Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/11/08 07:48 AM, Elfer wrote:

Why, the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism managed to collect the signatures of 80 people who have titles somewhat relevant to evolution in a mere six-year period. Not only that, but it's managed around 700 signatures in total, according to the Institute.

Are you kidding? You haven't seen the video raping the shit out of that list?
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmP qM

Yeah after seeing that, I have no idea how anyone could trust that idiot list :O

---

At 7/11/08 08:10 AM, poxpower wrote: Are you kidding?

Yes. However, EVEN if we assumed that the scientists on that list were competent, they still get swamped by everyone else.

---

At 7/11/08 08:17 AM, Elfer wrote:

Yes. However, EVEN if we assumed that the scientists on that list were competent, they still get swamped by everyone else.

Yeah but if that list was true, then it would mean that for some reason, competent biologists go against the theory of evolution.
That would actually raise some flags.

But no, there's NONE. That list is complete bullshit. It's bullshit from the first name to the last.

The people at the discovery institute are criminally deceptive.

---

At 7/11/08 08:54 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/11/08 08:17 AM, Elfer wrote:

Yes. However, EVEN if we assumed that the scientists on that list were competent, they still get swamped by everyone else.

Yeah but if that list was true, then it would mean that for some reason, competent biologists go against the theory of evolution.
That would actually raise some flags.

Only in the event that they disagree on scientific grounds rather than religious ones.

---

At 7/11/08 09:13 AM, Elfer wrote:

Only in the event that they disagree on scientific grounds rather than religious ones.

Just pretend you don't know what the question really was and that they really were against evolution being true/taught/taught alone
:p

---

We have a mod on the forum talking about who is and isn't an idiot, when just a while back he admitted he was totally unaware of an official religion thread (that was set up by the 'other' moderators) and also had to have another mod educate him on what Buddhism actually was, in which he then admitted error, but also attempted to defend his overall point.

I love Poxy.

So funny.

Making me feel so much better about myself, but so sad for the world.

---

At 7/11/08 10:29 AM, Memorize wrote: We have a mod on the forum talking about who is and isn't an idiot, when just a while back he admitted he was totally unaware of an official religion thread (that was set up by the 'other' moderators) and also had to have another mod educate him on what Buddhism actually was, in which he then admitted error, but also attempted to defend his overall point.

I love Poxy.

So funny.

Making me feel so much better about myself, but so sad for the world.

Though notably, once he was informed of those things, he didn't stubbornly maintain his position in the face of overwhelming evidence.

There's a difference between non-aggressive ignorance and stupidity.

---

Memorize, I can't understand how you can both type coherent sentences and at the same time not realize how much your anus is getting raped in this thread.

What do you think would happen if you admitted to being wrong? You think you'd explode or what?

---

At 7/11/08 10:40 AM, Elfer wrote:

Though notably, once he was informed of those things, he didn't stubbornly maintain his position in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Haha, didn't I just say that?

"Admitted to his error"

Heh, English College classes work wonders, don't they?

There's a difference between non-aggressive ignorance and stupidity.

haha, indeed there is.

At 7/11/08 10:48 AM, poxpower wrote: Memorize, I can't understand how you can both type coherent sentences and at the same time not realize how much your anus is getting raped in this thread.

Because I understand how obvious of a reaction the world has. How people react.

You still haven't answered my question. How would the scientists initially react?

And you know exactly how they will. As I said "Typical Human Behavior". The headlines, the promotions for research.

I know they'll test it and find out. Which I said is fine. All i'm talking about is how the world and scientific community will move at the start, and what they would test for first and hope to find.

I'm not making a case for ID. I don't like ID.

But the standards are set. And they really are quite silly, Poxy.

Now instead of arguing and lashing out at me for simply telling you what they would do, why don't you rush down to your nearest University and tell them how wrong they would be? Certainly, that would be much more productive.

Heh, it's kind of like the Earnest Heckle drawings that were proven to be false, but are still in my Biology books. Sure, you'll go out of your way to oppose any and all legislation that would require the scrutiny (along with the strengths) of evolution to be taught, but you won't say a peep about what is already known to be 100% incorrect (Heckle's drawings).

Only against what doesn't suit you, eh?

---

At 7/11/08 11:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/11/08 10:40 AM, Elfer wrote:

Though notably, once he was informed of those things, he didn't stubbornly maintain his position in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Haha, didn't I just say that?

"Admitted to his error"

Bro, I was responding to your overall point that pox isn't qualified to call you stupid. In those scenarios, he was wrong and admitted it. In similar scenarios, you are wrong and refuse to alter your position. This illustrates an important difference between the two of you.

Heh, English College classes work wonders, don't they?

Apparently not, considering that you're trying to bog people down in details rather than considering the whole issue, as an actual scholar would.

I guess you're very proud of passing whatever English classes you did though, so I probably shouldn't try to rain on your parade.

---

At 7/11/08 11:01 AM, Memorize wrote: You still haven't answered my question. How would the scientists initially react?

Everyone has answered that this is irrelevant, even if what you said was true. How scientists initially react doesn't mean they don't actually research things. We have even granted you that and still, your initial argument still doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What does it matter if someone doesn't answer that question? It has nothing to do with the argument.

How would scientists react if they found a cheese sandwich on the moon?
How would scientists react if it turned out that horses were actually pairs of midgets in costumes?
How would scientists react if someone's shit did, in fact, smell like roses?

Nobody cares, it has nothing to do with the topic.

I know they'll test it and find out. Which I said is fine. All i'm talking about is how the world and scientific community will move at the start, and what they would test for first and hope to find.

No, your point was that if scientists would say "Who created a building?" then they should also say "Who created the universe?" and that would mean they're hypocrites.

This, of course is a ridiculous assumption and you've been lambasted for it thoroughly and are now waffling from that position in order to avoid having to say you were wrong.

Heh, it's kind of like the Earnest Heckle drawings that were proven to be false, but are still in my Biology books. Sure, you'll go out of your way to oppose any and all legislation that would require the scrutiny (along with the strengths) of evolution to be taught, but you won't say a peep about what is already known to be 100% incorrect (Heckle's drawings).

You do realize that not everything he drew was false. In fact, they weren't really proven to be false, as he told the publisher that some of his work was speculative.

So, there's an important distinction here, are the pictures in your book some of the few that had speculative filler or are they just drawings by Haekel, so you assume they're false? You'll have to forgive my needing to ask, I haven't had that problem with any of my textbooks.

---

At 7/11/08 11:42 AM, Elfer wrote:

Bro, I was responding to your overall point that pox isn't qualified to call you stupid. In those scenarios, he was wrong and admitted it. In similar scenarios, you are wrong and refuse to alter your position. This illustrates an important difference between the two of you.

I'm not going to say I haven't been wrong. That would be stupid among itself.

I do admit it.

I just love pushing his buttons.

Because honestly... there are sooo... many... religion... topics. Another religion topic annoys me about as much as stepping on the sharp end of a 2 inch nail.

Or chalk on chalkboards. Take your pick!

Apparently not, considering that you're trying to bog people down in details rather than considering the whole issue, as an actual scholar would.

I'm the one trying to keep it simple. It's everyone else complicating the entire situation.

I guess you're very proud of passing whatever English classes you did though, so I probably shouldn't try to rain on your parade.

I am proud, because i'm not the one making these mistakes over what is and isn't being said.

Do I have to explain my views on ID again? Or... is Poxy going to tell me that i'm pushing their agenda for them, forcing me to, once again, explain away?

---

At 7/11/08 12:09 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Everyone has answered that this is irrelevant, even if what you said was true.

How is it irrelevent, when it's the entire discussion? It's the reason for this discussion.

All I wanted was a simple answer. That was it. Based on what would happen. I'm not complicating anything.

How scientists initially react doesn't mean they don't actually research things.

I'm pretty sure I said that they would, and that I would expect them to do so.

We have even granted you that and still, your initial argument still doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What does it matter if someone doesn't answer that question? It has nothing to do with the argument.

Here's the summary.

I pose a simple question. And instead of simply saying "Yes, and that's wrong" (which, you've already stated, that it would be wrong for them to do so), you then decide to on long rants on why it's so horrible why I bring it up. Why I pose that question.

It's as if you don't like the answer to it, so you're going to find any reason to excuse what they would do, even if you don't agree with them doing so.

ooo, paradox.

Nobody cares, it has nothing to do with the topic.

It quite a bit to do with the topic.

We find certain, complex crafts to be so fascinating, that we conclude essentially "ID", in our own minds, without first testing it. Though our first test would be FOR it.

But it's nitpicking. We come to such initial conclusions at first glance, but only for certain things.

No, your point was that if scientists would say "Who created a building?" then they should also say "Who created the universe?" and that would mean they're hypocrites.

They would be.

Why? Because there is no evidence for life on other planets, other than our own existance, which 'can' be explained by either a "God" reason or a "No God" reason.

The Universe is massive. The likelihood of finding life on other planets is too incredibly slim to even imagine our close future generations finding any, if any exist (also slim). Yet it is pushed for.

And my question is: Why are they pushing for it when there is no evidence for it?

If there is life, we'll eventually find it. There is no need to rush.

That is why they are hypocrites.

This, of course is a ridiculous assumption and you've been lambasted for it thoroughly and are now waffling from that position in order to avoid having to say you were wrong.

Heh, I simply state what they will do. Not if what they will do is logical or rational.

If you have a problem with that, then why are you 'heckling' me over it?

You do realize that not everything he drew was false. In fact, they weren't really proven to be false, as he told the publisher that some of his work was speculative.

He used the same drawing for several different animals.

Don't play it off.

And even still, his premise is wrong. That the further back you go in the development lifecycle, you'll the evolutional trend. But the simple fact is, even the cells from which we spring forth from are vastly different from one another.

It also begs this question: If we know what these cells and fetus look like, accurately, then why are we still using his drawings?

So, there's an important distinction here, are the pictures in your book some of the few that had speculative filler or are they just drawings by Haekel, so you assume they're false?

My favorite is the little side note at the top of the page that says: "These drawings may not be to scale".

My HighSchool textbook said "May not be accurate". My teacher even went out of her way to say that although these are old and not "accurate", they still provide an important teaching... which as I said, is false.

You'll have to forgive my needing to ask, I haven't had that problem with any of my textbooks.

Maybe Arizona was slow.

---

At 7/11/08 11:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

You still haven't answered my question. How would the scientists initially react?

*sigh*
Your question doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe or life or evolution,

Prior to looking at another planet, scientists KNOW EXACTLY how buildings come about on earth. A cathedral has never been observed to come about naturally in thousands of years of looking everywhere in the universe.

Your example is completely ridiculous since you're trying to apply it to something we truly know nothing about, origin-wise.

ps your sad attempt at playing off the fact that we're raping you as you just "toying" with us and "pushing buttons" is really pathetic.
"wa wa I'm so tired of these religion topics in which I post at least 10 times boo hoo".

Boggles my mind that you can both participate nearly every time and yet complain that there's way too many.

But the standards are set. And they really are quite silly, Poxy.

you just don't understand it.
You seem to think scientists are out there to make these crazy sensationalist claims and that there's all hoping to find some alien life ANY SECOND NOW.

At 7/11/08 11:40 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

who conflates a) skeptism towards random mutation/natural selection as the mechanism of change with b) outright rejection of evolution and common descent FIRST... the Discovery Institute or the author of that video?

Creationists have a good 70+ year headstart on that guy, so I think I'll go with them.
But that's assuming they even know what evolution is which I sort of doubt more and more.

So why is it even referred-to as the "List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution"? Is that what the Discovery Institute even calls it?

Creationists constantly use that list as proof that there's a "hot debate" in science about ID and evolution.
Which is completely false.

HOW AND WHY they evolve is where those signees diverge in opinion.

We know exactly how and why they evolve.
"how" is just a lot of complex biology that I don't feel like copy/pasting and the "why" is pretty easy: to survive.

I think it's stupid that people would mock creationists/I.D. proponents with sarcastic jokes like "gravity: it's just a theory" and other similar comments.

It's just to show them how dumb their argument is. They say shit like "the theory of evolution is 150 years old, so HOW CAN IT BE TRUE STILL?" and scientists will go "well Newton's theories are like 300 and they still work, so shut up".

The problem I see with this argument is that "a long amount of time" does NOT necessarily equate to "a large amount of change". I mean hey, the Cambrian Explosion is called an 'explosion' for a reason.

It wasn't over like a decade, it was still millions of years.
Evolution works a LOT faster than you'd imagine, especially given geologic time.
Homo sapiens and of the most modern whales have been here for less than a million years. A million years is nothing.

about how the very concept of "random mutation" is a pretty weak foundation to build upon. All it really means is that they have no clue how many different variables could potentially affect mutation or how those variables interact with one another.

er.. well anyways I don't want to go into details with how this all works, but I can give you a couple of cool videos to watch if you want.
Seriously, the entire thing is easy enough for a 12 year old to understand it :O

The truth of the matter is that scientists know evolution is a fact. They don't question it and it's not dogma, it's just been proven over and over and over and over and over again. Every new technology just reinforces it.
There's 0 doubt left.

The only reason creationists are against it is seriously because they don't understand how it works. It's that ridiculous. Watch the debates, and you quickly realize they have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

At 7/11/08 11:42 AM, Elfer wrote:

Bro, I was responding to your overall point that pox isn't qualified to call you stupid. In those scenarios, he was wrong and admitted it. In similar scenarios, you are wrong and refuse to alter your position. This illustrates an important difference between the two of you.

I just want to clarify that I was never "wrong". I've known since day 1 that there was a religion topic, I complained in it because it was made without consultation.
Memorize is a dumbfuck who thinks I made religious threads by mistake because I had forgotten about the "official" religion topic I never agreed with, then he thinks that Proteas "owned" me because he told me that I should agree with him about the need for an official religion thread.

I won't let a moron like memorize start up some insane false shit about me, as petty and insignificant as it can be on a stupid internet forum.

---

At 7/11/08 12:24 PM, Memorize wrote: I am proud, because i'm not the one making these mistakes over what is and isn't being said.

Apparently you are. I didn't claim that you were saying he didn't admit his mistakes, I'm saying that the notable difference is that he admits his mistakes where you don't.

Do I have to explain my views on ID again?

No. It's the same old "watch implies a watchmaker" argument, stated slightly differently. The difference between a watch and the rest of the universe is that we have conclusive evidence for the existence of watchmakers that is independent of the watches themselves.

The other important failure of this argument is that, as I've said twice now, complexity does not indicate a designer. Saying that a designer is the most logical explanation for a structure that is merely complex is incorrect, especially in cases where we have no independent reason to believe in the existence of a designer.

---

At 7/11/08 01:25 PM, Elfer wrote:

Apparently you are. I didn't claim that you were saying he didn't admit his mistakes, I'm saying that the notable difference is that he admits his mistakes where you don't.

Heh, you're really being soft on Poxy.

He doesn't just simply say "Sorry, I'm wrong".

He goes out of his way to look for something else to make his point while admitting it was merely "reasonable error".

Translation: "I wasn't wrong, I just used the wrong set up".

Funny stuff.

No. It's the same old "watch implies a watchmaker" argument, stated slightly differently. The difference between a watch and the rest of the universe is that we have conclusive evidence for the existence of watchmakers that is independent of the watches themselves.

It's only "similar" to the "watchmaker" argument. The difference being is that we don't have conclusive proof for the existance of other life forms.

And I said nothing about not testing the findings. I was only talking about what the scientific community and world would do. That's it.

If you don't agree with what they'll do, then tell them. Argue with them. Don't argue with me, because your problem isn't with me.

The other important failure of this argument is that, as I've said twice now, complexity does not indicate a designer. Saying that a designer is the most logical explanation for a structure that is merely complex is incorrect, especially in cases where we have no independent reason to believe in the existence of a designer.

And that's my entire point.

We find this structure and there is no life around, our first thought and the first thing we test for then, shouldn't be for a designer. But that is exactly what they will think and do. And the idea of a other intelligent life forms will be the focus. And the event will be used for future arguments, such as this. Where even if we don't find any conclusive proof of intelligent life creating the structure, we will still be seeing the headlines in the media and the writings in our books which will state "It could have..."

That's the entire idea of the question. We're supposed to strictly follow the evidence and have an agnostic outlook (as stated before), but we spend money to find what we have no evidence for at all.

That is hypocricy.

At 7/11/08 01:15 PM, poxpower wrote:

*sigh*
Your question doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe or life or evolution,

Yup

Prior to looking at another planet, scientists KNOW EXACTLY how buildings come about on earth. A cathedral has never been observed to come about naturally in thousands of years of looking everywhere in the universe.

Yup.

Your example is completely ridiculous since you're trying to apply it to something we truly know nothing about, origin-wise.

Exactly. We know nothing about it, but will still base their tests on the assumption that we have concerning our own "watchmakers".

ps your sad attempt at playing off the fact that we're raping you as you just "toying" with us and "pushing buttons" is really pathetic.
"wa wa I'm so tired of these religion topics in which I post at least 10 times boo hoo".

Hey, you're the mod who apparently missed the meeting. Sure, you'll lock countless Bush topics, but in threads where you'll have the privilege of belittling others over something so petty, that is what truely tickles my fancy.

And the fact that you now know of an official religion topic, and still refuse to keep all of this in that topic, is nothing more than proof of your being selfish.

Boggles my mind that you can both participate nearly every time and yet complain that there's way too many.

I disagree with the government giving out grant money to me just because i'm Indian... but that doesn't mean i'm not going to take the money when they offer it.

Have you seen College Expenses these day? Sheesh.

you just don't understand it.
You seem to think scientists are out there to make these crazy sensationalist claims and that there's all hoping to find some alien life ANY SECOND NOW.

I didn't say that's what they expected "any second now". Just that if there is life, we will eventually find it.

So as a result, we shouldn't be funding projects for the sole purpose of hoping to find other intelligent life when we have no evidence of any other intelligent life existing.

ie. Finding a planet in with similar conditions to our's.

I'm merely applying the rules you set to "ID" to other aspects.

At 7/11/08 11:42 AM, Elfer wrote:

Bro, I was responding to your overall point that pox isn't qualified to call you stupid. In those scenarios, he was wrong and admitted it. In similar scenarios, you are wrong and refuse to alter your position. This illustrates an important difference between the two of you.

I just want to clarify that I was never "wrong". I've known since day 1 that there was a religion topic, I complained in it because it was made without consultation.

lol

Memorize is a dumbfuck who thinks I made religious threads by mistake because I had forgotten about the "official" religion topic I never agreed with, then he thinks that Proteas "owned" me because he told me that I should agree with him about the need for an official religion thread.

I'm sorry, what?

I never said you made religious threads.

I said that you have no problem with religious threads (no matter the number) when there's an official topic on about it.

And... I wasn't talking about Proteas.

I won't let a moron like memorize start up some insane false shit about me, as petty and insignificant as it can be on a stupid internet forum.

I wasn't the one who said that you "admitted to your mistakes", heh. I didn't say that, now did I?

---

At 7/11/08 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

why are you talking about aliens now?
...

but we spend money to find what we have no evidence for at all.

oh Lord.
I think we did find fossilized martian bacteria in meteorites before, not to mention we know there is water on mars and it might have / have had similar conditions to our planet, hence it would be quite interesting to find life.

But that's how even the primary goal of space exploration. Not even close.
And we already have evidence that life can happen: it's called "earth".

We keep finding life right here on earth in the most insane places. There's acid lakes where only a certain kind of fish lives. There's the bottom of the ocean where the pressure can flatten a mack truck and we find life there. There's thermal vents that created sulfur-based life.

That's just here on earth. The likelihood of finding life somewhere in this solar system is probably not that far fetched anyways, and it would only be bacterial life, no scientist thinks there's some sort of hidden civilization that's spying on us or some shit.

Exactly. We know nothing about it, but will still base their tests on the assumption that we have concerning our own "watchmakers".

nothing about what?
What the hell are you talking about now?
Life on other planets?
God?
Evolution?
Abiogenesis?
The origin of the universe?

I have no idea what you're trying to apply your crappy watchmaker variant to anymore. You keep switching.

The only thing we know nothing about is God and no scientist is currently looking for him and/or sending space probes to find him.

Hey, you're the mod who apparently missed the meeting.

there was no meeting, this is like the 10th time you've heard this information.
And if there had been a meeting, I would never have agreed to it anyways.

And I didn't even make the bush topic. I never once banned someone for making a bush thread and 100% of the bush topics I deleted were one-line shits like "bush is gay".

You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.
Least you could do is frickin' admit it, but like Elfer said, you're just somehow afraid to admit you're wrong.

And the fact that you now know of an official religion topic, and still refuse to keep all of this in that topic, is nothing more than proof of your being selfish.

So why aren't the 2-3 people who tried to make that thread selfish?
hmmm let's see, 3 people, only one of whom actually posts, decide to prevent EVERYONE ELSE from making topics about a really broad subject, I disagree and now I'm selfish?

Nuts.

Just that if there is life, we will eventually find it.

based on what??
There's no scientist who makes that claim.

So as a result, we shouldn't be funding projects for the sole purpose of hoping to find other intelligent life when we have no evidence of any other intelligent life existing.

there is only one such project that I know of and it's called SETI
It's made to monitor space to listen for signals that might have been sent out by an alien civilization and it's not really that stupid.
There's billions of planets in the solar system, and they've had billions of years to create a civilization capable of emiting a signal.

So it's worth checking, just in case. It's not 100% completely blind testing and guessing and it's not really something that cost a lot of money anyways.

I just want to clarify that I was never "wrong". I've known since day 1 that there was a religion topic, I complained in it because it was made without consultation.

lol

go check, nimrod, my post is right in there.
oops you're wrong AGAIN.

Are you a wrong addict? Need your daily fix of wrong or else you get the shakes?

I said that you have no problem with religious threads (no matter the number) when there's an official topic on about it.

That makes no sense.

And... I wasn't talking about Proteas.

Yes you were, he's the one who "corrected me" by saying buddism is atheist, which is a crock of shit that you'd apply atheist to a philosophy ladden with tall tales about some guy who can do all these amazing things using his meditations powers.
Ghosts are atheist too while we're at it, that's retarded.

Did you forget?

I wasn't the one who said that you "admitted to your mistakes", heh. I didn't say that, now did I?

Nope, but you're the one who started talking about what he thought was a mistake I made and admitted to.
And while I have admitted to being wrong on other things, I never did for that idea of an "official" religion thread, ever.

So drop that, I'll never take back my statement that it was a dumb idea.

---

At 7/11/08 12:41 PM, Memorize wrote: How is it irrelevent, when it's the entire discussion? It's the reason for this discussion.

All I wanted was a simple answer. That was it. Based on what would happen. I'm not complicating anything.

You've repeatedly gotten one. We've even, for the sake of argument taken your speculation as a fact and told you what would still happen.

Your question added nothing to the discussion and you're STILL bitching about it.

At 7/11/08 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/11/08 01:15 PM, poxpower wrote:

*sigh*
Your question doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe or life or evolution,

Yup

Going to shut up about it now? Nobody cares. It's irrelevant to the discussion: the discussion being the origin of the universe, not your comment.

I pose a simple question. And instead of simply saying "Yes, and that's wrong" (which, you've already stated, that it would be wrong for them to do so), you then decide to on long rants on why it's so horrible why I bring it up. Why I pose that question.

It's wrong that every scientist would have the same reaction. You can't possibly make the claim that they're all going to make the same jump in logic simultaneously. Your whole claim was based on absolutes.

Why? Because there is no evidence for life on other planets, other than our own existance, which 'can' be explained by either a "God" reason or a "No God" reason.

That is why they are hypocrites.

And yet, if there is life, we can find conclusive evidence of it. That is the KEY difference. Even if we have already found evidence of God, how would we know? We have no idea what God is.

We know what life is, we know what we're looking for. Make that case for God and we'll set you up with a research grant.

Heh, I simply state what they will do. Not if what they will do is logical or rational.

And then you simply made the assumption that claiming wondering who built a building should mean that we have to assume something created the universe.

There is no hypocrisy in wondering who built something if we have prior knowledge that would lead us to a logical jump to apply to a current situation and then not knowing whether or not something built the universe, which is a construct, the workings of which we can't even begin to comprehend.

You made a claim based on your stupid question and you're, even now, pretending that your question was a non sequitur. You didn't just "simply state it." It was an example you used to try and prove a point.

He used the same drawing for several different animals.

Don't play it off.

Thought you were referring to the fetus drawings. That's where the evolutionary controversy is. How am I supposed to know what you're talking about from an off-hand comment about some unnamed textbook. I shouldn't have assumed, but please be more clear next time.

And even still, his premise is wrong. That the further back you go in the development lifecycle, you'll the evolutional trend. But the simple fact is, even the cells from which we spring forth from are vastly different from one another.

Even back in my freshman year of high school the book presented the material and then said it's not what scientists believe anymore. The book also detailed Lemarckianism and then said that, too, was an outdated premise.

It also begs this question: If we know what these cells and fetus look like, accurately, then why are we still using his drawings?

Could be a historical reference to show what we used to believe, as I mentioned about my experience in high school, sometimes books will do that. Of course, again, I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I have no clue if they're using them to accurately depict things or if they're just showing his drawings to show what prior scientists have thought.

My HighSchool textbook said "May not be accurate". My teacher even went out of her way to say that although these are old and not "accurate", they still provide an important teaching... which as I said, is false.

All depends on how it's presented. Like I said, if it's to show how science has developed, sure, it's important to know what steps science has taken on the road to where we are today.

---

At 7/11/08 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote: And that's my entire point.

We find this structure and there is no life around, our first thought and the first thing we test for then, shouldn't be for a designer.

Well, that depends. If it's just a palace out in the middle of nowhere, it's not only complex, but would, at least in a preliminary sense, suggest artificiality, depending on its structure. If it's completely discontinuous with the surrounding area, it would suggest that there is some specific reason for it to be there.

This doesn't, however, apply to humans. The surface of our planet is pretty much coated with slag that's very similar to humans. There's nothing jarring or discontinuous about our presence.

But that is exactly what they will think and do. And the idea of a other intelligent life forms will be the focus.

It will be the focus, yes, provided that the structure does look artificial. If it were say, polished and made from foreign materials, it would strongly look like something that was made intentionally. If it were instead dug out of a large rock face, it would be less so.

In any case, the working assumption is never the only one that is considered. If it seems to be leading to a dead end, other possibilities will receive more attention than they were before.

And the event will be used for future arguments, such as this. Where even if we don't find any conclusive proof of intelligent life creating the structure, we will still be seeing the headlines in the media and the writings in our books which will state "It could have..."

When the first explanation doesn't pan out, others will be investigated. If, upon closer inspection, one has better support than the other, it will become the predominant theory.

Your argument is boiling down to "The imaginary scientists that I control are behaving in an unscientific manner."

Do you see the problem with this?

---

At 7/11/08 02:13 PM, poxpower wrote:

why are you talking about aliens now?

Aliens... Intelligent Life.

I thought they would be interchangable.

Or, in case you haven't noticed, i'm making a parallel of "no evidence for a God" to "no evidence for other life forms".

See the connection?

No, of course not.

but we spend money to find what we have no evidence for at all.

oh Lord.

OMG

I think we did find fossilized martian bacteria in meteorites before, not to mention we know there is water on mars and it might have / have had similar conditions to our planet, hence it would be quite interesting to find life.

Of course, I posted a link that actually gave scrutiny to the very martian metorite that was given as "proof of a concept".

So you're back to square one. You have no proof of life forms on other planets. Yet you are very fascinated and directly push to find life forms on other planets.

So much for... having an "agnostic" outlook, eh?

But that's how even the primary goal of space exploration. Not even close.
And we already have evidence that life can happen: it's called "earth".

Yes, on earth.

Which has the possibility of a "God" or "No God". And there is no evidence or proof of life on other planets, and the chances of finding a planet with conditions similar to our's is so unlikely.

Which is why I say, why push for it? If there is, we'll eventually find it. No reason to push for the exploration of something we have no evidence for.

We keep finding life right here on earth in the most insane places.

Yeah... on earth.

Oh I could've sworn we were all just figments of our imagination and that no life existed on earth at all.

Newsflash: Venus isn't earth.

That's just here on earth. The likelihood of finding life somewhere in this solar system is probably not that far fetched anyways, and it would only be bacterial life, no scientist thinks there's some sort of hidden civilization that's spying on us or some shit.

"Probly not", proof?

Oh, right...

nothing about what?
What the hell are you talking about now?
Life on other planets?
God?
Evolution?
Abiogenesis?
The origin of the universe?

Double standards.

You all claim that science is an agnostic belief and to "follow the evidence".

So why are following the lack of evidence? Why would they first test for that "designer" if such structures were found on other planets?

You're the ones saying to do so would be illogical. Fine. Go complain to them about it.

I have no idea what you're trying to apply your crappy watchmaker variant to anymore. You keep switching.

Or rather, you're too simple-minded to keep up.

there was no meeting, this is like the 10th time you've heard this information.
And if there had been a meeting, I would never have agreed to it anyways.

So says you.

Even though the other mods agreed "OFFICIAL RELIGION TOPIC"

And I didn't even make the bush topic. I never once banned someone for making a bush thread and 100% of the bush topics I deleted were one-line shits like "bush is gay".

But do you have a problem with them?
Do you have a problem with someone locking that thread?

You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

1) I didn't say you were "at the meeting"
2) I didn't say "meeting" as in a "All Mod gathering"
3) I wasn't talking about Evolution or the Origin of Life.

Also, i'm not the one calling people "confused Deits" then turning right around and calling them "creationists" just because they pose a question, now am I?

Least you could do is frickin' admit it, but like Elfer said, you're just somehow afraid to admit you're wrong.

What?

I'll admit it.

I've been wrong on such topics before.

So why aren't the 2-3 people who tried to make that thread selfish?
hmmm let's see, 3 people, only one of whom actually posts, decide to prevent EVERYONE ELSE from making topics about a really broad subject, I disagree and now I'm selfish?

Nuts.

Why do you allow such numerous threads to rehash old topics, done countless times, and continue to take up space on this forum?

What possible reason could you have for doing so? Other than to vent your rage against religion and the religious at every chance you can get?

To be honest. You remind of the sterotyped Catholic who demands people to convert or they'll go to hell.

You're just the opposite extreme end of that.

based on what??
There's no scientist who makes that claim.

I'm talking about me.

I believe that if there is life, we can eventually find it. There is no need to push it.

there is only one such project that I know of and it's called SETI
It's made to monitor space to listen for signals that might have been sent out by an alien civilization and it's not really that stupid.

Yes it is.

By your standards and logic, it is probly one of the dumbest things scientists could ever do.

We have no proof of other intelligent life.

Me? I don't think it's stupid. Monitoring signals to pick up potential life is a great idea. It's a "just in case" idea.

But to outright look for life on other planets or specifically look for planets with similar conditions for there mere hope of finding life, is stupid.

I'm all for exploring the Universe. But looking for other intelligent life is merely a side-quest. If we stumble upon it, fine.

There's billions of planets in the solar system, and they've had billions of years to create a civilization capable of emiting a signal.

So it's worth checking, just in case. It's not 100% completely blind testing and guessing and it's not really something that cost a lot of money anyways.

Yeah, but how much money isn't the problem.

It's the fact that we're spending money for that sole purpose, wasting our time with those petty little "side-quests".

I just want to clarify that I was never "wrong". I've known since day 1 that there was a religion topic, I complained in it because it was made without consultation.

lol

go check, nimrod, my post is right in there.
oops you're wrong AGAIN.

I was laughing because Elfer said that you admit when you're wrong.

Not that you were wrong, i'm not saying you were.

So once again: lol

Are you a wrong addict? Need your daily fix of wrong or else you get the shakes?

I don't know. Perhaps you should see a doctor, I hear ChickenPoxy is quite serious.

Yes you were, he's the one who "corrected me" by saying buddism is atheist, which is a crock of shit that you'd apply atheist to a philosophy ladden with tall tales about some guy who can do all these amazing things using his meditations powers.

I was talking about the other mod you replied to in this very thread.

And while I have admitted to being wrong on other things, I never did for that idea of an "official" religion thread, ever.

So drop that, I'll never take back my statement that it was a dumb idea.

Apparently the "others" didn't think so.

---

At 7/11/08 02:36 PM, Elfer wrote:

Your argument is boiling down to "The imaginary scientists that I control are behaving in an unscientific manner."

Do you see the problem with this?

But these scientists who you claim to have a problem with, wouldn't be under my control given this discussion. They'd be under your's.

You hold them in high regard, yet disprove of what they would do.

Therefore, they aren't "my" scientists.

---

At 7/11/08 02:40 PM, Memorize wrote: You all claim that science is an agnostic belief and to "follow the evidence".

So why are following the lack of evidence? Why would they first test for that "designer" if such structures were found on other planets?

Why would they test for it? Two reasons:
- It's the simplest explanation, because we know about construction and have seen people here do it
- In this scenario, it is actually possible to test for designers

Let me show you.

Eight possible tests for the existence of palace designers:
1) Preserved remains of beings which would be potential designers
2) Preserved markings (i.e. footprints, etc) of those beings
3) Ruins of living quarters for workers in nearby area
4) Tool marks on the building suggesting artifice
5) Artifacts such as tools or machinery
6) Discontinuity between materials in building and materials in surrounding area, suggesting import
7) Discontinuity between interior surfacing and exterior surfacing of building materials (i.e. suggestion of shaping by non-erosion causes)
8) Unique patterning or symbols such as text that correspond to known rules of natural languages

Now, there's eight ways to find evidence for designers of a palace (some more conclusive than others).

Could you give me say, one way that we could test for evidence of an intelligent designer of life?

You're the ones saying to do so would be illogical.

No, we're saying it's illogical to imply a designer in cases where:
- The observed object does not bear signs of artificiality
- We have a naturalistic explanation for the observed object

---

At 7/11/08 02:43 PM, Memorize wrote: You hold them in high regard, yet disprove of what they would do.

Therefore, they aren't "my" scientists.

We hold who in regard? We're talking about the scientific community, not some random scientists here and there. If you really expect everyone to say that they're talking about the "established scientific community with the rare exception of those who do not adhere to scientific principles" then you're going to be severely disappointed. It doesn't make the claim less valid, it makes you nitpicky.

I like America, that statement does not mean that I personally endorse every American. It would be stupid for someone to assume so.

---

At 7/11/08 02:43 PM, Memorize wrote: But these scientists who you claim to have a problem with, wouldn't be under my control given this discussion. They'd be under your's.

You hold them in high regard, yet disprove of what they would do.

Therefore, they aren't "my" scientists.

So they're under my control, but do exactly what you say to do, and refuse to do what I tell them to (which is, go after the most obvious explanation, but stay open to other possibilities)?

---

At 7/11/08 02:54 PM, Elfer wrote:

Why would they test for it? Two reasons:
- It's the simplest explanation, because we know about construction and have seen people here do it
- In this scenario, it is actually possible to test for designers

There.

I win.

Scientists look at earth and the conclusion is: "Because it is possible without a 'designer' and we can not prove the existance of a 'designer', we can only conclude that thus far, we can't say there is one"

Scientists look at my question and the conclusion is: "Because we know from expierence that someone 'designed' the watch/structure, we can conclude that the most likely scenario is that there was one, though it is not definite"

We look at earth, and you say "no" because there is no conclusive proof. You look at the watch/structure and say "yes", though it is possible the answer could be "no".

Even though they are actually quite similar.

---

At 7/11/08 02:56 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

I like America, that statement does not mean that I personally endorse every American. It would be stupid for someone to assume so.

"You've repeatedly gotten one. We've even, for the sake of argument taken your speculation as a fact and told you what would still happen."

That already is an admission of what many scientists will do (not all).

Are you saying they won't test for intelligent life?
Are you saying that it wouldn't be priority on their minds?

Haha, I mean, especially when they're still looking for earth's twin?

---

At 7/11/08 03:05 PM, Memorize wrote: "You've repeatedly gotten one. We've even, for the sake of argument taken your speculation as a fact and told you what would still happen."

That already is an admission of what many scientists will do (not all).

Are you saying they won't test for intelligent life?
Are you saying that it wouldn't be priority on their minds?

Haha, I mean, especially when they're still looking for earth's twin?

Sure, they'd test for any way that those buildings got there. However, it still wouldn't make them hypocrites for not immediately assuming that the universe was made by something. Having a hypothesis you can test and ignoring a hypothesis you can't does not make a person a hypocrite.

---

At 7/11/08 03:01 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/11/08 02:54 PM, Elfer wrote:

Why would they test for it? Two reasons:
- It's the simplest explanation, because we know about construction and have seen people here do it
- In this scenario, it is actually possible to test for designers

There.

I win.

I'm not sure hw, but if you'd care to explain, that would be great.

Scientists look at earth and the conclusion is: "Because it is possible without a 'designer' and we can not prove the existance of a 'designer', we can only conclude that thus far, we can't say there is one"

Seems like a logical conclusion. We have no evidence for a designer, and no particular reason to believe that one exists, given that we have a mechanism by which it could occur without the aid of a designer. The conclusion is that while a designer is possible, it is not necessary to explain the observations.

Scientists look at my question and the conclusion is: "Because we know from expierence that someone 'designed' the watch/structure, we can conclude that the most likely scenario is that there was one, though it is not definite"

Correct. We have seen buildings made here on Earth by builders. When you give me an example of a universe that you yourself have witnessed created by a creator, I may consider giving your argument some credibility.

However, note that in this scenario, if there is no evidence found for a designer, the conclusion would be, "We can not prove the existance of a 'designer', we can only conclude that thus far, we can't say there is one," same as the first situation.

We look at earth, and you say "no" because there is no conclusive proof. You look at the watch/structure and say "yes", though it is possible the answer could be "no".

Even though they are actually quite similar.

Fourth time: Complexity and artificiality are different things.

---

At 7/11/08 02:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

Or, in case you haven't noticed, i'm making a parallel of "no evidence for a God" to "no evidence for other life forms".
See the connection?

Those are nothing alike.
We know life can exist.

There is on the other hand no evidence of any Gods ever existing. In fact there's no scientific definition of "god".

Double standards.

You're comparing apples and flying invisible unicorns from space.

Even though the other mods agreed "OFFICIAL RELIGION TOPIC"

The "other mods" were Proteas, Aview and Sevenseize, who apparently agreed to this in the politics's regulars lounge or maybe on aim or something. At any rate, only Proteas ever slightly participates in said topics.
It was NOT their call to make just like it wouldn't be fair if I decided we need an "official communism thread".

But do you have a problem with them?
Do you have a problem with someone locking that thread?

What thread?

Also, i'm not the one calling people "confused Deits" then turning right around and calling them "creationists" just because they pose a question, now am I?

There's no conflict between being a creationist and a deist, really. All you have to believe is that God created the universe with evolution in mind the way Kent Hovind says it. Of course he's a christian and not a deist, but a deistic God could fill that role of limiting evolution to like macroevolution somehow ( crazy ) and creating the first life on planets ( whatever ) without ever interferring again.

Oh hell you don't know what a deist, do you?

Why do you allow such numerous threads to rehash old topics, done countless times, and continue to take up space on this forum?

Because there's nothing else to fucking talk about and these threads usually offer a decent debate in which people participate?

What's the point of saying "ok we've talked about this enough"?
?

It's a forum, if you're tired of talking about something, then abstain from posting. I know EXACTLY how you guys in here operate and even if there were 30 different topics around, you people wouldn't post in it.
You guys are mostly interested in the same core subjects. Any number of really interesting threads will sink to the bottom in here, and it has nothing to do with religious threads "knocking them down" or some shit.

You guys just don't give a crap about most other things, so why would I choose to punish everyone who likes to participate in these and force them to go post in threads they don't give a shit about?

That's fascist.

I believe that if there is life, we can eventually find it. There is no need to push it.

How?
????

By your standards and logic, it is probly one of the dumbest things scientists could ever do.

No. We're a civilization and we thought about using technology to send a coded message in space, so odds are another civilization somewhere in the last 4 billion years has had the same idea.
Why wouldn't they?

Finding such a thing would be impossibly amazing and there's actual concrete evidence that it's possible UNLIKE GOD.

I'm all for exploring the Universe. But looking for other intelligent life is merely a side-quest. If we stumble upon it, fine.

What the fuck do you think they're doing?
Like 0% of the space program is solely dedicated to finding life in the solar system/universe. I don't even think SETI is part of the space program and if it is, it's probably the only thing that's JUST looking for life, and even then you don't know what they might find out by doing what they're doing.

Tons of shit in science happens completely by accident.

It's the fact that we're spending money for that sole purpose, wasting our time with those petty little "side-quests".

What are you some kind of communist?
Americans waste trillions of dollars on stupid shit like MAXIM magazine and edible panties and you're saying "wow let's not look in space for something that would be the most amazing scientific discovery ever because we're not really 100% sure it might work in the next 10 years".

I was talking about the other mod you replied to in this very thread.

Steve never "owned me" or "corrected me about buddhism" that I know of.
And I think I should know better than you, but hey all his posts are right there, so have fun.