Fixing the Two Party System

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:13 pm

I question what Tzor's opinions about ID have to do with the two party system.

Also, I would not have any problems with the tea party splitting from the Republican party at all if socialists were allowed to split from the democrat party. I'm okay with two centrist, one leftist, and one rightist party in the country. I consider having two centrist parties to be bad, and would be upset if the right wing people got a party and the left wing people did not.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:20 pm

Maj, scientist is a moderate position.

The entire universe exists, and everything in it, without the existence of any god causing any of it is a moderate position.

Anything at all that involves positing a being with no evidence is extreme.

EDIT: By which I mean, "As the thing to be taught in science education classes." Anything with god in it is extreme. I'm sure in the general population, that is not the case.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:30 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:That's an odd position to take since the Intelligent Design movement was founded BY Creationists, is funded by Creationists and exists specifically to promote a Creationist agenda.

That's not what I have seen from the movement, especially having looked at thier webpages.

Intelligent Design: From the main center for Intelligent Design. Here they cearly state that ID is not Creationism. "The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the 'apparent design' in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."

Now having said that, I do not agree with many of their arguments, but then again I do not agree with the pure Darwinists who insist that all of life was created through completely random chance alone. Darwinism definitely failes at times neat T=0 because DNA just can't pop magically into existance even as a random chance. Personally, I think there is an "itelligence" at work, something that adapts to changes in the environment around it, and that is the complex code structure of DNA/RNA.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:36 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I question what Tzor's opinions about ID have to do with the two party system.

Count, this thread has been off topic ever since global warming was mentioned, back on page 3. The thread was hijacked and is now sitting on a runway in Havana where we have been smoking cigars, drinking rum and having ropa veja's all afternoon. Where have you been?

(For those who don't know ropa veja is like pulled pork only it's pulled beef. You really must try it with a mojoito made the right way.)

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:00 pm

Oh boy, look Tzor I know you like to fall hook line and sinker for every line a right wing propaganda think tank throws your way but seriously, the agenda of the ID movement is NOT something you should get information on from the horses mouth as it were.

Try asking your own courts of law. Or have a look at the actions and history of ID.

Pretty much the coming out of ID was in the form of the book "Of Pandas and People". It was a creationist textbook but authors knew that being a creationist text book would keep it out of schools... so... Dean H. Kenyon after basically inventing the term Intelligent Design did the following...

...In a new draft of Pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design,[23] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency"
...
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

Intelligent Design made its first appearance in a so called science text as a LITERAL word search and substitute for Creationism. It is a rebranding in the most direct and simple of possible manners. Creationists thought they could change the name of creationism to ID and get their creationist shit into science classrooms.

That is it, that is the origin, definition, and agenda of the ID movement right there.

edit: My favorite bit actually...

"cdesign proponentsists" has been described as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:57 pm

Yeah, ID == Creationism. Like, in court and stuff. That's a resolved issue.

The part I don't get is why Tzor thinks that arguing that Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant because it's natural is an argument that he could possibly win. Seriously, let's look at the first three sentences of the Wikipedia Page on Pollution.

Wikipedia wrote:Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

Seriously. I'm not making that up. That's what "pollution" is. That's what it always has been. There has never been a definition of pollution that didn't include dumping Carbon Dioxide into the air. The question was only ever whether that pollution represented a serious problem. And it has now been well established empirically that it is.

But arguing that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant is not an argument you could win. That doesn't make any sense. It's wrong on a pure dictionary basis. The word doesn't mean something such that the argument could possibly be true. Tzor's argument is so bad that it fails before we even get to the climate science or the physical chemistry portion. Before we've even gone to real world observation, Tzor is wrong based on the definitions of the terms he is attempting to employ.

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:17 am

Courts? Is science something determined by courts?

You know, there are times I really feel sorry for you nowhere men.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:32 am

tzor wrote:Courts? Is science something determined by courts?

Bad lying Tzor. Bad boy. No treat for you.

Courts get to decide what gets taught in schools with government funding and whether scientists or religious fanatics get to determine what should be taught as science.

Courts said "Creationism cannot be inflicted on science classes".

Creationists word substituted Intelligent Design for Creationism and tried it again.

Scientists went to court and said "this is fucking creationism, you said that we could keep that interfering counterproductive shit out of our class rooms".

The courts said "fuck yeah, that stuff IS just rebranded creationism, so its out too!".

And so science teachers lived happily ever after for the next five minutes until creationists/cIntelligent Design Proponentsists/Intelligent Design Proponents tried to pull the exact same shit they always try to pull yet again.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:08 am

tzor wrote:Courts? Is science something determined by courts?

You know, there are times I really feel sorry for you nowhere men.

Tzor, this is why you have no credibility.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 am

tzor wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I question what Tzor's opinions about ID have to do with the two party system.
Count, this thread has been off topic ever since global warming was mentioned, back on page 3. The thread was hijacked and is now sitting on a runway in Havana where we have been smoking cigars, drinking rum and having ropa veja's all afternoon. Where have you been?

(For those who don't know ropa veja is like pulled pork only it's pulled beef. You really must try it with a mojoito made the right way.)

I've always heard that by modern standards, Cuban cigars were harsh due to being much heavier on the ammonias (at least, that is what I have been told, having never smoked one). Ropa veja sounds tasty, but I'm a major fiend for carnitas and some salsa verde. Throw some black beans on the side and that's some good eatin's.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:13 pm

OK, Let's go through this one more time.

PhoneLobster wrote:Creationists word substituted Intelligent Design for Creationism and tried it again.

Creationists tried to lie and didn't get away with it. I've already showed you the major center for ID and they are not only not creationists, they hate them with a passion. ID is, they insist a counter to militant athiestic Dwarinism, that cult (because that ain't science either) that insists that Darwin's totally random selection system is proof for the non existance of God. They aren't even claiming opposition to evolution.

In fact this is a level that shouldn't be taught at the various elementary and high school levels.

Claiming that you are something doesn't make you that something. (After all, Obama always claims how fiscally responsible he is.) Using something to falsely obtain something else (like using freedom of speech to shut down a state government and force the overthrow of a governor) is also wrong.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:26 pm

Tzor wrote:Creationists tried to lie and didn't get away with it. I've already showed you the major center for ID and they are not only not creationists, they hate them with a passion.

Wait... you just admitted that Creationists lie, and that they lie about ID specifically. And then your response is to take them at their word about how they really mean it this time? Can I buy pot from you?

ID is not a scientific theory. The proponents produce no research and have no falsifiable hypotheses. And they never will produce anything along those lines because the only reason they exist is to run cover for Creationism and to try to get scientific biology taken out of curriculums or watered down with weasel words. That's literally all they do.

I am a Biologist, I have been following them from the beginning. And by "the beginning" I mean before they even came up with the word "Intelligent Design" and were simply making exactly the same arguments with more explicitly faith-based terminology.

-Username17

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:13 pm

The US would be much better off if they'd give religion the boot. It literally is dumbing the population down.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:31 pm

Fuchs wrote:The US would be much better off if they'd give religion the boot. It literally is dumbing the population down.

Let's see ... France tried to do that once ... wound up with Napoleon
Russia tried to do that once ... wound up with ...

As far as I can see when you try to "give religion the boot" the only thing you do is wind up worshiping the current leader du jour. Of course I know you probably have a hardon for Obama anyway (or at least a tingle up your leg).

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:41 pm

Frank, you have made a serious accusation, McCarthy style. So I'm going to throw the burden of proof on you. PROVE, hell give me a reasonable piece of evidence, that William A. Dembski, born and raised a Roman Catholic, is a creationist. Young earth creationists, apparently hate him.

I'm only pushing this because dismissialism is the keystone to all pathetic liberal arguments these days. Sometimes I think your just the premature reincarnation of Al Gore.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:45 pm

Your reason and history is flawed.

Giving religion the boot is a standard of modern western secular nations. And has worked out very well indeed.

Meanwhile cult of personality leadership of dangerous mad men has actually COUNTLESS examples world wide and throughout history in RELIGIOUS nations. And indeed there is you know, the whole DIVINE MANDATE thing...

You basically have to be a drooling idiot with utterly no concept of history to reach Tzor's conclusion there.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:46 am

William Dembsky wrote:In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

Link. The quote is on pages 8-9.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:07 am

tzor wrote:Creationists tried to lie and didn't get away with it.

Actually, they did. I'm sorry, but the groups that stand in opposition to the creationists while simultaneously believing that the world was intelligently designed are not influential enough to combat the ID = Creationism meme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on your side. I don't believe that there is anything inherent in the notion of intelligent design that requires denial of the fossil record, but in the eyes of the public, we lose.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:44 am

Well, here's why ID isn't considered science:

If we assume most of we know about geology/earth history/biology is actually true (which is a fair bet by now. We know enough to be able to predict where, say, the oil will be out in the ocean, f'rinstance), then that means God covered his tracks extremely well and, say, set it up to self-regulate via rules and principles that can be studies and understood until a complete picture can be formed. And science cannot test for that. So Science cannot venture an opinion one way or another if God exists or not, or what he may or may not have done. Because it isn't testable, provable (which the big man seems to be very keen on not leaving definite proof), and so on...then it isn't science.

But what IS known is the earth is a lot older than six thousand years, that there wasn't a global flood (by reason of their being not enough water), and evolution accounts for the known facts.

And if those things are not actually true and if Creationism is how it happened, then a lot of science and geology is just an elaborate hoax down to give the impress that this is how things happened. And science can't test for that, either, so may as well continue to operate on the observable, testable, provable things it can find out.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:35 am

Maj wrote:
tzor wrote:Creationists tried to lie and didn't get away with it.
Actually, they did. I'm sorry, but the groups that stand in opposition to the creationists while simultaneously believing that the world was intelligently designed are not influential enough to combat the ID = Creationism meme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on your side. I don't believe that there is anything inherent in the notion of intelligent design that requires denial of the fossil record, but in the eyes of the public, we lose.

The biggest problem with the intelligent designer hypotheses is that it doesn't make any sense or fit with any of the data. It's even fundamentally logically flawed, since it doesn't answer how the first designer came into being. For that you have to go back to natural processes, at which point your whole designer hypothesis answers nothing.

Natural processes can assemble DNA, they can increase complexity, and they can create matter from non-matter. These are all things that naturally occur. And we see the fingerprints of their having occurred in a completely undirected fashion all around us and even, yes, within ourselves.

So to claim that there is some designer intermediary and get taken seriously at all, you'd need to provide some sort of evidence for that. There is none. Also, you'd need to come up with some sort of reason to think we'd be designed by an undesigned designer. That's the kind of thing that will happen in the future, when we make a race of sapient robots. But absolutely none of the fingerprints we would leave on such a special creation exist in our own bodies or history.

-Username17

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:35 am

Maj wrote:
tzor wrote:Creationists tried to lie and didn't get away with it.
Actually, they did. I'm sorry, but the groups that stand in opposition to the creationists while simultaneously believing that the world was intelligently designed are not influential enough to combat the ID = Creationism meme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on your side. I don't believe that there is anything inherent in the notion of intelligent design that requires denial of the fossil record, but in the eyes of the public, we lose.

I'd wager that most people are actually ID believers anyway, even if they don't realize it yet.

The extremists on both side are loud and obnoxious, but really, they're puny minorities whining because the world doesn't really give a shit about what they say.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:45 am

If most people believe in ID, then that means we need to overhaul the education system. Stupidity on that scale is not tolerable.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:57 am

Fuchs wrote:If most people believe in ID, then that means we need to overhaul the education system. Stupidity on that scale is not tolerable.

That's not the fault of the educational system. The vast majority of people in the world do, in fact, believe in a Higher Power. That's just a fact of life.

So again, this is just inconsequential whining that the world doesn't give a shit about. People in general want to believe in a higher power.

Really, wanting the schools to be completely atheist is just a small, noisy bunch of whining atheists going "Boohoo" that the world doesn't really give a shit about their beliefs, so they want the schools/government to mandate atheism instead.

Hint: It won't help. Communists tried to stamp out religion. It did not work. People simply want to believe in a Higher Power. Live with it.

And attempting to pretend there is no difference between religious nut and moderate believer just shows just how equally intolerant both sides of the issue can be.

Fortunately, most atheists aren't assholes and understand that belief in a Higher Power is a personal choice.

I happen to like ID. I don't give a shit that it's contradictory. Because people who are cool with both science and religion are what I call "pretty normal", and they're generally worth hanging out with.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:12 am

You can believe in a higher power without believing that it actually created you (or did anything for or to you, or anyone else).

A human compared to an ant certainly qualifies as a higher power, mentally and physically, yet humans did not create ants.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:15 am

tzor wrote:
Fuchs wrote:The US would be much better off if they'd give religion the boot. It literally is dumbing the population down.
Let's see ... France tried to do that once ... wound up with Napoleon
Russia tried to do that once ... wound up with ...

...a fucking huge increase in life quality and civil rights?