Posted by amazed on March 12, 2007 at 03:42:12 (EST):
In Reply to: Re: ASD part3 posted by Maxx on March 10, 2007 at 11:37:56 (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.
That sounds like something a douche bag would say, so I'll use that as evidence that you are, in fact a douche bag.
: 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.
So you'll agree that the quote I gave you from Britannica.com could not have possibly came from 1966, as you inplied...right?
I'm not going to "zero in on" the "seeing the unseeable".
What I will "zero in on" is where it says "New technology WILL reveal". This tells us that they are saying what they think WILL happen, not telling us what HAS happened.
I will also "zero in on" what they are saying WILL be revealed, the "event horizon". They are not claiming they will reveal a "black hole" they are claiming they WILL REVEAL the "event horizon".
So, to summarize, they are claiming this new technology will reveal something they haven't yet revealed and that when they find this they will use it as proof of something else they have not yet found.
Not only is what you quoted not proof of black holes, it is proof that they have not yet found a black hole. It is also evidence that they have not yet located the event horizon.
Yeah, you're right I guess those people at Britannica.com don't know what they are talking about.
: 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
Yes, this "think like Einstien" tells you about CONCEPTS... not FACTS.
Look at what you pulled as a quote.
Do you see what it says?
Notice that it says "...Enstein revealed his special THEORY of relativity.." The it say we've KNOWN that time travel...is possible".
Can't you see the ridiculousness of this?
They are saying that an UNPROVEN THEORY is PROOF of the possibility of time travel.
This is what I'm talking about. They are not only treaty this THEORY as a FACT, they are going a step further and saying that this very same UNPROVEN THEORY is PROOF that time travel is possible.
: 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.
I also never used the word "asparagus". I guess you must figre I've "never heard of" asparagus either.
: You used the word creationism. No you run from that word. I see you still didn’t say what they believe.
I used "creation" when I was talking about the fact that there are people who believe in that. What I told you was that what I believe is of no consequence.
: 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.
Yes, those are the people YOU "would say" were in the ID "camp".
No, I am not "injecting" anything. YOU are the one who insists on bringing religion into the ID argument. YOU are the one who thinks that only religious people believe ID is possible.
:
: 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.
So now you are saying I said stuff and then when I ask for the quote you say "I'm not going back" and "I know you said it"...Gimme a break.
: 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.
What I said was simply that lack of evidence does not constitute proof to the contrary.
If your neighbor turned up dead, and you didn't have any evidence that you DIDN'T kill him, the fact that you did not have any PROOF that you DIDN'T kill him would not be EVIDENCE that you DID kill your neighbor.
: 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.
I said it was a theory a POSSIBILITY.
The statement you quoted is based on the rulings of a court case between the ACLU and the Americans for the Separation of Church and State vs. a group of 11 parents.
Who do you think spent the most money on this case?
If you'll read about this case. It is all about the sheet of paper that I've been telling you about. All those people wanted was a statement to be read aloud when evolution was taught.
If you read further, the ruling BARS ID from being taught.
They didn't want it TAUGHT, they just wanted a statement to be read aloud before evolution was taught.
One of the reasons the judge gave in his ruling was that ID was not accepted by the "scientific community". Not being accepted by this "community" does not make it false and should certainly not be grounds for barring it from being mentioned.
: 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.
Wait a minute. You just got done saying that predictions can be used as evidence. What's up?
: 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.
See you are showing your stupidity again.
They couldn't be KNOWN to be Bigfoot tracks because a Bigfoot has never been found. But according to your logic, I could call them Bigfoot tracks and then say that a Bigfoot created them and use them as evidence that Bigfoot exists, just Like your black hole
"evidence".
No, we do not KNOW Bigfoot does not exists, but we can say that one has ever been found.
Then you wrote "So you are wrong, Bigfoot doesn’t exist." How am I "wrong"? I never said Bigfoot DID 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.
See above.
: 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.
What "scientific theory" said that man could survive the sped of sound? Can't you see the stupidty in what you are saying? You are telling me that not being able to prove something is evidence that it is false. 100 years ago you would hae had no way to prove that man could survive the speed of sound, therefore, YOUR LOGIC says that this inability to prove would be evidence that the man would NOT be able to survive the speed of sound.
: 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!
I don't read Astronomy..dude, but I know a scientist knows the differnece between fact and theory.
: 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.
They do say space is infinate. That's common knowledge. I'm "not going after" that just like YOU "aren't going after" what you claim I said.
What do you mean "that's what I said".
I just used you dumbass logic as PROOF that space IS infinate. Since there is no PROOF that it ISN'T infinate YOU must believe take that as PROOF that it IS infinate. That's how dumb what you are saying is.
: 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.
I didn't "leave out" anything. YOU quoted ME. YOU "left out" the part where I said "or whatever they say happened". I said "lightning striking a pool, or whatever they say happened".
What an ass!
: You said, “I'm not saying what I do or don't believe. I'm saying what is POSSIBLE.” Well, what do you believe?
Again, that is of no consequence.
: 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.
It IS censorship.
I am not saying what should be mentioned. I'm saying it is wrong to catagorically bar the mention of an idea.
: 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!
YEP!
: 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.
How would you research this? Oh, that's right, I forgot about that time machine you have in your basement.
The bible is not the proof of ID. It is what people LIKE YOU think is the proof of ID.
: 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.
Why? Why should a kid be FORCED to have a vaccine injected into her just because "most" kids have sex before they are 18.
How about Anthrax? That is a communicable disease that a kid could get just by breathing. Do you think all the kids should be vaccinated against Anthrax? How about all the rest of us?
: 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?
No, because those are diseases the kids could get just by sitting in the classroom. Kids do not typically have sex in the classroom.
: 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!!!!!!!!!!
Where's your "evidence" of that?
: 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
No, I'm not comparing the two, but getting pregnant is still a concern to the welfare of the child.
If a kid needs a blood transfusion or he wil die, he should get it. But I guaratee you that a doctor or hospital would be far too worried about a possible lawsuit to go aginst the parent's wish's. Even if it WERE legal, they would let the kid die before they would risk a "possible" lawsuit.
: 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.
Nope they can't. Two of my good friends teach health/phys 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.
And your point is?
: 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!!!
And that is not right, is it?
: 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.
No, they are all raised that way. Their Government officals even do it. There was a program on ABC (I think that was the network) about how Iran was the most dangerous country to the U.S.. On this program they showed their Senate (or whatever they call it) all standing and shouting a chant "Death to the Americans, Death to the United States".
Imagine if even one of our elected officials was even overheard saying something like that about another country and their people.
Yes, I do believe that when an entire nation is being raised to hate us as part of their religion our kids should be able to learn about it.
: 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.
Christain religion does not teach it's children to kill people of another religion.
Ah...the Christain Crusades...the ONE PART of Christianity that IS permitted to be taught in our schools!!!
: 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.
No that's what YOU think it is all about.
: 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.
MOST, huh? You just used that word a few senrtences back....remember? Yeah, I suppose that would be who YOU say the "crowd" is.
No, creationism and ID are not the same. Despite what YOU THINK. I didn't "take out" God. I never had God in the ID argument.
: 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.
So to who do you think or better yet to where do you think these signals were sent. Apparently they believed that whoever recieved them would be more advanced than we were. So exactly to what limit do they find acceptable? How much more advanced could they be? Do they have a limit on how advanced they could be? If so what is it?
: 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.
No, YOU pay attention.
Here's what you wrote: "Why can’t reindeer fly? According to your logic just because it can’t be proved doesn’t mean they can’t exist."
See where YOU wrote "they can't exist". Reindeer do exist. As for them not being able to fly. The diffence here is that we KNOW they DO exist, unlike black holes, and we CAN study them in order to determine what they can and can't do.
Why can't they fly? I would say the biggest reason is because they do not have wings. I KNOW they don't have wings because I have SEEN reindeer and they did not have wings.
: 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?
I don't want the government to make these decisions. That's the whole point...bonehead.
: 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.
Prayer was removed from school decades ago.
:
: 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?
How does he say to pray? All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be banned.
: 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.
What "backsliding". From the very beginning what I have been saying is that they should not be prohibitting the mention of ID when they are teaching another "theory" as fact.
: You said, “Again, I never argued "creationism". Yes you did and I even re-quoted what you said.
Oh, do ya. So I'll ask again, where's the quote?
: 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?
I am not "running from" anything.
No, I do not believe in the Bible version of how the Earth was created.
: Fake stupidity alert, “I don't know what you are trying to say here.”
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
: 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.
Yes if I would argue the point I would lean towards whatever I was arguing...no shit?
I didn't make the argument though. I said the argument COULD be made.
I never made the argument that evolution shouldn't be taught. I argued that it shouldn't be taught AS FACT.
: 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.
That's what you say huh?
: Another blackslider alert, “I never said Creation should be taught.”
Again...what's this supposed to mean.
: 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?
The very most would be teaching them a theory as if it were a fact.
: 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”
It's known.
: 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.
That's not the point. The point is that all dogs are under one species and all humans are under one species, even though they may look very different, but these same "scientists" are claiming that these dinosaurs a differnet species, based solely on their size.
: 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.
I didn't have to "look" anywhere. It's common knowledge. We are all homo-sapiens. Well, maybe not you!
: 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.
So why did you leave this out?
What question did you ask 3 times?
What is it you think I am "running" from.
: 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.
So why are YOU getting so worked up about it?
The problem here is that people like you are so worried about our freedoms but at the same time you want to say what others CAN'T do.
: 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!
How long did you have to look for this "Tripoli" paper. How many documents that make reference to God did you "overlook". Talk about "cherry picking"!!!!
Regardless what they did afterward. The Christain Pilgrams were the first Europeans to settle here.
Let me ask you this Mr. Anti-religion. Do you make any complaints about getting Chrsistmas, Easter or Thanksgiving off from work? Do you make arguments about how those should not be paid holidays?
These are all religous holidays and I have never heard of anybody trying to use the separation of church and state against them.
: 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.
Oh.."next question"...good comeback.
: 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!
A bursting balloon IS an explosion. If a tire bursts, it IS an explosion.
: 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?
No, I'm not saying that at all. A star already has what is neccessary for a flame, that's what makes it a star. Do you think that stars are the only objects in space that can explode? Perhaps there are other objects that are comprised of a compressed core and denser surface and once the surface breaks down the core will raidly expand or EXPLODE.
: 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.
I never said any of that. I never even said that ID was definately what happened. I said ID was a POSSIBILITY.
The answer to all the questions you pose in the paragragh above...WE DON'T KNOW.
Once again, these post are getting too long and taking too much time.
Call it "running away" if you want, but I really do have better things to do with my time than argue on here with a douche bag like yourself.