Why does every state have to try their own creationism law?

[Tero]

None of this shit is needed in high school. Leave the imagination for English class. Go back to memorizing the Krebs cycle for Honors biology. We'll ask for imagination in graduate school.

Old Krebs:
Its cen tral im por tance to many bio­chem i cal path ways sug gests that it was one of the ear li est es tab­lished com po nents of cel lu lar metabolism and may have orig i­nat ed abio geni cal ly.

Sorry for the gaps. Maybe God is hiding there.

[Robert_S]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

I have too much trouble lying with a straight face for that to work for me. :sight;

You don't value a creative imagination?

Don't call it science though. Some larval hypothesis, however imaginative, is not in the same league as the theory of evolution. They are not in competition.

When ID has predictive and explanatory power somewhere near evolutionary theory, then there will be a real controversy to teach.

[Seth]

The ability to control evolution implies an ability to create life, at least in theory.

No, it doesn't. Farmers bred livestock for millennia with no ability to create life outside of the standard vaginal intercourse method with the missus.

*Sigh* Okay, I should have said "control evolution through direct manipulation of genes in the lab." I thought that was implicit.

You are mistaking the origin of life on earth (OLE)for abiogenesis, which is the occurrence of life for the first time.

The panspermia theory of OLE holds that life may not have evolved on earth at all, but may have been seeded here from outer space. Current theory suggests that the complex chemistry of comets might have been the birthplace of life, but once again ID comes bursting in the door as a perfectly plausible explanation for OLE.

No, I'm not mistaking those two things, because all panspermia does is push the question off the planet. In so doing, it puts the question beyond falsification, rendering it moot

.

Nonsense. It's not beyond falsification, it's just beyond our capacity to falsify at the moment. This sort of rationalization defies the actual scientific method. According to your metric, science should not speculate about anything it does not already have the ability to falsify because it's "moot." This places all current cosmological theories in the same category as panspermia.

This of course is ridiculous, and I suspect you're just using the "we can't falsify it so it's moot" argument to avoid the inevitable implications of admitting that I'm right and that there are intelligent design theories that are not theistic or religious in nature. This sort of deliberate blindness to the legitimate scientific question of whether there might be an advanced intelligence out there that's responsible for the existence and nature of life on earth is intellectually weak and ideologically driven.

But what if that intelligence is not a biologically evolved organism? What if it's a spontaneously occurring intelligence that came into being as a function of quantum functions, dimensions unknown to us, and the Big Bang? What if the complexity of an enormous amount of matter infinitely compressed somehow injected into this empty universe is so nearly infinite that the entire structure of the universe, from its most basic components on up, are all part of an incredibly enormous non-corporeal intelligence that permeates time and space on a level we cannot begin to understand.

As the universe expanded, in the first few microseconds, the complex interactions of forces we have no inkling of created a self-aware intelligence that proclaimed "I Am." Not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient, but enormously advanced from us and able to think, but not do more than weakly interact with the universe, perhaps by directly interacting with the human brain to produce visions or subtly influence the orbit of an asteroid 165 million years ago [sic] so it would impact near the Yucatan, or use subtle and not understood forces to manipulate chemicals and protein chains in the primordial soup.

And perhaps as the universe expanded, the distance between memory nodes is becoming too great for interaction and this intelligence is no longer able to do what it once did and is suffering from the universal equivalent of Alzheimer's.

None of this requires anything other than an open and secular scientific mindset, and none of it requires theism or supernatural powers, all of it is hypothetically possible within the realm of physics.

So no, I do not confuse abiogenesis and evolution, I merely posit alternative scientific hypotheses and theories that do not evidently lie within your comprehension, which is a pity.

I comprehend what you're saying, and acknowledge that it's possible, but quite frankly, it seems so unlikely I don't waste my time on it. Let me know if you find any evidence for your hypothesis.

And this is the other typical Atheist evasion of the issue. I see it every single time I propose this theory, without fail. Knowing you've been intellectually bested, you just proclaim it's an unlikely hypothesis and a waste of your time to consider and then you abandon the debate by insisting on something you know cannot be provided. Using your metric, every current cosmological theory, from bubble to brane, is likewise a waste of your time to consider merely because it's "moot" because it's not yet falsifiable.

But this is a speculative and hypothetical discussion about the nature of our universe, not a scientific investigation. So, your willingness to simply pull the bag down over your head, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NYAHH NYAHH NYAHH I can't HEAR you" so you don't have to face even the possibility that you might be wrong is, once again, intellectually weak and evasive.

I'd be interested to know if you have any rational thoughts on why my hypothesis could not possibly be true or how it's "theistic" in nature and therefore worthy of being so blithely and arrogantly dismissed.

I suspect it's actually acute discomfort on your part because you can't find a way to dismiss or disparage the hypothesis by calling it "religion."

Well, that's as intended. I'm demonstrating your intellectual bias and failings and your ideological blindness when it comes to something you've always dismissed as "religion" in the past.

[Seth]

Seeth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.

Look, the one-liner poo-flinger splats his filth against the plexi again. Somebody get a hose.

[Seth]

Where does he come up with this shit?

From an intellect far superior to yours. We know where you come up with your shit...it comes out of your ass and you throw it at the glass.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Seth]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

I have too much trouble lying with a straight face for that to work for me. :sight;

You don't value a creative imagination?

Don't call it science though. Some larval hypothesis, however imaginative, is not in the same league as the theory of evolution. They are not in competition.

When ID has predictive and explanatory power somewhere near evolutionary theory, then there will be a real controversy to teach.

Well, the scientists at Monsanto demonstrated that intelligent design has both predictive and explanatory power pretty conclusively, don't you think?

Questions remain, but intelligent design is a fact of science, not a theory or hypothesis, but a true scientific fact.

If you don't think so, please explain Roundup-ready corn and sugar beets, or glowing cats, or any of the other organisms created by human genetic manipulation and explain for us how intelligent design doesn't predict or explain anything.

[Robert_S]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

I have too much trouble lying with a straight face for that to work for me. :sight;

You don't value a creative imagination?

Don't call it science though. Some larval hypothesis, however imaginative, is not in the same league as the theory of evolution. They are not in competition.

When ID has predictive and explanatory power somewhere near evolutionary theory, then there will be a real controversy to teach.

Well, the scientists at Monsanto demonstrated that intelligent design has both predictive and explanatory power pretty conclusively, don't you think?

Questions remain, but intelligent design is a fact of science, not a theory or hypothesis, but a true scientific fact.

If you don't think so, please explain Roundup-ready corn and sugar beets, or glowing cats, or any of the other organisms created by human genetic manipulation and explain for us how intelligent design doesn't predict or explain anything.

OK then, where is the patent? Where is the brand trademark?

[Seth]

OK then, where is the patent? Where is the brand trademark?

What are you referring to? Are you seriously claiming that Roundup-ready corn doesn't exist?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Notice that Seth is claiming things produced by evolutionary biology's rules for his distorted and farcical version of Intelligent Design, using the lower case version in a disingenuous attempt to have some case, any case to back his claims up. This is why he is so ludicrous.

[Robert_S]

OK then, where is the patent? Where is the brand trademark?

What are you referring to? Are you seriously claiming that Roundup-ready corn doesn't exist?

I mean the patents and trademarks in our DNA. Surely if some entity took the time to design us, they'd want to retain the rights.

[Tero]

God messed up. the TM is there but in an extinct language.

[Robert_S]

How about not-so-intelligent design?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.

I gather that impression myself, from his disingenuous tactics. That doesn't remove the fact that to put up something like that imagination above is a cool thing.

To analogize: I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but much that is attributed to him seems pretty smart, to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nonsense. It's not beyond falsification, it's just beyond our capacity to falsify at the moment. This sort of rationalization defies the actual scientific method. According to your metric, science should not speculate about anything it does not already have the ability to falsify because it's "moot." This places all current cosmological theories in the same category as panspermia.

If you think finding the comet you imagine life started on is a practical affair, you're fooling yourself.

I have no problem with speculation, but I don't lend credence to that which isn't evidenced. The highly impractical matter of you finding the cradle of life on a random comet elsewhere in the cosmos renders this practically useless, because you cannot know.

This of course is ridiculous, and I suspect you're just using the "we can't falsify it so it's moot" argument to avoid the inevitable implications of admitting that I'm right and that there are intelligent design theories that are not theistic or religious in nature.

Not at all. Indeed, I acknowledged that your hypothesis, for such is what it is, is possible. Of course, it doesn't rise to the strength of being a theory, insofar as theories make predictions while hypotheses don't.

This sort of deliberate blindness to the legitimate scientific question of whether there might be an advanced intelligence out there that's responsible for the existence and nature of life on earth is intellectually weak and ideologically driven.

... and this sort of overbaked rhetoric is why no one here takes you seriously. Firstly, I am not blind to the possibility; I simply don't agree with you about the probability, which is a different thing altogether. Secondly, my assessment of the odds of such a matter are beyond yourken to judge, given that you don't know, nor have you asked what are, the factors I have taken into account in my assessing the useful value of your hypothesis. Thirdly, your continued braying about every disagreement with you being "ideologically driven" says much more about you than it does any of your interlocutors.

I'm rying to give you a chance to be real, as you can see with my exchange with Godzillah. But if you going to continue this shit, I'm simply going to write you off as useless, because communication is a two-way street.