Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

The concept of "self organizing" according to what force of nature?

It so often happens with these theories of "self organizing" or "big bang" that the scientists are actually admitting their ignorance.

They don't really know cause and effect, they just start guessing and call it "self organizing" or "big bang" or "evolution."

Cause and effect, cause and effect.....

The conclusion of random ignorance is to attribute some "force of random ignorance" that is behind the effect, which is no more provable as a "force of order and intelligence" that is behind the effect.

My point is to teach neither, or to be fair, teach both, and fully admit when we simply don't know....

Let kids be free to adopt the belief of their choosing, not the imposed belief systems of the scientific or the religious community.

I hate the fundamentalist dogma on both sides of this....

You used the term "nature of the universe" tell us exactly what is the "nature" of the universe?

Assuming that the nature of the universe hasn't changed in the past few thousand years, and man's view of that nature changes all the time with new discovery, why teach a dogmatic view that is most likely going to change again?

Quote from dgabriel:

Not quite. Some belive that matter and energy in our universe has properties which can eventually lead to molecular self organization and replication. Some belive that it is not random at all, but a certainty given the nature of our universe.

If a creator is responsible for that, then you have given yourself the task to convince these scientists of this belief.

Why are you arguing with us anyway?
More...
 
I have asked you to please stop.

Continuation after being asked to stop is abusive.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Quote from Ricter:

Hush, I'm speaking with the ID'er.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I have asked you to please stop.

Continuation after being asked to stop is abusive.

Thank you for your cooperation.
More...

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I can see the spirit of compromise is missing from your perspective....

Many people who support the concept of intelligent design don't support a literal Biblical instruction set.

I don't want biology teachers teaching their religion or atheism to students. No teacher should be pushing an atheistic or religous agenda.

Just the facts, less speculative unprovable theory will do nicely.
More...

Ok, you posted the above before I entered this thread. It's the same bs we got from the 300+ reply thread. So, now I'm asking you to stop.
 
If my posting my ideas and arguments about the ID and evolutionary theory debate bothers you, please don't read the posts.

I am asking you not to call my posts bs, nor make it personal.

If you want to debate the issues, fine.

If you don't, then please move along.

Quote from Ricter:

Ok, you posted the above before I entered this thread. It's the same bs we got from the 300+ reply thread. So, now I'm asking you to stop.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If my posting my ideas and arguments about the ID and evolutionary theory debate bothers you, please don't read the posts.

I am asking you not to call my posts bs, nor make it personal.

If you want to debate the issues, fine.

If you don't, then please move along.
More...

There is no point to debate if what constitutes "true" cannot be agreed upon. This is your flaw, not mine. Move along yourself to your books and do some study. Start with Logic and Critical Thinking. You have a copy, right?
 
There is nothing critical that I can see in the thinking of anyone who props up a theory as a utilitarian fact to be accepted as fact because of its popularity, and then used to diminish alternative theories which are not as popular among the "intelligentsia."


___________________________


Asking me if I have a copy of a book is a personal question, please stop this personal approach and direct your comments to a non personal level.

Please try to keep this non personal, and revolving around the issues.

I have no desire to engage in a "I am more logical than you" pissing contest, when there is no moderator to adjudicate.

Quote from Ricter:

There is no point to debate if what constitutes "true" cannot be agreed upon. This is your flaw, not mine. Move along yourself to your books and do some study. Start with Logic and Critical Thinking. You have a copy, right?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is nothing critical that I can see in the thinking of anyone who props up a theory as a utilitarian fact to be accepted as fact because of its popularity, and then used to diminish alternative theories which are not as popular among the "intelligentsia."


___________________________


Asking me if I have a copy of a book is a personal question, please stop this personal approach and direct your comments to a non personal level.

Please try to keep this non personal, and revolving around the issues.

I have no desire to engage in a "I am more logical than you" pissing contest, when there is no moderator to adjudicate.
More...

Boy, you sure hit the nail on the head with your use of "revolving". No, I'm tired of revolving around this topic with you. Like a circle, it's endless.
 
Quote from Pabst:

Evolution (a fact) is not an explanation for creation. Apples and oranges.

Scientists have attained neither consensus within their community nor offered compelling proof of creation. Therefore Z hits in right on the head.
More...


i, too, hate to agree with Z...what a jerk...... but he is right on this point.

intraspecies evolution is fact. interspecies evolution is conjecture without compelling evidence.

what i don't understand is why the anti creator bias? what's the big deal here?

surfer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top