In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Comments
35,261 - 35,280 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36456
Aug 19, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I thought when I read your post.
Obama could hold a shit-eating contest in Chicago, and you would not only attend, you would swear it tasted good.
Voting for the muslim sonuvabitch should be grounds for forced institutionalization.
when only two choices are offered, one must choose the least of the evils, and one candidates is religious, it makes the choice obvious.

the lesser of the evils.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36458
Aug 19, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Jones' use of the verbatim brief from the ACLU, which was written a month before the trial, and passing it off as his work and his ruling, was plagiarism and it was dishonest.
This ID friendly web site at http://snipurl.com/24oovxb disagrees with you about the plagiarism judgment though still criticizing the Judge in his use of the ACLU's amicus brief in other ways :

"Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose
findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.

"Nonetheless, the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly
the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or
independent examination of the record on Jones’ part. The revelation that Judge Jones in effect “dragged and dropped” large sections of the ACLU’s “Findings of Fact” into his opinion, errors
and all, calls into serious question whether Jones exercised the kind of independent analysis that would make his “broad, stinging rebuke”27 of intelligent design appropriate."

I would disagree that this reflects any lack of deliberation on the judge's part. I cannot comment on what are being called errors, as I am aware of none, or what constitutes an excessive use of prepared text. I don't know what is excessive, or why any amount is too much if the Judge likes the language.

Regarding errors, I don't consider what we have discussed already about this matter - whether the secretory system evolved from the flagellum, the Meyers article, and the question of original research, data, publications - to reflect any significant error by Judge Jones.

Yes, there were publications, but there are legitimate challenges about there being so little of it, the peers that review it, and whether altogether it constitutes either science or meaningful evidence for ID.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36459
Aug 19, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea is that the flagellum is claimed by creationists to comprise components with no other function, meaning that it could not have been built up incrementally, step by step, with eacvh intermediate conferring a selective advantage, since no intermediate has any function. The idea is that if the first of say twenty necessary proteins suddenly appeared due to a spontaneous mutation, that the trait would not be saved long enough for the second, third, fourth, etc. proteins to come along and form a flagellum. Twenty proteins would need to appear in one organism before any died out from uselessness.
Check out this YouTube from Kitzmiller prosecution expert witness Ken Miller. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =K_HVrjKcvrUXX
Remarkable ... my thanks to everyone who responded in such depth. Seems to me motility/mobility is such a desirable trait Momma Nature re-invented the wheel (so to speak) in a myriad different ways. Not the hallmark of a good designer at all. More grasping at molecule sized straws. How could anyone associate themselves with the ID crowd and still hold their head up?

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36460
Aug 19, 2012
 
You need to read past the headline fatass. When you read the articles you see they say not perfectly round. Round is a descriptor that relates to several shapes. The earth is round. Now if you say not perfectly round you are correct but to say not round at all as you are doing is incorrect. Fact.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Descriptor or not, it is a descriptor of a shape, and it is wrong.

The earth is not round.

"not round" is a descriptor, and it is correct.

"Not round" is the correct descriptor used in science-based articles about the earth's shape.

SPACE DAILY

Physics News: "The Earth is Not Round"

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36461
Aug 20, 2012
 
It's looking good though. The Ryan pick made less of a splash than the Palin pick last time around. Mitt just isn't gaining any real traction and the slight bump he got is already fading.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I had your confidence, but that's how I felt for both dubya elections.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American population.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36462
Aug 20, 2012
 
Than why do ID scientists like Behe always show up at these trials to teach it in school?

You won't be able to answer this because as usual I have factually proved you wrong.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You know absolutely nothing about it.

ID is not creationism, and scientists studying ID do not even support it being taught in school.

You are parroting myth, which requires practically no brains.

You seem suited for it.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36463
Aug 20, 2012
 
Wow, this ID argument is just going on and on, and in circles too. Let me put in my two cents.

The way I see it, creationism and ID are different things. ID is associated with the cause of life. Creationism is associated with the method of life.

A person can believe in ID as a cause and evolution as a method, or they can believe in ID as a cause and creationism as a method. Or they can believe in evolution as a cause and method. It depends on what seems to make more sense.

No cause is actually supported by scientific evidence. Even evolution as a cause, is not supported by actual evidence, but rather by mathematical correlations, analogy and theoretical ideas.

But when it comes to the method, evolution is supported by evidence, especially micro evolution, and in many cases it can be argued that micro evolution becomes macro evolution in the long run. Creationism as a method however, is not supported by any scientific evidence.

The Discovery Institute tries to use ID and creationism interchangeably. They try to assert creationism as a cause and method. Their particular brand of creationism is that the Christian god done it. To base ones definitions on the Discovery institute would be nothing but a sad waste of time battling a strawman anyway.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36464
Aug 20, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Than why do ID scientists like Behe always show up at these trials to teach it in school?

You won't be able to answer this because as usual I have factually proved you wrong.
You don't really think facts will have any effect on buck, do you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36465
Aug 20, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
A person can believe in ID as a cause and evolution as a method, or they can believe in ID as a cause and creationism as a method. Or they can believe in evolution as a cause and method. It depends on what seems to make more sense.
No cause is actually supported by scientific evidence.
Intelligent design is the claim that life contains designs - patterns that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.

Such designs have never been found, just claimed. For example, the flagellum and the clotting cascade were both claimed to be intelligently designed based their designs, which were called irreducible complex.

But the claim of irreducible complexity, unlike the claim of an intelligent designer, is falsifiable, and was shown to be wrong.e.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36466
Aug 20, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
Even evolution as a cause, is not supported by actual evidence, but rather by mathematical correlations, analogy and theoretical ideas.
Evolution has never been called a cause. It is a process, the one that accounts for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth as we find it. The cause of evolution is the combination of three factors working on living populations: heritability, variation, and natural selection. Remove one of those, and evolution stops.

The cause of heritability is the passage of nucleic from parent to offspring. The cause of biological variation is mutation and meiotic reshuffling. And the cause of natural selection is the pressure to survive and reproduce - "compete" - in a changing world full of lethal dangers and scarce resources. And all of it is thought to be caused by blind forces operating on matter.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36467
Aug 20, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
The Discovery Institute tries to use ID and creationism interchangeably.
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.

But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36468
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Remarkable ... my thanks to everyone who responded in such depth. Seems to me motility/mobility is such a desirable trait Momma Nature re-invented the wheel (so to speak) in a myriad different ways. Not the hallmark of a good designer at all. More grasping at molecule sized straws. How could anyone associate themselves with the ID crowd and still hold their head up?
That's a wonder , especially the holdouts that know about it and still defend it knowing what the wedge document is. As well as how some of them twisted meanings and fabricated conclusions to fit their agenda.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36469
Aug 20, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
Wow, this ID argument is just going on and on, and in circles too. Let me put in my two cents.
The way I see it, creationism and ID are different things. ID is associated with the cause of life. Creationism is associated with the method of life.
A person can believe in ID as a cause and evolution as a method, or they can believe in ID as a cause and creationism as a method. Or they can believe in evolution as a cause and method. It depends on what seems to make more sense.
No cause is actually supported by scientific evidence. Even evolution as a cause, is not supported by actual evidence, but rather by mathematical correlations, analogy and theoretical ideas.
But when it comes to the method, evolution is supported by evidence, especially micro evolution, and in many cases it can be argued that micro evolution becomes macro evolution in the long run. Creationism as a method however, is not supported by any scientific evidence.
The Discovery Institute tries to use ID and creationism interchangeably. They try to assert creationism as a cause and method. Their particular brand of creationism is that the Christian god done it. To base ones definitions on the Discovery institute would be nothing but a sad waste of time battling a strawman anyway.
The Discovery Institute started the intelligent design movement bankrolls it and is it's paycheck. So...
All this is meaningless the DI is the cause of ID so DI=ID
add the wedge document ,
DI+ID+Wedge Document= Intelligent Creationism

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36470
Aug 20, 2012
 
Just as diet pills don't work on Buck when he doesn't take them. Buck is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian reality and facts have no place in his bizarre delusional world.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>You don't really think facts will have any effect on buck, do you?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36471
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
Just stopping by.

I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36472
Aug 20, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Just as diet pills don't work on Buck when he doesn't take them. Buck is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian reality and facts have no place in his bizarre delusional world.
<quoted text>
On Buckyworld, up is down, black is white and sweet is sour.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36473
Aug 20, 2012
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Just stopping by. I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.
Well thank you very much!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36474
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Remarkable ... my thanks to everyone who responded in such depth. Seems to me motility/mobility is such a desirable trait Momma Nature re-invented the wheel (so to speak) in a myriad different ways. Not the hallmark of a good designer at all. More grasping at molecule sized straws. How could anyone associate themselves with the ID crowd and still hold their head up?
The clip linked to by Ken Miller has been thoroughly debunked on the flagellum.

The flagellum is irreducibly complex. What Miller proposed as the precursor to the flagellum - the Type III secretory system, has been shown to come as a descendant of the flagellum. The flagellum is a precursor to the TIII system, not vice-versa.

Even if Miller were correct, there remains the irreducible complexity problem for him, as the 40 genes (30 more than the T-3 system) necessary for the flagellum do not produce a selective advantage individually, and could not have occured by natural selection.

This has been shown in great detail by Scott Minnich, along with a host of other scientists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36475
Aug 20, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
Just stopping by.
__________

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:

I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.
__________

Both posts are entirely false on the facts.

1. "ID" has no wedge strategy. Never has.

2. The wedge strategy was never "leaked". It was published, put right out in the open.

3. "ID" is not "DI". The reversal of letters is important. The Discovery Institute is a think tank with an ideology. Their goal is to compete with the ideology of "naturalism". They say so in a straightforward manner.

4. "ID" is not a political strategy. It is science.

5. "ID" has never attempted to circumvent any law.

6. "ID" OPPOSES both creationism and intelligent design being taught in school. The idea that it is a movement to get creationism in schools is provably a lie.

You people are willing to lie your asses off to try to undermine intelligent design research.

Pointing out your lies is like farting in the wind. I show the necessary documentation to prove you are lying, and then you just repeat the lies.

And so it goes.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36476
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The Discovery Institute started the intelligent design movement bankrolls it and is it's paycheck. So...
All this is meaningless the DI is the cause of ID so DI=ID
add the wedge document ,
DI+ID+Wedge Document= Intelligent Creationism

Wrong.

The Discovery Institute did not start the intelligent design movement.

But then, ID opponents never allow facts to get in the way of a good story.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••