My upcoming debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 10:50 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Let's teach all the controversies while we're at it. Have to be fair to all "sides" after all. Besides, what could possibly be the problem with teaching every perspective out there?

[Image: devil.png]

[Image: geocentric.gif]

[Image: ufo.png]

[Image: f9a2c5286436e23e3d4ec3bcac8fa0e4ad97cc86_m.gif]

[Image: elements.png]

[Image: cryptozoology_440.jpg]

[Image: bermudatriangle.png]

[Image: preformationism.png]

[Image: 146.jpg]

[Image: i-33c79dd70fa3fd99681f2beb6a27a565-atlantis.gif]

[Image: teapot.png]

[Image: cthulhu.png]

[Image: teachcontroversy_creationism.jpg.CROP.or...iginal.jpg]

[Image: reincarnation.gif]

[Image: doublethink-2-2-5-doublethink_design.png]

Isn't it interesting how "teach the controversy" advocates always seem to go for the alternative explanations offered by the fundamentalism of their own religion?

It's almost as if they know their agenda is so weak it needs to be couched in metaphor, weasel words and special pleading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elder Cunningham's post
04-02-2014, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2014 11:34 AM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: My upcoming debate
But to be completely serious here. Ghost, one argument that is important is to ask whether their supposed openness and eagerness to having "both sides" taught in the classroom extend to "all sides".

They would claim it does, because they are trying to force scientist and school boards into doing so for them, and so they have to answer yes to that question.

If you bring up teaching Hinduisms version of the origins of the universe, or Greek mythology, or the Hopi Indians version, etc…, and give details of their origin beliefs, you will see them quickly cower away from the, "What are people so afraid of from of teaching the otherside? Children should have all the theories available to them" mantra they keep repeating. They will quickly reveal that they don't actually mean "teach all the 'theories'" but mean only to teach "their side".

You can then use that omission to whittle them down closer and closer to how they determine what makes their side more reasonable than other religions, and you can use that against their own argument, and you will find they buckle here, because they don't actually have any ground to stand on other than their theological beliefs.

In effect this will expose that either, even by their own criteria they would not allow their own “theory” to be taught, and only do so because it is theirs. Or that they would simply allow all and any kind of nonsense in, and that they have no criteria for determining what is appropriate to be taught in the classroom, and what is not. Or that, and most obviously, it has nothing at all to even remotely do with "teaching all the 'theories'", and is only about teaching their belief. From that point on, they are no longer able to use the argument, of fairness to "both sides". They actually have to justify their side, which they cannot do which is why the focus of "fairness".

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
04-02-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 11:06 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  But to be completely serious here. Ghost, one argument that is important is to ask whether their supposed openness and eagerness to having "both sides" taught in the classroom extend to "all sides".

They would claim it does, because they are trying to force scientist and school boards into doing so for them, and so they have to answer yes to that question.

If you bring up teaching Hinduisms version of the origins of the universe, or Greek mythology, or the Hopi Indians version, etc…, and give details of their origin beliefs, you will see them quickly cower away from the, "What are people so afraid of from of teaching the otherside? Children should have all the theories available to them" mantra they keep repeating. They will quickly reveal that they don't actually mean "teach all the 'theories'" but mean only to teach "their side".

You can then use that omission to whittle them down closer and closer to how they determine what makes their side more reasonable than other religions, and you can use that against their own argument, and you will find they buckle here, because they don't actually have any ground to stand on other than their theological beliefs.

In effect this will expose that either, even by their own criteria they would not allow their own “theory” to be taught, and only do so because it is theirs. Or that they would simply allow all and any kind of nonsense in, and that they have no criteria for determining what is appropriate to be taught in the classroom, and what is not.

I've used that argument in the past in discussion with people, but it completely slipped my mind during my current preparation. Thanks for bringing it up.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: My upcoming debate
Another important point to bring up is, even if we all accepted that Intelligent Design was true, and Evolution was not, then what do we do we actually do with that knowledge?

Evolution is not simply a way of understanding how biological organisms relate to one another and how they evolved over time. We can also use the theory of evolution, by the process of natural selection, to make predictions of how to created treatments for diseases, increase agricultural yields, produce superior wines, determine ancestry, paternity, criminal forensics, production of chemical products by use of controlling the evolution of bacteria to change chemicals they produce to things we can use for manufacturing and medical purposes, can use genetic algorithms in various engineering projects, etc…

The list can keep going on and on and on. And in fact does keep going. Granted, a theory does not need to have a use make it legitimate. It just needs to consistently conform to its own predictions. But the massive amount of practical uses, continually prove the legitimacy of evolution every second of the day, all day long, with every use of its methods.

Intelligent Design, can’t be used to make predictions of anything, or used to do anything. The theory of “God did it” doesn’t help us find a cure for aids, or cancer. The theory of “God did it” doesn’t help us understand the development and spread, and most importantly the prevention of dangerous genetic disorders. The theory of “God did it” doesn’t help us to improve the sight of certain kinds of disorders that cause blindness, etc… Again this list can go on and on and on, and does go on and on.

The theory of “God did it” (which is what Intelligent Design is) only tells us that “God did it” and nothing more. With ID our knowledge and advancement stops, if we accept it. If we accept it it may tell us that “God” created the H1N1 virus, but we can’t use evolution to create an antidote. Best we can do is wait for “God” to create an antidote and give it to us, because according to Intelligent Design that’s the only way we can get one.

Just to use one particular aspect of the practical application of evolution, though there are any number of them you can pick from, what virologist are in fact doing when taking a deadly virus and “weakening” it, and using that “weakened” version of the virus to create vaccines only work by fallowing the methods of evolution to create vary that “weakened” virus (vaccine). If we simply assumed that Intelligent Design was true, virologists who create vaccines would still have to “act” as if evolution was true in order to follow the procedures needed to be performed in order to produce the vaccines they want. If they didn’t “pretend” the processes of evolution were true, they would have no way to know or predict what step to take next. And again, if we hypothetically pretended that intelligent design was true, and virologist continued to make vaccines using the supposedly “untrue” processes of evolution, then it would still look as though evolution was happening, even though we would have to deny that it is even as we see it happen before us. And we must believe that “God” created the deadly virus, and on completing a set of task that resemble doing evolutionally scientific work by the virologist, “God” simply spontaneously created a mix of very slightly weakened viruses in the palace of the “offspring” of the deadlier virus, and then repeated that by spontaneously creating another mix of slightly more weakened virus for the next generation, and then again, and then again, and then again, until “god” spontaneously created a weak enough virus that we could use as a vaccine. It would all very suspiciously look evolution, and follow the predictive models of evolution, but in order to accept intelligent design as true, we would simply have to ignore all of that and decide that it’s not happening that way, and “God” is proofing these things into existence in a form an manor that directly resemble evolution, and that “God” proofs things into existence in a manner that is statistically and theoretically predictable by us by a process that looks like this other thing we must decide is wrong.

So the question again is, what can Intelligent Design (God did it) be used for? What can it be used for other than hindering scientific advancement and knowledge? What can it be used for other than nothing at all?

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
04-02-2014, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2014 08:55 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 01:58 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Another important point to bring up is, even if we all accepted that Intelligent Design was true, and Evolution was not, then what do we do we actually do with that knowledge?

Evolution is not simply a way of understanding how biological organisms relate to one another and how they evolved over time. We can also use the theory of evolution, by the process of natural selection, to make predictions of how to created treatments for diseases, increase agricultural yields, produce superior wines, determine ancestry, paternity, criminal forensics, production of chemical products by use of controlling the evolution of bacteria to change chemicals they produce to things we can use for manufacturing and medical purposes, can use genetic algorithms in various engineering projects, etc…

The list can keep going on and on and on. And in fact does keep going. Granted, a theory does not need to have a use make it legitimate. It just needs to consistently conform to its own predictions. But the massive amount of practical uses, continually prove the legitimacy of evolution every second of the day, all day long, with every use of its methods.

Intelligent Design, can’t be used to make predictions of anything, or used to do anything. The theory of “God did it” doesn’t help us find a cure for aids, or cancer. The theory of “God did it” doesn’t help us understand the development and spread, and most importantly the prevention of dangerous genetic disorders. The theory of “God did it” doesn’t help us to improve the sight of certain kinds of disorders that cause blindness, etc… Again this list can go on and on and on, and does go on and on.

The theory of “God did it” (which is what Intelligent Design is) only tells us that “God did it” and nothing more. With ID our knowledge and advancement stops, if we accept it. If we accept it it may tell us that “God” created the H1N1 virus, but we can’t use evolution to create an antidote. Best we can do is wait for “God” to create an antidote and give it to us, because according to Intelligent Design that’s the only way we can get one.

Just to use one particular aspect of the practical application of evolution, though there are any number of them you can pick from, what virologist are in fact doing when taking a deadly virus and “weakening” it, and using that “weakened” version of the virus to create vaccines only work by fallowing the methods of evolution to create vary that “weakened” virus (vaccine). If we simply assumed that Intelligent Design was true, virologists who create vaccines would still have to “act” as if evolution was true in order to follow the procedures needed to be performed in order to produce the vaccines they want. If they didn’t “pretend” the processes of evolution were true, they would have no way to know or predict what step to take next. And again, if we hypothetically pretended that intelligent design was true, and virologist continued to make vaccines using the supposedly “untrue” processes of evolution, then it would still look as though evolution was happening, even though we would have to deny that it is even as we see it happen before us. And we must believe that “God” created the deadly virus, and on completing a set of task that resemble doing evolutionally scientific work by the virologist, “God” simply spontaneously created a mix of very slightly weakened viruses in the palace of the “offspring” of the deadlier virus, and then repeated that by spontaneously creating another mix of slightly more weakened virus for the next generation, and then again, and then again, and then again, until “god” spontaneously created a weak enough virus that we could use as a vaccine. It would all very suspiciously look evolution, and follow the predictive models of evolution, but in order to accept intelligent design as true, we would simply have to ignore all of that and decide that it’s not happening that way, and “God” is proofing these things into existence in a form an manor that directly resemble evolution, and that “God” proofs things into existence in a manner that is statistically and theoretically predictable by us by a process that looks like this other thing we must decide is wrong.

So the question again is, what can Intelligent Design (God did it) be used for? What can it be used for other than hindering scientific advancement and knowledge? What can it be used for other than nothing at all?

Can you imagine if the ID proponents were in charge of science here in the U.S.? I can hear them saying something like "here we have some more bones that God made". And look over here... "there's more bones that God made." How would they interpret all the evidence of previous life forms that has been excavated over the years? How would they categorize them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like anonymous66's post
04-02-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 03:48 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Can you imagine if the ID proponents were in charge of science here in the U.S.? I can hear them saying something like "here we have some more bones that God made". And look over here... "there's more bones that God made. How would they interpret all the bones that have been excavated over the years? How would they categorize them?

And that is exactly the point. What can they actually "teach" in a classroom?

All they can really say is, "look what God did". Their only "instruction" is evolution based. Meaning, all they have to say is, "Look at what evolution says, ‘x’, ‘y’ and ‘z’. That's all wrong, because obviously God did that."

All intelligent design is, is reactive to evolutionary theory. They look at what the theory of evolution says and try to explain why it's wrong. Funny thing is, they don't get that that's exactly what evolutionary scientist do. They try to prove it wrong, and when they fail it makes the theory more robust. That's how science works, by creating elaborate experiments to disprove their own theories. The better designed the test are to disprove their theories, the stronger the evidence and theory is when the if the test fails to disprove the theory. If the test succeeds, then they dismiss the theory or reevaluated based on the new evidence (couple more steps in there though, but you get the idea).

But the point is, the actual scientific method already accounts, indirectly, for intelligent design, in the sense that it has already tested all the claims that intelligent design makes, the ones that are testable and not simply untestable accusations. Anything intelligent design has left is outside of science, such as the supernatural, e.g., “God did it”. Intelligent design is redundant, because it’s claims that are scientifically testable have already been tested for hundreds of years before the modern concept of intelligent design was created. There is nothing left for intelligent design to do. If intelligent design ever came up with a good, testable hypothesis, then scientist would be happy to examine it, because that’s what scientist do. But that is up to the intelligent designist to do, and thus far they have failed to come up with any testable hypothesis that has not already been thoroughly examined. Nor have they devised tests to examine them themselves. Intelligent design says, and does nothing, other than attempt to dismantle already hard won knowledge, to the detriment of the populous and to the benefit if their own religious convictions.

If evolutionary theory was gone tomorrow, completely gone, forgotten and out of mind, what would intelligent design teach? They’d have nothing to teach because all they teach is evolution, and various other sciences, are wrong. Intelligent design has nothing to say other than, “look at that thing there. God made it that way”. Granted, they would be easy test to take and pass in high school, but easier doesn’t equal correct.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
04-02-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: My upcoming debate
Sorry to keep writing so much on this topic. But Intelligent Design/Creationsim really annoys the shit out of me.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 04:37 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 03:48 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Can you imagine if the ID proponents were in charge of science here in the U.S.? I can hear them saying something like "here we have some more bones that God made". And look over here... "there's more bones that God made. How would they interpret all the bones that have been excavated over the years? How would they categorize them?

And that is exactly the point. What can they actually "teach" in a classroom?

All they can really say is, "look what God did". Their only "instruction" is evolution based. Meaning, all they have to say is, "Look at what evolution says, ‘x’, ‘y’ and ‘z’. That's all wrong, because obviously God did that."

All intelligent design is, is reactive to evolutionary theory. They look at what the theory of evolution says and try to explain why it's wrong. Funny thing is, they don't get that that's exactly what evolutionary scientist do. They try to prove it wrong, and when they fail it makes the theory more robust. That's how science works, by creating elaborate experiments to disprove their own theories. The better designed the test are to disprove their theories, the stronger the evidence and theory is when the if the test fails to disprove the theory. If the test succeeds, then they dismiss the theory or reevaluated based on the new evidence (couple more steps in there though, but you get the idea).

But the point is, the actual scientific method already accounts, indirectly, for intelligent design, in the sense that it has already tested all the claims that intelligent design makes, the ones that are testable and not simply untestable accusations. Anything intelligent design has left is outside of science, such as the supernatural, e.g., “God did it”. Intelligent design is redundant, because it’s claims that are scientifically testable have already been tested for hundreds of years before the modern concept of intelligent design was created. There is nothing left for intelligent design to do. If intelligent design ever came up with a good, testable hypothesis, then scientist would be happy to examine it, because that’s what scientist do. But that is up to the intelligent designist to do, and thus far they have failed to come up with any testable hypothesis that has not already been thoroughly examined. Nor have they devised tests to examine them themselves. Intelligent design says, and does nothing, other than attempt to dismantle already hard won knowledge, to the detriment of the populous and to the benefit if their own religious convictions.

If evolutionary theory was gone tomorrow, completely gone, forgotten and out of mind, what would intelligent design teach? They’d have nothing to teach because all they teach is evolution, and various other sciences, are wrong. Intelligent design has nothing to say other than, “look at that thing there. God made it that way”. Granted, they would be easy test to take and pass in high school, but easier doesn’t equal correct.

That's my big concern about teaching it to kids. It basically end scientific curiosity to say "god did it" or "god is the reason". Aren't we all thankful Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk, and all the other scientists who gave us cures to diseases that used to kill us didn't stop with "people get sick because of sin - pray for god to heal them". How about discovery of DNA and other biological discoveries developed since the rise of evolutionary biology? All the technological advances due to quantam physics? Nope. Hell, we could still be explaining lightning and rain as due to the gods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes meremortal's post
04-02-2014, 05:48 PM
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 11:06 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  But to be completely serious here. Ghost, one argument that is important is to ask whether their supposed openness and eagerness to having "both sides" taught in the classroom extend to "all sides".

They would claim it does, because they are trying to force scientist and school boards into doing so for them, and so they have to answer yes to that question.

If you bring up teaching Hinduisms version of the origins of the universe, or Greek mythology, or the Hopi Indians version, etc…, and give details of their origin beliefs, you will see them quickly cower away from the, "What are people so afraid of from of teaching the otherside? Children should have all the theories available to them" mantra they keep repeating. They will quickly reveal that they don't actually mean "teach all the 'theories'" but mean only to teach "their side".

You can then use that omission to whittle them down closer and closer to how they determine what makes their side more reasonable than other religions, and you can use that against their own argument, and you will find they buckle here, because they don't actually have any ground to stand on other than their theological beliefs.

In effect this will expose that either, even by their own criteria they would not allow their own “theory” to be taught, and only do so because it is theirs. Or that they would simply allow all and any kind of nonsense in, and that they have no criteria for determining what is appropriate to be taught in the classroom, and what is not. Or that, and most obviously, it has nothing at all to even remotely do with "teaching all the 'theories'", and is only about teaching their belief. From that point on, they are no longer able to use the argument, of fairness to "both sides". They actually have to justify their side, which they cannot do which is why the focus of "fairness".

Yes, that is a point that I constantly make to creationists here in the U.S.. They're all for it so long as it's THEIR beliefs that are being taught in those schools. If the beliefs of Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists were also being taught to their children they'd be screaming bloody murder! The fact is, no religion has any proof for the existence of their superstitious beliefs, so no religion should get special treatment if it was going to be taught alongside science. I wouldn't mind as much if any of these religions had good, solid evidence, but evidence is a word that creationists refuse to acknowledge on this topic (or any topic involving religion for that matter).

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 05:49 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2014 08:54 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 04:48 PM)meremortal Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 04:37 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  And that is exactly the point. What can they actually "teach" in a classroom?

All they can really say is, "look what God did". Their only "instruction" is evolution based. Meaning, all they have to say is, "Look at what evolution says, ‘x’, ‘y’ and ‘z’. That's all wrong, because obviously God did that."

All intelligent design is, is reactive to evolutionary theory. They look at what the theory of evolution says and try to explain why it's wrong. Funny thing is, they don't get that that's exactly what evolutionary scientist do. They try to prove it wrong, and when they fail it makes the theory more robust. That's how science works, by creating elaborate experiments to disprove their own theories. The better designed the test are to disprove their theories, the stronger the evidence and theory is when the if the test fails to disprove the theory. If the test succeeds, then they dismiss the theory or reevaluated based on the new evidence (couple more steps in there though, but you get the idea).

But the point is, the actual scientific method already accounts, indirectly, for intelligent design, in the sense that it has already tested all the claims that intelligent design makes, the ones that are testable and not simply untestable accusations. Anything intelligent design has left is outside of science, such as the supernatural, e.g., “God did it”. Intelligent design is redundant, because it’s claims that are scientifically testable have already been tested for hundreds of years before the modern concept of intelligent design was created. There is nothing left for intelligent design to do. If intelligent design ever came up with a good, testable hypothesis, then scientist would be happy to examine it, because that’s what scientist do. But that is up to the intelligent designist to do, and thus far they have failed to come up with any testable hypothesis that has not already been thoroughly examined. Nor have they devised tests to examine them themselves. Intelligent design says, and does nothing, other than attempt to dismantle already hard won knowledge, to the detriment of the populous and to the benefit if their own religious convictions.

If evolutionary theory was gone tomorrow, completely gone, forgotten and out of mind, what would intelligent design teach? They’d have nothing to teach because all they teach is evolution, and various other sciences, are wrong. Intelligent design has nothing to say other than, “look at that thing there. God made it that way”. Granted, they would be easy test to take and pass in high school, but easier doesn’t equal correct.

That's my big concern about teaching it to kids. It basically end scientific curiosity to say "god did it" or "god is the reason". Aren't we all thankful Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk, and all the other scientists who gave us cures to diseases that used to kill us didn't stop with "people get sick because of sin - pray for god to heal them". How about discovery of DNA and other biological discoveries developed since the rise of evolutionary biology? All the technological advances due to quantam physics? Nope. Hell, we could still be explaining lightning and rain as due to the gods.

That's a good point for our debater to remember. The ID proponents don't have a competing theory. All they can do is try to nitpick the theory of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: