Why the controversy?

Jun 22, 2013 Full story: The Star Press 70

Teaching intelligent design in an elective course on the philosophical implications of cosmology is hardly controversial.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1 Jun 22, 2013
There is no controversy, creationism is not science.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
There is no controversy, creationism is not science.
....said the warm pond myth believer! Ha,Ha.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3 Jun 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
....said the warm pond myth believer! Ha,Ha.
Poor bohart. Everybody laughs at his idiotic ideas so the thinks he can laugh at other people ideass.

The problem is, bohart, is that your ideas and the ideas of ID are provably wrong. If someone keeps pushing ideas that can be proven to be wrong then you can laugh at them.

The people who try to debunk evolution always end up either lying or making egregious mathematical or scientific errors. We show it all of the time when creatards think that they have a way of debunking evolution.

In science there is no controversy about evolution. There is no controversy to teach.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#4 Jun 24, 2013
Associating ID in any way with cosmology is controversial. Cosmology is a science, itís findings derived by scientific principle of observation, measurement and extrapolation of facts available today. Cosmologists jump to no conclusion regarding the creation of the universe but base their findings on known, observable measurable fact.

The same cannot be said for ID, itís not a science but guesswork based on absolutely no scientific understanding but rather in the word of bronze age goat herders.

As far as I am aware there are at least 27 current cosmological theories that are based on sound measurable and observable scientific evidence. Each stands up to scientific scrutiny by peers and is worthy of further consideration should further facts become available. Of all those theories goddidit is not one of them.

Attempting to discredit cosmology by associating it with the guesswork of religious belief is a pathetic ploy of a desperate and discredited movement.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5 Jun 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
....said the warm pond myth believer! Ha,Ha.
Oh look. It's Captain ad-hom.(yawn)

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#6 Jun 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look. It's Captain ad-hom.(yawn)
Don't blame me ! It was KK's cartoon that coined the phrase, warm pond, to describe where life began. Its fools like you who believe it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#7 Jun 25, 2013
I would agree with the article that openly discussing intelligent design in a philosophy course is acceptable. What better way than to introduce students to the numerous logical fallacies that sloppy thinking can produce?

However, putting it on the science curriculum is another story. ID is to biology and cosmology what astrology is to astronomy.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#8 Jun 25, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't blame me ! It was KK's cartoon that coined the phrase, warm pond, to describe where life began. Its fools like you who believe it.
Why not? Itís fools like you who donít believe it. Your ad-hom title comes from your sad and ignorant mockery of science. Itís as though you have nothing else so you have to have you fun by taking the p|ss out of what you donít want to understand.

A warm pond is unlikely considering the tendency for water to evaporate, it would need to be an extremely large lake or ocean. But itís certainly better than ďdíoh I fink goddidit outov nuffin by magicĒ, with absolutely no evidence that any one of the 3700+ assumed deities including 2400+ gods as depicted in the babble actually exist.

Whereas there is considerable evidence both carbon isotopes and fossil stromatolites to show that life started in water.

This will probably land on stony ground but please beginning your education.
http://ncse.com/evolution/science/earliest-ev...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 Jun 25, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't blame me ! It was KK's cartoon that coined the phrase, warm pond, to describe where life began. Its fools like you who believe it.
Like I said - ad hom. The day you grasp what science is is the day Jesus will come back and tell you that you were right about the invisible magic Jew poofing everything into existence all along.

And that wasn't ad-hom, that was an accurate description of your position.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10 Jun 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? Itís fools like you who donít believe it. Your ad-hom title comes from your sad and ignorant mockery of science. Itís as though you have nothing else so you have to have you fun by taking the p|ss out of what you donít want to understand.
A warm pond is unlikely considering the tendency for water to evaporate, it would need to be an extremely large lake or ocean. But itís certainly better than ďdíoh I fink goddidit outov nuffin by magicĒ, with absolutely no evidence that any one of the 3700+ assumed deities including 2400+ gods as depicted in the babble actually exist.
Whereas there is considerable evidence both carbon isotopes and fossil stromatolites to show that life started in water.
This will probably land on stony ground but please beginning your education.
http://ncse.com/evolution/science/earliest-ev...
The only stony ground is between your fukkin ears,you too have embraced the on ongoing lie that there is considerable evidence life started in the warm pond. There is none! zero!, its not observable, testable or repeatable which means its only supported by your faith in it. You are more religious than the Taliban, it's Oh! I think the puddle of goo did it , with zero evidence!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#11 Jun 25, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The only stony ground is between your fukkin ears,you too have embraced the on ongoing lie that there is considerable evidence life started in the warm pond. There is none! zero!, its not observable, testable or repeatable which means its only supported by your faith in it. You are more religious than the Taliban, it's Oh! I think the puddle of goo did it , with zero evidence!
You are of course a total ignorant idiot when it comes to what counts as evidence. I saw that you did not like the fact that the Ure-Miller experiment was successful. In fact tests many years later showed it was even more successful than they first thought. Now idiot, what was the purpose of the experiment?

I know you could never get it right on your own, you might be able to get it right with the use of the internet.

Here is a question for your brainfart, if evolution was not such a threat to you then why do you have to lie about it when you argue against it all of the time?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12 Jun 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are of course a total ignorant idiot when it comes to what counts as evidence. I saw that you did not like the fact that the Ure-Miller experiment was successful. In fact tests many years later showed it was even more successful than they first thought. Now idiot, what was the purpose of the experiment?
I know you could never get it right on your own, you might be able to get it right with the use of the internet.
Here is a question for your brainfart, if evolution was not such a threat to you then why do you have to lie about it when you argue against it all of the time?
Sucking bone! the experiment proved that scientists in a lab could make an amino acid, that's all homo stupidicus! and its never been seen outside a lab!Only you evo religious types extrapolate that into life!, by lying! You constantly TELL THAT SAME LIE over and over, then accuse others of what you are doing. Lies , guesses, and bullshit science are a threat to no one.The denial you've wrapped yourself in guards you from the uncomfortable truth,...according to all scientific knowledge, life cannot arise on it's own!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13 Jun 25, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucking bone! the experiment proved that scientists in a lab could make an amino acid, that's all homo stupidicus! and its never been seen outside a lab!Only you evo religious types extrapolate that into life!, by lying! You constantly TELL THAT SAME LIE over and over, then accuse others of what you are doing. Lies , guesses, and bullshit science are a threat to no one.The denial you've wrapped yourself in guards you from the uncomfortable truth,...according to all scientific knowledge, life cannot arise on it's own!
Le't see how many lies and errors in your post brainfart.

Your first lie or mistake is that it proved amino acids could be made in only the lab.

Do you want the correct answer or do you want to figure it out for yourself?

The second lie or mistake is that it has never been seen outside of the lab. We have seen naturally produced amino acids in space and in meteorites. Now since we don't have an original atmosphere we of course don't see it in nature today. That is minor. We know what the original atmosphere would have been like and the laboratory reproduced that.

Now you can shout lie as much as you want, but then of course you would be wrong. You cannot even show one error, much less one lie, in any of my posts. Now other, much much much smarter people than you would be able to find some mistakes. They still would not be able to find any lies. Not that I don't ever lie. The fact is there is no need to lie when you are right.

You constantly make lies or are dumber than a sack of hammers.

Which one is it brainfart?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#14 Jun 26, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The only stony ground is between your fukkin ears,you too have embraced the on ongoing lie that there is considerable evidence life started in the warm pond. There is none! zero!, its not observable, testable or repeatable which means its only supported by your faith in it. You are more religious than the Taliban, it's Oh! I think the puddle of goo did it , with zero evidence!
No lie, the evidence is factual, evolution is so factual that you are willing to convict an accused criminal to life imprisonment or execution on the 100% certainty that the evidence is correct. And that is just one of several independent lines of evidence

As for the beginning of life on earth the measurement of carbon isotopes and fossil stromatolites show that life started in water. It really does not matter how hard you stomp you foot and provide nothing but goddidit incredulity, the hard, proven scientific facts show you to be a ranting liar.

And may I ask, were you shouting the ďstony ground is between your fukkin earsĒ when your mother shat you head first onto that stony ground from her abused pussy? Or was it something you mamma trained you to say when you were getting your nuts kicked and you butt reamed by you local friendly funnymentalist preacher

Say what, you ignorant foul mouthed liar? Tell me do you lie for your god or does it come natural to you? Just because you believe that a bunch of bronze age goat herders and runaway slaves had more scientific knowledge than modern day scientist is your own problem born of inadequate education. But if you go accusing me of association with terrorist religious groups based on nothing but your own lack of anything but stupid guesswork and ignorance then please be aware that that you will be shown up to be the foul mouthed ignoramus cowardly lying prat that you show yourself to be.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15 Jun 26, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucking bone! the experiment proved that scientists in a lab could make an amino acid, that's all homo stupidicus! and its never been seen outside a lab!Only you evo religious types extrapolate that into life!, by lying! You constantly TELL THAT SAME LIE over and over, then accuse others of what you are doing. Lies , guesses, and bullshit science are a threat to no one.The denial you've wrapped yourself in guards you from the uncomfortable truth,...according to all scientific knowledge, life cannot arise on it's own!
So then you don't know what "simulated" means.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#16 Jun 26, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucking bone! the experiment proved that scientists in a lab could make an amino acid, that's all homo stupidicus! and its never been seen outside a lab!Only you evo religious types extrapolate that into life!, by lying! You constantly TELL THAT SAME LIE over and over, then accuse others of what you are doing. Lies , guesses, and bullshit science are a threat to no one.The denial you've wrapped yourself in guards you from the uncomfortable truth,...according to all scientific knowledge, life cannot arise on it's own!
Yet another creatard nutter who cannot get it clear in his skull that evolution is not, and was never proposed to be, an explanation for life's origins. Evo is a process that can only work on self replicating units with heredity. Therefore how they got there in the first place cannot be by the process of evolution.

And yes, we have found naturally occurring amino acids, as other posters have reminded you.
Old Guy

Napa, CA

#17 Jan 28, 2014
I hope to ask a philosohical question. Perhaps someone can give a thouhtful opinion. Assuming evolution accounts for the existence of human life, then individual traits are not ours by choice. Even our preferences are not ours by choice. This brings into quesion the existence of "free will" (see Hawking & Mlodinow - Grand Design). We do make choices but those choices are made within the limits of our preferences. If we continually make choices inconsistent with our preferences, then the human animal suffers phsychologically. It seems reasonable that the way we see the world is determined by physics and chemistry (biology)...again see Hawking & Mlodinow. How does a belief system founded on the assumption that the natural world is all that exists (naturalism) logically avoid some form of determinism? And if determinism cannot be avoided, is it not true that our perception that we rely on reason, evidence and science is simply a product of our evolutionary journey?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#18 Jan 28, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
I hope to ask a philosohical question. Perhaps someone can give a thouhtful opinion. Assuming evolution accounts for the existence of human life, then individual traits are not ours by choice. Even our preferences are not ours by choice. This brings into quesion the existence of "free will" (see Hawking & Mlodinow - Grand Design). We do make choices but those choices are made within the limits of our preferences. If we continually make choices inconsistent with our preferences, then the human animal suffers phsychologically. It seems reasonable that the way we see the world is determined by physics and chemistry (biology)...again see Hawking & Mlodinow. How does a belief system founded on the assumption that the natural world is all that exists (naturalism) logically avoid some form of determinism? And if determinism cannot be avoided, is it not true that our perception that we rely on reason, evidence and science is simply a product of our evolutionary journey?
This whole post is one long sequence of non-sequiturs. None of your conclusions flow logically from your propositions. Sorry, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#19 Jan 28, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
I hope to ask a philosohical question. Perhaps someone can give a thouhtful opinion. Assuming evolution accounts for the existence of human life, then individual traits are not ours by choice. Even our preferences are not ours by choice. This brings into quesion the existence of "free will" (see Hawking & Mlodinow - Grand Design). We do make choices but those choices are made within the limits of our preferences. If we continually make choices inconsistent with our preferences, then the human animal suffers phsychologically. It seems reasonable that the way we see the world is determined by physics and chemistry (biology)...again see Hawking & Mlodinow. How does a belief system founded on the assumption that the natural world is all that exists (naturalism) logically avoid some form of determinism? And if determinism cannot be avoided, is it not true that our perception that we rely on reason, evidence and science is simply a product of our evolutionary journey?
The paradox is resolved by the simple fact that you have no choice but to make choices (thanks to Hitchens for this pithy phrase)

Today you must decide whether to eat the ice cream or stick with your diet. You have no choice but to make that determination, deciding whether the effort to resist the ice cream is worth the reward of getting thinner...its only in hindsight that you might say "Well, looks like my brain weighed up the options that day and the ice cream won. But now I am fatter, so next time I will just say NO! next time I will remind myself that the pleasure is transitory and immediate but the pain is longer lasting. Maybe next time I will just stay away from ice cream parlours because I know that when I can see and smell the ice cream in front of my face, those delicious sensory inputs will upset the balance of my decision!"

Because what are you doing when you decide freely, except weighing up options and applying your understanding to try and choose the best outcome for yourself (and others)? And what can you base that choice on except the summation of all you already have known and felt and considered?

Reason and choice are not necessarily OUTSIDE the deterministic framework. When you attempt to influence someone's choice about something, don't you offer him reasons? And when you do, you are hoping that the person will add those reasons to the calculus of his choice and will be influenced by them?

BTW I am totally in agreement with systems of govt etc that maximise freedom and personal responsibility. I do not think we can be happy if our OWN calculus of what we want is overly interfered with...whether in the end its a deterministic process within us or not. Better to make your own determinations than have someone else making them for you "for your own good".

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#20 Jan 29, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The paradox is resolved by the simple fact that you have no choice but to make choices (thanks to Hitchens for this pithy phrase)
Today you must decide whether to eat the ice cream or stick with your diet. You have no choice but to make that determination, deciding whether the effort to resist the ice cream is worth the reward of getting thinner...its only in hindsight that you might say "Well, looks like my brain weighed up the options that day and the ice cream won. But now I am fatter, so next time I will just say NO! next time I will remind myself that the pleasure is transitory and immediate but the pain is longer lasting. Maybe next time I will just stay away from ice cream parlours because I know that when I can see and smell the ice cream in front of my face, those delicious sensory inputs will upset the balance of my decision!"
Because what are you doing when you decide freely, except weighing up options and applying your understanding to try and choose the best outcome for yourself (and others)? And what can you base that choice on except the summation of all you already have known and felt and considered?
Reason and choice are not necessarily OUTSIDE the deterministic framework. When you attempt to influence someone's choice about something, don't you offer him reasons? And when you do, you are hoping that the person will add those reasons to the calculus of his choice and will be influenced by them?
BTW I am totally in agreement with systems of govt etc that maximise freedom and personal responsibility. I do not think we can be happy if our OWN calculus of what we want is overly interfered with...whether in the end its a deterministic process within us or not. Better to make your own determinations than have someone else making them for you "for your own good".
There are several things that you can choose to do but sooner or later your choice is of no matter. Take breathing for example. You can choose to hold your breath but you cannot hold it as long as you like. Your body's response will take over and whether you choose to or not you will breathe. There will never be a chosen death by suicide by not breathing. lol

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min DanFromSmithville 120,525
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 41 min woodtick57 353
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 138,168
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr Chimney1 344
Monkey VS Man 8 hr Bluenose 14
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 23 hr Chimney1 692
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE