Empire of the Iguanadons

It brings comfort to me knowing there are still kids out there who are being brought up right. I know this particular video is dealing with gay marriage, and it's a subject I feel strongly about, but the point here is that, yes, there ARE still young conservatives. The left hasn't driven them fully from the world. I hope such a thing never comes to pass, because if it does, there won't be an America left to have this debate in.

Also, no, I'm not looking to engage a debate about the issue of gay marriage either. It just happens to be what brought this girl into the limelight. Her explanation of it is more or less where I stand on it and she's explained it far better than I ever could.


(Yes, this post is mainly to answer the sound of crickets heard elsewhere.....)
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

LOL, head in sand or what. Of course it is, nothing more and something any free thinking person can see. And this is not even taking into account that core purpose of those running the campaign was to get religion back into schools.



That is what your own courts had to say about them. Nothing by religion dressed up in fancy clothes. As for ID being scientific controversy, it is only a controversy that exists in their own minds. There is a scientific consensus on this issue, and it certainly is not ID.



Looks to me what the Discovery Institute wants to do is erode your constitution and turn your nation into some fundamentalist Christian state.

Nothing to do with this thread, but it seems Obama has been at war with Iran for the last 4 years. Obama at war.

Which would make it Bush's war, not Obama's.

Also, Flame apparently isn't all it's been hyped up to be.

Ok, caught back up on this one since my last comment... and, man, am I sorry I waded through this one....

Hey, Anon, the word menorah means candelabra, not a specific candelabra used for celebrating Hanukkah. So suggesting that congress could dictate what it's allowed to mean would be sort of like suggesting that congress could dictate the meaning of the word book. Oh, wait, they already have done that, haven't they?

Dwip, other than the DADT thing which you and I have already gone a round or two more than we probably should have once before on, I agree pretty much entirely with you on this topic. I've had homosexual friends since high school and even back in the day when Samson & I were teenagers, bullies who targeted gays were MUCH worse, especially in tactics, than the ones who targeted everyone else, particularly because a lot of the "everyone else" didn't even realize how much their own attitudes helped those bullies attacking gays.

Samson... how can you possibly say that intelligent design isn't a religious issue? The core of the argument is that the Bible says it's this way so it must be. Then, to further imply that the parents consented is to blatantly ignore the non-atheistic parents who protested either openly or simply by withdrawing their children from that distract. In my own family, we do believe in what you call the Old Testament, so we do support the creationist side of the argument; however, as Jews we also strongly believe in academia and we have been watching the evolutionist side for decades waiting for real evidence rather than a missing link so we can officially acknowledge that there must be a compromise between the two sides. As it is, when I was growing up, the schools had plenty of very Christian oriented things ranging from the holidays the school celebrated (particularly considering the ones we didn't get to stay at home for but instead got to celebrate at school) to propaganda that was taught in classes to attitudes openly displayed by school staff as well as students. Being Jewish in public school was definitely a learning experience in many ways. I can't tell you how many times I expected to see my teachers and classmates alike dressed in nice clean white sheets...

To everyone else, Howdy *waving* nice to see you again or meet you if we hadn't previously met. Alas, I won't be staying long, just dropped in to try to catch up a bit tonight while I had a very brief break in everything else.. (Shh! Don't tell anyone you saw me...)

Btw, given everything else stated in this thread, Samson, did you enjoy Chik-Fil-A day today? Dwip, have you boycotted them?

Because it's not. Intelligent Design doesn't require a religious component to be a valid scientific theory. As far as theories go, it's the only one that makes sense. Trying to convince people that randomness leads to ordered intelligence is laughable.

What you're arguing in your response is pure Creationism. Which, while valid, requires a supernatural component you can't prove by way of scientific analysis.


Nope. We don't even have one nearby so even if I had the money to spend on delicious chicken I wouldn't have gone out of my way over it either.

Intelligent design isn't basically a modernized version of creationism?

Surely you must have caught the news about the whole Chik-Fil-A anti-gay craziness that was today? We haven't got one anywhere near us over here either, but it was all over the news.

Sure is. "Intelligent" and all that.

Chik-Fil-A. We don't even have any around here. Maybe not in the whole state. So I can hardly go out and boycott them over it. Not that I'm filled with sympathy, you understand.

I'm told that the whole Chik-Fil_A thing made some pretty huge impacts on most of the social networks too, but I'm with you on this Dwip, the nearest one of their locations to me is the one located on the campus of Baylor University which isn't a full store location and is still 45 miles away according to Google maps. Their closest regular location is 48 miles from us in Waco, and it's not like I'd visited it in the last three years as it is. As for supporting/boycotting them in this particular silliness, I am slightly mixed on the matter, on the one hand I feel like they deserve praise for utilizing their first amendment rights without actively trying to hurt anyone, on the other hand, I think the entire anti-gay thing is pretty ludicrous. I don't support the repeal of DADT mainly because I don't think the folks serving are nearly sympathetic enough to gays for them to safely serve, but otherwise I don't have any issues with homosexuality at all, as long as gays guys aren't actively trying to hit on me. (I don't even mind that happening once for a given guy, but after I've made it clear that I'm not interested, it needs to end there.)

Oh I caught the news and it's just another case of left wing elitism because someone who disagrees with them dared to stand by their convictions. Rather than deal with him, a man with an opinion, they lash out against everyone in the company. Including the store employees who have nothing to do with it. Typical liberal stuff.

Samson, I don't think you're reading the same articles I am. Check this one for a better idea of what I was referring to: Chik-fil-a supporters gather for appreciation day. For the aftermath, refer to these two links: Chik-fil-a appreciation day: long lines, few complaints & Chik-fil-a had record setting sales on appreciation day

Basically this is a one day movement that Mike Huckabee created on his radio show regarding Chik-Fil-A's CEO having spoken out in favor of traditional marriage. I figured it was kind of related to this post, actually.

Yes, I know, I've been following the whole thing. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they had record sales since the majority of folks in this country still believe in traditional marriage and they're happy to see someone in a position of authority who has the guts to speak up about it. They're even happier to support it through a public event like this one.

I don't expect the "kiss in" to have anywhere near the same effect despite how I know the media will spin it.

None of that changes the fact that the leftist media is still treating this whole thing with their typical elitist tone and that anyone who doesn't agree with their position on the matter must be a troglodyte by definition.

Also, it had to have pained Diane Sawyer to be the one giving that report and having to try and at least look like she's being neutral.

I can't say that I expect much from the "kiss in" idea either, though I don't quite see the irony in Diane Sawyer being the one who got to report on it, but I haven't followed her stories closely enough to know how strongly she supports the issue herself. As for how elitist leftists are treating those who disagree with their stance, I can't say I really care. I was just surprised that you hadn't said anything about it given how closely it seems to relate to this posting.

No it is not, because it cannot be falsified. The whole underlying principle in science is the testing of the null hypothesis. You cannot prove something is true, but you can prove it is false. You cannot test the fundamental tenet of ID, "God Did It"

H0: "There is no God, or Intelligent Designer" That is the Null of the central premise of ID, you cannot prove it wrong, you cannot even test it. So the whole principle of it, is based around a faith in a god or intelligent designer which is really just a very clever way of saying god, so as to try and trick the non believers into thinking that it is not the theory of the religious.

So since you can't falsify Evolution either they should stop teaching that too, right? Let me know how that goes over.

That argument hold zero validity.

H0: "variation is not shaped by the interaction between mutation and random genetic drift"

Seems to me that evolution is rather testable.

There are 3 facets to evolutionary theory,

1. Life occurred by chance, as impossible to test as god did it in ID, although, if someone can create life in a test tube, it would lend some credence to this aspect of the theory.
2. Genetic mutation is the method by which species differentiate, this testable and has very solid ground to stand on
3. Natural selection is the method that determines which species survives and which dies. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The fact that we understand the mechanisms by which species arise and survive through solid testing is why evolution enjoys its position as the number 1 theory on how life arose here.

And nobody will ever be able to prove that one way or the other, hence, no, it's not actually testable. So either Evolution is also a religiously based theory or ID is a valid scientific theory unto itself.

The theory stands up without it. Take out the first life arose by chance and the rest of it is solid. Take god or your fictitious designer out of ID and the whole theory implodes upon itself. Hence why 1 theory is scientific and the other one is not.

Except that you don't, because nobody has actually been able to offer up any proof of this at all. Darwin himself said you need the transitional fossils to be able to prove it and was the ONLY Evolutionist I've ever read anything from who freely admitted that without those, there's nothing. Well, I and a lot of folks are still waiting for these holy grails of Evolution to come along.

There's never been any evidence whatsoever offered to prove any of it. Ever. A lot of wacko speculation and conjecture about this mangled bone means that happened and shit like that. What kills me is that people believe this shit because Evolutionists are better at delivering their arguments. Oh, and it also helps they're currently in control of the indoctrination system.

You and I clearly have two VERY different interpretations of the proper scientific method. The scientific method requires that you be able to experimentally validate your hypothesis, and doing this for Evolution is flat out impossible.

You do not need transitional fossils at all to test this.



What crap, it is because the evidence fits here better than anywhere else.



You cannot prove anything is true, only that something is false. Science is not a rigid immovable object built on dogma like religion. It changes, as new evidence comes to light. Take this for example,

H1, " All swans are black" It might very well be the case that all swans are black, but one day you are out looking at a lake and you see a white swan, which proves your hypothesis wrong. The only way you can ever prove that your hypothesis is true, is if you can observe everywhere all at the same time, which is impossible. Hence why you falsify your hypothesis not validate it.

Theories are validated by falsifying hypothesis based on the predictions of a theory. You cannot falsify god, or an intelligent designer, and the predictions of ID do not stand by themselves without the god. Where as, with evolution, you can test everything but the part where life arrive by chance, you can change that to a god did it, or a banana did it, or the giant spaghetti monster did it, and the rest of it holds up to testing.

Genetic mutation and natural selection are pretty much the universal laws of nature, they just happen to be 2 of the key predictions of evolution. And even if it was a designer that started life, and not random chance, or the spaghetti monster, ID has those 2 key things to overcome and account for, which it does not in its current forms.

ID says "God designed it exactly how we see it" That is total rubbish, when we can see first hand the effects of genetic mutation in the lab and species diverging in the wild.

Lastly, the 2 main predictions of ID, specified and irreducible complexity do not stand up to testing, which is why most scientists so not consider it important enough to study more deeply. And if the main predictions of a theory have been falsified, then it is toast.

Excuse me, but what? Theories are validated by invalidating your hypothesis? In the scientific method *I* was taught, it has to be valid to begin with before you can ever get to the theory stage.

Not full of dogma and not rigid? Seems like there's shitloads of dogma involved in Evolution. There isn't a shred of physical evidence that backs up the hypothesis at all. You can't observe apes becoming men, as the hypothesis expects us all to accept. Even the fruit fly experiments Evolutionists like to put forth never turned them from fruit flies into, say, trash flies. They were still fruit flies.

In order for something to be regarded as a law in the scientific method I was taught, it has to be beyond reproach. Meaning it cannot be proven invalid, ever.Evolution has not met this burden and never will. One day folks will be looking back on this ridiculousness after proving that cell structure is too complex to have arisen at random and they'll be laughing their asses off at the notion that "it all just happened this way, trust us".

You're basically asserting this:

H0: Life evolved over millions of years due to nothing more than random chance.

There is no way that can ever be proven, and even by your own severely twisted logic, it can't even be proven false. The problem being that mathematics alone would preclude this from ever being possible, and considering that random genetic mutations tend to kill their hosts... well...

You can make predictions based on that and test those predictions to see if they support your claim, if that is the theory you came up with based on your own observations, rather than am hypothesis.

So:

Theory: Life evolved over millions of years due to nothing more than random chance.

H0: genetic mutation does not give rise to species which are better adapted to survive and produce viable offspring.

And that is where ID fails and Evolutions succeeds, the predictions of ID have been shown to be false, while the predictions of evolution have not been, well, some have and as such the theory has evolved to account for those new observations. Quite a bit of what Darwin proposed has been proven false, and thus the theory has evolved itself over time. And if someone came up with a better theory tomorrow that accounted for all the observations in a better way, then evolution itself would be dumped for the new and better theory on where life originated.

The trouble is for the ID group, is that ID is not even a competing theory, its scientific foundations are flimsy at best and its main predictions have been falsified.

Your H0 has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed theory. Nice try though, if that's the best Evolutionists can do is to completely twist their claims and call it "an evolving theory" (oh man, the irony) then it's no wonder so many people don't accept it as fact.

Since there can't be any observations to back it all up, it isn't going to advance beyond being a cute play thing for biology majors. Especially since you're failing to consider that Darwin himself said God created life. He was only attempting to explain the diversity of it. Evolution conveniently discards any attempt to pin down the ORIGIN of life, which is rather critical to the whole thing and seems to be precisely the logic you're using to try to discredit ID. ID includes an origin point, not just some random "lol, life, all random, no idea where it came from" BS.

The better theory is here, now, and I'm guaranteeing you that in another 100 years it will be the accepted theory for the origin and diversity of life on Earth.

About the only thing being twisted are my words to suit your own ends. Science is not fixed, it is in flux, theories develop, change and evolve and sometimes are even usurped by better theories, as new evidence comes to light or better explanations are made of the evidence available. I know you have a hard time with that, dogma has a hard time with change.



Maybe, maybe not, either way, you and i are not going to be here then anyways to argue about it.

Stephen C. Meyer says “The debate isn’t going to be settled by numbers, it’s going to be settled by the evidence and the arguments.” And here ID is lacking, it has no evidence and it has bugger all arguments. Which is why it is mostly religious fundamentalists who are championing its cause and not the scientific community.

If only the religious community understood that a belief in god and the science of evolution are not mutually exclusive. And depending on how long you and i live, we should know the answer for certain, pity one of us cannot come back from the grave to definitely prove one way or the other who is right. LOL

Well you can come find me in Heaven after we're both dead and we'll discuss it then

ID has the evidence, the establishment just doesn't want to hear it because they're NOT the kid of scientists you think they are. They're more accurately described as zealots.

The religious community rejects Evolution precisely because there's no science backing it up. The sooner the science community realizes this, the better off we'll all be. Science, actual hard observational true science, is not something religious people reject, and the Bible even encourages the kind of curiosity and drive a true scientist has.

And if i did that you would get us both in trouble for the noise we will be making from rampant debating.



In the court of public opinion sure, but in the scientific literature, there is nothing, and ultimately, that is where it counts in terms of posing a valid theory against evolution and moving it from wingnut endeavour to the consensus view. The consensus is not formed by us armchair scientists berating each other of the virtues of our positions, it is formed by the scientific community debating the facts and analysing the evidence and performing the experiments. That is the area in which ID has lost, because of lack of evidence and lack of experimentation.