Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 As philosophy? Got no problem with it. I have a problem with it being held on the same level as the rest of the scientific "canon." But, in an effort to rehijack the thread back to the whole gaybashing - "appropriate to use racial slurs as fun" argument, I'd like to point this little flyer out from the Reverend Phelps in Topeka, Kansas. If you really want to know why a lot of gay people bristle when "their" word is hijacked to a negative connotation - maybe because there are too many people that find these words acceptable. Isn't that sweet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 As philosophy? Got no problem with it. I have a problem with it being held on the same level as the rest of the scientific "canon." But, in an effort to rehijack the thread back to the whole gaybashing - "appropriate to use racial slurs as fun" argument, I'd like to point this little flyer out from the Reverend Phelps in Topeka, Kansas. If you really want to know why a lot of gay people bristle when "their" word is hijacked to a negative connotation - maybe because there are too many people that find these words acceptable. Isn't that sweet? And those kind of things piss me off as so Anti-Christian it isn't even funny. I forget who said it, but what ever happened to the basic Christian tenet "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 As philosophy? Got no problem with it. I have a problem with it being held on the same level as the rest of the scientific "canon." But, in an effort to rehijack the thread back to the whole gaybashing - "appropriate to use racial slurs as fun" argument, I'd like to point this little flyer out from the Reverend Phelps in Topeka, Kansas. If you really want to know why a lot of gay people bristle when "their" word is hijacked to a negative connotation - maybe because there are too many people that find these words acceptable. Isn't that sweet? There are ignorant assholes in every walk of life. Even so called Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I never said it was funny. Sadly, these people are serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I never said it was funny. Sadly, these people are serious. And if they ever blew the dust off of their bibles and actually read them, they would realize that God will judge them in the same fashion in which they have judged others. If they are damning people to hell, they too will burn in hell. That's one thing that is pretty damned clear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Damn. These are the same people that protested Matthew Shephard's funeral and want to erect a statue "celebrating" his death in downtown Laramie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Damn. These are the same people that protested Matthew Shephard's funeral and want to erect a statue "celebrating" his death in downtown Laramie. Enough said. You're talking about Extremists here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Yas and Wino, ID was conceived as a foot-in-the-door attempt to get Creationism on the ticket. Any argument based on so-called 'rational design' begs but intentionally fails to ask the pregnant question - Who is the designer? Shrewd fundamentalists have seen what caused their prior overt attempts at pushing a Creationist curriculum componentn to be struck down, and they have taken pains not to give their intelligent designer a name. They are not saying who put it all together, just that it had to be some sort of omnipotent agent with the capacity to design the universe with rational care and forethought. Gee, who does that sound like? Yas, As for science looking to "disprove" God, religion, etc.... all matters of faith are outside the realm of the testable and are not of concern to science. The problem has been religion wanting airplay in science class and not science looking for equal time in theology class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Jimm: I don't disagree with you about the idea of Creationism getting its foot in the door - I just simply stated that there is no mention of "biblical creationism" in ID curriculum. There are other creationist stories as well. Some of the Native American ones are kinda cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 You'd make a fine Nazi. Well considering I didn't write that .. you must be one. I guess lying is part of your moral relativist code as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Jimm: I don't disagree with you about the idea of Creationism getting its foot in the door - I just simply stated that there is no mention of "biblical creationism" in ID curriculum. Yes, and that is, well, by design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I agree, and circle gets the square. There's a lady who works here that sounds kinda like Paul Lynde. Wanna buy a cruise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 General question... Did Hollywood Squares purposefully recruit gay comedians for their show? Bruce Villanch, Jim J Bullock, Paul Lynde, Charles Nelson Reilly.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I think Bruce Villanch ate Jm J Bullock, Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Riley actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I think Bruce Villanch ate Jm J Bullock, Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Riley actually. Believe that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 He's coming for Whoopi next. The Vilanch that ate Hollywood. Coming to a theatre nowhere near you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raff Posted December 31, 2004 Author Share Posted December 31, 2004 i support juggennault and mr zero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raff Posted December 31, 2004 Author Share Posted December 31, 2004 i am against vilanch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Good for you. Myself, with every decision - I follow this simple rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raff Posted December 31, 2004 Author Share Posted December 31, 2004 i decide what to do by thinking of what carl burnett (the little blond f***er from dazed and confused) would do, then i do the complete opposite. p.s. could someone who does the graphics explain how i could design a shirt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 i decide what to do by thinking of what carl burnett (the little blond f***er from dazed and confused) would do, then i do the complete opposite. p.s. could someone who does the graphics explain how i could design a shirt Doesn't the quote go "Nice catch Hayes, don't ever f***in' do it again"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 That's Funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 The thread was suppose to be hijacked for support of free-speech rights to use slang in a present-day & historical context in posts as well as a general argument of it's usage in society as a whole. Yet it's now become a debate on specifically developmental biology vs evolutionary biology & generally text book vs REAL scientific knowledge. I guess I have to teach school .. again. It's so sad. I realize you're clueless on how to go about reading Sciencedaily.com so I will help you out. Just put in the search words "genetics natural selection". Amongst the articles you will find this one. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20807065302.htm Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution - any functional genetic network that is complex enough has this built-in property of fidelity. - Natural selection doesn't matter much during development - It's the nature of the developmental system that can give you this property. Now it's not hard to reference various papers on the subject of computational genetics. If you haven't figured it out, "the nature of the developmental system itself" is analogous to "intelligent design". Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection must be taught in schools. I hope there is no disagreement on that. It is still the most complete theory going with respect to biology. But it is not so complete as to ignore it's obvious weaknesses. Genetics is as equally important today so that students understand that natural selection does not explain everything & that design in nature plays a primary role in developmental biology. In relation to genetic networks it is a simple understanding of what intelligence is that gives rise to intelligent design. Intelligence is simply the application of knowledge. The complexity of the networks include a sense of knowledge about the development of the organism & the functions of the network represent the application of that knowledge. Hence intelligent design. What mathematicians & physicists are doing is working out the probabilities & statistical analysis of such design occuring from coincidence rather than purpose. When the numbers don't add up for coincidence they lean toward purpose. This is why the majority of persons in these disciplines belief in a creator concept. That's a stark contrast from evolutionary biologists & biologists in general. In those disciplines less than 25% believe in a creator concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Except, for about the fifteenth time, the concepts you are talking about are philosophical and not scientific. Finding a hole in a theory does not automatically create a new theory. Nobody disputes the fact that its acceptable to question the weaknesses of Darwinian theory but to use the "what the hell else could it be" test to jump to ID, is oh - I don't know - not good enough for me. Now back to more Match Game fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.