"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.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#61 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.
You do realise...well, obviously, you DON'T realise, that the theory of evolution does not depend one iota on whether the universe popped out of nothing, whether it existed forever, or whether God created it.

The ToE is not ABOUT the creation of the universe. Biologists have no idea how the universe started and do not need to. Look out the window. There is one.

Your media hype masters like that little butterball of deliberate misinformation Ben Stein have managed to convince you that all scientific theories are rolled into one, mushed together in a way that everything depends on everything else. As if evolution depends of what Hawking says about the Big Bang.

However, the truth is that even if God created the universe, we have enough evidence to be sure that it was one in which evolution occurred, and the origin of everything is not relevant in this case.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#62 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.
Nope, so wrong on so many levels.

That the universe (this universe) began from a quantum fluctuation in a preexisting inflaton field is one hypothesis. Scientists would be the first to tell you they do not really know.

And that is the point. They do not know and are not pretending they do know, and they are not "telling you what you must believe" about this or any other aspect of science.

And like anything else, the more speculative the scenario, the less convincing it is unless some evidence starts to roll in.

Evolution does not depend on the Big Bang, nor on how the Earth formed, nor even on how life originated. It depends on what happened once life existed as a result of life's tendencies to replicate exponentially with imperfect heredity, creating variation, in a competition for limited resources within unstable environments. And THAT is extremely well documented, supported by mountains of independently converging evidence, and established beyond reasonable doubt.

When people try to conflate what we DO know with a high level of evidence (evolution), with what we DO NOT know with a high level of evidence (origin of the universe, origin of life), as if they are all part of the same bag, they are being DISHONEST. Its like me saying you cannot possibly know your own neighbourhood if you cannot draw a street map of Dublin.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63 Jan 29, 2013
the real guest wrote:
I haven't stated a position.
It appears that you have, because all you can talk about is the insufficiency of physical theories to explain why there is "something" rather than "nothing" and you clearly propose God as the answer to that conundrum.

Yet all you are doing is proposing another, insufficient hypothesis for why there is anything. There may or may not be God, but that does not solve the question you have asked either.

The honest answer is, I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows. We don't even know if its a meaningful question to ask whether there actually "could" be nothing instead of something. We don't even know if its a meaningful question to ask for a prior cause once we are outside of time itself.

Science take a different approach. What can we learn, based on observing the universe around us? This is a bottom up instead of a top down approach. We now know what gravity does even though we are less sure what gravity IS. We now know that life evolved even though we are less sure about how it got started, etc. We started from the most immediate and easily observable - ball bearings rolling down inclines etc, and worked our way outward and upward from there, while non-science philosophers and theologians argued about the unanswerable.
the real guest

United States

#64 Jan 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
No ad-homs, I can only go by your own posting history:[QUOTE]

Neither of the links you provided lead to any post where I've stated a position of creationism. Face it Dude, you're engaging in nothing but petty personal attacks because you're incapable of defending your position from the very simple questions I posed.

[QUOTE]It's not our fault if you are intellectually dishonest, incredulous, and not very well read (at all) on matters of science.
All false, petty personal attacks designed to mask your inability to defend your view.
I'm no expert on quantum physics
Obviously not, which is why it's so amusing to watch you thrash about trying to act intelligent when you're operating from a position of ignorance.

I've responded to as much tripe of yours as I care to. Just like on the other recent thread where we debated, you've got nothing of substance.

At least Kitten departs after she dumps her pile of shit. You should follow her cue rather than adding pile after pile and then smearing it all over the walls. You do nothing but stink up the place.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65 Jan 29, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All false, petty personal attacks designed to mask your inability to defend your view.
<quoted text>
Obviously not, which is why it's so amusing to watch you thrash about trying to act intelligent when you're operating from a position of ignorance.
I've responded to as much tripe of yours as I care to. Just like on the other recent thread where we debated, you've got nothing of substance.
At least Kitten departs after she dumps her pile of shit. You should follow her cue rather than adding pile after pile and then smearing it all over the walls. You do nothing but stink up the place.
Still nothing but pure projection here. The Dude is correct, you are not, pretty simple.
the real guest

United States

#66 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
It appears that you have, because all you can talk about is the insufficiency of physical theories to explain why there is "something" rather than "nothing" and you clearly propose God as the answer to that conundrum.
I haven't proposed anything, other than the opinions of those on this thread regarding the origin of the universe are wholly irrational and illogical. And I've done that by posting simple questions that no one to date has been able to answer.

You as well refuse to answer, simply dismissing them as irrelevant because you don't know the answer either. Then you, like Dude, assign to me positions that I haven't taken in order to pigeon hole me.

That's called building a strawman argument and it doesn't hold any weight. Will you follow Dude, Kitten, et al, and throw your next best punch of ad hominem attack as well?

Face it, you guys can't answer the simple pertinent questions regarding the origin of the universe, which is the elephant in the room, yet you're at the forefront to make petty and disparaging remarks about those who beleive in creationism yet are unable to answer your pertinent questions about their belief. That's hypocrisy.
the real guest

United States

#67 Jan 29, 2013
I usually hang around a thread for 100 posts or so, but seeing that we're 2/3 of the way there and have been running in circles for scores of posts, there's no point in me continuing this inance discussion.

Maybe I'll find someone in the future who has the ability to intelligently respond to pointed questions regarding the positions they hold without resorting to petty ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#68 Jan 29, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Neither of the links you provided lead to any post where I've stated a position of creationism.
Supporting these anti-science bills is supporting creationism. It makes little difference if you personally are not one.
the real guest wrote:
Face it Dude, you're engaging in nothing but petty personal attacks because you're incapable of defending your position from the very simple questions I posed.
Actually I am merely pointing out that your questions proceed from your assumptions re cause and effect that simply do not apply to quantum physics. If you have a beef with this you can take it up with astrophysicists. I also specifically stated numerous times over that the runaway quantum fluctuation as the beginning of the universe is NOT my position.
the real guest wrote:
All false, petty personal attacks designed to mask your inability to defend your view.
Actually it's not false, since you did use the "it's only a theory" argument on the other thread.
the real guest wrote:
Obviously not, which is why it's so amusing to watch you thrash about trying to act intelligent when you're operating from a position of ignorance.
And yet you claim to know more than the scientific community does. Not surprising really, since that's the modus operandi of the vast majority of fundies.
the real guest wrote:
I've responded to as much tripe of yours as I care to. Just like on the other recent thread where we debated, you've got nothing of substance.
Actually we had plenty. As I already pointed out, there WAS no debate. That's why you did not even attempt to take part in any sort of debate, and after SPECIFICALLY being asked to do so you skeedaddled the moment you realised you were dealing with people who knew far more than you do about evolution. Which is yet another subject that you claim to know more than the hundreds of thousands of biologists across the world about. I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation for orthologous ERV markers and why they do not demonstrate common ancestry.
the real guest wrote:
At least Kitten departs after she dumps her pile of shit. You should follow her cue rather than adding pile after pile and then smearing it all over the walls. You do nothing but stink up the place.
There goes another irony meter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69 Jan 29, 2013
the real guest wrote:
I usually hang around a thread for 100 posts or so, but seeing that we're 2/3 of the way there and have been running in circles for scores of posts, there's no point in me continuing this inance discussion.
Maybe I'll find someone in the future who has the ability to intelligently respond to pointed questions regarding the positions they hold without resorting to petty ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.
We understand.

You have no staying power.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#70 Jan 29, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't proposed anything, other than the opinions of those on this thread regarding the origin of the universe are wholly irrational and illogical. And I've done that by posting simple questions that no one to date has been able to answer.
Nobody has been able to answer because nobody can. Not scientists, not theologians, not philosophers.

However, its a mistake to say that just because we have no idea about ultimate causes, that we know nothing about the world. What we do know is based on the evidence we have been able to gather.
You as well refuse to answer, simply dismissing them as irrelevant because you don't know the answer either.
I did answer. My answer is, I don't know. That is an honest answer. And I can add, neither do you nor anyone else.

But we do have evidence for evolution, so if your "ultimate answer" is right, and God created everything, we can be confident that He created a universe that allowed evolution because the evidence is all around us.
Face it, you guys can't answer the simple pertinent questions regarding the origin of the universe, which is the elephant in the room, yet you're at the forefront to make petty and disparaging remarks about those who beleive in creationism yet are unable to answer your pertinent questions about their belief. That's hypocrisy.
I do not even disparage you for jumping to a "God" conclusion, but for the fact that based on your conclusion, which you cannot back up but are perfectly entitled to believe, you try to dismiss answers to scientific questions that we CAN back up with evidence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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) 38 min UncommonSense2015 163,815
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr UncommonSense2015 178,616
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr dirtclod 141,337
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 10 hr UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) Sun Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
More from around the web