My Clay Sun has published a report on the recent Clay County School Board meeting:
Despite impassioned opposition from science experts, teachers and some clergy, Clay County School Board members unanimously resolved Tuesday night that evolution should be presented as a theory, and not fact, in the classroom.
The board passed a resolution, proposed by Superintendent David Owens, asking the Florida Department of Education to reword its newly proposed state standards, which presents evolution as “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence.”
The Baker County, Florida, School Board approved a similar resolution a month ago.
The Florida State Board of Education is scheduled to vote Feb. 19th on proposed changes to state science standards.
Creationists will likely continue their campaign that evolution is “just a theory”, and as such should not be presented as fact. Their argument is that unless a theory has been “proved”, it is no more valid than any other theory. They don’t realize – or choose not to acknowledge – that most theories in science have not been “proved”, and it’s not the purpose of science to provide dogmatic proof of anything.
Scientists will likely continue to get worked up and make compelling logical arguments that will go right over the Creationists’ heads. They’ll not accept that appeals to logic don’t work on those who have abandoned logic for faith.
Here are some links if you’d like to read more.
My Clay Sun report on the Clay County School Board resolution
Florida Today article on the upcoming State School Board vote
Florida Citizens for Science coverage of the issue
We need to decide how we’ll proceed …
MrMiami it is clear you are a creationist.
.
Sorry but Darwin’s theory when regressed does not imply an originator. That is something a creationist would come up with to put evolution and creationism into the same realm. It is not. It would be a disservice to teach creationism as science when it is not. By your own words when you start speaking of the metaphysical realm you left scientific theory and go into the realm of religion or philosophy. If you want to teach creationism in one of those classes then that is fine. But Darwin did not intend for his theory to be used to explain how it all began. When taught in a science class they do not teach where we came from but how the species has evolved over time.
.
The arguments you put forth as what the non-evolutionist proclaim is the same answer they use for everything else. It is basically along the lines of God wanted it that way so it wasn’t a mistake yet you can’t show any proof. Your DNA template is a bunch of BS. Must be nice to be able to say it has to do with the timing, sequence etc.. so there is no such thing as randomness. Like everything else with creationists (yes non-evolutionists are creationists so call it was it is) you can not disprove your argument, and therefore it can’t be scientific theory. We can prove a gene mutation or you can disprove a gene mutation in the DNA. That’s the difference.
.
When you put “Another problem is if the molecular machine becomes irreverisbly damaged it cannot simply repair itself then return to its animated state. The known natural process of enthropy is upheld.” is an old argument that creationists have been pointing out for years .
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
.
“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics”. This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
.
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws.
.
So as stated before leave religion out of the classroom. It is no surprise we are the laughing stock of the world and our educational system is sub par. It is also not a surprise that it is usually in the Southern states this is a problem, especially in the bible belt where I believe the average I.Q. is that of a retard.
.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All, the fact that many of you couple Christian beliefs with a so-called science of Evolution indicates a clear understanding on your part that Evolution is truly a counter cosmological revelation to those of Judeo/Christian worldview. From a distant observation point, it seems that many have choosen a side in the fight for cosmological revelations. The agnostics and atheists comment they have no God to defend but attack their defensive points of rooted in a kind-of-science and these people come out of their chairs fighting. It seems to me, in the case of the atheist and agnostics, that they have a God and it is a NULL that they defend. I have spent time with many other faiths such as Islamics. They too have a kind-of-science that justifies thier worldview.
The question, each human is challenged with is discovery of the cosmological truth. This cosmological truth has no relevance to those outside the discovery. Our schools should prepare each human being for his life journey and ultimate discovery of truth. This is accomplished by developing skills and introducing tools and methods for the adventure – not telling them this or that cosmological revelation is the way it is.
Coincidentally, the original intent of our forefathers is consistent the challenge of discovery. Thomas Jefferson spoke about the Freest expansion of the human mind. I am bothered that so many push a cosmological view whether that is Evolution, spatial trans-spermia, or some other belief as a scientific truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
Well, realize that science isn’t entirely open-minded, especially to things that’s undetectable. I may not be a scientist of any form, but at least I’m perfectly aware that Science only cares about what is observable and what isn’t, much like Mathematics only about numbers, symbols, and equations. Sure, science teaches some things that we assume is there, yet we can’t observe (example: quarks). But what these assumptions all have in common is that it can be disproved (as with other similarities, but lets stick with this). Think about your own theory for a minute, and see if you can disprove it.
If DNA is merely a pattern-maker template, then it either has no will of its own, or incredibly good at cloaking itself to look like it has no will. Why, it even let us create clones and glow-in-a-dark mice and tobacco plants! Under the assumption that there is a pattern-maker, the only way it will be accepted by science is (assuming it’s indirectly observable) when it can be disproved.
.
Tom was right when he said, “One pleistocene rabbit fossil would have made (and, in theory, still could make) the whole thing come crashing down.” That is a significant disproof of Evolution an archaeologists have yet to find. If your theory has a good disproof to it, I’d like to hear it. Until then, we’ll refuse to see it as a science theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
Also, I don’t know where you made the connection between Frankenstein and Evolution, but Darwin came up with the idea by making connections between different species, farmer’s breeding, fossil records, and most important, shifts in human economics. The growth and death of new businesses gave Darwin the eureka moment when he realized a similar approach can be taken to speciation. With some modifications, the idea fit so well with the data he collected, many readers of his detailed notes urged him to write the “Origin of Species”. Yes, he was PUSHED to write it, not fantasized into writing it.
.
Whether you still want to call that a fantasy is of you opinion, but I think it’s a pretty creative and genius idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All: I am not a creationist. I have only posed contrasting viewpoints. Also the patternmakers template is not my argument. It is one of Matt Ridley’s who is a European Biologist. He has written several books such as ‘Nature Vs Nuture’.
I am versed in science, mathematics, and to some extent various theologies. Transpecies mutation violates many long standing scientific principles and mathematical rigor. If randomness did exist then its opposite, order, could not exist. Science and mathematics are ordered otherwise experimentation and mathematics are impossible. There is no mathematical formula for randomness. The closest approximation has 100 variables but still cannot achieve true randomness. Natural processes / phenomenon, according to the comments I read must be observable and provable. In science, natural processes must also be durable and operate uniformly throughout the physical universe. Yet we have never observed evolutionary progression in practice. If it is a ongoing process then I should observe humans and animals in various stages of evolution today. It should be an ordered process. The arguments for not observing evolutionary progression falls back on randomness and obfuscation both which are not scientific nor mathematical.
Godel’s Theorem is one of the most important understandings in mathematics. It is important to note that mathematics describes our universe. There are many important concepts related to Godels Theorem that will not be discussed here. The implication of Godel is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules. In order to fully describe a logical system, one has to be outside it looking back but then needs to describe the new vantage point by stepping and looking back further. In short, no system can be self-descriptive. One approach to solving this human perception problem is to have the buck stop with a God. The three monotheistic faiths have a message from a vantage point outside this logical system humans call the world. Godel also has implications on the notion of randomness. In the last 10 years randomness has been redefined from true randomnness or patternless phenomenon to one of degrees or approximation of randomness which is still not true randomness but degrees of probalistic order. The bottom line is that order persist and the human mind is limited in its ability to perceive reality.
I’ll talk about science theory later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mr.Miami
I would like to counter your arguements in order as a biologist though I am a tad rusty so please allow me a little leway.
1) Saying that because you cannot model something does not mean it does not exist. There have been countless attempts to model the electrons of the atom, and the final version I saw involved the cloud of probability so just because you cannot model true randomness does not mean it is nonexistent, nor does it mean that it is not the actual state of things in mutation. But even if its not, this does not disprove evolution. Evolution does not require random change. Evolution merely requires that physical traits be capable of being passed from generation to generation and that when there is some form of environmental pressure those traits convey either an advantage or a disadvantage. Whether or not randomness is involved is a question of whether you believe in a truly random world, some do, some do not. This does not change the fact that if a person is born with 6 fingers on each hand, regarless of if this happened because of random chance or the FSM using his Noodlie Apendage to change the DNA, and there is no environmental pressure which favors or disfavors 6 fingered hands then the trait will neither increase or decrease in its prevalence in the population. Similarly, if a trait is normally harmful but in certain environments or forms it provides a fitness gain then the trait increases in the population. We can see this principal in action in our own species in the forms of the genes for Sickle Cell Anemia. In environments where Malaria is extremely common the genes for Sickle Cell Anemia confer a fitness advantage in the heterozygous form. It is believed this is why the genes for this disease are so prevalent in people descended from those who lived in the areas of Africa where Malaria was particularly prevalent.
2) As to the statement that we have never observed evolution, I am going to assume that by this you mean speciation. If not then there are countless examples of natural selection in action which can easily be referenced. For speciation the examples are far harder to come across so I will merely direct you to a link of several documented instances
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
3) Regarding your reference to Godel’s work; While I am not a mathematician and so have very little knowledge of this, it seems to me to be saying that a theory cannot be both complete and consistent. This fits with the idea that we cannot prove that evolution is real, we can merely find evidence which supports and fits into it and evidence which disproves it. To date all the evidence has been of the former none of the latter thus the theory is consistent, but since it is constantly expanding as evidence is gathered it is not complete. The interpretation you are using would seem to indicate that studying our world is pointless as we can never understand it, which would seem to mean that every field of science should be abandoned. What you are arguing for is the end of trying to understand the world around us and to blindly accept the teaching of the “divinely inspired.” If that is what you wish then that is your right, but do not force the rest of the world to go back to the dark ages with you.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
In opposed to ElvishMonarch, I’m just a lowly college student, but at least even then, I can make a few counter-arguments.
.
1)”[Evolution] must be observable and provable.”
It is. Including, yes, speciation. We CAN prove that speciation exists using a simple experiment:
Clone two human population, and leave them living on two radically different islands. Neither population are allowed to leave the island, nor receive any outside contact. Observe.
This is a statistically tight experiment, yet it can’t be conducted for one obvious reason: it is immoral. The same is said for proving that smoking kills. Believe it or not, we HAVEN’T proven that smoking really harms human health, but the reason we didn’t was because it would be incredibly immoral to do so. Evolution falls into the same gap (that with the really long time issue…). We can only go back to using visible evidence as key to supporting Evolution.
.
2)”If randomness did exist then its opposite, order, could not exist”
You’re talking like Einstein, who made the same argument to the Quantum Physics. Currently, experiments point that indeed physics in a smaller scale are incredibly random and unpredictable, while at the same time, the realm of the big is orderly and proper. Nobody has a solid idea why (though the string theory seems to say something).
I find it unsurprising that the same thing occurs in the biological world: bacterias and virus mutate randomly at rapid speed, yet it’s rare to see mutation in the human population. We have plenty of evidence that randomness exists, and practically NO evidence that it doesn’t. At the same time, we have plenty of evidence that order exists, at least in bigger scales. Why must it be difficult to believe that randomness can exist in our current, rather orderly world?
.
3)”randomness and obfuscation both which are not scientific nor mathematical.”
Computer Science strongly revolves around randomness. I really don’t see your point here. While, yes, it is humanly impossible to come up with a perfectly random algorithm, it doesn’t stop us from trying. And anyways, because we can’t make up random things doesn’t mean nature can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MV: Thanks for your comments on entropy, etc., which I thought most lucid.
I loved your other comment: “For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones.”
.
Could we infer from this that NOODLY appendaged deities survive better than non-noodly appendaged ones???? I read an interesting book once called “The Great Pretender” – the thesis seemed to be that gods evolve also, although it may only be that their picture in the minds of mortals evolves…Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by “appendage” LOFLMAO.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ElvishMonarch,
This might be utterly irrelevant, or wrong (or both), but I was taught in high-school biology many years ago that 6-fingeredness is actually a dominant gene in humans, and we – almost – all have 5 fingers because we – almost – all have the two recessive genes needed for 5 fingers. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to flip the creationists a two-fingered bird????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all, but especially MrMiami:
I really liked some few, but for sure one particular statement of MrMiami: “Our schools should prepare each human being for his life journey and ultimate discovery of truth. This is accomplished by developing skills and introducing tools and methods for the adventure – not telling them this or that cosmological revelation is the way it is.
.
That seems to me to be dead on! I do have a personal problem with all of you, however, which is that my last and much-loved Global-Baloney-detecting canary is dead on the bottom of its cage this afternoon after exposure to an overly large number of cosmic allegations stated as facts. In his calm sanity, perhaps MrMiami will forgive me for picking one of his: “…It is important to note that mathematics describes our universe….” How about: “We humans TRY with abjectly modest success to use mathematics to describe a BIT our Universe.” ? Both description and prediction are limited in the most humbling practical way by our ability to know and describe a problem, and by our machinery. In a far more profound way, they are limited both by physical uncertainties (quantum mechanics, “chaos”, bla, bla, et cet.) and mathematical limits evidently imposed by work such as Goedel’s (which I am too stupid to really understand) and related work in the theory of computation. There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that the nature of the material universe is limited by what mathematics we know, and an argument about that is presently theological disputation and therefore an irrelevant waste of time in any case.
.
The real point of all this is that science is far more humble and far more powerful
than the philosophical logic-chopping presently infecting these pages: it accumulates provisional facts, via theory and experiment, and attempts to organize and extend them, and make useful (or merely interesting!) predictions. The facts and the framework are forever incomplete and forever vulnerable. If creationists want to claim they do science, let them organize facts and generate explanations and predictions that can be verified by sane people. It’s not clear that they’re ever gonna pull that off. In the meantime, thermodynamics is, if not infallible, pretty good for refrigerators, jet engines, the interiors of stars, and surely at least helpful for some aspects of living organisms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apprentice Frederic -
You are not too stupid to understand Goedel. Don’t sell your self short. I don’t have a thorough understanding of his work either but if I put enough time into it I could. You too.
My condolences on your canary. So sad. Do you know where I could get one – a Baloney detector?
You say and are right- “If creationists want to claim they do science, let them organize facts and generate explanations and predictions that can be verified by sane people.” I’m afraid creationists have no idea what science is and don’t care. They are frauds with an agenda.
And that’s the genius of our noodly religion. We can adopt their own cherished illogic and certitude to advance our agenda. And since our god is so much more attractive than theirs – well, I think the real message gets through to the bright minds that are not totally shut yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Appretince Frederic
(Yes I changed my name, I thought this was more appropriate)
You are correct. The gene for polydactylism is dominant. This in itself is evidence for natural selection. In a world with no selective pressure favoring one trait over the other you would expect 3/4th of the population to be polydactyl (using mendelian genetics). Instead the ratio is closer to 1/500 (per a google search so trust at your own risk). A similar, though far worse example, is Huntinton’s disease which is passed via a simple dominant trait. Of course its just as possible that the FSM has made us all have only 5 fingers on each hand as he doesn’t want us becoming too noodlie.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ALL:
.
Many of you seem to be confusing unpredictability, probability, and randomness as the same thing. Many of you also do not understand what quantum physics is telling us. Another point I am noting is that many are confusing science philosophy with theology, comsology, or other philosophies. On a final note, I also am concerned that some of these people are teachers who impart their unusual understanding upon impressionable minds.
.
First, randomness is described to be phenomenon or event that has no predictability, pattern or sequence to it. Order is a system that is defined and structured but is not required to be predictable. Some systems are perfectly ordered and deterministic. These systems are linear. Other systems are perfectly ordered but indeterminant. These systems fall under Chaos Theory and are non-linear. Nearly all scientist will tell you that our universe is perfectly ordered but indeterminant. Indeterminance is not randomness. Instead, it is probabilistic. Probability is ordered based on the mathematical formula that describes it. Typically, when graphed these probabilistic equations map out regions of space in which a result will occur, where in that region we do not know but it will occur according the the formula in that region. Hence, true randomness cannot be described by a mathematical formula.
Second, quantum physics tells us many things. Most of our discoveries about the quantum realm, also known as the Planckian Realm, comes from atom smashing experiments. Behavior in this realm is probabilistic. It is ordered. Physics at our level depends on local actions which does not apply in the quantum realm as non-local action occurs. This tells us that our perception of reality is not fully understood. In fact, at 10 to the minus 35 meters the physical universe completely disappears. That is space vanishes and with it so does time. Thus, the smallest unit of time is 10 to the minus 43 second. Coincidentally, this is the same speed that your eye detects a photon of light. So the boundary limit of the physical universe is also a boundary limit to your ability to percieve reality. It is also the boundary limit beyond which the physical sciences no longer apply. Another interesting discovery is that every particle in the universe is in instantaneous communication with every other particle faster than the speed of light. Finally, when that last particle vanishes after being split in half the what remains is light.
.
What do these discoveries mean? They mean our universe is not inifinite, that our ability to understand is limited, and that what we thought we knew – we do not know. Noble prize winning quantum physicists Richard Feyhman remarked strangely that there are only two things that ARE certain; what quantum physics tells us and the Judeo/Christian Bible tells us. Everything else us up in smoke. This led many people to discover a strong correlation between Quantum Physics and the Judeo/Christian Bible. In their findings, they stated that the universe essentially breaks down to light and the Genesis 1:3 tells us that God spoke the universe into existence in the form of light. Hebrews 11:3 states that the universe is made from that which is intangible and qunatum physics is telling us that light comes together ’some how’ to form a particle through a process of ‘compactness’ in a probabilistic manner. This may be those peoples views but it seems they may have something kind of correlation. It gets quite extensive if studied.
.
Anyhow, I am finding that many people are posting misunderstandings of quantum physics and we need to fully understand the science.
.
Third, as for the philosophies go science philosophy is different than Theology, Cosmology, or generalized Philosophy. Unlike the others, science philosophy does not make cosmological revelations or discuss God. Science philosophy applies the scientific rigor to gray areas in order to bridge the gap in knowledge. For example, using the ideal gas laws to describe boiling water would require a change in the mathematical formulas at some mystical point in time as the water changed from steady to dynamic to chaotic states. Another philosophy would be to apply a set of equations that describe or model the event without changing equations.
.
To address, the comments about a BIT of the universe. Physics has been attempting to developed a unifed model of the universe for some time. Edward Whitten, a Physicist, has made some significant strides in this arena. He took 10 theories that are well accepted (E=mc2 for one) about different pieces or BITs of our universe then organized them into a mathematical model. This model was introduced in 1998 and is known as the Brane World Model. It has a mathematical error in it which suggest that it is not complete but it is strides ahead of where we were. One of the key points is that not only is there space time in this model but 6 other dimensions. One of which is gravity. I suspect that space time is a subset of a gravitational domain. This could attrutibute for gravity causing space time to change shape. It could also account for how all particles are in instantaneous communication throughout space time. Fascinating model. Another point is that it affects the big bang which could be simply a series of mini-slaps that re-order space time.
finally, I comes too many teachers who teach an incorrect science. Case and point is a PBS special on Evolution, “What About God!”. The teacher was not teaching science but instead his cosmological views which were not ID or related to Christianity as a science. I equate this to a math teacher putting up political posters in the classroom. Neither has its place in the classroom.
In the end, all men need a God. Which one wins out is a toss of a coin. (a probabilistic outcome) If our schools do it right, the student will have the skills and ability to embark on his life journey of discovery. My hope is that everyone of them finds the true God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
First sir I would like to point out that you completely ignored my initial rebuttals about your arguements concerning randomness. Let me reiterate it for you, nowhere does Evolutionary theory require randomness…not ONE place. Do mutations appear random? To us yes. Could it be found out that there is some force acting that is actually acting which only appears random to our limited understanding? Absolutely. The fact is that with our current scientific knowledge we can’t necessarily see what if any order exists in that situation and it is not the place of science classes to say what that order could be. Instead it is science’s job to describe things as they appear. Whether or not there is a higher order is a matter for philosophy and theology. You reference the Abrahamic religious texts in relation to science to try and demonstrate that they are more right then other faiths and therefore we should all accept them and teach their philosophy is disturbing at the very least.
Finally, your statement that “all men need a God” is not only insulting and demeaning, it is a flat out lie. People have the right to believe or not believe as they see fit. It is that attitude that has led to my being harassed repeatedly by people trying to convert me. The fact of the matter is sir, that there are millions of people out there who are perfectly content, and in fact feel empowered by, a world with out God(s). Perhaps the thing that was most convincing to me that there is no God was a look at history. If you look at that you will find that for thousands of years before Judaism first popped into existence there where countless polytheistic faiths through out the world. If there is only one true god, and always has been only one true god, why is Judaism not the first faith in the archaeological record? Why did all that time pass without it being worshiped? You would think that if there was a single true god that was benevolent it would not have let all those countless generations of people live before the first faith to worship it would show up.
If you think science validates your religion that is your right, but keep it to yourself and don’t try and force your philosophy on others
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami: I am not sure that I believe that “true randomness” doesn’t have a probability distribution associated with it, but am Devoutly Noodly enough to be willing to be educated. Can you give me a concrete example or point me to a place where this notion is clarified?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Mr.Miami,
You wrote, “Richard Feyhman remarked strangely that there are only two things that ARE certain; what quantum physics tells us and the Judeo/Christian Bible tells us.” I have read many complete books on and by Richard Feynman. I don’t know who “Feyhman” is I, assume you just made another error. However spelling is not nearly as important as truthful expressive content, which you really seem to be in short supply of.
Here is a quote from FEYNMAN in HIS OWN BOOK What do you care what other people think. “In those days, in Far Rockaway, there was a youth center for Jewish kids at the temple… Somebody nominated me for president of the youth center. The elders began getting nervous, because I was an AVOWED ATHEIST BY THAT TIME (caps changed for emphasis by me)… I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn’t want it distorted like that [by miracle stories]. And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion. From What Do You Care What Other People Think?, 1988, pp25-28.
I suggest you read that book or “Genius the life and science of Richard Feynman” to get the truth of what a great insightful man who understood the previously understandable thought about religion. HE HATED IT!
Mr Miami your lies and twisting are so dangerously fraudulent that they seem criminal. Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
REGARDING MY LAST POST, Aside from a couple typos, (which I usually let slide) I left out the word “not” before the last “understandable”. That should be apparent but in case it’s not, here’s this post. Sorry -Fizzmick
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Miami,
Aside from all of your arguments, In the end you are wrong! All men do NOT need a god.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Elvish Pirate Monarch:
.
Evolution relies entirely on random actions. It is the randomness of natural selection that causes change. It is random action that causes genetic drift. It is random action that caused life to burst into existence. There is no pattern or order to Evolution. There is only one thread line running without parallel processes of evolution emerging. Only one Frankenstienian protoplasmal global sparked into life and began this epic maundering path of evolution from which humans emerged over the eons of time. We do not see the evolutionary process running on other threadlines and there is no concurrent observation of other life at different stages of this evolutionary path.
.
Evolution is a philosophy that you so eloquently expressed is disturbing to teach. It tryies to demonstrate its validity using science. It is not science. There are other views in which the strength must be weighed.
.
The fact that you defend your world without a God or a God that is NULL is the one you defend on the basis of evolution indicates to me that you need a God and the one you chose is a NULL. No human is trying to convert you here or force you to believe anything. You have a disposition not to assess other information limiting your understanding to something that perhaps is more comfortable for you.
.
As for your comments about a true God. In the judeo/christian worldview there are different ages and different systems of accountability to that God. The current age is the Church Age. This will come to an end at some point and there will be another system of accountability. At one time the Judeo/Christian walked amongst men and that God desires to do that again.
.
I have studied science, math, and theologies with an open mind. Perhaps you should do the same. In doing so you’ll need to approach it without tryinf to justify your beliefs and allow the knowledge to lead you to the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Apprentice Frederic
.
Fundamental mathematics philosophy establishes formulas as order. True randomness cannot be ordered as it has no pattern or sequence. We live in a universe of duality. Every force has an equal an opposite, male-female, positive-negative, order-randomness. Mathematics toys with randomness using psuedo-random formulas which push the occurence of a repeating pattern or sequence far enough out to appear to be random. Probability is ordered as there is a formula that describes its behavior though not predictable.
.
In learning about mathematics you’ll learn that there are 4 number realms; real, imaginary, complex, and surreal. Surreal number like infinite also are not natural phenomenon as the universe is bounded.
.
In science philosophy there are three major arenas;(linear), (non-linear), and (probabilistic). Newtonian science is heavily oriented towards linear systems. Chaos theory is heavily oriented towards non-linear systems. Quantum theory is heavily reliant on probability. There is no honest science of randomness because then repeatable science experiments would be impossible and in fact science itself would not be possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ohio Pirate :
.
Even atheist and agnostics have a God.
.
Atheist will fight to no end to defend thier God who is a NULL. While atheist claim to have nothing to defend, they have defensive points of evolution, soup kitchen theories, and big bang as their evidence of a NULL God.
.
Agnostics claim ignorance and/or apathy towards the God discussion but acknowledge a God when they choose to ignor him like some sort of spoiled child. If there was nothing to ignor what is the point?
.
Look at all the religions and things humans worship. How many people on their death bed acknowledge God? Darwin did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
You are WRONG AGAIN. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? You explain why two is two, why three is three and add them up to an answer of eighty-”forty” or twelve”teen” or other numbers that are so convoluted that only the most diligent with a firm knowledge can wade through your crap. That they take the time should show you that you will not succeed in poisoning many minds.
Not that it is even relevant to evolution, as has been explained many times, but read Chaos The Making Of A New Science, it has been out for years and shows certain orders out of disorder.
It is you who comes to the table with preconceived notions willing to disregard anything which contradicts them, making statements that are specious (fraudulent) to try and confuse. Although it would be tough to procure, I would support seeking a restraining order to prevent YOUR TEACHING ANYBODY ANYTHING. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
Specious is only applicable to the uneducated to whom the garbage you expound is plausibly deceptive. You have portrayed falsehoods as true, deriving them from truths, partial-truths, and outright fabrications in a way that displays a dangerous talent. Much like other con-men you are stealing from people. In this case it is truth.
When mankind advances to the point where we can travel back in time (with the ability to bring people back to the future alive) your life – everyones life – will be reviewed. Then decisions will be made as to what to do by distant future generations.
As you have promoted superstitious lies that go against all evidence and logic in a way that is serving to really harm people, my guess is that your punishment will be severe. You are not an ignorant man, that could be forgiven – but one who does know better. Perhaps, you won’t even be brought back at all!
Repent MrMiami. Do it quickly for time is fleeting, and one never knows when their time is up. Don’t wait until tomorrow. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami:
Darwin did NOT turn religious on his deathbed. It is a lie put forth by the Christian church.
His daughter Henrietta commented in 1922: “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Miami:
Oh…my….Spaghetti Monster ! Now I’m reading some of your earlier posts…you need to get your facts straight. Not only did Darwin never have said deathbed confession, but Richard Faynmen was an athiest too. Do some research and site your sources for crying out loud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
Sir, natural selection is in no way random. It is simple cause and effect. A happens and B is the result. Can it be random? Of course it can? Could there be some higher order that we cannot understand? completely possible. The scientific theory of evolution neither supports or denies god. Does it refute the literal story told in a book written several thousand years ago by the hands of some Jewish priests? Yes. The argument you make assumes that one cannot be religious and still believe in evolutionary theory. I can tell you sir that I have known many biologists who find no such contradiction. Evolution is a how. It is a theory which explains the natural method by which it occurs. Why things have turned out the way they are is a question of theology not of the natural sciences. The natural sciences deal only with the natural world. Why most you and your fellow creationists insist on making people choose between reason and blind faith? Why do you insist on conveying the lie that one cannot have their reason and still have their faith in god? This way of looking at things is what led to Galileo being imprisoned for heresy. These arguments are the same his persecutors used to dismiss the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I fully support you Mr. Miami. Keep it strong!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
more good ammo –
Atheist Universe – David Mills
The Making of the Fittest – Sean B. Carroll
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also as a side note, Darwin was a devoutly religious man his whole life. He struggled for years to reconcile his faith in the literal truth of the bible and the world reason showed him. Some people can’t reconcile those 2 things, and for them I have pity. Others refuse to reconcile them and instead try to force people to choose one or the other, for these people I hold nothing but contempt. A world without monsters that go bump in the night; a world where a man with a disease isn’t labeled as being possessed by a demon; this is the world you and yours wish to deny. Rather then merely hide in your dogma and superstition you want to foist them upon the rest of us. To this sir I say no! Too long have we struggled to banish the cold dark of superstition with the light of reason and knowledge to let the likes of you take us back! An enlightened mind can see the miracle of creation, the amazingly simple processes which allow for such a diverse and varied planet, and be amazed by that. What could be more miraculous then the shark, a creature so well adapted to its environment that it has survived for 400 million years?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@EntropyBrian
Isn’t MrMiami amusing. He’s even more hopeless than the average YEC. Even they have caught on to the sroty of Darwins death bed conversion being a lie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Fizzmick PaChee, Elvish M., EntropyB and DNAbled:
.
First, apologies for small past and present contributions to brouhahahahaha.
.
Second, FWIW, I attended – 40-some years ago – a school where Richard Feynman was a much-lionized physics prof (my own academic position there was formally designated as “Miserable F*****g Frosh”). His apparent IQ exceeded the cumulative IQ of many bible college faculties – even presupposing normal intelligence at the latter. It seems to me likely that Feynman’s comments about quantum mechanics and the Bible should be understood either as irony or sarcasm – you all have said as much, and if so, I think you’re right.
.
Finally, I checked my teeny library, and – sure enough – there was an unread autobiography of Charles Darwin there. I’ll read it and write a book report, but I have to expect that Elvish P. M. is exactly right. In his age and time, Darwin would have been deeply religious and deeply conflicted; believing that his thinking was a tribute that revealed more of the subtlety and wisdom of the Creator, and smart enough to know (he was right!!!!!) that a storm of obloquy and vilification would be most of what he got for it. Of course, eventually, the English realized that he was right, and that Englishmen stood at the very pinnacle of the evolutionary pyramid. I believe – but don’t know – that similar things could be said about Galileo and his pal Pope Urban, and maybe Einstein and Newton as well. RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At Mr. Miami,
You say Atheists will defend their idea of evolution to the death, and that idea represents a god of sorts. This is a gross generalization. There are many of us atheists who believe in Evoltion because of its evidence, but are open to other possibilities based on their evidence. Therefore, we believe in an IDEA not an Absolute GOD. I hope you see the difference. Our minds are never tethered and always looking to learn.
RAmen!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to add a correction. Darwin infact did lose his christian faith. But not until the loss of his daughter which was after he had finished writing On the Origins of Species. And even after he never claimed to be an atheist. He considered himself an agnostic. My apologies for my faulty memory on the subject, however my point still stands as darwin had settled on his theory of evolution well before the death of his daughter which troubled his faith so much. (For those who do not know, Darwin had originally planned to publish Origins postumously and only changed his mind when another naturalist sent him a paper to review which, while less supported, had reached the same conclusions.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All:
.
Regardless of whether or not Feynman was a Christian or Atheist his remark still stands. Speculating, he probably was commenting about certainty in quantum physics and the persistence of the Judeo/Christian Bible throughout time.
.
Regarding Darwin’s death bed recant of evolution. I have seen evidence to both arguments and we will probably never know the truth on this account. Pulling up webpages on the internet as evidence to one way or the other is not veritable truth even with references. One would have to back track and do the research himself to conclude with any degree of confidence. Unfortunately, none of us have the luxury of that time.
.
I read Chaos: Making a New Science by James Glieck when it first came out. In fact, I was learning chaos mathematics years before the book was published.
.
Time travel? Times arrow? Reviewing lifes? That sound a little too Christian to me. I believe the Bible calls that “The Judgements”; Judgement of the Saints, Judgement of Man, Judgement of the Angels…
.
I have made no remarks about my personal beliefs. Many of you have attempted to employ childish tactics to draw me into an argument in defense of one view or the other view. This thread line is about Evolution I have presented arguments against evolution and many of you cannot defend the belief in evolution rationally. Instead, you launch into attacks on me. Your ’so called’ science has no strength ion this case. You need to rethink your understanding and defense of it.
.
Many of you think creationism is the same as Intelligent Design and it is not. Creationism is absolute literal belief in what the Bible says without the use of validation from creation. Intelligent Design uses science discovery to validate and/or reconcile what the Bible states. Blind Watchmaker arguments that Evolution falls under rely solely on science discovery remarking that another discovery will reveal the origin. But then that ultimate discovery has never determined the origin of the natural and seems to keep moving it out further and further.
.
So now I am back to the starting point. The story remarks that one is strolling along through the universe and stumbles upon something complex. Curious about this complex thing a scientific investigation is launched to study the order behind it. Once the sceintific investigation is complete, some sort of assertation about the origin of the complex object is made. What we are looking at is science only deals with complexity and order. Origin is a cosmological, theological or philosophical discussion and not science.
.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that most Christian know little to nothing about science and cannot discuss it meaningfully in support of revelations about origin. Those outside the faith could care less about bible quotes.
.
The problem with Evolution is that it is a misrepresentation of science to make cosmological revelations about the ‘origin of a species’ or about the universe.
.
There has to be common ground in order to comparatively assess the two view; Intelligent design and Evolution. That common ground needs to be science but humans have confounded science in support of their revelations to the point that there is very little common ground. Major differences exist in many things like the notion of order, nature of time, how DNA operates, the nature of information, and the definition of life.
.
The bottom line is that most people believe in one or the other and little will sway them to one side or the other. The battle for these beliefs is so desparate in many people that they want to impose their views rather than allow a maturing human to make the discovery on his own.
.
I was disturb by a high school science teacher’s comments that those Christian are out to ruin science as he spewed his cosmological revelations and very very science. I was equally disturb by Christian’s who could not adequately argue their views on science and nature without holding up a Bible and quoting scripture to those who could care less. For those asking for citations its “Evolution: What About God?”, PBS ISBN 1-57807-856-3
.
I’ll provide a long list of references later for any of you to read if you feel so compelled to pursue further thought. However, be prepared to set aside time, your wild opinions, and be willing to throw anything you know up in smoke, Sfumatso which is a Da Vincian principle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are some references. Not all inclusive.
“Chaos: Making a new Science”, James Gleick, ISBN-13: 9780140092509
.
“The Universe in a Nutshell”, Stephen Hawkings, ISBN-13: 9780553802023
.
“Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, Roger Penrose, ISBN-13: 9780679776314
.
“The Holographic Universe”, Micheal Talbot, ISBN-13: 9780060922580
.
“Entangled Minds”, Dean Radin, ISBN-13: 9781416516774
.
“Elegant Universe”, Brian Green, ISBN-13: 9780375708114
.
“Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos”, Seth Loyd, ISBN-13: 9781400033867
.
“Genome : The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters”, Matt Ridley, ISBN-13: 9780060894085
.
“Nature Via Nurture : Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human”, Matt Ridley, ISBN-13: 9780060544478
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I found this book on Information Theory to be curiously interesting.
.
“Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About”, Charles Knuth, ISBN-13: 9781575863269
.
Dr Knuth is a MIT professor in information sciences and discusses the problems of randomness and God. He is a Christian and started the John 3:16 movement. It is an interesting perspective.
.
Other opposing perspectives to study include Segan, Dawkins, and Feynman. Read about the Quantum Bible. It think this may be getting at Feynman’s quote about certainty.
.
Many randomness proponents quote Einstien who once said that God rolls the dice. The only problem they fail to realize is that dice rolling is nothing more than a probability problem and not random. Outcomes are limited to a set group of outcomes that are ordered by a mathematical formula. Chances of certain combinations can be established – hardly random action.
.
Here is a thought, read ECC 3 in the Bible. It is about order, perfect timing, all living beings having the same fate, and judging lives for those of you who talked about time travel. It is a song by the rock group the Birds.
.
I am not trying to convert anyone here. All I am doing is providing information for your review. You’ll need to make your own decisions about life. I don’t know why the schools can’t operate in this manner?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to present this in a Christian like conversation:
.
I thought this from the NIV Bible was kind of Star Warish. It begins in MARK 5:27-5:34. Basically, Jesus is like a Jedi knight. A woman touches him and he feels the force or power flow from him. Could this force or power be a natural force? Afterall Jesus is supposed to be God and God created the Heavens and Earth.
.
Col 1:15-17 remarks that Jesus holds everything together. One of the key words in the Colossians passage is a original Greek word ’sunistemi’ which means “to stand-together,” “to be compacted together,” “to cohere,” “to be constituted with.” This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call “weak” and “strong” forces. Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity and electrical forces, plus a “strong” and a “weak” nuclear force. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects; the latter two forces act only at very short ranges. There is thus an active force imposed on the universe, which actively holds the very atoms of the material world together moment by moment, day by day, century by century.
.
This is how an Intelligent Design proponent may reconcile the Bible with science from a Christian viewpoint. Earlier I discussed how a Christian views the endowment of biological life from DNA as a patternmakers template where the patternmaker is controlling the timing, sequence, and duration of genes firing. These views give rise to an active and participating God in his creation from a Christian perspective. However, this is fantasy to someone outside the community of faith. The Bible quotes are meaningless to those people.
.
So how could ID and evolution be taught side by side? I have some thoughts that I’ll share later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami Feb 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“Regarding Darwin’s death bed recant of evolution. I have seen evidence to both arguments and we will probably never know the truth on this account. Pulling up webpages on the internet as evidence to one way or the other is not veritable truth even with references.”
.
I disagree!
You’re just trying to cover for spouting one of the most well worn, fallacious, ignorant and consistently refuted, pieces of YEC crap! Bad job at trying to cover for your woeful ignorance and lack of intellectual integrity MrMiami!
Darwin’s daughter even went out of her way to kill that rumour started by the wishful thinking of one Lady Hope! There is plenty of documented evidence which refutes that fairy tale.
.
“The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood”
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
.
Really…only the most desperate ill informed creationists ever bring that one up!
.
Even AiG disowns that old cannard!
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
.
“Which arguments should definitely not be used?”
“Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”
“Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it?”
.
More from the biggest creationist propaganda site on the net….AiG
.
“The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’,4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view’.5
.
Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, ‘I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever’.6 Some have even concluded that there was no Lady Hope.”
.
Be embarrassed and regrettable for your blatant and ignorant dishonesty MrMiami!
Disgusting!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
☠DutchPastaGuy☠ Feb 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
“He’s even more hopeless than the average YEC. Even they have caught on to the sroty of Darwins death bed conversion being a lie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp”
.
Ahh…see you already referenced that DPG
I somehow missed your post before I posted mine. That’s what I get for skimming over all these posts I’ve missed too quickly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench:
.
Thank you for your extensive pre-occupation in the Darwin recent issue.
.
I suggest you move on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami and Wench Nikkiee,
MrMiami we would all love to “move on”. Unfortunately IDiots like you MrMiami display a dangerous talent for deception that must be countered with truth. Should you decide to “move on”, rest assured that we will follow with enough firepower to keep you from affecting all but the feeblest of minds.
Wench Nikkiee, THANK YOU :) for taking the time to help overpower this IDiot. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr Miami, the biggest difference between ID and creationisme is that ID CLAIMS to use science to prove their points. However they rarely do so in a scientific, proper way.
*
“Intelligent Design uses science discovery to validate and/or reconcile what the Bible states. ”
To me that is not science.
That is starting with the answer and then selecting those answers that “prove” your point. Like they do at AiG.
*
@Wench:
Thank you for your extensive pre-occupation in the Darwin recent issue.
I suggest you move on.
Why? because she proves you wrong in a major way?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MRMiami
I will again say to you, stop using randomness as an arguement against evolution. All it does is misrepresent evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution via natural selection merely states that in nature there is a struggle to survive, and that in this strugle there are individuals who have some physiological difference which gives them an advantage in the competition for resources (including mates) which can be inherited. This advantage results in that individual having a higher fitness (in biology fitness represents reproductive success) then those individuals which do not have said trait. Said trait becomes increasingly prevalent in the species. If some form of reproductive barrier is established (see ring species for an example) then the reproductively isolated populations, which will find themselves in different ecological situations, will over time develop differences from one another (please note that a reproductive barier is all that is needed, which does not necessarily mean a physical barier). As time passes the differences between the two populations will accumulate until they are sufficiently different from one another to be unable to produce viable offspring when mated (such as when a horse and a donkey are mated). Please sir explain to me what part of that is random?
`
Many a christian biologist will tell you that none of that process is random. There could be a designer, there could not, the fact is that science doesn’t care nor does it try to answer that question. Whether there is some supernatural presence which is responsible for those traits appearing is a matter of philosophy not science. There are geneticists who look at DNA and see a marvel of nature; there are others who look at the genome and see the language of god. Neither is right or wrong, it is a matter of their faith.
`
Finally sir, what you and your fellow ID proponents seem to not be able to grasp is that evolutionary theory provides a natural, testable, frame work for all areas of modern biology. Without evolutionary theory Mendel would never have done his research into elementary genetics. Without evolutionary theory Watson and Crick would never have gone looking for DNA. Genetics only exists because people where trying to figure out the mechanism of inheritance that the law of evolution requires to function (the only reason it isn’t commonly called a law is that the term has gone out of favor in scientific fields, if newton where writing up his works on motion today they would be called theories). If science had been unable to find a method of inheritance guess what? Evolutionary theory would have been disproved. That sir is why evolution is science. There are countless ways to disprove it, there is no way to disprove ID.
`
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
You have said once and again that atheists (and agnostics) believe in some sort of god, implying that atheism is just another religion.
I should like to point out that that is as stupid as pretending that barefoot is a type of shoes.
.
Is it so difficult to understand that not believing is not another way of believing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well miami (mr. is a sign of respect and due to your comments you shall not recieve it) why should Wench stop trying to proove her point? if we all did this nothing would ever get proven exept the bad theories
i apoligize for spelling and grammer mistakes as i am in a hurry to get to class,
thank you
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
“@Wench:
.
Thank you for your extensive pre-occupation in the Darwin recent issue.
.
I suggest you move on.”
.
The science-minded Pastafarians have moved on, as has much of the rest of the world. You’d be welcome to join us. We’re not in any way an exclusive club. The Almighty and merciful (and drunk, incompetent) FSM is ok with it if you don’t believe in Him, as He is not vain. I’m one of many here who are atheists and Pastafarians at the same time. So if you want to keep some other god(s) on the side, I’m sure He would be fine with it. So everyone is welcome to join. Well almost everyone, there is the one condition of having at least some amount of rationality and intelligent thinking left inside your head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wow…I am really starting to dislike this whole…thing. While that matters not at all to anyone whom is not me, it should make all of you at least stop for a second and thnk. Is it possible that all of this was meant to happen? Why does god, whom has hidden (in plain sight?) and refused to prove and validate himself and his message, want us to bicker and squabble and drive the wedge deeper?
This is a closed system (the argument, that is.) why does he want strife between his children? There is no devil here, knowledge and opinion have no intrinsic evil within them. While there is statistically at least a couple of bad eggs in this dicussion, I see no diabolic influence here. So is this a case of two rights making a bigger wrong? We need some perspective.
Problem is, the only one who can truly grant perspective is in hiding. Awful convenient isn’t it? Every day we come a little bit closer to understanding the whole equation. Nobody here has a “personal” beef with god mr. Miami. In fact I have seen almost every person here state SOMETIME that given proof, they would have faith. It’s not their fault that god has decided that proof is antithetical (?) to his existence.
I see lots of very intelligent people being villainized for not going along with the same old crap we have been force fed for our own good. We are tired of being told how immoral we are for wanting more information. We choose to live decent moral lives according to our own devices, as opposed to a 2000 year old, often re-written, poorly re-translated, contradictory, book of stories assembled by dozens of authors over almost 1200 years time. That burden of proof would be the same if the same book (all detractors included) was a physics test.
On the other hand, these people really do feel like they have something “else” inside of them. If they insist it is holy spirit, fine. If it is an alien chest-burster with a grinning jesus bobble head, fine. Just keep it to yourselves.
This debate ALWAYS devolves into “my sources say this” followed by “well, my sources say your sources are wrong on this teeny-tiny point.” That is an argument for another time. The argument that is SUPPOSED to be here is supposed to be how and why it is immoral and abusive to teach fantasies and speculation in SCIENCE class. And not just ANY speculation and fantasy, Judeo-with-heavy-emphasis-on the CHRISTIAN fantasy. EVOLUTION is science. RELIGION is religion. It really is that simple. We don’t teach math during history and music class. We dont teach P.E. during computer lab. So why are we cramming RELIGION into SCIENCE class?
We have all this hair splitting about theories and hypothesis and blah blah blah. If semantics are involved in an argument this convoluted, there is definitely something shady going on…after all, here is another great semantic posturing quote, “I did NOT have SEX with that woman.” (caps added by me for emphasis.) anyone remember that one?
Hows about this as a compromise. We atheistic, scientific types will admit that we don’t REALLY know all the answers. Fair?
You religious type folks. admit that you don’t REALLY know for sure that all that biblical frippery is true or not.
While we sort out the “facts” and take a deep breath, lets be sure to KEEP RELIGION AND SCIENCE OUT OF THE SAME CLASSROOM. A comparitave class -yes. A debate class -yes. but not to be taught as a fact. For the one thing we ALL know, including most of the YEC’s is that while the bible makes a nice bedtime story, and that Jesus guy was pretty neat, these two things will probably not matter one whit to a Florida public school graduate, as he assembles my double cheeseburger and pours my coke for me.
Unrepentent…until proven wrong.
Neo-Noodly convert…searching for some perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is it possible that all of this was meant to happen? Does god, whom has hidden (in plain sight?) and refused to prove and validate himself and his message, want us to bicker and squabble and drive the wedge deeper? Why would any concerned parent want to see their children murdering each other over who is the better child? Why can’t an omnipotent super being get a message to us that isn’t riddled with inconsistency? Why won’t he do anything about the other religious sects that want us all killed? Maybe it is DIVINE EVOLUTION! He obviously wants us to kill off the weaker members of our race…no, he heals cancer victims…that can’t be right either. OH! Better yet, lets just say that while we follow his will, we are too insignificant to understand his will…so it’s okay to be ignorant?
Before I forget: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ This is one of the better websites addressing the inconsistencies of Christian belief. I recommend it to anyone who wants a good read.
Why does he want strife between his children? There is no devil here. Regardless of what the hate mailers say, knowledge and opinion have no intrinsic evil within them. (Regardless of that silly little story blaming women for the fall of mankind from grace…I mean really, an apple? Blaming women? How…patronizing) I see no diabolic influence here. Does anyone beg to differ? So is this a case of two rights making a bigger wrong? We need some perspective.
Problem is, the only one who can truly grant perspective is in hiding. Awful convenient isn’t it? Every day we come a little bit closer to understanding the whole equation. Any yet…It is my understanding that nobody here has a personal beef with god. It is mostly his idiotic worshippers and their cut and paste biblical literalism. Personally, it was my over zealous grandparents that atheized me. I don’t blame god. I blame them, but that is a different story. God has apparently decided that proof is antithetical (?) to his existence. Only blind faith will get you into heaven. I am sorry, Christian America, but I have a problem with that. When you stop questioning the doctrine, and “just follow orders” you cease being human. We want answers because we either evolved that way, or because we were “designed” that way. One or the other. It is not a flaw to wonder why. The flaw is to demonize people who do.
The biblical literalists would have us believe that as soon as an omnipotent super being creates an entire universe…he pulls up a cloud. Grabs a pen and paper, and starts making notes. Now, insert the occasional smiting or natural disaster for shits and giggles, and you have GOD. Doesn’t that seem a bit…odd? That would seem to me to be the height of hubris…you know, that deadly sin pride? That we, insignificant little fleebs that we are compared to our creator actually merit his time and attention on even a part time basis? I see the scenario a little differently.
So god created us in his image. The book says that right? We need only look around at our works. In fact, here is an experiment.
1.)Buy an ant farm.
2.)Treat them like you would your favorite thing in the whole universe. Talk to them. Care for them. Buy a whole room of new furniture JUST for the ants. Now make everything perfect. Give them all the food and living space they can possibly need.
3.)now, put an apple jolly rancher inside and tell them very sternly that if they touch it, they will be punished.
Now..it is very important that we all understand that it was a GIVEN to an omnipotent being that it was going to happen.
4.)When they inevitably do, backhand the ant farm onto the ground, swear a lot, torch a couple with a flaming…lighter. Then shake your head in disgust, and leave them to their fates. After all, their just stupid ants, and you have other things left to do. Should only take a couple of days.
I see lots of very intelligent people being vilified for not going along with the same old crap we have been force fed for our own good. We are tired of being told how immoral we are for wanting more information. I have no fear of oblivion when I die. I don’t need to believe in stories told to frightened and superstitious people living in an incredibly brutal era. I choose to live a decent moral life according to my own devices. Unfortunately, I am still going to hell because I didn’t wasn’t an invisible friend.
Even colored with the FACT that the first American settlement at Plymouth Rock was founded by ultra-conservative religious loonies (even for the time!) we have come a long ways. Believing that god actually cares about us on an individual level is a bit silly. BTW Did you name your ants? While you may have cared about the colony, what about the ones that died and were eaten? Don’t worry if you didn’t, I hear we all look the same from cloud level anyway.
On the other hand, these people really do feel like they have something “else” inside of them. If they insist it is holy spirit, fine. It is a given that there is a large percentage of people that need instructions and hand holding to do anything but sleep and poop. If the good book helps ou through those crisis moments of knitting vs. quilting or whatever it is that you folks do when you aren’t praying, that’s fine. We find you silly. You find us silly. BOOM! Instant ad hominem. Just don’t get YOUR faith all over me. Righteous faith, divine fire, alien chest-burster with a grinning jesus bobble head, fine. Just keep it to yourselves.
The argument that is supposed to be here is how and why it is immoral and abusive to teach fantasies and speculation in SCIENCE class. And not just ANY speculation and fantasy, Judeo-with-heavy-emphasis-on-the-CHRISTIAN fantasy. EVOLUTION is science. RELIGION is religion. It really is that simple. We don’t teach math during history and music class. We dont teach P.E. during computer lab. So why are we cramming RELIGION into SCIENCE class?
We have all this hair splitting about theories and hypothesis and blah blah blah. If semantics are involved in an argument this convoluted, there is definitely something shady going on…after all, here is another great semantic posturing quote, “I did not have SEX with that woman.” (caps added by me for emphasis.) anyone remember that one?
How’s about this as a compromise? We atheistic, scientific types will admit that we don’t REALLY know all the answers. Fair? I think we can reasonably assume most of us will convert given any incontrovertible proof. A 500 foot tall robed and bearded man laying waste to Las Vegas seen on youtube would probably fit the criteria.
You religious type folks. admit that you don’t REALLY know for sure that all that biblical frippery is true or not. Admit you weren’t there, and that if 5 people cannot keep a whispered message intact over 5 minutes time, that your dogma was probably hit by a Karma at least a dozen times in the last millennium ahem…king James version…ahem. Just remember, that just because a king ordered the bible changed for his own personal gain, does not absolve you of responsibility. You are going to hell for worshipping a false prophet.
While we sort out the “facts” and take a deep breath, lets be sure to KEEP RELIGION AND SCIENCE OUT OF THE SAME CLASSROOM. A comparative class -yes. A debate class -yes. But it does not deserve to be taught as a fact. Stealing research from prominent scientists and publishing their work out of context doesn’t count as fact. For the one thing we ALL know, or may soon know, including most of the YEC’s is that while the bible makes a nice bedtime story, and that Jesus guy was pretty neat, these two things will probably not matter one whit to a Florida public school graduate, as he assembles my double cheeseburger and pours my coke for me.
Unrepentent…until proven wrong.
With his long percolating rant expelled…Neo-Noodly convert will continue searching for some perspective…and now an ant farm. Thank you for reading my .02 I hope you get something from it…just not anything contagious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sorry about the double post. The first one was copied from word and pasted to wrong window, it needed polish. Need more sleep…yes sleeeeeep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all
.
With regard to deathbed statements, I hope it won’t cast more than a momentary pall on the thread to say that I do expect to die, perhaps soon, but do plan to die in most beatific Pastafarian way possible: namely, while watching a stripper, so that my transition into Pastafarian heaven will be completely seamless. It fills my heart with pity and sorrow that neither smug Christian, tormented agnostic, nor relentlessly bigoted atheist will ever make such a trip. But I also believe, in spite of whatever he said or thought on his deathbed, that an exception was vouchsafed to Charles Darwin, and that he occupies an honored mansion on the highest beer volcano above the Pastafarian Vale of Vermicelli. His work, after all, is, indeed, a critical portion of the foundation of all the present and future evidence that the FSM’s handiwork is perfect. RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0