Debate still rages over Darwin

If you would stop saying jokes like 'we get ridiculed for our ideas' you would hear less laughter.

Science, like we've talked about is not about ideas, or the ability to express ideas. It is 1+1=2. If you wish to challenge, then by all means, challenge. If you think saying "I think ..." is a challenge.. Go back to watching American Idol. You have to bring proof to the table. ID has none. It aint science. Its not even a particularly well thought out statement.

So, until ID proponents bring some evidence forth. They get to sit at the kiddie tables whining about ridicule with their intellectual companions "TV's are made to run by pixies!" and "The loch-ness monster was really jack-the-ripper." Theoriests.

I'm sorry to be more mean spirited in this one, but you just can't seem to grasp the point that someone saying 'I believe' means NOTHING.
Please step back for a min and look at the ID 'proof'.

"bananas shaped to fit human hands"...
"oh its just too complex, someone had to make it"...

The one thing that could be said as proof is the extreme irony in who was leading the US. (Bit of adult humor here).. The country was led at one time by: Dick, Bush and Colon and now has a Boehner in the house.

I mean comeon. That just isn't natural.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by prjct
great debate here.....

After watching Expelled a few weeks ago I was struck with the reality that Darwin's ideas are over 150 years.......has not science progressed since then to prove or disprove any of his theories?? If not, why???

hehe that too was explained in the same movie. If you allowed a zero tolerance for the ridicule we have seen given to anyone challenging them you would see more interest in science. It would seem the only ones allowed are avowed atheists these days and consequently, why their are so many now. They would have us think this is a virtue of their Atheistic ideology. I think it has more to do with the defense of their worldly ways but to each his own. I quit arguing once I see them using the "given enough time" excuse and the "vestigal" canard so effectively debunked so many times I am sick of repeating it much less hearing the ridicule that always goes along with it.

Originally posted by lordtyp0


Your confusion makes me giggle.
I didn't make any references to fossils aside from posting a link in reply to someone else. My stance is that ID isn't science. I would LOVE for there to be some proof of the divine. But alas: There is none aside from "I prayed for this toy to be at the store.. and it was! GOD IS REAL!" type evidence.

Made you giggle did it. mmmm ok

I never said YOU made referance to any fossil. I was just speaking metaphorically using it as an analogy. Perhaps it wasn't the best but it was the best I could think of off the cuff. The rest of your post is more of the same and just sugar coated ridicule.

ho hum it really is a waste of both our time isn't then. If you had impressed me you are MORE intelligent rather then attempting to prove I am less intelliegent by belittling others this way. I may have felt you had something of value to add as i am as curious and as intersted in science as you and if I cared to use persuasion in an effort to change your mind I would. It isn't your mind that has to change to begin to understand this or anything else you might otherwise discover has value.

It is your heart



By the smug look on the face of the cartoon character in your avatar,

it suits you

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Aermacchi ,

I just wanted to say I have been really enjoying this thread, please don't take anything Ive said personally as I definitely do not mean for it to be read in that manner.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Aermacchi ,

I just wanted to say I have been really enjoying this thread, please don't take anything Ive said personally as I definitely do not mean for it to be read in that manner.

Thank you, I stand corrected and all apologies of course accepted as i hope mine are too

reply to post by Aermacchi


"By the smug look on the face of the cartoon character in your avatar,

it suits you"

Lol... should watch the venture brothers, it is all about crushed dreams and failure. Mean spirited yet light hearted at the same time. Pure comedic gold.

Suits indeed.

Going to mosey on to other threads, maybe a nice planet X/ 2012 one. I find myself staring in awe at the donuts the logic spins.

ID is Not creationism or religion. Those that call it such are purposely making false inferences in order to create larger bias against it.

Originally posted by atoms.2008

ID is Not creationism or religion. Those that call it such are purposely making false inferences in order to create larger bias against it.

I disagree, and here is the proof.



Have fun.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

"By the smug look on the face of the cartoon character in your avatar,

it suits you"

Lol... should watch the venture brothers, it is all about crushed dreams and failure. Mean spirited yet light hearted at the same time. Pure comedic gold.

Suits indeed.

Going to mosey on to other threads, maybe a nice planet X/ 2012 one. I find myself staring in awe at the donuts the logic spins.

I will check out this "venture" thing. I didn't know there was such a show. The face on that guy reminds me of ( age clue here ) the character on the flintstones named the great cahzoo. He had this sarcastic tone and always referred to fred and barney as "dum dum". He was a martian and of course had much more intelligence than the residents of bedrock. Albeit his sarcasm was meant to establish his character, he was a decent sort of creature. In the end he was always only trying to help.

The 2012 planet x threads have never captivated my interest all that much. Most likely because much of it i do not believe. Like the reptillian threads I think are mmmm too far out for me to take serious to believe.

It is also why I don't frequent them and argue with anyone who does.

This thread notwithstanding, it is why I always wondered why Atheist websites are so preoccupied with so much of what they say is far out and too ridiculous to believe. When I say they are actively disbelieving in God it amazes me they get irritated and insist they don't believe.

That is one of those things i giggle at.

Not that I think they are wrong, but that they miss the point about what it means.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by atoms.2008

ID is Not creationism or religion. Those that call it such are purposely making false inferences in order to create larger bias against it.

I disagree, and here is the proof.

Have fun.

Ok ya got me ? what is it lol

reply to post by atoms.2008


ID was a trojan horse to smuggle religeon into the science class, it not religeon per se its philosophy mascerading as science that owes its origins to creationism bieng banned from the class room

if creationism hadnt been banned they wouldnt have had to come up with its third rate poor cousin ID, but as that gets banned time after time at a state level its going the same way but they are smart enough not to appeal it this time as when that fails it get banned from every classroom all over the country in 1 go

it was also a nice ploy to gain a certain ammount of support for those that believe aliens had somthing to do with it but that may be more a by product then intentional, but as soon as it made its way into the class room om sure it would fight back againt the aliens hypotheis.

Originally posted by atoms.2008

ID is Not creationism or religion. Those that call it such are purposely making false inferences in order to create larger bias against it.

You know I feel for the ID people because I know it isn't religion either. The way that dover trial went proves it to me without a doubt. This is why I think ID proponents are angry at religious people who thought if they couldn't get creationism in schools, ID would at least make a better alternative answer to challenge the Darwinists who by their actions have become in and of themselves just as dogmatic and as hateful as any religious zealot I have ever seen. That when that lawyer took the mouse trap and made it a tie clip disproving Irreducible Complexity was as asinine as any scientist in a lab mixing all kinds of chemicals and electrifying this synthesize that yelling muhaa haha ha after I prove life can come from this primordial ooze HA HA I will have PROVEN it happens without ANY intelligence! Completely oblivious to the fact he was playing God or the intelligent player in the whole scenario just like the lawyer did in the trial using his intelligence to decide for what would have been natural selection which has no mind or device to assert what would make a good tie clip much less a good argument against ID.

Yet the reasons for attempting to make it unconstitutional to challenge evolution are well documented by the Judges closing argument in favor of the Darwninists. What is makes the statement stink to high heaven is that 98% of every word he said even down to the objections being over ruled and why, were all written by the same ACLU and given to the judge to use in the trial an entire month before it was over.

Is this legal?

Surprisingly, Yes but whether or not it is reason to exalt this Judge to the lofty praises he has been given is so obvious it turns my stomach.

It is used in a flimsy excuse to claim IR Complexity as a logical fallacy predicated on this same Judges questionable integrity when his bias was as obvious as his lack of understanding for Science in general. I don't buy that BS from Darwinists anymore than I buy into the idea that ID is religion. It isn't, and if it was, i would like to know which one they think it is and then they can tell me which religion God believes.

Now that would be nice to hear that they believe in God so much and know God that well they could share such intimate details of someone or something they have argued all along doesn't exist.






[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Interesting, as I hear tale the pro ID people thought that for political reasons (not merits) they would win that case (because the judge was a Con appointee by bush, etc. etc.).

But because he sided that it wasn't science he has no integrity?

I like the following:

" * Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity and set out the idea in his book Darwin's Black Box.

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible."

Wiki overview

Overview of testimony

Then the whole institute who was scheduled to be defense expert witnesses.. all pulling so they would not have to defend ID under oath.

But remember: Its the Judge who lacks integrity.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Afrosamurai

Did you just make that account for the sole purpose of having the name 'afrosamurai' on a forum?

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

I'll believe in creation when I see the fossilized remains of a 150 million year old African elephant.

Originally posted by Hellish-D
I'll believe in creation when I see the fossilized remains of a 150 million year old African elephant.

rofl,
In the meantime, keep up the faith, deny the whole of creation before it gets out of hand.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Then the whole institute who was scheduled to be defense expert witnesses.. all pulling so they would not have to defend ID under oath.

But remember: Its the Judge who lacks integrity.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

This is sophistry and so typical of what I have always seen where we are to be distracted by minutia of other aspects of the argument.

I can EXPECT a lack of integrity from litigants but NOT from a Judge NONE in fact. So trying to diffuse this by finding fault in those we are expected to find it in the first place and why courts of law were created where lawyers can extrapolate testimony in an attempt to impeach that testimony is what this is all about. The idea that the one person who would preside as the example of impartiality, honesty and integrity above all of us shows he is no better than any used car sales man using a pitch from a sales manual disgusts me. You can argue this all you want and you would only be adding to the suspicion that no matter what the topic is, if it has ANYTHING to do with saying ANYTHING wrong with evolution,,

YOU will make an argument but this one is undeniable and that judge was biased plane and simple. It is just a shame that it costs so much money to appeal because the last one was in the millions they certainly have a case.

The fact is, to those who follow ID, this means nothing and takes away nothing to the fact that neither creationism, ID and evolution should ALL be taken out of science and put into philosophy because that is where they ALL belong.

In December of 2005, defenders of Darwinian evolution hailed federal judge John E.
Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover,1 which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement
about intelligent design (ID) in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since
the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a
“masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence:
ß According to University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert, Jones’
ruling is a “masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking.”2
ß According to pro-Darwin lawyer Ed Darrell, “Jones wrote a masterful decision, a
model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented.”
Indeed, Jones’ ruling is “a model of law... a model of argument... a model of legal
philosophy... [and] a model of integrity of our judicial system.”3
ß According to Scientific American’s editor John Rennie, Jones’ opinion constitutes “an
encyclopedic refutation of I.D.” 4
ß According to plaintiffs’ expert witness, Southeastern Louisiana University
philosopher Barbara Forrest, Judge Jones’ ruling is “a marvel of clarity and
forthrightness.”5
ß According to Time magazine, the ruling made Jones one of “the world’s most
influential people” in the category of “scientists and thinkers.”6
ß According to bloggers at the pro-Darwin Panda’s Thumb website, Jones’ decision is
an important work “of both scholarship and history,”7 and Jones himself is “a topnotch
thinker,”8 “an outstanding thinker,”9 someone who “is as deserving of the title
‘great thinker’ as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of
music criticism.”10
The underlying theme in these comments is that Judge Jones should be recognized for his lucid
analysis and mastery of the factual record, especially when it comes to his determination that
intelligent design is not science.
However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision seriously undercuts the
idea that Judge Jones’ decision was “a masterpiece… of scholarship” produced by “an
outstanding thinker.” It reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of
“whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording
written for him by ACLU attorneys.
In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent
design as science was taken verbatim or virtually verbatim from the proposed “Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones by ACLU attorneys nearly a month
before his ruling.11
Jones essentially cut-and-pasted the ACLU’s wording into his ruling to come
up with his decision. (For examples of Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s wording, see Table A.
For a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of Jones’ language with the language in the ACLU’s
proposed “Findings of Fact,”

Yes it is the Judge and the Judge should be Judged according to how he has judged others lord,. I find it a little disheartening that you of all people wouldn't understand this. Of all people in our society that I believe should be held to a higher standard than scientists who lie a lot and if you don't think so than Ill call YOU a liar also.

The fact is however that what they are saying about behe is also incorrect.

ACLU. The ACLU organized its critique of ID around six main claims, and Judge Jones adopted
an identical outline, discussing the same claims in precisely the same sequence. (For a
comparison between the structure of Jones’ critique of ID and the ACLU’s critique, see Table B.)
In addition, Judge Jones appears to have copied the ACLU’s work uncritically. As a
result, his judicial opinion perpetuated several egregious factual errors originally found in the
ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” For example:
ß Judge Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when confronted with articles
supposedly explaining the evolution of the immune system, replied that these articles
were “not ‘good enough.’”12 In reality, Behe said the exact opposite at trial: “it’s
not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a
different subject.”
13
(emphasis added) The answer cited by Judge Jones came not
from Behe, but from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact,” which misquoted
Behe, twisting the substance of his answer.14
ß Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or
publications.”15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise.
University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are
between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID,16 and he specifically
discussed17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article18 in the peerreviewed
biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
Additional peer-reviewed publications, includingWilliam Dembski’s peer-reviewed
monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press),19 were
described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications
supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of
the case by Judge Jones.20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed
publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings
of Fact.”21
ß Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,”22 that “ID is predicated
on supernatural causation,”23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly
by a … supernatural, designer.”24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert
witnesses acknowledged this point.”25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did
nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet another erroneous finding copied by
Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU,
ID proponents—including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial—
have consistently explained that ID as a scientific theory does not require a
supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design
requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It
does not.”26
(For a list of false statements Judge Jones adopted from the ACLU, see Table C.)
Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and
judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose
findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the
case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.
4
Nonetheless, the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by
the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly
the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this
central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or
independent examination of the record on Jones’ part. The revelation that Judge Jones in effect
“dragged and dropped” large sections of the ACLU’s “Findings of Fact” into his opinion, errors
and all, calls into serious question whether Jones exercised the kind of independent analysis that
would make his “broad, stinging rebuke”27 of intelligent design appropriate.
We and others already have criticized Jones’ effort to decide the scientific status of
intelligent design as a needless and inappropriate exercise of judicial power.28 As we explain in a
forthcoming law review article, when Judge Jones described the breadth of his opinion as being
the result of a “fervent hope” that it “could serve as a primer for school boards and other people
who were considering this [issue],”29 he admitted (apparently without realizing it) that he was a
judicial activist.30 Even Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs
that “[t]he part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not
particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of
religion.”31 The new disclosure that Judge Jones’ analysis of the scientific status of ID merely
copied language written for him by ACLU attorneys underscores just how inappropriate this part
of Kitzmiller was—and why Judge Jones’ analysis should not be regarded as the final word about
intelligent design.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Uh-huh.

Please show evidence that the judge was in any way being improper/corrupt/loss of integrity.

I hope its more than simply the fact he quoted briefs-which all judges do. When they accept the argument submitted they read it into record.

Whats your take on the rest of what I said? About all the witnesses for ID being hacks. That was all OK because the judge was an 'activist' whatever that actually means?

FYI in the above I see nothing improper on the judge. They can only rule on what was presented.

Otherwise, I wont accept photobucket comparrison as some sort of evidence. Theres nothing to show who even put it together.

(edit, additional question)

Where was the rest cited from? looks biased as it uses inflammitory words that belie an agenda.


--edit--
Just saw the bit about calling me a liar, though I made no false statements, simply asked for proof. I am not really sure this debate is worth bothering with anymore if thats the level of desperation you descend to.

(adding link, sorry for multi edits, pulling links in and the browser is being weird on me.)

This Is the transcription from the case. They didn't make anything up about Behe. Please read direct. The judge WAS proper. If there was an issue it was because the ID people's lawyers and witnesses were bad. The judge can only rule on what was in front, and thankfully many still believe in the constitution (like separation of curch and state).


[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Uh-huh.

Please show evidence that the judge was in any way being improper/corrupt/loss of integrity.

I hope its more than simply the fact he quoted briefs-which all judges do. When they accept the argument submitted they read it into record.

Whats your take on the rest of what I said? About all the witnesses for ID being hacks. That was all OK because the judge was an 'activist' whatever that actually means?

FYI in the above I see nothing improper on the judge. They can only rule on what was presented.

Otherwise, I wont accept photobucket comparrison as some sort of evidence. Theres nothing to show who even put it together.

(edit, additional question)

Where was the rest cited from? looks biased as it uses inflammitory words that belie an agenda.



[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]

Oh give me a break lord, how much of the ACLU's mentality does this "Judge" have to plagiarize and how long before the trial is over before you admit that the judge may as well have been the damn ACLU.

This judge was even quoting from ACLU's own objections for petes sake.

Yes I have already said in my post it is legal but before this trial, no one had ever anticipated a judge using pages from a book and a month before a trial was even over using the same words and phrases of the opposing plantif or defendant and why their is legislation being looked at because of this so it never happens again.

It was plane wrong and hopefully soon it WILL be against the law.

It certainly doesn't instill confidence in the legal system just like the OJ trial diminished my faith in our justice system, this trial nailed that coffin shut.

--edit-- Just saw the bit about calling me a liar, though I made no false statements, simply asked for proof. I am not really sure this debate is worth bothering with anymore

if thats the level of desperation you descend to.

Who is descending? Are you saying scientists don't lie? if you are than I will call you a liar AS i SAID BUT WHEN YOU CALLED Behe a liar then I knew at least you thought some were but it is interesting to note that it is only from those scientists challenging Darwinists like yourself

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Oh give me a break lord, how much of the ACLU's mentality does this "Judge" have to plagiarize and how long before the trial is over before you admit that the judge may as well have been the damn ACLU.

This judge was even quoting from ACLU's own objections for petes sake.

Yes I have already said in my post it is legal but before this trial, no one had ever anticipated a judge using pages from a book and a month before a trial was even over using the same words and phrases of the opposing plantif or defendant and why their is legislation being looked at because of this so it never happens again.

It was plane wrong and hopefully soon it WILL be against the law.

It certainly doesn't instill confidence in the legal system just like the OJ trial diminished my faith in our justice system, this trial nailed that coffin shut.

Give a break? I'm sorry but the way the courts work in the US is not the Judge deciding things as it would seem from first glance. The judge is more of a mediator between the two sides (plaintiff and defendant). They ensure all laws are met and side at the end with whoever found the most loopholes etc.

If you read dockets (and they are just as exciting as they sound). ALL judges either accept the objections/rebuttals verbattum and read as such, or they accept with some reservations based on minutae of the situation.

This is NOT bias. This is how a neutral party does it. The simple fact is that people didn't like his ruling and thus scream improper. This is how it has always gone. From the left yelling about the BSA being allowed to kick gay kids out, to cases like this.

The judge is bound to look at evidence. That is all. If they do show improper skewing, the appeal tosses it out faster than Limbaugh can sneer 'activist".

The just made the right choice. If they ID people can make a better case later in appeals. Fine it should be redressed.

(edit)
Interesting quote by our evil judge:

If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.

There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision.[6]

from his bio

[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]