He's not real good with the talking points.

He's confused.

I don't think that evolution is random. Somewhere in the universe given the same building blocks, it would makes sense that you would still get dinosaurs, and people. I don't think Darwin was saying that the outcome was random.

He keeps it as slippery as an eel and vaporous as passed gas.

Exactly so ID doesn't tell you what is true and it doesn't offer a replacement theory so this is a bald faced admission that it isn't science. I say QED and we are done here.

Here's what I posted in the previous thread:

This is nothing but a lot of lies and doublespeak. As a senior fellow at the D.I., he has to know full well what Intelligent Design really is. And his last comment is nonsensical and absurd. I.D. is not a philosophy, it's a pseudoscience designed specifically to force the teaching of creationism in schools. There is already a well-established philosophy, called teleology, that argues that natural processes are not entirely random and purposeless.

ID has disproved evolution... how?

He doesn't understand that the whole process is not random, and no one ever said it was.

Like I said on the previous thread:

Michael Medved, you are a knucklehead. You are letting your wishful thinking get in the way of your intellectual perception.

Just as evolutionists are more than certain about the random happenstance of our futile existence, serious thinking religious people recognize the uncertainty involved in random freak mutation and ask where are the talking monkeys. There aren't any. There won't be anytime soon, if at all. We are designed, if not by God, in HIS image, then by nature, in HER image to be unique and not just random accidents doomed to the cold nothingness of fate.

Honestly. Do you really like to think that the meaning of life is all for nothing?

re: #2 Killgore Trout

He's confused.

As far as adhering to the disco talking points, yes. But he's not confused in that ID is not a theory, that ID is not an explanation, or that ID doesn't replace evolution. This might be the most honest and candid statement on ID that we've seen from a disco shill. Although- I don't think he meant it that way.

re: #2 Killgore Trout

He's confused.

Hell, I get confused about things. The problem is, he gets very serious about things he's confused about.

Someone please whack me if I ever fall into that trap.

The only correct thing he said about ID is

It does not replace evolution with something else

That's right! Because you can't replace science with something that is "not a theory and not an explanation"!
You answered everything yourself, Michael!

re: #3 DistantThunder

I don't think that evolution is random. Somewhere in the universe given the same building blocks, it would makes sense that you would still get dinosaurs, and people. I don't think Darwin was saying that the outcome was random.

Darwin does suggest it is random. He points out that small random variations (mutations) allow for individuals to out reproduced others thus allowing these differences to survive. Darwin goes to great length to illustrate that evolution does not have a point or a necessary destination.

I am just thankful for whatever process created the little microbes that are used to ferment vegetable matter into alcohol. In face, I am going to go honor those little buggers forthwith.

re: #3 DistantThunder

I don't think that evolution is random. Somewhere in the universe given the same building blocks, it would makes sense that you would still get dinosaurs, and people. I don't think Darwin was saying that the outcome was random.

Wow, they're out this morning. Someone actually pegged you down for that comment.

re: #2 Killgore Trout

No, it's called Apophatic description. Look it up.

re: #3 DistantThunder

I don't think that evolution is random. Somewhere in the universe given the same building blocks, it would makes sense that you would still get dinosaurs, and people. I don't think Darwin was saying that the outcome was random.

You misapprehend how the mechanism of natural selection works. It is necessarily "random" in the sense that it is not being guided by any kind of supernatural force toward a specific end design. In fact, that is the precise world view that Darwin debunked.

Given the same building blocks, you probably wouldn't get dinosaurs and people -- and even if you did, they wouldn't be identical to the ones we have/had here. You might end up with no life at all; you might end up with 117-legged creatures that are 3 trillion miles long and can travel through time by blinking; you might end up with Rosie O'Donnell. Anything is possible.

re: #3 DistantThunder

I don't think that evolution is random. Somewhere in the universe given the same building blocks, it would makes sense that you would still get dinosaurs, and people. I don't think Darwin was saying that the outcome was random.

In an Earthlike environment you might eventually get some, or even many, creatures similar to what we have here. Mutation is random, but natural selection is not random. If a certain body shape works in a given environment here, it's likely to work in a similar environment elsewhere. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find sharklike creatures in the oceans of an alien, but Earthlike, planet.

re: #10 Kostya Lotz

Just as evolutionists are more than certain about the random happenstance of our futile existence, serious thinking religious people recognize the uncertainty involved in random freak mutation and ask where are the talking monkeys. There aren't any. There won't be anytime soon, if at all. We are designed, if not by God, in HIS image, then by nature, in HER image to be unique and not just random accidents doomed to the cold nothingness of fate.

Honestly. Do you really like to think that the meaning of life is all for nothing?

Where are the talking monkeys? ? ? ? ?

WE are the talking monkeys! ! ! ! !

re: #10 Kostya Lotz

Honestly. Do you really like to think that the meaning of life is all for nothing?

The fact that we can even contemplate the meaning of life is only due to how we evolved. The concept that life was not designed with a purpose but we evolved does not preclude that we are at this point and we have the capabilities to ponder the meaning of it all. It is still a wonderful trait regardless of how we got it. Snakes have evolved the ability to 'see' in the infrared spectrum which means they can attach all sorts of information to body heat. This is a trait we don't have. So maybe snakes are more in God's image than us.

re: #18 zombie

you might end up with 117-legged creatures that are 3 trillion miles long and can travel through time by blinking; you might end up with Rosie O'Donnell. Anything is possible.

I thought that's who you were describing.

I don't know the proper technical buzzword, but evolution is a process. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Hardcore Creationists are offended by a mere PROCESS? For cryin' out loud! Get a life.

re: #10 Kostya Lotz

Just as evolutionists are more than certain about the random happenstance of our futile existence, serious thinking religious people recognize the uncertainty involved in random freak mutation and ask where are the talking monkeys. There aren't any. There won't be anytime soon, if at all. We are designed, if not by God, in HIS image, then by nature, in HER image to be unique and not just random accidents doomed to the cold nothingness of fate.

Honestly. Do you really like to think that the meaning of life is all for nothing?

Where are you getting this from? Why do you think "evolutionists" think evolution renders human life meaningless and futile?

And as for "where are all the talking monkeys" look around you. Actually we're much closer to chimps... we share 98% of our DNA with them. We certainly are unique in the animal kingdom, but if we were "created" to be unique, why don't we have a completely original genome?

re: #16 DeathtotheSwiss

Wow, they're out this morning. Someone actually pegged you down for that comment.

If you want to find out who down dinged ya just click on the number.

Medved is supposed to be a smart guy.

How did he allow himself to roped in bu these fools?

re: #10 Kostya Lotz

I'm not a talking monkey, I'm a Psychotic Ape that can swim according to Lord Nibbler.

re: #19 Tigger2005

In an Earthlike environment you might eventually get some, or even many, creatures similar to what we have here. Mutation is random, but natural selection is not random. If a certain body shape works in a given environment here, it's likely to work in a similar environment elsewhere. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find sharklike creatures in the oceans of an alien, but Earthlike, planet.

Can you hear the Jaws theme in your head while you read this?

re: #23 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I don't know the proper technical buzzword, but evolution is a process. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Hardcore Creationists are offended by a mere PROCESS? For cryin' out loud! Get a life.

I'm offended with the process of digestion. I'm sure it could be designed a wee bit better so that the unpleasant after-affects weren't so unpleasant.

re: #24 Tigger2005

We certainly are unique in the animal kingdom, but if we were "created" to be unique, why don't we have a completely original genome?

ID and creationists would what? Have us believe that God is a plagiarist?

re: #10 Kostya Lotz

We are designed, if not by God, in HIS image, then by nature, in HER image to be unique and not just random accidents doomed to the cold nothingness of fate.

Honestly. Do you really like to think that the meaning of life is all for nothing?

We're getting down to the nubbin of the narcissistic wishful-thinking megalomania that is "intelligent design": You, and the other creationists, cannot simply accept the fact that you are not Daddy's special little creature, and you want to be told that we're better and more important than all the other icky creatures, and that we look just like Daddy. And that without this ego-boosting affirmation of your superiority, then all of existence is just meaningless, because DADDY DOESN'T LOVE ME! WAAAAAA!

re: #26 researchok

I'm guessing he doesn't understand their true impulses toward a Christian theocracy.

re: #18 zombie

You misapprehend how the mechanism of natural selection works. It is necessarily "random" in the sense that it is not being guided by any kind of supernatural force toward a specific end design. In fact, that is the precise world view that Darwin debunked.

Given the same building blocks, you probably wouldn't get dinosaurs and people -- and even if you did, they wouldn't be identical to the ones we have/had here. You might end up with no life at all; you might end up with 117-legged creatures that are 3 trillion miles long and can travel through time by blinking; you might end up with Rosie O'Donnell. Anything is possible.

I agree, in principle, and disagree.

"Random" -- in those terms, yes.

"probably wouldn't" -- if you hold the enviroment constant, I think forms of life would have certain similiarities, based upon a common need to ambulate, visually perceive, et cetera.

re: #18 zombie

Random environment, not-so-random responses.

re: #18 zombie

You misapprehend how the mechanism of natural selection works. It is necessarily "random" in the sense that it is not being guided by any kind of supernatural force toward a specific end design. In fact, that is the precise world view that Darwin debunked.

Given the same building blocks, you probably wouldn't get dinosaurs and people -- and even if you did, they wouldn't be identical to the ones we have/had here. You might end up with no life at all; you might end up with 117-legged creatures that are 3 trillion miles long and can travel through time by blinking; you might end up with Rosie O'Donnell. Anything is possible.

Actually, I was just reading about this very issue in Ken Miller's book. The way you summed this up isn't exactly right; there's a lot of evidence that given the same environmental conditions and pressures, evolution will come up with very similar solutions, although not identical.

Miller uses the example of Australia, which broke off from the South Asia landmass millions of years ago, leading to a very divergent group of species based on marsupials. But the interesting thing is that those marsupial species ended up filling the same kinds of evolutionary niches as their mammalian counterparts.

I find your reaction to that pretty bizarre: I'd think, what with your continuous opposition to the Institute, you might take Medved here a little more seriously. For my money, he didn't engage in a lot of the other errors you see among Discovery fellows. What's the deal?

(And what does that prove, "it's not a theory"? So what? If it isn't a theory, that doesn't mean it can't mean something.)

WE are the talking monkeys

... we've been waiting for."

re: #32 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I agree, in principle, and disagree.

"Random" -- in those terms, yes.

"probably wouldn't" -- if you hold the enviroment constant, I think forms of life would have certain similiarities, based upon a common need to ambulate, visually perceive, et cetera.

Yes, if the environment was the same. But that's wasn't part of the original conditions. Given a different environment, anything is possible -- that's what I was saying. But yes, in a very similar earth-like environment (assuming such a thing exists out there), a similar shape may very well evolve.

re: #18 zombie

You misapprehend how the mechanism of natural selection works. It is necessarily "random" in the sense that it is not being guided by any kind of supernatural force toward a specific end design. In fact, that is the precise world view that Darwin debunked.

Given the same building blocks, you probably wouldn't get dinosaurs and people -- and even if you did, they wouldn't be identical to the ones we have/had here. You might end up with no life at all; you might end up with 117-legged creatures that are 3 trillion miles long and can travel through time by blinking; you might end up with Rosie O'Donnell. Anything is possible.

I disagree...physics is the same everywhere, and limits what is possible.

Also, Darwin didn't debunk the view that natural selection isn't random. He developed the theory of evolution by natural selection (although he didn't know the mechanism that generated the changes that N.I. acts upon) thus debunking the view that species were created separately.

re: #34 Charles

But the interesting thing is that those marsupial species ended up filling the same kinds of evolutionary niches as their mammalian counterparts.

Marsupials really freak me out. I wonder how Christian/Islamic Creationists feel about them. (Or were there koalas on the Ark?)

re: #28 DeathtotheSwiss

I'm offended with the process of digestion. I'm sure it could be designed a wee bit better so that the unpleasant after-affects weren't so unpleasant.

You cause your own problems. Stop eating and you'll be happier.

/wanna buy some swampland in Louisiana?

re: #17 Kostya Lotz

No, it's called Apophatic description. Look it up.

Back in the day I earned in degree in Philosophy, in logic specifically. There is a perfectly logical method of arguing from negation. It goes like this; you assume one of the premises of an argument to be false and then show that this leads you to a logical absurdity. What you are proposing is only half the work.....negating a premise. But you are not showing that by negating that premise what logical absurdity arises.

re: #28 DeathtotheSwiss

Sorry, I farted.

Here is one Orthodox Jewish woman's take on evolution: Survival of the Fittest.

re: #26 researchok

Medved is supposed to be a smart guy.

How did he allow himself to roped in bu these fools?

Even smart people will occasionally do dumb things. Only fools do them all the time.

re: #36 Occasional Reader

... we've been waiting for."

Racist!

re: #34 Charles

Actually, I was just reading about this very issue in Ken Miller's book. The way you summed this up isn't exactly right; there's a lot of evidence that given the same environmental conditions and pressures, evolution will come up with very similar solutions, although not identical.

Miller uses the example of Australia, which broke off from the South Asia landmass millions of years ago, leading to a very divergent group of species based on marsupials. But the interesting thing is that those marsupial species ended up filling the same kinds of evolutionary niches as their mammalian counterparts.

I didn't make myself clear -- I was talking about: the same pre-cursors to life, but in a different environment. I agree that the same ingredients in the same setting, evolutionary tracks are likely to be similar.

Sorry for the unclear post.

re: #40 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You cause your own problems. Stop eating and you'll be happier.

/wanna buy some swampland in Louisiana?

Maybe I should just stop eating hot-wings and beef jerky...

Naaaah!

re: #37 zombie

Yes, if the environment was the same. But that's wasn't part of the original conditions. Given a different environment, anything is possible -- that's what I was saying. But yes, in a very similar earth-like environment (assuming such a thing exists out there), a similar shape may very well evolve.

I agree.

"How about a talking orangutan, saying 'giant discounts for little people'?"

/hilariously cheesy NYC-area childrens' clothing store t.v. ad from about 20 years ago

re: #35 philosoteric

(And what does that prove, "it's not a theory"? So what? If it isn't a theory, that doesn't mean it can't mean something.)

What this statement tells you is quite simple: if it's not a theory, and it doesn't explain anything, it's not science.

re: #42 Idle Drifter

Sorry, I farted.

I'm glad I'd just turned off the AromaJet™ output device on my computer

re: #35 philosoteric

I find your reaction to that pretty bizarre: I'd think, what with your continuous opposition to the Institute, you might take Medved here a little more seriously. For my money, he didn't engage in a lot of the other errors you see among Discovery fellows. What's the deal?

(And what does that prove, "it's not a theory"? So what? If it isn't a theory, that doesn't mean it can't mean something.)

Medved is being disingenuous.

He must know full well that the D.I. and other creationist orgs. developed I.D. to replace "scientific creationism" when that was rejected by the courts. It's nothing more than a pseudoscientific "theory" designed to skirt court decisions and force creationism into public schools. It's part of the Wedge Strategy.

As I said, there is ALREADY a well-established philosophy, called "teleology" that argues for design and purpose in nature, without trying to pass itself off as science.

No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn’t tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

In fact "Intelligent design" doesn't tell you anything at all, since its a non-testable hypothesis.

And this description by Medved is particularly sharp. He's saying Intelligent design isn't an explanation of anything in particular, its just a construct designed to attack evolution.

His comment "this whole process was random" suggests that in fact, he doesn't understand the theory of evolution. Is about selection and fitness, not randomness.

re: #50 Charles

What this statement tells you is quite simple: if it's not a theory, and it doesn't explain anything, it's not science.

Bingo. Medved admits it's not a theory, and thus not science, and yet he sits on the board of an organization that wants to teach this non-science to our kids in science classes?!?!?!?

Hypocrisy!

Medved is doing his own thing, he doesn't represent traditional Judaism. I have access to about 3000 traditional Jewish books; from the Talmud on, few of them advocate a literal reading of Genesis 1-6.

re: #18 zombie

Now that seems just weird. Sure, we could've ended up with three-million-mile long 117-legged time-traveling creatures, but we didn't. Why not?

(Besides, the concept of such a creature is pretty damned irrational.)

re: #50 Charles

What this statement tells you is quite simple: if it's not a theory, and it doesn't explain anything, it's not science.

Precisely. Science is theory supported by empirical facts. Facts without a theory do not enlighten and theory without facts equally tells one nothing. So if ID is not a theory and is only a negation of evolution that it is not science and should not be taught or even considered in the same realm.

re: #39 DeathtotheSwiss

Marsupials really freak me out. I wonder how Christian/Islamic Creationists feel about them. (Or were there koalas on the Ark?)

I love marsupials.
Who is to say that perhaps the species taking over from us (in case of some caastrophe wiping out all humans) might not be these little fellas, a.k.a tree kangaroos ...

re: #35 philosoteric

(And what does that prove, "it's not a theory"? So what? If it isn't a theory, that doesn't mean it can't mean something.)

If it's not a theory supported by evidence than it is an opinion. My opinion, right off the bat, is that the people of the DI are focusing on an aspect of their faith (and lying about it) that doesn't make the world a better place. If they spent half that money on researching cures for disease, feeding the poor and providing disaster relief the world would be a lot nicer to live in. Every dollar counts, especially ones wasted on such a vain and ridiculous pursuit as disproving that which they do not understand via that which can not disprove. ID can only disagree, respectfully or not.

re: #23 pre-Boomer Marine brat

What is a hard core creationist?

Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution.

Just as my "magic pixies are doing it!" explanation is not really a theory of organic chemistry, but rather a challenge to organic chemistry.

/wtf?

re: #34 Charles

Actually, I was just reading about this very issue in Ken Miller's book. The way you summed this up isn't exactly right; there's a lot of evidence that given the same environmental conditions and pressures, evolution will come up with very similar solutions, although not identical.

Or simply put "parallel evolution".

It explains, to some extent, why the wings of bats and birds are similar, or why porpoises have the same sort of dorsal fin as fish.

But again, anyone who posits that evolution is "random" doesn't quite understand it. There is a *component* of random chance, just as any genetic process involves a component of random chance. But the evolutionary pressure and outcomes are certainly NOT random, and that's the whole point.

EG Polar bears aren't white because of random chance.

re: #58 yma o hyd

I love marsupials.
Who is to say that perhaps the species taking over from us (in case of some caastrophe wiping out all humans) might not be these little fellas, a.k.a tree kangaroos ...

Earth should be so lucky. Can you imagine these guys waging war? It'd be sooo cute.

re: #60 hazzyday
My 8 yr old with a big box of Legos!

re: #60 hazzyday

What is a hard core creationist?

One who doesn't have time to bleed.

re: #57 big steve

Precisely. Science is theory supported by empirical facts. Facts without a theory do not enlighten and theory without facts equally tells one nothing. So if ID is not a theory and is only a negation of evolution that it is not science and should not be taught or even considered in the same realm.

To be clear, the term "theory" in the scientific sense isn't the same as the term in the lay sense. (Science would use the word "hypothesis" for the latter).

A theory is a comprehensive explanation that unifies a disparate set of facts. A real scientific theory is not only testable, its also provable.

This is why "Intelligent design" is NOT a theory, and its NOT science. It doesn't unify all the known facts about life on earth (eg where did methicillin resistant staph aureus come from), and more important, its not testable.

Charles, the chat-room needs to update the room on every new post/topic. Also...I think everyone in here is dead.

Is this the end of the world?

re: #54 zombie

Bingo. Medved admits it's not a theory, and thus not science, and yet he sits on the board of an organization that wants to teach this non-science to our kids in science classes?!?!?!?

Hypocrisy!

It's hypocrisy from a rational perspective, but not from Medved's. To wit:

No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn’t tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

His entire rationale (sic) is to disprove something, and it appears that he's in favor of whatever means it takes to do it. That's worse than hypocrisy.

re: #65 DeathtotheSwiss

re: #60 hazzyday

What is a hard core creationist?

One who doesn't have time to bleed.

I thought it was like a soft-core creationist, but with full-frontal creationism, and graphic, explicit creationist acts.

re: #56 philosoteric

Now that seems just weird. Sure, we could've ended up with three-million-mile long 117-legged time-traveling creatures, but we didn't. Why not?

(Besides, the concept of such a creature is pretty damned irrational.)

I very rarely read science fiction, but a while ago I read an extremely interesting Japanese literary manga about a planet where a species of bird-like creatures evolved the ability to travel through time, giving entirely plausible evolutionary mechanisms as to how and why it could happen.

And as to a creature being millions of miles long: perhaps if we expand our definition of what constitutes a single "organism" it would be possible, in the form of a widely dispersed "hive consciousness" in which apparently individual entities share an energy-based inter-connectedness that we currently can't visualize.

Don't rule anything out. Except, maybe, 117 legs. That's just impossible.

re: #35 philosoteric

I find your reaction to that pretty bizarre: I'd think, what with your continuous opposition to the Institute, you might take Medved here a little more seriously. For my money, he didn't engage in a lot of the other errors you see among Discovery fellows. What's the deal?

(And what does that prove, "it's not a theory"? So what? If it isn't a theory, that doesn't mean it can't mean something.)

What is there in Medved's statements to take seriously here?

Charles, Charles.

Misreading of what somebody says, to make them look really stupid instead of just plain wrong, is beneath you.

It’s not a theory, it doesn’t explain anything, and it tells you things that are not true.

What Medved actually wrote is this:

No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn’t tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

What he is saying, then, is that Intelligent Design makes no positive claims. It makes only the negative claim that the Darwinian explanation is somehow, somewhere, wrong...that chance alone cannot account for the evidence.

Now Medved himself makes, (unwittingly?), the same error you made. He too misstates the other side's position. The Darwinian explanation is not an appeal to pure chance. There is nothing random about whether the giraffe with the longer neck, or the one with the shorter neck, can reach the higher branches of the acacia.

It is the interaction of chance variations with the decidedly non-random pattern of which variations survive and breed more successfully in the environment they encounter, that drives evolution. You know that. I know that. Medved doesn't seem to get it, but he is not so silly as to claim that Intelligent Design tells you things that are not true. He claims only that Intelligent Design tells you WHICH things are not true, to wit, his straw-man version of Darwin's theory.

re: #54 zombie

Bingo. Medved admits it's not a theory, and thus not science, and yet he sits on the board of an organization that wants to teach this non-science to our kids in science classes?!?!?!?

Hypocrisy!

I think some people...no matter how intelligent they may be otherwise...are afraid to think too much about certain things. And I can understand, to a degree, why a lot of conservatives look at evolution suspiciously, given that a lot of liberals (and yes, pretty much 100% of atheists) accept evolution. There's also the fact that a lot of atheists are also liberals. And, finally, the fact that atheism is a tenet of Marxist philosophy. In their view, this is all of a piece...you can't separate evolution from liberalism from marxism from atheism. Of course, this is not true...for example, many believers are marxists and liberals, and there are indeed liberals who reject evolution because they don't think it accords with liberal ideas.

re: #60 hazzyday

Jonathan Wells, for one, is a hard core Creationist. Here's what he said about his life:
"Father's words, my studies and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism. When Father chose me to enter a [theology] Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
"Father" in this case was Sun Myung Moon. After Wells decided to destroy Darwinism, he went back to school and got another degree in biology.

Medved supports ID only because it is the closest thing that meets his religious hopes for the greatest nation on God's green earth. I think he is more willing to talk to Ben Stein types then Ken Miller types. I am a big fan of Medved. He offers plenty of opportunity for people to disagree with him on call ins. And while like all super smart people he can't stand to be wrong on anything, he does on occasion recaculate and re form his views. Not because he was wrong.

re: #70 zombie

evolved the ability to travel through time, giving entirely plausible evolutionary mechanisms as to how and why it could happen

Er, right.

re: #70 zombie
Ya never know. The universe is big enough for anything and everything. Maybe there is a giant millipede like Rosie with 117 legs terrorizing the inhabitants of a galaxy far far away!

re: #64 pingjockey

My 8 yr old with a big box of Legos!

That is a great one. lol

re: #72 lostlakehiker

You're wrong. Medved very specifically states:

The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear.

How much more clear can you get?

Medved is usually a pretty sharp guy, but his buying into ID crapola has made me lose a lot of respect for his intellectual processes.

I really have no interest in this evolution vs. creationism argument, which is why you never see me post on any of these threads. I've never understood this ferocious opposition to the Discovery Institute, and I've never understood the vehement opposition of some religious people to every element of evolutionary theory, but, so what. To each his own.

However, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed to see Michael Medved get bashed here. He is an intelligent, thoughtful man. So he doesn't share your ferocious hatred of DI; again, so what? Now he's a buffoon who deserves to be ridiculed?

Why don't we try respecting our friends and agree to disagree. Medved has been an outspoken Zionist.

Geez. I'm going off to visit another thread.

re: #61 Occasional Reader

Just as my "magic pixies are doing it!" explanation is not really a theory of organic chemistry, but rather a challenge to organic chemistry.

/wtf?

Intelligent design actually doesn't challenge evolution in the scientific sense, for the exact reason you imply. Its simply not a testable hypothesis.

To wit, if "intelligent design" were REALLY a valid scientific hypothesis you could come up with a construct to test its validity. For example:

a. If "intelligent design" is true, then the following would be true.
b. If "intelligent design" is false, then the following would NOT be true.

Anyone pushing "intelligent design" as an alternative hypothesis to evolution should be able to come up with a set of experiments (or findings) that could DISPROVE "intelligent design". Needless to say, nobody actually advocating this has done so.

Meanwhile, all sorts of empirical findings as well as laboratory experiments have been done to prove that genetic changes in populations are heritable, which is the backbone of all evolutionary theory.

re: #70 zombie

And as to a creature being millions of miles long: perhaps if we expand our definition of what constitutes a single "organism" it would be possible, in the form of a widely dispersed "hive consciousness" in which apparently individual entities share an energy-based inter-connectedness that we currently can't visualize.

Don't rule anything out. Except, maybe, 117 legs. That's just impossible.

Ocean algae and dinosaurs. If an Earthlike planet was 50 times as large with half the gravity...some very interesting things could appear.

re: #55 zeir

Medved is doing his own thing, he doesn't represent traditional Judaism. I have access to about 3000 traditional Jewish books; from the Talmud on, few of them advocate a literal reading of Genesis 1-6.

I can't say for sure, but I seriously doubt that Medved advocates a literal reading of Genesis either.

re: #76 Occasional Reader

Er, right.

Well, I don't want to bog down this thread getting into the plot of a manga graphic novel, but it really was extremely well-researched and well-thought-out.

re: #81 american jewess in jerusalem

I really have no interest in this evolution vs. creationism argument, which is why you never see me post on any of these threads. I've never understood this ferocious opposition to the Discovery Institute, and I've never understood the vehement opposition of some religious people to every element of evolutionary theory, but, so what. To each his own.

However, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed to see Michael Medved get bashed here. He is an intelligent, thoughtful man. So he doesn't share your ferocious hatred of DI; again, so what? Now he's a buffoon who deserves to be ridiculed?

Why don't we try respecting our friends and agree to disagree. Medved has been an outspoken Zionist.

Geez. I'm going off to visit another thread.

Well, you probably won't read this, but if the D.I. wasn't working with Islamists, supporting Russia on Georgia, and trying to undermine American science education (and thus our economic strength and military preparedness) and the Constitution by lying their asses off in order to get a religious-based pseudoscience taught to impressionable schoolchildren, then maybe they wouldn't generate such "ferocious opposition," HMMM?

Ocean algae and dinosaurs. If an Earthlike planet was 50 times as large with half the gravity...some very interesting things could appea

Ipso facto, any planet 50 times the size of this one couldn't have half the gravity.

(Unless you want to posit that the theory of gravity is also "just a theory" challenged by the alternate theory of "intelligent attraction").

It’s not a theory, it doesn’t explain anything, and it tells you things that are not true.

And in the end, it doesn't matter at all, because you'll find out when you die.

Is everyone on BOTH sides, so uncomfortable and insecure in their own beliefs in this, that this "discussion" just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and...guess what? No one is changing minds on either side! Big surprise, huh? Believe what you are comfortable with, because BOTH theories are just that - theories! - that are out there to believe in or not.

On to another thread somewhere...

MudHead IS NOT smart. He should stick to reviewing movies. I've listened to his show more often than I really want to, and it's always frustrating to hear him miss the huge gaping holes in his opponent's statements to try and use some stupid logical hack that doesn't really apply. (Although he's not as bad as Hannity in the "Hey, I have a little verbal trap here that I read somewhere else, would you please oblige me by sticking your foot into it?" category.)

And in spite of his denials, it's really clear he is deathly afraid of any homosexual eyeing his shaggy butt with lust in his eyes.

re: #88 6pat6

Believe what you are comfortable with, because BOTH theories are just that - theories! - that are out there to believe in or not.

Boooooooooooooooo.

re: #60 hazzyday

What is a hard core creationist?

While writing that, I was thinking of my paternal grandmother. Imagine the most extreme literalist, capital-F Fundamentalist, "if you don't believe like I do, then you're going straight to H*ll" person. Now multiply by a factor of 10. She was a piece of work. (You don't wanna know.)

re: #88 6pat6

because BOTH theories are just that - theories! - that are out there to believe in or not.

Yeah, who cares about this dumb "reason" stuff?!

re: #86 Tigger2005

Well, you probably won't read this, but if the D.I. wasn't working with Islamists, supporting Russia on Georgia, and trying to undermine American science education (and thus our economic strength and military preparedness) and the Constitution by lying their asses off in order to get a religious-based pseudoscience taught to impressionable schoolchildren, then maybe they wouldn't generate such "ferocious opposition," HMMM?

Also, if you "don't understand" the ferocious opposition to the D.I., then apparently you really haven't read anything on these threads, or you feel that the stuff I mentioned above really isn't anything to get too worked up over.

re: #88 6pat6

And in the end, it doesn't matter at all, because you'll find out when you die.

Is everyone on BOTH sides, so uncomfortable and insecure in their own beliefs in this, that this "discussion" just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and...guess what? No one is changing minds on either side! Big surprise, huh? Believe what you are comfortable with, because BOTH theories are just that - theories! - that are out there to believe in or not.

On to another thread somewhere...

Please read my earlier post on this.

Intelligent design is most definitely NOT a theory in the scientific sense of that word.

I've also never actually even seen it framed as a valid scientific hypothesis, though I concede that maybe its possible to do that. (Of course if it were ever framed that way, it would likely be quickly disproven).

re: #88 6pat6

Scientific Theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

re: #85 zombie

Well, I don't want to bog down this thread getting into the plot of a manga graphic novel, but it really was extremely well-researched and well-thought-out.

I guess I bridle a little at the description of "plausible" naturally-occurring time travel ability. Seems, ah, a bit of a stretch.

#30 zombie

We're getting down to the nubbin of the narcissistic wishful-thinking megalomania that is "intelligent design": You, and the other creationists, cannot simply accept the fact that you are not Daddy's special little creature, and you want to be told that we're better and more important than all the other icky creatures, and that we look just like Daddy. And that without this ego-boosting affirmation of your superiority, then all of existence is just meaningless, because DADDY DOESN'T LOVE ME! WAAAAAA!

At the risk of getting involved in this between atheists and thiests, that is a very condescending and thoughtless statement. You should be ashamed.

Either human beings are unique and Life has meaning, or we have no more moral worth than a rock. There is no "between" just as there is no "little bit preggers."

I've heard Medved just in the past few weeks, Prager, too, both observant Jews. They find no contradiction nor conflict with a belief in God and science, because science describes reality, it cannot tell us how reality began or why.

Do you realize that when the theory of The Big Bang was first postulated (IIRC in the 1920's) that astronomers and scientists attacked it? The thrust of their attack was that the universe was "eternal" ... it had to be, because if there was a Big Bang that was too suggestive of a "banger"... and HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST A BEGINNING YOU GODBOTHERER YOU!

Young earth Christians are a tiny minority. Trying to use them to paint all people of faith's beliefs on evolution is disengenious.

re: #83 DeathtotheSwiss

Ocean algae and dinosaurs. If an Earthlike planet was 50 times as large with half the gravity...some very interesting things could appear.

Low-body-density algae rising from the ocean (very thin and many yards in diameter), flapping off over the land on hunting expeditions.
Huge, nearly-transparent, carnivorous tortillas.

/sleep well tonight

re: #88 6pat6

Is everyone on BOTH sides, so uncomfortable and insecure in their own beliefs in this, that this "discussion" just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and...guess what? No one is changing minds on either side!

This is just an untrue statement. I was more sympathetic to the ID side when all of this came up on LGF (as were a few others, I believe) but having done more reading on the subject, I am firmly behind science now.

Also- I think it's BS of you to say people here defending science are insecure- in fact, I think it's a strawman.

re: #97 Darleen

Young Earth Creationists are the driving force behind the Discovery Institute.

re: #81 american jewess in jerusalem

I have to say I'm pretty disappointed to see Michael Medved get bashed here. He is an intelligent, thoughtful man. So he doesn't share your ferocious hatred of DI; again, so what? Now he's a buffoon who deserves to be ridiculed?

Well, I wouldn't categorize my criticism of Medved's position on ID as "bashing" (a label which acts to establish victimization, as I see it), and certainly don't consider him a "buffoon" on the whole. As I stated, I think he's generally a pretty thoughtful, intelligent guy, especially politically. In fact, if anything, my main criticism of Medved is usually that he has a tendency to succumb to what I call "Talk Show Host Disease," which is behavior/attitude that conveys an mindset of believing that one is always the smartest person in the room (the classic "know-it-all" syndrome), so to speak. But overall, I find him to be one of the more tolerable of the radio types -- he's certainly not bombastic or over-the-top like many others. However, his embrace of ID I find completely ridiculous.

if natural selection were the only thing going all women would be smart, have great personalities, look like blond blueed greek goddesesses and all men would be .......

helen thomas and michiel moore are proofs that it is more complex than that.

re: #97 Darleen

Either human beings are unique and Life has meaning, or we have no more moral worth than a rock.

As an atheist, I find the construct of "either God created us to be special, or human life is meaningless" to be a false choice, and bad reasoning.

re: #87 looking closely

Ipso facto, any planet 50 times the size of this one couldn't have half the gravity.

(Unless you want to posit that the theory of gravity is also "just a theory" challenged by the alternate theory of "intelligent attraction").

I always thought gravity had to do with mass and not size. I dunno, not an expert.

re: #88 6pat6

And in the end, it doesn't matter at all, because you'll find out when you die.

Is everyone on BOTH sides, so uncomfortable and insecure in their own beliefs in this, that this "discussion" just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and...guess what? No one is changing minds on either side! Big surprise, huh? Believe what you are comfortable with, because BOTH theories are just that - theories!

YOU probably won't read this either. Just like the other hit-and-run poster, you haven't bothered to inform yourself about this issue, yet you can't resist posting an ignorant, uninformed comment then running off to another thread without bothering to stick around and defend what you just said.

It has been pointed out over and over again on these evolution/I.D. threads that evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It is not "just a theory" in the sense that it's a guess. In science, an explanation does not become a theory until it is backed up by plenty of evidence, observation, experimentation, etc. Evolution has 150 years of this, and no evidence, observations, or experiments have contradicted it. I.D. is not a scientific theory at all--it has NO supporting evidence, observations, or experiments--and, in case you didn't notice, Medved volunteered that it is not a theory, period.

re: #87 looking closely

Ipso facto, any planet 50 times the size of this one couldn't have half the gravity.

*grin*
Please stop messing with my #98.

re: #87 looking closely

i think the mass of the thing means more than the size of the thing.

re: #84 wolfie

I can't say for sure, but I seriously doubt that Medved advocates a literal reading of Genesis either.

Medved. Highly super intelligent ex democratic activist. Now very Jewish and in touch with his history.

IMO I think the DI paid him a lot to get his name on board. To provide them with more legitmacy.

Medved:
" Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."

I think we can see in the trials and the concept's of Behe that indeed ID from the DI does wish to replace evolution with something else. What Medved says here appears to be his thoughts on ID and not the DI thoughts. I believe Medved believes inthe theory evolution. If one were to toss out all the Behe material completely and reform ID as the cause of a long term evolutionary process, then they would have more traction. Across all religions. The narrow approach they have now only fits the wishes of a few narrow minded people.

Well to lighten the mood: I love the world.

Woke you guys up this morning, I guess. I just find the whole "discussion" between Creationism and Darwinism to be...boring as hell. Both sides have their "merits" to an extent. Both sides are full of shit in others. And in the big scheme of things, who really cares one way or another? We are here. We die. More things will come after us, just as other things preceded us. I believe what I believe to be true, as do the rest of you, and nothing is really going to change that view for the vast majority of us.

/Ooooh, how about those Olympics?

Hey, baby, it's not the size of the planet, it's the motion of the gravitons.

re: #103 Occasional Reader

As an atheist, I find the construct of "either God created us to be special, or human life is meaningless" to be a false choice, and bad reasoning.

Hear, hear!

/You saved me a post.

re: #105 Tigger2005

I read what you wrote, much to your surprise, I'm sure.

re: #30 zombie

We're getting down to the nubbin of the narcissistic wishful-thinking megalomania that is "intelligent design": You, and the other creationists, cannot simply accept the fact that you are not Daddy's special little creature, and you want to be told that we're better and more important than all the other icky creatures, and that we look just like Daddy. And that without this ego-boosting affirmation of your superiority, then all of existence is just meaningless, because DADDY DOESN'T LOVE ME! WAAAAAA!

Wow, Zombie -- kind of meanspirited.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

re: #110 6pat6

Please show where evolution is "full of shit".

re: #110 6pat6

I believe what I believe to be true,

I tend to get all stuck on that "evidence" and "reason" stuff, myself.

ID reminds me of people who question the landing on the moon because IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE despite all the evidence that of course it was possible and did happen.

re: #108 hazzyday

If one were to toss out all the Behe material completely and reform ID as the cause of a long term evolutionary process, then they would have more traction. Across all religions. The narrow approach they have now only fits the wishes of a few narrow minded people.

That's never going to happen, because the Discovery Institute is an explicitly Christian organization, dedicated to replacing "materialistic science" with a religiously-based pseudo-science.

And it doesn't matter whether they toss out Behe's hooey. What they are promoting is antithetical to science, by its very nature -- and they know it.

I've always admired Michael Medved, but his thinking is way off here.

Listen, for me it's the evidence. I follow the evidence wherever it takes me. It is what it is. Intelligent Design is an attempt to evade the evidence. It's like walking across the street without looking both ways.

re: #117 Occasional Reader

You have no way to know which way I believe. You make a great deal of assumptions. Oh, and Tigger, I am hardly a "hit and run" poster.

re: #116 Sharmuta

Please show where evolution is "full of shit".

Actually, it's the opposite. Which is why we evolved the anus. :-)

re: #109 Idle Drifter

Well to lighten the mood: I love the world.

Great ad!

No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn’t tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

It doesn't answer your questions, it just tell you about... something else.

re: #110 6pat6
sorry ment to up ding this and hit the down dinger

sorry

re: #89 Mauser

MudHead IS NOT smart. He should stick to reviewing movies. I've listened to his show more often than I really want to, and it's always frustrating to hear him miss the huge gaping holes in his opponent's statements to try and use some stupid logical hack that doesn't really apply. (Although he's not as bad as Hannity in the "Hey, I have a little verbal trap here that I read somewhere else, would you please oblige me by sticking your foot into it?" category.)

And in spite of his denials, it's really clear he is deathly afraid of any homosexual eyeing his shaggy butt with lust in his eyes.

You argue very poorly which is probably why you can't recognize logic in Medved's arguments. What does "Mudhead is not smart" mean? That is wrong in every word you use. He has a quick grasp of reality that few people have and can quickly move to the essence of an argument. He does have his opinions which are different from yours. I disagree with him on plenty of stuff where I think he only takes a 20,000 foot view of an issue. But his show is fast paced.

re: #108 hazzyday

If one were to toss out all the Behe material completely and reform ID as the cause of a long term evolutionary process, then they would have more traction.

I don't see how that can happen since they reject the evolutionary process.

re: #83 DeathtotheSwiss

Ocean algae and dinosaurs. If an Earthlike planet was 50 times as large with half the gravity...some very interesting things could appear.

Some back of the envelope figgerin' suggests that an Earthlike planet 50 times larger with half the gravity might not be all that Earthlike. Such a planet would have an average density significantly less than that of water.

It would be more of a Nerf™-like planet.

re: #121 6pat6

You have no way to know which way I believe. You make a great deal of assumptions.

I made no assumptions. But when talking about a subject that is susceptible to evidence-based reasoning, simply throwing up your hands and saying "oh, let's all just believe what we want" is intellectual defeatism. Nope, I can't agree with it.

So, just in case you were actually wondering and if you care one way or another, I lean much more towards the fact that the earth has been around several billion years, there is no way that we have literally been around for 6,000 years, and that we are not the only intelligent beings in the Universe. Did Man evolve from the primordial ooze? Well, it took six billion years for us to show up on this scenic rock, so I would say "no".

There. Hardly the ID argument, huh?

re: #114 American Jewess In Jerusalem

I agree. Still, when one is constantly being told that evolution is meaninglessly random and if we except it then humanity will destroy itself and evil will be tolerated and life is without purpose and all the other nonsense, I too will sometimes go into a rant like that

If you find this discussion so boring, why bother telling everyone this? There's nothing more boring than someone complaining about being bored.

I think some people use this complaint to try to stifle the discussion entirely, because it makes them uncomfortable.

re: #105 Tigger2005

YOU probably won't read this either. Just like the other hit-and-run poster, you haven't bothered to inform yourself about this issue, yet you can't resist posting an ignorant, uninformed comment then running off to another thread without bothering to stick around and defend what you just said.

It has been pointed out over and over again on these evolution/I.D. threads that evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It is not "just a theory" in the sense that it's a guess. In science, an explanation does not become a theory until it is backed up by plenty of evidence, observation, experimentation, etc. Evolution has 150 years of this, and no evidence, observations, or experiments have contradicted it. I.D. is not a scientific theory at all--it has NO supporting evidence, observations, or experiments--and, in case you didn't notice, Medved volunteered that it is not a theory, period.

Are you talkin' to ME?

I've never claimed to have knowledge of this subject, and I've never entered into any kind of argument or debate about it precisely because I don't know enough to discuss the details, and for your information let me reiterate -- I DON'T CARE. I WAS religious, not so much anymore, so I am not wed to creationism in the slightest. I simply stated that I find it obnoxious that Michael Medved is being knocked around. That was my sole reason for posting. There are MULTIPLE threads on this topic here, which surprises me but, whatever. I also am not a "hit and run" poster. I haven't said a single offensive thing. If something in my post "stung" you, maybe you are too sensitive to be having this conversation.

re: #110 6pat6

I am reading that you are afraid of it. There are many like that. My opinions and thoughts on the issues and it's finer points are still forming. I welcome the Medved foray into this battlefield of ideas.

re: #110 6pat6

Woke you guys up this morning, I guess. I just find the whole "discussion" between Creationism and Darwinism to be...boring as hell. Both sides have their "merits" to an extent. Both sides are full of shit in others. And in the big scheme of things, who really cares one way or another? We are here. We die. More things will come after us, just as other things preceded us. I believe what I believe to be true, as do the rest of you, and nothing is really going to change that view for the vast majority of us.

/Ooooh, how about those Olympics?

I didn't down ding you or up ding you. But, there is tremendous value in unlocking the secrets of nature. Understanding evolution could lead to advances in medicine, which could improve our lives dramatically. Knowing the causal mechanisms behind nature is a great thing.

Intelligent Design doesn’t tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true.

No, it surmises what is not true (based upon the concept of knowledge as finite) based upon the preconceived assumption of the existence of a creator.

re: #110 6pat6

Woke you guys up this morning, I guess. I just find the whole "discussion" between Creationism and Darwinism to be...boring as hell. Both sides have their "merits" to an extent. Both sides are full of shit in others. And in the big scheme of things, who really cares one way or another? We are here. We die. More things will come after us, just as other things preceded us. I believe what I believe to be true, as do the rest of you, and nothing is really going to change that view for the vast majority of us.

/Ooooh, how about those Olympics?

Do you want Muslims teaching kids in public schools about their beliefs of creation?

re: #36 Occasional Reader

... we've been waiting for."

I saw a flying monkey..does that count?

re: #130 6pat6

So, just in case you were actually wondering and if you care one way or another, I lean much more towards the fact that the earth has been around several billion years, there is no way that we have literally been around for 6,000 years, and that we are not the only intelligent beings in the Universe. Did Man evolve from the primordial ooze? Well, it took six billion years for us to show up on this scenic rock, so I would say "no".

There. Hardly the ID argument, huh?

Actually- that is very much the ID argument.

re: #113 6pat6

I read what you wrote, much to your surprise, I'm sure.

Well then, how am I supposed to believe a word you say, since you said you were off to another thread? ;-)

re: #96 Occasional Reader

I guess I bridle a little at the description of "plausible" naturally-occurring time travel ability. Seems, ah, a bit of a stretch.

Well, if you insist -- though I don't really remember that component the plot too clearly (it's been years since I read it).

A planet circles a double-sun system. On a regular cycle, once every EXTREMELY long time, the two suns line up in relation to this planet, and due to the gravitational lens effect, the light from the further sun is briefly pulled back into focus from the nearer sun and this poor planet is for a few brief minutes every million (or whatever) years, absolutely incinerated by the focused light of the two suns. This regularly occuring pattern wipes out almost all life on the planet each time, and each time life has to evolve anew. Now, during one of these cycles, which have been repeated endlessly, a type of bird-like creature evolved which had the odd ability to temporarily pass into one of the other 11 hidden dimensions (which are thought to exist, but which we can't access). This other dimension has a time arrow that either goes in a different direction or goes at a different pace. And by sheer chance some of these birds were momentarily (from their point of view) passing through this other dimension right when the planet got fried, and when the winked back onto our plane of existence, they found themselves still alive after nearly everything else got incinerated. So they became part of the new evolutionary life cycle. This pattern repeated over and over until the birds acquired enough instinct to intentionally disappear during the gravitational lens incidents, and keep surviving indefinitely.

Like I said, it was science fiction, and I'm not doing it justice, but it was pretty thought-provoking. I'm trying to remember the title -- something like ""The Bluebirds of [planet's name]".

re: #136 StinkHammer

No, it surmises what is not true (based upon the concept of knowledge as finite) based upon the preconceived assumption of the existence of a creator.

Yeah, they starts with some bizarre and unproven "Facts" ast the basis of their disproof like "the eye is too complex to evolve." without proving that there is a limit to the complexity of things that can evolve. I mean, is there a line or something? How does one measure that complexity?

#103 OR

As an atheist, I find the construct of "either God created us to be special, or human life is meaningless" to be a false choice, and bad reasoning.

And? I'm awaiting your answer.

Please note that I capitalized "Life" on purpose. I'm not talking about individuals who can and do find meaning and purpose within their own lives. I'm talking about human Life in general. If we are random results of an organic process that "just happened" then we have no purpose, and our morality in America has no better worth than the morality of jihadists. We just all different and our lives and deaths are no more noteworthy than the ants. All art, music, theater, film, sculpture, invention, space travel, etc .... no more worth than the droppings of bison in Yellowstone.

If you wish to deny human uniqueness, at least be honest about it.

I don't know "God" per se. But I don't believe in an eternal universe of chance where morality is a suckers game.

re: #135 Archimedes

I agree with you 100%. My point is that the ID discussion has been brought up in (maybe 30 or so?) threads, and the discussion is the same in every single one. This is maybe the third ID thread I've said a thing in. It seems to be a "discussion" that has no resolution. I'd much rather bitch about the elections, but there hasn't been much new there, either.

6pat6- still waiting for you to show me where evolution is "full of shit".

re: #132 Charles

If you find this discussion so boring, why bother telling everyone this? There's nothing more boring than someone complaining about being bored.

I think some people use this complaint to stifle the discussion entirely, because it makes them uncomfortable.

Boredom is a two way street. When someone says they are bored it tells us about what they are interested in, doesn't really tell you that the subject isn't valuable. I mean, I get bored by discussions of bridge, because I don't play the game, but I don't begrudge those who are intensely into it. But, something like nano-technology often holds my interest, as do hot chix on bikes!

re: #141 zombie

which had the odd ability to temporarily pass into one of the other 11 hidden dimensions

Um, see, that's where I have trouble with the word "plausible", right here. An AWFUL lot getting glossed over.

Sounds like an interesting story, though.

re: #133 American Jewess In Jerusalem

Yes, I was talking about you there. And like 6pat6, how am I now supposed to believe another word YOU say, since you said you were tired of this whole subject and were off to visit another thread? ;-)

re: #141 zombie

Like I said, it was science fiction, and I'm not doing it justice, but it was pretty thought-provoking. I'm trying to remember the title -- something like ""The Bluebirds of [planet's name]".

Happiness?

re: #132 Charles

If you find this discussion so boring, why bother telling everyone this? There's nothing more boring than someone complaining about being bored.

I think some people use this complaint to stifle the discussion entirely, because it makes them uncomfortable.

Well, Charles, you are completely wrong about me. I have never stalked the evolutionists or stated on any previous thread that I'm bored, have I? I've made it clear many times that my purpose for posting is that I think it's kind of low down to attack Michael Medved and try to make him look stupid, when he is not. If I expressed my personal feelings about the topic at hand, it was to drive home the point that I'm not motivated by any loyalty to one side or the other. Faith and science are not in conflict for me (not that anyone here cares) but just so you know that I'm not furtively "uncomfortable" with the topic. I just cannot stand by and let someone be ridiculed without registering my (favorable) opinion of that person.

I've only recently started following this ID debate via lgf so I didn't know a lawyer started this whole thing:

—Philip Johnson, Professor of Law Emeritus at Boalt Hall and the widely recognized father of the intelligent design movement. Professor Johnson also serves as an advisor to the Discovery Institute, the Seattle based think-tank that has been the driving force behind intelligent design.

Johnson’s publication of the 1991 book Darwin on Trial is as close to a birthday as the intelligent design cause has. “I approach the creation-evolution dispute not as a scientist but as a professor of law,” he writes in its first chapter, “which means among other things that I know something about the ways that words are used in arguments.” Johnson’s intent was to bring his lawyerly skills to bear on the task of analyzing the logic of and the assumptions behind Darwinism. The essence of his argument was that the logical structure of the evolution debate is framed in such a way as to favor evolution from the outset; scientists “have to rely on a definition of science that does not permit an alternative to naturalistic evolution.” Furthermore, he maintained that the evidence for the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism is scant at best.

In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley

An evolutionary biologist's post on the interview with Medved:

"Intelligent Design" is not a theory says DI fellow

re: #141 zombie

Intriguing.
(I never read that one.)

#103, see what I mean, American Jewess?

To make Tigger happy, I am now somewhere else. Have a day.

re: #153 Basho

I mean, 143.

re: #141 zombie

So, after these birds skip forward over the incineration... what do they eat? Or do they skip millions of years forward and hope that the world evolves something edible?

"One day civilization will rise again and there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins."

re: #141 zombie

just because we don't know something now doesn't mean we might not learn how to do it in the future.

go to civil war America and say man will walk on the moon and fly airplanes other than Julies Vern and Leonardo DI vinchi would think you were smoking the loco weed.

or for that matter yochanan might learn to spell in 50 years

re: #143 Darleen

If we are random results of an organic process that "just happened" then we have no purpose, and our morality in America has no better worth than the morality of jihadists.

No a priori assumptions loaded into that statement... no sirree.

re: #148 Tigger2005

Yes, I was talking about you there. And like 6pat6, how am I now supposed to believe another word YOU say, since you said you were tired of this whole subject and were off to visit another thread? ;-)

I did go visit another thread. I'd have been happy to move on permanently from this one until you attacked me.

You just called me a liar. Nice. And how long have I been a member here? Do you have any other evidence that I'm a liar, or are you just being nasty to me for some other reason?

re: #142 Mauser

Yeah, they starts with some bizarre and unproven "Facts" ast the basis of their disproof like "the eye is too complex to evolve." without proving that there is a limit to the complexity of things that can evolve. I mean, is there a line or something? How does one measure that complexity?

The world is filled to the brim with Things We Don't Know. To simply abandon the scientific investigation of those Things (on the presumption that we can't ever know any of them) and essentially say, "I dunno -- God musta done it" is to embrace the defeat of intellectual inquiry, and I'll have nothing to do with that notion.

re: #151 twincitiesgirl

Johnson began the movement with a desired conclusion, to remake society in his preferred mold. It's not really 'about' evolution, his real goal is to change the 'materialistic' world.

re: #149 Opilio

re: #141 zombie

Like I said, it was science fiction, and I'm not doing it justice, but it was pretty thought-provoking. I'm trying to remember the title -- something like ""The Bluebirds of [planet's name]".

Happiness?

the white cliffs of Dover?

RIP Isaac Hayes

Isaac Hayes

re: #132 Charles

If you find this discussion so boring, why bother telling everyone this? There's nothing more boring than someone complaining about being bored.

I think some people use this complaint to try to stifle the discussion entirely, because it makes them uncomfortable.

Charles, I am bored by your statement. Bored, I tell you!

I stand on the mountaintop and announce to the world: I AM BORED BY A VARIETY OF TOPICS!

Help me with understanding the whole evolution vs. ID hoopla (and vice versa).

Do the defenders of evolution have some 'equity' in disproving ID?

Do the defenders of ID have some 'equity' in proving it equal or in a superseding position to evolution?

With all of the fierce arguments pro and con one would think so. I know that in some places pro-ID people are trying to get the theory of ID taught in schools. I guess I can understand both positions. But I think those who espouse the idea that atheism is a 'religion' and is being forced on kids at school push the envelope of credibility with this argument in an effort to support ID

I have some fairly strongly held personal religious beliefs...and that is how I believe they should continue to be held...."personally". Or shared with those like minded people or people who may still be seeking a personal path.

Having said all of that...I have only one question to ask:

Can't we all just get along? :)

Flock Of Dodos 1of9

re: #133 American Jewess In Jerusalem

Are you talkin' to ME?

I've never claimed to have knowledge of this subject, and I've never entered into any kind of argument or debate about it precisely because I don't know enough to discuss the details, and for your information let me reiterate -- I DON'T CARE. I WAS religious, not so much anymore, so I am not wed to creationism in the slightest. I simply stated that I find it obnoxious that Michael Medved is being knocked around. That was my sole reason for posting. There are MULTIPLE threads on this topic here, which surprises me but, whatever. I also am not a "hit and run" poster. I haven't said a single offensive thing. If something in my post "stung" you, maybe you are too sensitive to be having this conversation.

And by the way, what "stung" me is your statement that you don't understand the ferocious opposition to the D.I. I did a direct reply to your post before I replied to 6pat6, did you read it? If you think the D.I.'s being in bed with Islamist creationists (and their contributions to strengthening the Islamist movement in Turkey), their support for Russia's actions in Georgia, and their efforts to undermine our country's economic, defense, and scientific leadership by lying their asses off to get a religious-based pseudoscience taught to impressionable kids is not reason to be "ferociously opposed" to them, then I don't know what it would take to get you to understand it.

re: #155 Basho

I mean, 143.

No, Basho, I'm sorry. I don't really know what you were intending for me to "see." Maybe try again. ?

re: #81 american jewess in jerusalem

1. Criticism is not "bashing."

2. If you don't understand my opposition to the Discovery Institute and the dishonest methods they use, you haven't been reading my posts about it.

3. I don't have a "ferocious hatred" for the Discovery Institute. I have a principled opposition to them, and I've done my best to support it with facts and reasoning.

Flock Of Dodos 2of9

re: #163 BigDog

RIP Isaac Hayes

Isaac Hayes

That's a shame.

Rest in peace, Mr. Hayes.

re: #10 Kostya Lotz

Just as evolutionists are more than certain about the random happenstance of our futile existence, serious thinking religious people recognize the uncertainty involved in random freak mutation and ask where are the talking monkeys. There aren't any. There won't be anytime soon, if at all. We are designed, if not by God, in HIS image, then by nature, in HER image to be unique and not just random accidents doomed to the cold nothingness of fate.

Honestly. Do you really like to think that the meaning of life is all for nothing?

The above brief effort is completely infested with fallacious false-dichotomy thinking.

Typical, of course, of ID apologists.

Just because Michael gets it wrong on this, doesn't mean that I can't agree with him on other things, which is the majority of topics he usually covers. I haven't heard to many ID topics rise on his show. It will be interesting to see if they start now that he is a Senior Fellow with DI.

Too bad though.

re: #163 BigDog

Dang.

Flock Of Dodos 3of9

re: #151 twincitiesgirl

The best book I've read on the whole ID subject is Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel. He takes Johnson and the whole ID crew to the mat, intellectually. A great read.

re: #163 BigDog

RIP Isaac Hayes

Isaac Hayes

Goodbye, Chef.

Flock Of Dodos 4of9

No a priori assumptions loaded into that statement... no sirree.

Occassional Reader

Do you have any argument, or are you just into bad faith ad hominems.

Please explain how there is Purpose to Life, if human beings are the same as the dirt they walk on.

Maybe PETA is right, the death of 6 million chickens IS the moral equivalence of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust - because humans have no more moral worth than chickens

Indeed, morality is a suckers game because there is no objective morality to be discovered.

re: #165 mrclark

Do the defenders of evolution have some 'equity' in disproving ID?

Do the defenders of ID have some 'equity' in proving it equal or in a superseding position to evolution?

Yes. To learn more about the discovery institute's agenda, please read the wedge strategy.

OT

Now if you want "time travel" (of a sort) Gene finds Cyd

Flock Of Dodos 5of9

re: #150 American Jewess In Jerusalem

I've made it clear many times that my purpose for posting is that I think it's kind of low down to attack Michael Medved and try to make him look stupid, when he is not.

Again. Criticism is not "attacking," and quoting someone's own words is not "trying to make them look stupid."

Flock Of Dodos 6of9

re: #164 zombie

Charles, I am bored by your statement. Bored, I tell you!

I stand on the mountaintop and announce to the world: I AM BORED BY A VARIETY OF TOPICS!

Could you PLEASE post a comment which isn't so #^@%#$ tiresome?!

Flock Of Dodos 7of9

mrclark- please also see what Phillip Johnson, father of the wedge is really after:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

Source

re: #165 mrclark

Help me with understanding the whole evolution vs. ID hoopla (and vice versa).

Do the defenders of evolution have some 'equity' in disproving ID?

It is not the burden of the adherents of Evolutionary Theory to disprove ID, it is the responsibility of ID proponents to prove their own theory -- which cannot be done, because it rests upon a the notion of a supernatural agent acting outside the natural laws of physics.

I like the ID threads, because, like evolution itself, sometimes comments are repeated verbatim from past threads, but sometimes the comments approach the issue with a slight nuance that is specific to an individual.

Evolution question: When you cross: scheming snarky lawyer John Edwards, with new age sycophant Reille Hunter, what do you get?

Flock Of Dodos 8of9

re: #164 zombie

Charles, I am bored by your statement. Bored, I tell you!

I stand on the mountaintop and announce to the world: I AM BORED BY A VARIETY OF TOPICS!

Oh yeah? Rowing is on the Olympics right now.

I still don't know why more people don't find their way to Hume's dialogues on what was in his time termed "natural religion," where the question of intelligent design is discussed and, by the sceptical protagonist, demolished. "Natural religiion" as the term implies was a philosophical attempt in a scientific age to infer the existence of God from the evidence of nature, in contrast to revealed religion, and it was an intellectually legitimate one at that, and some serious minds took it on. It still merits discussion in our time, and not merely for historical purposes.
The politics of the "creationists" concerning public education systems, is another matter altogether.
Much as some people might allow the teaching of "comparitive religion" in schools, there might be room for competing theories about the natural world, bearing in mind Bertrand Russell's concise distinction of religion and science: religion deals with certainties, science does not; it only allows for probabilities, even as certain as they might seem from experience.
Hard empiricism, a la Hume, to be sure, but isn't that precisely the scientific world view of our age?

re: #163 BigDog

RIP Isaac Hayes

Isaac Hayes

re: #189 DistantThunder

Extra silly Hairweasels.

re: #189 DistantThunder

I like the ID threads, because, like evolution itself, sometimes comments are repeated verbatim from past threads, but sometimes the comments approach the issue with a slight nuance that is specific to an individual.

Evolution question: When you cross: scheming snarky lawyer John Edwards, with new age sycophant Reille Hunter, what do you get?

a cute little baby

re: #193 MandyManners

Damn Right!

Flock Of Dodos 9of9

Good movie critic ...

Lousy theologin ...

re: #189 DistantThunder

I like the ID threads, because, like evolution itself, sometimes comments are repeated verbatim from past threads, but sometimes the comments approach the issue with a slight nuance that is specific to an individual.

Evolution question: When you cross: scheming snarky lawyer John Edwards, with new age sycophant Reille Hunter, what do you get?

Hopefully foster parents!

Medved is a passionate believer in bigfoot according to the bio on his own website.

Dan Sytman, Michael's producer and partner on the radio show, once saw Bigfoot at the edge of a summer camp in the woods. Even before meeting Dan, Michael was a passionate believer in Sasquatch.

re: #169 Charles

1. Criticism is not "bashing."

2. If you don't understand my opposition to the Discovery Institute and the dishonest methods they use, you haven't been reading my posts about it.

3. I don't have a "ferocious hatred" for the Discovery Institute. I have a principled opposition to them, and I've done my best to support it with facts and reasoning.

Okay. Fair enough.

re: #173 lone_wolf_in_illinois

Just because Michael gets it wrong on this, doesn't mean that I can't agree with him on other things, which is the majority of topics he usually covers.

I concur. See my #101 above.

re: #127 Sharmuta

I don't see how that can happen since they reject the evolutionary process.

Yes it would mean scary old dudes having to reform their religion also. Cold day in hell then.

re: #179 Darleen

Please explain how there is Purpose to Life, if human beings are the same as the dirt they walk on.

Do you see what you're doing here?

That's not "ad hominem", it's a legitimate question.

Do you see how you massage the argument to get the outcome you want?

You're the one declaring that a non-deity-designed universe means we're the same as dirt. Your position is self-sealing, so of course you're "right".

re: #191 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh yeah? Rowing is on the Olympics right now.

You deserve a paddling for bringing that up!

I find this refreshing. They've steadily been backed up into a corner with ID at Discovery Institute, and now they've demoted ID to mere hypothesis, a step forward. They are also being more honest about their aim, which Medved says is to bash science. Good luck in that Michael.

One other thing people need to consider abotut Discovery institute: Think of DI as a huge vanity publishing firm with some real suckers for customers. Then you might understand why some are over there who seem only "loosely allied". It's a living.

re: #205 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You deserve a paddling for bringing that up!

Oar something else.

re: #104 DeathtotheSwiss

I always thought gravity had to do with mass and not size. I dunno, not an expert.

If not mass, then by "size" you meant what exactly. . .diameter? surface area?

Assuming any of the above, no planet with 50 times the size of this one could have half the gravitational pull at its surface, unless it were made of material of only a fraction the density.

If so, it wouldn't then be comparable to this one.

Your general point that a different planetary configuration would tend to evolve different organisms is still probably valid, though nobody has yet come up with evidence to prove it.

Of course, if someone DID come up with alternate extraterrestrial biology, the Creationists would just claim that THOSE creatures were ALSO created ex nihilio by God.

re: #161 jaunte

My take on it was that he was self serving in that he knew it would stir a huge emotion driven debate--and isn't that a perfect scenario for lawyers, no matter what they believe? I always thought the law profession was mainly about carefully crafted words, and not (necessarily) facts.

/not trying to offend anyone here

re: #192 exredtory

I still don't know why more people don't find their way to Hume's dialogues on what was in his time termed "natural religion," where the question of intelligent design is discussed and, by the sceptical protagonist, demolished.

It's been half a lifetime since I read it, but it seems to me it demolishes the notion of an anthropomorphic God but not other possible ideas of an immanent intelligence in the universe that is impersonal, etc. -- Teilhard de Chardin's model, for example, or Buddhist conceptions. The latter are quite compatible with modern science, it seems to me.

What did you become after being a Red Tory?

re: #204 Occasional Reader

Very nicely put.

re: #136 StinkHammer

No, it surmises what is not true (based upon the concept of knowledge as finite) based upon the preconceived assumption of the existence of a creator.

I'm probably misreading you here....and forgive me, if I am... but IF you are saying that the concept of finite human knowledge is any way necessarily based on the assumption of a creator, I strongly disagree.

re: #2 Killgore Trout

He's confused.

He's a senior fellow having a senior moment.

re: #164 zombie I am bored with your boredom! :)

re: #207 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oar something else.

That gets a 10!

/gee, NOW I'll have a hull of a time coming up with a reply

It just sad when a major critic like Medved hooks up with the wackies. We lose him as a credible moral force.

Duke of New York, A Number One!

Bye Mr. Hayes.

Fun to watch this topic evolve.

Don't make it personal; don't take it personal.

Woah! Isaac Hayes died...

re: #143 Darleen

#103 OR

As an atheist, I find the construct of "either God created us to be special, or human life is meaningless" to be a false choice, and bad reasoning.

And? I'm awaiting your answer.

Please note that I capitalized "Life" on purpose. I'm not talking about individuals who can and do find meaning and purpose within their own lives. I'm talking about human Life in general. If we are random results of an organic process that "just happened" then we have no purpose, and our morality in America has no better worth than the morality of jihadists.

The first and most vital point to make is things are what they are. We can't change the way things are, by which I mean nature is here and we have to deal with it. We can rearrange things, but the starting conditions are simply not something we had any choice over.

Given that, the question of morality is at the next higher level, or maybe several steps removed. But, if you want to stay alive on this earth there are certain things you have to do. If you want to be valued by other good people, there are certain things you have to do. Our lives are not guaranteed, and it is because we are not immortal, indestructible beings that we require a moral code to operate. Life is all we have.

As to the purpose of life, that is up to each of us to decide. The idea that there is some purpose outside ourselves steals in the premise that there is a higher being or higher something that put us here. But I have never seen that established. So, each of us must decide on a purpose for our own lives. A goal, a destination to strive for.

We just all different and our lives and deaths are no more noteworthy than the ants. All art, music, theater, film, sculpture, invention, space travel, etc .... no more worth than the droppings of bison in Yellowstone.

Noteworthy to whom? I value humans much more than inanimate objects or animals. Good humans, that is, not murderous ones. Murderous ones I value less. Why do I value them? Because human beings, when left free, produce such great things, and offer so many good things in almost every way imaginable. They are life giving.

If you wish to deny human uniqueness, at least be honest about it.

I think the uniqueness of humans is manifest.

I don't know "God" per se. But I don't believe in an eternal universe of chance where morality is a suckers game.

Morality isn't a suckers game, not if you value your life and those you love. Morality is of the highest importance.

(Between zombie's boredom and us punsters, this thread is going to hell in a handbasket, fast!)

re: #217 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Duke of New York, A Number One!

Bye Mr. Hayes.

I hear that Isaac Hayes was one bad mother...

[waiting]

re: #219 Salem

re: #217 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Duke of New York, A Number One!

Bye Mr. Hayes.

Goodbye.

re: #222 Occasional Reader

I hear that Isaac Hayes was one bad mother...

[waiting]

Be quiet, please!

re: #212 wolfie

No, I (clumsily) stated that belief in ID relies on:

1) Presumption of a creator

2) The concept that humans have pretty much learned all we can about physics and the natural world, so that when we encounter a phenomenon that can't YET be explained via those concepts then we must resort to (1).

re: #143 Darleen

I'm talking about human Life in general. If we are random results of an organic process that "just happened" then we have no purpose, and our morality in America has no better worth than the morality of jihadists. We just all different and our lives and deaths are no more noteworthy than the ants. All art, music, theater, film, sculpture, invention, space travel, etc .... no more worth than the droppings of bison in Yellowstone.

If you wish to deny human uniqueness, at least be honest about it.

Every word of your comment confirms what I said in comment #30 above -- even though some people thought my comment too harsh.

I may have phrased it harshly, but it seems the sentiment was accurate. A lot of people apparently need to believe that humans did not evolve naturally, because without some sort of supernatural origins of our species, then we're "no better than the apes," to borrow a phrase from 1859.

Strange how the argument has not progressed one inch in the last 149 years.

re: #222 Occasional Reader

Shut your mouth!

re: #176 StinkHammer

Thanks--I love to read, I'll be sure to check this out.

re: #228 Racer X

Just talkin' 'bout Shaft.

re: #147 Occasional Reader

Um, see, that's where I have trouble with the word "plausible", right here. An AWFUL lot getting glossed over.

Sounds like an interesting story, though.

it's only being glossed over because a. I can't remember much of the details, and b. It's wayyyy off-topic and not of interest for most people here. In the actual manga, more detail and plausibility was laid out.

re: #228 Racer X

Shut your mouth!

I believe that's "Shut yo' mouth!"

re: #183 Charles

Again. Criticism is not "attacking," and quoting someone's own words is not "trying to make them look stupid."

It might be, if said words have a tendency on their own to make the ones using them look stupid.

Personally, I have no way to judge Medved's intelligence or lack thereof, but I will repeat that based on his comments about evolution it seems clear to me that he doesn't fully understand it.

In general, in my experience, most of the harshest critics of evolution I've encountered really don't understand it.

Unlike the biblical theory of Creationism, which can be explained in a few words "God make everything just as you see it", evolution is rather complicated to understand completely, requiring parallel grasp of biology, genetics, and statistics, among other things.

Lastly, this idea that if evolution is true, then human beings are no different than dirt is so bizarre, its hard to dignify with a response. If you have to have belief in a supernatural anthromorphic diety to give value to your life, I think that says more about you as an individual than the species as a whole.

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

re: #220 Archimedes

Morality isn't a suckers game, not if you value your life and those you love. Morality is of the highest importance.

I also find the subject of morality to be even MORE profoundly interesting - and important - when we're the ones responsible for figuring it out.

In a religious-based system of morality, the ultimate rule-making occurs at a plane to which we have no access. The rules are simply handed down to us. I dispute the notion that this somehow renders them more "meaningful" than if we have to fight, think, struggle, and argue, to figure out what morality means by ourselves. The latter ennobles us; the former, treats us as children.

re: #219 Salem

Woah! Isaac Hayes died...

Didn't Isaac hayes resign his position as the voice of Chef on South Park because Parker & Stone were "mocking" Islamic radicals or Muslims or some such thing?

I seem to recall something like that happening a few years back . . .

re: #227 zombie
Strange how the argument has not progressed one inch in the last 149 years.

re: #235 StinkHammer

Didn't Isaac hayes resign his position as the voice of Chef on South Park because Parker & Stone were "mocking" Islamic radicals or Muslims or some such thing?

I seem to recall something like that happening a few years back . . .

Actually, they made fun of Scientology, to which Hayes was an adherent.

re: #235 StinkHammer

No, from their mocking of Scientology. Hayes was a Scientologist, and didn't like the way Tom Cruise was treated in the "Come out of the closet Tom Cruise" episode.

re: #224 MandyManners

Goodbye.

That was nice.

re: #235 StinkHammer

Didn't Isaac hayes resign his position as the voice of Chef on South Park because Parker & Stone were "mocking" Islamic radicals or Muslims or some such thing?

I seem to recall something like that happening a few years back . . .

Scientology.

re: #238 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ah! Thanks for the clarification.

re: #237 Salem

Actually, they made fun of Scientology, to which Hayes was an adherent.

Were do Scientolgists go when they die?

re: #237 Salem

gmta...2 seconds.

Aren't these the same people that keep wailing about how evolution, which they do not understand and/or purposely misrepresent, is trying to get something from nothing? Now they tell us that their own non-theory of nothing challenges evolution because it specializes in the concept of non-truth!?

What is Scientology's view on ID v. evolution?

re: #233 looking closely

Again. Criticism is not "attacking," and quoting someone's own words is not "trying to make them look stupid."

It might be, if said words have a tendency on their own to make the ones using them look stupid.

Well, yes -- but then there's no need to try to make them look stupid, if they're doing the job themselves.

re: #245 MandyManners

What is Scientology's view on ID v. evolution?

OH DEAR GOD!

/heh.

re: #156 Mauser

So, after these birds skip forward over the incineration... what do they eat? Or do they skip millions of years forward and hope that the world evolves something edible?

"One day civilization will rise again and there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins."

If I remember correctly, not everything is killed -- underground bugs and so forth survive and emerge, which the birds eat to live.

I'm getting a lot of grilling about this Japanese comic book! To be frank, it's all pretty vague in my mind at this point.

re: #242 Nevergiveup

Were do Scientolgists go when they die?

Well, I read Battlefield Earth when I was fifteen, and-...uh, I have no idea.

Consider your origins; you were not born to live as brutes, but to seek after virtue and knowledge.

-Dante Alighieri

re: #30 zombie

you make way too many assumptions about someone you do not know. It is interesting to watch how bent out of shape Darwinists become when the thought of being challenged is raised.
Are not monkeys.
We are hominids a unique and miraculous creation in any imagination.
I don't like being equated with chimps, weasels, or plankton on the scale of values. Because we are the alpha species. Get used to it.

re: #245 MandyManners

What is Scientology's view on ID v. evolution?

Actually, not sure, but I think that they think we were brought here and one day the space ship gonna come get us.

Is that right?

re: #245 MandyManners

What is Scientology's view on ID v. evolution?

You can find out, but it's gonna be expensive. They can arrange a payment plan.

re: #245 MandyManners

I quake at the thought that they've yet to send in their lawyers into the areana.

re: #245 MandyManners

Here's a whole mess of explanation:
[Link: www.beliefnet.com...]