Huzzah!

[Terry S]

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html

A little excerpt: "We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"

Pwnzed.

Terry S

[genrec]

Saw this, this morning.....This is freakin great.

I'm tired of these Right Wing Christian Finatics always whining and getting there way.

Psshhh...trying to teach fairy tales in a Science Class, the nerve of these religious freaks, always trying to impose their beliefs on others.

[Terry S]

I guess I shouldn't party quite yet though. I just noticed its a district judge.. Still got appeals comming

Terry S

[arrowevo]

Saw this, this morning.....This is freakin great.

I'm tired of these Right Wing Christian Finatics always whining and getting there way.

Psshhh...trying to teach fairy tales in a Science Class, the nerve of these religious freaks, always trying to impose their beliefs on others.

I thought you lived in California? If so, then please let me know when the Christian Fanatics have gotten their way with anything? I am a Christian, and fanatical about it, I suppose (Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion). In our lovely state, if a 13 y/o girl wants to leave school to get an abortion it is ILLEGAL for the school to inform her parents. If the "Right Wing" ever got their way on anything, this would be one they would have (and did) try to get. Speaking of Fairies, the liberal left clearly controls the state legislature here and in 3 other "leadership" states.

That being said, I do not personally think a two paragraph statement at the beginning of biology class (one time during the 4 years of HS) or maybe more for you infringes on anyones rights.

Also, before someone spoutes off with "separation of church and state" line...The Constitution of the United States does not mention this, AT ALL. It does, however, make statements that the government can not institute or enforce its own religion. Which brings up the namesake of our car, evolution. If there is any religion that our government supports in a biased manner it is evolution. And yes, evolution is a religion. (religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith). The day that evolution is a fact and not theory, that is when it will not longer be a religion. The amount of faith people have in science is scary especially since the last thing they want anyone to have is faith itself.

Here is a fun little experiment...go to the post office and look at the posters on the wall advertising their current stamps...You will see; kwanza, honuka, and wait, where is it?...no Christmas stamps advertised. Another win for the Christian Right, right?

Merry Christmas everyone!

pk

[genrec]

I'll keep this short,

Anything goes in here pal, if you are offended easily which you must be, dont come in here. Yah i live in Cali, thank you, no place i'd rather be. Im looking at this country as a whole, not just Cali. Dont act like you bible thumpers dont get your way. I'll give you the hugest win for you all. Mr. Bush clearly won the last election due to bible thumping Chrisitian finatics. They used all there agendas to get him relected, and he fed off all their wims and wishes and told them everything they want to hear to do so. So now we still have to deal with this moron for a couple more years. Im not here to bash the Republican party nor stick up for the Dems, I'm agaisnt the finatics in this country that are always trying to push their belief systems up everybody elses ass, they think there shit dont stink, and they are almighty because they now have accepted Jesus Christ(a jew), when most all of them are the biggest hipocrits on the face of the planet. Ask all these reborns about there past, i guarantee they raped, stole, were or are alchoholics, drug users, porno masters, adultry commiters, masters of sin, i dont doubt you took or take part in any of these activities yourself. Thats not very Christian now is it? There are way to many agendas to list, so i won't. So now here we are, kids wont be able to goto school and learn sciences/evolution something that exists and can be proven throught technology, They are gonna have to listen to fairytales in the classroom of how we really came to be??? Let these parents keep on brainwashing their own children every sunday and in their own homes.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays.

[Terry S]

As genrec put it, this is not a separation of church and state thing so much as a separation of fact and fiction. Intelligent Design is not a science. At the very MOST it could be taught in a philosophy class or theology class.

And yes, Evolution is a science not a religion, hence why we teach it in science classes. Oh and its a car too.

Terry S

[arrowevo]

TerryS- as genrec put it, he refered to a group of people as fanatics, actually.* What makes science science?* there is more faith for and supporting (again, I said FAITH) evolution than there is Christianity.* Until evolution is proved (please dont tell me you think it has been) it is only a theory.* ID is a theory as well, with much more "proof" than evolution.* I used to be a strong supporter of evolution, until I placed the same standards upon my theory as I did all others.* I specifically challenged Christians, and having run into someone who took the time to think when I just spouted off with the same crap that is perpetuated through evo discussions.* I took the time (after the fact) to think about this person, I noticed that I had to call people names and rage on and on when he didnt.* He knew his facts, and he knew the info on both sides.* So why did this person believe differently than I did?* I never got to know this person better, so I dont know.* I did know that no matter how much I wanted to believe that I didnt need salvation I still knew something was missing (modded: that evo couldnt fill).* As far as "science" goes how does intelligent design fail to meet standards?* Today we live in a society that embraces anything that points to mans own greatness, yet completely rejects God as an explanation for things that man cant figure out.* Some of the same people who are the mainstream evo persuasion also strongly support; crop circles, alien abduction, etc, but claim that God is fantasy.* When Darwin first introduced evolution as a theory, the theory itself was very different than what is pushed today.* I guess the theory "evolved".*

For a moment, I will concede to evolution as fact...So now I know that I am from an ape, which is from a squirrel, which is from a lizard, which is from a fish, which is from an underwater bacteria or something.* This is know to myself and the rest of humanity.* We all know it.* At this point does it get removed from science and moved to philosophy?* (philosophy:* *1-the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group* ,2-a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought)* I would say no.* Moment is past, reality is here, and I am a Christian again...

The entire concept behind creationism (the original term for ID) is to allow us to understand where we came from.* The idea behind ID is to address life itself.* Since I like definitions, Biology:* a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes.* I dont know how ID does not fit the definition.* All of this being said, Dover, PA did not want to remove biology, or even add a class for ID, they just wanted a paragraph read once to the students that there is a theory called Intelligent Design which may go a long way to filling in the gaps and holes that evolutionists themselves claim exist.* If it wasnt true, why would everyone be so affraid of 30 seconds of teaching that will be "overwritten" by hundreds of hours of evo brainwashing?* Terry, I would like your opinion on that specifically, since you appear to take the time to think before responding.


Genrec,
Thanks for the FANATICAL response (Fanatic <or sometimes spelled finatic, not!>: *marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion). * If an unbiased individual were to read this entire thread, whom do you think would be labeled the fanatic? *

In all of your rantings, you did not in any way point out how the Christian right has gotten their way. *To claim the victory of last election on the backs of the Christians is just well, silly. *They wish they had that much political power.

If you lump all people who claim to be Christians into the same basket then you are right. *But then lets put all the California-born people in the same basket. *You all must be wife and unborn child killers, right? *But I do not take a FANATICAL approach to labeling other groups. * I know *that Scott Peterson (it may be a bad example because he may have been born somewhere else, but the point sticks) did these things, and he calls himself a native born californian. *So we must conclude, based on your logic, that all people who call themselves native born californians must also be baby killers?!!

Also, if you think that by pointing out Jesus' jewish background you are teaching something, you missed the mark again. *or was it just a bit of anti-semitism coming out? *I would be willing to bet that your knowledge of the Bible falls behind your level of understanding of politics and our government, and by your posts it is clear how low that is.

Lastly, to assign any of the behaviors you mentioned to me is also silly. *What reason do you have for this? *As for my past, and the past of many born agains, (and for the rest of humanity), yes I drank (still do occasionally), and I used to like to look at porn. *How is this relevant?...oh, it isnt, but a fanatic needs some rouge tangent to go after when he sees that he doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Dont presume to know all Christians based off of your limited exposure. *And with all of your negative speak towards Christianity, I hope you do not give or receive any gifts this weekend to celebrate..., wait for it, wait for it, THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR; JESUS CHRIST!!!!

Merry Christmas

[genrec]

Arrowevo,

You are a clearly an acomplished writer and believer of what you speak. Me anti-semetic, i think not, for i was born a so called chosen one. Only i do not practice or believe what i can not see or touch, or what i believe are bedtime stories from the past, which have no relevance into todays society.

Lets step back for a moment, please tell us how you can be so sure of a God, and what proof you have???
I want hard facts, not faith, for faith is not fact.


Please explain.

l

[arrowevo]

Genrec,
I usually dont repond to request (or demands) when the original challenge (name something in a political arena that the 'right wingers' have been successful at) is still unmet, and to some degree ignored, but for this I will make the exception...

Second LAW of thermodynamics (that is law, not theory, not opinion, LAW). If you are asking yourself what this is, then you probably shouldnt be representing the "scientific" side of the debate. If you know what this is, then I can not understand why you would be debating for evolution, and against God.

For all others. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states:
1.Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object.
2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.
3. You cannot create a heat engine which extracts heat and converts it all to useful work.
4. There is a thermal bottleneck which contrains devices which convert stored energy to heat and then use the heat to accomplish work. For a given mechanical efficiency of the devices, a machine which includes the conversion to heat as one of the steps will be inherently less efficient than one which is purely mechanical

If that didnt ring any bells, read point number 2 again. If that still doesnt work, I am at a loss. There it is; a law, a scientific law which goes directly against the debated THEORY of evo. If disorder was constantly taking place, how could species evolve into better more complex, and advanced creatures. Instead, entropy explains things like; aging, cancer, disease of all types actually, the breakdown of our dna and rna over time, etc.

Now, I believe I filled your request, genrec. any comments?

By the way, I can be prejudice against a group of people that I am a part of. That is to say, being a Jew does not mean you cant be an anti-semite, although I would not label you as such. I stopped dating a girl several years ago because she said she would never date a black man...she was black, and I found her statement to be as racist as any redneck's could have been. But again, I do not assume you are an anti-semite, I just had to comment on your original "Jesus was a Jew" statement...some I just cant pass on!

pk

[arrowevo]

The real question is why did entropy start? Anyone care to take a bite out of that apple?

pk

ps. pun was intended

[arrowevo]

Ok. I have read the thread again, and I must confess...I did not prove the existence of God. What I did was disprove (or attempted to do) the theory of macro evolution (evolution as it is typically called). I used the 2nd law of td to show that evolution doesnt work, but I used that as an argument for the existence of God. One does not mean the other. Meaning, even if it is proven that evolution doesnt exist, it will not prove that God does, and I shouldnt take part in that game.

The fact is that there is proof all around. Heck, a 2.0 litre internal combustion engine producing 500+ whp should be proof enough, but I know it isnt. Proof or not, it is the faith that makes the difference. Even with evolution. Most people in our socient would say that evolution is something they believe in. I would bet that 99% of believers in evolution could not do the first thing to explain the concept, let alone argue for its proof. That being said, it could only be faith that delivers most people in society to their beliefs. Even if every single person who believes in evolution was able to articulate the premise and concept of evolution they would all still need faith in order to do so. It is not a law, or a fact, but it is treated by society/science/education system as such. And that is a scary (very very scary) thing... There was a time (less than 100 years ago) when society/science/and the educational system taught that white people were more advanced (read: evolved) than other non-whites. You would also find numerous people willing to fight and debate this opinion...did it make it true? Well, according to evolution it is. Thats right, I said it, evolution is racist! Unless you are trying to tell me that the leading evolution theorist say that all races came into existence at the same time. (they dont say that) So, who do they say came first? Which means, who came later...which means who is more evolved? Nice theory. Are you starting to see how creationism and or ID start to make sense?

This is fun, lets keep it going, I just wanted to be forth right with what I came to realize after I read the thread again.

pk

[genrec]

All you have proven and are trying to prove is how intelligent you are or can be. Instead of answering my question, you do like every other religious person, beat around the bush. My friend i am aww of your vast knowledge that you come here to spout off. For such an intelligent guy you can't answer a simple question. I did not ask you for all that hoopla, i asked you to give me a proof of your God, which you did not or can't. Instead you come here and try to insult my intelligence, good job Einstein. So i'm pretty much out, and when you come up with valid proof of this so called God of yours please let me know. I'm looking for something to believe in. O0

[arrowevo]

how about this, I will just pray for you instead. To be honest, I thought these discussion were to so we can talk about things we do know (or assume to know <this shoe fits ALL of us>), but I guess I could be wrong about that too.

i dont feel i was beating around the bush, as I was as direct as I could be. It is a shame you are walking away from the conversation...I guess I could say thats what "your type here" of people do, but I dont know you well enough to know what type you are. I would assume it is a little more than your posts would suggest, though.

pk

[Terry S]

Formulating a response. Gimme a few minutes since I just got back from lunch.

Terry S

[Terry S]

Here are the issues with your arguments as I see it: you can’t cross apply things that bear no relation to each other. I work with law stuff, and when you read up on regulations and codes, you always look at the definitions section first. They spell out for you what they mean when they say the word “borrower” or “application”. Using the proper definitions for the context of the conversation is paramount over your own personal definitions.

For instance, just because it’s called the Theory of Evolution, you can’t apply a catchall definition. Heck, even Dictionary.com has 7 different definitions. Here’s the one you seem to be applying: 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Note that this is the 6th one on the list denoting its infrequent use. Here’s # 1 which would be a better fit of “Theory” as used in our context: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Or even #2 would work: The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

Secondly, you are applying Laws and Theories where they do not apply: using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to disprove Evolution (in science form). Please take note that the laws of thermodynamics in principle describe the specifics for the transport of heat and work in thermodynamic processes, not how evolution (or ID) works or doesn’t work. Yes I understand that many other areas of science (even some in philosophy) like to use these to explain things, but you have to remember, these laws were discovered when studying thermodynamics not anywhere else. If you want to apply them to something else, you have to be able to independently reach the same conclusions using a scientific method of discovery. Just because they independently fit, doesn’t mean its right.

Finally, ID is a “giving up” style of theory: “I cant figure it out, so it must be x.” This ignores the scientific method of stating the theory, doing the research, and proving or disproving the theory based on the results. Evolution (as a science) has been proven in many different aspects; from moths and microscopic creatures, to birds and fish (if I remember right). You cannot deny that there are living organisms on this planet that evolve from generation to generation, this is proven fact. Now the philosophical side of evolution is when you get into the hard line, man evolved from ape. This can be looked at as either scientific experimentations in progress to find an answer, OR you can take the philosophical route and say right out, “yes they did, I need no proof.” Once you’ve said that, you have turned the corner into Theology land. This however still does not make the entire theory of evolution a philosophy from that point on. Either way, once you abandon the scientific part of the equation, you have left the science class, and entered the philosophy class.

I’m sure I’m leaving something else out, but I cant find it right now. Again, let me state that ID has no place in a science class, but it has every right to be taught in a social studies class or philosophy class. The Federal District judge and the Pennsylvania school board also agree with this, and as such, the school board is handling it exactly like this. Thankfully, there will be no appeal of the decision so it’s a happy day afterall. :)

Terry S

[rsmatt]

i dont know what to say, i am so tired from work (i have been up for 32 hours now) i dont think i can argue this. trust me i really want to get in on this but i just cant...... well ok maybee i will just dable a bit ( dont be to harsh on my puctuation and spelling please, i am out of it right now* ) first problem with the christians, thier hipocracy is astounding. christians love to piont fingers and blame things on other groups like the gay comunity, other non christian religions, ext ext. they also like to use words like superstitious to discribe other groups beliefs. now considering christians are some of the most radical people in the world i find that amusing. for instance, christians like to lobby to get laws that affect all of us changed to suit them am i right? another thing to consider, what would you call me if i talked to an imaginary being in the sky and expected that to have some sort of influince on my life? or if i thought when something bad happend it was not just random act but infact due to that being in the sky or his arch rival? superstitious perhaps?

another area that is nice to cover is this all knowing, all powerfull master being in the sky. how do you have free will if this supream being allready knows what is going to happen? would'nt that require a preordained fate? so then how would you have free will? or would you just be a pupet being pulled along by your stings to your great cosmic fate?

ok enough of that, lets get into the bible as a pure document. if you where going to controll a large group of people mentally what would you want your document to do? instill fear into people that rejected it, have 0 tolerance of other beliefs that take away from your document, and make people surender them selves, their property, and thier money with out question. ah yes the nazis could not have done it better.







like i said just throwing some stuff out there. i would love to get all scientific but i am just to tired right now, so i thought i would just piont out some of the reall stand out flaws in christianity. 8)

[Terry S]

an add-on to matt's hilarious post (great pics!):

if you want to see a modern look at what it was like at the start of christianity, take a look at scientology.

Terry S (not a scientologist)

[rsmatt]

an add-on to matt's hilarious post (great pics!):

if you want to see a modern look at what it was like at the start of christianity, take a look at scientology.

Terry S (not a scientologist)

i am glad you enjoyed it .

[gofaster87]

What the fuck is with these short books for answers. I see California was brought up. California sucks, plain and simple. Viva Las vegas, Republicans forever. Where else can you goto a drug store and play poker while smoking and waiting for a prescription. Where else is drinking and lots of sex acceptable as an everyday norm? What other state actually gives you this choice to be naughty? Last but not least, this state gives a rats ass about your exhaust or intake. As for the theories and seperation ideas I wont get into that. My temper flares too much.

[Terry S]

What the fuck is with these short books for answers. I see California was brought up. California sucks, plain and simple. Viva Las vegas, Republicans forever. Where else can you goto a drug store and play poker while smoking and waiting for a prescription. Where else is drinking and lots of sex acceptable as an everyday norm? What other state actually gives you this choice to be naughty? Last but not least, this state gives a rats ass about your exhaust or intake. As for the theories and seperation ideas I wont get into that. My temper flares too much.

We aren't all as mild mannered as you, sorry. Sometimes it's tough to keep the disertation (how in the crap do you spell that?) at bay.

Yes, Vegas is the bomb. But, my wife wont move there so bleh. I really need to get off my ass and start this business so I can just move wherever. Anyone wanna get in on the ground floor of a mortgage company? hehehhe. Not like its bad timing or anything.

Terry S