Is Religion A Crock of ****? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is Religion A Crock of ****?

FOSCO

Aug 10th, 2005, 01:30 PM

OK. Let's keep the flaming to a minimum and respect each other here.

Do you think that religion a crock of ****, or do you think it is not.
Explain your answers!!

I will start. Religion is a crock because it is the basis of wars, cause of death, etc... blah...

FOSCO 8)

theFerf

Aug 10th, 2005, 02:18 PM

ferf sticks out his 10ft pole and pokes "the topic" realizing there is no way he is going to get involved in this conversation.

bazookajoeshow

Aug 10th, 2005, 03:42 PM

I really don't think this is the place for this topic. It's offensive to make fun of other people's superstitions.

Bazooka Joe

Do you think that religion a crock of ****, or do you think it is not.
Explain your answers!!

I will start. Religon is a crock because it is tha basis of wars, casue of death, etc blah...)

Craig

Aug 10th, 2005, 03:57 PM

Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. --American Heritage Dictionary

Just for the record, that doesn't describe my relationship with God nor does it describe the vast majority of Christians I know. Anyway, I know a baited hook when I see one and I also don't think this is the place for this topic (albeit for different reasons than Joe) so I'm going to hang out with theFerf for the duration. I will leave a response in the form of two podcasts though:

http://www.godcast.org/mp3/harvest/crusade050714.mp3 (starting at 1:50)
http://lifespringonline.com/podcasts/crusade050731.mp3 (starting at 5:30)

Enjoy, and feel free to PM or email me if you're truly interested in the subject and still have an open mind (aren't Christians the ones who are supposed to have closed minds?.

Craig

jimk

Aug 10th, 2005, 04:10 PM

To be fair, you have no more evidence of your relationship with God than I have of my relationship with invisible aliens from Raellgia 7. if I were able to gather a few billion to believe the way I (don't) believe, I would gain legitimacy on the world stage, but still be no more closer to reality than any other man-invented mythos to any outside observer.

What I mean is this: If I were say, to invent a made-up religion and have the pull of an L. Ron Hubbard, and in 2000 years, my religion, although considered crackpot and invented at first, was the equal to Christianity in popularity...and then some scientists from another galaxy were to come here and look at both religions...

How would anyone be able to seperate fantasy from "reality?"

Answer: They can't. It's all superstition and mythos to someone. Not long ago, natives to the continent I am on believed the sun was carried across the sky by a giant turtle, because they had no frame of reference with which to understand the world and they desperately needed an answer.

And today we have the "sons & daughters" of Abraham and Mohammed and Christ locked in eternal battle. Because they don;t have a frame of reference with which to understand their place in a natural world...they need to make it more than it is. But they can't agree of what the "more" consists.

Short, non-pretentious answer: You need it to be true, so it's true. But you have no quantifiable, reproducable, independantly verifiable evidence to prove your beliefe is any more or less a superstition than walking under a ladder or black cats or saying "Good luck" to actors. Don't be defensive about it to the point that you start trying to defend it with objective criteria.. If your faith is enough for you...so be it.

bazookajoeshow

Aug 10th, 2005, 04:18 PM

My apologies, Craig. But I sincerely would like to do a cast with you regarding free will in religion.

Bazooka Joe

Enjoy, and feel free to PM or email me if you're truly interested in the subject.

Craig

Aug 10th, 2005, 04:28 PM

My apologies, Craig. But I sincerely would like to do a cast with you regarding free in religion.
No problem. PMed you.

Craig

audiocollective

Aug 10th, 2005, 05:39 PM

My apologies, Craig. But I sincerely would like to do a cast with you regarding free will in religion.

Bazooka Joe

My co-host Cory and I talked for hours about free will... luckily we didnâ€™t podcast it because it was a little strange.

If anyone else wants to hear some good not so religious Christian stuff check out the other podcast I have just started for my church: http://www.audiocollective.net/throughthelookingglass/

Keep up the great discussion!

bazookajoeshow

Aug 10th, 2005, 05:47 PM

Hopefully in a couple of months I'll be able to do an interivew with philosopher Daniel Dennett. He's written some great books about consciousness and evolution but he wrote a book about free will and determinism called Elbow Room. It's a quick read but definitely thought provoking.

From what I recall, Dennetee believes we might have free will but our free will operates within the narrow confines of biological, sociological and temporal restraints. Hence, the title Elbow Room.

Bazooka Joe

spartacusroosevelt

Aug 10th, 2005, 06:43 PM

I am shocked by this line of thinking. How can you doubt our creator? It is probably because you have not been touched by his noodly appendage (http://www.venganza.org/)

docsnavely

Aug 10th, 2005, 08:22 PM

religion is nothing to be ridiculed or laughed about imo......

I'm not religious, nor was I brought up as such....

but.... religion gives many people direction in life, and the justification at times to lead a moral and self fulfilling life.....

those who are religious have something that some others may not have.... belief that their life is worth more than anything else that has been given to them.....

just my 2 cents....

FOSCO

Aug 10th, 2005, 08:33 PM

docsnavely

Aug 11th, 2005, 05:30 AM

holla.....

Jellicle

Aug 11th, 2005, 07:08 AM

Atheists (like me) are generally quite happy living with no invisible means of support.

Steev

Aug 11th, 2005, 08:04 AM

Quite right. In fact, the thought of a supreme being kind of weirds me out.

Strangely enough, going to church when I was a kid was what turned me into an athiest. If you take a step back, and look objectively, just about every religion looks as wacky as the spaghetti monster.

Zecryphon

Aug 11th, 2005, 09:35 AM

docsnavely

Aug 11th, 2005, 10:07 AM

thanks for the sermon dude, but i do not believe anyone in this thread was countering with an evolution discussion......

how about you read the posts before you start preaching....

people like you are the ones who have strayed me away from the church....

i used to feel pretty good about my connection with God and all, but when retards like you jump in and feel you HAVE to justify your stance and try to make everyone who disagrees with you feel like a demon.... it just makes it difficult for me to believe......

again, this is just my opinion

richpav

Aug 11th, 2005, 10:40 AM

I like puppies. Little, fuzzy puppies. With big eyes. Does anyone else here like puppies as much as I do?

How 'bout those Mets, eh?

Some weather we've been having lately, don't you think?

Hey, what's your favorite pizza topping? (Mine's pepperoni.)

If you won $100,000,000,000,000 in the lottery, how would you spend it?

I'm listening to show tunes right now.

Steev

Aug 11th, 2005, 11:21 AM

For those who hold evolution near and dear, I have some questions I'd like you to answer if you can.

I don't think anybody is saying that any religion's view of these things is impossible, but given what else we know about the world, most religion's views of these things seem unlikely. Nobody is saying you can't believe what you believe, but personally, I feel more comfortable leaving them unanswered (for now) than to make up a unprovable story and calling it fact.

Aug 11th, 2005, 11:43 AM

What if God created evolution?

Then what would you argue about? :)

jeffoest

Aug 11th, 2005, 11:56 AM

The question of who's God is correct, who's philosophy on living is correct, etc... will go on eternally as that seems to be the human condition - that of wanting all the answers.

I am not a religious person but I have learned that to enjoy and respect wonderful people, it's just a fool's errand to argue about religion. People on all sides think they have the answers just as people on all sides think that the others don't.

There's really no additional information at this point in time that anyone is going to put on the table to 'convince' someone else. So why bother? Respect others and respect differences in opinion and get along with each other! I'm convinced this is a happier way to go through life.

Craig

Aug 11th, 2005, 12:44 PM

when retards like you jump in and feel you HAVE to justify your stance and try to make everyone who disagrees with you feel like a demon
Ironically, I'm sure most people who do believe in God would say the exact same thing about those who don't believe in God, especially after reading this topic (probably without the retard part).

Sheesh...the guy wasn't preaching; he merely asked some valid questions (scientific, incidentally, not religious) worth thinking about that were completely relevant to this discussion in terms of addressing "does God exist or not." And Bazooka Joe brought up evolution first, albeit in passing.

Craig

pwfenton

Aug 11th, 2005, 01:37 PM

I've read a few comments in this thread about evolution, the "fact" that there is no God. People who hold views such as these have my admiration, only in the sense that it takes more faith NOT to believe in God, than to believe in God.

For those who hold evolution near and dear, I have some questions I'd like you to answer if you can.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the unverse come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

5. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

6. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

7. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction, reproduce?

8. Why would any animal or plant want to reproduce more of its kind, since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive of the species? Expain this.

9. The Big Bang Theory? Have you ever seen order come from an explosion?

10. When, where, why and how did:
a) Single celled plants become multi-celled (where are the two and three-celled intermediates)?

b) Single celled animals evolve?

c) Fish change to amphibians?

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

Now, I don't honestly expect anyone to have an answer to all thse questions, but they are something to think about. If you can answer any of them, I would love to hear it.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon
The nature of this website doesn't allow me to quote these questions and answer them individually

The answer to a large number of these questions is "I don't know" an answer that more Christians should admit too.

Religious documents don't answer them either.

All religions attempt to answer the unknown... simply by offering up an explanation requiring pure faith in it's validity

Science attempts to go a step beyond that by offering up explanations that offer up observable, and repeatable experiments, and challengeable facts.

There is nothing challengeable about fiction. It merely exists as a representation of the imagination of man, which can't be challenged on any legitimate level, because it in itself has no legitimacy.

Heroine is comforting... but expensive.

Religion is comforting and free.

People, unfortunately, often don't seek proof of the truth. They seek to prove what they DESIRE to be the truth.

Zecryphon

Aug 11th, 2005, 02:24 PM

This post is in response to Jeff. As to who's God is correct and who's philosophy for living is correct, I would have to say that Christianity's is the way to go on this one. All other religious leaders and or figures are dead and in their graves. Buddha, Mohammed, Confucious, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith. This however is not true with Jesus. He rose from the grave after 3 days, and continued to appear to his followers and others for 40 days afterwards, until He finally ascended in to Heaven.

Now, what other religious figure has done that? I can't think of any. Now, I know there are alot of people out there who say that the disciples stole his body from the tomb and hid it. Well, that would be quite a feat, since the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers, whose methods of killing and torture are legendary. These guys were like the Green Berets or Navy Seals of their day. It would be obvious if anyone tampered with the tomb, since it was sealed by Herod. If you broke that seal, the punishment was death, no questions asked. The rock that sealed the entrance to the tomb weighed about 6 tons, was around 12 feet tall, and set into a groove into the ground. I know me and 10 of my friends couldn't move something like that.

So, think about this, Jesus had 12 disciples when He was crucified, Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied knowing Him not once but 3 times. And the others ran for the hills when the Roman soldiers started looking for followers. So ask yourself, "Why would 11 people who were fearing for their lives for even KNOWING Jesus, risk trying to steal his body? And if by some miracle they did do it, how did Jesus then appear to all those people, including those who were not followers like Saul on the road to Tarsus?

This will sound like a sermon I know, and I can deal with whatever backlash comes from it. But these are just some facts that brought me to become a born again Christian.

jeffoest

Aug 11th, 2005, 03:06 PM

Thanks Zecryphon,

I'm sure that you are committed to your beliefs and all I can do is respect your right and passion and congratulate you on finding your peace. Something many people don't do in this lifetime.

See? How hard is that?

;-)

bazookajoeshow

Aug 11th, 2005, 03:28 PM

I must confess, out of the historical figures, I'd like to meet Paul and find out what made him tick.

No Paul, no Christianity.

Bazooka Joe

jeffoest

Aug 11th, 2005, 03:32 PM

Bazooka, me too man....

bazookajoeshow

Aug 11th, 2005, 03:37 PM

Good point.

Another remarkable thing about Christianity that no other religions can claim are Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Of all the other religions, how many of them have figures like Santa Clau or the Easter Bunny? Think about it. Every year Santa Clause rides a sleigh from the North Pole with his twelve reinders (there's that number again) to deliver Christmas presents made by elves to every boy and girl in the world after checking his list for who has been naughty and nice by going down chimenys. Every year the Easter Bunny comes hopping down the rabbit trail to hide Easter eggs and give children baskets of candy.

Can any other religionmake the claim of a man rising from the dead or a fat man who delivers presents or a rabbit that hides eggs?

I don't think so!

Bazooka Joe

All other religious leaders and or figures are dead and in their graves. Buddha, Mohammed, Confucious, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith. This however is not true with Jesus. He rose from the grave after 3 days, and continued to appear to his followers and others for 40 days afterwards, until He finally ascended in to Heaven.

Now, what other religious figure has done that? I can't think of any.

Aug 11th, 2005, 04:18 PM

The answer to a large number of these questions is "I don't know" an answer that more Christians should admit too.

Actually dude, we do. It's part of the whole "religion" thing. We don't know, we believe. That's the thing about faith.

And as for people jumping all over Zecryphon's questions, I think that guy accidentally made a point he didn't intend to that I'd like to dig out of the dirt (while keeping him at arm's length for trying a bit too hard to prosyletize in the wrong forum). And that point is, a lot of the "truth" that militant atheists treasure in the realm of science isn't philosophically much more solid than many tenets of faith. Repetition from experimentation does not equal Absolute Truth. Even the things we call "laws" are really just curve fits on data in some cases. So don't act like your **** don't stink.

I am an engineer by trade and have an undergraduate degree in philosophy concentrating on quantum theory and cosmology. I was raised Catholic and stuck with it largely out of cultural habit through college, but once I boiled everything down in the world of quantum theory, I realized I had nothing left. Sure, quantum mechanics presents a mathematical formalism that isn't possible in the realm of faith, but if you really looked behind the curtain at "science," you would realize that believing in the day-to-day **** you take for granted is not that much less ridiculous than believing in a Creator that we can't quite comprehend.

As for whether and how such a creator might manifest in the world as we know it -- through prophets, miracles, divine saviors, or just the simple act of keeping our quarks from flying apart on a whim -- well, I leave it at "to each his own."

On a related note, I finally rented that "What the Bleep Do We Know" flick last night, and while I was pretty disappointed (NOT a good movie if you already know quantum theory -- it's like the aerospace engineer side of me watching a crapper like "Armageddon"), it still might be worth your $4 if you're at all curious about the subject. It drops the ball on the quantum theroy half of the movie and seems to end on a very biochemical "think happy thoughts, it's good for your health," but the first half DOES at least make a pretty good case for the fact that we really DON'T have a solid grasp of reality, and reality is very much not what we think.

Phew, what a freaking mouthful. And I just popped in to read about iTunes cheating. Jeez!

Craig

Aug 11th, 2005, 05:31 PM

Another remarkable thing about Christianity that no other religions can claim are Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If you can find a reference to either of these in the Bible I'll renounce my faith right here. :shock:

Craig

bazookajoeshow

Aug 11th, 2005, 05:38 PM

I've worked very hard to not be the obnoxious punk I used to be and this topic is bringing out the worst in me so I'm going to bow out discussion with whatever dignity I have left.

A final not to the rest of you still posting on this topic: you can't talk about religion without talking about faith and that's where rationality can't tread so for me, I feel continuing this thread is pointless.

Let's all just agree to disagree.

Bazooka Joe

jeffoest

Aug 11th, 2005, 05:50 PM

Joe - that's a smart tact I think..

For those of us that HAVE argued religion before, the results are always the same. The conversation gets heated, people say things they really wouldn't have said in a normal conversation (and things that they really don't fully mean), no one is convinced, both sides gets defensive and too proud to back down or even admit a truce, it's just an ugly place.

gazsoup

Aug 11th, 2005, 05:51 PM

here's my answers to the questions

Either Amazon.com or it was always there just in a different state of compression
See above
Physics
PG&E or maybe solar power
I donâ€™t think matter is dead
Just like hard-drives and womenâ€™s purse â€“ things expand and multiple to fill the space available
Barry White music
Breeding and art (including podcasting) are things we do beyond selfishness and yes
This is the logic that George W uses for Iraq but I donâ€™t believe him
Not sure but I think about 3.7B years ago . . . at least on this planet
See above but adjust year
See above but adjust year
See above but adjust year
See above but adjust year . . . whatâ€™s more interesting is what happens in the next million years?

Craig

Aug 11th, 2005, 05:57 PM

Breeding and art (including podcasting) are things we do beyond selfishness
I'd have to argue that the actual act of breeding is completely selfish (at least for the male...ask any female) although the raising of the offspring is definitely not.

Same thing with recording vs. post.

Craig

Steev

Aug 11th, 2005, 06:17 PM

Every year Santa Claus rides a sleigh from the North Pole with his twelve reinders

Only 8 reindeer, dude. 9 if you count rudolph. Don't you remember the song?

1. Dasher
2. Dancer
3. Prancer
4. Vixen
5. Comet
6. Cupid
7. Donner
8. Blitzen
(9. Rudolph)

Craig

Aug 11th, 2005, 06:24 PM

Don't you remember the song?
Nooooo, not the song, please...it's only August.

1. Dasher
2. Dancer
3. Prancer
4. Vixen
5. Comet
6. Cupid
7. Donner
8. Blitzen
(9. Rudolph)
Aargh!!!

Craig

bazookajoeshow

Aug 11th, 2005, 06:35 PM

Years ago on one excruciatingly hot and humid 4th of July I did a show at my old radio staiton back east and played three hours of Christmas songs.

I got a lot of puzzled phone calls.

Bazooka Joe

[quote="Craig"Nooooo, not the song, please...it's only August.[/quote]

Aug 11th, 2005, 08:18 PM

Good point.

Another remarkable thing about Christianity that no other religions can claim are Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Both Christmas and Easter have pagan roots.

Christmas was Yule - basically a festivial to bring cheer on the longest and darkest day of the year.

Easter - was Eostar [it's spelled different ways depending on what source you use]- an ancient celebration of the return of fertility to the land. That's where the rabbits and eggs come from. They are symbols of sex and fertility.

---

Thats about all I have to say on this topic. I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion on religion and the meaning of life, etc.

swoopy

Aug 11th, 2005, 08:57 PM

And that point is, a lot of the "truth" that militant atheists treasure in the realm of science isn't philosophically much more solid than many tenets of faith. Repetition from experimentation does not equal Absolute Truth. Even the things we call "laws" are really just curve fits on data in some cases. So don't act like your **** don't stink.

Terrible comparison, absolutely terrible.

We fly planes, orbit satellites, watch T.V., drive cars, build homes, engineer great towers, discover medical cures, collide atoms, clone life, create light, save lives, and many other things based on those 'laws' you believe are just some wild-*** horseshoe toss that somehow equates to 'faith' or philisophical beliefs.

When any of those above SCIENTIFIC concepts fails, a plane crashes, a building falls, a person is lost on the operating table. It's not because we got our 'science' wrong, its because of an accident, mechanical failure or otherwise.

Gravity works man, it's not just some hokey 'concept' that can somehow be equated to the explainations given by blind faith.

I love how people construct great sounding re-torts to make science sound like it is not much more than a different type of faith. Well, no matter how good the words are put together, the concept is still hogwash.

It is all as maddening as those negative IQ soft-brained rednecks that have been sold into 'Intelligent Design Theory', as if it has any solid foundation in science, or scientific theory.

In science... when something is 'Just a Theory'... we can still launch people to the moon and land them there, bring them home, and play with the rocks from another world.

When philosphers say... 'Just a Theory', I'm not even gonna get on their bike.

(And this is Derek... not Swoopy... I happen to be on her computer.)

spartacusroosevelt

Aug 11th, 2005, 09:13 PM

Swoopy aka Derek--

I knew there was a reason your show is the only non music podcast I didn't have to force myself to listen to all the way through.

I likewise will resist the urge to dive into the conversation before I go on my soapbox and get no work done for the next couple of hours typing a many paragraph post. I won't convince anyone who isn't already a non-theist anyway. Just don't make my sons listen to ID in biology, OK?

Hittman

Aug 13th, 2005, 09:09 PM

Sparticus: Very nice. I particauarly like the connection between global warming (exuse me, climate change) and pirates. I had no idea! I'll be putting a link to that on my blog when updating it this weekend.

religion is nothing to be ridiculed or laughed about imo......

IMNSO, I think it should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.

but.... religion gives many people direction in life, and the justification at times to lead a moral and self fulfilling life.....

Very true. But religion is entirely unnecessary for any of that. If someone who can't be moral without the threat of a nasty sky-daddy rosting and torturning them in hell for one billion, trillion, years, sixteen eternities, twenty seven forever's, eleven thousand year's after that*, then I'm happy they have a superstition that keeps them from murdering me in my sleep or stealing my car. But I don't trust them, because it's very easy for a True Believer to reinterpt their belief to and justify something evil.

OTOH, When an atheist makes a moral decision, it's based on reason and logic, something that's not likely to change.

those who are religious have something that some others may not have.... belief that their life is worth more than anything else that has been given to them.....

Life is even more precious to us atheists. Believers have an afterlife to look forward to (or a rebirth, depending on their particular superstition.) An atheist only gets one life, so we make sure it's enough.

only in the sense that it takes more faith NOT to believe in God, than to believe in God.

A very common belief held by those who, by definition, can be fooled into believing just about anything.

Atheism does take a tiny bit of faith. It's not possible to prove something doesn't exist. For instance, can you prove you're not sharing the room with an invisible pink unicorn? Since you can't prove the IPU isn't there, you have to have a sliver of faith to say, "that's ridiculous. I don't believe the IPU exists."

Atheism requires exactly the same amount of faith it takes to deny the existence of the IPU, the Easter Bunny, or The Great Pumpkin. No more, no less.

What if God created evolution?

Some people believe that god used evolution, guided it, to create what we have today. At least that belief doesn't completely ignore the facts.

I must confess, out of the historical figures, I'd like to meet Paul and find out what made him tick.

No Paul, no Christianity.

Paul put the nasty into Christianity. If the NT stopped with the gospels, Christianly wouldn't be such a hateful, authoritarian religion. (You'd still have to hate gay people, though.) Paul was the clown who saddled it with heaps of rules and regulations, made it evangelical, and used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.

the first half DOES at least make a pretty good case for the fact that we really DON'T have a solid grasp of reality, and reality is very much not what we think.

My new dog, Sammy, is smarter than any of my past dogs. On the scale of dog IQ, I'm guessing his is pretty high. But no matter how much time I spend with him, he will never be able to grasp even the simplest concepts of math. He will never, ever be able to look at 1+1=X and solve for X. It's simply beyond his intellectual capacity.

It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that human beings don't have the intellectual capacity to understand some of the most fundamental facts of the universe. The Unified Field Theory may be right under or noses, and we're looking right at it with the same comprehension of Sammy looking at 1+1=X scratched in the dirt.

But adding a god to the equation is a cop out. It's not an answer to the question, it's an evasion of it.

The concept of an all powerful god that is both benevolent and omniscient can be disproved by reading any daily newspaper. You can have a god who's benevolent. You can have one who's omniscient. But he can't be both, not in this world. If he were, he'd be guilty of criminally negligent homicide every time someone dies in a freak accident.

*Ten points and an Attaboy to anyone who recognizes this reference.

Craig

Aug 14th, 2005, 12:16 AM

Craig

Aug 14th, 2005, 12:23 AM

It is all as maddening as those negative IQ soft-brained rednecks that have been sold into 'Intelligent Design Theory', as if it has any solid foundation in science, or scientific theory.
Funny, I could say the same thing about the theory of macro evolution, which I didn't buy into even when I was an atheist. Micro evolution I have no problem with, being a proven fact.

Craig

kickasspodcast

Aug 14th, 2005, 01:03 AM

Lemme take this moment to entirely agree with Craig.
It rarely happens, but Hitt's opinionated rant was nothing
but assuming and ordinary. Hey Its so rare that I agree
with Craig that I simply must point it out.

Hittman-
Shame on you for wasting your time ranting and typing about
religion and God. You should know better than to think anyone
gives a **** what you think about God. How Foolish of you
to think you can convince anyone of your views on the religion
through false logic and bullshit. Shame on you.

<shakes head>
:roll:

Craig- I was gonna post but I knew someone would tear up this factually
inaccurate opinionated sludge.

Paul put the nasty into Christianity. If the NT stopped with the gospels, Christianly wouldn't be such a hateful, authoritarian religion. (You'd still have to hate gay people, though.) Paul was the clown who saddled it with heaps of rules and regulations, made it evangelical, and used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.

Factually wrong, entirely opinionated, typical Hittman. check out Quickhitts for more!
His shows are actually shorter than his posts!
:roll:

Jack B.

kickasspodcast

Aug 14th, 2005, 01:18 AM

Aug 14th, 2005, 02:51 AM

Terrible comparison, absolutely terrible.

I love how people construct great sounding re-torts to make science sound like it is not much more than a different type of faith. Well, no matter how good the words are put together, the concept is still hogwash.

Yeah, thanks man, that was nothing but a brilliant sounding retort (not re-tort). Like I said, my perspective is as A MAN OF SCIENCE, almost done with my doctorate in engineering, and I understand the solidity and utility of the laws of physics. I was a god**** aircraft accident investigator, so believe you me, I know what it takes not to drop your sorry *** out of the sky.

BUT I did also manage to complete a degree in philosophy, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm saying from my study of dumbasses from Descartes to Kuhn that scientific observation and theory can still ultimately be undermined. It was a pretty freaky day for me when I learned that, being a Man Of Science and all that. If that's the kind of shock skeptics can't handle, well...nut up, man.

Craig

Aug 14th, 2005, 03:11 AM

If the NT stopped with the gospels, Christianly wouldn't be such a hateful, authoritarian religion. (You'd still have to hate gay people, though.) Paul was the clown who saddled it with heaps of rules and regulations, made it evangelical, and used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.
The most ignorant form of Christianity is that spread by people who know nothing about it. I don't know who's feeding you your information but you need to stop relying on them as a source. Jesus never preached hatred (quite the opposite) or authoritarianism. He was the one who made Christianity evangelical (if by that you mean to spread Christianity throughout the world...and then he meant to inform, not enforce), not Paul. The phrase "born again" only appears three times in the Bible. Twice it's used in the same conversation by Jesus explaining the need for a spiritual rebirth in order to have a relationship with God. The other time it's used by Peter to explain the same thing. As for rules and regulations, the only ones in the NT are those designed to help anyone willing to listen to live a spiritually healthy life (both now and for eternity).

Craig

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 03:22 AM

In science... when something is 'Just a Theory'... we can still launch people to the moon and land them there, bring them home, and play with the rocks from another world.

What Science are you studying man?

Try Quantum Physics. Learn that and then come back and give
us all your informed opinion.

Hahaha,

You are kidding right? Did you READ what I stated? I didn't bring up Quantum Physics...

But, yes, lets take Quantum Physics... there is still a ton of FACTS about that still relatively 'young' science. And they keep making HUGE leaps.

My 'opinion' isn't an 'opinion'. We really did go to the moon, we really HAVE flown airplanes, we really know that gravity works. That's not an opinion man, those right there are facts.

You can't say that water is 'wet' is an opinion because it gets in the way of your clever argument. Although, that's what always happens when people have so little faith in the sheer power of humans.

Scientifically speaking there are
in fact near miraculously unexplainable truths about our world that
even the greatest of minds cannot appreciate.

But, we will...

That is the lacking side of any argument that stems around using a LACK of discovery as a REASON for the divine to exist.

You can have a million reasons for believing what you believe, but don't for one moment use the flimsy logic that, just because we don't understand something NOW, that God must exist.

People have done that since the beginning of written history...

People have formed whole religions around unexplained phenomena that we now understand to an amazing level.

So, what happens when someone does finally finish the math and crack the Unified Theory? They will... trust me... it's happened again and again, over and over, throughout history.

Then it will be the NEXT discovery that we haven't pushed through that will prove that God exists?

It is a very illogical and feeble argument to say that what we don't know now... proves anything. Or should be the basis on which your own inner proof of something spiritual exists.

In a not too distant time ago... people were saying what you just said about Quantum Physics... when they spoke of the unification of Gravity, Magnetism and Electricity...

Craig

Aug 14th, 2005, 03:29 AM

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 03:39 AM

[quote=swoopy]Yeah, thanks man, that was nothing but a brilliant sounding retort (not re-tort).

Ahh, the schoolyard internet forum spelling correction trick. Always the first sign that someone is against the ropes. I never correct spelling on the internet, because I realize that people aren't going to hire a copy editor for every post. Guess some people think that it proves something when they catch a spelling error.

Like I said, my perspective is as A MAN OF SCIENCE, almost done with my doctorate in engineering, and I understand the solidity and utility of the laws of physics. I was a god**** aircraft accident investigator, so believe you me, I know what it takes not to drop your sorry *** out of the sky.

So, has a plane ever crashed because the laws of physics changed? Or, were incorrect as of late? Just a question...

One of my largest clients that I had for 5 years were the fine folks at the NTSB, ironically enough. I worked with folks that performed Aviation Crash Analysis. Helped develop logic routines for investigative analysis and pattern discovery.

I work for an engineering company now...

But, I didn't think this was a resume' war...

BUT I did also manage to complete a degree in philosophy, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm saying from my study of dumbasses from Descartes to Kuhn that scientific observation and theory can still ultimately be undermined. It was a pretty freaky day for me when I learned that, being a Man Of Science and all that. If that's the kind of shock skeptics can't handle, well...nut up, man.

Let us see... the only degree I do have is... Theology. I never once got 'freaked' out by philosophy, which is most of what a Theology degree is. It never broke any science in my mind.

Philosophy is the creative and 'thoughtful' side of almost all science. Heck, without some level of it, no one could have ever come up with some of ideas being put forth in String Theory.

Although, being a creative subject matter, it does have the ability to talk itself into a contradiction. I don't see anything in philosophy that 'proves' anything, or 'disproves' anything in solid science.

Again, a lack of complete infinite knowledge on a subject does not, in any way, support a particular religion, belief, or concept of spirituality.

On the flip side... science has always done a pretty spiffy job of proving that many of it's 'theories' are correct in some very spectacular ways.

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 03:46 AM

It is a very illogical and feeble argument to say that what we don't know now... proves anything.
And with that Derek has brilliantly answered the original question as well as addressed the evolution issue for all involved!

Let's move on.

Craig

But, we know A LOT about evolution... tons and tons... the proof is immense and vast.

The arguments against it reside in the small spaces in between.

Religion: "But you haven't found a fossil of a human ancestor past 40,000 years..."

12 years later...

Science: "Here is a fossil of a human ancestor from over 1 million years ago..."

Religion: "But, where are the fossils from in between..."

5 years later...

Science: "Here is a fossil of a human ancestor that not only is in between, shows that the evolutionary chain of human development forked into more than one intelligent species..."

Religion: "But... what about... between those four now?"

Science: <sigh> "You are just desperate now aren't you?"

Oh, fossils don't do it for you? The visual record not sufficient?

This is why I love science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

I didn't address the evolution issue at all... but I did scratch its surface a little with this post.

People keep asking why I haven't done the 'big' Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. Evolution issue on my show.

Mainly, because the science is so immense on this topic it shocks me when, even mildly intelligent people have any questions on this issue. I lump it in with the whole... "I think Satan put fossils on the earth to fool us..." crowd. But, I always forget that a lot of creative people put together the fairy tale of Intelligent Design 'Theory' to dredge this whole issue back up. I sometimes forget how persuasive their bulls*it is.

Look folks, like it or not, the concept of Evolution is not in question, in either a 'macro' or 'micro' sense. It is a sad wedge issue that lots of people just refuse to completely understand.

I'm not trying to be a total a-hole here, but... this one really gets to me, cause it isn't about opinions... there are FACTS, very solid ones that outline how species are developed over time by mutations and errors in DNA. It isn't about how we evolved from Apes... it is about the sheer, un-deniable fact that we all have EVOLVED. There were no 'apes' as we know them millions of years ago... apes are the result of evolution as well.

This isn't a religious issue, unless your faith is weak and relies on some small story in a book written by a bunch of MEN. The Earth wasn't 'created' from scratch, it wasn't designed out of the box. We have a very good grasp on planetary and biological evolution. The details are where the fun stuff happens, and it is just a process of discovery.

This is just as simple as the Earth Revolving around the Sun. The church used to argue that there was no 'solid' proof, even though there was a ton. People were put in jail over believing the truth then.

Guess what? They didn't know how orbital gravity worked then, but they didn't need to know that detail to KNOW that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It was pretty evident by using the Scientific Method.

That is where we are with many of these issues that the 'we want to use a lack of knowledge to support my faith' folks bark about. Just because we don't have EVERY detail doesn't mean that scientists don't KNOW what the picture looks like. They just don't know what each little pebble looks like in the picture yet... but they **** well know it's a picture of pebbles.

Belief doesn't require the lack of evolution, anymore than it required the Earth to be the center of the universe in the past. The disbelief in solid well-researched and analyzed science, does promote a lack of sophistication in a belief system, however. I always plead with people of faith not to repeat the errors and follies of their historical counterparts on issues like this. It tends to fall on deaf ears, because the power of the mind to link an internal belief to something so... unbelievable... usually pushes individuals to resist accepting certain inaccuracies they may cling to as 'proof' or 'support' for their conviction.

Fighting against the progress and power of the human mind to discover and answer questions... is a tradition of many religions and faiths.

Ricky

Aug 14th, 2005, 08:14 AM

On this we both agree. But yet with your admittedly limited knowledge you're willing to completely rule out the possibility of God being one of those fundamental facts? That makes no logical sense.

There is a difference between not accepting God based on a lack of evidence, and completely ruling out the possibility. I can't speak for Hittman, but I don't believe in God because that there is no evidence. I don't think that he doesn't or can't exist, although I think it is highly unlikely.

What Science are you studying man?

Try Quantum Physics. Learn that and then come back and give
us all your informed opinion. The argument is ultimately about the
Interconnectedness of all life in regards to individual spiritually and
the cultural manifestations of that shared uncertainty.

Oh ****. I just had my bullshit meter fixed, and now you went and broke it again.

Where the hell did you learn that crap from? You got one word right, "uncertainty." The subject of Quantum Physics is very simple. All it is, is understanding how particles and energy act on extremely small scales. It has nothing to do with spirituality, or the interconnectedness of life. It's just describing how particles act.

It is easy to
pick apart specific ideologies but Scientifically speaking there are
in fact near miraculously unexplainable truths about our world that
even the greatest of minds cannot appreciate.

How do you know when something is unexplainable? I mean, you know that something can not be explained right now, but does that mean it will never be explained? I certainly hope not. And for your sanity, I hope you don't think so either.

So please, give me an example of something that you know can not be explained. Not just something that hasn't been explained yet.

spartacusroosevelt

Aug 14th, 2005, 08:49 AM

Edit: Never mind, I really won't be say anything beyond pointing and giggling at theists

kickasspodcast

Aug 14th, 2005, 11:16 AM

Where the hell did you learn that crap from? You got one word right, "uncertainty." The subject of Quantum Physics is very simple. All it is, is understanding how particles and energy act on extremely small scales. It has nothing to do with spirituality, or the interconnectedness of life. It's just describing how particles act.

Way to pretend to sum up all of Quantum Physics in 1 paragraph!

My favorite line was

It has nothing to do with spirituality, or the interconnectedness of life. It's just describing how particles act.

Because you see, to Pysicists these are the same things
particle interaction = interconnectivity of life.

Oh Well-

Its been Fun~

Ricky

Aug 14th, 2005, 11:49 AM

Way to pretend to sum up all of Quantum Physics in 1 paragraph!

Biology is the study of life, astronomy is the study of our universe, chemistry is the study of chemicals and the interactions they go through, physics is the study of how particles and energy interact and behave, geology is the study of planet composition.

It can be done for pretty much any science, let alone a sub-division of science, which is what quantum physics is.

Because you see, to Pysicists these are the same things
particle interaction = interconnectivity of life.

Quote me one peer-reviewed paper which supports that claim. Particles are what we are made out of, so in that sense, yes, we are connected to them. But that has nothing at all to do with science. Quantum physics only studies how they act, not how all life is connected.

Kil

Aug 14th, 2005, 12:38 PM

I think it is interesting that it is only those scientific theories that are in conflict with religion that have been the subject of attack by those people of faith the theory makes uneasy. As Derek correctly pointed out, no one seems to be contesting the physics of flight. Science says nothing about religion, so the conflict does not come from the science end of things. The very same scientific method that leads to support for evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on our planet is also the method used to explain the physics of flight. So it is clear that it is only those particulars of science that are seen as in conflict with a particular worldview that get this kind of attention.

That fact alone should cause alarms to go off in most people. Sadly, it seems that our schools have let us down. Critical thinking and a firm grasp of the scientific method have been found lacking in far too many people. Most people make no distinction when regarding a scientific theory and the more common use of the word theory when it is used as a synonym for mere speculation. So you get the â€œitâ€™s only a theoryâ€? comment. The truth is, there is a profound difference in usage. A scientific theory is as good as it gets in science. What does that mean? It means that a hypotheses has been supported by solid evidence (facts), it has been tested and retested, it makes predictions that are in the realm of the falsifiable (or tests and experimentation would not be possible) and then verified by peer review, (a chance for other scientists who are experts in whatever field the theory is being suggested to shoot it down if they can.) Only after all of that can a hypotheses rise to the level of a theory. And that is a far cry from saying something like â€œI have a theory that an intelligence created the eye because it looks designed,â€? since none of the above protocols can be used to support that speculative brand of theory. Speculation does not rise to the level of a theory in a scientific context.

Evolution has been under constant attack since Darwin first proposed a naturalistic mechanism to explain his observations. And while Darwin may have been wrong about some of the details, (he was, after all, working on this over 100 years ago) evolution has become one of the best-supported theories in science. Every year we learn more and the support for evolution becomes stronger. In fact, at this time most arguments about evolution among scientists are about the mechanisms of evolution, not that evolution happens. Evolution happens just as gravity happens. Even Behe does not argue against common decent. But gravity does not seem to conflict with anyoneâ€™s worldview. So gravity gets left
aloneâ€¦

Craig

Aug 14th, 2005, 12:41 PM

But, we know A LOT about evolution... tons and tons... the proof is immense and vast.
For micro-evolution, yes. Not for macro...the arguments FOR macro reside in very small spaces that are anything but conclusive. As I stated before, I hold this position not because I'm a Christian but because the scientific evidence supports it; I held the position as an atheist before becoming a Christian. I'm not going to argue it here though because being a Christian now my argument will simply be dismissed and ridiculed as Creationist nonsense without any consideration to the facts behind it. (I speak from experience.)

This is why I love science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is an interesting article and theory. But it doesn't prove evolution any more than it proves ID.

Mainly, because the science is so immense on this topic it shocks me when, even mildly intelligent people have any questions on this issue.
It shocks me when intelligent people are able to ignore the gaping holes in the science and make statements like "the concept of [macro] Evolution is not in question" when there are a significant number of respected atheist scientists who would disagree with you.

This isn't a religious issue
Agreed.

I'm not going to argue the point further for the reason I mentioned above. But for anyone who still maintains an open mind on the topic, there are plenty of non-religious books, papers, and articles you can Google that present the scientific evidence against macro evolution. Assuming, of course, that you're open to macro evolution being proven wrong...but isn't that openness, or objectivity, a critical part of the scientific process?

Craig

Kil

Aug 14th, 2005, 01:20 PM

Craig:
For micro-evolution, yes. Not for macro.

This is an old creationist argument. They do not contest the idea that small changes happen within a species. But they argue that speciation doesnâ€™t happen. Itâ€™s an odd argument. What they are saying is that given enough time along with micro changes a new species never happens. Only variations of existing species.

It seems to me that enough micro changes would lead to speciation. And of course, it does. Transitional species abound in the fossil record. Creationists summarily dismiss them as best they can, and there best is not really good enough.

We have whales with legs, dinosaurs with feathers, hominids that display features both ape and human like. We have a very complete picture of fish to amphibian and to reptile. I could go on. What the creationists like to do is to point to what we donâ€™t have. Ah ha! And they will not be satisfied until every single gap is filled. They steadfastly refuse to consider the whole picture.

That Craig had a problem with evolution back when he was an atheist means nothing. His mentioning that is only a pitch to show that reasonable people can come to what he thinks is a reasonable conclusion. All it tells me is that Craig was not a critical thinker and had little grasp of science. Being an atheist does not automatically confer these things upon you. And I might add, not that it means that much, that plenty of people of faith have no problem with evolution. And some of those people are evolutionary biologistsâ€¦

Hittman

Aug 14th, 2005, 02:05 PM

It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that human beings don't have the intellectual capacity to understand some of the most fundamental facts of the universe.
On this we both agree. But yet with your admittedly limited knowledge you're willing to completely rule out the possibility of God being one of those fundamental facts? That makes no logical sense.

Why not? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. No one has ever been able to support the claim that such a creature exists.

Completely rule out the possibility? Not really â€“ if someone could prove it to me with real, actual evidence, I'd have to admit I was wrong. But so far, no one has been able to do that.

The concept of an all powerful god that is both benevolent and omniscient can be disproved by reading any daily newspaper. You can have a god who's benevolent. You can have one who's omniscient. But he can't be both, not in this world. If he were, he'd be guilty of criminally negligent homicide every time someone dies in a freak accident.

Assuming, of course, that you have a full comprehension of what constitutes benevolence and guilt from a universal perspective (which you've already admitted you don't). Not to mention the fact that you assume death is a bad thing.

Touche. I can only view it from a human perspective. (Although, that should be good enough if we're made in God's image.) If I allow an accident I could have prevented to happen, and someone dies as a result, I'm guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide. Why should God be held to a lesser standard?

Kickass: Whatever.

I don't know who's feeding you your information but you need to stop relying on them as a source. Jesus never preached hatred (quite the opposite) or authoritarianism.

I stand corrected on the "born again," which I thought was more common in Paul's writings.

I guess we differ on the meaning of authoritarian. Demanding obedience is authoritarian. Threating to torture someone for etertnay if they don't believe in you and worship you is about as authoritarian as you can get.

As for rules and regulations, the only ones in the NT are those designed to help anyone willing to listen to live a spiritually healthy life (both now and for eternity).

Yeah, great rules. Hate gays. Don't wear jewelry. (1 Timothy 2:8-9) Don't have sex unless you're married, but don't get married (1 Corinthians, 7:27). If you are married, ignore your wife, because the end is so near. (1 Corinthians, 7:29). Women must be subordinate to men. People who sell their possessions and give the money to the church, but keep a little for themselves, should die. (Ananias.) Reject any science that disagrees with the church. (1 Timothy 6:20) Make women wear head coverings in church, and shave their heads if they don't. Believe in Christ, or our loving, benevolent Jehovah will allow you to be roasted and tortured in hell forever.

I think there are far better rules to live by. The Golden Rule is a good place to start, but it's hardly unique to christanity â€“ it's simple common sense.

I guess that's the bottom line â€“ I wish more people could apply common sense instead of demanding an authoritay (an imaginary one at that) tell them how to behave. Most of our basic rules (don't steal, keep your promises, don't kill, don't initiate violence, and so on) can be arrived at with the most basic common sense. There's no need for an IPU (or any other invisible creature) at all.

People keep asking why I haven't done the 'big' Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. Evolution issue on my show.

Mainly, because the science is so immense on this topic it shocks me when, even mildly intelligent people have any questions on this issue. I lump it in with the whole... "I think Satan put fossils on the earth to fool us..." crowd. But, I always forget that a lot of creative people put together the fairy tale of Intelligent Design 'Theory' to dredge this whole issue back up. I sometimes forget how persuasive their bulls*it is.

Kind of like speaking out against the idea the earth is flat. The "intelligent design" critters on that exact same level.

It's interesting to note that every time religion has arugued with science, they've been wrong. Every time! With a record like that, why would anyone pay any attention to religious ramblings on scientific issues?

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 02:29 PM

Ricky

Aug 14th, 2005, 02:34 PM

It's interesting to note that every time religion has arugued with science, they've been wrong. Every time! With a record like that, why would anyone pay any attention to religious ramblings on scientific issues?

And science (or rather the people who use science, scientists) has been wrong many times in the past. But it's funny how when it is wrong, it is never a religion who corrects it. It has always been scientists themselves who change science.

But one can not use this reasoning for future claims. Each claim, no matter where it is from, must be examined carefully. Who knows, maybe once religion will get it right.

Even a blind squirrel bumps into a nut once in a while.

Hittman

Aug 14th, 2005, 05:11 PM

It's interesting to note that every time religion has arugued with science, they've been wrong. Every time! With a record like that, why would anyone pay any attention to religious ramblings on scientific issues?

And science (or rather the people who use science, scientists) has been wrong many times in the past. But it's funny how when it is wrong, it is never a religion who corrects it. It has always been scientists themselves who change science.

An exelent and very important point. Science is self-correcting. When an error is discovered, there's some debate and double and triple checking to be sure the new discovery is correct, and then all of science says "Hey, now we know better" almost overnight.

When was the last time that happened with any religious doctrine?

kickasspodcast

Aug 14th, 2005, 05:32 PM

This is why I love science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is an interesting article and theory. But it doesn't prove evolution any more than it proves ID.

<goes back and reads> Ummm, absolutely wrong. It is very strong evidence for how evolution operates. In no part of that study did they mention anything to do with an 'invisible intelligent force', or anything that pointed to 'design' over genetic mutation and error patterns.

It shocks me when intelligent people are able to ignore the gaping holes in the science and make statements like "the concept of [macro] Evolution is not in question" when there are a significant number of respected atheist scientists who would disagree with you.

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID... but thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolutionary process. It is a very big myth perpetuated by a lot of folks in the ID crowd that 'several respected scientists' believe that. But, it just isn't true. They rely on continuing to repeat that statement in an attempt to develop it as a truth. It's pretty far from the truth.

I'm not going to argue the point further for the reason I mentioned above. But for anyone who still maintains an open mind on the topic, there are plenty of non-religious books, papers, and articles you can Google that present the scientific evidence against macro evolution. Assuming, of course, that you're open to macro evolution being proven wrong...but isn't that openness, or objectivity, a critical part of the scientific process?

Don't try that slimy con-man trick. It's beneath you.

Science is open, but it is not open to the re-packaging of Creationism in a new silly name, "Intelligent Design".

The whole concept has been torn to shreds in the scientific community. But, people just want to keep saying cute things like; "If you are open, and objective." Guess what, tons of scientists already were, they have already shot the whole thing out of the sky with a thundering roar.

It's not even a debate anymore in the science community, it's come down to an obvious need to educate people on the facts.

Tip, there is NO SUCH THING as 'macro' and 'micro' evolution. That's a made up concept. Toss that one out with the trash, it's about as 'true' as spoon bending.

I'm sorry but, not going to allow people to continue to make people believe there is some form of legitimate debate about this. It is a concocted debate, some people got scared that creationism was losing ground, they made up a new, shiny sounding 'theory' and are trying to up-sell it.

They are doing a good job on the up-sell, but it still is just a bunch of drivel at the core. Please don't fall into the trap of believing an once of what those agenda driven, morally corrupt, con men, say.

Mind as well go and listen to JZ Knight, and the Ramtha folks, they do a great job of making their BS sound like science too... Actually, they might even do it better than the ID folks, and that's saying something.

What a joke man-

how can you possibly consider yourself scientific in any way?
You actually quote yourself and then say "Wrong again"? wtf does that mean? You are now arguing with yourself.

You all need to go read The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking.
There Ricky is your 1 Peer Reviewed, somewhat notable published work that clearly states over and over again that the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life. All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles. The fact that each human life and the universe are connected and affect one another is illuded to in that book as well as countless other publications.

Skepticality-
I think its absolutely hilarous and hypocritical that you would create Audio Promotions for your show bashing Indie Podcasters and Bashing People who debate in forums while all the while you make yourself out to be "Indie" and you also debate rediculous topics on the forums. As if you "real" podcasters are above the very **** you are now slinging.

Maybe thats my scientific side talking- I dunno.
Seems pretty ironic you would create Promo's with Bob Taylor
making fun of people who debate on forums when you are
sitting here throwing feces around and acting as if you represent
Science because one of your Clients was the NTSB? WTF?
You do realize you said nothing scientific at all (as far as real information)
just more opinions.

I swear I f'ing hate people who pretend to have "THE answer" Religious or Scientific; both kinds are a pompass as it gets. Why be a hypocrite? Why pretend you know the answers to what the worlds greatest Physicists admittedly cannot even collectively begin to comprehend.

oh ya

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID

Your lies don't help your case either- we all know this isn't true.
Can I name one?
Name me the 1,000,000 peer reviewed papers that strongly support the "evolutionary process" (whatever the hell you think that means).
You didnt say

...thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support evolution.

And there is probably a good reason you didn't- because it wouldn't be true would it?

Atheism = Nihilism
Blind Faith in God = Ignorance

Why don't you use any Science or data in the arguments you are making instead of saying things you expect us to believe?

I haven't claimed to know the answers on either side.
Just FYI-

Jack B.

***ADDED
I personally believe evolution "happened" but I would be naive to think that
anyone has actually "proved" this as a fact.

All in all it doesn't really matter, if you need "Proof" to believe everything you believe I feel very sorry for you as a person. At some point, life demands a bit of faith.

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 06:10 PM

Let us remind everyone that your co-host started this thread with this line:

OK. Let's keep the flaming to a minimum and respect each other here.

Funny that you were the first one to flame out of the gate... guess you don't play by your co-hosts rules.

So, lets then look at the first flame that you shoot out of left field... doesn't even have an OUNCE to do with what we are discussing.

Skepticality-
I think its absolutely hilarous and hypocritical that you would create Audio Promotions for your show bashing Indie Podcasters and Bashing People who debate in forums while all the while you make yourself out to be "Indie" and you also debate rediculous topics on the forums. As if you "real" podcasters are above the very **** you are now slinging.

That is what you have to resort to? Taking something that is CLEARLY a joke and trying to make it like I'm suddenly some 'hater' of all indie podcasting? Either you are kidding with this argument, or... I'm just baffled. Have you ever HEARD the Bud Light commercials we were using as our inspiration for those. They are toungue in cheek funny stuff. Wow, give me a break, I'm not sure what to say about someone that doesn't understand the basic concept of humor.

Seems pretty ironic you would create Promo's with Bob Taylor
making fun of people who debate on forums when you are
sitting here throwing feces around and acting as if you represent
Science because one of your Clients was the NTSB?

No, I pointed it out because the OTHER person pointed it out. READ before you respond... I even made it a point to say... "I didn't think this was a war over resume's."

I was POINTING out to someone else that it DIDN'T matter. Bitch at THEM for doing that not me, that's what I was doing. READ a thread before you respond... sheesh...

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID... but thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolutionary process.
You actually quote yourself and then say "Wrong again"? wtf does that mean? You are now arguing with yourself.

Again, read the thread, so the quoting system sucks on these systems... I think anyone that takes the time to go back and read the section of the post that came from, can easily see the comment Craig made that I was addressing. How grade-school can you get with that comment?

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID .

Your lies don't help your case either- we all know this isn't true.

What lie? That is completely true. So, who is this 'all', they aren't people that pay attention to the science community. There have been maybe only four, maybe five 'notable' papers that ID folks point to. Four of which have been de-bunked. And the fifth... doesn't mention ID, or anything that supports the theory. Just points out some possible flaws in some of the elements of the DNA research being done. Doesn't even say that Evolution is incorrect, just some of the popular DNA evidence MIGHT not stand up.

So, where did I lie? Never have in this thread, not once.

Can I name one?
Name me the 1,000,000 peer reviewed papers that strongly support the "evolutionary process" (whatever the hell you think that means).

Did you seriously just say "Whatever the hell you think that means" come on man. Seriously come on... I think anyone that has made it through some basic classes on biology all know what we mean when we discuss the evolutionary process... what's your angle? Cause, none of this post made much sense so far.

Obviously you don't like me for some reason, and you are choosing a really bad tactic of attempting to make someone seem 'illogical' but... you can't do that by just stating it over and over... the only stuff you manage to talk about is your lack of understanding of the humor in some promos we made... and called me a liar on something that... Isn't a lie, and an attempt to make my arguement look 'stupid' by taking something out of context when anyone that has read the thread will understand.

Ok... so... you just asked if anyone could point to the possible millions of scientists and mountiains of peer-reviewed papers on the evidence of biological evolution? Seriously? I'm asking, because that was potentially the most comical statement of all time.

There are so many I wouldn't know where to begin, because there are hundreds of thousands! It's like asking me to point to all the papers that prove we are breathing oxygen. Which particular topic in biological evolution do you want a few hundred papers for?

You didnt say

...thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolution.

And there is probably a good reason you didn't- because it wouldn't be true would it?

It would be true... I think you are splitting hairs, and in a really strange way.

Why don't you use any Science or data in the arguments you are making instead of saying things you expect us to believe?

As I said, I'm the only one that has provided data in this whole thread. Why don't you take your attacks and point them at all the people that HAVEN'T done it? Nope, you attack me... for no obvious reason, since half those arguements you started with were either useless attacks about your lack of the basic understanding of humor, or your inability to read and attacked me over something someone ELSE did... then you say that the burden of providing evidence is on MY shoulders only... even though, I'm the only one that has provided any.

And... we are talking about evolution here, one of the most widely accepted concepts in science. You make it like I am trying to convince you that the sky is green. Give me a break with that attitude. It is the folks that are arguing AGAINST evolution that have the convincing to do, and they haven't managed to make much of a breakthrough in the scientific community. They keep trying though.

I haven't claimed to know the answers on either side.
Just FYI-

I think by the fact alone that you decided to attack me in a pretty irrational, poorly thought out manner... you HAVE decided you have an answer of some sort.

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 06:27 PM

Here is a half-decent setup for this whole thing:

http://www-instruct.nmu.edu/biology/ALindsay/Evolution/Scott_Branch2003.pdf

It's even presented from an educational standpoint more than the pure science standpoint.

Start following the referenced works, they will lead you to more... and so on. That is probably one of the better, more easy to consume essays on the issue. I guess the first one was too complicated for some to be considered 'evidence' so I'll put up something with less science-speak in it.

kickasspodcast

Aug 14th, 2005, 08:37 PM

OK-

What data did you provide other than to say that there is not 1 single peer reviewed paper that supports ID?
Which is itself speculation unless you are aware of all peer reviewed studies.
In fact it is somewhat cheap to act as if you get to decide what kind of studies should be considered for the creation of all existance. Its common among scientists to exlcude people and other ways of studying and doing things. You only eat "peer reviewed" cereal too?

As far as the promos and me not understanding humor- in the Beer Commercials they make fun of people who clearly deserve it, but in your version they don't? Or you are making fun of yourself? See why I am confused?
Several people I know have listened to them and been turned off.(Despite the phenominal production and quality) Maybe its because you say you are "Truth In Podcasting", maybe its because you go on and on speaking for the entire "scientific community" or making huge generalizations about the beliefs of the 'entire scientific community'.

To say that the evolutionary process and the overall subject of Evolution are the same is simply not true. If I am splitting hairs, I am sorry.
As far as calling you a liar-
maybe I was harsh- if you say something that is entirely not true you are called a ___________________?

A common objection to intelligent design theory is that intelligent design is not science, or at least it is "bad science" because papers advocating intelligent design are seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. This article will attempt to discuss the objection, why are pro-intelligent design articles seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.
Link to the rest:
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/IDjournals.htm

If its not lying its being an *** about what kind of data you are willing to consider. Sorry.
Look I don't entirely agree with everything in that link or with the people behind the site, but I can say that its way too common for you Derek and other people who are "science minded" to dismiss alternate theories and explanations and then proceed to "set the record strait" as if you are the end all "record setting straiter guy", seriously MAN.

"I didn't think this was a war over resume's."

I dont think anyone thought of anything even close to a "war or resumes" but the guy who says the kinda thing like "war of resume's" usually is the guy who thinks he can win- its just been my experience- sorry if in this case its not true.

Again, read the thread, so the quoting system sucks on these systems...How grade-school can you get with that comment?

High School? I think the quoting system is just fine thank you!
Don't blame the Science of the system man- blame the user! ;)

You take this

Just points out some possible flaws in some of the elements of the DNA research being done.
Add it to this

When an error is discovered, there's some debate and double and triple checking to be sure the new discovery is correct, and then all of science says "Hey, now we know better" almost overnight

Wth?
Flaw = Error

And you are saying all the studies (4-5) are useless and have been debunked as if people aren't continuing to debate and re-calculate and
review and continue to search and be umm... Scientific.

You say Evolution is about as widely accepted as it gets- well wouldn't you agree it is also about as controversial as an issue could be. You "scientists" can so easily come across as egotistal when you readily dismiss all theories not in your realm of expertise, that is oftly convenient. Are you saying that
all cultural teachings of creation are entirely untrue and you are absolutely certain of that? How can you know that everyone else but you is wrong?
I don't believe I know the truth for certain.
I don't say that other people are wrong for disagreeing with the "mainstream" of any community- even if its the Science Community.

Hopefully this clarifies things- If you make well produced humorous promo's that make fun of yourself then fine- I just don't find that funny or I don't buy it.

You come across as if you have all the facts and can prove it all and you call everyone else stupid or ignorant by your actions and certainty- maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way.. Thats all...

And lastly- I don't dislike you Derek. I am sorry if I gave you that impression.

Jack B.

Why I get involved in Fosco's crazy threads...

Dr. Mabuse

Aug 14th, 2005, 09:13 PM

What a joke man-

how can you possibly consider yourself scientific in any way?
You actually quote yourself and then say "Wrong again"? wtf does that mean? You are now arguing with yourself.

You all need to go read The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking.
There Ricky is your 1 Peer Reviewed, somewhat notable published work that clearly states over and over again that the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life.
Actually, you're wrong about this. "The Universe in a Nutshell" is not a peer-reviewd scientific paper. It's popular science litterature. And while most of what you read in that book have scientific background, it's not a scientific paper per-se. Not peer-reviewed.

Let's examine your paragraph again: "the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life"
Does Hawking really write that in Universe in a Nutshell?
Please provide me with chapter and page-number and what edition you are reading so I can look it up myself.

All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles.

That's is true.

The fact that each human life and the universe are connected and affect one another is illuded to in that book as well as countless other publications.

Aside from Universe is a Nutshell (which isn't strictly speaking peer-reviewed), what other publications are there?

Skepticality-
I think its absolutely hilarous and hypocritical that you would create Audio Promotions for your show bashing Indie Podcasters and Bashing People who debate in forums while all the while you make yourself out to be "Indie" and you also debate rediculous topics on the forums. As if you "real" podcasters are above the very **** you are now slinging.

Hey, I was one of the targets of one of those promos, as I'm often found debating politics on Skeptic Friends Network.
And I laughed my *ss off then I heard it.

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID

Your lies don't help your case either- we all know this isn't true.
Can I name one?

I dare you to. Complete with references.

Name me the 1,000,000 peer reviewed papers that strongly support the "evolutionary process" (whatever the hell you think that means).

How about <almost any random paper> in Nature?
Try google for HERV, Human Endogenous Retro-Virus. Footprints of HERV in primate DNA is pretty much by itself conclusive evidence for evolution of all primates, including humans, from a common ancestor species.

***ADDED
I personally believe evolution "happened" but I would be naive to think that
anyone has actually "proved" this as a fact.

Skepticism and Critical thinking means that all conclusions are tentative. There is an objective truth out there, but since our knowledge is limited, we must concede to the fact that our knowledge will be subject to revisions as new evidence is gathered. "Proof" is an absolute concept, and as such, it belongs in Mathematics (and whiskey).
In physics and biology there is "evidence". And "a truckload of evidence". And in the case of evolution, even "an astoundingly overwhelming mass of evidence".

Hittman

Aug 14th, 2005, 09:52 PM

I'm not sure what to say about someone that doesn't understand the basic concept of humor.

Have you seen any basic concepts that he has any understanding of? I have yet to see a single one. This boy is completely wrong about everything, and that's pretty rare. Which is why my only reply to him recently has been

Kickass: Whatever.

While sometimes it can be fun to poke at the village idiot with a stick, eventually you've got to fall back on the "teaching a pig to sing" rule.

Skepticism and Critical thinking means that all conclusions are tentative. There is an objective truth out there, but since our knowledge is limited, we must concede to the fact that our knowledge will be subject to revisions as new evidence is gathered. "Proof" is an absolute concept, and as such, it belongs in Mathematics (and whiskey).

Very well put.

Whenever anyone claims to have The Truth (and you can hear the capital letters when they say it) I put my hand on my wallet and back away slowly. Don't give me your truth. Give me the facts. Solid, real, verifiable facts as close to unvarnished as you can make them. Then I can figure out The Truth for myself.

dcolanduno

Aug 14th, 2005, 11:56 PM

What data did you provide other than to say that there is not 1 single peer reviewed paper that supports ID?

You didn't read the whole thread did you? I've now provided more than one reference. And, you know what... all I really have to do is say that there isn't one peer reviewed paper that supports ID, and the argument is over. That IS how it works. when you are talking about science and proof. ID has attempted to find any proof for it's theory time and time again, every-time it has been shot down during critical review.

It is one thing to hold the belief that ID 'might' someday have the ability to even be considered a viable option. But, to say it has any scientific support is by far, untrue. ID is just a concocted idea, that still has no proof, or accepted discoveries that support it. Therefore it is an idea, no more supported than me just making up some idea about how we are all just an experiment being conducted by aliens from another galaxy. I can come up with a ton of great 'sounding' ideas about why that might be true, but, until I come up with some way to test the theory, and then verify that there is some evidence to support that. It is just an idea, not science.

ID is exactly that, an 'idea', that many hopeful anti-evolutioners believe is true. But, until they can actually find an example of a natural system that is too complex to explain by natural development. The whole thing is still just a big philosophical desire/hope/dream. Nothing, to date, supports the idea and wishing it, and believing the story because it 'sounds good', isn't healthy, it's foolish.

Many, many, successful medical treatments have arisen from much of the study and work performed in the analysis of evolutionary research. There was actually some hard-science researcher that went a little too far and has/had been advocating that when you check into a hospital you should have to check a box stating which version of human development you believe in. Then they would just exclude treatments that were developed directly or indirectly from the evidence they have discovered that ties to the Evolutionary process.

That's a bit harsh, but quite a few people think it would be a great way to prove the point. You'd have a lot of people dead from some pretty easy to treat illnesses if that happened.

I don't advocate that, but I think it does hit home a huge point.

Which is itself speculation unless you are aware of all peer reviewed studies.

It's not speculation, many, many, scientists have recently been pulled away from what could be life-saving, and other very important scientific work. JUST to fight against the current wave of propaganda the 'ID' crowd has unleashed. It is not speculation, it is a well documented fight to make sure that real science is kept out in front of agenda driven dogma, wrapped in a thin paper to disguise it as science.

In fact it is somewhat cheap to act as if you get to decide what kind of studies should be considered for the creation of all existance. Its common among scientists to exlcude people and other ways of studying and doing things. You only eat "peer reviewed" cereal too?

Actually, it isn't 'cheap' to exclude ideas that have no evidence, proof, or validity in science. It's required. Just because someone has a 'belief' doesn't give them any credibility when they try to pass that off as science. Science is by far and away more INCLUSIONARY than almost any group. You just have to have some foundation that can be tested, then you have to provide some proof or evidence that the test can either be met somehow. The latter is usually in the form of mathematics, since in many situations concepts can be accepted based on the validity of their possibility. String Theory is a perfect example of this, right now it's just math, and somewhat broken math. There is a pretty large contingent of folks that believe that they can solve the broken bit, as Einstein did with relativity, and others. But, there are also a large number of folks that look at the math and think there is something 'missing' in the logic.

THAT is a scientific debate.

Biological Evolution has had many, upon many, trials and tests that have built a mountain of evidence that support the concept.

Intelligent Design has weakly attempted this and has yet to succeed. It does, however, keep trying to use small detail arguments that DO occur in the cracks of the Evolutionary research to try to point out that Evolution is not 'certain'. Well, that is trumped up hogwash. Yes, there are very FINE points of Biological Evolution that are being studied, and while that happens, people test, and re-test. That is how science works.

But to take small points out of context and then hold them up to an un-educated crowd as 'proof' that even the scientists studing Evolution aren't 'certain' about the entire concept, is... propaganda.

Not to mention, even IF there were 2 or 3 papers that showed that we are off track with our current larger Evolutionary Concepts. It still provides ZERO support for Intelligent Design. Why? Because ID has had no success in proving or finding evidence to support it's claim. It's just a bunch of deep thought, and fairly bad deep thought at that. It is full of holes, once you step back and look at the idea.

They are just real good at the packaging.

As far as the promos and me not understanding humor- in the Beer Commercials they make fun of people who clearly deserve it, but in your version they don't? Or you are making fun of yourself? See why I am confused?

First off, why did attacking me for that belong in this thread? Second off, you are kidding right? Making fun of 'yourself' is what ALL great comedians do. Seriously, I don't see why you are confused.

Several people I know have listened to them and been turned off.(Despite the phenomenal production and quality) Maybe its because you say you are "Truth In Podcasting", maybe its because you go on and on speaking for the entire "scientific community" or making huge generalizations about the beliefs of the 'entire scientific community'.

First off... I don't know anyone that was 'turned off' by them, you would be the first if that were the case. I dare you to name them off... or, are ya gonna hide behind the old... "I know people, and I'm not gonna name them" gradeschool game? It's one thing to do that when you are making general claims, it's another when you are doing it to attack someone personally.

Secondly... Go peek into the 'scientific community' and ask them how they feel about the topics we have presented. I dare you. They are a lively bunch, and will give you feedback. We've had many members of the scientific community ON our show. And, we actually got turned down by one prominent member of the science community because we wouldn't let him get as nasty about the ID movement as he wanted to. You will find on many of the topics we talk about, we are sheep, the real scientists are usually so upset about topics like Intelligent Design we know of several of them that have just 'had enough'. I'm a pussycat put next to the fury that many of them have for this topic, and many others we discuss.

I GET my topics from scientists, astronomers, theorists, etc, etc. We talk about the stuff that is hot and being bantered about in the open channels among critical thinkers and scientists.

To say that the evolutionary process and the overall subject of Evolution are the same is simply not true. If I am splitting hairs, I am sorry.
As far as calling you a liar-
maybe I was harsh- if you say something that is entirely not true you are called a ___________________?

Since I didn't say anything that wasn't anything but true. You don't have to find any derogatory name for me. Sorry, but you just don't get to have that feeling of accomplishment on this topic.

A common objection to intelligent design theory is that intelligent design is not science, or at least it is "bad science" because papers advocating intelligent design are seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. This article will attempt to discuss the objection, why are pro-intelligent design articles seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.
[/i]Link to the rest: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/IDjournals.htm

They try to get many of these reviewed, and they don't pan out. I could write several hundred books about how God is really a plate of meatballs and noodles. But unless it can pass through the scientific process it's still a bunch of ideas, no matter how good it might sound to the lay-person.

Take for example, Scientology. They tout a ton of 'researched' science in their work. But none of it passes the stink test in reviewed science. Just because it sounds good to a lot of people, and I mean A LOT of people. Doesn't make it science. And if science refuses to publish it, doesn't mean that they are 'scared' of anything, there is just no evidence to support the claim.

Look I don't entirely agree with everything in that link or with the people behind the site, but I can say that its way too common for you Derek and other people who are "science minded" to dismiss alternate theories and explanations and then proceed to "set the record strait" as if you are the end all "record setting straiter guy", seriously MAN.

Seriously MAN, science is about discovery. I'll lay cash that myself and millions of other scientists would actually PAY money to find or discover, or learn about something so mind spinningly cool as Intelligent Design, or any other crazy UFO, Big Foot, Psychic Phenomena type theory. I'm serious. Look at how excited science is right now about stuff like the String Theory, and some crazy planet-rock thing that many folks would have dismissed off-handedly before there was proof?

If someone came out and just stated the concepts of string theory without any mathematical evidence, or well documented and reviewed research. The science community would laugh at them, and not publish and ounce of their words. In fact, THAT HAPPENED. It took a long time for someone to finally get enough evidence of support together to even get the first paper through the door. And it was a bit of a struggle. Now a whole set of researchers has blossomed to figure out just how true, provable the concept is.

You have to understand the full claim of Intelligent Design. For it to be taken seriously, you have to have some evidence to support the claim. The only testable theory that is prevalent in ID is that biological organisms are too 'complex' to have developed from other organisms. They have tried to use different aspects of mutually developed organs as 'evidence'. Such as; The Eye, Flagellum, Cellular Growth, and the list goes on. Each time, when the evidence has been measured and studied, it was shown that it was completely possible for any of those organic parts to have evolved naturally and easily from other means. Essentially, something has to be found that could be pointed to as evidence. Until then, ID is a just a 'concept' being touted as real science.

It all might sound good on the surface, but to folks that do the research, it's just a bunch of bunk right now.

Think about it... if *you* were a scientist, wouldn't you want to be the first one to find something so complex in biology that it just flat out cannot be explained in any other way than a mechanical, or methodical influence? Seriously? I would. Then we could sit around and figure out WHO did it. Half would think it's God, the other half would think that it was then some previous race, or alien influence.

In any case, you'd win a Nobel Prize and a ton of recognition.

You make it like scientists have something to 'lose' over shooting down every concept that attempts to claim it is 'true'. No, they don't, but they certainly lose everything if they just publish stuff because a ton of people 'believe' it.

Science isn't science when it just gives up and allows something to be published as evidence and fact just because lots of un-informed people have bought into the propaganda.

"I didn't think this was a war over resume's."

I dont think anyone thought of anything even close to a "war or resumes" but the guy who says the kinda thing like "war of resume's" usually is the guy who thinks he can win- its just been my experience- sorry if in this case its not true.

You say Evolution is about as widely accepted as it gets- well wouldn't you agree it is also about as controversial as an issue could be. You "scientists" can so easily come across as egotistal when you readily dismiss all theories not in your realm of expertise, that is oftly convenient.

The controversy isn't due to scientists, it's been manufactured by the proponents of Intelligent Design, and other forms of Creationists. That doesn't mean scientists disagree. You are hard pressed to find anything but a few vocal fringe scientists that have come out in support of ID, and usually they have a money trail back to the pockets of folks like the Discovery Institute.

The people that are dismissing Intelligent Design ARE in the realm of expertise that ID suggests it has a theory for. The testable theory of ID is that there are examples of organic and biological elements that can only be explained by something 'developed' outside of the 'chaotic' course of nature. The folks that are dismissing the claims, are all seasoned research scientists that are well rooted in the concepts and arena of biology. So, it is a far stretch to say that; "You "scientists" can so easily come across as egotistal when you readily dismiss all theories not in your realm of expertise, that is oftly convenient." because, it IS scientist with more knowledge in how biological systems work than the entire staff of the Discovery Institute combined.

I don't know where you get your information, but jump out of the propaganda wing of the internet. People like controversy, but controversy is a far cry from anything resembling truth or logic.

Are you saying that all cultural teachings of creation are entirely untrue and you are absolutely certain of that?

ALL? Well, I am sure I don't know all of them. But I know several of them that have no evidence to support them. And until they do, what does it matter? I don't believe anything fantastic just because a ton of other people want to, or have been groomed to. There are several different ideas of religious creationism. Anyone that believes any one of them, is making a mistake. Since none of the ones I know of have yet to prove an ounce of their story.

How can you know that everyone else but you is wrong?

I don't, but I, and millions of scientists around the globe have a heap of evidence to support our theory. THAT is science.

I will stand firm and fight with all my vigor anyone that wishes to present completely unproven and unsubstantiated concepts and ideas as an 'equal' or 'alternative' to concepts and theories that have stood the test of thousands upon thousands of rigorous scientific study. Especially when people want to teach such propaganda and untruth to children, or other un-knowing, or easily manipulated people.

Intelligent Design is just an 'idea'. And if we were to teach other 'ideas' to people as of they were equal to science. You'd have to let in folks that have a bigger following for their ideas as well. Which would start to include the UFO/Alien interference crowd, the JZ Knight whackos, the Scientologists, and the list goes on. They all have just as much published material and as many or more followers as the hard core Intelligent Design crowd has.

The ID people just did one thing right... they wrapped up their idea in an easy to consume 'solution' for religious folks. So, what we have is a ton of religiously driven people, trying to push something that they say is 'science' and then when the scientists fight back... a ton of people cry; "But it is my belief, you can't dismiss my belief."

Guess what... yes, I can. Once they put their foot into the realm of science, and are attempting to PROVE a scientific idea. Then you have the right to be shot down. It is the risk that many, many, many, scientists take every year. Although, this time, when someone shoots ID down, they run back to their core religious base and cry 'foul' as if there is some conspiracy against religion in science. Guess what? There isn't. Science just wants some evidence that supports the hypothesis that ID presents. To date, it hasn't happened.

And papers, small evidence, and statement that attempt to somehow diminish evolution... don't support, bolster, or make more certain the concept of Intelligent Design, not even a little bit. Since it isn't an 'either/or' argument.

Even if you PROVED that our current concept of evolution was completely incorrect. Intelligent Design would STILL be just an unproven, unsubstantiated idea. And not worth teaching to anyone but the stalwart researchers that might be clinging to the hope that they will find the evidence they desperately desire.

I don't believe I know the truth for certain.

Well, you have to accept the facts that have been proven, and the supported evidence that has been uncovered. Or else you are just whistling in the wind. No scientist know the WHOLE truth about anything, it's an ongoing discovery process.

But it is a naive position to claim that you have to know 100% of a well established picture to understand what the picture is. Evolution provides an 88% complete 10,000 piece puzzle. You can CLEARLY see what the picture is of.

To say that, the folks that only present 10 completely un-related puzzle pieces, that might not even be of the same puzzle, and might not even be pieces, to that same 10,000 piece puzzle deserve the same treatment, or place at the table, is just naive.

I don't say that other people are wrong for disagreeing with the "mainstream" of any community- even if its the Science Community.

When they believe that any unsubstantiated idea should be counted as equal to a stack of well documented evidence... Yes, you can easily say they are wrong. It is one thing to have an idea you like the sound of. But that doesn't mean you just instantly get to say it is equal to well proven theory. No matter how much media attention or half-baked documentation you have people write for you.

Hopefully this clarifies things- If you make well produced humorous promo's that make fun of yourself then fine- I just don't find that funny or I don't buy it.

What don't you 'buy'? You sound a little bitter over an obviously very funny promo. Unless you think it was directed at you. And, anyone that found those promos 'offensive'... Let me know who you are, No one I know has skin that thin... and if they do, I am amazed they would last out in the real world. It sounds to me like a bunch of smoke blowing for effect.

You come across as if you have all the facts and can prove it all and you call everyone else stupid or ignorant by your actions and certainty- maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way.. Thats all...

Well, there are such a thing as FACTS. That's the problem these days. People don't like facts. CNN, FOX, all those 24hr. news channels keep ratings up by presenting 'both sides' to every story. MANY stories don't have 'two sides' there are FACTS in this world.

Problem is, people have been groomed to buy into the concept that you are just supposed to be able to dismiss facts and have an 'opinion' that contradicts the facts. And if you dare state the facts and try to show someone some of the truth behind a situation... you are somehow 'bad'. Sorry, I don't buy into that. It is not a bad thing to know historical, modern, or scientific truth. And it IS a bad thing to give 'opinions' and 'alternative concepts' equal footing and 'consideration' against well established facts. Our current media culture, is all about doing just that though.

Both sides of politics do it daily... Air America, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, CNN, etc, etc... you get ratings by arguing stuff and allowing the truth to be clouded. Otherwise, you'd have nothing interesting to discuss 70% of the time.

So, the stuff that deserves a debate? It gets lost. Why? Because usually it benefits no religion, company, or politician collectively.

Look at how hard the aid workers in many countries have to work that get no attention... all over Africa, Asia, etc, etc... hell even North Korea... it gets some random airplay about nukes, but no open discussion on the torture and concentration camps, the living conditions, etc. Why? Some would say that there is no Oil there, no political advantage, and no religious advantage. So, no one wants to touch it.

Instead, we have bullsh*t like Intelligent Design sucking down scientific, media, and governmental resources like a sponge. When, it's just a bunch of well constructed, easy to push aside concepts. Why? Religious AND Political advantage.

So, yea... I will do my best to promote the TRUTH about science. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm not spouting opinions here... this is all well established factual information about the way the scientific process works. The issue is that many, many, well organized people want the public to question it, as if there should be a debate.

Where, in scientific terms... Science is saying "2+2 = 4" and the other side is getting a TON of people to keep saying "2+2 = 6" without evidence or substantiation. But, because there are a ton of people saying it... "We must question it." No... we don't have to... the sky is blue, it isn't green today.

kickasspodcast

Aug 15th, 2005, 12:04 AM

Wow

Hitttman

Dr. M

and

Derek

all completely devoid of fact.

If I have to explain to anyone that Quantum Physics studies how
particles interact and that all life and energy is made up of particles
I am afraid we cannot continue. The whole flock of Seagulls = Tidal Wave thingy nobody can quite seem to get their heads around.

Hittman can only slander me- what's new? He's call's me boy- ouch~

Dr. M.

Hey, I was one of the targets of one of those promos, as I'm often found debating politics on Skeptic Friends Network.
And I laughed my *ss off then I heard it.
Well since you are obviously neutral in all of this you opinion means even more. I mean its like an honest debate about Soccergirl with Hollywood Adam- ain't gonna happen.

All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles.

This is the entire freakin point.

Look- I am tried of cocky know-it-alls trying to 'Set the Record Strait' and "Recalibrate my BS meter" and preach to me about "critical thinking" without actually saying anything at all. Don't you get it? When people try and act as if they are the ones with the truth or the answers it drives me up the wall. It doesn't matter if they are in Lab Coats or Clerics Robes- its the same pompacity that makes me want to puke.

We have Hittman trying to create an open and shut case to finally prove their is no God.

And we have Derek who is trying to "set the record strait" and claims to know the origin of all planetary existance-

And then we have Dr. M encouranging both of them o