"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri

Jan 24, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Joplin

House Bill 291, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 23, 2013, would, if enacted, require "the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design," according to the legislature's summary of the bill.

Comments
21 - 40 of 70 Comments Last updated Jan 29, 2013
Anonymous

Clifton Park, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

so very pleased this bill is being introduced. i hope it passes with flying colors. the only logicl and fare thing to do is present the facts as they are and allow are young minds to digest what is true, not fiction based on aetheistic religiosity....hurray legislatures! bravo!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

dawne27 wrote:
so very pleased this bill is being introduced. i hope it passes with flying colors. the only logicl and fare thing to do is present the facts as they are and allow are young minds to digest what is true, not fiction based on aetheistic religiosity....hurray legislatures! bravo!
Creationists would not like the facts. In fact if all of the facts were presented they would get quite angry since all of the facts support evolution and none of them support creationism. In fact if they looked at the origins of creationism they would be taught that it was the superstitious beliefs of a group of bronze age nomadic sheep herders. These same sheep herders believed that the world was flat and that doves blood could help cure leprosy, along with countless other ridiculous beliefs.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

dawne27 wrote:
so very pleased this bill is being introduced. i hope it passes with flying colors. the only logicl and fare thing to do is present the facts as they are and allow are young minds to digest what is true, not fiction based on aetheistic religiosity....hurray legislatures! bravo!
Yes, only facts should be taught in school, thus creationism has no place in school either.
the real guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
What is there to understand about ID? Something intelligent did something intelligent. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Fantastic "theory".
Yeah, kind of like nothing took nothing and did something to create everything. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Another fantastic "theory".
the real guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
In fact if all of the facts were presented they would get quite angry since all of the facts support evolution and none of them support creationism.
What facts support spontaneous generation? Explain how an entire universe filled with matter and energy popped into existence from nothing without a cause. Explain how one can hold that view in light of the logical maxim ex nihilo, nihil fit.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 28, 2013
 
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, kind of like nothing took nothing and did something to create everything. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Another fantastic "theory".
Luckily that's not what scientists have ever said.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 28, 2013
 
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
What facts support spontaneous generation? Explain how an entire universe filled with matter and energy popped into existence from nothing without a cause. Explain how one can hold that view in light of the logical maxim ex nihilo, nihil fit.
We don't know, and neither do you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

dawne27 wrote:
so very pleased this bill is being introduced. i hope it passes with flying colors. the only logicl and fare thing to do is present the facts as they are and allow are young minds to digest what is true, not fiction based on aetheistic religiosity....hurray legislatures! bravo!
I'm sorry, but what does atheism have to do with anything? Or is this just you openly admitting that this bill is purely about allowing illegal religious apologetics into public school science classes?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, kind of like nothing took nothing and did something to create everything. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Another fantastic "theory".
Actually it's the same. What you just described was creationism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
What facts support spontaneous generation? Explain how an entire universe filled with matter and energy popped into existence from nothing without a cause. Explain how one can hold that view in light of the logical maxim ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Runaway quantum fluctuation. Although that is merely one of a number of hypotheses proposed by cosmologists for the existence of the universe. The rest are cause-based phenomena, such as Big Crunch, Big Rip, or Multiverse hypothesis. However it is accepted that their validity will not be able to be determined until they come up with a working theory of quantum gravity.

Of course none of these have any bearing at all on the scientific validity of evolution.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 28, 2013
 
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, kind of like nothing took nothing and did something to create everything. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Another fantastic "theory".
If you truly believe that what you wrote is what science actually claims, then religion is perfect for you. It requires no real effort on your part (except for the whole shutting out reality thing)and you have someone to do your thinking for you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

dawne27 wrote:
so very pleased this bill is being introduced. i hope it passes with flying colors. the only logicl and fare thing to do is present the facts as they are and allow are young minds to digest what is true, not fiction based on aetheistic religiosity....hurray legislatures! bravo!
Right on! Just the facts as they are.

Present the facts of the fossil record. Just the facts. Like how the organisms we find change as we go into deeper strata, and how complex structures appear in later ones that are elaborations of the simpler structures found in earlier ones.

Present the evidence for Earth's age. Radiometric, astronomical, physical, chemical, geological.

Present the evidence in the genome. ERV's, pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins all following a nested hierarchy consistent with the nested hierarchy of the fossil record.

Present atavisms, vestigial structures, and embryology.

Present the laboratory evidence of adaptation and the development of new capabilities via mutation.

Then present the evidence against evolution.

Irreducible complexity. Debunked.
Probability. Debunked.
Genetic entropy. Debunked.
Young Earth. Debunked to the point of humiliation.

Any other evidence?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, kind of like nothing took nothing and did something to create everything. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Another fantastic "theory".
Yes, that is what Darwin said and what evolutionists believe today. You cannot get through a single one of Origin of the Species 400+ pages without Darwin repeating it over and over, how "nothing took nothing and created everything somewhere and somehow at some time".
the real guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KittenKoder wrote:
Luckily that's not what scientists have ever said.
Sure they have Kitten. Like most every other topic, you pop in and lay a pile of ignorant shit and then leave. You never offer anything of substance.

The fact is that even Stephen Hawking, supposedly the foremost physicist of our time, holds that spontaneous generation was a necessity, even though that view is completely irrational and wholly without foundation or merit.
the real guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Dude wrote:
Actually it's the same. What you just described was creationism.
Creationism, as I understand it, is not spontaneous generation.
the real guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Dude wrote:
Runaway quantum fluctuation.
How can there exist quantum fluctation when there is no matter or energy?
Although that is merely one of a number of hypotheses proposed by cosmologists for the existence of the universe.
Hypotheses or wild speculation that denies logic and rationality?
The rest are cause-based phenomena, such as Big Crunch, Big Rip, or Multiverse hypothesis.
How can nothing cause anything?
Of course none of these have any bearing at all on the scientific validity of evolution.
I thought we were talking about the origin of the universe.
the real guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

TerryL wrote:
If you truly believe that what you wrote is what science actually claims, then religion is perfect for you.
Well, that is what science actually claims. Ever read Stephen Hawking? Yeah, spontaneous generation. Nothing took nothing and then caused everything.

I know it's ridiculous, but that's what the pointy heads tell us we must believe, right after they deny the logical necessity of a primary cause. Hell, even Plato deduced an uncaused first cause, and I don't think he could be described as religious.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they have Kitten. Like most every other topic, you pop in and lay a pile of ignorant shit and then leave. You never offer anything of substance.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.
the real guest wrote:
The fact is that even Stephen Hawking, supposedly the foremost physicist of our time, holds that spontaneous generation was a necessity, even though that view is completely irrational and wholly without foundation or merit.
Actually you are incorrect. As already stated a runaway quantum fluctuation is only one of the proposed hypotheses by cosmologists, but the idea doesn't solely rest on Hawking's shoulders. And considering your complete and total utter lack of science education I somehow doubt that you are more knowledgeable on the subject of cosmology than him or indeed any other genuine cosmologist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism, as I understand it, is not spontaneous generation.
That is because you do not even understand your own position. As it happens we happen to know more about your own position as well as ours, because promoters of anti-science such as yourself are quite frankly woefully uneducated. Although you are not alone in thinking that complete ignorance of a subject is the perfect place from which to critique it. That is why your criticisms are baseless and ultimately rest upon your own incredulity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jan 28, 2013
 
the real guest wrote:
How can there exist quantum fluctation when there is no matter or energy?
Quite easily. If you had even the slightest inkling about quantum physics you would understand this. Since it involves both positive and negative energy being created in equal measure there is no violation of conservation of energy laws. Bear in mind that particle/anti-particle pairs HAVE been scientifically observed spontaneously appearing in a vacuum, apparently completely defying all ideas you ever thought you had in regards to cause and effect. While cause and effect seems to be the norm on a macro scale, it does not appear to apply to quantum phenomena. So far all scientific research demonstrates quantum phenomena to be correct.

However in the case of the runaway quantum fluctuation being responsible for the universe I have already stated that it is not a fully-fledged working theory, and that it is only one of a number of hypotheses for the initial formation of our universe. Any one of which (or perhaps something else entirely) may be confirmed if and when we develop a working theory of quantum gravity. It's a shame Polymath isn't around at the moment; he's our resident physicist and would be able to fully explain things in much more detail than the rest of us.
the real guest wrote:
Hypotheses or wild speculation that denies logic and rationality?
Since you are unable to provide any criticism of any kind of ANY scientific concept, much less any of those I just mentioned, your concerns are baseless. What I WILL do is grant you that quantum physics not being bound by the limitations of cause and effect IS counter-intuitive, so I would certainly not expect a scientifically ignorant layman to grasp the concept.

The amusing part however is that the vast majority who would argue against the concept don't even understand that they quite hypocritically invoke the EXACT same thing when they claim Goddidit - also a causeless cause. One would expect they would welcome the idea with arms wide open. Ironic, no?
the real guest wrote:
How can nothing cause anything?
It doesn't. There is no cause. Quantum phenomena are uncaused events. There are no events preceding quantum phenomena to "cause" them.
the real guest wrote:
I thought we were talking about the origin of the universe.
No, YOU were talking about the origin of the universe. This thread is about creationists illegally pushing their particular brand of religion, which includes pseudo-scientific anti-evolution apologetics into public school classrooms. Although rest assured it will almost certainly include apologetics concerning other fields of science, including but not limited to: the age of the Earth and the Big Bang. In short, arguing against every single field of science there is.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••