The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[Student of Trinity]

Me: Science certainly does not deny the existence of God. Science is entirely neutral on the question of God's existence. Nor does science actually deny the existence of intelligent design as such. It is again neutral on this topic. What most scientists do deny, strongly and in my opinion quite rightly, is the claim that evidence for intelligent design exists. That's why they don't want intelligent design being presented as science. But just because they think there is no evidence for it, doesn't mean they think there is evidence against it.

lkwdbids: This is where I tend to break away from you. I am talking the real world now, how things are out in society. You can't claim that Science is entirely neutral on the question of God's existence and on the existence of intelligent design and then in the next sentence state that what scientists deny strongly is the claim that intelligent design exists.

I think something critical is getting missed here. There are two questions:

1) Was the universe designed?
2) Do we have objective evidence that the universe was designed?

These questions are independent. Even if you say Yes to 2), you might still say No to 1), because sometimes evidence is misleading. Plenty of important scientific theories have flourished for a time, and then been discarded, because although there was some evidence in their favor, eventually more evidence accumulated against them. And certainly you might say Yes to 1) but No to 2).

Whether intelligent design should be taught in schools as a part of science is entirely about question 2), and not at all about question 1). So scientists are NOT saying that any particular phenomenon DEFINITELY WAS produced without design. They're only saying that, from what we know, it EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN produced without design. That means that there is no evidence for design, and so design has no place in a science curriculum.

In every case I know, as far as I can tell, everything easily could have been produced without design. Arguments I have heard to the contrary are really bad arguments, based on basic ignorance, sometimes even on stupidity. In fact I believe in design, at least in some sense. So I say Yes to question 1), but No to question 2). And I believe strongly that intelligent design should NOT be taught in school science courses.

[CarmeloOrchards]

When our youngest daughter was in 6th grade, she said something so profound, that it is still quoted to this day in our family. The words were: "I hate stupid people."

This article, accompanied by a video is about some women legislators in Michigan, who might have that very same feeling toward the Republicans in the Michigan chamber.

*note: I have excerpted this, and published a link.




http://news.yahoo.com/silenced-mich-...235603374.html




Rep Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield reads her part during a performance of "The Vagina Monologues" with 10 other lawmakers and several actresses on the Michigan Statehouse steps, Monday, June 18, 2012, in Lansing, Mich. Brown, who says she was barred from speaking in the Michigan House because Republicans objected to her saying "vagina" during debate over anti-abortion legislation, performed "The Vagina Monologues" with a hand from the author Eve Ensler. (AP Photo/Detroit News, Dale G. Young)




Rep. Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, from left, Rep. Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield, playwright Eve Ensler and Sen. Rebecca Warren, D-Ann Arbor, pose for a group picture during an event including a performance of "The Vagina Monologues" by Brown and 10 other lawmakers on the Michigan Statehouse steps, Monday, June 18, 2012, in Lansing, Mich. Brown, who says she was barred from speaking in the Michigan House because Republicans objected to her saying "vagina" during debate over anti-abortion legislation, performed "The Vagina Monologues" with a hand from the author Eve Ensler. (AP Photo/Detroit News, Dale G. Young)

[Lone Star]

Unbelievable! Would they have preferred "cunt", "pussy", or "snatch" instead? I'm going to go bang my head against the wall now.


I think Romney is in Michigan today. I suppose he'll be asked about his position on the vagina.

[CarmeloOrchards]

Unbelievable! Would they have preferred "cunt", "pussy", or "snatch" instead? I'm going to go bang my head against the wall now.

Don't be so quick to judge!

When you're an asshole, maybe all you can see are assholes.

It may be more a misunderstood word phenomena.

Someone should have told them that the Stork was like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

[Auditor's Toad]

Much of Hubbies old crap has been turned into a shrine ....so what became of the Apollo & the other 2 rust buckets ?

Did the ranch in Creston become a weekend place for DM ? What of the ' backup' ranch ?

At one point wasn't a rather nice house in Santa Barbara acquired for the old man?
If so, what became of that multi-million dollar house ?

Where the cameras go? Or the guns ?

In a cult that loves shrines to the leader a lot of stuff seems to just 'disappear'. Is this some kind of OT trick ?

[lkwdblds]

I think something critical is getting missed here. There are two questions:

1) Was the universe designed?
2) Do we have objective evidence that the universe was designed?

These questions are independent. Even if you say Yes to 2), you might still say No to 1), because sometimes evidence is misleading. Plenty of important scientific theories have flourished for a time, and then been discarded, because although there was some evidence in their favor, eventually more evidence accumulated against them. And certainly you might say Yes to 1) but No to 2).

Whether intelligent design should be taught in schools as a part of science is entirely about question 2), and not at all about question 1). So scientists are NOT saying that any particular phenomenon DEFINITELY WAS produced without design. They're only saying that, from what we know, it EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN produced without design. That means that there is no evidence for design, and so design has no place in a science curriculum.

In every case I know, as far as I can tell, everything easily could have been produced without design. Arguments I have heard to the contrary are really bad arguments, based on basic ignorance, sometimes even on stupidity. In fact I believe in design, at least in some sense. So I say Yes to question 1), but No to question 2). And I believe strongly that intelligent design should NOT be taught in school science courses.

I like your separation into two distinct questions.

I could be a real a-hole and use your own argument against you. Doing that, I would say to you that you and all we humans are insufficiently intelligent to make the determination that all things could have been produced easily without design. You see, the designer is trans-intelligent, so vastly superior to you in intelligence that its level of intelligence is beyond intelligence. Therefore the evidence of design is there but you are not intelligent enough enough to discern it

EXAMPLE
A dog pees on a fire hydrant. The dog applies a sniff test to the fire hydrant; this test does not reveal that the fire hydrant was designed by anyone or anything, therefore the dog concludes that the fire hydrant could easily exist without design. Actually the fire hydrant WAS designed by humans but their intelligence is so vastly superior to that of the dog that the dog can't comprehend it. Therefore the dog reaches an incorrect conclusion. I rest my case... er sorry, I mean I rest your case.
Lakey

[lkwdblds]

Still, one struggles with the matter of perception: If you are looking at a cue ball on a simple bank shot the expenditures of energy are rather simple to figure as they are in plain sight: length of shot, angle, resistance of the felt, trueness of the deflection ... In other words, did the ball jump because the player hit it too hard? And so on...

As for the bird example, lots of variables there. I don't know that the simple "birds in flight" answer is a complete one as there are other forces at play.

Under complete analysis, I would bet that the law of conservation of energy would hold true in that example.

Sure, the conservation of energy holds true in the bird example but there are two distinct cases: Case 1 - the bed of the truck has a lid so when they fly inside the truck bed, their 100 lbs of mass is replaced by air pressure equal to 100 pounds pressing down on the bed of the truck. It's tricky only because our perception does not see the air pressure which their flapping wings causes to push down on the truck bed.

Case 2 - If the canvas lid were removed from the truck before the birds fly away there is no longer a closed system. Immediately upon lift off, the truck would not get lighter but in a few seconds time the truck would be 100 lbs lighter. You're right about a lot of forces coming into play. Probably most of the pressure would be absorbed by the bed of the truck during lift off. Then it is likely that a portion of the air pressure would be dissipated in the air outside the truck. It would be a complex dissipation but under complete analysis the law of conservation would have to hold true.
Lakey

[Leon]

Quote taken fro "Ron, The War Hero:

"There can be no doubt that the PC-815 was not a corvette, as almost every physical characteristic is different. (In fact, the term "corvette" as used by the British covered a wide variety of small warships, with displacements of anything from 700 to 1,500 tonnes; but even the smallest corvette still had more than twice the displacement of the YP-422).


"In all, 317 steel-hulled PCs were completed. Unlike corvettes, they were not long-range oceanic vessels but were tasked with escorting ships along the USA's long and vulnerable coastlines. It has to be said that they were not particularly well-suited to this task, though in fairness it was not what they were designed to do. The original purpose of PCs was to operate as harbour-based craft that could be used in groups to hunt down submarines operating offshore. The USA's desperate shortage of anti-submarine vessels at the start of the war necessitated the use of PCs as escort vessels instead.

"The weak armament of PCs made them fairly ineffective at sinking submarines. Only 3 submarines were sunk by the entire PC fleet in the course of the war; all, curiously, within a single eight-week period. Their usefulness lay more in the deterrent effect which they had upon enemy submarines and in the support which they were able to provide to more capable ships."

[lkwdblds]

Quote taken fro "Ron, The War Hero:

"There can be no doubt that the PC-815 was not a corvette, as almost every physical characteristic is different. (In fact, the term "corvette" as used by the British covered a wide variety of small warships, with displacements of anything from 700 to 1,500 tonnes; but even the smallest corvette still had more than twice the displacement of the YP-422).


"In all, 317 steel-hulled PCs were completed. Unlike corvettes, they were not long-range oceanic vessels but were tasked with escorting ships along the USA's long and vulnerable coastlines. It has to be said that they were not particularly well-suited to this task, though in fairness it was not what they were designed to do. The original purpose of PCs was to operate as harbour-based craft that could be used in groups to hunt down submarines operating offshore. The USA's desperate shortage of anti-submarine vessels at the start of the war necessitated the use of PCs as escort vessels instead.

"The weak armament of PCs made them fairly ineffective at sinking submarines. Only 3 submarines were sunk by the entire PC fleet in the course of the war; all, curiously, within a single eight-week period. Their usefulness lay more in the deterrent effect which they had upon enemy submarines and in the support which they were able to provide to more capable ships."

Thanks and now a musical word from the enemy: (song starts at 0:16)



Lakey

[Student of Trinity]

I like your separation into two distinct questions.

I could be a real a-hole and use your own argument against you. Doing that, I would say to you that you and all we humans are insufficiently intelligent to make the determination that all things could have been produced easily without design. You see, the designer is trans-intelligent, so vastly superior to you in intelligence that its level of intelligence is beyond intelligence. Therefore the evidence of design is there but you are not intelligent enough enough to discern it.

That is entirely possible — and entirely irrelevant. Things do not and should not get into school science curricula because there exists evidence for them that is recognizable by archangels. They do and should get into science curricula because, and only because, there is evidence for them that is recognizable by humans.

In other words, your argument is a pointless quibble on the definition of 'evidence'. This may be a clever debating tactic, but it verges on sophistry.