Posted by Maxx on March 10, 2007 at 11:37:56 (EST):
In Reply to: Re: ASD part3 posted by amazed on March 09, 2007 at 13:00:23 (EST):
You said, “I theorize you are a douche bag“. Being that most of what you say is wrong, I don’t have much to worry about.
You said, “I was unaware the internet existed in 1966.” It wasn’t in 1966 but it was in 1969. I suggest you run down to Kittanning News ASAP and buy the latest issue of Astronomy Magazine. It’s cover story is about black holes. Here’s the headlines: COVER STORY Black holes: seeing the unseeable New technology will reveal the event horizon - direct evidence that black holes exist. Before you zero in on the “seeing the unseeable” remember I said a few posts back that looking for a black hole would be hard because astronomer’s wouldn’t know what they were looking at was a black hole or just black space. Instead, zero in on “direct evidence that black holes exist”. Now put that old Britannica away.
You said, “I do stand behind it. I feel the idea that the theory of relativity=time travel is a very childish.” On the PBS web site there is a quiz you can take to help you “think like Einstein” and understand his space/time concepts. Here’s what it says, “Ever since Einstein revealed his special theory of relativity, we've known that time travel—at least moving forward through time—is possible. Einstein didn't pull this theory, or even the notion that time travel is possible, out of thin air. Rather, he took the knowledge of the day, saw an inconsistency—a piece of a puzzle that didn't fit, so to speak—and thought about possible explanations.” Here’s the website” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html
You said, “Yeah, right, I never heard of ID before you said it.” Well apparently you didn’t, because you never used it before I brought it up. You used the word creationism. No you run from that word. I see you still didn’t say what they believe. Anybody I would say was in the ID camp would be religious, because that’s what it is. It’s you that is injecting your own meaning, but it’s not their idea. I can tell you without a doubt, you’ll find no ID person who says aliens are populating the universe or even “transplanting” life from one planet to another.
You said, “Go get me the quote. There isn't one is there? Or you would have posted it right here.” I’ve already said I’m tried of going back to get quotes you now say you didn’t say. I know you said it.
I think you are the one who needs to reread what you wrote, “Is the inability to prove they do not exist "proof" that they don't exist?...NO.” So if that’s true, it’s just as easy to say they could exist. Without proof, according to you, everything is possible. And according to you, if you don’t believe that, you are “closed minded”. If you cannot prove that there is no Tooth Fairy, then I know why you believe ID and you have a giant black hole between your shoulders.
I asked for proof that ID is a scientific theory, without web sites. Well I’m going to break that and quote one of your favorite web sites you used all the time in the last debate we had, and that is Wikipedia. Here is the very first sentence there: Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This is what I’ve been saying all along. You can’t take religion out of ID, that’s not what those people believe, maybe you do, but it wouldn’t be ID that those people want taught.
You said, “Okay then, that would mean that if I "predict" there is a the Sun is going to turn green that "prediction" is "evidence" that the Sun WILL turn green.” You just proved my point yet again. You have no idea what the scientific method is.
You said, “NO, using YOUR logic, since I SAID Bigfoot made these tracks, I could then say that these tracks were "evidence" that Bigfoot did, in fact exist.” If they were known Bigfoot tracks and not fake, yes that would prove Bigfoot made them. But we know there is no Bigfoot and any tracks would be fake. So you are wrong, Bigfoot doesn’t exist.
You said, “Again, not being able to prove something is true is not evidence it is false. Inability to prove something does not automatically make it untrue.” Exactly, so according to you, everything and anything is on the table. Using your example above, you believe the Sun turns green, common sense and evidence tells us otherwise.
You said, “100 years ago they couldn't "prove" a man could survive traveling at the speed of sound. Can man travel at the speed of sound NOW?...Yes. Can he survive it?...Yes.
According to your logic, 100 years ago the inability to "prove" a man could survive would have been used as evidence that he couldn't survive it.” No, my logic would have said that scientific theory says man can fly and go the speed of sound. Your logic would say, “it’s just s scientific theory and it could “be argued that it shouldn’t be taught in schools” My logic would go on and eventually prove it’s possible. Your logic would force scientific theories out of the schools and into the trash heap.
You said, “No, you DON'T know this. The scientists who study this don't KNOW they exist, and the certainly don't KNOW how they would have been created if they do exist. It's all THEORY. “ Go out and by the latest issue of Astronomy dude!
You said, “More "cherry picking" on your part. Here's what I wrote: "I don't say the universe is infinate, scientists do. Oh, I'm sorry, maybe I should have said "space" is infinate." I'm not going to go after this. It's a known fact. I'll just say this and you will HAVE to accept it. There is no proof that space is not infinate, therefore it MUST be infinate.” What the hell was all that!! That’s what I said, show me were a scientist says space is infinite. You won’t “go after this” because you know it’s not true. If it’s “a known fact” it should be easy for you to find a scientist who says this, dude.
You are the one who’s high. You left out the lightning striking the pool in your quote to make it look like you didn’t say it. I proved you did and now you come back with a bunch of goofy shit that doesn’t make sense.
You said, “I'm not saying what I do or don't believe. I'm saying what is POSSIBLE.” Well, what do you believe?
You said, “I'm saying it IS possible and to not only say it is not possible, but also prohibit the mention of it's possibility is wrong. It is, at the very least, censorship.” It’s not censorship to keep unscientific ideas out of the science classroom. You still haven’t given proof that ID is a scientific theory and you still didn’t say why just ID should be mentioned and not every other crazy idea about creation. Sounds like you’re for censorship because you just want evolution and ID mentioned, but nothing else.
You said, “Why are you so afraid of ID being metioned? Are you afraid of it? Do you fear that if it were introduced maybe some "scientific" study WOULD be done on the subject?” Nope! If anyone with a sane mind would think it was possible for a supreme being was capable of creating the universe, someone would be researching it. Remember, NOT EVEN THE ID CROWD IS RESEARCHING IT, SO THEY DON’T EVEN BELIEVE THERE OWN CRAP. IT’S RELIGION. THEIR PROOF IS IN THE BIBLE. THEY DON’T NEED TO RESEARCH IT.
You said, “The only way a person can get HPV is to have sex with someone who carries the virus. You can prevent yourself from being exposed to HPV by simply not having sex.” Like I said, most kids have sex before 18 and they don’t think they will get STD or HPV that is why they need the vaccine.
You said, ‘The vaccines that are REQUIRED are all for diseases that are easily transmitted.” There are many religious parents who don’t want to give their kids these vaccines even for these “easily transmitted diseases” So should that be allowed?
You said, “If I had a kid I would have her vaccinated against HPV. But that should be MY decision.” Well that’s a relief!!!!!!!!!! You didn’t reproduce!!!!!!!!!!
You said, “Yes, but how to do so, and what steps to take should be the parents decision.
A lot of kids get pregnant before they are 18 too. Do you think all the girls should be FORCED to take birth control. “ I think the welfare of the child should be paramount, the so-called rights of the parents should be second. Take the religious cult, Jehovah Witnesses. They don’t allow blood transfusion. If a child needs a blood transfusion or will die, who’s rights should be paramount, the child or the parents? Your “forced birth control question”, I hope you’re not comparing preventing cancer and a girl getting pregnant as the same thing
You said, “No, they can't "opt out". Health/Phys Ed. is part of the rquired ciriculum and Sex. Ed. is part of that class.” Nope, parents can op-out their kids from sex-ed.
You said, “I know several non-religious people who disagree with this.” Yes, I did say “most” religion conservative are against it. I didn’t say all.
You said, “Yet the teachers can't say a word about "modern" religions. How is that right?” Well ask your christian friends. I remember a few years ago a school district in California was teaching about Islam and when the christian community found out they went NUTS!!!
It sounds like you want all the bad things about other religions taught and all the good things about Christianity taught. Your example of “Death to American” is one of them. You do know that the schools that teach that are religious conservative schools. Over here in American, religious conservative schools teach somewhat the same thing. Go out and rent “Jesus Camp” and see what christian kids are taught here. Remember, those people over there have very long memories and they still remember the Christian Crusades.
You said, “ID doesn't even say that ONE being reated the universe. It says that the universe COULD have been created by a more intelligent being than we.” Again this is your version of ID, but it’s not what the people who come up with this crap believe.
You said, “You seem to think that there is only ONE ID "crowd". Where is this "crowd"? Who is in this "crowd"? Who is the leader of this "crowd". ID is an idea, not a "crowd".
It is a crowd. Most of the ID proponents are out of the Discovery Institute. That’s the crowd. See you didn’t even know that. You are pushing your own version of ID without the slightest idea what they actually believe or who they are. ID and creationism is the same. The difference is ID took out mentioning God as the creator, like you did.
You said, “What you said was that the reason they sent te signal out was because the universe was so large there was a chance that life had evolved on another planet "like our own". So apparently you think that carbon based, oxygen breathing life is the only type of life POSSIBLE? “ Again you assume too much. These signals would be send out to any life form who would know what they were. I doubt dinosaurs on another planet would respond to our signals, unless it was Barney.
You said, “Reindeer DO exist...Dumbo. I CAN prove they exist. Go to the zoo. look in the dictionary. Search on line. Reindeer DO exist.” Yes they do, but that’s not what I asked dude. I asked if reindeer can fly. Pay attention.
You said, In order to be ALLOWED to do so WITHOUT disrupting class, they would HAVE to be given time to do so.” How would bowing your head and silently saying a prayer be disruptive? Why do you insist on the government telling people when it is OK to pray and when it’s not OK to pray?
You said, “I don't want to do anything. I'm just saying that things shouldn't be "banned". Show me the law that says prayer in schools is banned.
I said, “Again I have to say it also goes against what Jesus said on how to pray, so you want to go against Jesus and you want the government to help you do this” and you said, “No idea what you are trying to say here.” Jesus tells Christians in the bible how they should pray, and you want to go against that. Why?
You said, “NO I did NOT. What I injected was that some people believe in Creation. I didn't say I did. And I didn't say it should be taught. I said that if you are goig to teach one "theory" you should not prohibit another.” There’s some double talk. What you just said was if evolution is taught then creationism should be taught. Stop backsliding.
You said, “Again, I never argued "creationism". Yes you did and I even re-quoted what you said.
Yes you are running from your first statement concerning creationism. But I have to ask, do you not believe in the Christian Bible version of creation as in Genesis?
Fake stupidity alert, “I don't know what you are trying to say here.”
You said, I never said evolution shouldn't be taught.” Backslider alert!! You did say, “it could be argued that evolution shouldn’t be taught”. If you would “argue” the point, it would mean you lean towards evolution shouldn’t be taught.
You said, “I said evolution is a "theory" and should not be taught as fact.” I say only the parts of evolution that are still theories should be taught that way, most of evolution is a fact and should be taught as such.
Another blackslider alert, “I never said Creation should be taught.”
You said, “I never said ID sould be taught. I said that if they are going to teach one "theory", these other "theorie" should also be permitted to be, at the very least, MENTIONED.” What would be the very most?
You said, “ Here's one for ya. Did you kow that many of the fossils they say indicate a new "species" are no differnt than other previously discovered "species" other than size. They will find a leg bone for an animal that has already been "discovered". Then they deem it a new "species" so that they can name it an use this "discovery" as a basis to get additional funding for the program.” Where did you find this information”
You said, “Dogs are all the same species, yet these "scientists" would have them all as different "species" if they had found them in the "fossil record". It might be. What if these so-called dogs were really wolves, foxes, coyote, etc. An idiot like you would say those leg bones all look alike so it’s all the same thing.
You said, “Even one human would be considered a differnet "species" jst becaus he was taller than another. Danny DeVito and Hulk Hogan would be 2 differnet "species" if they were found in the :fossil record". Yeah...that's SCIENTIFIC!!! “ I don’t believe this, what off the wall web site did you find this crap and how long did you look to find it.
You said, “I see here that you convieniently omitted the part I wrote about freedom of speech.” I see you still didn’t answer my question on that supposed right even after asking 3 times. Run away, run away.
You said, “If this is true, why are people LIKE YOU so consummed with getting religion out of the schools? Getting the Commandments out of courthouses? Getting "In God We Trust" off of the money? Why worry about all these things that have been going on since before this was even a country? Why is this so important FOR YOU?” It’s called, Separation of Church/State. Look into it. It hasn’t been going on before this was even a country. I’ve already shown it wasn’t until 1954 that In God We Trust was put on paper money. The 10 Commandments have recently appeared on public property (last 75 years). Our founding fathers didn’t want to mix religion and governments. It’s a toxic mix.
You said, “against any religion or belief. Especially the one this country was founded on. The one the pilgrims came here to practice FREELY.” This is another myth. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Don’t you think if this nation was founded on Christianity it would mention it somewhere in those documents. It fact, during the constitutional convention that was brought up and it was voted down. On June 10, 1797 a treaty between Tripoli and the US, called the Treaty of Tripoli, started off with these words, “"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” Yes, the Pilgrims did come here to “practice freely”. Why do you think they did that? Because in England they were forced to practice a particular religion, the one the government choose. That is why our founding fathers thought it was important for the separation of church/state. But guess what, the Pilgrims did the same thing here. They force people to follow their brand of religion and if you didn’t, they either banished you or through you in jail until you recanted. The Pilgrims were not nice people. Remember the Salem witch trials!
You said, You are going to say that the "evidence" is the "glow" even though you don't know what caused this "glow".” The glow was the flash of the Big Bang. Next question.
So if I’m driving down the highway and the truck in front of me has a blown tire, that would be the wrong thing to say. I should say, Holy shit look at that explosion!. Or if I want to pop some kids balloon, I would say, “I’m going to explode that kids balloon. Now that’s retarded!
You said, “I did keep that in mind. Also, keep in mind the is no oxygen in space. Which is essential for the type of explosion you seem to be obsessed with.” True there is no oxygen in space. So you are saying when a star explodes there is no flash of light?
Getting back to ID. You said that this supreme being who created our universe was so smart and powerful that we can’t even comprehend it. So let me ask you this. If this being was so smart and created everything, why did it create so much chaos in the universe? Why did it create viruses Why did it create cancer? Why did it create some species to breath in water and some only air, why not both, that way no one drowns.