Incory comes with an asinine joke about a donkey in a barn??!!

Dave, as a fellow engineer....Your math skills are not lacking...they have misrepresented you....
Obviously 1/2=1/ seem to lack to creative abilitiy to understand these numbers.  .5% of something is normally trivial....but if .5% of the world population dies due to a disease, in one week, then we would have a seriously deadly disease on our hands.  Even though statistically .5% is meaningless.

I also think your seriously misunderstanding the differences between chimps and humans.  Have you ever looked at a chimp?  Now, imagine that the chimp and human could be represented with "code".  Dont you imagine that you could use most of the same code?? Internal Organs, basic bone structure, etc.

AFDave...I really think you have your heart in the right place.  Your trying to educate everyone to the "Truth".  The only problem I have is that I can find absolutely no mention in the bible that people who believe in Evolution cannot get into heaven.  Many theistic evolutionists have a greater respect for God....they believe his creation was more grandiose than you believe.  You are trying to destroy theistic evolutionists belief in grand, powerful, timeless God and replace it with a cheap magician?  You should be ashamed.  You also seem be rather boastful about your efforts in this forum...which is VERY unchristian.

I hope that God can eventually lead you to the light Dave....The light which says that God is not a deceiver, not a cheap magician....

Date: 2006/06/12 22:02:19, Link
Author: PuckSR
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,05:21)
AFDave...I really think you have your heart in the right place.  Your trying to educate everyone to the "Truth".  The only problem I have is that I can find absolutely no mention in the bible that people who believe in Evolution cannot get into heaven.  
 You are correct.  There is nothing in the Bible that says that.    
Many theistic evolutionists have a greater respect for God....they believe his creation was more grandiose than you believe.  You are trying to destroy theistic evolutionists belief in grand, powerful, timeless God and replace it with a cheap magician?  You should be ashamed.  
I'm not trying to destroy anything but error where I see it.  
You also seem be rather boastful about your efforts in this forum...which is VERY unchristian.
I admit that I am not the perfect example of a Christian and I should be more humble and kind.  I come from a group of friends and associates who were typically very cocky, self-assured, and fiercely independent, so you are correct in observing that I have those natural tendencies as well--God is working on me!.  I do have no problem, though, with dealing harshly with blatant trollism.  Jesus did this too.  

You misunderstand the YEC position if you think I am saying that God is some sort of 'cheap magician.'

AFDave, I would greatly appreciate it if you would act in a more humble way.  Jesus did deal with "trolls", but he dealt with them by responding to them.  When they asked Jesus why he didnt wash his hands, he made a quip, but he also answered the question.

You have ignored many objections to your "hypothesis".  I could attribute many of them to differences of opinions, but one specific example stands in my mind as an overwhelmingly ignored suggestion.  Your entire discussion of "Universal Morality" is almost completely rejected by all evidence, and seems to be founded more on the wishful thinking of C.S. Lewis than on anything else.

It is because of topics such as this that I have come to believe that you are more interested in rejecting Evolution.  Your interest in "correcting error" seems to only be applicable to situations that fulfill your need to reject scientific ideas that oppose your faith  

It also seems, and again I am referencing your "Universal Morality" post, that you are more than willing to completely reject evidence without any actual flaw being found in the accumulation of the evidence.  You have rejected the evidence first, and then discovered a reason for the rejection later.  This is intellectually dishonest, but quite common.

If I told you that the center of the moon was made out of cheese you would most likely reject the notion first, and justify your rejection later.  This, however, is not an appropriate way to approach a discussion.  You must at least admit the validity of your opponents position until you can find evidence to the contrary.

I will, however, summarize the reason for your actions.  IF you find a flaw with these please message me.  You cannot accept the superiority of scientific knowledge to biblical knowledge.  You know that the bible is the work of God, and therefore without flaw.  IF the bible and science are in opposition the flaw must lie with science.  You are simply trying to find that flaw.

You deny Evolution because of its apparent contradiction to the literal interpretation of the bible.  You must either reconcile the two, or deny one.  The bible is perfect, and therefore Evolution is false?

Once again, I believe that this thread is already approaching the maximum length.  If you would wish to discuss this further you can message me.

Date: 2006/06/14 21:04:26, Link
Author: PuckSR
Last night I spoke with God.  It went fairly well, He was genuinely nice.  If it hadn't been so late at night, I would have liked to have talked with him for a bit longer.

I asked him about the Bible.  He said that he disliked some of the poetic license that had been taken with the stories.  He particularly didnt appreciate all of that stuff about Abraham(apparently Sarah wasn't really Abraham's half-sister).  I asked him why He would allow his name to be attached to a book that didnt accurately depict Him, and He told me that it was an issue of "creative freedom".  His name shows up in many other texts, but He never tries to influence any of the authors.

We spoke for awhile about this whole Evo vs Creo debate.  He thought it was kind of cute.  Oh, by the way, logic is apparently what God considers a joke.  He created it mostly to confuse people.  Half of the population considers logic as a solid ground for making conclusions, and the other half doesn't believe in it.  I asked Him if he had designed anything in biological creatures, and He told me He had.  Apparently God is responsible for men having nipples.  He explained that there was actually a way for biology to avoid unisex body parts, but He thought they were "cute".  I swear to Him, that is the word He used.

Anyway, Im getting side-tracked.  

I also talked to him about evil.  He actually had a really good explanation for evil in the world.  I cannot actually tell you what it is, all I can say is that we shouldn't really be worrying about it.

The most interesting part of the conversation came when I asked Him to show me ####.  It was interesting because IT DOESNT EXIST.  I thought this was odd, but He explained it to me.  He!! doesnt exist because it is unnecessary.  He!! would only be necessary if we knew for certain that it existed.  If you dont know positively that a punishment exists, and the rules are not even very clear, how can you be expected to follow the rules?  What good does it do to punish people who didnt even know that the punishment exists?

He told me that bad people(evil people) are rare.  Those who are evil do not exist in Heaven, but that I shouldn't really worry about it.  Most people are good.

Well, I think He might call back tonight, so if anyone has any questions they want me to ask him....I will try to see if He will answer.

Anyways, talk to you later.

Date: 2006/06/14 21:31:52, Link
Author: PuckSR
I have a better story than a magneto failure. I rented a plane where the airspeed indicator was in MPH instead of KNOTS and I didn’t notice. When I was flying it I noticed that the airspeeds weren’t what I expected for rotation, stall, etcetera so I cut the difference in half between what my experience told me the airspeed was and what the airspeed indicator reading was and used the compromise to set up the plane for various flight modes. When I came back (it was a cross country solo while still in training) and told my instructor he didn’t know whether to be more impressed that I knew the aircraft well enough to know that the indicated airspeed was wrong or upset that I didn’t notice it was MPH instead of KNOTS as it was clearly labeled on the face of the instrument.

Ok...Davey...when you tell that story in the future...
You might not want to mention that you FAILED TO REALIZE THE GAUGE WAS IN MPH DESPITE IT BEING CLEARLY LABELED.  Trust me...he wasnt impressed.

Date: 2006/06/15 06:00:00, Link
Author: PuckSR
Ok, well another eventful night last night.  Either I got too drunk, or me and God spoke again.  I asked him some of the are the responses.

Ask him if he can make a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it.

He said that was stupid.  Why would anyone make burritos so hot that they couldn't be eaten.  They are delicious.

However, I do have a question and it is one I have been contemplating for years now. What rocks makes the best pet rocks?

He said granite.  I asked him why, but apparently it is a secret.

ask him who his boss is. Is it Mr. Tanaka?

He said that being God is an entrepreneurship.

I would like to know the secret to eternal Life/Good health.

If more than 1 is allowed I would also like to know the result of every sporting event about 3 hours before it starts.

The secret to eternal life/good health is:
1.  Dont get sick
2.  Dont die
3.  Dont get old

Oh, and here is the result to every sporting event....
Someone will either win, or both teams will tie.  On a few rare occurences the games will be delayed or cancelled due to weather.  

Hope that helps.

Date: 2006/06/15 12:15:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
Could you ask Him if He knows who killed JFK?

He says "a bullet".

Could you ask him if he is The Intelligent Designer that I keep hearing so much about?

He wouldnt say, but he kept mumbling something about Calvin Klein?

funny, I speak with God all the time, and your name hasn't come up yet.

Really?  Must be an issue of theological confidentiality.

I dunno, I spoke with Vishnu once, and he hadn't heard of any of my friends or relatives. He sure seemed to know a lot of people from India, though.

That's funny...cause this God says He also gets called Brahma sometimes....but then again...He knows everybody.

BTW...God apologized for AFDave.
He told me that when trying to plan a final product 300 trillion years ago...sometimes it winds up flawed.

Date: 2006/06/15 14:27:28, Link
Author: PuckSR
Can you please tell Him that my personal favorites are carne asada burritos from Roberto's, especially the one in Del Mar ('cause you can eat them on the beach). Was He the one who taught Roberto how to make such great burritos? I bet He was!

God didnt create the burrito, nor did He teach Roberto how to make one.  He did invent paradilla platter, apparently someone asked Him what was the best meat to put on a taco...and He said "all of 'em"

No, but seriously - could he ask his believers to praise him a bit more quietly?  The noise is doing my head in.

I didnt ask Him about that, but apparently God is partly deaf.  This explains His heavy usage of thunder, and the reason prayers never get answered.

Did He have any part in inspiring the greatest Elton John song ever, Amoreena? Because I'm not sure a mere mortal could have created that.

Nah, that is the exclusive work of Bernie Taupin.
He only wrote one song, and He still regrets it...
God wrote the Macarena...

Date: 2006/06/17 17:48:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
1. Is his nose as big as it is in his pictures?
2. Why he didn't create water? (not noted anywhere in all of the Genesis' ) answer accepted from Mrs. God.
3. Does he have any dirt on the Pope,Jerry,Pat etc?
4. Why didn't he make men with penises on their foreheads so we could cut short the samba,movies,dinner and moonlit walks? (Suzy, I think that guy really likes you)
5. Is he a carbon based life form?
6. When he last spoke to Osama, GWB and Ollie North did he make sure they had paid their taxes?
7. When was the last time he fiddled with creation?
8. Why didn't he create the world in one day and give us all 6 days off to celebrate him?
9. When is he going to invade Canada? Its just that my best fieind is Canadian and I want to give him to know.
10. What are the numbers for the next powerball?

1.  God doesnt have a nose
2.  God didnt create water, He created hydrogen and oxygen.  He also created molecular bonding....water is just a byproduct.
3.  The Pope is actually Jerry Lewis.  Pat is actually an idiot savant....
4.  It wouldn't matter.  Women are way to complex to care.  Do you honestly think that women cannot tell when you are attracted to them?  The real trick would have been if He would have given women penises on their foreheads.  He realized, however, that this would take away from their natural mysteriousness.
5.  God is actually not a life-form
6.  God said "who?"
7.  God showed up a State Fair in Georgia.  He met Charlie Daniels.  Charlie took some creative license with the story.
8.  6 days?  He says creating the Universe and all reality is more than just a cheap parlor trick.  Besides, He exists outside of space and He actually thinks his gradual and slow approach is more awe-inspiring.
9.  God forgot about Canada.  He says He will need to check into it.  He thought it was mostly polar bears though.
10.  He realizes that some of you do not live in areas that play powerball.  So here are the results for the lotteries in all areas:
The numbers will all be the product of prime numbers.

What brand of toilet paper does he use? I'll bet it's the best!

Here's the big one, If Jesus died for my sins, what do I have to die for?

God doesnt use toilet paper.  He only needed to defecate once, today we know it as the Big Bang.

He can't figure out why you care about dying.  Death is painless.  Death is the point at which all of your world responsibilies are removed....Death is a gift.

Date: 2006/06/18 16:07:35, Link
Author: PuckSR
Pat is actually an idiot savant....

of what?

Well that is the secret.....
But didn't it ever strike you as odd that Pat had his own TV show?
That wasn't on cable access?

how does god smell if he has no nose?

God doesn't actually "smell".  Smelling and tasting are simply detection of certain molecules.  God knows where and what all the molecules He doesn't technically smell...he just remembers.

Date: 2006/06/18 16:31:24, Link
Author: PuckSR
You are absolutely correct that Ichthyic seemed to be working more from a paranoid reactionary view than from a rational view.  Politics is currently catering to the religious right, but that is a common cycle.  It will change in time, and no one can really stop the cycle....

However, I believe you seriously misunderstand the problem when you discuss:
To take your example, a teacher takes it upon himself to interpret the mention of ID as free rein to preach religion in the classroom.  If by some miracle he/she is not sued by the ACLU, then what?  Those students go on to secondary education and hear a different story, ask some questions and make their conclusions.  Free will.  Look at the odds: how many Behes et al are there.  Maybe ten individuals with any name recognition?  Now how many scientists accept the current theory? thousands?  I'm sorry I think you do more damage and lend more credibility to ID by engaging them and especially with this level of anger and hostility.

First, teaching ID is automatically bringing religion into the classroom.  Even if the teacher only mentions ID, they will still be bringing theological concepts into a scientific discussion.
Secondly, the Scientific community has attempted to ignore the creationists before.  The creationists/IDists simply used this to their advantage.  They began getting school districts to hold open debates about Creationism.  Several school districts tried to allow Creationism into the science class.
Finally, you completely misrepresent the problem of teaching theology in school to young impressionable minds.  Many of the Creationists hold an absolute contempt for the life sciences.  If you look at the list of scientific supporters of creationism/ID you will see many engineers, mathematicians, physicists, etc.  Very few of them are actually biologists...why?  They are convinced that biology is an illegitimate science.  They are convinced at a young age that those who study biology will eventually be forced to choose between religion and science.  Science should be taught to young people as something completely isolated from religion/theology.  

As a side note:
Have you ever noticed the absolute contempt the Creationist movement has for the life sciences?  They spend very little time arguing against physics(despite a great deal of denial for their creationist claims).  They also spend a great deal of time ignoring geology(they occasionally mention the "Flood"...but only the strongest Creationists ever get in heated discussions about this.)  You also rarely see them trying to introduce new lesson plans that make mention of the fact that the "Flood" caused all of the Earth's geographical and geological features.

Your approach to the ToE is EXACTLY the same.  You proceed from a position of extreme ignorance, and then presume you can muddle out significant alternatives to a theory that's been tested by tens of thousands of scientists who've studied the actual data and evidence, for over 150 years.

Skeptic, let me ask you about something completely unrelated to biology.
What causes gravity?
No body really one of my creationist physicist friends once told me..."if I knew the answer to that question I would be picking up my Noble prize right now"
Yet despite a complete lack of an understanding of what gravity "is"...we are perfectly capable of understanding how gravity works.

I use this analog to illustrate the fact that your questions about the ToE seem flawed.  For example, the initial point of common descent for all of Earth's organisms is irrelevent.  If there were multiple points of origin or a singular would not change our understanding of Evolution.  It would only change our historical perspective on the organisms on this planet.
Evolution, just like the Theory of Gravity, approach the phenomenom knowing that they dont understand half of it.  We dont know where the #### all of these animals came from.  We know that the current generation of animals came from a previous generation.  We know that animals evolve.  We know that long ago all of the life was very simple.  The ToE interpolates all of the evolution in between.  There might have been a "monolith" that caused our evolution....but working with the data and knowledge of the natural world we have now...Evolution works.
Your basically asking..."How do we know that a "monolith" didnt cause human evolution?"  The answer is that we dont.  If you find that will change the data and thus our understanding of the data.
This is the other reason that so many of us are angry at ID.  They want to change our understanding because "their might have been a monolith"...not because they "found a monolith".

Date: 2006/06/18 19:28:03, Link
Author: PuckSR
I said I spoke to God...I didnt say I held Him in an intimate embrace.  

Side note: apparently when God calls...He uses caller id blocking.  The only way you can tell it is Him is when you hear Him speak...once again...LOUD

Date: 2006/06/19 18:58:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
I got one: Is it ok to screw goats? (If you're a person).

Between Davey and T-diddy, my head is spinning.

Ok, I asked God...
He said that "screwing" or "nailing" goats is wrong...
He objects to the insertion of any hardware into animals.

But are you on a first name basis with Him? Does he let you call him "Art"?

Actually He prefers to go by "Dude"....???
I thought it was strange myself.....

Date: 2006/06/19 19:15:17, Link
Author: PuckSR
As far as the teaching of religion in school, that is not a scientific argument.  It is a constitutional argument that should be left to the ACLU.  Science has no standing in either the religious or constitutional nature of this debate.  By jumping in and taking sides, that gives the false impression that science is anti-religious.  Again, adding fuel to the fire.

Actually your wrong....really, really wrong...but you start the paragraph with a true i cant really fault you.

Teaching religion in school is not a "scientific argument".
Teaching religion in a science class in school is a "scientific argument".
The entire debate over religion in school is alien to the argument of religion in a science class.  It is equally valid to argue that religion shouldn't be taught in a math class.
The discussion of religion in a science class isnt an issue of religious freedom...its an issue of irrelevant and seperate material.

Science is not is sans religion.  Math is also sans religion, and I believe you can add gym class, economics, and computer science classes to the list as well.
This would be a non-argument if some crazy group was trying to get the biblical interpretation of pi into the math classroom.....why should it be any different for science?
Science doesnt want to get religion thrown out of school...people just want a science class to contain only science...and not theology.

My hypothesis is that mutations are encouraged or favored in response to pressure s (call them selective, if you like) in order to encourage diversity as a means of survival. are you agreeing with current evolutionary theory?
Or are you trying to propose some poorly modified form of Lamarkian evolution?

PE for me rises up as a consequence of my aversion to random mutation.

Hmm...i just joined in...and I almost messaged you about this instead of posting...but here goes:
How do you explain domestication?
Did the "mutating force" you propose acquiesce to the demands of the domesticaters?
Perhaps they asked the animals to mutate to the form they preferred?

I have heard creationists argue that domestication does not prove evolution because it lacks the ability to facilitate new species...but you seem to be arguing the entire concept of random mutation in favor or your "mutating force".  This would seem to invalidate the current understanding of animal husbandry.....

Date: 2006/06/19 21:57:21, Link
Author: PuckSR
This is two views of hardware that gets put in nearly every cow you eat. It is the Shermer ME Captive Bolt stunner and it uses a .22 cap to force a metal rod directly into the brain of the cow before they wrap a chain around it's hind leg, hoist it up onto a rail (still alive, mooing and kicking often enough), roll it over a "Blood Pit", slice the neck skin from the throat to the brisket, reach way up (the cow is upside down) inside to cut the jugular so all the blood runs down into the "Blood Pit" (and consequently all over the guy who does the poking, the "Sticker") All before it is 1st legged with the udder removed, second legged and bunged, sided, hide pulled, de headed, gutted, split, washed and refrigerated.

Is god a vegetarian?

Nope...God isnt a vegetarian...but He highly recommends Kosher food.

Death "may" be painless but dying seldom is. I don't want "his" gift.

Dying is painful...but dying is still living...and living is also painful.  If you wish to cease all pain, then death would seem a welcome reprieve from the pain of life.
Sorry, that really isnt God's opinion...I forgot to ask him so I quickly paraphrased some Epicurius.

Date: 2006/06/21 19:55:55, Link
Author: PuckSR
What you can and should do is comment upon the relavance of the subject matter.  Then it becomes an issue of cirriculum and that can be addressed through accredation.  This puts the ball in the hands of local school boards but the consequences are the students are identified as not receiving a comprehensive education

The problem with the "school board" approach on such a controversial issue is that several school board members may be motivated to violate common sense for some "higher" purpose.

We frequently need groups that represent a general field of study to intercede and stop poor teaching standards.
It wouldnt be absurd to have a school district in a strongly prejudice are try to change teaching standards to teach that no holocaust occured, or that blacks were inferior to whites.

Sometimes the federal govt can come in, and sometimes organizations that represent the general opinion of the field of study need to come in.

Date: 2006/07/10 14:39:42, Link
Author: PuckSR
Unlike Ken or Keith Miller, Collins appears to be pretty clearly saying that humans, and the genetic code, were intended (and to be designed is simply to be the actualized object of an intention). Furthermore, he seems to be saying that this is something he has rationally concluded from observing the genetic code. Given that, it’s not clear what his real difference with ID is.
-Deuce on uncommondescent

Wow...all i can say is wow.
Now wait, Im not about to attack this person.  He actually brings up a very important point.  50-80% of ID supporters believe that ID is simply a claim that life was "designed" or intended.  Obviously any person of a theistic persuasion is going to hold the belief that existence is intended.
Deuce, like most ID supporters, doesn't see why Collins isnt an ID supporter.  The fact of the matter is, THEY ARE ID SUPPORTERS.  Ken Miller, Collins, ME...all ID believers.

DaveTard, Dembski, Behe are not believers in ID.
They think they have "proven" ID.
I just wish people could ignore the pre-installed hostility that exists with this topic...and realize that the scientific community isn't pissed because these guys believe in God.  The scientific community is pissed because these people have decided that they have proven something...which they havent even begun to prove.

BTW...Christians have become evil.  When did Christians start compromising their morality for political power?
Creationists supporting these guys because it will begin a dialogue?
Christians supporting the conservative right...despite some obviously UNCHRISTIAN thinking?
Its really sad.

Date: 2006/07/10 17:04:47, Link
Author: PuckSR
well being forgiving would actually seem to be Christian
however, politically supporting the side that promotes violence seems very unChristian
Supporting oppression and intolerance also seem very UnChristian

Date: 2006/07/21 17:49:18, Link
Author: PuckSR
the truth of the Bible has truly given me such freedom and happiness in my life that nothing can get me down ... and I want everyone to have this

AFDave...private message me about this.
I dont understand what parts of the bible are true.
I dont understand how believing that any part of the Bible is absolutely true can help me.  Do we just believe the old testament...or maybe just the New Testament.
What language are we supposed to read the bible in?
What translation is the most accurate?
Do we ignore the obvious errors in the bible?
Do we accept them as the divine will of God?
Need some help here.

Date: 2006/07/22 06:55:07, Link
Author: PuckSR
I have not any part of the Bible which anyone has proven to be untrue.  Sometimes a statement appears untrue at first, but upon closer inspection, it proves true after all.

Well...of course no part of the bible could be "proven" to be untrue....unless we create a time machine.
I think the parts that Jesus said were true and the parts He commissioned to be written are the ones we accept as 'Inspired by God.'  Jesus confirmed the inspiration of the OT and he commissioned the apostles to write the NT.  So I take both to be true.

So we shouldnt pay any attention to books of the New Testament that were not written by, or at least inspired by apostles.  So...that means all of the letters of Paul are out.
The Gospel of John is out.  The Gospel of Luke is out. Revelations is out.
Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) if you are highly motivated.  If not, try the New King James or the New American Standard.  I like them both.  Also get a Power Bible CD ROM from -- Adam Clarke's commentary and many others contained there are very good.

Which Greek translation?
The really crappy one...or should we go back and retranslate from the original greek manuscripts?
I don't know of any 'obvious errors' -- we went through one supposed 'error' about Tyre here and it was equivocal at best.  Buy yourself a good book on Bible Difficulties.

What about the ending of Mark?
What about the story of the adultress in John?
What about:
Mark 2:25-26
He said to them, "Did you never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry-he, and those who were with him?
How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the show bread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?"

Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.
Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.
So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.
Samuel 21:1-6

The problem?
Amihelech is Abiathar's father....
and therefore Abiathar is not the high priest. could you explain this "error" to me?

Date: 2006/07/22 12:17:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
don't know ... I'm sure if you got into the finer details of the Jewish priesthood, you would have an answer ... off the top of my head I don't see why the phrase "in days of Abiathar the high priest" could not mean "in the days when Abiathar became high priest" ... there could be other easy explanations if we really wanted to get into it ...

Well...first off that wouldnt help.
Why would Jesus be talking about an insignificant son of a high priest...when He was obviously making reference to a quotation from Jewish scripture...
Secondly...your "explanation" is only valid if your reading the KJV of the it's original greek that mistake of the=became is almost entirely silly.
I love your approach though.  You dont bother to try and explain it...suffice it to say that you know that the bible is accurate...and then there must be an explanation that maintains that the bible is accurate.
This is, perhaps, the most childish approach to a problem I have ever heard.
When Creationists first started pointing out "errors" in non-Creationist explanation of things...scientists would approach each error, and try to answer the question.  They wouldn't simply "defend the faith".  We only do that now because the same questions have been asked and answered thousands of times.

I think your problem is that you are looking for ways to justify skepticism of the Bible ... if this is your mindset, you can find many ways to do this ... on the other hand, if you are open-minded to the possibility of the Bible to being completely true, then you will find a multitude of possible ways to explain the 'supposed errors.'  The fact is, many of them cannot be resolved because we do not have a time machine.  But the good news is ...

But this is completely contradictory.
I hate this christian BullShit....
It is not open-minded to believe that something is "completely true".  If you consider the possibility that something is "completely true"...then you have no reason to challenge that belief.
It is open-minded to be "skeptical" of a belief.  Then you can either find reason to dismiss your skepticism...or you can validate your skepticism.  Open-minded means the mindset that will lead you to the greatest number of possibilities...not the least.

I think your problem is that you are looking for ways to justify skepticism of the Bible

Of course I am....
The Bible is the work of man.
I will actually exclude argument about the Torah..since it is supposed to be the divinely inspired word of God(so your creationism is safe from my arguments)....
But the entire New Testament of the bible is without holy salvation.  There do exist quotations that claim divine inspiration...but they only exist in a select number of books...and since the New Testament is actually a composite of several different books...all written long before being codexed...
The claim of "divine inspiration" only applies to the book of the bible in which it is written.  Why would anyone assume that the claim of "divine inspiration" applies to the entire New Testament?

I also enjoy how you completely ignored my questions about "extra" text in the bible.  I listed two sections of the bible that SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THE BIBLE.  You simply ignored that....because it would invalidate your view of the bible as being an error-free and singular work.

Date: 2006/07/22 17:36:12, Link
Author: PuckSR
PuckSR ...
We only do that now because the same questions have been asked and answered thousands of times.

Bingo!  And that is the exact situation we have with your supposed Bible difficulties ... I have not investigated the exact one you brought up, but I have investigated hundreds of others written by many authors.

Do you realize how many books have been written explaining these types of difficulties?

Your an IDIOT....
I dont mean to be insulting...but either you posted that reply to intentionally be misleading, or you are too stupid to understand the point that I was making.

Yes, many books have been written "explaining" these errors.  It is known as Fundamentalist Apologetics.
However, I was discussing the fact that scientists approach most challenges to the "conventional wisdom" in an unbiased and open-minded way.
Fundamentalist Apologetics assumes that the claim against the Bible is false...then attempts to explain away the suggested conflict.

How many books have you read about the "supposed errors of the bible" that were not written by authors who were predisposed to assume that the Bible was true?
Every book you have read, every article, begins with the assumption that the Bible must be true...and therefore a logical explanation must exist.
This confirmation bias leads to some very flimsy excuses.  
Pi equals 3?  
Father instead of son?

The biggest joke is that with the same degree of "flexibility" that most of the Fundamentalist Apologists grant to the bible when they are making excuses
They could easily fit evolution and old earth into the biblical explanation.  
So...if we use all of the crazy, impossible, and absurd conclusions that people like "AiG" and yourself have used to explain difficulties in the Bible....
Then why cant we use the same level of twisting and manipulating to squeeze evolution into the bible?

In the beginning God could have created the animals.  It doesnt tell us how long it took for those animals to turn into modern also doesnt tell us that he didnt evolve them.  It also doesnt tell us that he didnt evolve all of them from a common ancestor...

So....why argue this point.  Evolution could easily fit into the bible...without any more manipulation than AiG, Ken Ham, and AFDave have used to explain away biblical inconstincies.....

Unless they just are too close-minded...and want to resist the idea of evolution because of some ulterior motive?

Date: 2006/07/23 06:20:41, Link
Author: PuckSR
Quote (afdave @ July 23 2006,00:26)
Puck ... Here's the deal ... Biblical Apologists are open-minded enough to the possibility that (1) there might be a Creator who inspired Scripture and (2) that He may be perfect ... so they examine the Scriptures with this open-mindedness.  Guess what they find?  Perfection in what they CAN investigate and plausible explanations in what they cannot ... pretty amazing wouldn't you say?  I don't know of another book that can perform like this, do you?  And no ... evolution is not accomodated by the Bible ... go do some reading at AIG to find out why not.

Hey AFDave...
Are biblical apologists open up to this very simple idea...
"Maybe the bible is just wrong?"
I mean if they are open-minded...wouldnt this be a very plausible explanation that any rational person should consider before going any further with an explanation?

Why do I want to read AiG to see why evolution is not plausible with the bible.
I gave you a very plausible scenario...a rather simple re-reading of the book of Genesis that easily explains Evolution.
AiG has an ulterior motive....
I want you to explain to me why Evolution, with the explanation i provided...CANNOT exist in the bible.

Date: 2006/07/24 09:44:26, Link
Author: PuckSR
We have established that since we have sedimentary rock all over the earth and fossils buried within these sediments all over the earth, it is reasonable to assume that there must have been a Global Flood of some sort at some time in the past.  This is confirmed with legends and/or historical records of just such a Flood from nearly all cultures in all parts of the earth.  

True...we do find fossils in "sedimentary" rock.
We also find fossils in "metamorphic" rock.
Why is this a big deal?
Well...the metamorphic rock forms from sedimentary rock...but it requires a great deal of time and pressure.

The existence of these fossils also does not lead one to believe in a global flood.  If we had a global flood that created all of these fossils...then the fossils would all be contained in a singular strata of rocks....and we wouldnt see the fossil record stratified "around the world".

In other words, you would at the very least have several fossils that were randomly sorted.  This would lead us to believe in a global flood, the stratification does not us to believe in any such thing.

If the pre-Flood mountains were low (3000-5000 ft), then the water from the "fountains of the deep" could easily have covered these mountains.

Hmmm...that sounds interesting....except 3000-5000 ft isnt even impressive for non-mountains.

I could accept your idea that the flood and rapid plate tectonics created much taller mountains.  You ignore the fact that several places exist that are higher 2000ft and that are not caused by "mountains".  Your assuming a very low elevation for the common earth.

Dave...these guys are about to blast you....
You keep pulling things "out of your ass".
If only we could get you to be open-minded enough to step back and say....
"What if the bible is wrong?"
If you ever grasp that concept for even a brief moment you will realize that it is by far the most plausible explanation.

Besides....God is all powerful.  Why in the heck would have to violate his own natural laws in order to make his book better?

Date: 2006/07/25 05:13:59, Link
Author: PuckSR
Metamorphic rock requires a great deal of HEAT (not time) and pressure. are correct....kind of....
Except...first you have to get the original rock in place...
Then you have to place that rock under pressure(thats how you get the heat)
Now, another interesting thing involving fossils and metamorphic rock is that the fossils cannot form in metamorphic rock...they can only form in sedimentary rock. has to be sedimentary rock....and then because of layers on top of has to get heated and pressured(and over time) will become metamorphic rock.
I mention time because it is not an instantaneous process.
So...the fossils had to form...which takes time...
Then the rock containing the fossils had to be subject to pressure...long lasting continual pressure.
150 days of flood water will not cut it.
Then we get metamorphic rock.

Yes...the definition of metamorphic rock does not contain the word "time"....but trust is not an instant change .

Date: 2006/07/25 16:31:58, Link
Author: PuckSR
What did I concede?

Ah...but come on....
Obviously Dave is trying to say that the bible is both an imperfect translation and inerrant.
God made a perfect bible.....
Then God made the perfect bible so perfect that even when it was imperfectly translated, modified, and altered by people...
It would still be 100% accurate even if it was 100% identical to the original bible.
This is really simple....
All you have to do is accept that God "influenced" the authorship of the Bible.
You also have to realize that the "Bible" is one work...not a collection of different works.
Then you have to accept that the God that exists is the God that is defined in the Bible...because God himself wrote it.
Then you have to understand that it is impossible to understand God, so sometimes that which looks like a contradiction is actually a confirmation.

It all makes sense if you "believe" all of it without question.
The devil makes you question these completely unsupported facts.
Also, you have to reject all similiar beliefs that are based on even stronger evidence(comparitively speaking) have to be open-minded.  Open-minded in AFDave speak means that you accept his belief and reject your alternative belief as well as all other beliefs.
I guess this means that you are close-minded when you reject his belief on the grounds of reason or logic??

This is Dave in a nutshell.
"Your bible errors are not errors, but misunderstandings of the text."
"However, Evolution and the age of the earth are not errors or misunderstandings because I say so"

Date: 2006/07/25 20:08:33, Link
Author: PuckSR

1) You stumble across this book see?  Commonly called the Bible ...

Ummm no.  The bible is not a is a collection of books
2) You hear some fundies claiming that it's supernatural, so you investigate
by investigate do you mean that you instantly believe them?

3) After a thorough investigation, you agree
Why?  Because you found absolutely no errors?
Because the books of the bible reveal secrets to you?
Because it says so?
(i think you went with "because it says so"

4) You conclude from your examination of the evidence that this book is supernatural ... superintended by a Supernatural God, who apparently created all things

How do you come to this conclusion?
Torah only?
Or did you use portions of the new testament?

5) The Bible claims to be inerrant

Where does each book claim to be inerrant?
Where does it even claim to be inerrant at all?

6) There are many claims in the Bible which cannot be proven, but there are many which can

True, but their are many claims in "The Da Vinci code" which can be proven, but many more that cannot

7) Considering the huge amount of statements which can be proven and which HAVE BEEN proven to be true, you conclude that the Bible's claims to be infallible just might be true

This is flawed logic.  "The Da Vinci Code" claims to be based on solid facts, and many of its claims are proveable it must be true too?

No circularity.  Just logic.

Nope, your right.  No ciruclar reasoning.
Just horrible, horrible, horrible logic.

AFDave I speak to you not as an atheist, or a non-believer.
I fully believe in a God.  I believe that He is all powerful and grand.
I, however, draw the line at attributing work to his name.
What modern fundamentalist Christians have done is nothing short of blasphemy!!!
I think the action is horrible...and I attack it not to destroy your worldview, but to save you from the embarassment and shame of so blatantly offending God.

Date: 2006/07/26 06:10:37, Link
Author: PuckSR
Flowering plants and many small animals are even more vulnerable to large climatic changes. Because most plants and animals did not become extinct with the dinosaurs, “climatic change” theories for dinosaur extinctions are weakened.

1.  Dinosaurs are WTF?
2.  Plants are NOT more sensitive to climatic change.  A living plant is more vulnerable.  A seed or bulb, however, is incredibly resilient.
3.  So, you start off this long post with a lie.  Small animals did not survive while dinosaurs died.  Dinosaurs(unarguably) were large and small animals.
Many of them died, a few survived.  Some of those that survived are VERY dinosaur-like.  Some that died are not dinosaur-like at all.

So....before discussing ANY of the finer points of your ridiculous need to address this blatant lie.
Plants=MORE resilient to climate change and catastrophe.
If you hadnt plagarized most of might have caught it.

Date: 2006/07/26 06:46:06, Link
Author: PuckSR
Not being a psychologist, I ask the members of this forum a question...

Has a study ever been conducted of religious zealots to try and understand the phenomenom?

AFDave may, as crazy as it seems, be right with his "theory".
However, his presentation and explanation are completely invalid.
He, however, continues.  He is completely oblivious to the fact that his "theory" may be correct, but that his explanation and proof are incorrect.

Why do religious zealots connect the validity of their idea with the validity of their arguments?
I have frequently "known" something is correct without being able to validly prove it.  When i did attempt to make an argument for my position, I admitted the error of my arguments without invalidating my belief.

Do you realize that your belief(creationism) could still be perfectly true even if we reject ALL of your arguments?
Do you realize that your are connecting your arguments with your belief....and for some strange reason requiring that the truth of one is connected with the other?

Date: 2006/07/26 08:31:20, Link
Author: PuckSR
AS PuckSR points out, you could be completely wrong about everything you claim in your "creator god hypothesis" (and you are), but that would say nothing about whether God does or does not exist. Your 6,000 year old earth, your flood, your Noah and his ark, your creation myth, your Biblical inerrancy—all that crap is utterly, thoroughly, irretrievably wrong. But that says nothing whatsoever as to whether God exists or not.

He could even be right about Noah, the flood, 6000 year old earth, creation, biblical inerrancy.....
His explanations and "evidence" is wrong.  Now, if it is proveable...then AFDave may just need to seek out better proofs...
Or...maybe it isnt proveable....but it could still be correct.

The problem is that Dave will defend EVERYTHING connected with his belief.
Dave believes that a global flood occured.
Now, lets pretend for a moment that AFDave is correct.
**Dave...this is actually how open-minded works***
Is his claim about the grand canyon obviously being better explained by flood theory correct?  No!!!
Is his claim that anything that killed the dinosaurs should have killed plants correct?  NO!!!
Is his explanation of "Water shooting up from the ground..enough to cover the earth" correct?  NO!!!!

Does this mean that the biblical story of Noah's Flood is false?  No.
It doesnt mean anything.
Now, alternative evidence such as the long fossil record, ice core dating, radiometric dating, erosion, plate tectonics, star light, etc.  might lead one to believe that most of Dave's claims are wrong....
but the refutation of his "evidence" for his claims does not prove the opposite.
Why is Dave so attached to his "evidence".

I believe in evolution....but if i claim that human fetuses are exactly the same as ant proof of evolution...everyone would laugh.
I would be completely wrong in my claim....
But evolution is still very true, even if my "evidence" is horribly wrong.

Dave, the people on this site are not attacking your beliefs much as they are attacking your insane and false claims to try and justify your beliefs.

I get the distinct feeling that AFDave is the type of person who needs evidence for his beliefs(a very rational perspective)....however, since AFDave has already decided on his belief without evidence....he now needs to find evidence to validate his belief.
The problem is that no solid, quality evidence exists to validate his belief.  Of course, his belief may still be correct, but lacking in evidence.

I wish for you to answer a question Dave.....
If we can prove to you(hypothetically) that Evolution is true and that Creationism is false, based on the evidence....would you change your mind?
I am sure you will say "Yes"...

Date: 2006/07/26 11:48:14, Link
Author: PuckSR
Hey Eric ... Have you ever seen a quark?  How do you know they exist?  What do you consider to be good evidence to prove to you that they do exist?

You prove a quark exists experimentally.  While you may not be able to "see" a can "observe a quark".
This is very similiar to the classic "God is like the wind" argument.  
The problem is that human understanding of quarks and the wind is all based on observable data.  You dont necessarily have to "see" something to observe the data.

You never answered my question though Dave...
If we could PROVE to you that Creationism is false, and that we are correct....
Would you change your belief?
or would you continue to hold onto your belief, and simply suggest that God in his infinite power could have created the world exactly as described in the bible....and only made it "look" like it is billions of years old.

Date: 2006/07/26 14:03:48, Link
Author: PuckSR
We have much observable data that you don't necessarily "see" to prove that God exists.

You do not see it, you do not observe it.
Let me explain.....
Can you see electrons?  No
Can you prove electrons exist? Yes
How, by observing their interaction with other "things.
Now, observe in this case does not mean "visually observe".

Your "observable data" for God is not direct evidence for God.
It is not even indirect is casual assumption that is extremely subjective.

Anyone with an adequate understanding of physics can prove to himself that electrons exist.
Anyone with an adequate understanding of physics and some expensive equipment can prove that quarks exist.

How will you prove God exists?
If i throw a ball up in the air...will God catch it?
That would be indirect evidence for God...
If God was visible while catching the ball...that would be direct evidence for God.

Pointing at the stars in the sky and saying "wow...that must have been God" is not proof of God.
Aquinas, Descartes, and others have actually done "proofs of God".  They might be flawed, they might be debated...but at least they attempted to logically prove God.

Dave, your returning to some mythological definition of God...
You disgust me...I cannot believe that you call yourself a Christian.
Claiming to know the nature of God---blasphemy
Restricting God to the definition of men---insulting
How can you sleep at night, knowing that you have lied?
Knowing that you have lied and committed blasphemy?

Date: 2006/07/28 05:47:02, Link
Author: PuckSR
Historical, John the Apostle.  Often thought to have been redacted (possibley more than once).  If the late dating of the book is correct then John would likely not be the author.  Also claims that anacronistic portions of text indicate that the author did not have 1st hand knowledge of the events.

The problem with John the Apostle writing John is the fact that from all external information....John the Apostle was illiterate.  This wouldnt completely void his authorship, since he obviously could have dictated the text, but given the text's rather eloquent seems highly unlikely that an illiterate fisherman wrote the "best written" Gospel of the Bible.

Also...I agree with your claims that his information seems to be drastically different than the information presented by Peter via scholars.

Aftershave ... no, I'm NOT sorry I said the NKJV is not without errors.  I'm quite sure it has a few.  This has no bearing on the concept of inerrancy of the originals.  Get a clue.  Go back and do your remedial reading.

1.  We will NEVER find the originals.  I can say with a great deal of confidence that if the originals were not preserved as "relics" that we will most certainly NEVER find them.
2.  Many scholars argue that the concept of "originals" is invalid.  Most writers make "drafts" of their works.  Which "draft" is the original?
Do we consider the 1st draft the original?
Do we consider the final draft as original?
????? guys really need to quit referring to the scripture of the Jewish people as the "Old Testament".  Depending on the "Old Testament" that you are using...the books contained within vary. matter which Old Testament you use....the Christian old Testament is very different from the Jewish scriptures.

Jesus normally "confirmed" the Torah....not the "OT".
He might also have "confirmed" the validity of other Jewish scripture....but it was entirely seperate.
When Jesus claimed the validity of the Torah...he was not claiming the validity of the entire Old matter who is interpreting his statements.

This same argument can be used to defuse most idiot-Christian claims.
When a passage in Revelations claims inerrancy...that does not extend to the entire New Testament....since all of the books are seperate works.
When Paul confirms the accuracy of Christian Scripture...he is also not referring to the current New Testament....since it hadnt even been compiled yet.

The confusion is almost entirely based around the concept of "THE BIBLE".  Fundamentalist Christians with very poor educations decided in the 1850's that "THE BIBLE" was one book.  This was encouraged by long standing Christian traditions.  

If you ever want to observe the stupidity of mid 19th century fundies...simply read the book of mormon.  Joseph Smith was a 19th century fundie...
Which explains why he thought that Native Americans had:
Steel, horses, pigs, cows, goats, etc.
Actually the entire book of Mormon is an exercise in historical and scientific ignorance.

Date: 2006/07/28 12:53:31, Link
Author: PuckSR

There's a great essay by Hampton Sides about Mormons excitedly going on archaeological digs looking for evidence of those things, and coming back with their faiths shaken. 'Course, there are also AFDave types, who are oblivious and unshakeable.

Dont get me started on Mormons....
At least Fundie Christians have something to stand on.
Their faith is based on texts written thousands of years ago...and the origins and originals have been lost...they can blame mistakes on "missing" data.
Mormons have claimed INSANE things...that are easily proveable...and have failed to prove any of their unique claims.(Any of their claims that were not confirmed by general knowledge at that time....)

Date: 2006/08/22 01:15:29, Link
Author: PuckSR
This thread should probably have been started by some remarkably stupid comment or article somewhere...

However, I am lazy...

Reading AFDave's ramblings, I am reminded of a problem that goes far beyond the ramblings of Creationist idiots.
When did it become acceptable for people to redefine words to better suit their position?

Maybe this all happened when Bill Clinton redefined the term "sex" to only be applicable to vaginal intercourse.
Maybe it happened earlier, I just dont know.

I've watched Fundies change words like "religion", "evidence", "proof", "intelligent", etc....
They started doing it with more than words, they have started doing it with general concepts.  How many times has Bill Dembski blogged about something that should obviously(even if you're an IDer) run counter to his argument...yet he makes it his own?

In the past, scientific debate was always careful and considerate presentation of evidence.  Now Science vs. Religion debates are disgusting shouting matches.  

The worst offenders have to be the biblical literalists.  I dont hold a personal grudge against their beliefs, but how many old, thoroughly debunked arguments can one group make?

AFDave...for shame....
You plan on presenting your "belief" to children.
Why do I get the feeling that you will use your position of authority to force your "beliefs"(especially those unsupported by anything that you can even pretend is evidence) onto those unfortunate children?

Date: 2006/12/27 22:14:49, Link
Author: PuckSR
It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.

That makes a lot of sense....
North American Native people did not develop a written language until AFTER europeans they most likely didnt exist until Europeans arrived????????
That is just horribly, horribly, horribly, horribly dumb....

Even you have to admit that Native Americans existed for a couple of centuries before the Europeans arrived....but they lacked a written language....

Then, when Europeans arrived AND SHOWED THEM HOW TO BE LITERATE....only 1 tribe developed a written form of its language....

Did it ever occur to you that pre-historic man didnt have any need for literacy....
Especially considering that until recently....only a small minority of the population was literate?

Date: 2006/12/28 21:39:32, Link
Author: PuckSR
To dgszweda---

I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.

You hold a minor in mathematics.....
I hold a BS in mathematics
But hopefully you understand a bit of physics too.....

How did the light from the stars reach Earth?
a) God created the stars...and the light got here
FLAWED...since many stars are millions of light years away
b) God created the light
FLAWED....Light is if we are seeing star light that didnt originate from the stars...then God is purposefully deceiving us and making us believe that the stars exist
c) God increased the speed of light
FLAWED...besides wrecking havoc on other natural would violate the laws of nature

Explain to me the problem of light from stars that are far away....
Either God is a LIAR...or you are wrong

Date: 2006/12/29 11:02:32, Link
Author: PuckSR
The age of the Grand Canyon is a historical question and it so happens that the historical Book of Genesis (which you seem to view as strictly a religious book) has an account of the Global Flood of Noah, which, it turns out, explains the GC formation quite readily.

Do most history books begin by giving two different histories?

Doesnt almost EVERY history book mention where it got it resources and who wrote it?
Sorry....I forget....but who wrote genesis(and before you tell me going to have to show me where it claims that(preferably from the Torah)

Even a Jewish scholar will tell you that Genesis is not a "history" book....your going to have to go further ahead into the Old Testament before you get some "historical" documents....

BTW....even if Genesis is a "history book"....
It doesnt explain the grand canyon.....
Unless Noah was in North America at the time....

Date: 2006/12/31 18:43:56, Link
Author: PuckSR
Dear Dave,

I was recently trying to find some entertainment for a New Year's Eve party.  Your particular brand of humor might be amusing to several of my friends.

It would be a rather simple performance.  All of my friends who have either recently graduated or will soon graduate with degrees in any of the topics you seem to believe yourself a layman "expert" in would get drunk and try to debate you.

The rules would be simple.
1.  Each grad would speak to you one-on-one.
2.  Every time someone tried to explain a 'basic' error in your ideas....and obviously failed...the other participants would drink
3.  Every time a grad accepted a false claim of yours, but was later corrected by one of the other participants...the foolish person would have to drink.
4.  If someone failed to explain a complex and elaborate topic to you, no one would have to drink...unless
   a) You somehow managed to distort both reality and reason and made a comment that boggled the mind
or  b)  You refused to accept that the complex topic existed to AT ALL
5.  If someone actually succeeded in explaining to you the fallacy of ANY of your many flawed lines of reasoning or scientific understanding.....well....we all know that it will never happen.

If it is at all possible that you could attend the party we would all be very pleased.  

Happy New Year

Date: 2008/06/26 19:11:42, Link
Author: PuckSR
All of this fun is almost enough to get me posting again

Date: 2008/06/26 19:24:21, Link
Author: PuckSR
I haven't been on this forum in a long time.  In fact, I haven't been on many forums in a long time.  I haven't checked uncommondescent in years.  I also have strongly avoided the topic of Intelligent Design/Creationism in regular life.


I almost failed out of college.
It wasn't drugs, video games, drinking, or sex.
It wasn't stupidity or laziness.
It was Creationism.

I became wrapped up in arguing with those idiots.  I posted to blogs and websites.  I attended lectures(on ID and creationism) and "special study groups"(Christian study groups).  I learned more about biology than an Electrical Engineer ever should.  I broke up with one girlfriend and started dating a biologist.  I let my studies slip, and I angered some of the faculty at my University who were devoutly religious individuals.  My grades were mediocre and my popularity with my professors was waining.
(I might be exaggerating a little.  In fact, I might be exaggerating a lot)

I had to completely disconnect myself from the argument.  I put aside books like "Misquoting Jesus" and ignored "Expelled".  I joined forums on topics like Linux and Math.  I even quit visiting my aunt(a diehard Creationist).  It wasn't that I hated creationists, but I had started this journey with the opinion that most people are generally intelligent.  I assumed that creationists were simply brainwashed individuals.  I learned that it wasn't true.  It drove me almost insane until I took a break.

It all helped, and a lot of thought and meditation got me back to relaxing.

The moral of my story?
Don't let it get to you.  There are people in this world that are dumber than you can imagine.  If you let them bother you, you will go insane.  It might be relatively simple for someone to go lookup "WD-40" on the internet and find that it isn't "fish oil", but you aren't going to be able to convince some people of that truth.
You might know, from research and experience, that evolution is a observed natural phenomenon...but you won't be able to convince some people of that fact

Just let it slide.
Ignore the idiots and let it slide.
Just step in and stop someone if they think they can drink WD-40  ;)

Date: 2008/06/26 20:29:18, Link
Author: PuckSR
Yeah, that is where I basically got...

If someone is honestly confused, I might try to correct them...but as soon as I realize that they are insane, I have to start mocking them.

The really bad thing is that now it is hard to read a lot of these forums.  I try to remain apathetic, and that provides very little motivation for wading through all of the drivel.