Good News! Bible spared "indecent" classification

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

" Intelligent Design is just one cog in the big wheel scheme of things."

Nonsense.

The idea of design is nothing new, and has been discussed for thousands of years by philosophers with no grand scheme behind their thought process, therefore it is not some cog in a big wheel scheme.

It is the controlling atheists who fear alternative theories being offered in the school system.

Says someone who has not seen this lecture by an expert witness in the ID trials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

What makes the lecture particularly fascinating is that Ken Miller is both a scientist and a man who believes in God. Therefore, his lecture on evolution, and his criticism of ID and its direct ties to Creationism are noteworthy. But, as I recall, you had previously refused to watch the video lecture on some principle or other. And why would you, since you already know everything that matters? Besides, information can be so unaccommodating, eh?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You continue to confuse the basic concept of design with Creationist based Christians, of which I am not one...

I am opposed to any dogma, including atheistic dogma...

Yes, I have no interest in the video, then or now, and you still are pissing your pants over that.

I repeat, I am not a Creationist, and have zero interest in Creationism, or some scientists point of view on it.

Anytime you want to present your own ideas, not a video of someone else, then there can be an exchange. I have no interest in discussing somebody else and their ideas with you, who cannot even own the ideas you cling to and attempt to get others to absorb.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Says someone who has not seen this lecture by an expert witness in the ID trials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

What makes the lecture particularly fascinating is that he is both a scientist and a man who believes in God. Therefore, his lecture on evolution and his criticism of ID and its origins from Creationism are noteworthy. But, as I recall, you had previously refused to watch the video lecture on some principle or other. And why would you, since you already know everything that matters? Besides, information can be so unaccommodating, eh?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You continue to confuse the basic concept of design with Creationist based Christians, of which I am not one...

And you are confusing present debate regarding ID in schools as something quite independent of Creationism. In the lecture, Ken Miller shows the very real link between the two. (I am not going to recreate the chronology for you here. You will have to feed yourself.) Therefore, most vocal proponents of ID and its teaching in school science classes are not quite the independent free thinkers and philosophers that they may present themselves to be. Minor details, eh? After all, where's the harm in a little insidious subversion? It's all for the good, right? The ends justify the means, and all that. No doubt, God would have wanted it that way. Surely, Mr. Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli would agree.

As for the rest of your commentary, it seems a bit incongruent coming from the resident cut & paste authority. Not that there is anything wrong with cutting & pasting.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Let me repeat:

I am not a Creationist, so why would I care that much about the particulars of what they want? I don't support teaching Christian Biblical Creationism in schools, because it is denominational in nature, it excludes other religious belief systems. Basic design theory is non denominational, and includes any and all belief systems accordingly, even atheism. The same would hold for any particular denomination of a religion, including atheism, pushing their belief system and indoctrinating children into that belief system in school, I don't support it.

The entire focus on the theory being presented is unfortunately under the the ad hominem attacks on atheists because of their own personal belief systems or religious preference, which goes to show how weak the case of the those who attack those theories. One never needs to attack a person's religion of belief system to effectively show how the argument they are presenting is illogical. Either design theory makes sense, or it doesn't. Either it is logically possible, or it isn't. It has nothing at all to do with the presenters belief system of said theory.

Either a case can be made for design, or not. Since an evidence based case for non design is impossible to make (argument from ignorance) there is no reason for anyone to fear design theory.

I believe that basic design theory needs to be taught, if non design theory needs to be taught, so that children can make their own decisions...or teach neither, just teach factual processes of observed biological process, which do not arrive at design or non design theory on their own.

Quote from Thunderdog:

And you are confusing present debate regarding ID in schools as something quite independent of Creationism. In the lecture, Ken Miller shows the very real link between the two. (I am not going to recreate the chronology for you here. You will have to feed yourself.) Therefore, most vocal proponents of ID and its teaching in school science classes are not quite the independent free thinkers and philosophers that they may present themselves to be. Minor details, eh? After all, where's the harm in a little insidious subversion? It's all for the good, right? The ends justify the means, and all that. No doubt, God would have wanted it that way. Surely, Mr. Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli would agree.

As for the rest of your commentary, it seems a bit incongruent coming from the resident cut & paste authority. Not that there is anything wrong with cutting & pasting.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

...or teach neither, just teach factual processes of observed biological process, which do not arrive at design or non design theory on their own.

On this we agree. Fortunately, the video presents a case for evolution that is most compelling. Of course, I am merely a layman expressing my own opinion. However, it appeals to human logic better and more completely because there is less need for plug variables to fill in that which we do not understand. Yes, there are dots to connect, but those dots are brought demonstrably closer together than with any other theory. It is really quite remarkable and requires far less unsupported fanciful imagination ("imagineering?"). Further, it is supported by the mainstream scientific community. For all its faults that you may perceive, it is still the best that we have.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Compelling to you...

State your own case, we can discuss that.

For all its faults that you may perceive, it is still the best that we have.

Your opinion of what is the best. The term "best" is subjective, because there is not a standard upon which to calculate "best" ideas when it comes to the truth of our existence and/or the origin of biological life. Majority of scientific opinion is nothing close to presenting facts, or dismissing other logical possibilities.

We should not be teaching your opinion, or mine...unless we are presenting both design (non demoninational...that includes flying spaghetti monster religion) and non design to children to allow them to reach their own conclusions. Anything less is not teaching them how to think, but rather what to think.

"However, it appeals to human logic better and more completely because there is less need for plug variables to fill in that which we do not understand."

This is a riot. We don't even understand the human mind properly, which is the receptor and filter of everything else accordingly. So we don't even factor in the variable of the human mind, we just go with what appeals to scientists. This is not, definitely not science. We should not be indoctrinating children into the belief systems of the majority of scientists, or the majority of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc.

Quote from Thunderdog:

On this we agree. Fortunately, the video presents a case for evolution that is most compelling. Of course, I am merely a layman expressing my own opinion. However, it appeals to human logic better and more completely because there is less need for plug variables to fill in that which we do not understand. Yes, there are dots to connect, but those dots are brought demonstrably closer together than with any other theory. It is really quite remarkable and requires far less unsupported fanciful imagination ("imagineering?"). Further, it is supported by the mainstream scientific community. For all its faults that you may perceive, it is still the best that we have.

 

[Thunderdog]

So what you are saying is that gibberish, whatever form it may take (flying spaghetti monsters et al), should be presented with equal weight to that which is the product of careful research and reason, in order that a child can make up his or her own mind? Interesting.

It appears that you regard anything other than complete information just as useless as no information at all. Why else would you readily assign equal weight and importance to anything that someone is willing to conjure up at the drop of a hat for your impressionable child's consumption?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't know if you are asking a question, or making a statement.

If you have a question, ask it.

Quote from Thunderdog:

So what you are saying is that gibberish, whatever form it may take (flying spaghetti monsters et al), should be presented with equal weight to that which is the product of careful research and reason, in order that a child can make up his or her own mind? Interesting.

It appears that you regard anything other than complete information just as useless as no information at all. Why else would you readily assign equal weight and importance to anything that someone is willing to conjure up at the drop of a hat for your impressionable child's consumption?

 

[achilles28]

Quote from acronym:

Dismiss it? Its effectively a secret society, how would i even know exactly what their agenda is? Im working on the simple idea, that to have had so many bilders/bonessman in power over modern history, they clearly have too much power, no matter what their agenda.
They might be truly benevolent boy scouts for all i know, but actions speak louder than words, and it appears not to be the case.
Maybe there the best of a bad bunch, but without delving into conspiracy, how exactly did they get all this influence?

Exactly.

Which makes me wonder why you dont 'care much' about the elites involvement in Bohemian Grove:

Quote from acronym:

I dont much care, not when the direct association of bildeberger/fundamentalists seem to be so close

 

[acronym]

Quote from achilles28:

Exactly.

Which makes me wonder why you dont 'care much' about the elites involvement in Bohemian Grove:

Because for health reasons, i concluded it isnt wise to stress about things i could not
possibly have any influence or control over.
Perhaps, the bureacratic machine isnt indestructable, but then, im no mechanic, either.