^^ Sounds reasonable. Again, this is my position:

Quote :

"Despite what some of you may think, I do not support teaching religious dogma in science classrooms or other inappropriate settings. My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

^ I'm not sure, but I think Stein did that because so many of the anti-ID/anti-religion/anti-God folks "cling" to Darwin as an explanation for a number of things beyond the scope of Darwin's work.

4/17/2008 12:59:30 PM

Quote :

"^^ And your theory is that existence exploded from nothingness and is rushing toward nowhere or may be collapsing on itself and lightning animated mud, right?"

Evolution never purports itself to be an explanation how life began. It is merely an explination of how speciation occured, occurs, and will occur.

I do not know how life began, I do not know what caused this universe to come into being. That does not mean however that we must chalk it up to some mysterious designer.

4/17/2008 1:04:13 PM

Quote :

"^ I'm not sure, but I think Stein did that because so many of the anti-ID/anti-religion/anti-God folks 'cling' to Darwin as an explanation for a number of things beyond the scope of Darwin's work."

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 1:16:11 PM

Being anti-intelligent design does not mean you are anti-god or anti-religion. Furthermore, just because some people wrongly point to Darwin (see this more in the anti-evolution crowd) for explanation beyond his scope does not mean the theory that Darwin developed and has been later extrapolated on is flawed.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 1:18:57 PM

^ But you see, I don't think that ID and evolution need be mutually exclusive. I mean, it's absolutely clear to me that all species weren't created at once.

4/17/2008 1:21:34 PM

But why is there the need for intelligent design to be taught in the class room? Furthermore, the major proponents of intelligent design argue that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, that they are two entirely different theories (intelligent design is not a theory).

4/17/2008 1:23:51 PM

this "god particle" is the higgs boson... i won't go any further because you won't understand anything I have to say

and when serious people say they want to 'know the mind of God.' they do not mean it in the knuckle dragging way you do

they want to truely understand the universe and how it works... God in this instance is mostly used as a metaphor or placeholder

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 1:27:45 PM

^^ I don't speak for the "major proponents" of ID--I speak for me. And if you check my IP, you'll see this:

Quote :

"Despite what some of you may think, I do not support teaching religious dogma in science classrooms or other inappropriate settings. My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

^ Yes, the fact that the "God particle" is a "boson" was quite clear in the quotation, you pompous fucking douche bag. And I hardly know where to begin in easily picking apart your trinket of a post, but I'll certainly give it a go.

1. I didn't take any position on the quotation at issue. I simply posted it--you assumed that I meant whatever fits your narrative because you're a pompous fucking douche bag.

2. Let's assume that you're correct about God "as a metaphor or placeholder." If that's the case, why would the word be capitalized (like Him--and not simply god)?

3. Do you claim to know the mind of Lederman? Really?

4. "God in this instance is mostly used as. . . ." Do you have any evidence to back that up?

5. "[T]hey want to truely [sic] understand the universe and how it works. . . ." Perhaps you should learn how a keyboard and a simple post on a message board work before you condescend, you pompous fucking douche bag.

4/17/2008 2:02:02 PM

Quote :

"My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

Then you should be attacking the social right.

They're the ones creating a wedge between science and religion.

4/17/2008 2:06:15 PM

^^ you still come off as someone who knows very very little

it's very funny

ROLLY EYE ROLLY EYE ROLLY EYE

ahahahahhahahah

4/17/2008 2:08:33 PM

^^ One of the main reasons I'm not a Republican--the "social right" part.

^

Quote :

"ahahahahhahahah"

Fucking brilliant retort.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 2:10:46 PM

you're not an expert in any subject

what do you have to offer?

you're a fool, prancing about

4/17/2008 2:11:54 PM

^ More assumptions? Haven't you been sufficiently pwned on that front?

And just what is your discipline, Captain Logic--I mean, you are McDouche, right? Whatever it is, does that qualify you as an "expert"--in anything?

4/17/2008 2:18:48 PM

Quote :

"^^ I don't speak for the "major proponents" of ID--I speak for me. And if you check my IP, you'll see this:"

And ID is still not a viable scientific theory and therefore should not be taught in the science class room.

4/17/2008 2:37:44 PM

^ You can read, right?

Quote :

"Despite what some of you may think, I do not support teaching religious dogma in science classrooms or other inappropriate settings. My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

hooksaw

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=506830

4/17/2008 2:43:28 PM

Then why are you supporting this film? The film is all about having ID taught in the science classroom and how it isn't allowed.

4/17/2008 3:18:30 PM

Quote :

"I haven't seen this documentary, so I can't properly critique it. I have no problem, however, accepting the concepts of 'Big Science' and liberal academics that take it upon themselves to decide for us all this issue or that has been settled."

4/17/2008 3:27:11 PM

why the outrage?

4/17/2008 3:28:04 PM

Why not?

4/17/2008 3:34:49 PM

it's a misplaced outrages that is built upon perceptions and bias, not the facts.

4/17/2008 3:51:22 PM

^ What facts?

4/17/2008 3:53:46 PM

^ What?

4/17/2008 3:54:20 PM

^^^ and ^ Fine--which facts.

4/17/2008 4:05:19 PM

^ Facts who?

4/17/2008 4:06:01 PM

What's it feel like to be so bitter that you get outraged at things that it isn't even worth getting outraged over?

4/17/2008 4:25:17 PM

^ I'm not bitter, you fucking Obamagasmic elitist. Piss off.

4/17/2008 4:34:37 PM

4/17/2008 4:42:46 PM

if we all go away who will there be to pay attention to you?

4/17/2008 4:43:31 PM

Quote :

"stop fucking trolling and shit talking you can be a total dickhole in how you argue with someone, but you can't fall into just talking shit. and the ridiculous trolling is completely out of hand."

theDuke866

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=500208&page=8

4/17/2008 4:49:10 PM

4/17/2008 4:50:00 PM

hooksaw really loves any authority, doesn't he

seriously, we'll stop picking on you

please don't cry any more

4/17/2008 4:54:19 PM

^^ and ^ You know, no one is forcing either of you buffoons to post here.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : FYI.]

4/17/2008 5:04:12 PM

Dunno if this has been mentioned yet, but the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" illegally without permission.

Quote :

"Ms. Ono's lawyer, Jonas Herbsman, of Shukat, Arrow, Hafer, Weber & Herbsman, said in an interview Wednesday: "It was not licensed." With respect to the filmmakers, he says: "We are exploring all options." It is not clear what remedies if any may be available to Ms. Ono. In a written statement, the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission, but they called the use "momentary." "After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech," the statement said. A spokeswoman said under 25 seconds of the song are used in the movie. Typically when producers want to use a song in a film or television program, they need permission from at least two parties: the song's publisher and the record label that distributes the recording they want to use. Big-name artists often retain veto power over any such uses, and in the case of Mr. Lennon's music, those decisions lie in the hands of Ms. Ono. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

4/17/2008 5:08:43 PM

They used the Killers song as well

4/17/2008 5:38:03 PM

Quote :

"Um. . .what "religion" is ID again? "

ID is Christian Creationism repackaged. At least, this is what it was ruled by a judge.

What definition of ID are you using?

Quote :

"Yep, no design here ^. Just a big, happy-assed accident--like all of existence! I'm glad you neckbeards are here to sort it all out for me. "

Just because you assert its design doesn't mean it is. That's fine for religion, but it's not a valid reason to teach it in the science class.



How about this? It looks very neat and complex, surely it must have been designed, right? But it's one of MANY class of seemingly "designed" molecules that self-assemble.

Quote :

"n the one hand, dendritic molecules have spherical symmetry and tendency to acquire an isotropic spatial distribution. This is typical entropic factor inherent to macromolecules. On the other hand rigid rodlike mesogens tend to anisotropic phase formation due to a large gain in the enthalpy. This is typical energetic factor inherent to liquid crystals. As a result of these opposite (contradictory) tendencies the phase-separated and self-assembled structures should be developed."

Not to mention that amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, are found on meteorites as well. And types of amino acids are spontaneously generated in Miller experiments ( http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html ) where they take basic chemicals found on early earth, and expose them to heat and electricity (to simulate lightning). Imagine after a billion years of doing this, you could easily for the early life that developed in to more complex life via evolution.

4/17/2008 9:57:13 PM

Quote :

"What are the predictions of evolution? I mean specifically?"

That's an easy question, and i'm surprised as a mathematician you haven't heard about them (because it's very math-heavy).

I found these 2 fairly quickly:
This one actually helped refine the model of evolution on a genetic level for plants, by a scientist testing a hypothesis based on evolution theory, and in this case, was found wrong:

Quote :

"Many flowers have co-evolved with their pollinators, resulting in shapes that match the mouth parts of a limited number of animals. This has led to the hypothesis that flowers have evolved multiple times within the eudicot lineage, and this has helped to drive the diversification of flowering plants. ... When the authors of the study looked throughout the Core Eudicots, they found that, no matter where or how the nectary formed, it invariably expressed crabs claw. As crabs claw is a transcription factor and can regulate the expression of other genes, this suggests its expression activates the genes that produce a nectary in all Core Eudicots, regardless of what the flower goes on to look like. This common developmental trigger, in turn, suggests that the ability to produce a nectary predates the diversification of flowering plants. Flowers came first, the different shapes came later. "

Here's another study where an evolution-based hypothesis was tested, and confirmed:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/10/12/the-chlamydomonas-genome-sequencing-the-roots-of-plants

Quote :

" Based on the known properties of plants in general and Chlamy in specific, we had already predicted that Chlamy shared properties with animals, but it was closer to plants, and thus its chloroplast was derived from cyanobacteria. There are absolutely no surprises in the sequence—everything looks as we expected—but met expectations are the product of a successful theory passing yet another test. Another frequent critique of evolution is that it doesn't have practical applications. The insights into cilia, especially their signaling function, provided by this evolutionary study would suggest otherwise. Those functions are conserved in humans, where the signaling pathways that use cilia have been implicated in human health. Look into the birth defects associated with faulty Hedgehog signaling, or cancers linked to the Patched and Gli genes carefully, and you'll find that all of these proteins require an intact cilia in order to function normally. Anything we learn about cilia from the comparisons with Chlamy has the potential to help our understanding of these diseases. The fact that all of that comes out of the genome of a close cousin of pond scum is pretty amazing."

There's actually another study in the past few years that I think is far more interesting than either one of these.

It was based on the idea that we know a certain few type of mutations happen (duplicating genes removing genes, or just moving genes) and based on this idea, you can statistically analyze a genome, find areas where these mutations would have caused a likely speciation, then go back and find that supposed new study, and find the identical DNA regions in the same area as the past mutations present, but serving a different function. The amazing thing about this study is that it looked at the end-result of evolution, predicted where a split may have occurred, then went on to find clear-cut markers that the split did in fact happen.
edit: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030247 This is a very similar study

Anything in the field of comparative genomics is very intriguing and both directly and indirectly relate to evolution.

The majority of modern biochemistry is based on evolution though. If the scientists just presumed life was made as-is and it didn't evolve, they'd go in to every experiment without any hypotheses because there'd be no telling what god put in to an animal.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2008 10:16:00 PM

Quote :

"But it's one of MANY class of seemingly 'designed' molecules that self-assemble."

moron

And that's an accident, too, I suppose? And I don't care what Wikpedia.com tells you, one doesn't have to be a Christian to believe that existence was designed--I'm living proof of that.

BTW, here's my position--again:

Quote :

"Despite what some of you may think, I do not support teaching religious dogma in science classrooms or other inappropriate settings. My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

4/18/2008 7:43:29 AM

Quote :

"And that's an accident, too, I suppose?"

physical laws, learn them.

4/18/2008 10:27:27 AM

^^

god, you're like a child

4/18/2008 10:58:27 AM

Quote :

"^^ and ^ You know, no one is forcing either of you buffoons to post here."

4/18/2008 11:26:39 AM

Quote :

"And that's an accident, too, I suppose? And I don't care what Wikpedia.com tells you, one doesn't have to be a Christian to believe that existence was designed--I'm living proof of that."

What you seem to be arguing has no bearing then on evolution, science, ID, Christianity, or anything else related to this issue that's been in the media.

Your belief has absolutely no bearing on the way scientists conduct their work. You are not a believer in "Intelligent Design" as most people know it. You would actually probably disagree with most of this movie then if you don't claim to be a Christian, because that's what Intelligent Design is all about.

You're trivializing a designer though if you think a DNA molecule was hand-picked to be the way it is. A DNA molecule is the way it is because of the properties of the universe. If a designer designed anything, it wouldn't have been DNA, it would have been the universe itself, and everything fell out of that. Essentially what physics does is investigate the universe to see what properties cause what. If you changed any of the fundamental properties of the universe even a tiny bit, DNA and everything else that we know wouldn't exist the way we know it.

4/18/2008 12:02:03 PM

^

Quote :

"A DNA molecule is the way it is because of the properties of the universe."

What "designed" the properties of the universe? Another accident, I suppose?

4/18/2008 12:11:19 PM

what designed the designer?

4/18/2008 12:11:42 PM

what designed the designer that designed the designer?

4/18/2008 12:14:20 PM

^^ and ^ Who, what, when, where, why, and how was the beginning? There's your answer.

And can you stop parroting the atheist talking points? It's tiresome.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2008 12:15:53 PM

It has nothing to do with atheist talking points.

It has everything to do with the stupidity of asking questions that cannot be answered.

4/18/2008 12:18:21 PM

^ That's one the dumbest statements I've ever seen. Most of the questions science has answered and attempted to answer were once considered or still are unanswerable.

4/18/2008 12:21:43 PM

The 'unanswerable' questions that I'm aware of are unanswerable due to shortcomings in technology. The questions themselves are not intrinsically unanswerable.

If something designed life, it's unlikely we'd ever know who it was. Do you disagree with this?

Incidently, the fact that a scientific explanation exists for the evolution of life on Earth does not preclude the existance of ID. It just means the designer had to play within the rules of that scientific explanation.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 12:39 PM. Reason : Oh, yeah: ]

4/18/2008 12:25:01 PM

don't you see the circularness of it all? On both sides you have people asking the same exact question, but deriving different answers. the initial question is what is (created) the begining and how the begining started (was created).



[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 12:25:21 PM

you do know that it is this very Aristotelian bullshit that held back science for millenia

thank god people stopped talking about, and actually started to do really work on, understanding the natural world

4/18/2008 12:57:25 PM