Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 28, 2008 1:05:15 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 28, 2008 9:25:49 GMT -5
Now that one is pretty damn funny. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Aug 28, 2008 9:34:14 GMT -5
This is what bugs me about these arguments. It's like getting a shoebox-sized birthday gift and saying "Oh it's shoes." Then you shake it and it jingles. Now it can't be shoes so you say "Oh it must be a pony." Nah, this argument's more like you get a shoebox-sized birthday gift and you say "Oh it's shoes!" Then you open the present and it turns out they're sandals, so your older brother laughs at you for a week that you didn't know the difference between shoes and sandals. Hifi conceded at the outset that for all practical purposes, he pretty much believes in evolution, at least the core tenets of the theory, and that he remains open to the validity of the whole kit and kaboodle, including the extremely plausible but thus far poorly evidenced elements of the theory. Because he doesn't drink the Kool-Aid 100% though, he's still a knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing Creationist. Huzzah! I really love the fact that so many people think their obvious intellectual superiority entitles them to force their personal belief systems on others. It bodes very well for November ;D |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 28, 2008 10:32:06 GMT -5
This is ridiculous. Let's say evolution isn't right. It sure doesn't mean creationism is or can be supported by any facts. This is what bugs me about these arguments. It's like getting a shoebox-sized birthday gift and saying "Oh it's shoes." Then you shake it and it jingles. Now it can't be shoes so you say "Oh it must be a pony." It takes non-logic to the incredible new heights: Absence of evidence supporting part of another theory validates my completely unsupported hypothesis. You must have confused some of my posts with those from another. At no point have I proposed creationism. At no point have I tried to convince anyone else in favor of creationism. In fact the only time I ever even mentioned it was in the context that intelligent design requires faith, which could loosely be worded as confidence in that which is not seen/known. Maybe someone else was out there preaching creationism, but it certainly wasn't me. Furthermore, I have said repeatedly in this and other threads, that I pretty much try to stay away from religious debates because of the emotional and sensitive nature of the topic. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 28, 2008 10:33:44 GMT -5
This is what bugs me about these arguments. It's like getting a shoebox-sized birthday gift and saying "Oh it's shoes." Then you shake it and it jingles. Now it can't be shoes so you say "Oh it must be a pony." Nah, this argument's more like you get a shoebox-sized birthday gift and you say "Oh it's shoes!" Then you open the present and it turns out they're sandals, so your older brother laughs at you for a week that you didn't know the difference between shoes and sandals. Hifi conceded at the outset that for all practical purposes, he pretty much believes in evolution, at least the core tenets of the theory, and that he remains open to the validity of the whole kit and kaboodle, including the extremely plausible but thus far poorly evidenced elements of the theory. Because he doesn't drink the Kool-Aid 100% though, he's still a knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing Creationist. Huzzah! I really love the fact that so many people think their obvious intellectual superiority entitles them to force their personal belief systems on others. It bodes very well for November ;D I love how "accepting scientific evidence" is now "drinking the Kool Aide". You're right, it does say a lot about November. Hopefully truthiness won't prevail. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 28, 2008 11:41:06 GMT -5
Nah, this argument's more like you get a shoebox-sized birthday gift and you say "Oh it's shoes!" Then you open the present and it turns out they're sandals, so your older brother laughs at you for a week that you didn't know the difference between shoes and sandals. Hifi conceded at the outset that for all practical purposes, he pretty much believes in evolution, at least the core tenets of the theory, and that he remains open to the validity of the whole kit and kaboodle, including the extremely plausible but thus far poorly evidenced elements of the theory. Because he doesn't drink the Kool-Aid 100% though, he's still a knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing Creationist. Huzzah! I really love the fact that so many people think their obvious intellectual superiority entitles them to force their personal belief systems on others. It bodes very well for November ;D I love how "accepting scientific evidence" is now "drinking the Kool Aide". You're right, it does say a lot about November. Hopefully truthiness won't prevail. You still don't get it. "Accepting scientific evidence" ... you are doing the exact same thing that you kept falsely accusing me of doing. If someone doesn't agree with you then they are just a fool. Implicitly you are saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong unless they agree with you because you are accepting scientific evidence, while anyone who disagrees with you is not. As for your link, the author tries to suggest that he has assorted evidence for macroevolution. In actuality, that is a rather generous conclusion on his part. Essentially, the bases for his conclusion are: There is a genetic makeup that is unique to "life." There are similarities in structure between different species. "Life" got progressively more complex through time. The level of complexity in the development of the life was caused, among other things, out of need. There is nothing wrong with his analysis thusfar, but jumping from that point to his conclusion that all life must have evolved on its own from the simplest life form is nothing more than an opinion. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. But if someone holds a different belief, he is hardly denying scientific evidence. Incidentally, did you notice that many of the quotes which I listed came from many of the very same sources which he referenced in his paper -- Gould, Ayre etc... ? He references them as "experts" in the field. I reference them as individuals which acknowledge that there are questions that at this point in time are not totally consistent with macroevolutionary theory. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 28, 2008 17:18:31 GMT -5
This is ridiculous. Let's say evolution isn't right. It sure doesn't mean creationism is or can be supported by any facts. This is what bugs me about these arguments. It's like getting a shoebox-sized birthday gift and saying "Oh it's shoes." Then you shake it and it jingles. Now it can't be shoes so you say "Oh it must be a pony." It takes non-logic to the incredible new heights: Absence of evidence supporting part of another theory validates my completely unsupported hypothesis. You must have confused some of my posts with those from another. At no point have I proposed creationism. At no point have I tried to convince anyone else in favor of creationism. In fact the only time I ever even mentioned it was in the context that intelligent design requires faith, which could loosely be worded as confidence in that which is not seen/known. Maybe someone else was out there preaching creationism, but it certainly wasn't me. Furthermore, I have said repeatedly in this and other threads, that I pretty much try to stay away from religious debates because of the emotional and sensitive nature of the topic. But this is the problem. Remember this gem: "Finally, the only point all along is that there are still a lot of unknown and uncertain areas. Thus blind belief in evolution -- specifically macro evolution -- takes faith. That has been the whole point all along. You refuse to acknowledge that much, even though you keep proving that very point." Uh, no it doesn't. Not the faith intelligent design takes at least. This is my point with the shoebox comparison. You can reasonably assume it is shoes. That's not faith, just because you don't know precisely what's in the box. It's a reasonable assumption based on the evidence. Now lets say "shoes" is disproven or at least there is evidence it is incorrect. You can adjust. But "intelligent design" does not have evidence supporting it. In the face of facts, it STILL never gets updated. Put it this way, what would disprove intelligent design? Seriously. This isn't about "intellectual superiority" this is about what can be proven. If you believe a being is responsible for the start of life, cool. But if you want to teach it in school, I need tested evidence of a) said being b) that it has control over the design of organisms and c) that it has a plan and design that has been adhered to. You don't need everything, just enough that it is reasonable. Personally, I don't think it is god's design. I think it was a guy named Walter with the head of an antelope who has periods of life and death that alternate every 47 years. He's a stamp collector mainly but his bizarre gift of omnipotence lends him to design organisms from time to time. So life came to be through what I call "walter's hobby." Nobody knows how he himself came to be, but I believe he created life. I'm off to the elementary school to protest Walter not getting the credit he deserves. |
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Aug 28, 2008 19:09:11 GMT -5
Walter is a good and benevolent Walter.
Do you have an address to which I can send my tithe?
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Aug 28, 2008 21:28:18 GMT -5
You must have confused some of my posts with those from another. At no point have I proposed creationism. At no point have I tried to convince anyone else in favor of creationism. In fact the only time I ever even mentioned it was in the context that intelligent design requires faith, which could loosely be worded as confidence in that which is not seen/known. Maybe someone else was out there preaching creationism, but it certainly wasn't me. Furthermore, I have said repeatedly in this and other threads, that I pretty much try to stay away from religious debates because of the emotional and sensitive nature of the topic. But this is the problem. Remember this gem: "Finally, the only point all along is that there are still a lot of unknown and uncertain areas. Thus blind belief in evolution -- specifically macro evolution -- takes faith. That has been the whole point all along. You refuse to acknowledge that much, even though you keep proving that very point." Uh, no it doesn't. Not the faith intelligent design takes at least. This is my point with the shoebox comparison. You can reasonably assume it is shoes. That's not faith, just because you don't know precisely what's in the box. It's a reasonable assumption based on the evidence. Now lets say "shoes" is disproven or at least there is evidence it is incorrect. You can adjust. But "intelligent design" does not have evidence supporting it. In the face of facts, it STILL never gets updated. Put it this way, what would disprove intelligent design? Seriously. This isn't about "intellectual superiority" this is about what can be proven. If you believe a being is responsible for the start of life, cool. But if you want to teach it in school, I need tested evidence of a) said being b) that it has control over the design of organisms and c) that it has a plan and design that has been adhered to. You don't need everything, just enough that it is reasonable. Personally, I don't think it is god's design. I think it was a guy named Walter with the head of an antelope who has periods of life and death that alternate every 47 years. He's a stamp collector mainly but his bizarre gift of omnipotence lends him to design organisms from time to time. So life came to be through what I call "walter's hobby." Nobody knows how he himself came to be, but I believe he created life. I'm off to the elementary school to protest Walter not getting the credit he deserves. That's utterly preposterous. His name is Albert not Walter. Heathen. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 10:48:07 GMT -5
Giga, OK, I see your point. Given that I used the word "faith" it was somewhat reasonable that I was in some way preaching creationism. I wasn't, but I can see how you made that incorrect assumption. Now that we have cleared that up, I can't help but notice the deafening silence regarding the issue at hand. Yep, there they are ... right there ... quotes from reputable sources, even evolutionists themselves, that point out the exact same concerns that I have mentioned all along. The bottom line is we don't know what happened. We can try and guess using what information is available, but that is all we are doing. Guessing, educated guessing, hypothosizing, theorizing etc... As long as that much is clear, then it is fine. It is when macroevolution is taught alongside the proven sciences, that I take a bit of issue. Even if it is taught in the form of "at this point, our best guess is such and such ..." then that is fine. When it is taught as certainty with just a few holes that we have yet to fill, that is entirely different. When you take it the next step, and insist that such concerns are invalid, then I'm obligated to state otherwise. The icing on the cake was that some of the quotes were from the exact same sources that Bando referenced in the flawed attempt to validate his point.
I think we have covered this adequately now.
Incidentally, that story about Walter was a riot, but Healy was right: his name was Albert. Speaking of Albert, Gator football starts in just over 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Aug 29, 2008 11:37:08 GMT -5
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Aug 29, 2008 11:39:55 GMT -5
Too be fair, she does not support adding creationism to public school curriculum.
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 12:07:16 GMT -5
That's a great point Healy and I think that gets back to a point that Boz made a few pages back. It is beneficial to ask how, and encouraging discussions in the classroom is somewhat of a forgotten practice in too many classes. Open discussions where people give different views can certainly be incorporated into this arena. It doesn't mean that we call into question that which we know. In other words, we don't start denying gravity or the sort. But there can be a happy medium. I guess maybe the difference could be the semantical difference between "requiring," "allowing" and "disallowing." In my opinion, you don't "require" such discussions, nor do you "disallow" them.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Aug 29, 2008 12:54:05 GMT -5
Yeah, ok. I was really just trying to provide accurate information regarding Palin's position so that readers got the full story. Personally, I think creationism, like much of this thread, is silly.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 13:24:35 GMT -5
I am not endorsing any specific position. I just think that when we don't know for sure, we shouldn't act like we do. That is the problem. And I think that an open discussion in general is a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2008 13:31:13 GMT -5
I just think that when we don't know for sure, we shouldn't act like we do. That is the problem. We didn't know for sure that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, but we sure acted like we did... |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 29, 2008 13:37:28 GMT -5
I am not endorsing any specific position. I just think that when we don't know for sure, we shouldn't act like we do. That is the problem. And I think that an open discussion in general is a good thing. Indeed. That's why in public school, you don't teach "God did it" when you don't know. You teach what the evidence shows. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 13:39:10 GMT -5
I just think that when we don't know for sure, we shouldn't act like we do. That is the problem. We didn't know for sure that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, but we sure acted like we did... You seem to conveniently forget that EVERYONE thought that. It wasn't some right wing conspiracy theory. I don't need to ge dig up that list of quotes again do I? You remember, the ones with comments from everyone -- from Clinton to Kerry to Ted Kennedy etc... -- all, warning of the dangers of Saddam Hussein and warning against ignoring him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2008 13:44:37 GMT -5
You should've capitalized the word THOUGHT in your post, hifi.
That's the point - we didn't KNOW. But EVERYONE acted like we did...
Funny how your logic argument is so important to you when it supports your position, but not so much when it doesn't.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 14:08:02 GMT -5
Believe it or not, Cam, I will give you that one. That is essentially the same argument I have heard before that while everyone had the same beliefs, it was GWB who chose to act on them. That is a fair enough point to make. But that is a far cry from the "liar" BS that so many people threw around. Also, don't you think that at that point in time, knowing what we then knew with regards to Clinton electing to ignore bin Laden and seeing how tragic that turned out, that maybe that could have motivated a bit more expedient action? Rightly or wrongly, that is certainly a valid point. But as to the danger of Hussein, there was a general consensus from the vast majority covering those on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
