How could intelligent design be taught in public schools? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : How could intelligent design be taught in public schools?


Gunhaver
06-28-2012, 11:51
For all the people that advocate this I'm curious how you would have it done. Seems to me like saying at the beginning of every school year, "Some people think that god did it" would pretty much cover the entire point. What else is there to teach?

As far as equal time goes, there's so much more to cover in actual science that the ID portion wouldn't have enough material to fill that time. Is there any logical way to do this?

WS6
06-28-2012, 12:30
For all the people that advocate this I'm curious how you would have it done. Seems to me like saying at the beginning of every school year, "Some people think that god did it" would pretty much cover the entire point. What else is there to teach?

As far as equal time goes, there's so much more to cover in actual science that the ID portion wouldn't have enough material to fill that time. Is there any logical way to do this?

Teach it as a philosophy course with these as its texts:

http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles1.htm
http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles2.htm

Gunhaver
06-28-2012, 12:42
Teach it as a philosophy course with these as its texts:

http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles1.htm
http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles2.htm

I was referring to those that wanted it taught as science right alongside evolution. It obviously is philosophy but that's not good enough for some.

For instance, do we teach irreducible complexity and then teach the flaws in that argument or do we leave scientific rebuttals out which isn't really fair, but it isn't actual fairness they're after anyway.

Bren
06-28-2012, 13:49
Teach it as a philosophy course with these as its texts:

http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles1.htm
http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles2.htm

Not familiar with your references, but teaching it as philosophy does seem most appropriate. On the other hand, ID is a recent invention that is intended to introduce religious beliefs as part of a science curriculum, to avoid or diminish the teaching of science that conflicts with religion.

I think Gunhaver's point is that the only purpose of ID is to teach that it is science, so there wouldn't be much point, from the ID side, in teaching it as philosophy. I'm not enough of an expert on philosophy to say whether it really qualifies in that regard.

Norske
06-28-2012, 18:04
Step 1:

Prove that there was in fact an "Intelligent Designer".

Until Step 1 has been accomplished, do not attempt to proceed to Step 2.

Tilley
06-28-2012, 21:32
Step 1:

Prove that there was in fact an "Intelligent Designer".

Until Step 1 has been accomplished, do not attempt to proceed to Step 2.

<----------------------able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

steveksux
06-29-2012, 04:52
I was referring to those that wanted it taught as science right alongside evolution. It obviously is philosophy but that's not good enough for some.

For instance, do we teach irreducible complexity Yes, you should teach the controversy. and then teach the flaws in that argument NOOOOOOO!!!!! Not THAT controversy!!! :supergrin:

It's the 21st century version of the old saying. Everyone else's religion is superstition. My religion is "science". :rofl:

Randy

Bren
06-29-2012, 04:55
Step 1:

Prove that there was in fact an "Intelligent Designer".

Until Step 1 has been accomplished, do not attempt to proceed to Step 2.

Science doesn't demand absolute proof - it generally says there are no absolutes.

But it demands that the theory be an actual "theory" based on evidence. Intelligent design is not that - it is a leap of faith, based on speculation about a lack of evidence.

Norske
06-29-2012, 10:10
Science doesn't demand absolute proof - it generally says there are no absolutes.

But it demands that the theory be an actual "theory" based on evidence. Intelligent design is not that - it is a leap of faith, based on speculation about a lack of evidence.

Those who demand the teaching of "intelligent design" do so from a faith-based assumption that a supernatural being actually designed the universe. :dunno:

But, the existence of "God" is and will remain just that; a faith-based assumption, until such time as "God" unmistakeably proves his, her, or it's actual existence in some unmistakeable fashion.

Until we can all be sure there was a designER, it is pointless to teach "Intelligent Design" to minds full of mush.

G23Gen4TX
06-29-2012, 12:50
But who needs proof when you have faith? :-P

Roering
06-29-2012, 13:38
Hey, teacher.....leave those kids alone!

The Wizard
06-29-2012, 14:48
Big Bang - true or false?
If true then - Big Bang = quantum physics event
What is needed for a quantum physics event to occur?

juggy4711
06-29-2012, 16:18
Big Bang - true or false?
If true then - Big Bang = quantum physics event
What is needed for a quantum physics event to occur?

The probability that such event will occur.

Woofie
06-29-2012, 17:54
Big Bang - true or false?
If true then - Big Bang = quantum physics event
What is needed for a quantum physics event to occur?

If the possibility exists for a quantum event to occur then it will both occur/not occur.

Gunhaver
07-04-2012, 15:36
So none of the ID folks here have any clue for a curriculum for it? I think that may be your problem.

Woofie
07-04-2012, 21:06
So none of the ID folks here have any clue? I think that may be your problem.

More accurately stated.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 05:37
ID does not need to be taught in schools, it just needs to be acknowledged. The theories are out there.

The approach should be simple. This is a school. We are here to show you what mankind currently knows. Mankind has a need to know, and occasionally, due to that, people jump to conclusions out of that need. Whether or not a deity or deities created the universe and/or life on this planet is an unknown. There is no evidence that science has found that proves it one way or the other. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory do not prove whether or not deity involvement is present or not. But still, many people have chosen to believe one way or the other. Children are perceptive, and if asked, they would probably be fairly accurate in picking out the theists and atheists among their teacher. Schools are part of the government, and therefore are not supposed to assist in the establishment of any religious beliefs one way or the other. Some people feel one way about the subject, and some disagree with them. It is controversial, and it not a subject appropriate to be discussed in school. This is a subject that you really need to discuss with your parents, and those that that you respect outside of school, and is one of many decisions you will have to make without the school guiding you. Bottom line, it is. It may have been made, it may have been designed, and it may have all happened without any conscious involvement. It's your choice to believe one way or the other, or not believe either way.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 05:39
But who needs proof when you have faith? :-P

But there is no proof either way. BBT and Evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive theories.

Neither atheism or theism should be encouraged.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 05:42
Those who demand the teaching of "intelligent design" do so from a faith-based assumption that a supernatural being actually designed the universe. :dunno:

But, the existence of "God" is and will remain just that; a faith-based assumption, until such time as "God" unmistakeably proves his, her, or it's actual existence in some unmistakeable fashion.

Until we can all be sure there was a designER, it is pointless to teach "Intelligent Design" to minds full of mush.

The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.

Wouldn't it be enlightening to admit we don't know..... Or should we just pick sides and go with that one because it fits within our comfort level?

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 06:00
But there is no proof either way. BBT and Evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive theories. Mutually exclusive? Not necessarily, but only the first two have any evidence showing them to be valid.
Neither atheism or theism should be encouraged. No, science should be encouraged in the teaching of science, which requires the exclusion of ID, just like all the other baseless faith based pseudo-scientific topics.

eracer
07-05-2012, 06:44
Since the main purpose of ID is to discredit (well... try to discredit) the scientific method in favor of faith-based pseudo-science, I would think they might start with rounding up all the H.L. Mencken books in the libraries and having a little barbeque.

Assuming of course the League of Moral Decency hasn't already had those books pulled.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 06:48
Mutually exclusive? Not necessarily, but only the first two have any evidence showing them to be valid.
No, science should be encouraged in the teaching of science, which requires the exclusion of ID, just like all the other baseless faith based pseudo-scientific topics.

Well that would certainly push your belief over another, without any evidence one way or the other. Inteligent design is a separate issue from BBT AND Evolution. Both could be true with it without the question of the existance of a deity being discovered.

I disagree with you, as your position is unfounded and fails to be neutral on the subject. Separation of church and state should apply to all churches. http://firstchurchofatheism.com/. Not just the ones you disagree with.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 06:50
Since the main purpose of ID is to discredit (well... try to discredit) the scientific method in favor of faith-based pseudo-science, I would think they might start with rounding up all the H.L. Mencken books in the libraries and having a little barbeque.

Assuming of course the League of Moral Decency hasn't already had those books pulled.

Atheism is also a faith based pseudo-science. Exclude them all, an teach what is known, avoid teaching the unknown as fact.

eracer
07-05-2012, 13:50
Atheism is also a faith based pseudo-science.That's an illogical argument. Like saying black is a color, or empty space 'is' something.

You can argue from a faith-based foundation, but the logic used is applicable only from a faith-based perspective.

As far as 'fact' goes...

What is 'fact?' Scientists don't claim to know fact, only theories that have been proven to reliably and repeatably describe empirical data through rigorous testing. This is something ID fails to even attempt.

But you know that.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 17:25
Well that would certainly push your belief over another, without any evidence one way or the other. Inteligent design is a separate issue from BBT AND Evolution. Both could be true with it without the question of the existance of a deity being discovered.

I disagree with you, as your position is unfounded and fails to be neutral on the subject. Separation of church and state should apply to all churches. http://firstchurchofatheism.com/. Not just the ones you disagree with.


I believe in the BBT. I just know who banged it.

You can't get something from nothing. DUH

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 17:30
Science doesn't demand absolute proof - it generally says there are no absolutes.

But it demands that the theory be an actual "theory" based on evidence. Intelligent design is not that - it is a leap of faith, based on speculation about a lack of evidence.

Are they absolutely sure?

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 18:36
That's an illogical argument. Like saying black is a color, or empty space 'is' something.

You can argue from a faith-based foundation, but the logic used is applicable only from a faith-based perspective.

As far as 'fact' goes...

What is 'fact?' Scientists don't claim to know fact, only theories that have been proven to reliably and repeatably describe empirical data through rigorous testing. This is something ID fails to even attempt.

But you know that.

Maybe not a science, but it is a faith based decision, a choice.

Theism and atheism are both theories, neither is based on science.

Gunhaver
07-05-2012, 19:22
Maybe not a science, but it is a faith based decision, a choice.

Theism and atheism are both theories, neither is based on science.

And neither theism not atheism are being taught in public schools, only science. So what's the problem?

The problem is the theists that can't separate atheism from science so they say that atheism is being taught in public schools. Then they want theism taught right along side it "to be fair" but they can't even agree on how that would be done just like they can't agree on anything else.

The random teacher here or there that claims to follow theism or atheism are not an issue. If your belief system can't stand up to the occasional reminder that others believe differently then it's not worth believing.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 19:59
And neither theism not atheism are being taught in public schools, only science. So what's the problem?

The problem is the theists that can't separate atheism from science so they say that atheism is being taught in public schools. Then they want theism taught right along side it "to be fair" but they can't even agree on how that would be done just like they can't agree on anything else.

The random teacher here or there that claims to follow theism or atheism are not an issue. If your belief system can't stand up to the occasional reminder that others believe differently then it's not worth believing.



If you were right, you'd have a point. But both atheism and theism are being taught. Talk to some junior high and high school kids, they'll tell you. By mid year, sometimes earlier, they know which teachers lean toward theism and atheism. One almost converted my oldest daughter, preaching about the evils of religion and how terrible the intolerance of Christians to homosexuality was, he was gay, and it was is pet peeve, that he worked into just about every discussion. I straightened her out though.

Science is cool, my job sort of depends on science. It says nothing about atheism though. Atheists just pretend it does, well some of them at least.

Not one single scientific discovery negates the possibility that a deity has existed. I'm for neutrality on the subject, which is the most scientifically accurate position.

Let the parents teach about atheism or theism, or even agnosticism if they want.

Kinda inconvenient to admit it for many around these parts, but Science is agnostic to the existence of a deity.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 20:00
Well that would certainly push your belief over another, without any evidence one way or the other. You're wrong. The whole point is that my position is the only one with any evidence to support it.
Inteligent design is a separate issue from BBT AND Evolution. That isn't relevant to the fact there's no evidence to support ID.
Both could be true with it without the question of the existance of a deity being discovered. But for ID to be true there needs to be evidence to that effect. There is none.
I disagree with you, as your position is unfounded and fails to be neutral on the subject. How is my position unfounded? Do you, unlike the Discovery Institute and Co., have evidence that ID is accurate?

Gunhaver
07-05-2012, 20:29
If you were right, you'd have a point. But both atheism and theism are being taught. Talk to some junior high and high school kids, they'll tell you. By mid year, sometimes earlier, they know which teachers lean toward theism and atheism. One almost converted my oldest daughter, preaching about the evils of religion and how terrible the intolerance of Christians to homosexuality was, he was gay, and it was is pet peeve, that he worked into just about every discussion. I straightened her out though.

Science is cool, my job sort of depends on science. It says nothing about atheism though. Atheists just pretend it does, well some of them at least.

Not one single scientific discovery negates the possibility that a deity has existed. I'm for neutrality on the subject, which is the most scientifically accurate position.

Let the parents teach about atheism or theism, or even agnosticism if they want.

Kinda inconvenient to admit it for many around these parts, but Science is agnostic to the existence of a deity.


So you straightened her out. What's the problem? Somebody gave her their opinion on a subject and you told her a different version and time will tell what her leanings will be when she's grown up. Don't think you've convinced her for life. She may hear 20 different arguments and change her views 10 more times before she settles on on one for good.

If you were a parent that agreed with the teacher then you'd be fine with it. If you had the opposite view that Christians should look down on gays then you'd be pissed about that teacher but fine with the one that supported your view. Good luck if you're a parent that thinks your child should be protected from any view that disagrees with the one you'd like them to have.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 20:56
So you straightened her out. What's the problem? Somebody gave her their opinion on a subject and you told her a different version and time will tell what her leanings will be when she's grown up. Don't think you've convinced her for life. She may hear 20 different arguments and change her views 10 more times before she settles on on one for good.

If you were a parent that agreed with the teacher then you'd be fine with it. If you had the opposite view that Christians should look down on gays then you'd be pissed about that teacher but fine with the one that supported your view. Good luck if you're a parent that thinks your child should be protected from any view that disagrees with the one you'd like them to have.

By straightened her out, I convinced her that some people get a little too emotional about not being liked. Christians hate the sin but love the sinner at least (mostly, there are exceptions). Iran has a much different way to deal with them. Neither of us is homophobic if that is your worry. I have homosexuals that I call friends, and my daughters first room mate was a gay male friend from high school. No big. He was kind of a wimp though. I told him if there was ever trouble in the apartment to scream loudly, and to duck when he saw the bright light with the little red dot in the center, cause that meant my little girl was there to save him. That part is not a joke.

Oh, there is no doubt that she is her own person, but she's not a hater. She seems to be tolerant of all religions, even respectful. I'm kind of proud of her. She's been around the world, and she's a tough cookie. She has ridden to school with Armed soldiers on the bus, a gun truck fore and aft. She still tells stories of the machine gun emplacement right off our ground floor balcony, and how we used to take soup, hot chocolate and coffee to the soldiers guarding our housing area in Germany when it was cold outside.

I'd be just as ticked of the teacher taught any form of bigotry. I've had a lot of interesting discussions with school officials. Not about religion though, about the right to self defense a few times......:whistling:
Those discussions I've had with my children directly. They are free to choose their own path, as long as they ae happy with their choice, I am, as long as that includes respecting religions, and spotting the extremists.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 21:03
You're wrong. The whole point is that my position is the only one with any evidence to support it.
That isn't relevant to the fact there's no evidence to support ID.
But for ID to be true there needs to be evidence to that effect. There is none.
How is my position unfounded? Do you, unlike the Discovery Institute and Co., have evidence that ID is accurate?

What evidence shows that no god has ever existed?
What evidence shows that someone or something did not light the fuse on the big bang?
What evidence shows that there is no design to life?

In support of intelligent design, is the amazing complexity of life. The simplest structures are amazingly complex. The symbiosis of distant parts of the same organism, and the symbiosis between organisms is also very complex.

Peruse this diagram for a while. http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl?2

So, to me, it's possible. Not certain. That applies to both atheism and theism. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

In the absence of evidence, briefly present both sides, and move on to the next subject.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 21:30
What evidence shows that no god has ever existed?
What evidence shows that someone or something did not light the fuse on the big bang?
What evidence shows that there is no design to life? Evidence something didn't happen is an absurd request. What evidence shows that pixies aren't responsible for everything we see and experience? Since there is no such a-pixiest evidence, will you now insist we add "the actions of pixies" to the science curriculum?
In support of intelligent design, is the amazing complexity of life. The simplest structures are amazingly complex. The symbiosis of distant parts of the same organism, and the symbiosis between organisms is also very complex. An argument from personal incredulity is not evidence.
Peruse this diagram for a while. http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl?2 Nonetheless, your personal inability to comprehend how it happened without divine intervention isn't evidence of such actions. Maybe it was pixies.
So, to me, it's possible. Not certain. That applies to both atheism and theism. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

In the absence of evidence, briefly present both sides, and move on to the next subject. In the absence of evidence, it isn't science. If it isn't science, it doesn't belong in science classes.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 21:44
:rofl:

Looks like we are going to have to disagree.

It's an argument from ignorance vs an argument from incredulity. Both sides have to make a choice. I've said that since there is no evidence either way, either is possible. You made your choice, and only want that side taught. I'd prefer it was neutral, and somehow that makes me the unreasonable one.

:wavey:

ksg0245
07-05-2012, 21:59
What evidence shows that no god has ever existed?

Who has claimed evidence shows no god has ever existed?

What evidence shows that someone or something did not light the fuse on the big bang?
What evidence shows that there is no design to life?

What evidence is there of a designer?

Since there is no evidence of a designer, why posit one?

In support of intelligent design, is the amazing complexity of life.

How is the complexity of life evidence of intelligent design?

Since the complexity of life isn't evidence of a designer, why posit one?

The simplest structures are amazingly complex.

Is complexity evidence of a designer?

If complexity isn't evidence of a designer, why posit one?

The symbiosis of distant parts of the same organism, and the symbiosis between organisms is also very complex.

What evidence do you have that complexity requires intelligent design?

Since complexity doesn't require a designer, why posit one?

Peruse this diagram for a while. http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl?2

So, to me, it's possible. Not certain. That applies to both atheism and theism. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Who has claimed deities aren't possible?

Should anything that's possible be taught as science regardless the improbability and lack of evidence?

In the absence of evidence, briefly present both sides, and move on to the next subject.

The problem is that there isn't an absence of evidence for one of the sides, but there is an absence of evidence for the other.

Blast
07-05-2012, 21:59
:rofl:

Looks like we are going to have to disagree.

It's an argument from ignorance vs an argument from incredulity. Both sides have to make a choice. I've said that since there is no evidence either way, either is possible. You made your choice, and only want that side taught. I'd prefer it was neutral, and somehow that makes me the unreasonable one.

:wavey:
Don't you know AM has all the answers?:rofl:
After all, he says gay is natural and normal.
There is no evidence for that. In fact, evolution is evidence that he and the gay agenda is wrong.
Evolution does not provide for gay. Gay is purely psychological.
Speaking from an evolution standpoint, if gay was normal and natural, evolution would have caused adaptation for gays. There hasn't been. If gay has been around since the beginning, why hasn't evolution caused physical changes in gay men? There is no physical difference between gay men/women and normal men/women.
Evolution HAS made woman for man and man for woman. That is what's natural and normal.
Women's genitalia is designed for sex, a rectum is not. Medical fact.
Don't listen to the gay propagandists. They lie to further their agenda.

ksg0245
07-05-2012, 22:00
:rofl:

Looks like we are going to have to disagree.

It's an argument from ignorance vs an argument from incredulity. Both sides have to make a choice. I've said that since there is no evidence either way, either is possible. You made your choice, and only want that side taught. I'd prefer it was neutral, and somehow that makes me the unreasonable one.

:wavey:

"No evidence either way" is an incorrect statement.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 22:02
:rofl:

Looks like we are going to have to disagree. Apparently.
It's an argument from ignorance vs an argument from incredulity. Both sides have to make a choice. I've said that since there is no evidence either way, either is possible. You made your choice, and only want that side taught. I'd prefer it was neutral, and somehow that makes me the unreasonable one.

:wavey: You keep saying there's no evidence either way. That isn't true. There are huge amounts of evidence, all of which supports the naturalistic scientific position. That doesn't mean deities don't exist, it doesn't mean intelligent design isn't correct. What it means is that all of the available evidence, literally all of it, supports the scientific position. Unless and until there is some evidence (other than, "I just can't believe it happened without intelligent intervention) to support ID and theistic positions, they don't belong in science classes.

ksg0245
07-05-2012, 22:02
Don't you know AM has all the answers?:rofl:
After all, he says gay is natural and normal.
There is no evidence for that. In fact, evolution is evidence that he and the gay agenda is wrong.
Evolution does not provide for gay. Gay is purely psychological.
Speaking from an evolution standpoint, if gay was normal and natural, evolution would have caused adaptation for gays. There hasn't been. If gay has been around since the beginning, why hasn't evolution caused physical changes in gay men? There is no physical difference between gay men/women and normal men/women.
Evolution HAS made woman for man and man for woman. That is what's natural and normal.
A ****** is designed for sex, a rectum is not. Medical fact.
Don't listen to the gay propagandists. They lie to further their agenda.

So all the homosexual activity in non-human animals isn't evidence homosexuality is natural?

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 22:03
Gay is purely psychological. I'm sure you have evidence to support this claim. Not rambling homophobic nonsense, but actual evidence.

Blast
07-05-2012, 22:06
So all the homosexual activity in non-human animals isn't evidence homosexuality is natural?
Have already been over that.
What you think is gay animal sex is nothing more than bio-chemical.
Do I have to show you vids of animals humping other animals of different species, inanimate objects, even trying to hump humans?
It's pheromones that drive animal sex, NOT CONSCIOUS DESIRE AND CHOICE.:upeyes:

Some of you folks are over the edge.:rofl:

ksg0245
07-05-2012, 22:07
Atheism is also a faith based pseudo-science. Exclude them all, an teach what is known, avoid teaching the unknown as fact.

Atheism is the rejection of an unsupported assertion.

Kind of like how science rejects unsupported assertions.

Neither requires faith.

Where exactly is the unknown being taught as fact? What exactly is being taught as fact that isn't known?

Blast
07-05-2012, 22:08
I'm sure you have evidence to support this claim. Not rambling homophobic nonsense, but actual evidence.
Do you have evidence Against? And not just rambling gay propaganda?:yawn:

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 22:11
Do you have evidence Against? And not just rambling gay propaganda?:yawn: Once again, not that it ever gets old, you're the one making the positive claim, "Gay is purely psychological." It falls to you to defend that claim.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 22:12
Have already been over that.
What you think is gay animal sex is nothing more than bio-chemical.
Do I have to show you vids of animals humping other animals of different species, inanimate objects, even trying to hump humans?
It's pheromones that drive animal sex, NOT CONSCIOUS DESIRE AND CHOICE. If pheromones are what drive animal sex, doesn't that imply a requirement for females to be present, to provide the female pheromones?

ksg0245
07-05-2012, 22:12
Have already been over that.

I don't see it covered here.

What you think is gay animal sex is nothing more than bio-chemical.

And your evidence that isn't the case in humans?

Do I have to show you vids of animals humping other animals of different species, inanimate objects, even trying to hump humans?

You don't have to do anything. If you have actual evidence to support your assertion that homosexuality isn't normal and natural, as opposed to unsupported assertions, feel free to present it.

It's pheromones that drive animal sex, NOT CONSCIOUS DESIRE AND CHOICE.:upeyes:

Some of you folks are over the edge.:rofl:

Did you chose to be heterosexual?

So you're an expert in animal psychology and physiology? You know what animals are thinking?

Blast
07-05-2012, 22:38
Once again, not that it ever gets old, you're the one making the positive claim, "Gay is purely psychological." It falls to you to defend that claim.
I don't have to defend what is fact. You have the burden to disprove my claim.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 22:40
I don't have to defend what is fact. You have the burden to disprove my claim.Ok. Homosexuality in humans is a not fully understood combination of physical, genetic, environmental and other factors. This is a fact. Since my fact is a fact, your fact is not a fact.

Your claim is disproven.

Blast
07-05-2012, 22:43
If pheromones are what drive animal sex, doesn't that imply a requirement for females to be present, to provide the female pheromones?
As has been illustrated in that other thread where this was covered, pheromones travel on the air for miles. Receptors in the nasal passages of animals pick these up triggering a sexual response. If no females are present, then it's what's available at the moment.
It's that simple. Science proves it.

Blast
07-05-2012, 22:44
Ok. Homosexuality in humans is a not fully understood combination of physical, genetic, environmental and other factors. This is a fact. Since my fact is a fact, your fact is not a fact.

Your claim is disproven.
No it isn't.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 22:49
As has been illustrated in that other thread where this was covered, pheromones travel on the air for miles. Receptors in the nasal passages of animals pick these up triggering a sexual response. If no females are present, then it's what's available at the moment.
It's that simple. Science proves it. I'm beginning to think you aren't really clear on the concept of "proves" but why don't you share your evidence from the scientific literature and we'll review it together.

Gunhaver
07-05-2012, 22:59
Have already been over that.
What you think is gay animal sex is nothing more than bio-chemical.
Do I have to show you vids of animals humping other animals of different species, inanimate objects, even trying to hump humans?
It's pheromones that drive animal sex, NOT CONSCIOUS DESIRE AND CHOICE.:upeyes:

Some of you folks are over the edge.:rofl:

I'd show you videos of humans humping animals of other species, inanimate objects and other humans but I'm sure a repressed guy like you already knows where to find them. Humans are animals. You think humans aren't affected by pheromones? You think animal sexuality is only affected by pheromones? Or are you saying we are and should make a conscious choice to not act on them if the details of that act would make Blast uncomfortable?

Natural? Who cares about natural? You'd be hard pressed to find anything people do anymore that's natural.

If you hook wires up to the sexual pleasure center of lab animals and give them a button to push that will induce an orgasm they will push that button until they pass out or die. No pheromones needed. Sex is about doing something that evolution has made pleasurable for us to so we would do it since reproduction is the key to evolution.

Face it dude, nobody gives a hotwired gay rat's ass what you think about their sex life and they never will.

Blast
07-05-2012, 23:11
I don't see it covered here.



And your evidence that isn't the case in humans?



You don't have to do anything. If you have actual evidence to support your assertion that homosexuality isn't normal and natural, as opposed to unsupported assertions, feel free to present it.



Did you chose to be heterosexual?

So you're an expert in animal psychology and physiology? You know what animals are thinking?
Again, evolution is my evidence. Again, female genitalia is designed to accommodate male genitalia. A rectum is designed to expel solid waste matter, NOT to accommodate male genitalia.
Humans are the only species who choose to have sex. Fact of nature.
I know enough about animals to know what I'm talking about.
I've spent many years observing and researching animals and nature.



Here's some vids. :yawn:

Bull humps Farmer - YouTube

Dog humping a cat - YouTube

Huge Dog Humps Old Woman - Very Funny! - YouTube

Lovers! Dog Humps Cat - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hHNJRMOmUaU

lulu & her "little buddy" dog humps cat - YouTube

dog humping doll (very funny) - YouTube

Dog Humping to Benny Hill - YouTube


There's lots more.

Blast
07-05-2012, 23:26
I'd show you videos of humans humping animals of other species, inanimate objects and other humans but I'm sure a repressed guy like you already knows where to find them. Humans are animals. You think humans aren't affected by pheromones? You think animal sexuality is only affected by pheromones? Or are you saying we are and should make a conscious choice to not act on them if the details of that act would make Blast uncomfortable?

Natural? Who cares about natural? You'd be hard pressed to find anything people do anymore that's natural.

If you hook wires up to the sexual pleasure center of lab animals and give them a button to push that will induce an orgasm they will push that button until they pass out or die. No pheromones needed. Sex is about doing something that evolution has made pleasurable for us to so we would do it since reproduction is the key to evolution.

Face it dude, nobody gives a hotwired gay rat's ass what you think about their sex life and they never will.
Oh my... the little troll is upset:crying: Go cry emo kid.
I've seen your trolling in PI and they made short work of your antics. You have a talent for making a fool of yourself.
Hooking of wires to the brains of lab animals to induce a pleasurable response etc., of course they would keep doing it, just as if it was a food dispenser. That is a desperate attempt at debunkery.:rofl:
Humans to a slight degree are influenced by human pheromones, but are more influenced by visual cues and physical contact. Animals are purely influenced by their pheromones.

Far more people are straight and normal than twisted and gay.

:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:11
Apparently.
You keep saying there's no evidence either way. That isn't true. There are huge amounts of evidence, all of which supports the naturalistic scientific position. That doesn't mean deities don't exist, it doesn't mean intelligent design isn't correct. What it means is that all of the available evidence, literally all of it, supports the scientific position. Unless and until there is some evidence (other than, "I just can't believe it happened without intelligent intervention) to support ID and theistic positions, they don't belong in science classes.

I'm starting to believe that you aren't able to see the leap of faith you are making in that statement.

First, if a consciousness lit the fuse on the big bang, that would not be supernatural. If it happened, it would have happened within the nature of things.

I can believe that it happened without intervention. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a design either. Both are possible.

Nothing concerning the possible existance of deities should be taught as fact, or given more likely status in public schools.

I know that you think it's proper for your system of beliefs to be taught as fact, and all other opposing views excluded. That is the crux of our disagreement.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:16
Who has claimed evidence shows no god has ever existed?



What evidence is there of a designer?

Since there is no evidence of a designer, why posit one?



How is the complexity of life evidence of intelligent design?

Since the complexity of life isn't evidence of a designer, why posit one?



Is complexity evidence of a designer?

If complexity isn't evidence of a designer, why posit one?



What evidence do you have that complexity requires intelligent design?

Since complexity doesn't require a designer, why posit one?



Who has claimed deities aren't possible?

Should anything that's possible be taught as science regardless the improbability and lack of evidence?



The problem is that there isn't an absence of evidence for one of the sides, but there is an absence of evidence for the other.
See post 30

The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:21
"No evidence either way" is an incorrect statement.

Prove it.


A lack of knowledge about how the universe came to be exists. There is no evidence of what caused that event.

If some people want to believe it was an inteligence that set it off, that's ok. If some want to believe it just happened, that's ok too. Neither should be presented as more plausible in a public school. Even playing field.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:27
Ok. Homosexuality in humans is a not fully understood combination of physical, genetic, environmental and other factors. This is a fact. Since my fact is a fact, your fact is not a fact.

Your claim is disproven.

I see how you come to conclusions is not limited to atheism.

The red admits an unknown, the blue (after a leap of faith) declares an absolute, and evidently a strong need to always be right and/or a need to believe others are wrong and you are superior. I'd suspect that this is a consistent trait. Can I ask, do you feel uncomfortable when you are uncertain about a topic?

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:32
Atheism is the rejection of an unsupported assertion.

Kind of like how science rejects unsupported assertions.

Neither requires faith.

Where exactly is the unknown being taught as fact? What exactly is being taught as fact that isn't known?

You do not know that no deity exists, yet you support that unproven assertion as fact in schools?

Try that I reverse in your head, see if it makes sense then.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 06:41
I see how you come to conclusions is not limited to atheism.

The red admits an unknown, the blue (after a leap of faith) declares an absolute, and evidently a strong need to always be right and/or a need to believe others are wrong and you are superior. I'd suspect that this is a consistent trait. Can I ask, do you feel uncomfortable when you are uncertain about a topic?
The red is a statement of the current knowledge about homosexuality in humans. The blue is sarcasm directed at Blast's insistence that his baseless assertions be accepted as fact.

To answer your question, no I don't. I view it as an opportunity to learn, if the topic interests me.

Now a question for you. Why do you find it so necessary to constantly misrepresent not only your opponent's positions, but the state of human knowledge to prop up your untenable positions? Is being right more important to you than the truth?

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:47
Alright, my 2 cents on the gay issue. Gay happens. It happens in nature, therefore it is natural. There are problems with gay that other people have. The gay people don't have much emotional problem with being gay, other than a resentment towards those that disapprove. The problems others have is that it does not lead to procreation. There are some diseases (physical and infectious) more prevalent in practitioners of anal sex, which happens in both homosexual and heterosexual hookups.

If you are gay, I have no problem with that. I'm not afraid of turning gay or being infected with that. I do still cringe a little when I unexpectedly see two guys kiss. That must be natural too, cause it happens in nature. Some religions believe it is a sin. They have a right to believe that, but don't treat gays badly because of it. In the USA, a lot of gays are very anti-Christian, so the favor is returned. They disagree openly.

I personally have no big problem with gay marriage, but being the eternal pragmatist, believe they should be fighting for civil unions with ALL the same benefits of marriage. A rose by any other name.

eracer
07-06-2012, 06:47
Maybe not a science, but it is a faith based decision, a choice.

Theism and atheism are both theories, neither is based on science.There is no need to scientifically test atheism, and no way to scientifically test theism.

Neither atheism nor theism have anything to do with the science of evolution, other than in a purely philosophical way.

The rejection of ID is not a rejection of faith - it is a rejection of the introduction of non-scientific belief systems into science courses in schools whose curricula are protected against such things by the Constitution.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 06:49
I'm starting to believe that you aren't able to see the leap of faith you are making in that statement.

First, if a consciousness lit the fuse on the big bang, that would not be supernatural. If it happened, it would have happened within the nature of things.

I can believe that it happened without intervention. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a design either. Both are possible.

Nothing concerning the possible existance of deities should be taught as fact, or given more likely status in public schools.

I know that you think it's proper for your system of beliefs to be taught as fact, and all other opposing views excluded. That is the crux of our disagreement.No, it isn't. This should be clear since I've explicitly stated it many times.

Here for example:
You're apparently projecting from an anecdotal personal experience, one which has not been the experience of a number of other commentators. Science teachers shouldn't mention God, one way or the other, they should teach science. However, your experience of having a teacher tell you God did not exist both does not logically follow from god being unnecessary and doesn't constitute evidence of some atheist conspiracy.

More to the point, the overwhelming evidence does show a concerted effort by ID and YEC advocates to force their viewpoints into the science curriculum despite the complete lack of evidence for either claim.

I'm not saying that it's impossible someone or something "lit the match" as you put it, something else I've explicitly stated more than once. I'm saying there's no evidence that such a thing happened.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 06:50
The red is a statement of the current knowledge about homosexuality in humans. The blue is sarcasm directed at Blast's insistence that his baseless assertions be accepted as fact.

To answer your question, no I don't. I view it as an opportunity to learn, if the topic interests me.

Now a question for you. Why do you find it so necessary to constantly misrepresent not only your opponent's positions, but the state of human knowledge to prop up your untenable positions? Is being right more important to you than the truth?


The red is an admission of ignorance.

Maybe you and I just think differently. And I'm not talking about the conclusions we reach, I'm talking about the process used to get to those conclusions.

My methods are perfectly clear and valid to me.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 06:55
The red is an admission of ignorance.

Maybe you and I just think differently. And I'm not talking about the conclusions we reach, I'm talking about the process used to get to those conclusions.

My methods are perfectly clear and valid to me.
I don't doubt that at all, they just aren't valid from any objective evaluation. When you have to completely misrepresent the opposing statements to give your position even the illusion of rationality, you should recognize it has problems. Sadly, it appears you don't.

Gunhaver
07-06-2012, 07:20
Again, evolution is my evidence. Again, female genitalia is designed to accommodate male genitalia. A rectum is designed to expel solid waste matter, NOT to accommodate male genitalia.
Humans are the only species who choose to have sex. Fact of nature.
I know enough about animals to know what I'm talking about.
I've spent many years observing and researching animals and nature.



Here's some vids. :yawn:

Bull humps Farmer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qlIwtqi2lI)

Dog humping a cat - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij-AQIw4bl8)

Huge Dog Humps Old Woman - Very Funny! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAmdwLq__uM)

Lovers! Dog Humps Cat - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_4J8MgVyqI)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hHNJRMOmUaU

lulu & her "little buddy" dog humps cat - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm5ftsczHHU&feature=related)

dog humping doll (very funny) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB7dR17zT0s)

Dog Humping to Benny Hill - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBkHiz9r7Hw)


There's lots more.

What is it with you and the animal hump videos? So the doll and the stuffed pink panther were sprayed with pheromones?

The real question here is, What does it matter? What significance is it to you if two guys go at it? If two hundred guys go at it? If it becomes fully accepted and the number of gays skyrockets to 20%?

What clicked in your head that made you so invested in what folks that aren't you are doing with their junk?

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 07:55
I don't doubt that at all, they just aren't valid from any objective evaluation. When you have to completely misrepresent the opposing statements to give your position even the illusion of rationality, you should recognize it has problems. Sadly, it appears you don't.

There's that over riding to be correct, and others to be wrong again.

My objective evaluation has concluded that they are valid methods. Therefore there is at least one. Therefore you are incorrect.

You are a zealot, and I get that. I just don't think you either see it, or are willing to admit it.

Science flourishes when other ideas are allowed to exist..... As long as they are only your ideas? Right?


You see no problem with that at all? Again, very interesting.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 08:10
There is no need to scientifically test atheism, and no way to scientifically test theism.

Neither atheism nor theism have anything to do with the science of evolution, other than in a purely philosophical way.

The rejection of ID is not a rejection of faith - it is a rejection of the introduction of non-scientific belief systems into science courses in schools whose curricula are protected against such things by the Constitution.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://www.internationalchurchofatheism.com/


Well then, let's enforce the constitution. Separation of all churches. Leave that particular topic off the table. Telling kids that science shows there is no god is no worse than forced prayer to Jesus.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 08:20
There's that over riding to be correct, and others to be wrong again. No, it isn't. Though this is yet another example of your need to disparage others.
My objective evaluation has concluded that they are valid methods. Therefore there is at least one. Therefore you are incorrect. Your evaluation is entirely subjective, as you've made clear again and again. It's based on anecdotes and feelings, not evidence.
You are a zealot, and I get that. I just don't think you either see it, or are willing to admit it. Of course I'm a zealot. It should be obvious at this point that I'm very zealous about seeing that science is part of science classes and baseless superstition is not.
Science flourishes when other ideas are allowed to exist..... As long as they are only your ideas? Right?
Wrong again. I'm open to any ideas, even those I don't think are accurate, as long as they have evidence to support them. Not "it's just too incredible", not "I just don't believe it could be...." but evidence.
You see no problem with that at all? Again, very interesting.The problem I see is your ongoing inability to accept answers you don't like or to address what other people actually are saying instead of what you wish they'd say.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 08:21
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://www.internationalchurchofatheism.com/


Well then, let's enforce the constitution. Separation of all churches. Leave that particular topic off the table. Telling kids that science shows there is no god is no worse than forced prayer to Jesus. Who, in this thread or in any of the others where you've trotted out your absurdist claims, is advocating telling kids in public science classes that there is no god?

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 08:56
Who, in this thread or in any of the others where you've trotted out your absurdist claims, is advocating telling kids in public science classes that there is no god?

The truth is out there.

eracer
07-06-2012, 08:58
Who, in this thread or in any of the others where you've trotted out your absurdist claims, is advocating telling kids in public science classes that there is no god?Indeed.

eracer
07-06-2012, 09:03
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://www.internationalchurchofatheism.com/


Well then, let's enforce the constitution. Separation of all churches. Leave that particular topic off the table. Telling kids that science shows there is no god is no worse than forced prayer to Jesus.I fully support leaving the discussion of ID out of the realm of scientific study in public educational institutions.

It's not science.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 09:09
The truth is out there.Great, then it should be a snap for you to answer the question.

eracer
07-06-2012, 09:16
:innocent:http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://www.internationalchurchofatheism.com/


Well then, let's enforce the constitution. Separation of all churches. Leave that particular topic off the table. Telling kids that science shows there is no god is no worse than forced prayer to Jesus.Some guy decides to start a church based on atheism, and you claim that atheism is a religion? That's sophomoric - especially for someone as intelligent as you.

:bowdown:

Here another made-up church.

Flip Wilson Show - The Church Of What's Happening Now - YouTube

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 10:02
:innocent:Some guy decides to start a church based on atheism, and you claim that atheism is a religion? That's sophomoric - especially for someone as intelligent as you.

:bowdown:

Here another made-up church.

Flip Wilson Show - The Church Of What's Happening Now - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJati2W7uA)


I thought from an atheist perspective, all churches were made up.

So, why does the constitution apply to one and not another.

eracer
07-06-2012, 10:07
I thought from an atheist perspective, all churches were made up.

So, why does the constitution apply to one and not another.Are you confusing agnosticism with atheism? Atheism is not a religion. We've been through this already.

As to your original question...

I wouldn't know - I'm not an atheist.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 10:57
Great, then it should be a snap for you to answer the question.

I personally remember such statements. My kids have reported them to me too. That's good enough for me.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 10:59
Are you confusing agnosticism with atheism? Atheism is not a religion. We've been through this already.

As to your original question...

I wouldn't know - I'm not an atheist.

Separation of church and state should include all churches, agreed?

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 11:11
I personally remember such statements. My kids have reported them to me too. That's good enough for me.It appears you've already forgotten the question. Odd that you're so quick to disparage others when your own memory and ability to scroll up a few posts is so sorely lacking. Let me repeat it for you. I'll even bold the most relevant part:
Who, in this thread or in any of the others where you've trotted out your absurdist claims, is advocating telling kids in public science classes that there is no god?

I eagerly await your reply.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 14:54
It appears you've already forgotten the question. Odd that you're so quick to disparage others when your own memory and ability to scroll up a few posts is so sorely lacking. Let me repeat it for you. I'll even bold the most relevant part:


I eagerly await your reply.

I guess none have said that in those words, but it has been implied by the repeated resistance to leaving the discussion on whether there is or is not a deity involved in the beginning of the universe to the family and others, while leaving that discussion out of the school.

ksg0245
07-06-2012, 17:39
You do not know that no deity exists, yet you support that unproven assertion as fact in schools?

I do, really? Thanks for telling me.

You've repeatedly asserted that atheism is being taught in schools. Please support that assertion with something other than your unsupported assertion.

Try that I reverse in your head, see if it makes sense then.

Well, that sentence doesn't make sense; was something left out?

ksg0245
07-06-2012, 17:42
I guess none have said that in those words, but it has been implied by the repeated resistance to leaving the discussion on whether there is or is not a deity involved in the beginning of the universe to the family and others, while leaving that discussion out of the school.

When there is evidence a deity was involved in the beginning of the Universe, it can be taught as science. Until then, it can be discussed in a class like philosophy.

ksg0245
07-06-2012, 17:49
Prove it.

Cosmic background radiation.

Transitional fossils.

Age of the earth.

A lack of knowledge about how the universe came to be exists. There is no evidence of what caused that event.

I agree.

If some people want to believe it was an inteligence that set it off, that's ok. If some want to believe it just happened, that's ok too. Neither should be presented as more plausible in a public school. Even playing field.

Wrong. There is evidence things can "just happen." It's been discussed in GTRI before. There is no evidence for deities.

ksg0245
07-06-2012, 17:52
See post 30

The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.

Post 30 doesn't appear to address any of the points you just dodged. Perhaps you could be more specific.

ksg0245
07-06-2012, 17:58
Again, evolution is my evidence.

How is evolution evidence that homosexuality is unnatural?

Again, female genitalia is designed to accommodate male genitalia.

No, but it is evolved.

A rectum is designed to expel solid waste matter, NOT to accommodate male genitalia.

Then why does male genitalia fit?

You're aware anal sex isn't exclusively a homosexual activity, right?


Humans are the only species who choose to have sex. Fact of nature.

Nope, that's called an unsupported assertion. The fact that animals engage in same-sex activities is evidence that animals choose to have sex for other than procreative reasons.

I know enough about animals to know what I'm talking about.

It's sad you think that.

I've spent many years observing and researching animals and nature.

Looking at youtube animal sex isn't really research.

Here's some vids. :yawn:

Yawn is right; videos of animals having sex doesn't say anything either way about homosexuality being normal or natural.

Gunhaver
07-06-2012, 19:29
How is evolution evidence that homosexuality is unnatural?



No, but it is evolved.



Then why does male genitalia fit?

You're aware anal sex isn't exclusively a homosexual activity, right?



Nope, that's called an unsupported assertion. The fact that animals engage in same-sex activities is evidence that animals choose to have sex for other than procreative reasons.



It's sad you think that.



Looking at youtube animal sex isn't really research.



Yawn is right; videos of animals having sex doesn't say anything either way about homosexuality being normal or natural.

I think we're wasting our time trying to get him to expound on any of that. Seems perfectly logical to him. Homosexuality is unnatural, doggy hump videos (lots of doggy hump videos and more on tap if that wasn't enough) and his personal "observations" of animals humping proves it and we all have mental issues. How could he possibly make it any clearer.
:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 20:19
Post 30 doesn't appear to address any of the points you just dodged. Perhaps you could be more specific.

Or you could just spit it out and ask what you want to know without preconditions or limits in the answers you'll accept.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 20:21
Cosmic background radiation.

Transitional fossils.

Age of the earth.



I agree.



Wrong. There is evidence things can "just happen." It's been discussed in GTRI before. There is no evidence for deities.


Ha ha ha. So if there is background radiation, there can be no deities? There is a leap of faith there, whether you see it or not.

Things may appear to "just happen". Ok. Are things required to just happen? It is an unknown, and you've chosen what to believe, it's ok, I support that choice. Be comfortable in your own skin.

Gunhaver
07-06-2012, 20:34
Ha ha ha. So if there is background radiation, there can be no deities? There is a leap of faith there, whether you see it or not.

Deities are just made up explanations that were handed to us as answers to questions we couldn't answer yet. Now we're answering them and the god of the gaps is getting smaller every day. He just shrunk a little bit more with the confirmation of the god particle a few days ago.

You can claim that those old myths with no basis in fact are just as valid as modern scientific discoveries. You can pretend that absolute lack of evidence is the same as 99% certainty just because they are both not 100% certainty. Hell, you can go ahead and dream up any old crazy scenario you like and claim validity for it because nobody can disprove it. Go ahead if that's all you have to cling to.

It seems that fewer and fewer people every day are buying that line.

Kingarthurhk
07-06-2012, 21:07
Step 1:

Prove that there was in fact an "Intelligent Designer".

Until Step 1 has been accomplished, do not attempt to proceed to Step 2.

I guess that rules out the teaching of macro evolution then.

Kingarthurhk
07-06-2012, 21:10
I thought from an atheist perspective, all churches were made up.

So, why does the constitution apply to one and not another.

Because, sadly those who believe they are right typically want to force everyone to edure their "rightness" rather than allow people to pursue rightness without compulsion.

Which is the ironic thing. The greatest evils in human history have been about people forcing their "rightness" on others.

Gunhaver
07-06-2012, 21:19
I guess that rules out the teaching of macro evolution then.

You want to go there again? There's a question that's been floating around here and it's being avoided by the anti-evolutionists like the plague. I'm sure you know the question I'm referring to.

9jeeps
07-06-2012, 21:29
I still say atheist don't exist. They just think differently. It's an ego thing.

Doggie humping or cattle humping is merely a sign that they would be interested in having sex. With most anything.

Men and women do this too. And do have sex with most anything. I've yet to see any pregnancy from Man on man or woman on woman.

Same with atheist on atheist.
It's a lot of fun for the participants but accomplishes nothing.:rofl:

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 21:37
I guess none have said that in those words, but it has been implied by the repeated resistance to leaving the discussion on whether there is or is not a deity involved in the beginning of the universe to the family and others, while leaving that discussion out of the school.Very well then, who has resisted the idea of "leaving the discussion on whether there is or is not a deity involved in the beginning of the universe to the family and others"?

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 07:17
Very well then, who has resisted the idea of "leaving the discussion on whether there is or is not a deity involved in the beginning of the universe to the family and others"?

If you'll attempt to be an objective observer of the thread, you'll see the resistance I've gotten since I brought it up.

:wavey:


What I've seen is that one side wants it their way, and only their way. There have been plenty of claims that there is evidence that Atheism is the one true faith, proven by science.

Which is incorrect of course. Background radiation, carbon dating, the fossil record are all observations from now, that give an impression of the past, and require interpretation. I deal with highly trained observers on a daily basis, and you'd be surprised how often their assessment isn't quite right, even after a thorough subjective and objective examination of the available evidence. Looking at lights or other electromagnetic radiation in the sky and noticing how they move, ebb and flow, then using that, no matter how precisely you look at them to conclude that this proves there is or is not a god requires a special something.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Untitled-1.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 07:26
I still say atheist don't exist. They just think differently. It's an ego thing.

Doggie humping or cattle humping is merely a sign that they would be interested in having sex. With most anything.

Men and women do this too. And do have sex with most anything. I've yet to see any pregnancy from Man on man or woman on woman.

Same with atheist on atheist.
It's a lot of fun for the participants but accomplishes nothing.:rofl:

Funny. 9Jeeps, could I ask a favor. I really like that slide you have, as an avatar. Any chance I could talk you into sending me a link to it so I could use it in a class I am giving on wound ballistics and the selection of defensive handguns.

Thanks,

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 08:33
If you'll attempt to be an objective observer of the thread, you'll see the resistance I've gotten since I brought it up. I haven't seen anything of the sort. Perhaps you could quote some specific posts in this instance.
What I've seen is that one side wants it their way, and only their way. There have been plenty of claims that there is evidence that Atheism is the one true faith, proven by science. Where have these claims appeared?
Which is incorrect of course. Background radiation, carbon dating, the fossil record are all observations from now, that give an impression of the past, and require interpretation. I deal with highly trained observers on a daily basis, and you'd be surprised how often their assessment isn't quite right, even after a thorough subjective and objective examination of the available evidence. Looking at lights or other electromagnetic radiation in the sky and noticing how they move, ebb and flow, then using that, no matter how precisely you look at them to conclude that this proves there is or is not a god requires a special something. You keep repeating things like this and yet you appear to completely miss the response you get in return. I'll try again. Produce some evidence for a position different from or even contrary to the accepted scientific consensus and it will receive due consideration. That hasn't happened. Unless and until it does, there's absolutely no reason to admit baseless claims utterly lacking in evidence to the discussion or the science classroom.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 09:10
Apparently.
You keep saying there's no evidence either way. That isn't true. There are huge amounts of evidence, all of which supports the naturalistic scientific position. That doesn't mean deities don't exist, it doesn't mean intelligent design isn't correct. What it means is that all of the available evidence, literally all of it, supports the scientific position.

First thing to note, is that the entirety of human existence is not included in this thread. Second is that science is being used to pretend that it supports atheism, which it most certainly does not, to the objective observer. The question remains unanswered, unless you've made a leap of faith... then you have an answer you can believe in.

You'll probably not be able to admit that this is what you were asking me to produce, but that's OK. Science does not equal atheism, but it is being taught that way.

If you want to, you could have easily found other examples. HERE (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheism+taught+in+school)

steveksux
07-07-2012, 10:26
Great, then it should be a snap for you to answer the question.Apparently not so easy to answer it honestly.

Teaching kids there is no God is not science. Doesn't belong in science class. As you've pointed out. Logic does not dissuade a troll though.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 11:52
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs19/f/2007/260/a/4/Don__t_you_ignore_me_by_CookiemagiK.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/157/4/f/Don__t_ignore_me___Revamped_by_KinnisonArc.gif

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/302/9/e/_ignore__by_evicted.gif

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/156/e/e/Don__t_you_ignore_me_revamp_by_LedMaiden.gif

ksg0245
07-07-2012, 12:34
Or you could just spit it out and ask what you want to know without preconditions or limits in the answers you'll accept.

At the moment what I'd like to know is which part of post 30 addresses any of my points in post 36.

ksg0245
07-07-2012, 12:40
Ha ha ha. So if there is background radiation, there can be no deities?

I've never claimed backgroud radiation was evidence of the nonexistence of deities. Why would I start now?

There is a leap of faith there, whether you see it or not.

Well, I see you making a leap of faith. Is that what you meant?

Things may appear to "just happen". Ok. Are things required to just happen?

Depends on what you mean be "required," but yes, things are required to happen.

It is an unknown, and you've chosen what to believe, it's ok, I support that choice.

You still haven't answered the question "Do you chose to believe in gravity?"

I have faith you never will.

Be comfortable in your own skin.

I am, but thanks for the advice.

ksg0245
07-07-2012, 12:46
I guess that rules out the teaching of macro evolution then.

Why disregard the evidence?

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 12:48
I've never claimed backgroud radiation was evidence of the nonexistence of deities. Why would I start now?


Start with post 38, then follow it back to here.

ksg0245
07-07-2012, 12:52
Start with post 38, then follow it back to here.

Sorry, no; wasting time on another of your wild goose chases isn't high on my list of priorities. If you think I've claimed background radiation disproves deities, produce the post.

Lone Wolf8634
07-07-2012, 14:39
In a philosophy course, or better yet, in a class I took in HS called "Mythologies of the World". Thats where it belongs.

When evidence arises, that support ID, than it could be included in science classes. Until then, its a myth. No different from all of the myths that came before it, and surely no different than all to come after it. Despite ridiculous claims that it deserves equal attention.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 15:02
Sorry, no; wasting time on another of your wild goose chases isn't high on my list of priorities. If you think I've claimed background radiation disproves deities, produce the post.

Well, since you need someone to hold your hand and walk you though all three pages... :upeyes:


:rofl:

Looks like we are going to have to disagree.

It's an argument from ignorance vs an argument from incredulity. Both sides have to make a choice. I've said that since there is no evidence either way, either is possible. You made your choice, and only want that side taught. I'd prefer it was neutral, and somehow that makes me the unreasonable one.

:wavey:

"No evidence either way" is an incorrect statement.



Prove it.


A lack of knowledge about how the universe came to be exists. There is no evidence of what caused that event.

If some people want to believe it was an inteligence that set it off, that's ok. If some want to believe it just happened, that's ok too. Neither should be presented as more plausible in a public school. Even playing field.




Cosmic background radiation.

Transitional fossils.

Age of the earth.



I agree.



Wrong. There is evidence things can "just happen." It's been discussed in GTRI before. There is no evidence for deities.





Guess you could now claim that you didn't understand what you were posting, or didn't mean to make it look like you were offering evidence that no god exists, but you did.

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 15:59
First thing to note, is that the entirety of human existence is not included in this thread. Which is relevant how exactly?
Second is that science is being used to pretend that it supports atheism, which it most certainly does not, to the objective observer. You keep saying things like this. Why don't you try actually supporting these claims with actual examples, if only just for variety.
The question remains unanswered, unless you've made a leap of faith... then you have an answer you can believe in. What question is that exactly?
You'll probably not be able to admit that this is what you were asking me to produce, but that's OK. Science does not equal atheism, but it is being taught that way. Science equals science, something that's been said repeatedly. Things like ID aren't science, not because of deities or a lack of deities but because there's no evidence to support their claims. How many times do you need this repeated?
If you want to, you could have easily found other examples. HERE (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheism+taught+in+school) We've played this game before too (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19068967&postcount=205). None of the links on the first page of your search are about atheism being taught to the exclusion of other beliefs or about atheism being taught as part of a science class. Shouldn't these little "examples" of yours support your position?

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 16:30
Which is relevant how exactly?
You keep saying things like this. Why don't you try actually supporting these claims with actual examples, if only just for variety.
What question is that exactly?
Science equals science, something that's been said repeatedly. Things like ID aren't science, not because of deities or a lack of deities but because there's no evidence to support their claims. How many times do you need this repeated?
We've played this game before too (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19068967&postcount=205). None of the links on the first page of your search are about atheism being taught to the exclusion of other beliefs or about atheism being taught as part of a science class. Shouldn't these little "examples" of yours support your position?

I think schools should not get involved in the debate between theism and atheism, and if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that atheism is being portrayed in classrooms as supported by science. You have read the thread, and so I am pretty sure you are being intentionally obtuse.

We are running around in circles. I am pretty sure there is nothing I can say that will have you capitulate in this thread. There is no amount of evidence or argument that you will find convincing. And upon about a half seconds consideration, I've discovered that I can live with that.

We will just have to disagree. :wavey:

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 17:16
I think schools should not get involved in the debate between theism and atheism, and if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that atheism is being portrayed in classrooms as supported by science. You have read the thread, and so I am pretty sure you are being intentionally obtuse. Interesting accusation. It would be far more interesting if you'd replied to any of the requests for actual examples with more than a couple of personal anecdotes. You've been asked both for examples of students being taught that atheism is part of science and for examples of people on these threads advocating teaching atheism as part of science classes. You've provided neither.
We are running around in circles. I am pretty sure there is nothing I can say that will have you capitulate in this thread. There is no amount of evidence or argument that you will find convincing. And upon about a half seconds consideration, I've discovered that I can live with that. You could try producing some evidence that supports your position or claims. For the sake of variety if nothing else.
We will just have to disagree. :wavey:That does appear to be the case. I'll just have to take comfort in knowing that my position is the only one supported by evidence and which doesn't require ignoring all the contrary information.

Kingarthurhk
07-07-2012, 17:31
If Atheism is not being taught in the public school ciriculum can someone please explain why the National Associatian of Biology Teachers released this statement in 1995:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Clearly this is an Atheist position, e.g. Atheism is being taught in the public school system.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 17:51
Interesting accusation. It would be far more interesting if you'd replied to any of the requests for actual examples with more than a couple of personal anecdotes. You've been asked both for examples of students being taught that atheism is part of science and for examples of people on these threads advocating teaching atheism as part of science classes. You've provided neither.
You could try producing some evidence that supports your position or claims. For the sake of variety if nothing else.
That does appear to be the case. I'll just have to take comfort in knowing that my position is the only one supported by evidence and which doesn't require ignoring all the contrary information.

I'm glad you are comfortable with your faith.

Lone Wolf8634
07-07-2012, 18:20
If Atheism is not being taught in the public school ciriculum can someone please explain why the National Associatian of Biology Teachers released this statement in 1995:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Clearly this is an Atheist position, e.g. Atheism is being taught in the public school system.


And just as clearly, you continue to misrepresent Atheism to bolster your arguments. Yet again I remind you that Atheism itself holds no position on evolution, That Big Ol' Bang or the origin of life.

Atheism simply rejects YOUR explanation due to lack of credible evidence. Very important concept here, do try to keep it mind the next time you go assigning Atheism "clear postitions".

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised (No one has ever found credible evidence of someone, or something supervising, directing or in anyway affecting the outcome of evolution, lest it be our own experiments in selective breeding or genetics), impersonal (last I checked, survival of the fittest was pretty impersonal), unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Obviously these statements are true in their context. Whats the problem?

Kingarthurhk
07-07-2012, 18:32
And just as clearly, you continue to misrepresent Atheism to bolster your arguments. Yet again I remind you that Atheism itself holds no position on evolution, That Big Ol' Bang or the origin of life.

Atheism simply rejects YOUR explanation due to lack of credible evidence. Very important concept here, do try to keep it mind the next time you go assigning Atheism "clear postitions".

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised (No one has ever found credible evidence of someone, or something supervising, directing or in anyway affecting the outcome of evolution, lest it be our own experiments in selective breeding or genetics), impersonal (last I checked, survival of the fittest was pretty impersonal), unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Obviously these statements are true in their context. Whats the problem?

I am glad you are zealous for your religion, however it is a a religion none-the-less and it has no place in the public school system.

Lone Wolf8634
07-07-2012, 18:35
I am glad you are zealous for your religion, however it is a a religion none-the-less and it has no place in the public school system.


:rofl::rofl:

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:19
And just as clearly, you continue to misrepresent Atheism to bolster your arguments. Yet again I remind you that Atheism itself holds no position on evolution, That Big Ol' Bang or the origin of life.

Atheism simply rejects YOUR explanation due to lack of credible evidence. Very important concept here, do try to keep it mind the next time you go assigning Atheism "clear postitions".

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised (No one has ever found credible evidence of someone, or something supervising, directing or in anyway affecting the outcome of evolution, lest it be our own experiments in selective breeding or genetics), impersonal (last I checked, survival of the fittest was pretty impersonal), unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Obviously these statements are true in their context. Whats the problem?

His beliefs just reject your explanation. So there, you're even.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:20
:rofl::rofl:

He's right, there are atheist churches, and we all know that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

Lone Wolf8634
07-07-2012, 19:27
His beliefs just reject your explanation. So there, you're even.

He's right, there are atheist churches, and we all know that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

:rofl::rofl::wavey:

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 21:17
If Atheism is not being taught in the public school ciriculum can someone please explain why the National Associatian of Biology Teachers released this statement in 1995:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Clearly this is an Atheist position, e.g. Atheism is being taught in the public school system.No, it is a scientific position. Without evidence of someone or something supervising the process, the wording is completely reasonable. It should also be noted that the words which so upset you were removed from the statement two years later. The group's current position statement can be found here (http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92).

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 21:24
I'm glad you are comfortable with your faith.I'm sorry you're so completely incapable of comprehending relatively simple words on a page.

Brucev
07-08-2012, 05:20
Re: OP. Let the material to be taught be determined in the exact same manner as would be the case for any other subject... i.e., teach the concept. As to hostile political/philosophical agenda, it would obviously be precluded. This would of course fry the grits of some. Tough.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 06:18
I'm sorry you're so completely incapable of comprehending relatively simple words on a page.

Are you always so angry and hostile with people that simply disagree with you in real life, or do you just show that side of yourself here?:therapy:

ksg0245
07-08-2012, 07:23
Well, since you need someone to hold your hand and walk you though all three pages... :upeyes:

It's amusing how petulant you get when asked to support your assertions.

Guess you could now claim that you didn't understand what you were posting, or didn't mean to make it look like you were offering evidence that no god exists, but you did.

Nope, but I will claim you either don't understand what I posted, or, more likely, are pretending to not understand.

Saying "'There is evidence things can "just happen"'" (or any of those other claims) is not a claim that "things can just happen" is evidence of the nonexistence of deities; all it is evidence of is that things can just happen. Neither is it a claim of knowledge about how the Universe began; it is merely evidence of one possibility. Which means claiming "there is no evidence either way" is incorrect.

And saying "there is no evidence of deities" isn't a claim that deities don't exist; all it is saying is that IF such evidence exists, it has yet to be presented.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 07:34
It's amusing how petulant you get when asked to support your assertions.



Nope, but I will claim you either don't understand what I posted, or, more likely, are pretending to not understand.

Saying "'There is evidence things can "just happen"'" (or any of those other claims) is not a claim that "things can just happen" is evidence of the nonexistence of deities; all it is evidence of is that things can just happen. Neither is it a claim of knowledge about how the Universe began; it is merely evidence of one possibility. Which means claiming "there is no evidence either way" is incorrect.

And saying "there is no evidence of deities" isn't a claim that deities don't exist; all it is saying is that IF such evidence exists, it has yet to be presented.

More likely, things that seem to just happened, have preceding events that are not able to be measured. Create a perfect vacuum, seal it, and come back and check in a year. If there is stuff in their, it's much more likely your seal failed than it just appeared.

I support you believing that there is not a deity, I'm not attempting to change your faith. I'm just saying that I see that as a choice in what to believe, instead of a scientific fact. I've noticed when this is presented, that many will twist and squirm their way to a passive statement of non-belief, but the actions and arguments presented in other discussions seems to me to contradict this claimed "passive" approach.

I am respectful of all beliefs, that don't require hurting others. You will notice that I tend to be critical of Islam, much in the same way that I would be critical of Christianity when it comes to the time of the conquistadors or violent acts committed against abortion clinics. Being bad to people is not good. I used to think the "Rodney King" approach was reasonable, but to be honest, that is contrary to human nature. We can't just all get along, because we are not wired up that way. Some people have to be right, no matter what, and if other people are wrong, they get angry about it. Differing religious beliefs are not one of my anger buttons. It wouldn't even make sense if it were, as I am freely admitting that I don't know whether or not a deity exists or existed. The current state of affairs is what it is, that is pretty much certain, but how it got here is debatable.

Bren
07-08-2012, 08:54
I support you believing that there is not a deity, I'm not attempting to change your faith. I'm just saying that I see that as a choice in what to believe, instead of a scientific fact.

Think about that for a minute. You "choose" what to believe? I believe things based on evidence that I see - I don't have a choice; either evidence shows me me something ir real, or it doesn't. "Choosing" doesn't even seem rationally possible, to me. In fact, if a person "chooses" any alternative reality other than one offered by a major religion, it is actually defined and treated as mental illness.

In fact, the DSM IV says: Delusion - "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).” DSM-IV, p. 765.

Pretty much what said - the difference between delusion and religion is that one is...religion (and even that has to be a fairly major religion).

Animal Mother
07-08-2012, 10:25
Are you always so angry and hostile with people that simply disagree with you in real life, or do you just show that side of yourself here?:therapy:There's that comprehension problem again. I'm not angry, nor did I express any anger. I'm disappointed (thus the use of the word "sorry") that you're unable to understand the simple explanations that have been offered to you time and time again. Despite those explanations you continue for misrepresent what is being said, the only possible conclusion is that you either are doing it intentionally or simple don't understand what you're reading. Are you saying the former is true rather than the latter?

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 10:54
There's that comprehension problem again. I'm not angry, nor did I express any anger. I'm disappointed (thus the use of the word "sorry") that you're unable to understand the simple explanations that have been offered to you time and time again. Despite those explanations you continue for misrepresent what is being said, the only possible conclusion is that you either are doing it intentionally or simple don't understand what you're reading. Are you saying the former is true rather than the latter?

I understand your explanations. They just have not been convincing. But your tone is unmistakable. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 10:57
Think about that for a minute. You "choose" what to believe? I believe things based on evidence that I see - I don't have a choice; either evidence shows me me something ir real, or it doesn't. "Choosing" doesn't even seem rationally possible, to me. In fact, if a person "chooses" any alternative reality other than one offered by a major religion, it is actually defined and treated as mental illness.

In fact, the DSM IV says: Delusion - "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).” DSM-IV, p. 765.

Pretty much what said - the difference between delusion and religion is that one is...religion (and even that has to be a fairly major religion).

Compulsion is an often used excuse for a choice.

I had to steal those cigarettes. I had to drive drunk. I had to vandalize that car. I had to kill her.

I'm sure you've noticed that in some of the people you've dealt with.

There is no reason I can give that you should not be comfortable with your choice.

Kingarthurhk
07-08-2012, 11:26
No, it is a scientific position. Without evidence of someone or something supervising the process, the wording is completely reasonable. It should also be noted that the words which so upset you were removed from the statement two years later. The group's current position statement can be found here (http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92).

It patently says that there is NO GOD. That is not a scientific position, it is a metaphsyical pressuposition of belief that is not provable.

Animal Mother
07-08-2012, 11:38
I understand your explanations. That would imply you're intentionally misrepresenting them. I hope that's not true.
They just have not been convincing. Then perhaps you should try explaining why you're not convinced, rather than repeating that atheism is a religion, especially considering that atheism has nothing to do with the topic under consideration.
But your tone is unmistakable. :wavey:
Again, it appears the problem lies in your comprehension, not my tone.

Animal Mother
07-08-2012, 11:39
It patently says that there is NO GOD. That is not a scientific position, it is a metaphsyical pressuposition of belief that is not provable. I agree the wording could be better, and the NABT agreed. That's why they changed the wording of their position.

Bren
07-08-2012, 12:00
Compulsion is an often used excuse for a choice.

I had to steal those cigarettes. I had to drive drunk. I had to vandalize that car. I had to kill her.

I'm sure you've noticed that in some of the people you've dealt with.

There is no reason I can give that you should not be comfortable with your choice.

You are stretching far beyond credibility to claim "compulsion" has the same meaning as believing things based on evidence. It is a clearly false argument and a weak one.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 12:33
You are stretching far beyond credibility to claim "compulsion" has the same meaning as believing things based on evidence. It is a clearly false argument and a weak one.

I believe things based on evidence that I see - I don't have a choice


:dunno:

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 13:34
:dunno:


Pedantic - marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects.

Context - 1.The parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.

2. The set of circumstances that surround a particular event, situation etc.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 14:40
Pedantic - marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects.

Context - 1.The parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.

2. The set of circumstances that surround a particular event, situation etc.

:wavey:

The whole post seems to suggest that he thinks he does not have a choice. Do you deny that?

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 16:09
The whole post seems to suggest that he thinks he does not have a choice. Do you deny that?

I do not.

BUT

He does not have a choice in the same way you have no choice but to obey gravity while in the vicinity of a massive object.

And while that does fall under the definition of "Compulsion", it is not the same context of your examples "I had to steal those cigarettes. I had to drive drunk. I had to vandalize that car. I had to kill her. "

In your examples, a choice was given, to kill, steal or drive. Just because the individual felt there was no other choice, rational thought shows several different alternatives.

However when being pulled to earth after falling from a 10 story building, you're being compelled to fall at increasing speed till you hit the ground, (or miss the ground and learn to fly:supergrin:). You really have no other choice.

Context.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 16:41
I do not.

BUT

He does not have a choice in the same way you have no choice but to obey gravity while in the vicinity of a massive object.

And while that does fall under the definition of "Compulsion", it is not the same context of your examples "I had to steal those cigarettes. I had to drive drunk. I had to vandalize that car. I had to kill her. "

In your examples, a choice was given, to kill, steal or drive. Just because the individual felt there was no other choice, rational thought shows several different alternatives.

However when being pulled to earth after falling from a 10 story building, you're being compelled to fall at increasing speed till you hit the ground, (or miss the ground and learn to fly:supergrin:). You really have no other choice.

Context.

I agree he has a choice, but he seems to think he does not. Compulsion, plain and simple.

See now, I'd have never fantasized about you falling to your death or serious injury. But I'm a nice guy.

Context. :wavey:

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 16:51
I agree he has a choice, but he seems to think he does not. Compulsion, plain and simple.

See now, I'd have never fantasized about you falling to your death or serious injury. But I'm a nice guy.

Context. :wavey:

So what, exactly, is his choice?

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 17:13
So what, exactly, is his choice?

Well, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

He could land along a gradient, anywhere he decided he felt comfortable to land.

Theism > Theistic Agnosticism > Agnosticism < Atheistic Agnosticism < Atheism.

Only the far left and right of that spectrum believe they know.

ksg0245
07-09-2012, 01:45
Well, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

He could land along a gradient, anywhere he decided he felt comfortable to land.

Theism > Theistic Agnosticism > Agnosticism < Atheistic Agnosticism < Atheism.

Only the far left and right of that spectrum believe they know.

:upeyes:

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 02:02
Well, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

He could land along a gradient, anywhere he decided he felt comfortable to land.

Theism > Theistic Agnosticism > Agnosticism < Atheistic Agnosticism < Atheism.

Only the far left and right of that spectrum believe they know.Are you really proposing, "We have no evidence for the supernatural, therefore the supernatural might exist and we need to treat it as a 50/50 proposition?"

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 04:43
Are you really proposing, "We have no evidence for the supernatural, therefore the supernatural might exist and we need to treat it as a 50/50 proposition?"

Well, if a deity did exist, And created life, that would be the nature of the universe, and therefore completely natural.

You could make it a 0/0 proposition for public schools. I think that might be best even.

eracer
07-09-2012, 05:43
If you'll attempt to be an objective observer of the thread, you'll see the resistance I've gotten since I brought it up.

:wavey:


What I've seen is that one side wants it their way, and only their way. There have been plenty of claims that there is evidence that Atheism is the one true faith, proven by science.

Which is incorrect of course. Background radiation, carbon dating, the fossil record are all observations from now, that give an impression of the past, and require interpretation. I deal with highly trained observers on a daily basis, and you'd be surprised how often their assessment isn't quite right, even after a thorough subjective and objective examination of the available evidence. Looking at lights or other electromagnetic radiation in the sky and noticing how they move, ebb and flow, then using that, no matter how precisely you look at them to conclude that this proves there is or is not a god requires a special something.

This is all valid.

But it does not support your defense of ID as a science that should be taught as an alternate theory to Natural Selection.

Real scientists (atheist or not) do not claim to know what they cannot test. ID'ers do.

You seem to want to equate science with atheism. Is that your belief?

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 06:01
Well, if a deity did exist, And created life, that would be the nature of the universe, and therefore completely natural. Do you have any evidence to offer in support of that position?
You could make it a 0/0 proposition for public schools. I think that might be best even.Has anyone here argued otherwise? Are you so committed to this argument that you'll continue it even though there isn't anyone on the other side (other than the ID/creationist lot who are apparently in hiding)?

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 06:56
Do you have any evidence to offer in support of that position?
Has anyone here argued otherwise? Are you so committed to this argument that you'll continue it even though there isn't anyone on the other side (other than the ID/creationist lot who are apparently in hiding)?

Just an observation that life is very complex, including complex processes, positive and negative feedback loops in relatively distant places within the same organism, and symbiotic relationships between separate and markedly different organisms. It's enough to consider the possibility, but not enough to convince me. Incredulity v. Ignorance, neither is intellectually or logically superior, so I'll wait until something convincing comes along.

Just another observation, but in practice one side is claiming that not so subtle suggestions that their position is the only correct position is not being taught in school, and I know better. Maybe my own experience, and that of my kids are a few isolated coincidences, but I suspect not.

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 07:32
Just an observation that life is very complex, including complex processes, positive and negative feedback loops in relatively distant places within the same organism, and symbiotic relationships between separate and markedly different organisms. It's enough to consider the possibility, but not enough to convince me. Incredulity v. Ignorance, neither is intellectually or logically superior, so I'll wait until something convincing comes along. Just a long winded way of saying "no" to the question then?
Just another observation, but in practice one side is claiming that not so subtle suggestions that their position is the only correct position is not being taught in school, and I know better. Maybe my own experience, and that of my kids are a few isolated coincidences, but I suspect not. No, they're claiming that their position is the only one supported by any evidence, as you've just admitted.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 08:02
Just a long winded way of saying "no" to the question then?
No, they're claiming that their position is the only one supported by any evidence, as you've just admitted.

I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect. The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 08:16
I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect. The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.

What else would we use for evidence? You have to make a lot of BS post to keep up your argument of atheism = science or religion.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 09:45
What else would we use for evidence? You have to make a lot of BS post to keep up your argument of atheism = science or religion.

I don't remember ever stating atheism is a science. If I ever made that statement, or gave that impression, I did not mean too. But it is a religion.

ETA: to answer your first question: beats the heck out of me, cause I haven't seen any yet. There are a lot of claims to evidence, Higs-Boson as an example.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 09:49
I don't remember ever stating atheism is a science. If I ever made that statement, or gave that impression, I did not mean too. But it is a religion.

Really because you seem to relate science class as a atheist teaching class.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 10:29
Really because you seem to relate science class as a atheist teaching class.

Nope. Go back and read it again.

steveksux
07-09-2012, 18:35
There's no evidence that the universe didn't spring into existence from a magic pickle either. If that's where we set the bar for what should be included in science class I guess that means you'd better put a chapter about magic pickles in science class.

Of course, the magic cucumber people are going to demand equal time...

Randy

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 21:34
I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect. Who is the "them" in this sentence?
The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know. Your solution is what? Not to learn anything and exist in blissful ignorance?

Cavalry Doc
07-10-2012, 04:23
Who is the "them" in this sentence?
Your solution is what? Not to learn anything and exist in blissful ignorance?

My personal solution is to admit ignorance where it exists, and to learn what you can learn without jumping to too many conclusions when avoidable.

Gunhaver
07-10-2012, 04:51
My personal solution is to admit ignorance where it exists, and to learn what you can learn without jumping to too many conclusions when avoidable.

We have a system that does exactly that. It's called science and we teach it in schools.

Animal Mother
07-10-2012, 05:18
My personal solution is to admit ignorance where it exists, and to learn what you can learn without jumping to too many conclusions when avoidable. I asked a simple question, who is the "them" in the sentence, "I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect." Could you answer it?

Animal Mother
07-10-2012, 05:22
My personal solution is to admit ignorance where it exists, and to learn what you can learn without jumping to too many conclusions when avoidable.Again, this appears to be an indictment of ID/Creationism, since actual science is based on examining the evidence.

ID on the other hand takes the position, "It's all too incredible to have just happened, therefore there must be someone or something doing it". As there is no evidence this is true, it is very much jumping to a conclusion.

Creationism begins with the conclusion, that their interpretation of the Bible is true, and works backwards from that point, ignoring any contrary evidence that might crop up along the way.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 08:23
Again, this appears to be an indictment of ID/Creationism, since actual science is based on examining the evidence.

ID on the other hand takes the position, "It's all too incredible to have just happened, therefore there must be someone or something doing it". As there is no evidence this is true, it is very much jumping to a conclusion.

Creationism begins with the conclusion, that their interpretation of the Bible is true, and works backwards from that point, ignoring any contrary evidence that might crop up along the way.

Ignorance v. Icredulity. Neither is convincing to me. Some people are convinced by ignorance, some are convinced by incredulity.

We also have to realize that some religious texts are contradictory, and a few have some difficult to imagine stories, that may include some creative license on behalf of the author, and/or changes over time.

As an example, can one of the bible experts out there tell me if there is an actual date of creation mentioned, or was the 6000 year age an estimation made by people long after it was written? I don't know anyone that claims the earth is only 6000 years old. But see it as an oft used hammer by one sect.

High-Gear
07-11-2012, 12:51
I don't remember ever stating atheism is a science. If I ever made that statement, or gave that impression, I did not mean too. But it is a religion.


Just like my ardent lack of belief in winged unicorns is a religion.

Animal Mother
07-11-2012, 15:43
Ignorance v. Icredulity. Neither is convincing to me. Some people are convinced by ignorance, some are convinced by incredulity.

We also have to realize that some religious texts are contradictory, and a few have some difficult to imagine stories, that may include some creative license on behalf of the author, and/or changes over time.

As an example, can one of the bible experts out there tell me if there is an actual date of creation mentioned, or was the 6000 year age an estimation made by people long after it was written? I don't know anyone that claims the earth is only 6000 years old. But see it as an oft used hammer by one sect.
You still haven't answered the question. In the sentence, "I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect." to whom does "them" refer?

You also falsely characterize the conflict. It isn't incredulity vs. ignorance, it's incredulity and ignorance vs. evidence. In that contest, evidence needs to win out every time or we never make any progress.

Gunhaver
07-11-2012, 18:18
Just like my ardent lack of belief in winged unicorns is a religion.

Actually, your ardent lack of belief in winged unicorns becomes a religion only if you maintain that lack of belief once someone has claimed that winged unicorns created the universe.

According to Doc anyway.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 07:23
You still haven't answered the question. In the sentence, "I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect." to whom does "them" refer?

You also falsely characterize the conflict. It isn't incredulity vs. ignorance, it's incredulity and ignorance vs. evidence. In that contest, evidence needs to win out every time or we never make any progress.

What evidence did you find convincing that led you to your current belief?

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 08:16
.

As an example, can one of the bible experts out there tell me if there is an actual date of creation mentioned, or was the 6000 year age an estimation made by people long after it was written? I don't know anyone that claims the earth is only 6000 years old. But see it as an oft used hammer by one sect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

It is hard to believe you don't know someone who believes this, as polls show about 40% of the US population believes it. The number who believe it is inversely related the the level of their education.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/egqoo3sa4ksftdt5itigsg.gif

Animal Mother
07-15-2012, 20:47
What evidence did you find convincing that led you to your current belief?
In the sentence, "I see it as them claiming what we can see IS evidence, which is incorrect." to whom does "them" refer?