It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

In article , Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.


But Tom - I thought only God could make a tree!

Bless you brother... you are so freakin' educated...

So what do you think about Eagles v. Dallas?

Lou

Eagles
"loutent" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.


But Tom - I thought only God could make a tree!

Bless you brother... you are so freakin' educated...

So what do you think about Eagles v. Dallas?

Lou

Tom Watson wrote:

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.

Now, Tom, mustn't upset the American Ayatollahs.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to use the force of law to
inflict their religion on me is an Ayatollah - the only difference is of
degree - and the gap there is narrowing.

--
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description

Snip

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.


I agree. I say go ahead and teach Intelligent design, just put it on a
different classroom.

What proponents of ID fail to grasp is that science is not about truth or
facts, it is about a process. Newtonian physics has been shown to fall
completely apart at the subatomic scale or when approaching the speed of
light. Does that make it *bad* science? I say not at all.

Tom Watson wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


Realizing this is not a UG on either religion or science, I hate to say
anything, but which "American Ayatollahs?" Those on the Left or those on
the Right. If you want to put ID down as a stalking horse for religion,
how do you handle Evolution and Humanism (or any "ism" you prefer)? Both
start with certain presuppositions and it requires as much "faith" to
support one as it does the other, simply because we cannot "KNOW" because
we were not there. Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.
Since they are diametrically opposed to one another, obviously one cannot
be true.

We laugh at the naivete' of the folks in the Middle Ages who believed in
"spontaneous generation." Yet, is one of the contending positions asking
us to accept that as scientific fact?

In this discussion, the important thing to to do is see which position is
supported by the data, not the presuppositions.

EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!
(17-0; ~31 unanswered points; unbeatable (at least til they fall
apart, which I hope is sometime next millenium)

Renata

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:15:19 -0400, loutent wrote:

In article , Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.


But Tom - I thought only God could make a tree!

Bless you brother... you are so freakin' educated...

So what do you think about Eagles v. Dallas?

Lou

Delbert Freeman wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


Realizing this is not a UG on either religion or science, I hate to say
anything, but which "American Ayatollahs?" Those on the Left or those on
the Right. If you want to put ID down as a stalking horse for religion,
how do you handle Evolution and Humanism (or any "ism" you prefer)? Both
start with certain presuppositions and it requires as much "faith" to
support one as it does the other, simply because we cannot "KNOW" because
we were not there. Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.
Since they are diametrically opposed to one another, obviously one cannot
be true.

We laugh at the naivete' of the folks in the Middle Ages who believed in
"spontaneous generation." Yet, is one of the contending positions asking
us to accept that as scientific fact?

In this discussion, the important thing to to do is see which position is
supported by the data, not the presuppositions.

It is important that people learn the difference between a religion,
say some facet of Christianity for a quick example, with Ayatollah Pat
Robertson or Jerry Falwell, and a philosophy, such as humanism. It
requires a little faith to support humanism, but it requires a major
leap of faith to be a Christian, practicing or otherwise.

Which "both positions" are you describing as built on solid data?
Evolution and humanism? Christianity and evolution? Christianity and
humanism? This categorization of humanism as a religion is one of the
favorite stalking horses of the right wing Christians around here. It
would be laughable if so many people weren't fooled by it.

In article , Renata wrote:
EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!
(17-0; ~31 unanswered points; unbeatable (at least til they fall
apart, which I hope is sometime next millenium)

Unbeatable... until they play the Colts.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:01:19 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


so you're one of those freedom hating liberal pinko commies, eh?

s wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:01:19 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


so you're one of those freedom hating liberal pinko commies, eh?

Mebbe he is. If so, so am I.

Delbert Freeman wrote:
Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.

Oh yeah? Please tell me what the "solid data" is for intelligent
design. All I've heard is an opinion that the universe is so complex
that it must have been created. That's not evidence. Fossils are
evidence. DNA is evidence.

In article ,
s says...
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:01:19 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


so you're one of those freedom hating liberal pinko commies, eh?


Excuse me, but the mindless response when shown to be wrong is supposed
to now include the word terrorist. Didn't anyone read you the memo?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Delbert Freeman wrote:
Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.

Oh yeah? Please tell me what the "solid data" is for intelligent
design. All I've heard is an opinion that the universe is so complex
that it must have been created. That's not evidence. Fossils are
evidence. DNA is evidence.

Fossils are indeed evidence. DNA is indeed evidence. They are however,
evidence of *what*? Throughout all of the debate, there has been no
"scientific" evidence provided by the "scientists" in the group which
refutes the notion of an intelligent design. There has been lots of
postulating and side track comments, but no real contradicting evidence.
For all that is said about the merits of science holding a value in
evidence, observation, etc., most of what has been said in the different
threads here is little more than faith on the part of the advocates on each
side. Oh yeah - and somewhat unique to the advocates of science-only, there
is the requisite insult to the intelligence of anyone who might hold to a
faith. You know - the ever present "ignorance" comment. For all of the
condescending comments, there has yet to be anything even remotely
persuading put forward by any of the advocates of either side.

I stepped a toe into these waters just out of mild interest. I had no
interest in influencing the beliefs of anyone else, nor did I really have
any interest in detailing what my own beliefs really are. Rather, it seemed
like there might be an interesting diversion from reality in some discourse.
Like all of these debates which preceded the current run of evolution -vs-
anything else, there proved to be little more than presumptuous attitudes
and condescending tones, all meant to make the author appear to be wiser and
more educated than he really is. The truth of that matter is that if the
author really were as enlightened as he/she would like to appear, there
would be more of sharing of the true knowledge that they hold and less of
the attitude.

Oh well, such is the nature of these debates. Hasn't changed over time, and
likely never will. Now that just might be the long sought argument against
evolution...

--

-Mike-

On 10/7/2005 12:34 PM Delbert Freeman mumbled something about the following:
Tom Watson wrote:


It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)



Realizing this is not a UG on either religion or science, I hate to say
anything, but which "American Ayatollahs?" Those on the Left or those on
the Right. If you want to put ID down as a stalking horse for religion,
how do you handle Evolution and Humanism (or any "ism" you prefer)? Both
start with certain presuppositions and it requires as much "faith" to
support one as it does the other, simply because we cannot "KNOW" because
we were not there. Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.
Since they are diametrically opposed to one another, obviously one cannot
be true.

We laugh at the naivete' of the folks in the Middle Ages who believed in
"spontaneous generation." Yet, is one of the contending positions asking
us to accept that as scientific fact?

In this discussion, the important thing to to do is see which position is
supported by the data, not the presuppositions.

I just want to know which "Humanism" you are referring to?
Literary Humanism, Renaissance Humanism, Cultural Humanism, Philosphical
Humanism, Christian Humanism, Modern Humanism, Secular Humanism, or
Religious Humanism? It would be easier to figure out what you mean if
you give us all the details.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:39:13 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
. ..
Delbert Freeman wrote:
Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.

Oh yeah? Please tell me what the "solid data" is for intelligent
design. All I've heard is an opinion that the universe is so complex
that it must have been created. That's not evidence. Fossils are
evidence. DNA is evidence.

Fossils are indeed evidence. DNA is indeed evidence. They are however,
evidence of *what*? Throughout all of the debate, there has been no
"scientific" evidence provided by the "scientists" in the group which
refutes the notion of an intelligent design.

in order for a theory to be any use to science, it has to be testable.
what sort of test do you propose to validate this theory of yours that
the universe was created by an invisible super-intelligent
supernatural (we can't use the word god here) being?

nothing wrong with intelligent design, but it doesn't belong in
science classes. it belongs in philosophy classes or in religous
studies classes.



There has been lots of
postulating and side track comments, but no real contradicting evidence.

no supporting evidence, either. in fact, nothing but a lot of talk and
political string pulling to get ID stuffed into grade school
curricula. no discussion in scientific fora, no open discussion, just
attempts to stuff it into kids heads under the radar.


For all that is said about the merits of science holding a value in
evidence, observation, etc., most of what has been said in the different
threads here is little more than faith on the part of the advocates on each
side. Oh yeah - and somewhat unique to the advocates of science-only, there
is the requisite insult to the intelligence of anyone who might hold to a
faith. You know - the ever present "ignorance" comment. For all of the
condescending comments, there has yet to be anything even remotely
persuading put forward by any of the advocates of either side.

I stepped a toe into these waters just out of mild interest. I had no
interest in influencing the beliefs of anyone else, nor did I really have
any interest in detailing what my own beliefs really are. Rather, it seemed
like there might be an interesting diversion from reality in some discourse.
Like all of these debates which preceded the current run of evolution -vs-
anything else, there proved to be little more than presumptuous attitudes
and condescending tones, all meant to make the author appear to be wiser and
more educated than he really is. The truth of that matter is that if the
author really were as enlightened as he/she would like to appear, there
would be more of sharing of the true knowledge that they hold and less of
the attitude.

Oh well, such is the nature of these debates. Hasn't changed over time, and
likely never will. Now that just might be the long sought argument against
evolution...


for all of your claim of neutrality, you wear your creationist flag on
your shoulder.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:39:13 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Fossils are indeed evidence. DNA is indeed evidence. They are however,
evidence of *what*? Throughout all of the debate, there has been no
"scientific" evidence provided by the "scientists" in the group which
refutes the notion of an intelligent design.

in order for a theory to be any use to science, it has to be testable.
what sort of test do you propose to validate this theory of yours that
the universe was created by an invisible super-intelligent
supernatural (we can't use the word god here) being?

nothing wrong with intelligent design, but it doesn't belong in
science classes. it belongs in philosophy classes or in religous
studies classes.


No more so though, than some of the stuff that's taught in science class
which isn't supportable by evidence, yet over the years has come to be
taught as "fact".



There has been lots of
postulating and side track comments, but no real contradicting evidence.

no supporting evidence, either. in fact, nothing but a lot of talk and
political string pulling to get ID stuffed into grade school
curricula. no discussion in scientific fora, no open discussion, just
attempts to stuff it into kids heads under the radar.

But - what *is* the problem with the concept of intelligent design? Science
itself does not specifically deny the possibility of inteligent design. The
sciences are filled with scientists who diligently perform their tasks,
honor the rules of science, add to the cumulative knowledge of mankind, and
yet they believe in inteligent design. The mere concept of inteligent
design seems to be a major hurdle for most of the evolution-only crowd here.



For all that is said about the merits of science holding a value in
evidence, observation, etc., most of what has been said in the different
threads here is little more than faith on the part of the advocates on
each
side. Oh yeah - and somewhat unique to the advocates of science-only,
there
is the requisite insult to the intelligence of anyone who might hold to a
faith. You know - the ever present "ignorance" comment. For all of the
condescending comments, there has yet to be anything even remotely
persuading put forward by any of the advocates of either side.

I stepped a toe into these waters just out of mild interest. I had no
interest in influencing the beliefs of anyone else, nor did I really have
any interest in detailing what my own beliefs really are. Rather, it
seemed
like there might be an interesting diversion from reality in some
discourse.
Like all of these debates which preceded the current run of
evolution -vs-
anything else, there proved to be little more than presumptuous attitudes
and condescending tones, all meant to make the author appear to be wiser
and
more educated than he really is. The truth of that matter is that if the
author really were as enlightened as he/she would like to appear, there
would be more of sharing of the true knowledge that they hold and less of
the attitude.

Oh well, such is the nature of these debates. Hasn't changed over time,
and
likely never will. Now that just might be the long sought argument
against
evolution...


for all of your claim of neutrality, you wear your creationist flag on
your shoulder.

That depends on how you define the term "creationist". But - that's
irrelevant. As I said, I haven't had an interest in detailing what my own
beliefs are, I was only commenting on the nature of this debate. One only
has to hit the google archives to disprove my observations if one feels I'm
wrong.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
...
...

nothing wrong with intelligent design, but it doesn't belong in
science classes. it belongs in philosophy classes or in religous
studies classes.


No more so though, than some of the stuff that's taught in science class
which isn't supportable by evidence, yet over the years has come to be
taught as "fact".



There has been lots of
postulating and side track comments, but no real contradicting evidence.

no supporting evidence, either. in fact, nothing but a lot of talk and
political string pulling to get ID stuffed into grade school
curricula. no discussion in scientific fora, no open discussion, just
attempts to stuff it into kids heads under the radar.

But - what *is* the problem with the concept of intelligent design? Science
itself does not specifically deny the possibility of inteligent design. The
sciences are filled with scientists who diligently perform their tasks,
honor the rules of science, add to the cumulative knowledge of mankind, and
yet they believe in inteligent design. The mere concept of inteligent
design seems to be a major hurdle for most of the evolution-only crowd here.
...

Science itself does not specifically deny the Immaculate Conception
either.

Do you REALLY wonder why not?

--

FF

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Delbert Freeman wrote:
Both positions are built, supposedly, on solid data.

Oh yeah? Please tell me what the "solid data" is for intelligent
design. All I've heard is an opinion that the universe is so complex
that it must have been created. That's not evidence. Fossils are
evidence. DNA is evidence.

Fossils are indeed evidence. DNA is indeed evidence. They are however,
evidence of *what*? Throughout all of the debate, there has been no
"scientific" evidence provided by the "scientists" in the group which
refutes the notion of an intelligent design.

ID and solid data? That's unlikely. The basic philosophy behind ID is that
it is an alternative to solid data -- that using data is a non-starter
because they don't conform to the ID preconcept.

In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is no
point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that I've
seen include:

The universe was created 6,000 years ago.
Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
Noah's flood was worldwide.
Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark.
The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the Bang,
.. . . etc.

But -- there is fossil evidence that is more than 6,000 years old
There is no fossil evidence to support the concept that man and dinosaurs
existed at the same time.
The "worldwide flood" has some obvious logical contradictions (e.g., when
the waters receded, where did they go??)
How did Noah get the dinosaurs onto the ark (the rationale, Noah sought out
juvenile dinosaurs!)
In comparison to the "Big Bang," which is supported by observation -- it's
disingenuous to ignore that arm of science because it doesn't account for
what was before the big bang, but insist on an intelligent designer, without
worrying about who/what created the designer!

Intelligent design as it has been presented is incompatible with more than
Darwin, it is incompatible with astronomical observations, calculations of
interstellar distances, Einstein's theories of relativity, the tested
relationships between time, space and energy, geology, particle theory,
Brian Greene's "Arrow of Time" and almost any science that seeks to
understand the world around us.

Now if someone were to come out with an ID theory which hypothesized that an
intelligent designer created the precursor to the Big Bang and everything
after that has been a testable consequence, there might be some converts.

But it's impossible to calibrate any current ID theory with the real world
of observation of our universe. For one example, read Brian Greene's "The
Fabric of the Cosmos," and try to figure out how intelligent design as now
described could calibrate with the variety of experiments which have gone
into space, time, energy, Higgs Fields, etc.

Regards --

"World Traveler" wrote in message
. net...

ID and solid data? That's unlikely. The basic philosophy behind ID is
that it is an alternative to solid data -- that using data is a
non-starter because they don't conform to the ID preconcept.

In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is
no point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that
I've seen include:

The universe was created 6,000 years ago.
Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
Noah's flood was worldwide.
Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark.
The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the
Bang,
. . . etc.

That would be one interpretation. Yet another would be that all known
societies have explanations for the "creation" of the universe and the
origin of life. Jews of the 6th century BC had a couple (yep, read
Genesis), the societies with who the coexisted had others. I presume you
use Jewish creation stories as a tacit acknowledgement that this nation was
created by people who shared their beliefs? Or is it because you're
unfamiliar with Hindu creation?

It's important to consider and teach that most all societies consider the
human as the highest form of life, the one the gods love, unlike the modern
types who claim a snail darter species coequal to a human. Teachings to
provide perspective and background for understanding, not right, wrong, or
even in final form, just like scientific investigation.

On 10/9/2005 12:43 AM Australopithecus scobis mumbled something about
the following:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:01:51 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


Science itself does not specifically deny the Immaculate Conception
either.


No, but any historian can dig up the references. The whole thing is a
mistranslation of "young woman" into "virgin," and running the thing
through a couple of cultures. Wackos who can't string two thoughts
together have been around for a long, long time. Check out the
incorporation of Teutonic culture into dogma during the latter Roman
Empire. I don't remember the dates; was maybe 200 or 300 CE. Frigga got
Her day, more or less.

Sunna - Sunna's Day - Sunday, Mani - Mani's Day - Monday, Tyr - Tyr's
Day - (in Old English, Tiw, Tew or Tiu) Tuesday, Odinn (Germanic Woden)
- Woden's Day - Wednesday, Thor - Thor's Day - Thursday, and Frigga
(Frigg) - Frigg's Day - Friday, all got their day. Then there's
Saturn's Day - Saturday. So, 6 out of 7 days are from the Teutonic
culture (brought about after the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Rome), and one
from Roman.


Pity that the present day wackos can't understand literature or the
concept of "allegory." They can't even get their own religion right.
Sounds just like some other wackos who can't get _their_ religion right
either, doesn't it?


I can't think of a single religion who's members get their religion right.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

George wrote:

It's important to consider and teach that most all societies consider the
human as the highest form of life, the one the gods love, ...

And that, indeed, is the basis for most, if not all, religions. We just
can't stand the thought that we're just another pile of rotting meat
when we die, just like all the other animals :-).

"World Traveler" wrote in message
. net...


In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is
no
point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that
I've
seen include:

The universe was created 6,000 years ago.

That would not be an ID belief, that would be a Institute for Creation
Research position. There is a big difference.

Man and dinosaurs coexisted.

Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).

Noah's flood was worldwide.

That's a fundamental Bible teaching - not unique to ID or to followers of
Institute for Creation Research.

Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark.

ICR again.

The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the
Bang,
. . . etc.

This is a fundamentalist position. Though fundamentalist are believers in
ID, they do not represent ID.


But -- there is fossil evidence that is more than 6,000 years old

ICR again - not an ID issue.

The "worldwide flood" has some obvious logical contradictions (e.g., when
the waters receded, where did they go??)

Hmmmmm. You can allow for long stretches of the imagination to accomodate a
scientific theory that is too big to comprehend, but you can't allow for a
world wide flood simply because you can't imagine where the water went?

How did Noah get the dinosaurs onto the ark (the rationale, Noah sought
out
juvenile dinosaurs!)

ICR again - not ID.

In comparison to the "Big Bang," which is supported by observation -- it's
disingenuous to ignore that arm of science because it doesn't account for
what was before the big bang, but insist on an intelligent designer,
without
worrying about who/what created the designer!

The big bang is not supported by observation. Recent observations via
Hubble have brought about new theories that conflict with big bang. No
matter though - once again you are confusing ICR and fundamentalists with
ID.


Intelligent design as it has been presented is incompatible with more than
Darwin, it is incompatible with astronomical observations, calculations of
interstellar distances, Einstein's theories of relativity, the tested
relationships between time, space and energy, geology, particle theory,
Brian Greene's "Arrow of Time" and almost any science that seeks to
understand the world around us.

You obviously do not understand ID. In your attempt to discredit by any
means, you've lumped several different religious beliefs under the heading
of ID. You have no compelling argument.


Now if someone were to come out with an ID theory which hypothesized that
an
intelligent designer created the precursor to the Big Bang and everything
after that has been a testable consequence, there might be some converts.

ID does allow for exactly that. ID simply attempts to explain where it all
began. Why then the issue with it?


But it's impossible to calibrate any current ID theory with the real world
of observation of our universe. For one example, read Brian Greene's "The
Fabric of the Cosmos," and try to figure out how intelligent design as now
described could calibrate with the variety of experiments which have gone
into space, time, energy, Higgs Fields, etc.

Better yet, since you brought it up - please explain how the principal of an
intelligent design conflicts with these.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.

Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and dinosaur
in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as that
was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the superimposed
footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar. If my
memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.

Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.

--

-Mike-

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.

Sorry - should have put this in my previous reply...

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. To my
"creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough circumstantial
evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I don't
give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

And - while I'm at it... I did find a plethora of articles which debunked
what I had read years ago about the human footprint superimposed on the
dinosaur print.

--

-Mike-

On 10/9/2005 1:47 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.


Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and dinosaur
in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as that
was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the superimposed
footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar. If my
memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.

Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.


Taylor Trail, Turnage Trail, Ryan Trail, and Giant Trail at Paluxy River
near Glen Rose, Texas have even been abandoned by most creationists as
proof that man and dinosaur existed together
(http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=255).

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

"Odinn" wrote in message
...
On 10/9/2005 1:47 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.


Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and
dinosaur
in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as
that
was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the
superimposed
footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar.
If my
memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.

Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.


Taylor Trail, Turnage Trail, Ryan Trail, and Giant Trail at Paluxy River
near Glen Rose, Texas have even been abandoned by most creationists as
proof that man and dinosaur existed together
(http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=255).


Yeah - I discovered that as I did some google searches. I was not happy
having to reply as vaguely as I did so I went looking for the story and
discovered that everybody, including those who most wanted it to be true,
have conceded that it was a fake.

--

-Mike-

On 10/9/2005 3:46 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
"Odinn" wrote in message
...

On 10/9/2005 1:47 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
. ..


Mike Marlow wrote:



Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.


Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and

dinosaur

in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as

that

was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the

superimposed

footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar.

If my

memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.

Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.


Taylor Trail, Turnage Trail, Ryan Trail, and Giant Trail at Paluxy River
near Glen Rose, Texas have even been abandoned by most creationists as
proof that man and dinosaur existed together
(http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=255).



Yeah - I discovered that as I did some google searches. I was not happy
having to reply as vaguely as I did so I went looking for the story and
discovered that everybody, including those who most wanted it to be true,
have conceded that it was a fake.


Not everybody has conceded it was a fake, Dr. Carl E. Baugh has been
making some wild claims and is supposedly doing research at Taylor Trail
again. Unfortunately, he's destroyed many of the tracks by pouring
plaster into some and then using hammers and chisels to remove the
casting instead of using rubber castings. A huge chunk of plaster still
remains in one fo the tracks at Ryals Trail that he and some associates
poured.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 10/9/2005 3:29 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.


Sorry - should have put this in my previous reply...

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. To my
"creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough circumstantial
evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I don't
give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

And - while I'm at it... I did find a plethora of articles which debunked
what I had read years ago about the human footprint superimposed on the
dinosaur print.


Cave drawings don't even come close to circumstantial evidence that they
existed together.

http://www.answersincreation.org/pioneers.htm

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:01:51 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

Science itself does not specifically deny the Immaculate Conception
either.

No, but any historian can dig up the references.

You might consider checking it out yourself.

The whole thing is a
mistranslation of "young woman" into "virgin," and running the thing
through a couple of cultures. ...

Irrelevant IRT the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Ann.

--

FF

Mike Marlow wrote:

....
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. ...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:10:14 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

George wrote:

It's important to consider and teach that most all societies consider the
human as the highest form of life, the one the gods love, ...

And that, indeed, is the basis for most, if not all, religions. We just
can't stand the thought that we're just another pile of rotting meat
when we die, just like all the other animals :-).

Or that we're not at the top of the food chain in all circumstances.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. ...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. There's a ton of stuff - pictures of the
ancient drawings, etchings on pottery, etc. I guess it could remain
arguable whether one agrees that they are pictures of dinosaurs or "stylized
game", and really - at that point which one of us would really know? A good
number of the stylizations though, bear a striking resemblance to what we
now consider to be what some of the dinosaurs looked like.

--

-Mike-

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:29:32 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.
References, please. Hint: it's bunk.


Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I didn't
see any claims against the stuff.

--

-Mike-

On 10/9/2005 5:21 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:29:32 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:


There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.

References, please. Hint: it's bunk.



Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I didn't
see any claims against the stuff.


Follow the link I posted in my previous message. There you will find
claims against it. I can post many more sites as well if you can't seem
to find anything.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:19:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. ...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. There's a ton of stuff - pictures of the
ancient drawings, etchings on pottery, etc. I guess it could remain
arguable whether one agrees that they are pictures of dinosaurs or "stylized
game", and really - at that point which one of us would really know? A good
number of the stylizations though, bear a striking resemblance to what we
now consider to be what some of the dinosaurs looked like.


I used to have some magazines containing drawings of women by a guy
named Vargas.

I never took this to be proof that such women actually existed.



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:19:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.
....

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. There's a ton of stuff - pictures of the
ancient drawings, etchings on pottery, etc. I guess it could remain
arguable whether one agrees that they are pictures of dinosaurs or
"stylized
game", and really - at that point which one of us would really know? A
good
number of the stylizations though, bear a striking resemblance to what we
now consider to be what some of the dinosaurs looked like.


I used to have some magazines containing drawings of women by a guy
named Vargas.

I never took this to be proof that such women actually existed.


Well, for the sake of argument, it might well be proof enough that Vargas
had indeed seen a woman, wouldn't it?

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:48:25 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
.. .

I used to have some magazines containing drawings of women by a guy
named Vargas.

I never took this to be proof that such women actually existed.


Well, for the sake of argument, it might well be proof enough that Vargas
had indeed seen a woman, wouldn't it?


Actually, the drawings could be used as evidence that he had never
seen a real one.


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Mike Marlow wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. ...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. ...

You're the one making the claim, not I...

As I said, I've never seen anything that would unequivocabbly invoke
"dinosaur".