A School District Finally Brave Enough to Challenge Darwin

[SteveG1]

It’s simple to me, maybe I’m biased (surprise surprise). What we have in Kansas, is a small noisy group that is intent on cramming their own wrong-headed religious views down the throats of everyone else in the state, including other christians (and Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and agnostics and fill in the blank) who do not share their heretical, ignorant and uneducated views. They are misreading, misinterpreting, and cherry picking their Holy Book, in order to stir up shit and grab attention. They apparently are coaching some students on how to disrupt classes with irrelevant loaded questions. They are demanding equal time for religious views that many other christian churches do not ascribe to, and which do not belong in a science class at all. Religion is religion. It is not science. They are two completely different things.

Furthermore, they show total contempt for people who do not share the same views/brand of “religion” and do not wish to have it forced on them.

[Zoe]

ExTank, you are really confused.

ExTank:While I did say this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank
I never advocated that science give Creationism a “fair shake;” call it maybe “honorable mention (in passing).”

It was in response to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
Only a religious or other private institution would be able to give it the “fair shake” that you think it deserves.

Please note that your use of “fair shake” was first made in Post 136 and my response to you that you quoted was made in Post 157.

Students are not monsters, but they do sometimes have difficulty following even a well-reasoned line of thought. They even forget and deny their own logic. This thread has been a good demonstration of why it would take much longer than an hour to address the issues if the teacher could legally and appropriately do so. Yes, I always tried to respect the Bill of Rights in my classroom although I never thought of labelling it with the nasty connotations of the term politically correct. Do you prefer to violate the Bill of Rights?

One does not have to be present for a specific debate to be aware that those present cannot be authorities on the inner motives and feelings of another person. That is one of the givens in life.

[mswas]

@griffen2

God.

Quality is job one

Well it’s nice to see that someone is open minded enough to say that people who are “deformed” are mistakes of nature.

Puny Mortal, assuming that your idea of perfection is in any way an objective sense of perfection. Only the whole is perfect, the constituent parts are just that, parts of that perfection.

I hate the idea that many people of perfection and imperfection.

A God that exists conciously in all times simultaneously, knowing the outcome of everything, and being infinitely intelligent would be able to design EVERY aspect of creation, including the adaptation of species over time due to the shifting forms within their environments. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.”

I offer three definitions: omniscience omnipresence omnipotence

A Creator with all these necessary qualifications could indeed account for everything, including mongoloids, evolution and DNA strands that seem badly coded.

As far as the idea that DNA is badly coded. IMO that’s laughable. That comes from a certain assumption that we already know what every bit of code is meant to do. Perhaps the DNA that is considered as bad coding is actually lying dormant, ready to be turned on given certain circumstances.

Let’s take the idea of the ubermensch for a moment. Perhaps there are ‘illuminati’ overmen walking around out there, that aren’t bothering to “cast their pearls before swine” and are using those powers that the “useless code” in the DNA accounts for that mere mortals reject as being impossible. They might be telekinetically pouring their tea, while they relax by the fire in their chateau in the Swiss Alps, while having a telepathic conversation with Shiva on his mountaintop in the Himalayas.

There are a lot of assumptions people make that are completely unscientific in nature. People assume that things DO NOT exist because they have seen overwhelming evidence of charlatans. I’ve met a lot of people who claim to be Billy Badass, and can kick the ass of everyone that comes their way. Just because they are full of shit, doesn’t mean that Billy Badass doesn’t exist, only that THEY are charlatans. Assuming that Billy Badass doesn’t exist is anti-scientific just because one has proved that the people who claim to be Billy Badass were lying. This applies to psychic phenomena and Immortality.

Some people are theoretical and some are practical. An Astrologer might be quite accurate with their predictions based upon a chart because they know how to read the stars. That doesn’t mean they understand how it works. You can read English, despite not being a linguist.

Healthy skepticism is good, but if you are assuming that something is wrong because it hasn’t been verified is anti-skeptical. A true skeptic will say merely “It hasn’t been shown conclusively to me either way.”

I never claimed that Creationism was a scientific theory. My entire point has been that comparing the two is stupid, and that anyone who believes in evolution that is willing to indulge the idea that they are diametrically opposed has been duped sucked in, and is a fool.

The idea of creationism is not illogical. One must define the Creator first to have a logical discussion of such a thing, as that is a seemingly insurmountable task, it is difficult to have a logical dicussion, but that does not mean it is impossible.

Think of it as two dots with an arc between them. The first dot is creation, the second dot is destruction, the arc is evolution. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Evolution would be the Synthesis.

There are plenty of ways to discuss creationism in school without falling prey to ignorant bigots.

Maybe you are trying too hard to narrowly define a Creator in order to “win” this argument and appear to be the lesser of two idiots.

Erek

Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become monsters - Nietzche

[mswas]

All your goats are belong to me

[ExTank]

@Zoe

ExTank, you are really confused.

And you’re a fucking idiot.

One need not be a mind-reading super-genius to hear people in an audience call a public-speaker a “Dick” and reasonably assume they don’t like him. If they’d said “Bullshit,” one might reasonably assume they disagree with his stance. If another public speaker gets up and trounces the first public speaker, and gets hearty applause from the audience, it doesn’t take paranormal powers to reasonably assume that the audience agrees with the second speaker, and even approves of his message.

But as it’s got dick-all to do with this thread, what’s you’re fucking point?

As to "he said/she said:"

Me @137: “I actually think that mentioning Creationism/ID in a science class, and giving it a fair shake via accepted scientific principles, will do more to undermine it in the minds of the people than editing it out of existence via our classrooms and school boards. I think the more that people try to excise it, denounce it, ridicule it, and act so condescendingly smug and superior toward it, the more people will reject “intellectualism” and science in favor of “other venues” such as mystic approaches to life (numerology, astrology), religion, faith healing,etc.,etc…”

Zoe @157: “Only a religious or other private institution would be able to give it the “fair shake” that you think it deserves.”

Me again @160: I never advocated that science give Creationism a “fair shake;” call it maybe “honorable mention (in passing).”

:sigh:

I think it’s perfectly clear through context that my original “fair shake” in #137 was “equal treatment” via scientific principle. Indeed, if you read the words immediately follwing “fair shake” in that post, you’ll also find the words “via,” and “accepted,” and “scientific,” and “principles.” Now put them all together in a sentence, and apply an equal portion of the mental energy you’ve spent deconstructing my words into comprehending them all put-together

Subsequent postings of mine indicating my belief that Evolution could handily dispose of Creationism/ID in little time at all by applying scientific thought to the matter would also confirm this. I’ve never advocated an “equal time” doctrine, colloquialisms aside.

Your response in #157 that only religious/private institutions would give it a fair shake" I thought fairly obviously meant that they be given equal credence; equal time; be placed equally, side-by-side, as equally valid. I’ve never equated the two, nor advocated that they be treated as equals except for being put once through the wringer of rigorous scientific principles in front of a class, the easier to dispose of it and get down to real science.

My response (#160) to your response, the “honorable mention (in passing)” fits nicely with my original post in #137.

Only someone trying to pick a fight would go this far, so instead of trying to dissect what you think I mean, why don’t you just either ask me for clarification, take a stance and tell me why you think I’m wrong, or fuck off?

Over the course of this thread, I’ve been moved much by reasonable discourse more towards a position that Creationism/ID not be brought up in any science class, on general principles. I’m still not comfortable blanket legislating the matter one-way-or-another. But it is the almost miltantly hostile attitudes you’re displaying that makes me want to reneg and tell the Evolutionists “too bad, so sad; you must teach Creationism/ID. Suck it up and deal.”

If for no other reason at this point than to piss them them off and make them even more bugfuck crazy than they already are.

@Zoe

Yes, I always tried to respect the Bill of Rights in my classroom although I never thought of labelling it with the nasty connotations of the term politically correct. Do you prefer to violate the Bill of Rights?

:rolleyes:

YES! I violate the Bill of Rights! I smear peanut-butter all over my body, and make the Bill of Rights lick it off! I dress it up like a cheap hooker, and pimp it out on the street corners for a dollar-a-pop! I make it talk dirty to me! I make it bark like a dog! I stuff dollar bills in its G-string! I put it in a leather Gimp suit, handcuff it, stuff it in a box, and make it sleep under my bed!

That’s why I need my own personal Jesus! The fucking bitch-ho Bill of Rights won’t deliver pizza to me, or turn my water into wine!

Vaya-con-fuck-a-doodle-Dios!

[mswas]

Evolution belongs in a science class
Creation belongs in a philosophy/theology class

If Creationism gets brought up in a Science class, it’s much more efficient to ask the students to provide evidence, one way or another, than it is to just authoritatively state that it’s wrong, or even that it’s unscientific. Let them figure it out, be honest about the scientific process and give them a chance to figure it out. After they spend ten minutes figuring out that it’s unverifiable, you move along. Wow…problem solved with little rancor. It’s amazing how that works. It’ll help hone their critical thinking skills, and science will be unassailed.

It’s clear that one size does not fit all in education.

All I am tired of is the simple bigotry that pro-Evolution people claim as a property of the creationists, while engaging in themselves.

Erek

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

As far as the idea that DNA is badly coded. IMO that’s laughable. That comes from a certain assumption that we already know what every bit of code is meant to do. Perhaps the DNA that is considered as bad coding is actually lying dormant, ready to be turned on given certain circumstances.

Funny that old time religion assumed (and many still assume) for ages that we humans are the kings of creation, not to mention the assumption that humans were designed intelligently. Looking closely, researches see the designer not as a Fellini (if humans were movies) but as an Ed Wood. It works as a movie/human but it could be much better, oh and the DNA in apes matches closely to ours, even the same bad coding.

Let’s take the idea of the ubermensch for a moment. Perhaps there are ‘illuminati’ overmen walking around out there, that aren’t bothering to “cast their pearls before swine” and are using those powers that the “useless code” in the DNA accounts for that mere mortals reject as being impossible. They might be telekinetically pouring their tea, while they relax by the fire in their chateau in the Swiss Alps, while having a telepathic conversation with Shiva on his mountaintop in the Himalayas.

:rolleyes:

Oh well, since the useless code is also in apes, I guess it is really easy to make a monkey out of you.

Memo to the paranormal followers: The Third Eye is a hoax:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/thirdeye.html

Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become monsters - Nietzche

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you”
-Nietzsche

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

Evolution belongs in a science class
Creation belongs in a philosophy/theology class

If Creationism gets brought up in a Science class, it’s much more efficient to ask the students to provide evidence, one way or another, than it is to just authoritatively state that it’s wrong, or even that it’s unscientific. Let them figure it out, be honest about the scientific process and give them a chance to figure it out. After they spend ten minutes figuring out that it’s unverifiable, you move along. Wow…problem solved with little rancor. It’s amazing how that works. It’ll help hone their critical thinking skills, and science will be unassailed.

It’s clear that one size does not fit all in education.

All I am tired of is the simple bigotry that pro-Evolution people claim as a property of the creationists, while engaging in themselves.

:sigh:

While you make a slightly flawed point (Astrology and Alchemy are bigotedly left behind) The OP is not dealing with your kumbaya ideas of critical thinking in the classroom:

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin on Thursday in the capitol Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, **with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution. **
Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

“I feel like I’m in a time warp here,” said Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science. “To debate evolution is similar to debating whether the Earth is round. It is an absurd proposition.”

What I am saying is that it would be good if the creationists did come forward with ideas like yours in Kansas, but this is not the case here, Your flawed point in your last post is not what we are pitting in the thread.

[mswas]

GIGObuster: Paranormal is a nonsense word like Supernatural. It is only used to exact a political agenda. If your goal is so “scientific” then why do you feel threatened by these unverifieds? I never said if any of them were true, or not. There is no such thing as paranormal. Nothing is beyond science’s ability to explain it. Just because YOU can’t explain it, and just because the scientists that YOU know of can’t explain it, doesn’t mean it cannot be explained.

How do you know the DNA code is “junk code”? You’re ignorance as to it’s purpose does not sway me in one way or another.

As for the third eye, I can feel and use mine. No website you can toss at me is really going to sway me. Everything else is utterly irrelevant.

I’m sorry you’re upset about being a backward monkey, and perhaps you will die not ever reaching your full potential, but hiding behind half-assed legalisms masquerading as science isn’t going to hinder me in any way. Don’t worry, I am sure you will find other monkeys to sling shit with you, so you won’t be lonely.

I’ve got no problem being descended from apes, that idea doesn’t bother me in the slightest, but your narrow worldview isn’t at all compelling.

We are at an impasse, because I’m immediately skeptical of anyone that would immediately assume that the DNA has “Junk Code”. Or if it does have junk code, that this in any way impacts upon an intelligent creator. Applying your small-minded monkey programmer logic to a supreme being is pretty stupid. I wish I could see you to see if your antics were cute or not. There are so many flaws in that argument I don’t even know where to begin.

To explain my perspective a little bit. There is only one ‘intelligence’. We all tap into it in different ways. In my mind, all I see in you is a monkey arguing that it’s not intelligent. Why would I give any credibility whatsoever to someone making the argument that they don’t posess intelligence? If you’re not intelligent, then your opinion is invalid. You are merely repeating by rote. Monkey see monkey do. If you are unintelligent then you are incapable of learning, which would make you a practical example of something that cannot evolve.

Choosing not to drink from a poisoned well is intelligent design. That is part of the designing process. Any positive choices your ancestors made to create you, are intelligent design.

I’ve seen a lot of circular logic in the ‘anti-paranormal’ argument. It usually ends up that when you explain it, they claim it’s something else. Like if someone has the empathy to cold-read someone so dead on that they can guess their thoughts, that it’s not telepathy. What if that’s just the way mind-reading works? Maybe people are so transparent that their every movement tells us their thoughts? Maybe someone can get so good at reading it that they can extrapolate what they are thinking? Is that not telepathy, just because it can be explained? Brainwaves create radiation, maybe the brain being a brain is capable of decyphering brainwaves.

I can feel people’s emotions, and I tend to have a very strong presence as well. I read people’s emotions daily, and watch as they recoil when I am too forceful with mine. Those emotions are projected energy. When we get angry, our heat level rises. When we get depressed our heat level cools. Are you so insensitive that you assume that everyone is that insensitive and is incapable of feeling those changes?

Let me give you an example. I can’t touch Nylon stockings. The reason I can’t touch nylon stockings is because the feeling of having my nearly dead skin cells ripped off by the snags in the fabric gives me the shivers. It’s like nails on the chalk board. Nothing paranormal about it whatsoever, I just have very acute senses. I can see very well, I have pretty good hearing, but most of all my sense of touch is incredibly sensitive. It’s not the same as sensitive skin either, I don’t get rashes often, and I also heal quickly. Not at a superhuman wolverine-like rate, but quickly.

There are a lot of things that are arbitrarily lumped into the nonsense categories of “paranormal” and “supernatural” that are perfectly explainable, but people WANT to believe they are not, because it fucking TERRIFIES them that other people might have these abilities that they do not, and thereby have the power to rule them. It doesn’t make these biases in any way scientific.

Most of the people that I see in these evolution debates here are of the same ilk as the people trying to impose creation. Their beliefs are based just as much in bias, and just as little in science.

It’s like the people who are completely unwilling to admit that quantum physics, relativity and string theory are metaphysics. They are the physics of intangible forces. Yet somehow, idiots like you will argue tooth and nail that metaphysics is bullshit.

Maybe you’re just terrified that evolution happened without you. Maybe you’re part of the old species trying to convince the new species you are one of them by creating a sub-class of idiot to make yourself look smarter.

I’m sorry, but I cannot accept any cites on DNA, because I just don’t think our studies of DNA are deep enough yet to actually decide whether something is a “junk strand” or not. As I’ve said, applying the same rules that you would apply to a human coded piece of software to the encoding that determines our physical form is pretty fucking retarded.

Is it evidence of evolution? Yeah, I can buy that. Is it evidence against intelligent design? Hardly.

Do me a favor, prove evolution occurs, and try it sometime.

Erek

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

How do you know the DNA code is “junk code”? You’re ignorance as to it’s purpose does not sway me in one way or another.

The purpose of it is being researched as we are typing, not by your side sadly. So far the discoveries fit evolution yet again.

As for the third eye, I can feel and use mine. No website you can toss at me is really going to sway me.

Neither I, I found of the hoax from other sourses.

I’m sorry you’re upset about being a backward monkey, and perhaps you will die not ever reaching your full potential, but hiding behind half-assed legalisms masquerading as science isn’t going to hinder me in any way. Don’t worry, I am sure you will find other monkeys to sling shit with you, so you won’t be lonely.

Who is hindering you? fell free to give your kumbaya classroom solutions to the creationists, I am sure they will appreciate them.

I’ve got no problem being descended from apes, that idea doesn’t bother me in the slightest, but your narrow worldview isn’t at all compelling.

That is because talking about my complete worldview is out of topic here, suffice to say is that science will make even “magic” possible. (A videophone always beats remote viewing (even if it was real that is))

We are at an impasse, because I’m immediately skeptical of anyone that would immediately assume that the DNA has “Junk Code”. Or if it does have junk code, that this in any way impacts upon an intelligent creator. Applying your small-minded monkey programmer logic to a supreme being is pretty stupid. I wish I could see you to see if your antics were cute or not. There are so many flaws in that argument I don’t even know where to begin.

To me it is more amazing to find that a puny human like you KNOWS that god did not do it that way. (You are assuming that a supreme being cannot defend himself here, I see that as a sad comment on your faith) But I see your lines here as standard boiler plate from intelligent design sites, so it is your antics that are cute here.

To explain my perspective a little bit. There is only one ‘intelligence’. We all tap into it in different ways. In my mind, all I see in you is a monkey arguing that it’s not intelligent. Why would I give any credibility whatsoever to someone making the argument that they don’t posess intelligence? If you’re not intelligent, then your opinion is invalid. You are merely repeating by rote.

The DNA article deals with the programming aspect of DNA, DNA is messy but is a code that does the job, I arrived to the conclusion on my own that this research does show huge flaws on the now demonstrated naive point that we are intelligently designed. An intelligent creator can do better, And some day geneticists will. I made that connection on my own. So it is not by rote were I am coming from, your path though, I have seen it, for I was once like you.

Monkey see monkey do. If you are unintelligent then you are incapable of learning, which would make you a practical example of something that cannot evolve.

Kettle, Pot, both black.

Choosing not to drink from a poisoned well is intelligent design. That is part of the designing process. Any positive choices your ancestors made to create you, are intelligent design.

And intelligent ancestors found the nature of evolution, thanks to that intelligent choice medicine is finding that it can not ignore evolution theory when researching new medicines.

I’ve seen a lot of circular logic in the ‘anti-paranormal’ argument. It usually ends up that when you explain it, they claim it’s something else. Like if someone has the empathy to cold-read someone so dead on that they can guess their thoughts, that it’s not telepathy. What if that’s just the way mind-reading works? Maybe people are so transparent that their every movement tells us their thoughts? Maybe someone can get so good at reading it that they can extrapolate what they are thinking? Is that not telepathy, just because it can be explained? Brainwaves create radiation, maybe the brain being a brain is capable of decyphering brainwaves.

One has to be brutal here: centuries of research from people like you only show amusing effects that even if true are next to useless, before you think I am dismissing them, I do think the brainwaves will be useful some day to give our descendants the capability of doing what we call today telepathy; sadly, people like you will not be part of that progress: to get to that amazing future effective ways of reading the mind will not come from the paranormal researchers, because they have the nasty habit to fail when skeptical researchers show up, to me the typical excuse that skeptics cause an “aura” that makes paranormals fail is bullshit since real power would be effective even in the face of an obstacle like the aura of an skeptic, let me explain:

In the world of electronics there is the superconductivity effect, researchers are now trying to get superconductivity to work at room temperature. Once that is done incredible things will be possible, but there is a problem: like an skeptic appearing to rain in the parade of paranormals, magnets can destroy the superconductivity effect dead on its tracks. Since magnets are everywhere in electronic components, superconductivity would fail like a paranormal at the James Randhi challenge. But does that make the superconductivity researchers resort to bullshit like keeping magnets away from their serious research? No, superconductivity researchers now use magnets to see the obstacles that they will encounter when superconductivity wires become feasible.

Until I see paranormals accepting that skeptics are not really an obstacle but a challenge to find real solutions, I am not willing to accept your misleading point of view.

Maybe you’re just terrified that evolution happened without you. Maybe you’re part of the old species trying to convince the new species you are one of them by creating a sub-class of idiot to make yourself look smarter.

Years on the Straight Dope and you in this insulting passage, show to me that there is no need to make any effort to create idiots.

I’m sorry, but I cannot accept any cites on DNA, because I just don’t think our studies of DNA are deep enough yet to actually decide whether something is a “junk strand” or not. As I’ve said, applying the same rules that you would apply to a human coded piece of software to the encoding that determines our physical form is pretty fucking retarded.

It is more retarded to ignore that serious researchers were quoted in the article, and here is a fucking clue: they were not programmers but geneticists that are finding what a mess is down there, using human coded software as an example of the mess they are finding was their idea.

Is it evidence of evolution? Yeah, I can buy that. Is it evidence against intelligent design? Hardly.

Sorry, but it is. It was clear to me that intelligent design, to be taken seriously, had to make at least the prediction that the genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”. Besides finding more DNA with no function, there is DNA that does have a function but it is useless for a specific species, not that it does stop species from reprogramming the code:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000325.html

adaptive immune systems have evolved not once, but at least twice — once in the jawed vertebrates, and again, in an entirely different way, in their sister group, the lampreys (left). You may recall that Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe listed the adaptive immune system as one of several “irreducibly complex” systems that supposedly scientists had no idea how to explain with evolution. This was debunked in rather excruciating detail a few years ago, but it is worth pointing out that every month brings out new discoveries filling in details on the evolution of the vertebrate immune system.

Do me a favor, prove evolution occurs, and try it sometime.

As I mentioned, medicine cannot ignore evolution when dealing with the development of new medicines:

http://www.mast.queensu.ca/~tday/projects.html

And, that is only the tip of the evolutionary iceberg.

-Ed.

[mswas]

Wow.

Well let’s just say, that you do not comprehend my position in the slightest.

Like I said “Paranormal” is a nonsense word used to push an agenda, nothing more.

My side, is anyone actually looking for the truth. That is why I am against people pushing their bias in an unscientific manner, but hiding it within cites to scientific sources, with a reasonable certainty that their audience will be incapable of debunking it.

If the researchers don’t know what the “Junk Code” does, then how can they claim it as “Junk Code”? Like i said, using the same criteria, one would judge a computer program with to DNA is silly. It’s like someone who worked on the design of the DC-10 critiquing the plans for the Death Star. Their inability to understand it is not sufficient enough evidence for me to believe that it is in any way “junk code” or poorly arranged.

I’m not anti-science in any way. I just like to debunk people claiming science when there is none present. I believe in evolution, as I have stated multiple times in this thread. However, I have also stated that the criteria that measure evolution do not apply to creation.

You never were where I’m at. I’ve heard so many people say that, before they went off to some other position. Believe me, you have no clue where I’m at.

Evolution can be 100% completely true, and that says absolutely nothing about whether or not there is an intelligent creator.

Read the definitions for omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. An all-powerful creator that knows everything, and exists in all points of time and space simultaneously, can program the DNA, can make it look like junk can program this argument, can program dinosaurs. To look at such a miniscule part of creation and think that it confirms that there was no intelligent design is not scientific in any way shape or form. That’s all my position in this has to say on the subject.

It is YOU, not I, taking the anti-science position. I am only offering up possibilities for consideration.

I believe in my third eye based upon experience. I could care less whether you believe it or not.

As for the skeptical aura, it can make people insecure. If you suddenly get the chance to go to bed with the woman of your dreams and intimidation keeps you from performing, does that mean you are impotent?

HOWEVER, there is the possibility that someone with TRUE power isn’t gonna show you their whole hand, and has absolutely no desire to prove anything to you. So your pseudo-skepticism doesn’t really hurt them, it only hinders you. It hinders you because you miss out on things that exist because you’ve just decided not to believe in them, and it hinders you because you don’t actually know what skepticism means.

In this particular case, I would be the skeptic, because:

skepticism:
2: the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge

You’re making a pretty fucking bold claim, and are incapable of backing it up, whereas all I am saying is that we teach kids critical thinking skills introduce them to the debate, and let them have at it.

Erek

[guinnog]

@mswas

I believe in my third eye based upon experience. I could care less whether you believe it or not.

LOL

I can hear the sounds of people being swayed by your great arguments here.

So, believing in your third eye makes you a sceptic. Right.

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

It is YOU, not I, taking the anti-science position. I am only offering up possibilities for consideration.

I believe in my third eye based upon experience. I could care less whether you believe it or not.

As for the skeptical aura, it can make people insecure. If you suddenly get the chance to go to bed with the woman of your dreams and intimidation keeps you from performing, does that mean you are impotent?

No, but then guys with that trouble do not seek a guy with iffy powers, they seek Viagra, and it took a long period of scientific experimentation to make it so.

HOWEVER, there is the possibility that someone with TRUE power isn’t gonna show you their whole hand, and has absolutely no desire to prove anything to you. So your pseudo-skepticism doesn’t really hurt them, it only hinders you. It hinders you because you miss out on things that exist because you’ve just decided not to believe in them, and it hinders you because you don’t actually know what skepticism means.

More brutal rebuttals: you should get into your thick scull that my point was that people with power that are now hiding do not hinder me, but they hinder everybody that is in trouble or has a need, all that people will suffer today and in the future because for some reason it is not good to investigate if there is a way to use those powers IN A MORE RELIABLE WAY. One of the advantages of serious research is that solutions and applications will be found when we figure out how people with special powers do it, not bothering to see what are the elements or mechanisms of that power, or pretenging skeptics are not an issue that can and should be dealth with, is the reason why in the end I call people who pretend to have that power not charlatans, but narcissists.

In this particular case, I would be the skeptic, because:

skepticism:
2: the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge

You’re making a pretty fucking bold claim, and are incapable of backing it up, whereas all I am saying is that we teach kids critical thinking skills introduce them to the debate, and let them have at it.

No, after all twists and turns yours in the end is just a deluded "having my cake and eating it too” argument. Creationism has the same support as Alchemy and Astrology and therefore should not be taught at school (the main point of this whole thread)

I can make the point that we already have a century of tradition finding evidence that supports teaching children evolution as a stepping stone for future doctors and even programmers. Creationism is in the same league as Alchemy and Astrology: for entertainment purposes only.

As for evidence, I already backed up were I am coming from, and it is not for your benefit, but for other people reading this thread, you on the other hand have not even bothered to find a cite for your allegation that “Evolution is NOT a better theory” an allegation that makes your last post extremely silly.

[mswas]

@guinnog

LOL

I can hear the sounds of people being swayed by your great arguments here.

So, believing in your third eye makes you a sceptic. Right.

Do you have eyes? Are you sure? How do you know? If you believe you have eyes you can’t really be a skeptic.

Because I’ve verified it by experience. Skepticism has NOTHING to do with following the status quo. I mean I wouldn’t claim it to be an absolute truth or anything, but I’m as confident in my third eye as I am in my penis. How do I know I have a penis? I mean nothing is TRUELY knowable right?

There isn’t a big list of things that skeptics don’t believe in. Stating that there is no third eye, is anti-skeptical, because you are making an absolute claim, and you are going one step further and applying your bias to me. Like I said, I believe it because I have experienced it, I need no further proof, it’s been verified to me.

I guess I have just been duped by a big conspiracy that tells me I have a penis. God, I’m so gullible…FUCK!!!

Erek

[mswas]

As far as verifying the existence of a third eye to someone. How would you explain the color red to someone who is blind?

Erek

[mswas]

GIGObuster: Your incapacity to comprehend anything I’ve said is astounding.

Evolution isn’t a better theory because they shouldn’t be measured by the same criteria. That is my argument. There is no ‘cite’ I can provide for that. You are asking me to enter into a debate where the initial premise is diametric opposition. I disagree with the basic premise of the debate. I don’t think they are diametrically opposed. Like I said, it’s comparing Apples and Oranges. They are two different things entirely. Putting them on the same scale is buying into the bigotry you claim to be against.

If you are the one that is arguing pro-science, then what is your issue with presenting two sides of an argument to someone and letting them test it themselves? It seems like you are trying to beat into me the idea that evolution is superior. I think evolution is true. What’s your problem? I have no problem with testing and verification, I’m down with science too. I’m just not down with “SCIENCE!!!”.

You simply are arguing a dogmatic platform. You want me to accept that you are right, when I’m not even arguing that you’re wrong, I’m only arguing in favor of not trying to indoctrinate children, but to allow them to make up their own minds. Why do you find that to be such a dangerous idea? If you ARE right, then the proper critical thinking skills will show your side to be the winning side. Whereas I am not taking a side other than freedom of thought. I never said creation was a superior theory.

I don’t find your cites compelling, because anything that proves evolution says nothing about whether or not we were created by an intelligent designer. The ideas are not in conflict whatsoever.

Here is how your cites come across to me, BMWs are very well made cars

Erek

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

As far as verifying the existence of a third eye to someone. How would you explain the color red to someone who is blind?

Erek

By concentrating on research that someday will make the blind see:

http://research.chance.berkeley.edu/page.cfm?id=11&aid=39

[mswas]

@GIGObuster

By concentrating on research that someday will make the blind see:

http://research.chance.berkeley.edu/page.cfm?id=11&aid=39

Alright, well I will continue trying to develop my third eye, so that maybe one day, I can help you become aware of yours.

Erek

[Guy_Incognito_1]

What the was this thread about originally?

[guinnog]

@mswas

Do you have eyes? Are you sure? How do you know? If you believe you have eyes you can’t really be a skeptic.

Because I’ve verified it by experience. Skepticism has NOTHING to do with following the status quo. I mean I wouldn’t claim it to be an absolute truth or anything, but I’m as confident in my third eye as I am in my penis. How do I know I have a penis? I mean nothing is TRUELY knowable right?

There isn’t a big list of things that skeptics don’t believe in. Stating that there is no third eye, is anti-skeptical, because you are making an absolute claim, and you are going one step further and applying your bias to me. Like I said, I believe it because I have experienced it, I need no further proof, it’s been verified to me.

I guess I have just been duped by a big conspiracy that tells me I have a penis. God, I’m so gullible…FUCK!!!

Erek

Aha! So your third eye is your penis?

Now I think I see. OK, you have a penis. I am willing to believe that.

On the list of things I don’t believe in is anything for which I do not believe the evidence to be compelling.

Creationism is on that list along with God. Why does that bother you? If you want to believe in either I am fine with that.

But only science should be taught on a Science syllabus. By science, I mean that which is testable (‘falsifiable’), and that for which there is at least a modicum of verifiable and repeatable experimental data.

There is of course a place for mentioning old ideas like Ptolemy’s spheres, the alchemists’ search for the Philosopher’s Stone and the Biblical story of creation. But not in the context either of debunking them or of giving them a ‘fair shake’ along with more modern ideas. I mention them with some reverence as the best ideas people had in an age when really nothing was known about anything.

It is not fair to laugh at the ignorance of people in a time when they had no better information. I alternate between wanting to laugh and cry at the **purposeful **ignorance of people in a time when there is.