OT: Religious fundies slapped-down HARD

"noneyabusiness" <me@you.com> wrote in message
news:29vtq19udi44lqo45eqas2m47kqksjijak@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:00:41 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>>news:20hrq1t8666aiemkgc56bghdrf4bct4hft@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>
>>> gord wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Me don't...what's the difference?...the pond scum --> intellig.
>>>>> life is merely 'the big picture', while your 'evolution through
>>>>> breeding etc' is merely a 'closeup snapshot' of a small segment
>>>>> of the former. (Fine tuning if you will.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just think there are way too many complex interactions to accept that
>>>>life
>>>>is a purely random event. I accept that many kinds of life changed
>>>>through
>>>>the eons -- they evolved -- but I refuse to accept that life is a random
>>>>occurance that harkens back to pond scum, or to the addition of a
>>>>species.
>>>>
>>>>If one believes in survival of the fittest, and that humans evolved from
>>>>apes, why do we still have apes?
>>>
>>> Well, isn't it true that there's way less apes than
>>> men?...perhaps it just hasn't been long enough for them to
>>> disappear yet?
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Maybe, but man has been around for several thousand years, it just seems
>>to
>>me that apes would have died off by now if survival of the fittest worked.
>>I
>>think that survival of the fittest is a valid position, but humans are
>>clearly more fit than apes, so evolution must be the flaw in the design.[/color]
>
> "Several", as in 2 or 3 but not many more?
>
> Heck, *documented* Chinese history goes back 7000 or more years, and
> evidence of farming (as opposed to hunting/gathering) goes back at
> least 12000 years. And "modern man" (Homo sapiens) have been around
> for at least 100000 years.
>
> And even at 100000 years, "modern" man has only existed for a mere
> blip in the world's timeline.
>
> Several indeed...
>[/color]


Dude, your argument just makes my point.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:12:55 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"noneyabusiness" <me@you.com> wrote in message
>news:29vtq19udi44lqo45eqas2m47kqksjijak@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:00:41 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>> <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20hrq1t8666aiemkgc56bghdrf4bct4hft@4ax.com...
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gord wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me don't...what's the difference?...the pond scum --> intellig.
>>>>>> life is merely 'the big picture', while your 'evolution through
>>>>>> breeding etc' is merely a 'closeup snapshot' of a small segment
>>>>>> of the former. (Fine tuning if you will.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I just think there are way too many complex interactions to accept that
>>>>>life
>>>>>is a purely random event. I accept that many kinds of life changed
>>>>>through
>>>>>the eons -- they evolved -- but I refuse to accept that life is a random
>>>>>occurance that harkens back to pond scum, or to the addition of a
>>>>>species.
>>>>>
>>>>>If one believes in survival of the fittest, and that humans evolved from
>>>>>apes, why do we still have apes?
>>>>
>>>> Well, isn't it true that there's way less apes than
>>>> men?...perhaps it just hasn't been long enough for them to
>>>> disappear yet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe, but man has been around for several thousand years, it just seems
>>>to
>>>me that apes would have died off by now if survival of the fittest worked.
>>>I
>>>think that survival of the fittest is a valid position, but humans are
>>>clearly more fit than apes, so evolution must be the flaw in the design.[/color]
>>
>> "Several", as in 2 or 3 but not many more?
>>
>> Heck, *documented* Chinese history goes back 7000 or more years, and
>> evidence of farming (as opposed to hunting/gathering) goes back at
>> least 12000 years. And "modern man" (Homo sapiens) have been around
>> for at least 100000 years.
>>
>> And even at 100000 years, "modern" man has only existed for a mere
>> blip in the world's timeline.
>>
>> Several indeed...
>>[/color]
>
>
>Dude, your argument just makes my point.[/color]

Duuuude, your "point" was based on the misconception that man was
supposed to *replace* the apes. Evolving from something doesn't
require competing for resources with it. "Survival of the fittest"
applied to Homo Sapiens vs NEANDERTHALS, not apes.
Regardless, at the rate we are destroying their habitat, Man *will*
kill off all the Great Apes within the next few hundred years, so Gord
(?) may still be right ;-)

Besides, I was just nit-picking on your *apparently* religious based
notion that mankind has only existed for a few thousand years.

....

Philip wrote:
[color=blue]
>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Philip wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>Dizzy ... science requires proof and the ability duplicate under
>>>controlled
>>>conditions.[/color]
>>
>> Those are the GOALS but not a "requirement". A "requirement for
>> proof" is not a "requirement for science."[/color]
>snip
>
>Science requires evidence, proof, and that the results be reproducible.
>Otherwise you're dealing in junk science.[/color]

Repeating your claptrap does not make it any more true.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>I see here that you share with another contributor to this thread a
>>>willingness to inject doctrine like a frightened squid releases ink into
>>>the
>>>water in order to escape into the darkness.[/color]
>>
>> I see here that you share your willingness to inject a bunch of pure
>> claptrap. In fact, your entire post is just a bunch of claptrap,
>> having nothing, really, to do with the matter at hand.[/color]
>
>I've have challenged your belief system's limitations. You're having a hard
>time accepting that evolution has a starting point that you cannot account
>for.[/color]

Another incorrect assumption from you.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You entire "case" seems to be "science requires proof, and since
>> science can't yet create life, there's no reason to think that life
>> could have started without devive intervention."
>>
>> Well, Philip, it's a shitty case, no matter how much verbose claptrap
>> you pile on top of it.[/color]
>snip
>
>My case wins. It's amusing how terms like God and divine intervention
>distract you from acknowledging the weaknesses of a wholly secular belief
>system in the name of science.[/color]

That's pretty funny, considering there's absolutely ZERO evidence for
the religious fables. (Indeed, many of them, such as the Adam and Eve
fable, are obviously untrue.) Now that's what I call "weakness" of a
case.
[color=blue]
>Science is the observation of material phenomena in this universe, and then
>applying our reason and logic to understand and control them. By definition,
>God cannot exist as part of this universe, cannot be composed of matter, and
>cannot even exist in time.[/color]

Wrong, as usual.

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5s4er15riqj5sribraq4sk89bkgci25n3c@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Dizzy ... science requires proof and the ability duplicate under
>>>>controlled
>>>>conditions.
>>>
>>> Those are the GOALS but not a "requirement". A "requirement for
>>> proof" is not a "requirement for science."[/color]
>>snip
>>
>>Science requires evidence, proof, and that the results be reproducible.
>>Otherwise you're dealing in junk science.[/color]
>
> Repeating your claptrap does not make it any more true.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>I see here that you share with another contributor to this thread a
>>>>willingness to inject doctrine like a frightened squid releases ink into
>>>>the
>>>>water in order to escape into the darkness.
>>>
>>> I see here that you share your willingness to inject a bunch of pure
>>> claptrap. In fact, your entire post is just a bunch of claptrap,
>>> having nothing, really, to do with the matter at hand.[/color]
>>
>>I've have challenged your belief system's limitations. You're having a
>>hard
>>time accepting that evolution has a starting point that you cannot account
>>for.[/color]
>
> Another incorrect assumption from you.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> You entire "case" seems to be "science requires proof, and since
>>> science can't yet create life, there's no reason to think that life
>>> could have started without devive intervention."
>>>
>>> Well, Philip, it's a shitty case, no matter how much verbose claptrap
>>> you pile on top of it.[/color]
>>snip
>>
>>My case wins. It's amusing how terms like God and divine intervention
>>distract you from acknowledging the weaknesses of a wholly secular belief
>>system in the name of science.[/color]
>
> That's pretty funny, considering there's absolutely ZERO evidence for
> the religious fables. (Indeed, many of them, such as the Adam and Eve
> fable, are obviously untrue.) Now that's what I call "weakness" of a
> case.[/color]

Your responses have had nothing to do with the point that I have been making
all along. So for the umpteenth time Dizzy, evolution does not account for
the origin of anything in the physical or spiritual worlds. You would admit
this is true but for your beliefs ... that God or intelligent design can
account for what science cannot account for.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Science is the observation of material phenomena in this universe, and
>>then
>>applying our reason and logic to understand and control them. By
>>definition,
>>God cannot exist as part of this universe, cannot be composed of matter,
>>and
>>cannot even exist in time.[/color]
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>[/color]

Dizzy ... I know both sides of the subject fairly well. And as usual, I'm
pretty close to center.
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ghKsf.1666$M%4.662@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:VdqdnXHgT-O69C7enZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=green]
>>
>> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:43af8146$0$8469$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> You've tried to explain what you see from a religious point of view.
>>> Others prefer science. Some, somewhere in-between. Predictable, I'd say.
>>> The issue is whether the religious point of view ought to be taught as
>>> science in our schools. Obviously not is my view.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Science only explains how and why life has changes since it was created,
>> it doesn't explain how life started.
>>
>> I too think we should teach in public school the science of how life has
>> changed, and leave the exploration of how life started to higher levels
>> of learning where young minds are not forced to grapple with issues that
>> cause them to perhaps feel they must abandon the religious teaching they
>> already have when they get to the classroom.[/color]
>
> Ah Jeff .... above you have made the assumption that children received
> religious instruction at home while growing up. It is readily apparent to
> me that such is increasingly NOT the case.[/color]

Well, that's not exactly what I assume, but I'll give you points for being
close. My only assumption is that IF a kid has received religious
instruction at home, it is not the purview of the government to become a
wedge between the kids and their baggage. All I suggest that the schools do
is simply acknowledge to those kids that have the baggage that what they
carry into the class is one explanation of how life was formed, but then
state that what the school will be teaching is yet another explanation.
There is no point in the school challenging creation, all it has to do is
acknowledge that creation is one theory, evolution is another, then teach
evolution.

By taking the position that evolution is the ONLY way that life could have
been formed is a direct challenge to the religious teaching that some
children might already harbor. I do not suggest for a moment that the school
drag down a dusty Bible and teach from Genisis, but when a kid has been
taought at home and at church that God created life, I think the government
should tell that kid, "well, yes that may be true, but there is another
possibility, and we are going to show you what it is." Then teach evloution
until the entire class falls asleep -- or whatever kids do when they become
bored these days.

In any case, I see no good coming from a school -- The Government -- telling
kids that the religious teaching they have had elsewhere is patently false.
I'll agree that the religious teaching might be patently false, but that's
not something that government should be telling our kids. Kids should be
given facts at home, church, and school. They will chew on all of these
facts and filter them through a lifetime of learning, then decide which
facts have more relevence. I don't want my government telling any child that
his faith in God is misplaced.




I would site the working couple[color=blue]
> with kids in daycare and latchkey kids as group examples. Further, the
> influence of too much television, M-TV, and gangster rap culture has taken
> the place of religious instruction in too many kids' lives. The parent(s)
> have -let- this happen.
> --[/color]

Clearly, you cite the lives of far too many children. And that's a sad
commentary on our society. But, I've managed to not raise a herd of latchkey
kids, and the majority of my neighbors have done pretty much as well as I
have in that regard.

Just because there are some parents out there that are raising latchkey kids
doesn't mean that we should destroy the teachings that other parents have
managed to hang onto and pass along to their kids.

The discussion here was about teaching Intelligent Design, and how the
fundies were "slapped down." All I have ever said is that I think the
schools should be teaching evolution, just not as the ONLY explanation of
life. I think that a good many children come to school with faith in God and
that God created all life. It is not the job of the school to further that
belief, but it is also not the job of school to destroy that belief. The
schools should simply tell the students that, "we all know that some of you
come to class thinking that creation is the explanation for life, but there
is another explanation -- evolution -- that will be taught here." This
teaches evolution without challenging the religious teaching that some of
the kids already have.

Evolution is not the ONLY explanation of life, it is one explanation. It may
or may not be right, but we don't have to teach that particular
value-judgement. It is one explanation, there are others. The kids listen,
and they decide. The kids that haven't got religion might be inclined to
ask, "what is another explanation?" The teacher can leave it to one of the
other kids in the class to answer, but the short answer is, "some people
think that God created life." I can't imagine a kid anywhere in this country
(USA) that doesn't know where he can go to learn more about God, if he wants
to.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IpidnVEJVrUcFSDeRVn-jg@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ghKsf.1666$M%4.662@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:VdqdnXHgT-O69C7enZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:43af8146$0$8469$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...
>>>>
>>>> You've tried to explain what you see from a religious point of view.
>>>> Others prefer science. Some, somewhere in-between. Predictable, I'd
>>>> say. The issue is whether the religious point of view ought to be
>>>> taught as science in our schools. Obviously not is my view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Science only explains how and why life has changes since it was created,
>>> it doesn't explain how life started.
>>>
>>> I too think we should teach in public school the science of how life has
>>> changed, and leave the exploration of how life started to higher levels
>>> of learning where young minds are not forced to grapple with issues that
>>> cause them to perhaps feel they must abandon the religious teaching they
>>> already have when they get to the classroom.[/color]
>>
>> Ah Jeff .... above you have made the assumption that children received
>> religious instruction at home while growing up. It is readily apparent
>> to me that such is increasingly NOT the case.[/color]
>
> Well, that's not exactly what I assume, but I'll give you points for being
> close. My only assumption is that IF a kid has received religious
> instruction at home, it is not the purview of the government to become a
> wedge between the kids and their baggage. All I suggest that the schools
> do is simply acknowledge to those kids that have the baggage...[/color]
snip

Religious instruction is "baggage" in your mind. Ok, I have no doubt now
where you are coming from because you use the word twice. You are speaking
in favor of secular brainwashing ... the exclusion of all competing thought.
The scientific view is the only tolerable view. Funny ... even
scientologists don't go that far.

Plenty of bright minds over recent centuries have had their scientific
research lead them to conclude there is a "Plan" or "Intelligence"
responsible for the order in the universe. For example, Nobel Prize winner
(when the NP was not hugely about political correctness) Max Planck in 1918
noted before the audience ... "As a man who has devoted his whole life to
the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you this
much. There is no matter as such. "All matter originates and exists only by
virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and
holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume
behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This
Mind is the matrix of all matter."

--

- Philip

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip[color=blue]
>
>Evolution is not the ONLY explanation of life, it is one explanation. It may
>or may not be right, but we don't have to teach that particular
>value-judgement. It is one explanation, there are others. The kids listen,
>and they decide. The kids that haven't got religion might be inclined to
>ask, "what is another explanation?" The teacher can leave it to one of the
>other kids in the class to answer, but the short answer is, "some people
>think that God created life." I can't imagine a kid anywhere in this country
>(USA) that doesn't know where he can go to learn more about God, if he wants
>to.
>
>[/color]
I agree...this is a good approach...likely the best
available...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:skgrr19dvrodm3qvjnnmenpdftmim6cu5c@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip[color=green]
>>
>>Evolution is not the ONLY explanation of life, it is one explanation. It
>>may
>>or may not be right, but we don't have to teach that particular
>>value-judgement. It is one explanation, there are others. The kids listen,
>>and they decide. The kids that haven't got religion might be inclined to
>>ask, "what is another explanation?" The teacher can leave it to one of the
>>other kids in the class to answer, but the short answer is, "some people
>>think that God created life." I can't imagine a kid anywhere in this
>>country
>>(USA) that doesn't know where he can go to learn more about God, if he
>>wants
>>to.
>>
>>[/color]
> I agree...this is a good approach...likely the best
> available...
> --
>
> -Gord.[/color]

My experience with Gord is .... his agreement with any statement outside the
mechanical arena is a reliable red flag indicator of flawed or shallow
thinking.
--

- Philip

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:36:34 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>news:skgrr19dvrodm3qvjnnmenpdftmim6cu5c@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> snip[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>Evolution is not the ONLY explanation of life, it is one explanation. It
>>>may
>>>or may not be right, but we don't have to teach that particular
>>>value-judgement. It is one explanation, there are others. The kids listen,
>>>and they decide. The kids that haven't got religion might be inclined to
>>>ask, "what is another explanation?" The teacher can leave it to one of the
>>>other kids in the class to answer, but the short answer is, "some people
>>>think that God created life." I can't imagine a kid anywhere in this
>>>country
>>>(USA) that doesn't know where he can go to learn more about God, if he
>>>wants
>>>to.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> I agree...this is a good approach...likely the best
>> available...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.[/color]
>
>My experience with Gord is .... his agreement with any statement outside the
>mechanical arena is a reliable red flag indicator of flawed or shallow
>thinking.[/color]

Gotta agree with that.

The "science may not be right, but what we can only believe must be"
argument is losing now.

--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================