"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri

"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri

There are 70 comments on the Joplin story from Jan 24, 2013, titled "Intelligent design" bill in Missouri. In it, Joplin reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Joplin.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#41 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Wow, and there it was. Just as I predicted in my last post. You assert (in your opinion) the ridiculousness of an uncaused cause, then directly follow it by invoking an uncaused cause. Not only are you totally lacking any sort of science education (this is the part where you people brag about having MD's, PhD's, four years of medical training, whatever) but you are unable to grasp the complete incoherence and inconsistencies of your own position.

All you understand about science is that you are against it.
the real guest

United States

#42 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
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.
The issue I addressed in the post you responded to was not runaway quantum fluctuation, but rather spontaneous generation. Do try to keep up.
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.
You don't know me nor what education I've completed. Rather than explaining how everything can come from nothing without cause, you've chosen to hurl petty ad hominem attacks. That's a sure sign that you've already lost the debate.
the real guest

United States

#43 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
That is because you do not even understand your own position.
I haven't stated a position. Again, you're making assumptions without foundation.
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.
LOL! Well puss cake, I'm not promoting anti-science, I'm just asking pertinent questions about some of the ridiculous ideas that are bandied about as science by the likes of you.

And again, your petty ad hominem attack lends your position about zero credibility.

BTW, you never did answer how quantum fluctuations can occur in the complete absence of all matter and energy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#44 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue I addressed in the post you responded to was not runaway quantum fluctuation, but rather spontaneous generation. Do try to keep up.
They are both the same in your book.
the real guest wrote:
You don't know me nor what education I've completed. Rather than explaining how everything can come from nothing without cause, you've chosen to hurl petty ad hominem attacks. That's a sure sign that you've already lost the debate.
How can I lose a debate that hasn't even started? All you've done is state your opinions. All I've done is state the current scientific views on various subjects. In order for there to be a debate you must actually present an argument. Since you were unable to present a single one in the last thread you took part in I am not confident in you showing any such ability here.
the real guest

United States

#45 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
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.
We're not talking about positive or negative engergy, we're talking about zero energy and zero matter. There is nothing to fluctuate.
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.
Just because you don't understand what you see doesn't mean that it occurs without cause and comes from nothing.
So far all scientific research demonstrates quantum phenomena to be correct.
LOL! IOW you're saying, you've got me with your tough question, so I'll appeal to unspecified "scientific research" and hope like hell you're gullible enough not to call my bluff.

No dice puss cake. You ain't got shit. If there ain't no matter nor energy, their ain't no quantum fluctuation.
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
It's actually not even that. It's only a pipe dream that is anything but scientific. Not only does it violate known scientific law, it violates the most basic precepts of logic and reason. IOW, it's nothing but complete horse shit.
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.
Oh, so you're just a dummy trying to act smart. Funny you would question MY education.
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.
ROFLMAO!! I'm too dumb to answer your simple question Mr. Real Guest, so I'll just say that I think your dumb and so are your questions. Yeah right.
What I WILL do is grant you that quantum physics not being bound by the limitations of cause and effect IS counter-intuitive
Spontaneous generation is not simply counter-intuitive, it's a complete rejection of logic, reason and common sense. That's hardly scientific.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#46 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue I addressed in the post you responded to was not runaway quantum fluctuation, but rather spontaneous generation. Do try to keep up.
Actually, Hawking never used the term "spontaneous generation".
the real guest

United States

#47 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
You assert (in your opinion) the ridiculousness of an uncaused cause, then directly follow it by invoking an uncaused cause.
No I didn't. There's a difference between recognizing the logica necessity of an uncaused first cause and no cause at all that somehow creates everything out of nothing.
Not only are you totally lacking any sort of science education
More petty ad hominem attacks that are nothing but red herrings, and from an admitted dummy to boot.
All you understand about science is that you are against it.
I'm not against science at all, but that doesn't mean I don't oppose your nonsensical horse shit.
the real guest

United States

#48 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
All you've done is state your opinions.
No, I've asked pertinent questions that expose the fallacy of your beliefs. You don't know how to respond, so you hurl petty personal attacks.
the real guest

United States

#49 Jan 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Actually, Hawking never used the term "spontaneous generation".
Read his book. He lays it out in spades.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#50 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
I haven't stated a position. Again, you're making assumptions without foundation.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5Q...

Really? By all means, play coy as long as you like. If you happen to turn out to be one of the rare nihilists we get from time to time instead of a creationist, well that's okay - that's dumb too.
the real guest wrote:
LOL! Well puss cake, I'm not promoting anti-science, I'm just asking pertinent questions about some of the ridiculous ideas that are bandied about as science by the likes of you.
And your "pertinent questions" are based on incredulity.
the real guest wrote:
And again, your petty ad hominem attack lends your position about zero credibility.
No ad-homs, I can only go by your own posting history:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...

It's not our fault if you are intellectually dishonest, incredulous, and not very well read (at all) on matters of science.
the real guest wrote:
BTW, you never did answer how quantum fluctuations can occur in the complete absence of all matter and energy.
I'm no expert on quantum physics, which is why I stated I would defer to Polymath if he were here. But I did point out that the spontaneous appearance of negative energy would be counterbalanced by positive energy thus not violating any conservation of energy laws. Also matter doesn't even enter into it, as there wasn't even any matter in the early stages of the universe's history. I also pointed out that the runaway quantum fluctuation idea was only one of a number of ideas, and could be completely and utterly wrong.

As it is, the theoretical concepts behind the universe's initial formation is currently debated by theoretical physicists, and not something school students would have to worry about too much at their level.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#51 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Read his book. He lays it out in spades.
Obviously you didn't. He used the term "spontaneous creation". But then, reading fundie websites are just as good,right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#52 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
We're not talking about positive or negative engergy, we're talking about zero energy and zero matter. There is nothing to fluctuate.
There's nothing to fluctuate when particle/anti-particle pairs appear in a vacuum. There is no event which precedes it. Cause and effect simply does not apply to quantum physics.
the real guest wrote:
Just because you don't understand what you see doesn't mean that it occurs without cause and comes from nothing.
Then since you quite obviously do understand it then you can explain what event precedes quantum fluctuations and how it causes them.
the real guest wrote:
LOL! IOW you're saying, you've got me with your tough question, so I'll appeal to unspecified "scientific research" and hope like hell you're gullible enough not to call my bluff.
No dice puss cake. You ain't got shit. If there ain't no matter nor energy, their ain't no quantum fluctuation.
I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but then if you were really interested in science you'd be looking it up yourself instead of raising questions here just so you can rant off about how science you don't like because you don't know anything about it is stupid.
the real guest wrote:
It's actually not even that. It's only a pipe dream that is anything but scientific. Not only does it violate known scientific law, it violates the most basic precepts of logic and reason. IOW, it's nothing but complete horse shit.
In which case we can expect to see your peer-reviewed published science paper on the subject any day now, since obviously your claim that you're smarter than all the cosmologists, including Hawking, is correct.
the real guest wrote:
Oh, so you're just a dummy trying to act smart. Funny you would question MY education.
Don't need to know lots about it, all I need to know is more than you.(shrug)
the real guest wrote:
ROFLMAO!! I'm too dumb to answer your simple question Mr. Real Guest, so I'll just say that I think your dumb and so are your questions. Yeah right.
Actually it's quite easy to spot logical fallacies in lines of questioning.
the real guest wrote:
Spontaneous generation is not simply counter-intuitive, it's a complete rejection of logic, reason and common sense. That's hardly scientific.
Then that rules creationism out completely, as its whole premise is based on spontaneous generation. And funnily enough, you've been SUPPORTING it be taught in public schools.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#53 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No I didn't. There's a difference between recognizing the logica necessity of an uncaused first cause and no cause at all that somehow creates everything out of nothing.
An uncaused first cause has no cause at all.

Make up your mind bub, have you got a problem with violating cause and effect or not?
the real guest wrote:
More petty ad hominem attacks that are nothing but red herrings, and from an admitted dummy to boot.
Irony.
the real guest wrote:
I'm not against science at all, but that doesn't mean I don't oppose your nonsensical horse shit.
Well you oppose biology and physics based on your postings so far. If you're here to tell us you accept chemistry, we're not impressed. But eventually you'll probably say something to throw that out the window too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#54 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I've asked pertinent questions that expose the fallacy of your beliefs. You don't know how to respond, so you hurl petty personal attacks.
How is it my beliefs when I've never even claimed to accept the runaway quantum fluctuation hypothesis? Personally I prefer the infinite string of universes myself. But I can't claim it's more valid than any of the other proposed hypotheses so far.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#55 Jan 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you didn't. He used the term "spontaneous creation". But then, reading fundie websites are just as good,right?
Good grief yes! The inforamtion on those websites doesn't have to have those nasty verifiable sources or even be real.

I can tell this guy is plugged in and he doesn't have time to waste with facts or critical thinking.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#56 Jan 28, 2013
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!
Thankfully, in the country we have a Constitution that says that religious idiots that want to dumb down science education by injecting non-science malarky into a science class just can't do it.

There is no logic in doing it. Only an uneducated buffoon would say that.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#57 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue I addressed in the post you responded to was not runaway quantum fluctuation, but rather spontaneous generation. Do try to keep up.
<quoted text>
You don't know me nor what education I've completed. Rather than explaining how everything can come from nothing without cause, you've chosen to hurl petty ad hominem attacks. That's a sure sign that you've already lost the debate.
As to your education, we can guess and come pretty close I bet. Tell them all about it in study hall.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#58 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".
Kind of like how an intelligence we can't see, hear, smell, weigh, or quantify in any manner known, took nothing and made something out of it. The origins of this mysterious intelligence are equally unknowable by the way.

You obvioulsy realize the ignorance of your position but are in denial and are tranferring that onto science.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#59 Jan 28, 2013
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.
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.
If you add a god into the equation, yes you do need "something from nothing" for anything to exist. Steven is a physicist, and I know he didn't say something as stupid as you claim he did. You need to learn even basic physics.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60 Jan 28, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I've asked pertinent questions that expose the fallacy of your beliefs. You don't know how to respond, so you hurl petty personal attacks.
No, you have recited debunked questions. Questions that have been debunked so many times it's old. Until you catch up, you have nothing new.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr GreyGhost 174,033
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 20,901
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 143,949
News Intelligent design 4 hr MikeF 24
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Wed karl44 1
More from around the web