For the record, Neptune has been warned to stop flaming or he will be banned. Continue discussion as normal and report posts as necessary. Thanks.

For the record, Neptune has been warned to stop flaming or he will be banned. Continue discussion as normal and report posts as necessary. Thanks.

[quote=Mini Moose 2707]For the record, Neptune has been warned to stop flaming or he will be banned. Continue discussion as normal and report posts as necessary. Thanks.[/quote] It's funny that you only saw me as flaming them, but what about the FACT they were flaming me? Must have missed that huh? It happends when you're too busy "moderating" a fake SC forum. Be fair, Don't abuse your power.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

For the record, Neptune has been warned to stop flaming or he will be banned. Continue discussion as normal and report posts as necessary. Thanks.

It's funny that you only saw me as flaming them, but what about the FACT they were flaming me? Must have missed that huh? It happends when you're too busy "moderating" a fake SC forum.

Be fair, Don't abuse your power.

Before we get any further into this, why don't you actually give an example of someone flaming you in this topic. If you can do so I'd be pretty surprised. If there was anything close to it, then you can know people took note of it. Meanwhile, I have these quotes of you flaming directly and blatantly. He's not abusing his power, and maybe you shouldn't be telling him how to do his job. The end. [QUOTE=Neptune]Wow.... go back to school. Learn about evolution.. exceed past your brain limits.. which isn't much. It's ridiculous how much knowledge you're lacking.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Neptune]Seriously, pull your head out from imbetween your legs and go back to playing StarCraft.[/QUOTE] Also, there was that post where you quoted dinked flaming steamboy (a currently banned member) without actually using the quote function so it looked like [I]you[/I] said it to anyone not really paying attention.

Before we get any further into this, why don't you actually give an example of someone flaming you in this topic. If you can do so I'd be pretty surprised. If there was anything close to it, then you can know people took note of it. Meanwhile, I have these quotes of you flaming directly and blatantly. He's not abusing his power, and maybe you shouldn't be telling him how to do his job. The end.

Quote from Neptune

Wow.... go back to school. Learn about evolution.. exceed past your brain limits.. which isn't much.

It's ridiculous how much knowledge you're lacking.

Quote from Neptune

Seriously, pull your head out from imbetween your legs and go back to playing StarCraft.

Also, there was that post where you quoted dinked flaming steamboy (a currently banned member) without actually using the quote function so it looked like you said it to anyone not really paying attention.

[quote=Neptune][quote=Mini Moose 2707]For the record, Neptune has been warned to stop flaming or he will be banned. Continue discussion as normal and report posts as necessary. Thanks.[/quote] It's funny that you only saw me as flaming them, but what about the FACT they were flaming me? Must have missed that huh? It happends when you're too busy "moderating" a fake SC forum. Be fair, Don't abuse your power.[/quote] If you don't want to be called a troll, you can start by actually responding to this post: [quote=AntiSleep][quote=Neptune] You can't test somethign that happeneds "billions of years ago". Unless you have a time machine. Sure, our dna matches a chimps by like 94%. You can test that out and prove it. But you can also test out the fact our dna matches a lot, and I mean a lot of other things. Such as a plants. We can use this as comon creator. And Chromosomes, if you knew anything about inteligent design you'd have this already explained to you. Here is another good point, We didn't start finding the "Homo erectus" fossils UNTIL darwin made his theory. Interesting, no?[/quote]The theory of evolution made testable predictions, predictions about how fossils are distributed, about adaptation of bacteria, about a lot of other stuff, and like it or not the theory states that you and I share a common ancestor with the plant in my living room. However, you do not sound like you are interested in the theory of evolution, so instead I will drop some wisdom about the intelligent design movement. I suggest you start with the court case Kitzmiller vs Dover school district, I will quote from the Republican Judge Jones's memorandum opinion:[quote]The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.14 Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)). Initially, we note that NAS, the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, views ID as follows: [quote]Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge. [/quote][/quote]I could go on all day, but the bottom line is that ID is not science, nor will it be science until it generates some testable predictions.[/quote]

Quote from Neptune

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

For the record, Neptune has been warned to stop flaming or he will be banned. Continue discussion as normal and report posts as necessary. Thanks.

It's funny that you only saw me as flaming them, but what about the FACT they were flaming me? Must have missed that huh? It happends when you're too busy "moderating" a fake SC forum.

Be fair, Don't abuse your power.

If you don't want to be called a troll, you can start by actually responding to this post:

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from Neptune

You can't test somethign that happeneds "billions of years ago". Unless you have a time machine.

Sure, our dna matches a chimps by like 94%. You can test that out and prove it.
But you can also test out the fact our dna matches a lot, and I mean a lot of other things. Such as a plants.
We can use this as comon creator.

And Chromosomes, if you knew anything about inteligent design you'd have this already explained to you.

Here is another good point, We didn't start finding the "Homo erectus" fossils UNTIL darwin made his theory. Interesting, no?

The theory of evolution made testable predictions, predictions about how fossils are distributed, about adaptation of bacteria, about a lot of other stuff, and like it or not the theory states that you and I share a common ancestor with the plant in my living room. However, you do not sound like you are interested in the theory of evolution, so instead I will drop some wisdom about the intelligent design movement. I suggest you start with the court case Kitzmiller vs Dover school district, I will quote from the Republican Judge Jones's memorandum opinion:

Quote

The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.14 Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)). Initially, we note that NAS, the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, views ID as follows:

Quote

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

I could go on all day, but the bottom line is that ID is not science, nor will it be science until it generates some testable predictions.

Creationism is probably one of man's most [s]egotistical[/s] best ideas, that there was nothing before man was made, and that the world was created to be his. When you think about it that way, (particularly if you replace the word man with "white man"), USA foreign policy doesn't seem so crazy anymore! Thank you, creationism! It definitely needs to be taught in school. After all, everyone knows Jesus buried all those dinosaur skeletons.

Creationism is probably one of man's most egotistical best ideas, that there was nothing before man was made, and that the world was created to be his.

When you think about it that way, (particularly if you replace the word man with "white man"), USA foreign policy doesn't seem so crazy anymore!

Thank you, creationism! It definitely needs to be taught in school. After all, everyone knows Jesus buried all those dinosaur skeletons.

This has turned from a conversation concerning the topic to validating creationism. If any of you actually did any theological study, even the minuet amount, you'd figure out something about "Jesus Burring the Dinosaurs." Zoroastrian isn't true either, and we teach that, along with several other religions, such as the creation myth behind Greek and Roman mythology, or the fertility of the Nile being related to Osiris' genitalia, even the Celtic belief that water is a sign of a woman's fertility. Are any of these true? No. And yet, they exist in any DECENT college level western/world civ class.

This has turned from a conversation concerning the topic to validating creationism. If any of you actually did any theological study, even the minuet amount, you'd figure out something about "Jesus Burring the Dinosaurs."

Zoroastrian isn't true either, and we teach that, along with several other religions, such as the creation myth behind Greek and Roman mythology, or the fertility of the Nile being related to Osiris' genitalia, even the Celtic belief that water is a sign of a woman's fertility. Are any of these true? No. And yet, they exist in any DECENT college level western/world civ class.

[quote=-_- Kame -_-]This has turned from a conversation concerning the topic to validating creationism. If any of you actually did any theological study, even the minuet amount, you'd figure out something about "Jesus Burring the Dinosaurs." Zoroastrian isn't true either, and we teach that, along with several other religions, such as the creation myth behind Greek and Roman mythology, or the fertility of the Nile being related to Osiris' genitalia, even the Celtic belief that water is a sign of a woman's fertility. Are any of these true? No. And yet, they exist in any DECENT college level western/world civ class.[/quote] But aren't those classes an objective study of the beliefs themselves instead of teaching them as though they were factual history?

Quote from -_- Kame -_-

This has turned from a conversation concerning the topic to validating creationism. If any of you actually did any theological study, even the minuet amount, you'd figure out something about "Jesus Burring the Dinosaurs."

Zoroastrian isn't true either, and we teach that, along with several other religions, such as the creation myth behind Greek and Roman mythology, or the fertility of the Nile being related to Osiris' genitalia, even the Celtic belief that water is a sign of a woman's fertility. Are any of these true? No. And yet, they exist in any DECENT college level western/world civ class.

But aren't those classes an objective study of the beliefs themselves instead of teaching them as though they were factual history?

And yet I fail to see why religion and science can't coexist... They both want to mash eachother into the ground, claiming each other to be false. And I'm tired of hearing there aren't any factual proof of creationism. When there is in fact lots of proof about the bible, the romans kept very accurate records, and they do indeed go along with what the bible says. And yes we're allowed to use the bible as proof, well, I doubt some human could scheme up such a thing.

And yet I fail to see why religion and science can't coexist...
They both want to mash eachother into the ground, claiming each other to be false.

And I'm tired of hearing there aren't any factual proof of creationism. When there is in fact lots of proof about the bible, the romans kept very accurate records, and they do indeed go along with what the bible says. And yes we're allowed to use the bible as proof, well, I doubt some human could scheme up such a thing.

The Bible takes some real events and twists them horribly. The Bible is the worst book to have been written by man.

The Bible takes some real events and twists them horribly. The Bible is the worst book to have been written by man.

Might I say the same as our history books? Just because you can't sense something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Might I say the same as our history books?
Just because you can't sense something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bible is just spoken in parables and, what they couldn't explain thousands of years ago in words we wouldn't understand now.

Bible is just spoken in parables and, what they couldn't explain thousands of years ago in words we wouldn't understand now.

[quote=Doodan] But aren't those classes an objective study of the beliefs themselves instead of teaching them as though they were factual history?[/quote] Well, as I think I mentioned (or at least intended to mention), I fully advocate objective study of religion. That's why I drew that specific example.

Quote from Doodan

But aren't those classes an objective study of the beliefs themselves instead of teaching them as though they were factual history?

Well, as I think I mentioned (or at least intended to mention), I fully advocate objective study of religion. That's why I drew that specific example.

[QUOTE]But aren't those classes an objective study of the beliefs themselves instead of teaching them as though they were factual history?[/QUOTE] Objective study [I]is [/I]what we are, and more importantly only capable of, talking about. School is a place to gain knowledge, not to have knowledge or ideas shoved down your throat. If you're asking whether creationism or religion should be taught as facts/universal truths and that everyone should practice or believe them, we might as well ask that same question for just about everything related to social studies in school. Like for example, government and politics; we should be taught that conservatism/liberalism is the correct idealogy and that the other one is pure nonsense! That's why I this question "should creationism be taught in school" (in the sense that people should believe them) is dumb because it doesn't even make any logical sense. Someone should make a topic called "Should we teach Asian lifestyles, cultures, and traditions" as concrete facts and beliefs as the correct way to live life and that that everyone needs to follow and abide by it!

Quote

But aren't those classes an objective study of the beliefs themselves instead of teaching them as though they were factual history?

Objective study is what we are, and more importantly only capable of, talking about. School is a place to gain knowledge, not to have knowledge or ideas shoved down your throat. If you're asking whether creationism or religion should be taught as facts/universal truths and that everyone should practice or believe them, we might as well ask that same question for just about everything related to social studies in school. Like for example, government and politics; we should be taught that conservatism/liberalism is the correct idealogy and that the other one is pure nonsense! That's why I this question "should creationism be taught in school" (in the sense that people should believe them) is dumb because it doesn't even make any logical sense.

Someone should make a topic called "Should we teach Asian lifestyles, cultures, and traditions" as concrete facts and beliefs as the correct way to live life and that that everyone needs to follow and abide by it!

I challenge everyone to show me how creationism is impossible.

I challenge everyone to show me how creationism is impossible.

[quote=cheeze]I challenge everyone to show me how creationism is impossible.[/quote] Burden of proof doesn't work that way, if you are proposing creationism as an explanatory model, the burden of proof is on you to show what predictions it makes, and that they are verified. In any case, creationism is never going to be a useful framework inquiry or application, because it makes no testable predictions.

Quote from cheeze

I challenge everyone to show me how creationism is impossible.

Burden of proof doesn't work that way, if you are proposing creationism as an explanatory model, the burden of proof is on you to show what predictions it makes, and that they are verified. In any case, creationism is never going to be a useful framework inquiry or application, because it makes no testable predictions.

In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible [i]while[/i] justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".

In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible while justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".

[quote=cheeze]In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible [i]while[/i] justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".[/quote] Evolution by natural selection is the transmission of information into the genome of a population, by means of selective survival and reproduction. Speciation occurs when a population splits into 2 populations. (when these two populations do not interbreed, they can be considered different species, and will become superior to each other in survival and reproduction in their respective environment/niches. If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions: 1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth? 2) What is science, and how is it useful?

Quote from cheeze

In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible while justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".

Evolution by natural selection is the transmission of information into the genome of a population, by means of selective survival and reproduction. Speciation occurs when a population splits into 2 populations. (when these two populations do not interbreed, they can be considered different species, and will become superior to each other in survival and reproduction in their respective environment/niches.

If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions:
1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth?
2) What is science, and how is it useful?

[QUOTE]I challenge everyone to show me how creationism is impossible.[/QUOTE] Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.

Quote

I challenge everyone to show me how creationism is impossible.

Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.

[quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze]In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible [i]while[/i] justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".[/quote] Evolution by natural selection is the transmission of information into the genome of a population, by means of selective survival and reproduction. Speciation occurs when a population splits into 2 populations. (when these two populations do not interbreed, they can be considered different species, and will become superior to each other in survival and reproduction in their respective environment/niches. [/quote] You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge. [quote]If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions: 1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth? 2) What is science, and how is it useful?[/quote] 1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument. 2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible while justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".

Evolution by natural selection is the transmission of information into the genome of a population, by means of selective survival and reproduction. Speciation occurs when a population splits into 2 populations. (when these two populations do not interbreed, they can be considered different species, and will become superior to each other in survival and reproduction in their respective environment/niches.

You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge.

Quote

If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions:
1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth?
2) What is science, and how is it useful?

1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument.
2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.

[quote]You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge.[/quote] Dapperdan did. He might not be willing to explain a pointless question regarding possibility and impossibility. Until there is hard-proven that it did not happen, creationism can still be a possibility. But regarding all other theories and things we use to cut out what seems wrong and what seems not to fit the picture cut out creationism.

Quote

You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge.

Dapperdan did. He might not be willing to explain a pointless question regarding possibility and impossibility. Until there is hard-proven that it did not happen, creationism can still be a possibility. But regarding all other theories and things we use to cut out what seems wrong and what seems not to fit the picture cut out creationism.