[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

I did not ask that question, but you are quoting that question out of context. Color me unsurprised.



As Bren noted in different words, given the *full* context of that question, it is asking how someone can claim that ID is not a religious position, but claim religious discrimination on the basis of belief in ID.

And given that ID proponents in fact claim that ID is not a religious position, it's quite apropos, actually, given that the Discovery Institute has claimed that ID is not a religious position, yet funded/supported this lawsuit claiming religious discrimination due to someone's belief in ID.

ID is simply another claim about how life began. Yes, there are some theists that argue that ID is a scientific claim. If that seals the deal, lets use that same logic in another way.


There are no less than two atheist churches, is atheism a religion? Can we finally agree on that and put that little tiny issue behind us?
A court ruled that atheism was a person's religion, and that it was deserving of the same protections.



Same logic. Some over here use this argument, so you must use it too.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Then you should be able to do so once in a while.

...

Steve,

You started it, don't cry too much when it's pointed out to you.

You tend to get all irritated when someone points out that you might just not know as much as you think you do. If you aren't secure in your own beliefs, explore others. Maybe just become comfortable that you are a infinitesimally small collection of molecules and processes that has experienced only the tiniest fraction of what the universe really is.

Compared to the age of the universe, stated as a fraction, how long have you been out if high school? How far have you traveled, even in your own tiny little solar system?




It's been said in many different ways by many different people, but the more you know, the more you realize what you have yet to learn.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Steve,

You started it, don't cry too much when it's pointed out to you.

Your the one that started whining about it. Not me. Perhaps you should stop crying.

You tend to get all irritated when someone points out that you might just not know as much as you think you do. If you aren't secure in your own beliefs, explore others. Maybe just become comfortable that you are a infinitesimally small collection of molecules and processes that has experienced only the tiniest fraction of what the universe really is.

Compared to the age of the universe, stated as a fraction, how long have you been out if high school? How far have you traveled, even in your own tiny little solar system?




It's been said in many different ways by many different people, but the more you know, the more you realize what you have yet to learn.

So just to underscore the point you keep ignoring, anything anyone believes that cannot be disproven is not a scientific theory and does not does not belong in science class.

Cavalry doc's science textbook:
Page 1. Earth.



Randy

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Your the one that started whining about it. Not me. Perhaps you should stop crying.



So just to underscore the point you keep ignoring, anything anyone believes that cannot be disproven is not a scientific theory and does not does not belong in science class.

Randy

I'm not even sure you understand the question, let alone what the potentially correct answers are.

Evolution is a very reasonable theory, it's more than likely occurring. When Darwin first observed cells, he thought there were only a few pieces to them, and that they were very simple structures.

We've since learned that cells are not simple at all.
Don't be afraid, watch the video.

The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - EXPELLED - Video

The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - EXPELLED - Video

They are complex structures with relatively distant and co-dependent systems that must all function in perfect harmony just to achieve homeostasis (google it if you don't know what that is). Now, that same very complex structure able to react to it's surroundings and internal conditions to achieve reproduction of just a copy of itself is amazingly complex. To achieve reproduction of a genetically individual, but like organism is even more amazing.


So, knowing that, really asks more questions than it answers. Throwing bowls full of primordial goop on the floor will not make "life".

Think about it for a while.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm not even sure you understand the question, let alone what the potentially correct answers are.

Evolution is a very reasonable theory, it's more than likely occurring. When Darwin first observed cells, he thought there were only a few pieces to them, and that they were very simple structures.

We've since learned that cells are not simple at all.
Don't be afraid, watch the video.

The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - EXPELLED - Video


They are complex structures with relatively distant and co-dependent systems that must all function in perfect harmony just to achieve homeostasis (google it if you don't know what that is). Now, that same very complex structure able to react to it's surroundings and internal conditions to achieve reproduction of just a copy of itself is amazingly complex. To achieve reproduction of a genetically individual, but like organism is even more amazing.


So, knowing that, really asks more questions than it answers.

The main question being, don't you know that irreducable complexity has already been debunked?

Throwing bowls full of primordial goop on the floor will not make "life".

Think about it for a while.

Perhaps you need to start thinking about it.

Evolution does not have anything to do with how life arose initially. Nothing about primordial bowls of soup in Evolutionary theory.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm not even sure you understand the question, let alone what the potentially correct answers are.

Quoted for hilarity.
Obviously, it is YOU who does not understand the question.
Or trolling. As usual.

Randy

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by steveksux

The main question being, don't you know that irreducable complexity has already been debunked?

Perhaps you need to start thinking about it.

Evolution does not have anything to do with how life arose initially. Nothing about primordial bowls of soup in Evolutionary theory.

Quoted for hilarity.
Obviously, it is YOU who does not understand the question.
Or trolling. As usual.

Randy

First, I noticed you puszed out on watching the video.

Second, I'm not claiming something did happen because it's too hard for it to have happened any other way. I'm claiming it is possible.

Your claiming that it's not possible is just illustrative of your inability to consider any other possibilities that you find comforting.

None of us were there, and among the two of us, you are claiming that only one possibility is possible, and I'm just saying the question is unanswered. The amusing part is that you don't even realize your logical misstep.

You are claiming knowledge of that which you have none. And then thumping your chest like a very small primate claiming victory.

Thog make fire yet?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Or trolling. As usual.

This... all day... everyday... in every way.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

This... all day... everyday... in every way.

lazy illustrated.

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Second, I'm not claiming something did happen because it's too hard for it to have happened any other way. I'm claiming it is possible.

Forgive me for taking a snippet of your post to address, but are you claiming that in a given scenario, you give all possibilities equal weight?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Forgive me for taking a snippet of your post to address, but are you claiming that in a given scenario, you give all possibilities equal weight?

Nope, not at all. It's not very likely that Steveksux really knows steve case.

But can we agree that there was a moment, when life as we know it, cellular life, existed on earth, and did not the moment prior.

That moment, something interesting happened. Something rather profound really. I have no friggin' idea how that happened, but it was obviously not a simple process. It was either brought here, just happened, or was designed, or just nudged along, and many other possible mixtures of different theories.

The fact is that we really don't know how life first arrive on earth. A lot of people wished they knew, me included. Many more believe they know. That's where you start running into trouble. There are some guys, steve for instance, that are so sure they know that life just happened without any outside influence, and has no flippin' clue on how to explain how he believes that without knowing. But he's got plenty of jokes, ad homs, strawman arguments etc. Most of that is just evidence of him not liking his religious beliefs questioned.

So, maybe there weren't other mystical creatures. But I have no problems with understanding how people arrived at those beliefs. Dragon's for instance. Komodo dragons exist. Dinosaur bones might make people consider that dragons exist.

Of course as people learn more, they realize what they know, and on occasion, the smart ones realize what they really don't know. I've noticed that many people are hesitant to admit their own ignorance, even when an overabundance of ignorance is present.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm not even sure you understand the question, let alone what the potentially correct answers are.

Evolution is a very reasonable theory, it's more than likely occurring. When Darwin first observed cells, he thought there were only a few pieces to them, and that they were very simple structures.

We've since learned that cells are not simple at all.
Don't be afraid, watch the video.

The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - EXPELLED - Video


They are complex structures with relatively distant and co-dependent systems that must all function in perfect harmony just to achieve homeostasis (google it if you don't know what that is). Now, that same very complex structure able to react to it's surroundings and internal conditions to achieve reproduction of just a copy of itself is amazingly complex. To achieve reproduction of a genetically individual, but like organism is even more amazing.


So, knowing that, really asks more questions than it answers. Throwing bowls full of primordial goop on the floor will not make "life".

Think about it for a while.

Remember the other day I mentioned Ben Stein and his propaganda film? This is it. Ben Stein is a liar, and can not be trusted.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Nope, not at all. It's not very likely that Steveksux really knows steve case.

But can we agree that there was a moment, when life as we know it, cellular life, existed on earth, and did not the moment prior.

That moment, something interesting happened. Something rather profound really. I have no friggin' idea how that happened, but it was obviously not a simple process. It was either brought here, just happened, or was designed, or just nudged along, and many other possible mixtures of different theories.

The fact is that we really don't know how life first arrive on earth. A lot of people wished they knew, me included. Many more believe they know. That's where you start running into trouble. There are some guys, steve for instance, that are so sure they know that life just happened without any outside influence, and has no flippin' clue on how to explain how he believes that without knowing. But he's got plenty of jokes, ad homs, strawman arguments etc. Most of that is just evidence of him not liking his religious beliefs questioned.

So, maybe there weren't other mystical creatures. But I have no problems with understanding how people arrived at those beliefs. Dragon's for instance. Komodo dragons exist. Dinosaur bones might make people consider that dragons exist.

Of course as people learn more, they realize what they know, and on occasion, the smart ones realize what they really don't know. I've noticed that many people are hesitant to admit their own ignorance, even when an overabundance of ignorance is present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Forgive me for taking a snippet of your post to address, but are you claiming that in a given scenario, you give all possibilities equal weight?

And apparently they all qualify as science to be presented in science classes.

Randy

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Remember the other day I mentioned Ben Stein and his propaganda film? This is it. Ben Stein is a liar, and can not be trusted.

That bastard! I hear he lied in an interview once...

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Remember the other day I mentioned Ben Stein and his propaganda film? This is it. Ben Stein is a liar, and can not be trusted.

Ben Stein is a media guy. But, he underestimates the complexity of cellular mechanical and chemical function. The video is simplistic beyond description, and also light years ahead of what was believed about cells in Darwin's time. I'm not saying that Stein is right, I'm saying that intelligent design is at least possible. So is natural phenomena.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

That bastard! I hear he lied in an interview once...

If he's not a bastard.....

Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him - YouTube

Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him - YouTube

He owes you one.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

If he's not a bastard.....


Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him - YouTube

He owes you one.

I never heard about that, that is some funny stuff.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I never heard about that, that is some funny stuff.

I am conflicted. There was a time, when if you crossed a line, and did something completely rude, it was perfectly OK for some rightfully offended fellow to punch you right in the nose. And when you whined to a cop about it, he kicked you in the ass and told you to get out of town.

I often wonder if things are better or worse because those days are gone. It's probably a mix. There are probably several dozen people that have been spared a beating they did not deserve, and thousands that have been spared a beating they deserved. So I don't know whether we are better off or not.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

ID is simply another claim about how life began. Yes, there are some theists that argue that ID is a scientific claim. If that seals the deal, lets use that same logic in another way.

No, Cavalry Doc. You are missing the point. This is not 'some theists' claiming ID is a scientific claim, while 'other theists' claim it is a religious one.

This is particular theists (the discovery institute) claiming ID is a scientific claim, and not religion, in one context, while those very same theists (the discovery institute) are turning around and supporting a lawsuit whose very basis requires that ID not be a scientific claim, but a religious one.

They are trying to have it both ways at the same time. Do you understand?

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Ben Stein is a media guy. But, he underestimates the complexity of cellular mechanical and chemical function. The video is simplistic beyond description, and also light years ahead of what was believed about cells in Darwin's time. I'm not saying that Stein is right,
...

I only watched enough of the video to verify that it was him.

I'll take you word for it. You know more about then I do anyway.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...
I'm saying that intelligent design is at least possible. So is natural phenomena.

I don't think many would disagree with that.




There is a video of Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers (sp?) talking about their experience being interviewed for the movie, and being kicked off the property of the premier. I'll see if I can find it.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I am conflicted. There was a time, when if you crossed a line, and did something completely rude, it was perfectly OK for some rightfully offended fellow to punch you right in the nose. And when you whined to a cop about it, he kicked you in the ass and told you to get out of town.

I often wonder if things are better or worse because those days are gone. It's probably a mix. There are probably several dozen people that have been spared a beating they did not deserve, and thousands that have been spared a beating they deserved. So I don't know whether we are better off or not.

That is a good point. Being the libertarian that I am, harassing someone on public (sidewalk, street) or a disinterested 3rd party's property, should not be against the law. Punching the guy should be.

Now when the Hotel employee told the guy to stop, you either stop or leave the property.

[hogfish]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

If he's not a bastard.....


Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him - YouTube

He owes you one.

Never saw that. Well deserved.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

No, Cavalry Doc. You are missing the point. This is not 'some theists' claiming ID is a scientific claim, while 'other theists' claim it is a religious one.

This is particular theists (the discovery institute) claiming ID is a scientific claim, and not religion, while those very same theists (the discovery institute) are turning around and supporting a lawsuit whose very basis requires that ID not be a scientific claim, but a religious one.

They are trying to have it both ways at the same time. Do you understand?

OK. I totally get your point. I'll concede that some high falootin' "THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" guys claimed that ID is a scientific claim. The matter is settled.


But the FIRST CHURCH OF ATHEISM believes atheism is a religion, The 7th Circuit Court found "The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion,"


So, if you are going to argue that I should agree with everyone that does not agree with you, and use the same arguments, would you mind getting back to me just as soon as you inform all of the GTRI participants that the issue is settled, and that they must submit to the opinion that Atheism is a Religion. After all, some official sounding people agree with it.


Be sure to get back to me as soon as you have received complete consensus on that, or at least post a link to you trying that, it would be comical.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

That is a good point. Being the libertarian that I am, harassing someone on public (sidewalk, street) or a disinterested 3rd party's property, should not be against the law. Punching the guy should be.

Now when the Hotel employee told the guy to stop, you either stop or leave the property.

Being a libertarian leaning conservative. I believe that it should be legal to speak your mind, even if it is offensive. I also believe you should shut the ef up and take a well deserved beating by a rightfully offended fellow if 12 normal people agree you got what you deserved.

One should be responsible for what they do. They should also expect others to act accordingly to their affronts if they commit one. True responsible liberty means going out of your way to not infringe on the liberty of others. Once you allow anyone to do anything without consequences, you've crossed into anarchy. At that point we are wild animals. Might is right, and to the conqueror go the spoils.

You have to balance that sort of stuff. It's hard to draw a straight line on that kind of stuff. I have punched someone that richly deserved it, and didn't get in trouble for it. I have watched someone punch someone that didn't deserve it, and get away with it...... (for a while).

Justice is an illusive goal.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

OK. I totally get your point. I'll concede that some high falootin' "THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" guys claimed that ID is a scientific claim. The matter is settled.


But the FIRST CHURCH OF ATHEISM believes atheism is a religion, The 7th Circuit Court found "The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion,"

You should know quite well by now that it is my position that while it is *possible* for some people approach their own atheism in a religious manner, that does not require all atheists to do so. If there were a 'First Church of Golf' that would not make all golfers religious.

And if you'd read your own link, you'd know "the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

The court did not rule atheism was a religion. It ruled that it had to be treated equivalently for First Amendment purposes, not that it met a common definition of religion, which is a distinction that you apparently are completely unable to make (although, as evidenced in the link you provided, the court was. Legal definitions do not have to match reality. The EPA definition of 'solid waste' is such that solids, liquids, and gases can meet the definition - that does not mean that when someone talks about solids on a message board, they mean gases, too)