im back, for today anyway

[Darth Wong]

Don't you love the way this "Shaolin" idiot crows that because I insult him, I must have no other arguments to make? Hey dumb-ass, I have a whole fucking WEBSITE full of arguments to make. You ignored them. And now you resort to style over substance attacks, when you made no points whatsoever in your message. Demanding that others prove the mainstream theory to YOU is not a point. You failed to explain how creationism makes sense, nor did you even try.

[Cyborg Stan]

Gahh.. when using BBCode, don't use <> for the brackets.

The general consenous is that we're anti-idiot, which judging from the rest of the post means we'd be against you.

so your definition of an 'idiot' must be something like: "idiot - someone who has a different perspective then me, in which case, i will need to act like a 12 year old back in school, and call them silly names, because i cant use a simple statement followed by arguments, system to prove my point of view."

Here's a hint : when you lie about someone making statements or not, do not lie on the exact same page those statements are on, because you can simply use the page-up button to scroll. Or even better, can be refuted simply by reading your own damn post - you responded to my arguments, which is a pretty damn hard thing to do if there are none as you claim.

Creationism (Which here I will differentiate from thesitic evolution) holds Scripture as the ultimate descripter of reality, as opposed the physical world. Science on the other hand uses the physical world and doesn't hold things as dogma, even for itself.

wrong. i know some people; probably the more unknowledgeable christians might think that, but not all of us do.

In general, I put Creationism under some general categories :
1) Most obvious the comes to mind is Young Earth Creationism and it's variants - the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, there was a global flood as described in the Bible, etc.
2) Sometimes seen is Old Earth Creationism and it's adherants - they may accept the Earth is billions of years old but believe life on this planet was created specically (and most forms did not come from more primitive ancestors), or if the rest of the life wasn't, at least humans weren't evolved from more primitive ancestors.
3) Intelligent Design. Believes things may have come from more primitive ancestors, but believes that the process of natural evolution alone wasn't enough, so they try to insert an intelligent designer somewhere.

1) Intelligent Design 'Theory' is simply creationists seeing the success of biological evolution and inserting a meaningless 'Me Too' for a Designer. (Usually God, who then doesn't want you to eat fork or use flushable toilets, who then sends you to an equally unverifiable place with lots of fire.) Can you show where Intelligent Design makes a prediction, how anyone would go about proving or disproving it, or anything?

no, i dont think thats accurate. its more like looking at the odds of certain events happening, and speculation. look at the january edition of scientific america, since if i post other sources, you might think they're biased, but at least that one you'll know is legit. there's an article about intelligent design in there, and its been proven that after the big bang if the speed at which the universe had been expanding was off by 1/2%, life wouldn't have happened period.

First off, from what I read of Intelligent Design, I believe it's a very accurate and honest assesement on my part.

If you look back at history, of course you can calculate that the odds of something happening today could be pretty low. What the hell does it prove though? Where does Intelligent Design predict that life wouldn't form if some very fundamental physical constants were different? How the hell does Intelligent Design even address the question of how an intelligent designer is supposed to stop these things from flucating as if they were prone to flucating in the first place?

when a bunch of longshot events like that happen, you have to wonder whether or not some guiding hand was behind it all; no matter how much you may not like the idea. thats what being open-minded means.

When a bunch of longshot events happen, you try to figure out what happened, how you can test it, and how you may predict other such events from evidence in the future. This is how science works. For instance, take the instances of higher heart diease in Type A personalities. Seeing a correaltion, we don't simply assume that God hates stressed people. Instead, we figure how stress chemically affects the body, how it affects heart rate, how it affects the body altogether, and so forth. We can also identify and help people who are at risk for it.

Intelligent Design can show that a bunch of longshot events happen, but then it simply places it on an Intelligent Designer. It never tries to explain how the intelligent designer did it, it never tries to test it, and it sure the hell doesn't make any predictions for new evidence. To apply the idea of Intelligent Design to my example, we'd simply say that somebody made those stressed people get heart diease.

*********

its interesting that in a group of people who claim to be rational, and open minded i get shot down in a flash, just for posting some different perspectives, or ideas.

You post that we're intolerant bigots that criticize Christians simply for being Christians as seen below :

-first, i want to know whether the majority here is anti-christian, anti-religion, or anti-anything in general. and if you are, why hide it here on a message board? if you're so convinced about your claimed system of 'beliefs' why not be open about it? add some 'christians suck' banners on the website, maybe then you'll realize how closed minded some of you are being.

<snip>

-third, i think its unfair to slander any christians or anyone else, without them here to defend themselves. suffice it to say, there are people in life of every possible category who are cool, and others who give them a bad name. martin luther king jr, sir isaac newton, mother teresa and others who have done good, seem to have no representation.

You post stuff about Intelligent Design that very few people on this board take seriously in the scientific sense, enough to write entire web pages against it :

Creationism vs Science (Creationism and Probability) from the very pages connected to this board, by the very person who runs this board
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ndex.shtml
Common Misconceptions About Evolution and Creationism, by Durandal (The Q&A to "Life Couldn't Happen by Random Chance" would be revalent to this thread.)
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/topi ... tions.html

-second, the idea of creationism vs science is obselete. the two are not and never were directly opposed. for reference i direct you to 'intelligent design' which is an offshoot of creationism that uses math, science, etc to calculate odds, and from that gather information to the credibility of things. one example is, that scientists have calculated a 1/2% change in the speed in which the universe began expanding after the 'big bang' would have rendered life impossible. from the odds of that, and many other things it would seem that creation was guided, or instigated.

You then ask what has evolution shown, something most of the people on these boards can recite in their sleep, and some have enough impetus to write web pages about. (See above links.)

-fourth, i would like someone to tell me at least 1 thing that evolution has proven. because so far no one has been able to point out 1 thing accepted as a scientific law that has directly stemmed from it. yes there have been fossils found, and other ideologies made from those discoveries but like many things, i think evolution is just an 'interpretation of the facts' which could be correct or flawed.

In short, we're flaming you because you lied and then posted what we think is absolute drivel.

*********

and that talk of reducing me to a puddle? is that how you deal with people who voice ideas different then your own?

What talk about reducing you to a puddle? I don't remember doing it.

when the odds of life occurring in the galaxy are like 1000000 : 1. (probably more than that)id think its obvious. keep in mind that many things are unknown, even in our advanced era. abiogenesis - anyway one of the theories that attempts to show how life came from non-living matter, goes like this, this is their explanation - DNA and other particles - the order and organization that makes them up was created much like how individual snowflakes form. the problem with that is snowflakes are a product of air pressure - and other factors.

while there is no force that has been shown to produce DNA, and other life structures. a great deal of it is speculation.

1) The fact that we happen to live in a universe that's capable of supporting life should hardly be surprising.
2) We can get amino acids simply from shooting sparks into simple chemical mixtures. We also can find them in comets for some reason.
3) DNA, and very other chemicals for that matter are formed according to chemistry which is not random.
4) We already have done demonstrations of some very simple self-replicating amino acids. While not really considered alive (I should point out viruses aren't considered alive either.), life runs on the same principle and simply takes more steps and organization, both of which could have come later. No one, except Creationists looking for strawmen, suggest that life began as a cell that was randomly put together.
5) Abiogenesis, while related to the history of biological evolution, does not need to be valid for the rest of it to be. Abiogenesis simply is concerned with the origin of life itself, and we already have fossils from times in which there are no euyokaytic(sp?) organisms.
6) Going by your logic, the only thing that produces intelligence are complex structures made with animo acids. Sometimes, the YECs can seem honest compared to ID people.

lol. you're going to diss newton just because of that? you must be a regular angel; never done anything wrong in your entire life? never made a mistake? so he wasnt perfect, what does that prove?

I'm not saying Newton's perfect. I'm saying that if you accuse a rival of stealing your work, abuse your authority by setting up a mock trial and bragging that you broke his heart later, then you're an asshole.

i wouldnt believe those sources without researching further. mother teresa steal money? why? for her new porsche? let food rot? there might have been other reasons for that; for someone who spent a great deal of her life caring for other people, it wouldnt seem to make sense to allow food to rot, would it?

Translation : La la la, I can't hear you!

when i come here, and see people complain about christians are narrow-minded, insulting, disrespectful. then turn around and start ragging on christianity or creationism, just as bad as some christians rag on other things. ill say something. then you can either flame me, or whatever. but it needed to be brought up. because if i was being an asshole, i would want someone to tell me.

We rag on Creationism because we find it stupid. We occasinally rag on things in Christainity we find stupid, although more often we rag on Christians because we find specific behaviors of them annoying.

And yes, you're being an asshole.

i dont agree with a lot of the things people do in the name of religion. in a lot of cases i think people use the names of gods or anything else as an excuse, to satisfy their own agenda. in the way that the KKK uses the color of a person's skin as an excuse to oppress others, or people use sexual orientation - homosexuality as an excuse to do whatever.

it doesnt necessarily mean that all religion is a sham.

At the very least, I'd keep an eye on it. And it goes without saying that there's a fair number of people that find the entire concept of religion dubious at best.

Biological evolution falls into the realm of science. Science does not prove things. Are you talking about what evolutionary theory describes and predicts successfully? Try this :

-How new species form and old ones die.
-Distribution of species throughout the world.
-Fossil Record
-New Bacterial, Insect, etc resistances
-Genetic similarties between related species and dissimilarites between less related ones, despite diverging evolution in the former and parallel evolution in the latter (With accuracy that puts even supercomputer-using physists to shame.)

those are all theories or speculations based on fact. nothing has been proven.

The distribution of species throughout the world isn't a theory. Pesticide resistance for insects is something that forces farmers to use new pesticides. Bacterial resistances means that you could die even if you're treated with antibiotics that could have completely cured you decades ago. Calculations of the the probablities between such genetic similarities occuring from what I can remember makes numbers to precision up to 43 decimal places. (Which, unlike the useless speed of light thing you post, is actually a testable prediction with potential falsibility if wrong, and also blows it apart in sure number of signficant digits as well. This then asks the question : what the hell would you take as proven?)

I also note that you like to dismiss things simply because they're just 'theory' or 'based on fact'. I don't think you really know the signficance of how those terms are used in science.

For more reading, you can go to Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
On the Talk.Origins Archive, which also holds alot of other information on Evolution and Creationism in general.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

if you cant use fact, try odds based on probability. like, looking at ancient greek mythology/religion, i think that its a fluke; just because the odds of gods defining their roles of power, or territories based on human perceptions such as goddess of love, god of underworld and so on.. would seem to be something designed to explain, or deal with things from a human perspective.

if you were a group of gods would you define your territories or limits of influence by how humans see the world?

No. However, how does making the definition of God more vague make it more valid?

seriously if you could come up with something like that concerning christianity, that would be a far stronger argument, then calling someone a bitch or idiot.

I'll tell you again : when complaints are drawn against Christians on this board, it's usually specific behaviors we find annoying.

i dont have a problem with atheists, or any group or people, or individuals. i talk to atheists, even satanists and others all the time. and, i never insult any of them, or disrespect them. but, in the case of SD.net, with people posting things about fundies and in some cases flaming christianity or religion in general, you cant really complain about someone pointing out certain issues.

We're judging you from what you post. You can feel free to post links to other boards in which you parcipipate and that may help... BUT don't be suprised that anyone judges a poster from what the poster posts on their boards.

Here's an article about a teacher that told his class that Santa Claus didn't exist. Of course, not only the teacher got flamed, they also went out of their way to tell that the teacher is wrong, send Santa Claus over, etc etc puke.

well, at least it wasnt a christian; trying to prove God exists or something.

Huh? I post a link to a story about a bunch of adults that go out of their way to try to make kids think that Santa Claus exists after they already start doubting, move against said teacher because the teacher told the kids what they all know as truth, and THIS is your response? Considering that you previously asked if anyone insisted that if Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny existed, would we make such a big deal about it?

People believe trhat God does not exist because no logical reason for the existance of one has been brought up, and believing that he simpley isn't there is the simpler solution for them.

Anyway, your interpertation of us is very narrow-minded, and based on hasty generalizations and strawmen.

My interpretation of you came from your posts in this thread.

well. now you just need your supporting sentences and facts to back up that statement. and dont post if you're just going to insult, i want some solid arguments from 'rational' 'open-minded' people, not some petty insults.

A solid argument is a solid argument whether or not it comes from an blithering idiot or a genius. Even then, the fact that some people like to put in four-lettered words when stating their argument doesn't make them either an idiot or a genius.

also, i dont think you can call me narrow-minded, when you cant even reply to a post without spouting senseless drivel, such as 'bitch' 'idiot' etc, etc.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'stupid'. If you don't want to be called that, don't say stupid things.

[Cyborg Stan]

BTW, I finally did find the the Scientific American article you were touting about. (Next time, give an exact link or post the text yourself.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID= ... 9EC588EEDF

January 2003 issue
Digits and Fidgets
Is the universe fine-tuned for life?
By Michael Shermer

There was a young fellow from Trinity
Who took the square root of infinity.
But the number of digits
Gave him the fidgets;
He dropped Math and took up Divinity.

In the limerick above, physicist George Gamow dealt with the paradox of a finite being contemplating infinity by passing the buck to theologians.

In an attempt to prove that the universe was intelligently designed, religion has lately been fidgeting with the fine-tuning digits of the cosmos. The John Templeton Foundation even grants cash prizes for such "progress in religion." Last year mathematical physicist and Anglican priest John C. Polkinghorne, recognized because he "has invigorated the search for interface between science and religion," was given $1 million for his "treatment of theology as a natural science." In 2000 physicist Freeman Dyson took home a $945,000 prize for such works as his 1979 book, Disturbing the Universe, in which he writes: "As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."

Mathematical physicist Paul Davies also won a Templeton prize. In his 1999 book, The Fifth Miracle, he makes these observations about the fine-tuned nature of the cosmos: "If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: 'Make life!' And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct."

Indeed, it would be wonderful. But not any more wonderful than if it were not correct. Even atheist Stephen W. Hawking sounded like a supporter of intelligent design when he wrote: "And why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?... If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been less by one part in 1010, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 1010, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is."

We may live in a multiverse in which our universe is only one of many universes.

In its current version, the anthropic principle posits that we live in a multiverse in which our universe is only one of many universes, all with different laws of nature. Those universes whose parameters are most likely to give rise to life occasionally generate complex life with brains big enough to achieve consciousness and to conceive of such concepts as God and cosmology and to ask such questions as Why? Another explanation can be found in the properties of self-organization and emergence. Water is an emergent property of a particular arrangement of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, just as consciousness is a self-organized emergent property of billions of neurons. The evolution of complex life is an emergent property of simple life: prokaryote cells self-organized into eukaryote cells, which self-organized into multicellular organisms, which self-organized into ... and here we are.

Self-organization and emergence arise out of complex adaptive systems that grow and learn as they change. As a complex adaptive system, the cosmos may be one giant autocatalytic (self-driving) feedback loop that generates such emergent properties as life. We can think of self-organization as an emergent property and emergence as a form of self-organization. Complexity is so simple it can be put on a bumper sticker: life happens.

If life on earth is unique or at least exceptionally rare (and in either case certainly not inevitable), how special is our fleeting, mayfly-like existence? And how important it is that we make the most of our lives and our loves; how critical it is that we work to preserve not only our own species but all species and the biosphere itself. Whether the universe is teeming with life or we are alone, whether our existence is strongly necessitated by the laws of nature or highly contingent and accidental, whether there is more to come or this is all there is, we are faced with a worldview that is breathtaking and majestic in its sweep across time and space.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and the author of In Darwin's Shadow.

In summary : It does not support your point at all.