Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 25, 2014, 06:17:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial  (Read 17348 times)
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« on: November 07, 2007, 04:39:54 PM »

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

NOVA will be airing a new dramatization of the Dover, PA case on November 13 at 8:00 pm.

When the religious non-science of Intelligent Design was forced on the children of Dover, PA, reason and science, as well as the Constitution, teachers, and parents, fought back. ID and its proponents were utterly rebuffed and defeated.

Make sure to watch the documentary. Also check the page above for a preview as well as lots of good info.
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2007, 04:44:56 PM »

Fossil evidence: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2007, 04:08:55 PM »

Don't miss it tomorrow night, folks!

Ahem ahem, Beach Bum, that book you're reading is by the same kind of pious liars who were exposed at the Dover trial for the frauds that they are. Be sure to watch it Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2007, 04:25:22 PM »

Actually, the book I'm reading isn't about intelligent design, but about the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.  Very interesting read so far. 
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2007, 04:32:44 PM »

It was written by a "fellow" of the Discovery Institute, leading Creationism/ID propaganda vehicle.

If I remember correctly, he isn't even qualified to write about it. He was a doctor wasn't he?
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2007, 04:40:04 PM »

Yes he's a doctor.  Great read.  I see you cannot touch the specific items he discusses in the book, but are simply being a drone.  You should buy it.  You might learn something. 
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2007, 04:48:00 PM »

Yeah sure, right after I get done reading those two books on Flat Earth Geology and Pre-Galileo Astrology...
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2007, 05:01:12 PM »

Good for you.    Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2007, 05:20:41 PM »

I'm picky like that, Beach Bum. I only read science books by people who are qualified to write them Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2007, 05:30:36 PM »

I'm a little different columbusdude.  I like to read about things so I can have an informed opinion.  I'm an information junkie.  I'm not afraid to read about things that challenge me and/or things I've been taught were fact, but really are not.  That's why, for example, even though I'm not a liberal, I read liberal websites and materials all the time.  That's why, even though I'm a Christian, I've read books about many different types of religion.  It's enlightening.  But that's one difference between you and me.   Smiley   
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2007, 05:33:23 PM »

What you say is perfectly fine for matters of OPINION, like religion, politics, etc.

But for FACT, i.e. science, I only read people who know what they're talking about. Smiley That's the difference between you and me!
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2007, 05:55:14 PM »

From the book I'm currently reading, regarding the tenants of science:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions. 

Many things fail the preceding tenants, including macroevolution.  So call macroevolution fact all you want, but you're just being disingenuous. 

Don't be afraid man.  Relax a little, get off the anti-Jesus crusade for a bit, and challenge yourself.       
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2007, 06:22:33 PM »

Conservative Christians tend to see things in terms of just black and white.  I'm starting to see the similar tendencies in some athiests.   
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2007, 06:28:28 PM »

From the book I'm currently reading, regarding the tenants of science:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions. 

Many things fail the preceding tenants, including macroevolution.  So call macroevolution fact all you want, but you're just being disingenuous. 

Don't be afraid man.  Relax a little, get off the anti-Jesus crusade for a bit, and challenge yourself.       


You know, the term "macroevolution" is only used by creationists. The fact that they need to make an artificial distinction between macro and microevolution shows they don't know what they're talking about. Once you admit the possibility of microevolution, you are in effect an evolutionist. "Macroevolution" is just the sum of lots and lots of microevolutions.

As for my opposition to the non-science of ID, it's not an anti-Jesus crusade. It's an anti-stupidity crusade.

No one ever took me up on my challenge in another thread to name one (just one) real university that does research in ID or teaches ID. I will take it seriously when serious biologists do.

Ozmo, yes, the distinction I make between science and superstition is black and white. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The ID movement is really just the old creationism returning to sabotage the education of American school children. It is not a scientific movement. It is a political one.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2007, 06:33:01 PM »

Conservative Christians tend to see things in terms of just black and white.  I'm starting to see the similar tendencies in some athiests.   

Absolutely.  What I've noticed with most of the atheists I've observed is they spend an inordinate amount of time ridiculing those believe in God and that actually seems to form the foundation of their belief in nothing. 
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2007, 06:55:00 PM »

Absolutely.  What I've noticed with most of the atheists I've observed is they spend an inordinate amount of time ridiculing those believe in God and that actually seems to form the foundation of their belief in nothing. 

I am ridiculing bad science. Do you admit that your interest in ID is motivated by your religious beliefs?
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2007, 07:11:50 PM »

I am ridiculing bad science. Do you admit that your interest in ID is motivated by your religious beliefs?

Nope.  Next question.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2007, 06:15:55 AM »

I rest my case. ID is not a scientific movement, it is a religious movement. Thank you, Beach Bum.

Watch the documentary if you can Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41779

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2007, 11:08:15 AM »

I rest my case. ID is not a scientific movement, it is a religious movement. Thank you, Beach Bum.

Watch the documentary if you can Smiley

lol.  So you ask if my motivation regarding "ID" is religious based, I say "nope," and based on that you have proved "ID is not a scientific movement"? 

Don't quit your day job.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
ieffinhatecardio
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5204


More proof God is a man.


« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2007, 08:18:50 PM »

I just watched it and Creationism errrrr Intelligent Design was absolutely decimated and so was the motivation behind those pushing it on the public school system.

It was particularly interesting that some of those God fearing people pushing Creationism ID decided it would be a good idea to send death threats to the Judge, who was a Republican and was appointed by Bush.

That blowhard Robertson's statement was another beauty, apparently since Dover doesn't want to teach ID in it's public school God won't help them if they are struck by disaster.
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2007, 08:39:30 PM »

ieffinhatecardio, glad you liked it. Yes the creationists did get destroyed, by a judge appointed by president Bush (no less) and recommended by far-right fundamentalist former senator Rick Santorum. If any judge would be sympathetic to the creationists, it would be such an appointee.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected Him from your city." Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. The folks in Dover are still waiting.

Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2007, 08:43:29 PM »

The Judge speaks (excerpts from his decision):

intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.

our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2007, 03:43:27 AM »

The Judge speaks (excerpts from his decision):

intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

Tell us something we don't know.

The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.

One could just as easily say that the goal of evolution was not to encourage critical thought, but to forment a revolution supplanting Creation with a godless paradigm (evolution). Besides, critical thinking isn't the issue. It's the assumption by some folks that use of such will automatically lead to a rejection of Creation, and ultimately of their Christian faith. That's hardly the case, though.


They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

Ground rules set by whom? Would that be naturalists/materalists and atheists, who from the start have admitted that their whole purpose for proposing evolution was to deliberately develop a godless explanation for life? They came up with that dogma and hold to it, because if they don't, they must admit to a supernatural source of life. But don't take my word for it:

“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” 
- J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954   

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s;

Creation science is anything but doomed. Otherwise, evolutionists wouldn't be running to lawyers and judges, trying to suppress something that they claim "science" so easily does. Complexity is at the very heart of the matter. As part of the scientific process is observation, you would think that evolutionists would be able to show such regarding "simple" organisms evolving into complex ones. Unfortunately, that ain't the case.

(3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Point 3 is also incorrect, to a degree. Since evolutionists don't want research countering their godless mantra in their journals, creationists developed scientific, peer-reviewed journals of their own. One such is called "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal", or simply "TJ". As for it not being the subject of testing and research, that is also incorrect. Among such testing and research is a program, known as RATE (Radiocarbon dating and the Age of the Earth), which challenges how rocks are dated and shows evidence for a young earth.

Although this court case was in Pennsylvania, the irony is that for all this talk about the alleged threats to constitutionality that teaching Creation causes, evolutionists are getting bent out of shape and sending self-appointed constitutional watchdogs (i.e. DefCon) to wail about one AiG Creation Museum in Kentucky, the construction for which was paid by private citizens with private money.

Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2007, 06:50:30 AM »

Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed Cool

McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2007, 07:30:54 AM »

Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed Cool

McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.

Way to avoid the issue, columbusdude82!  I was looking forward to your response to McWay's questions and to the points he brings up in his post.  But this is all you've got?

Have you visited the Creation Museum?  It's not far from you, and admission is very low cost.  It brings thousands of visitors every day, from all over the world.  In only six months, it has attracted 250,000 visitors, more than they had expected in a whole year.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Creation Museum surpasses expectations
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-02-creationmuseum_N.htm
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!