Kansas college professor beaten for anti-creationism sentiments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Then why do you bother pointing it out? Do you really think that no one on this board knows that "bad thing + bad thing = sometimes a asskicking."

---

Because this is a discussion forum and I think it's a valid issue to bring up in light of these events. Sometimes assholes get fucked by dicks, it's a part of life.

Quote:

---

If you don't agree with it, then why bother. It isn't like anyone here doesn't understand the basic idea and you need to point it out, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT.

---

Uhh Jetman took an opposing stance with what I said, as did you. You've been on TNL longer than I have, you know how this works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan1CC

As for intelligent design, I don't know what the classes themselves are like but why is it so bad to say some creatures seem to be "built"?

---

Because science doesn't support it, and because "well, that's what it looks like it could be on the surface" isn't sufficient evidence given that it almost never holds up for anything in nature (a single glance at the sun indicates that it revolves around us, but it doesn't). Once it has met the same burden of proof that all other scientific theories have to meet (it must make accurate and dependable predictions, among many other things), then fine, allow it. But it hasn't. If the religious right truly believe in this as science, maybe they should put less effort into trying to cram it sideways into schools and more effort into legitimate research.

"Also, and it surprises me that of all people frostwolf noticed this, I said the Christian RIGHT. I stand by statements, too, because they're entirely true and can be supported with evidence"

No they can't. You're still generalizing, and everytime you say that "they can be supported with evidence", it makes you look even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Because science doesn't support it, and because "well, that's what it looks like it could be on the surface" isn't sufficient evidence given that it almost never holds up for anything in nature (a single glance at the sun indicates that it revolves around us, but it doesn't). Once it has met the same burden of proof that all other scientific theories have to meet (it must make accurate and dependable predictions, among many other things), then fine, allow it. But it hasn't. If the religious right truly believe in this as science, maybe they should put less effort into trying to cram it sideways into schools and more effort into legitimate research.

---

:tu:

And, of course, that's the beauty of religion. It's based on "faith" so they don't have to prove anything. Like the Bible says, "Proof denies Faith, and without Faith I am nothing." Exactly. It's the perfect cop-out.

Iron: I know what you're saying, about the "those who actually follow/'cultural'." Don't disagree at all, you said what I was thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master
His exact quote to the Christian group was "There is no god and I'm here to rub it in your faces".

---

I missed this bit, that is very lame. Thank you professor Stuffed Shirt. I feel so enlightened. What a condescending idiot. He might as well have been making shout out to some rival rappers. :p

I wonder what school this guy teaches at. I don't know about the colleges that everyone else here goes to, but of the two I've gone to, such childish banter with students is frowned on. The faculty is expected to act some what more mature than the students it teaches.

I'm sure they frowned at him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan1CC

Iron: I know what you're saying, about the "those who actually follow/'cultural'." Don't disagree at all, you said what I was thinking.

---

Would you agree with me in saying that a lot of the conflict between "conservatives" and "liberals" mostly comes down to technology shrinking the country and one group or the other not wanting to change or lose its culture? That a lot of the right/left political arguments have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with one group not wanting to change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Because science doesn't support it, and because "well, that's what it looks like it could be on the surface" isn't sufficient evidence given that it almost never holds up for anything in nature (a single glance at the sun indicates that it revolves around us, but it doesn't). Once it has met the same burden of proof that all other scientific theories have to meet (it must make accurate and dependable predictions, among many other things), then fine, allow it. But it hasn't. If the religious right truly believe in this as science, maybe they should put less effort into trying to cram it sideways into schools and more effort into legitimate research.

---

But there are many scientists, both those who believe in God and those who don't at all who in effect say "this looks like design," or "this looks like 'programming.' "

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Look at Antony Flew, until last year a famous atheist and renowned British Philosophy professor. He sites "evidence of design" as his reason for be coming a believer. So the concept of "design in nature" is not just some "fanciful" notion that people such as the intelligent design proponents just came up with all of a sudden on a whim.

Quote:

---

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA (Flew): "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

---

Quote:

---

Once it has met the same burden of proof that all other scientific theories have to meet

---

Has evolution passed all the burden of proof from that scientific tests dictate? No. If anything, it's a theory with many 'inner theories' that are constantly changing. And all lab experiments with electricity and non living matter have produced at the most, amino acids. Interesting, but i need a little more convincing that amino acids and RNA could arrange themselves into DNA.

Sir Fred Hoyle an evolutionist (propoent for the side theory that the 'spark of life' arrived from meterite/spave debris IIRC) asked the same question. How did each 'right' and 'left-handed' string of amino acid arrange itself so nicely?

I believe in God and I believe in science. But just as someone says "You can't 'prove' God exists," on the same token evolution takes just as much of a leap of faith.

Just as you see evidence for evolution, adaptation and structure through chance based on things you have studied or seen in nature, I see evidence of some kind of conscious thought.

I don't think it'd hurt to have a quote from scientist A who says "This is surely adaptation" or scientist B who says "This seems to indicate design."

The whole classroom thing is just a big political mess. A person has to again make the decision on their own and this can sometimes take a lifetime as seen in Mr. Flew's case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan1CC

I believe in God and I believe in science. But just as someone says "You can't 'prove' God exists," on the same token evolution takes just as much of a leap of faith.

---

As we established in another thread months ago, you don't even know what evolution actually is, and have plenty of misconceptions about what scientists actually say about it. I won't debate this with you for that reason.