AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial" - Page 9

post #321 of 576
11/16/05 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Chris, you cannot be the judge of any of the science in dispute because you cannot bring yourself to take things at their face value.

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Anything with reference to supporting evolution, you deny wholely, totally, even if it is truth.

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
We know you are a scizo-Christain.

And when all else fails...resort to insults and name-calling. Cute.
Reply
Reply
post #322 of 576
11/16/05 at 8:58am
Chris,

You deny that evolutionists have given plenty of evidence to support it?

You deny that you play with words when you twist my words so you infer that I'm stating you are the only IDer in the world?

You don't think that in a debate both sides should offer supporting evidence to their theory? As many people have said in this thread, you are allowed to mention the holes in evolution, but to present ID as an equally valid theory you have to supply evidence for it other than 'the bible says so'.

I'm not sure what your "no" is in relation to when I wrote about scientists discarding theories. if it's in relation to that, then you are wrong, plain and simple. if it's to my comment that you won't accept scientists do change their mind, then fine, we agree on one thing.

How can you write that the Bible is not relevant to this discussion? Without the Bible this debate wouldn't have even started! Without your desire to belive in the literal truth of the Book, you wouldn't be saying half the things you do!

David
Reply
Reply
post #323 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No.

And when all else fails...resort to insults and name-calling. Cute.

Well, it's kind of frustrating. Even when you bring up the 'problem' of randomness producing order and someone responds with an answer that demonstrates that your argument isn't sound and your understanding of the science (forgive me) deficient to debate the point you bring up, you concede nothing.

It isn't about the facts for you. It's about a theological position.

Let me explain.

If there were a discovery that revolutionised our understanding of speciation and evolution incontrovertible enough to make us question the last century and a half's worth of research and discovery, I would be delighted and amazed, as would any laymen, scientist and Apple geek arguing on a forum on the internet. I'm not invested in evolutionary theory, I don't follow it blindly, I love this stuff because it's amazing and, knowing everything I know about the planet, it's apparently the only sensible, correct explanation.

Give me a better one by showing me something amazingly cool and revolutionary and I'll revise my opinion in a hot second.

We present you with all the facts and arguments you need and it isn't enough.

Because it's not about the facts for you.
Reply
Reply
post #324 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
You deny that evolutionists have given plenty of evidence to support it?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
You deny that you play with words when you twist my words so you infer that I'm stating you are the only IDer in the world?

I'm not the only one ont this board that questions evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
You don't think that in a debate both sides should offer supporting evidence to their theory? As many people have said in this thread, you are allowed to mention the holes in evolution, but to present ID as an equally valid theory you have to supply evidence for it other than 'the bible says so'.

I'm not presenting ID as a theory. I am raising questions about evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
if it's to my comment that you won't accept scientists do change their mind, then fine, we agree on one thing.

That was it.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
How can you write that the Bible is not relevant to this discussion? Without the Bible this debate wouldn't have even started! Without your desire to belive in the literal truth of the Book, you wouldn't be saying half the things you do!

Straw man away.
Reply
Reply
post #325 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:06am
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Because it's not about the facts for you.

Wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #326 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No.

No.
Quote:

No.

No.
Quote:

And when all else fails...resort to insults and name-calling. Cute.

No.

You are by definition a Scizo-Christian.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #327 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Wrong.

Have you researched Shetline's terms?

Have you understood how order can be produced by energy and the role of randomness in selection and the production of variety?

Do you promise, in the light of your research and for the principle of intellectual honesty, never to raise this point again in an argument about evolution?

Or am I right when I say that the facts aren't important to you after all?
Reply
Reply
post #328 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You are by definition a Scizo-Christian.

Again with the insults and name-calling.

I have avoided any naming calling an insults.

You have no alternative it seems.

Sad really.

We're done.
Reply
Reply
post #329 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:16am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Have you researched Shetline's terms?

Yes.

Quote:
Have you understood how order can be produced by energy and the role of randomness in selection and the production of variety?

I like ID better.

Quote:
Do you promise, in the light of your research and for the principle of intellectual honesty, never to raise this point again in an argument about evolution?

Plenty of evolutionists keep raising bad arguments.

Quote:
Or am I right when I say that the facts aren't important to you after all?

You don't listen to facts.

-Chris


Oh shit, I'm not chris...oops.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #330 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

We're done.

That's terribly convenient.
Reply
Reply
post #331 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:19am
oops
Reply
Reply
post #332 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Again with the insults and name-calling.

No.
Quote:

I have avoided any naming calling an insults.

No.
Quote:

You have no alternative it seems.

No.
Quote:

Sad really.

Yes.
Quote:

We're done.

Ok.

The only thing that gets you to respond to anything I have recently written is an 'insult.'

Think about that.

And by the way, while I have been spelling Schizo incorrectly, a great deal of the talking with god Christianity (and other religions), are as close to Schizophrenia as this society allows without institutionalization, you should be glad you talk to god and not to bob.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #333 of 576
11/16/05 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
If there were a discovery that revolutionised our understanding of speciation and evolution incontrovertible enough to make us question the last century and a half's worth of research and discovery, I would be delighted and amazed, as would any laymen, scientist and Apple geek arguing on a forum on the internet.

And it has happened, many times. Recently I got interested in human evolution, I think it was that hobbit discovery, and did some reading about the history of the theories. They're really all over the map, and there have been several revolutionary changes.

As I understand it, the big change is that they no longer believe that all of those species of hominids are direct ancestors of modern humans, but rather dead-end cousins. For example, I believe the predominant theory today is that neanderthals were a different line. And that hobbit species is particularly fascinating because it existed literally just a few thousand years ago, just on the cusp of modern recorded history. And then there are recent suggestions that chimps are in our family and gorillas are in a separate line, rather than chimps and gorillas being in the same family, distinct from humans.

And I'm sure someone will find some bone in the future that will completely throw current theories out of whack. I just don't see how creationism or ID could possibly lead to the rich debate of theories and findings that has occurred in evolutionary theory.
Reply
Reply
post #334 of 576
11/16/05 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Have you researched Shetline's terms?

Have you understood how order can be produced by energy and the role of randomness in selection and the production of variety?

Do you promise, in the light of your research and for the principle of intellectual honesty, never to raise this point again in an argument about evolution?

Or am I right when I say that the facts aren't important to you after all?

Come on, Hassan i Sabbah, you're smarter than this -- why can't you just admit this is essentailly a metaphysical argument that hinges on 'Random vs. uncorrelated' and leave it at that?

Also, I had a more general thought on this. As the man said, "First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win." We are well past the ingnoring/mocking, and well into the fighting stage, if this NPR story is any indication.

When the Smithsonian literally has to call out the goon squad to keep certain ideas off the table it's a pretty good sign that things are falling apart. When fear and intimidation is used by any institution, it's, historically speaking, always been an act of desperation.

I think this battle has essentially been won. Especially when the real issue is metaphysical, and no one dares to admit it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #335 of 576
11/16/05 at 10:04am
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
And it has happened, many times. Recently I got interested in human evolution, I think it was that hobbit discovery, and did some reading about the history of the theories. They're really all over the map, and there have been several revolutionary changes.

snip

And I'm sure someone will find some bone in the future that will completely throw current theories out of whack. I just don't see how creationism or ID could possibly lead to the rich debate of theories and findings that has occurred in evolutionary theory.

Yes, right on, but I'm talking about a discovery that forces us to reject evolutionary theory altogether. That would be really cool.
Reply
Reply
post #336 of 576
11/16/05 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am raising questions about evolution.

And how many of them have been rather easily refuted?
Reply
Reply
post #337 of 576
11/16/05 at 10:23am
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #338 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter

I think your're using too many rods there, midwinter -- I hear those Mormon Fish&Game guys spank.

..and why were you taking Tom Clancy fishing anyway? -- can't he afford his own boat?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #339 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think your're using too many rods there, midwinter -- I hear those Mormon Fish & Games guys spank.

..and why were you taking Tom Clancy fishing anyway? -- can't he afford his own boat?

That's not fishing. That's trolling.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #340 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:06am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win."

There are plenty of instances in this world of, "First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you lose." Seeing yourself in steps one, two, or three, and then imagining that this is evidence of one's rightness and a harbinger of an inevitable victorious step four, is ludicrous.

Good rally-the-troops rhetoric, but basically meaningless.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #341 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That's not fishing. That's trolling.

polygamous trolling!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #342 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
There are plenty of instances in this world of, "First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you lose." Seeing yourself in steps one, two, or three, and then imagining that this is evidence of one's rightness and a harbinger of an inevitable victorious step four, is ludicrous.

Good rally-the-troops rhetoric, but basically meaningless.

I actually messed up, and got that quote wrong.... it should be:

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they check your official status with the SI to see if you could be let go for cause for the Meyer article and the information found in your unofficial background investigation, then they try a more sophisticated strategy by arguing that since your sponsor died shortly before the Meyer article was published that you could be denied access, then they fill the rumor mill to the point it becomes so infected that one of your colleagues has to circulate your curriculum vitae simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist, then they deny your access by taking your master key, then they require you to give your supervisor an outline of your research, then they have prevent you from having access to research specimens, then you call the Office of Special Counsel, then you win."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #343 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Yes.


I like ID better.


Plenty of evolutionists keep raising bad arguments.


You don't listen to facts.

-Chris


Oh shit, I'm not chris...oops.

Hilarious! I wasn't paying attention and I actually thought it WAS chris responding.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #344 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:40am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I actually messed up, and got that quote wrong.... it should be:

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they check your official status with the SI...

Elaborating upon nature of the "then they fight you step", and finding an example of unfair fighting, still doesn't make the "and then you win" the least bit stronger.

If we are to judge the rightness or wrongness of a cause based on the tactics of a few of the supporters, one need look no further than the behavior of the former Dover, PA school board, their dishonest activities, and their dishonest testimony, to conclude that evolution must win.

The school board clearly mocked evolution and fought against it. I'm not sure if they ever did the ignore step. Is that step vital to the magic sequence? I suppose these people were essentially ignoring evolution, as far as public action was concerned, until they ran for positions on the school board. Chances are, however, that they got a little early mocking in before they ran for office. Would that mess up the predictive power of the ignore/mock/fight/win theory?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #345 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Elaborating upon nature of the "then they fight you step", and finding an example of unfair fighting, still doesn't make the "and then you win" the least bit stronger.

If we are to judge the rightness or wrongness of a cause based on the tactics of a few of the supporters, one need look no further than the behavior of the former Dover, PA school board, their dishonest activities, and their dishonest testimony, to conclude that evolution must win.

The school board clearly mocked evolution and fought against it. I'm not sure if they ever did the ignore step. Is that step vital to the magic sequence? I suppose these people were essentially ignoring evolution, as far as public action was concerned, until they ran for positions on the school board. Chances are, however, that they got a little early mocking in before they ran for office. Would that mess up the predictive power of the ignore/mock/fight/win theory?

you're protesting too much shetline.....pssst --- do you see that elephant in the room?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #346 of 576
11/16/05 at 11:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
you're protesting too much shetline.....pssst --- do you see that elephant in the room?

You're playing the silly game of trying to insinuate victory and defeat going by your own biased judgements concerning the mere style of the debate.

Whether your opponent is too angry, too calm, doing too much protesting, doing too little protesting, showing too much pride, showing too little pride, etc., etc. -- especially based on your own biased judgement of the opponent and without an equally critical eye turned upon yourself -- all of that rhetorical nonsense is of very little predictive value.

Hmmm... those tusks could stand a little polishing.

[Edit: there must a verb]
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #347 of 576
11/16/05 at 12:13pm
***homer voice***

hmmmmm.... Loxodonta africana

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #348 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think this battle has essentially been won. Especially when the real issue is metaphysical, and no one dares to admit it.

If the real issue is metaphysical, then why take a position on the decidedly empirical question of biological evolution?
Reply
Reply
post #349 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:11pm
CC:

Actually, David has described the state of debating with you quite well. You love to ask questions and then ignore the answers and move on to the next question. You set people up with your questions and then use verbal-legerdemain to to claim the gotcha moment. I come into these descussions and in most cases toss my ideas out on the table and then discuss. You are rarely so forthcoming.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You assume that I need to present evidence for creation or ID in order to question evolution. This is absurd.

It is quite reasonable assertion that to argue against something as well established as the theory of evolution that one has to build your own case for an alternative explanation. This is were ID fails. As I've said many times, there will always be holes to fill in describing the history of life on Earth. We'll never fill them all, so if all it takes to kill a theory is say 'you can't tell me how that happened', then there will never be any theory on the subject.
Reply
Reply
post #350 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If the real issue is metaphysical, then why take a position on the decidedly empirical question of biological evolution?

I don't know, I think they should be separate. I suspect this drfts into recitations of theory/rehtoric bacause it bothers a lot of people as a gut reaction, which it should, because ID is antithetical to evolution as a majority of materialists understand it; and that goes both ways.

Personally, I think ID will be the only thing that saves evolution.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #351 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I actually messed up, and got that quote wrong.... it should be:

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they check your official status with the SI to see if you could be let go for cause for the Meyer article and the information found in your unofficial background investigation, then they try a more sophisticated strategy by arguing that since your sponsor died shortly before the Meyer article was published that you could be denied access, then they fill the rumor mill to the point it becomes so infected that one of your colleagues has to circulate your curriculum vitae simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist, then they deny your access by taking your master key, then they require you to give your supervisor an outline of your research, then they have prevent you from having access to research specimens, then you call the Office of Special Counsel, then you win."

I'll agree that the response to publication of the article seems a bit heavy handed. Smear campaigns jsut make you look like you can't win the case on its own merits. I think the best thing to have done is written a letter to the editor of the journal stating why the article was rubish. Have as many signatories of the letter as you wish. This happens all the time when a controversial or just plain bad paper gets published.
Reply
Reply
post #352 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:41pm
Come now, DMZ, you must admit that, like the fleeting moments of a dying swan these heated words yield little more than the same black box of relativism that imprison the wily apologist, for all his protestations which are little more than the sand in the sheets of empiricism.

(Moe voice) "Why, I oughta......."

Quote:
"Through me the way into the suffering city,
Through me the way to the eternal pain,
Through me the way that runs among the lost.
Justice urged on my high artificer;
My maker was divine authority,
The highest wisdom, and the primal love.
Before me nothing but eternal things were made,
And I endure eternally.
Abandon every hope, ye who enter here."

Perhaps the combatants are but motes in Dante's eye?

Hmmmm.............

It appears that the elephant has left the building. The question is, who has the shovel?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #353 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Come now, DMZ, you must admit that, like the fleeting moments of a dying swan these heated words yield little more than the same black box of relativism that imprison the wily apologist, for all his protestations which are little more than the sand in the sheets of empiricism.

(Moe voice) "Why, I oughta......."



Perhaps the combatants are but motes in Dante's eye?

Hmmmm.............

It appears that the elephant has left the building. The question is, who has the shovel?

mmmmmmmmm.........I dunno, in any case we should be able to beat up everyone's ideas equally.


and as for that shovel.....

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #354 of 576
11/16/05 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I'll agree that the response to publication of the article seems a bit heavy handed. Smear campaigns jsut make you look like you can't win the case on its own merits. I think the best thing to have done is written a letter to the editor of the journal stating why the article was rubish. Have as many signatories of the letter as you wish. This happens all the time when a controversial or just plain bad paper gets published.


Kinda wierd, it was quite the Wile E. Coyote effort -- I read that and thought "How much grass did they have to smoke to....?"

I guess we can be glad they weren't any better at it than they were. (Although I'm sure Sternberg 'got the message'.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #355 of 576
11/16/05 at 7:24pm
Thread Starter 
From Backing out possible, not simple:
Quote:
Monday's attempt by outgoing Dover Area School Board member David Napierskie to save the district from legal fees is not as simple as it sounded, said the district's attorney Richard Thompson.

Napierskie asked the board to revoke the curriculum change that includes intelligent design, agree not to add it again and ask their legal representation, Thomas More Law Center, to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against them and pay $1 in damages.

Napierskie said he believes the action would make the case moot and prevent the district from paying legal fees.

"It's not as simple as let's dismiss the case and walk away with paying $1," said Thompson, who spoke with Napierskie prior to his motion. "By merely dismissing the case, even if that were agreed upon, would not eliminate the plaintiffs' ability to ask for reasonable attorney fees."

Plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment.

Doesn't sound like the actions of someone confident about victory.

First they ignore you.
Then they mock you.
Then they fight you.
Then you to try to wriggle out of paying the court costs 'cause you know you're gonna lose.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #356 of 576
11/17/05 at 3:35am
dmz wrote:

Quote:
Personally, I think ID will be the only thing that saves evolution.

Can you expand on what you mean by this statement?

David
Reply
Reply
post #357 of 576
11/17/05 at 6:52am
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
dmz wrote:



Can you expand on what you mean by this statement?

David

I think it's fair to say that when you look at life (as in the chemical process), that evolution is going to be a tougher sell as we move forward in history. As we continue exploring life in more detail, I think that at the very least punctuated equilibrium will have to be adopted to answer time constraints, statistical concerns, etc.

Bolting ID onto punctuated equilibrium would answer nearly everyone's concerns on intuitive, structural, and even spiritual levels -- while permanently barring the door to creationists.

I think it's only a matter of time -- ID is just punctuated equilibrium with plausible deniability anyway.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #358 of 576
11/17/05 at 7:24am
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
ID is just punctuated equilibrium with plausible deniability anyway.

And God. Don't forget God. In that sense, it's sort of like evolution with God replacing all the non-supernatural things.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #359 of 576
11/17/05 at 7:49am
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
And God. Don't forget God. In that sense, it's sort of like evolution with God replacing all the non-supernatural things.

I guess..., how is punctuated equilibrium is any different than ID except for one very irrelevant (practically speaking) semantic difference?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #360 of 576
11/17/05 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I guess..., how is punctuated equilibrium is any different than ID except for one very irrelevant (practically speaking) semantic difference?

Because one calls for a supernatural force. You know god.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"