Intelligent Design ruling

[furrycute]

I sympathesize with the loss. But you should ask who sold them to Iraq in the first place?

And the definition of WMD went a whole lot further. No evidence was ever found.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I sympathesize with the loss. But you should ask who sold them to Iraq in the first place?

And the definition of WMD went a whole lot further. No evidence was ever found.

Really ,this is off topic so lets not even go here. However, If your implying that the USA sold nerve gas and/or chemical agents to Iraq then you would be mistaken. We sold them arms but not chemical weapons that we don't even use. Also, I guess saddam should not have played chicken with the USA, we called his bluff, BIGTIME!!

 

[furrycute]

Never mind.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Theres been a WMD attack since Nagasaki/Hiroshima?

 

[Tomorrow]

These 'assumptions' as you call them, must have some logic behind them.

Actually , it is an an explanation for seemingly rapid biological evolution evidenced in some strata of the fossil record. But closer examination of that record,a nd accumulation of more fossil examples since Gould & Eldridge made PE famous in the 70's, does not bear out a need to contrast 'punctuated equilibrium' with neodarwinist gradualism. Nor was it ever proposed as a novel evolutionary mechanism. PE is usually misunderstood, and has been egregiously mis-used by creationists as if it somehow cast doubt on the factuality of macroevolution. It never did, and it doesn't now.

I find that pseudoscientific reasoning is rife within audio-land, as it is among evolution naysayers. I draw the obvious parallel,a nd I believe I have tilted with Clint in the past about lack of rigor in audio evaluation and claims. What do you think?

My credibility as a biologist would indeed be questionable if I allowed utter nonsense about evolution to go uncriticized, given that evolution is foundational to all modern biological science. Your irritation is unlikely to be greater than mine when I see such claims as Clint's asserted as fact. That he is on the Audioholics 'masthead' makes it all the worse, since on this forum that imparts authority-by-association to him in a field he apparently knows little about -- except what he's read in 'intelligent design' tracts. Which themselves are simply the lineal descendents of creationist tracts, when they aren't simply rebranded outright (as was the case with 'Of Pandas and People').

1. Like it or not, the Jurassic archeopteryx is an assumed herp/avian link. That is all I was saying. To say it is the 'truth' or 'proof' of an intermediate link simply is not factual...even though the facts tend to support it. Ergo assumption. One has to use terms carefully.
2. The K-T Boundary extinction event relates to PE and again, that is the only point I was making to refute Clint's denial of the process. Like many of the softer sciences, Evolutionary Biology borrows from the hard sciences. I suspect that Eldridge captured the overriding idea from astronomy when looking at galactic evolution. It is true that PE is quite misunderstood. But there is not sufficient space, nor do I have the time to elaborate on relevant issues such as the Signor-Lipps Effect, and other theories that impact this discussion. There has been no settlement to the PE issue so far, by the way, as you simply avow. It seems that many paleontologists buy into the gradual/internal evolution side, while many astronomers, physicists, etc. lean toward extrinsic development, and geologists are probably split. This question is perhaps one of the most difficult for paleontologists. I have a couple of good friends that might chime in, if you wish....Jacques Gauthier, Greg Pregill, and perhaps Richard Etheridge (with whom I haven't spoken in years, sadly). Do you know them? Can we adopt them as "experts" (I am not! ) for purposes of this discussion (if they are willing)?
3. Audio is more than science. It is also art. But I understand what you're saying.
4. I also agree with you concerning ID and Creationists misusing the term 'scientific fact'. ID should be put back in the corner from which it was spawned. My suggestion to you was that the minute you begin using argumentum ad hominum (as you did with Clint) you start losing people to the veracity of your points concerning the basic discussion. Disagree...but you needn't be disagreeable.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Furry, http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Really that was a ignorant thing to say I work with a guy who lost his family in those very WMD attacks.

I am sure he didn't mean that the 1988 stockpile is what the Americans believe. That is incontrovertible. But did he have those stockpiles in 2003? The inspections after 1991 found and destroyed all of them. I suppose that one inspector is vindicated after he was crucified; I think he was Scott Ritter?

 

[Mudcat]

Only AFTER accepting Christ as your Saviour will you begin to understand. .............. Hell awaits those who choose not to accept Christ in this world as a punishment for sin.

Does this apply to all people, or just those brought up christian?

So, Because you belong to some upstart religion that actively proselytizes, all others are wrong? WTF, What a jerk!

Last year during Chanaukah [sic] with a menorah in our window, jerks were still queing up at our door to get us to convert. Some guy was pointing a pen at me until I told him that he is trespassing and acting agressive and I would be within my rights defending my home and family if I beat him to a pulp. He got religion faster than anyone on death row.

Some insight on still active religions. Notice the active period about 600-500BC?

Judaism is about 4000 years old
Zoroestrianism is about 2600 years old
Hinduisn is about 2500 years old
Buddism is about 2500 years old
Taoism/Confucius is about 2500 years old


Now the upstarts based on Abraham/Judaism
Chatholicism is about 1950 years old
Islam is about 1500 years old
Protestantism is about 600 years old
Moronism is 180 years old
Jehovah's Witness is about 150 years old.

A couple of others
Baha'i Faith is about 150 years old
Sikhism is about 500 years old

Just because other religions came along or "evolved" from others does not mean the others are wrong

Despite all this, stupidity knows no age limit.


Now, it there were such a thing as intelligent design, why are the genitals next to the anus? Who the F#&K in their right mind would put a playground next to a sewage area?

So, lets drop all this intelligent design discussion **** and go back to discussing something really neat, like did Jesus really die on the cross or did he Mary Magdalene beat a path to southern France and start a dynasty of Merovingian Kings.

Or we could discuss Nick and Jessica. I'll agree with Ben WTF are they?

 

[furrycute]

Now, it there were such a thing as intelligent design, why are the genitals next to the anus? Who the F#&K in their right mind would put a playground next to a sewage area?

I had a good laugh out of this one. Yeah, I have often wondered about that as well. It just seems so, un-hygenic. As the urinary system sharing a common outlet with the genital system, it's a bit disgusting.

 

[mtrycrafts]

QUOTE=Mudcat] like did Jesus really die on the cross

Is he a real person supported by real evidence? The bible cannot prove itself.


or did he Mary Magdalene beat a path to southern France and start a dynasty of Merovingian Kings.

Maybe she was not a real person either? Just stories?

 

[AudioSeer]

They should teach intelligent design in school. It would take them about 5 minutes to explain the concept and then they can also explain that there is a lack of evidence to support it.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

They should teach intelligent design in school. It would take them about 5 minutes to explain the concept and then they can also explain that there is a lack of evidence to support it.

If schools taught every wrong theory and creation myth there would be no time left for, you know, education.

 

[Sheep]

Mudcat, Excellent post my friend.

Oh BTW, In order for sperm to survive, it needs to maintain a certain temprature. If the genitles were inside the body, it would be to hot. Like wise, they would be to cold outside. Thusly, they have to sorta hang somewhere, so the can control their temprature. I think there spot right now is better then the chin, no?

Back on topic.

I love mormans. A complelte religion started by world of mouth. Wait, they're all like that, just these guys were a little slow.

SheepStar

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Is he a real person supported by real evidence? The bible cannot prove itself.

That's where many of your are wrong. Jesus was a real person and the Bible proves itself correct all the time. Just ask any archeologist. It has proved itself time and time again to be accurate. No reputable historian disputes Jesus was a real person, just if he is/was the Son of God.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

QUOTE=Mudcat] like did Jesus really die on the cross Is he a real person supported by real evidence? The bible cannot prove itself.

I don't think anyone here is denying Jesus actually existed and died on the cross. I think the real question is if Jesus' words were accurately translated in the Bible. So much of the old testament seems like it was written for the times - the government of the era. The new testament may have suffered similar problems. Only so much of the new testament is Jesus' actual quotes - and how does anyone go about proving those have not been altered in any way - over a two thousand year period.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don't think anyone here is denying Jesus actually existed and died on the cross.

Why is this accepted so easily? Jesus was a common name back then. That death box not long ago had Jesus on it until it was modified.


Only so much of the new testament is Jesus' actual quotes -


We know this how??? Again, the real evidence is lacking.


and how does anyone go about proving those have not been altered in any way - over a two thousand year period.


Precisely. Where would you look for problems? When you question one aspect, you need to start from scratch to prove all of it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

That's where many of your are wrong.

Maybe. But I doubt it.

Jesus was a real person

There were many persons named Jesus back then, a common name after all. Have you heard about that ossuary, death box, with the name of Jesus on it then altered to fit a need?

and the Bible proves itself correct all the time.

Sorry. Cannot happen. In essence you are saying that ones word proves itself??? That is not how facts are established.

Just ask any archeologist.

There are archeologists, then there are archeologists. No, the bible has not pproven itself. Some of the storied may have been based on events in general.



It has proved itself time and time again to be accurate.


I think you have been reading a self fulfilling book? Wrong books???

No reputable historian disputes Jesus was a real person,


Which Jesus? Lots to pick from in those days.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Why is this accepted so easily? Jesus was a common name back then. That death box not long ago had Jesus on it until it was modified.

Whoa, please explain "That death box not long ago had Jesus on it until it was modified?" .

 

[The Dukester]

He may be talking about an ossuary. See below.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/17/60minutes/main661815.shtml

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

He may be talking about an ossuary. See below.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/17/60minutes/main661815.shtml

I do remember that documentary. It seemed to me like it was not the actual brother of Jesus, as they did say there were many men named Jesus at the time. Most likely, it could have been a forgery by the way the letters were chiseled.

The inscription read ""James. . . Son of Joseph. . . Brother of Jesus." The odds were slim that it wasn't Jesus, but the entire episode shouldn't have any bearing on whether Jesus actually existed and died on the cross.

Save that for all the crying statues and condensation of Mary on windowpanes (which are pretty cool to say the least). The Catholic Church investigates most of those episodes, and claims them as false.

 

[Khellandros66]

I found a box with the name Jesus on it and it was filled with ashes, doe this make him real?? -Think about that before you scrutenize me.

I am not a relegious person however, I believe that in using tools (bible), preaching (teaching morality) and conserving the comman good of people is the truest aspect of religion..

Now if the preachings are marred by say people who want to pois the following people against another group of religion, race or whatever. This is sacreligeous.

~Bob