Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :) - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2006, 04:39 PM   #151
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

I'd like there to be a mention of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for 30 seconds of one biology class. After all, when they spawn, the world's most beautiful child may be born. This is surely grounded in genetics.

And I never, NEVER see any ID proponent asking we include the Hindu theory of the cycles of destruction and creation in a biology class. Talk about thinly veiled intentions.
Talking about Brangelina is not forbidden in biology class.

Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.
__________________

__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:44 PM   #152
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.


this is because Hindu's don't walk around claiming that their religious beliefs are as scientifically legitimate as evolutionary theory and demand that science recognize their supernatural beliefs as something equivalent to centuries of scientific inquiry and then sob about "religious discrimination" whenever scientists and educators and judges point out the fact that superstition has no place in a science class.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:47 PM   #153
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


this is because Hindu's don't walk around claiming that their religious beliefs are as scientifically legitimate as evolutionary theory and demand that science recognize their supernatural beliefs as something equivalent to centuries of scientific inquiry and then sob about "religious discrimination" whenever scientists and educators and judges point out the fact that superstition has no place in a science class.
Again, again, again - there is no need to stereotype. That's just rude, sorry.

It's tiresome and juvenile, imo.

Furthermore, I was answering anitram, whose question wasn't about THE HINDUS. It was about ID proponents, which is a totally different angle than your response.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:51 PM   #154
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.
It is a strawman argument. ID is not discussed directly, it is associated with Christianity. Then, to further avoid ID, we add pluralism with the "you should then teach all other religions" argument.

The science behind ID is thus avoided.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:56 PM   #155
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


Again, again, again - there is no need to stereotype. That's just rude, sorry.

It's tiresome and juvenile, imo.

Furthermore, I was answering anitram, whose question wasn't about THE HINDUS. It was about ID proponents, which is a totally different angle than your response.


please show me another religious group in this country that demands -- through lawsuits -- the inclusion of their religious creation myths in scientific curriculum, and then speaks about intolerance when their demands aren't met.

i think you need to step back and realize that no one is talking about all Christians. we are, however, talking about those who are very visible in the media and make their living through ID agitprop. are you aware of the various organizations and pressure groups such as the Discovery Institute -- who's goals are "to defeat materialism" and the "materialist world view" as represented by evolution, and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" -- that constitute the backbone of the ID movement? perhaps you should read up on those.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:58 PM   #156
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader




The science behind ID is thus avoided.
What science is behind ID?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:00 PM   #157
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:42 PM
See, you missed it.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:03 PM   #158
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The science behind ID is thus avoided.


this is because there is no science behind ID to begin with.

the movement is based upon the discrediting of evolution, not the promotion of the "science" behind ID. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."

perhaps ID proponants might find comfort in this statement from the ruling:

[q]"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:04 PM   #159
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:42 PM
So the court bought the evolution dogma.

It is still based on circular reasoning.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:06 PM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
So the court bought the evolution dogma.

It is still based on circular reasoning.


i have so much respect for your brainpower, it really disappoints me to read things like this.

i suppose all scientific theories are just dogma and are no more verifiable or falsifiable than the fact that i believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:14 PM   #161
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:42 PM
The conservative Christian Judge appointed by GW Bush ruled that ID is nothing less than advocating the supernatural.

Science deals in provable theories and facts.

Supernatural beliefs should not be taught in science classes.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:26 PM   #162
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

No, it can't be proven. The burden of proof is on ID to prove that it is true, not the other way around. If you want to learn ID, read a book on your own time or formulate a Sunday school class at your church.
All this talk, not just from you, melon, so I'm clear . . . but from all who equate "science" with "proof" for the reason ID should not be DISCUSSED in school . . . if this is the reasoning, then NOTHING should be taught in science class.

NOTHING is proven beyond question.

It's like someone else already said (A_Wanderer, maybe? Can't remember who) . . . even scientific ideas are constantly revised. And melon, you agreed (as I do, too) that 'science' is a living thing.

Evolution ISN'T AN INFALLIBLE TEACHING.
It's just the most widely embraced one within the scientific community, who is, frankly, already averse to consider what can not be touched, even if it COULD be proven.
(which, as already established, it's not supposed to be . . . thus the vicious cycle of "then why in the classroom v. why not" this thread seems to have become.)

Which, incidentally, my apologies to iron_horse for us totally derailing the thread
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:32 PM   #163
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

NOTHING is proven beyond question.


you really don't understand the terms of the argument.

it's not what is and what isn't proved that determins science.

it is HOW things are verified and/or falsified that determins what is and what isn't considered science.

there's a thing called the scientific method. the supernatural cannot be examined with the scientific method. hence, it is not science.

please, understand the subject first before you criticize.

all your thoughts are perfectly applicable if one were to debate, say, in a Philosophy of Science class, or a Theology Class.

but don't for a minute sit there and think that ID is science.

it isn't. even it's proponants will admit that. ID is a scheme to lend scientific credibility to creationist superstitions.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:40 PM   #164
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s



proven beyond question.

It's like someone else already said (A_Wanderer, maybe? Can't remember who) . . . even scientific ideas are constantly revised. And melon, you agreed (as I do, too) that 'science' is a living thing.




when science theories do not prove out

Science is quick to discard and accept the new provable theory

if Religion were treated as a "living thing" it would serve its adherents much better
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:45 PM   #165
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


when science theories do not prove out

Science is quick to discard and accept the new provable theory

if Religion were treated as a "living thing" it would serve its adherents much better
SO, then plenty of "science" is not science.

Because if, as you state above, science theories can "not prove out," and are then replaced with more provable theories, those initial theories are not science.

So why were they in a science class?

I mean, let's ask . . . if a scientist doesn't have faith in God, but he were led to check into the possibility of God's existence, because he's a scientist, then what, it's science?

But when he can't find anything, it's not?

Then what was he doing?

Do unproven theories have a place in science, then?
Because even with "God's existence" as a theory, must an attempt to prove it take place before it's decided, in the scientific community, that it's UNPROVABLE?

I mean, a scientist is not going to take the word of a believer who says "you can't prove it, anyway," is he?

Isn't he going to try?
__________________

__________________
got2k9s is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com