| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Vince" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 09:22:14 AM |
| Object: |
Intelligent design |
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 12:05:34 PM |
|
|
"Vince" <vcuccia122@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4tudnSZDyO6HTm3fRVn-uw@comcast.com...
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance.
(that would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
god? bored? nah....he was clearly working on the fiddly bits of the fjords
;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 09:40:18 AM |
|
|
"Vince" <vcuccia122@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4tudnSZDyO6HTm3fRVn-uw@comcast.com...
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance.
(that would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Yeah, that's plausible... except for the God thingy.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 05:56:15 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:22:14 -0400, "Vince"
<vcuccia122@comcast.net> let us all know that:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Because it's not perfectly plausible. In fact, it rests on the
unproven, unscientific, non-falsifiable proposition that there is a
god.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:25:26 AM |
|
|
On 2005-08-03 07:22:14 -0700, "Vince" <vcuccia122@comcast.net> said:
This is all perfectly plausible
It is an unsubstantiated guess that won't find supporters even among
most creationists.
If we brought in every wild, unsubstantiated guess about how things
became as they are, there would be no time to teach *science* in the
*science* class. You know, that thing that involves observation and
experimentation?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 01:39:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:22:14 -0400, "Vince" <vcuccia122@comcast.net> wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Ummmm....because there's no evidence to support it?
Vince
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 11:03:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:22:14 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Vince"
<vcuccia122@comcast.net> in <4tudnSZDyO6HTm3fRVn-uw@comcast.com>
wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This has nothing to do with ID as it is stated. It deals with the
hidden goal of ID, which is to slip God into the classroom. ID, as it
is stated, says nothing at all about humans being special. The claim
is that somehow evolution could not have produced something about
living organism and that therefore some unknown entity (or entities,
but they ignore that) did something (or things) at some unknown time
(or times) leaving no evidence behind.
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Sure. Let's also teach that it could have happened 60,000 years ago.
And let's teach that it could have happened 70,000 years ago. And lets
teach that it was Coyote who did it. And Raven. And Krishna. After
all, since there is no evidence pointing to this and we can come up
with tens of thousands of "plausible" theories with no particular
evidentiary support.
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:54:31 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Vince
(vcuccia122@comcast.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory: God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago,
apparently got bored somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000
BC or so to introduce man and woman in some form closely resembling
our current appearance. (that would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
Because it is wrong. It is not perfectly plausible, it is not even
slightly plausible, to teach children wrong science, then watch them grow
up, go to college, and flunk out. By denying children a decent
education, you deny them equal opportunity in the world.
What if you and your wife spoke pig-latin all the time during your
child's first five years, then sent him off to Kindergarten?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:05:58 AM |
|
|
TV's Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Because there is no evidence.
It's no less plausible that a giant panda pooped the universe out of Its
Holy Arse. So why don't we teach that?
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:16:18 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Because there is no evidence.
It's no less plausible that a giant panda pooped the universe out of Its
Holy Arse. So why don't we teach that?
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
aa #2133
ap #19
There are people called raelists that believe that aliens created life
on earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelism
And there's panspermia, the belief that life came from outer space.
http://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm
I guess we should be teaching these and any other half baked idea in
biology as well. Not. Let's stick to science.
nafc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:25:51 AM |
|
|
Everyone knows who the Raelians are. They were in the news a while back
claiming to have cloned a human, while refusing to present said clone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:32:58 AM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Everyone knows who the Raelians are. They were in the news a while back
claiming to have cloned a human, while refusing to present said clone.
I forgot about that. Sounds just like what Xians do, make claims and
provide no real evidence.
nafc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 09:44:12 AM |
|
|
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
Learn the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. ID is
not even a thoery, it's a postulate.
nafc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vince" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 09:49:12 AM |
|
|
<nafc@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1123080252.389999.56140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got
bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
Learn the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. ID is
not even a thoery, it's a postulate.
nafc
Learn the difference between a serious post and sarcasm.
Vince
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 01:43:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:49:12 -0400, "Vince" <vcuccia122@comcast.net> wrote:
<nafc@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1123080252.389999.56140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got
bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
Learn the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. ID is
not even a thoery, it's a postulate.
nafc
Learn the difference between a serious post and sarcasm.
You apparently haven't seen some of the idiots who post here expecting to be
taken seriously. <G>
Vince
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 11:04:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:49:12 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Vince"
<vcuccia122@comcast.net> in <zsadnR7YY7HhRG3fRVn-sg@comcast.com>
wrote:
<nafc@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1123080252.389999.56140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got
bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
Learn the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. ID is
not even a thoery, it's a postulate.
nafc
Learn the difference between a serious post and sarcasm.
Sorry, but there is no theory so silly that someone has not seriously
proposed it on the Usenet. There is nothing particularly sarcastic
seeming about your post, it is more reasonable than most
creationist/ID proposals.
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 10:03:08 AM |
|
|
Vince wrote:
<nafc@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1123080252.389999.56140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this
theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got
bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce
man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Vince
Learn the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. ID is
not even a thoery, it's a postulate.
nafc
Learn the difference between a serious post and sarcasm.
Vince
I'm not surprised you missed the point. Here's the definition of
scientific theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
nafc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 12:43:26 PM |
|
|
Vince wrote:
Learn the difference between a serious post and sarcasm.
You got me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 11:26:17 AM |
|
|
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible,
It is at best *vaguely* plausible, if we make a whole
slew of assumptions. Assume that god exists, assume
that he created the Earth along with all the faked
fossil evidence to suggest that evolution has happened
and then made Humans later, and you could call your
scenario plausible. But those assumptions are rather
large, and are unsupported by any evidence - indeed
the whole point of them is to explain away the evidence
that contradicts them.
so why not teach it in biology?
Because in biology we don't teach things just because
they are plausible, we teach things that the evidence
supports.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design |
03 Aug 2005 12:42:44 PM |
|
|
Vince wrote:
If we try to reconcile ID with evolution, we might come up with this theory:
God created the earth about 5 or 6 billion years ago, apparently got bored
somewhere along the way, and decided about 50,000 BC or so to introduce man
and woman in some form closely resembling our current appearance. (that
would be Adam and Eve)
This is all perfectly plausible, so why not teach it in biology?
Because it is not science. Science deals with explaining what is
observed. Your hypothetical god thingy has not been observed in any
testable way. I could make up an endless stream of other equally
"plausible" conjectures about the origin of Earth and man that are
also equally silly and based on nothing but imagined beings and their
magical efforts. People have been doing this since the dawn of man.
Why is your hypothetical god and its imagined magical doings more
worthy of being included in science classes than all the other
mythological explanations for the origins of Earth and man that other
people have imagined before you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
