In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Full Story

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#36559 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we certainly don't want anything to do with a group that would put fake stuff in school.
...Haeckel, Kettlewell,....
Yes, educational purity is sacred. No fake embryo drawings or moths glued to trees. Nobody claiming he created "synthetic life" in a laboratory.(Venter).
Let's band together and oppose such a movement. OK?
The Haeckel drawings have been addressed, I don't see a huge problem with the moths, but that's been rectified too.

The issue of synthetic life isn't a problem to me. So what if it utilized components from other sources?

If an oak tree and a pine tree were modified to be comprised of both types.

Coniciduous? Denifer? I'd consider that synthetic.

I know you probably don't agree.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#36560 Aug 20, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>At first, I thought you had photos of Henry VIII, Richard the Lionhearted, Charles I.

One sentence later I knew I was wrong--Henry VIII never made it out of his cocoon.
And I'm not quite that old.

Almost.

But not quite.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36561 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
"Materialism" is a philosophy to explain life. They have a different philosophy. They attempt to marshall evidence for it. So what?
I don't mind.
Buck Crick wrote:
You have yet to identify a "leaked internal document". As far as has been determined, that is a lie.
I have identified such a document. And you are not the judge of when I lie.
Buck Crick wrote:
Barbara Forest and her band of hooligans got hold of it because it was sent out in the mail in a fundraiser. Regular U.S. Mail. It was not registered, required no signature, and no oath of secrecy. Futher, it contained the same information they had made known publicly in a variety of forums.
How is that an argument against the Wedge Document having been a private internal document that was leaked? Are you implying that this letter to Barbara Forrest, which is news of no apparent import to me, was the initial viewing of this letter by a Discovery Institute outsider?
Buck Crick wrote:
That is not a "leaked document". Anyone making the claim is lying.
So you say. Where is your support for these claims?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36562 Aug 20, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The Folks Behind the Leak of the “Wedge”
Seattle Weekly has a scathing article on home-town outfit, the Discovery Institute. But the most startling part is that the leakers of the DI “Wedge” document are identified as Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes.
The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings “TOP SECRET” and “NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.” Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge.
Curious, Duss rifled through the 10 or so pages, eyebrows rising ever higher, then proceeded to execute his commission while reserving a copy of the treatise for himself. Within a week, he had shared his find with a friend who shared his interest in questions of evolution, ideology, and the propagation of ideas. Unlike Duss, the friend, Tim Rhodes, was technically savvy, and it took him little time to scan the document and post it to the World Wide Web, where it first appeared on Feb. 5, 1999.
http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2006/02/01...
Thanks for that.
jenna patton

UK

#36563 Aug 20, 2012
100% FUD CRYPTER http://adf.ly/C4SF2

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#36564 Aug 20, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
The flagellum is certainly a fascinating adaptation. So your "Intelligent Designer" hunkered down with his Scanning Electron Microscope and decided he'd help bacteria move so they could deliver their toxins more efficiently? What a guy! That's the best you got?
And did he have to build them all individually?

Or did he teach some other little microbe to do it for him.

Face it. Thee's a crapload of flagella out there.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#36565 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. ID proponents oppose having ID or creationism taught in school.
2. ID is not creationism. The major creationist organizations in the world reject ID.
Being in command of just a couple of simple facts about ID would improve your education, as you presently do not know one thing about it.
Pfui.

"Intelligent design" presupposes an "intelligent designer"

In what way does that differ from a "creator"?

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#36567 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I thought when I read your post.
Obama could hold a shit-eating contest in Chicago, and you would not only attend, you would swear it tasted good.
Voting for the muslim sonuvabitch should be grounds for forced institutionalization.
FAntastic post. I'm so tired of this Obamanation of our country.

Not only is he our first black president ever, he's our worst president ever.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#36568 Aug 20, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
FAntastic post. I'm so tired of this Obamanation of our country.
Not only is he our first black president ever, he's our worst president ever.
You can be the first transparent president.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#36569 Aug 20, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You can be the first transparent president.
Imagine the Inaugural speech...

<President Just Results> "As President, I want to say this first and foremost to the American people. You're all going to hell. That is all."

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#36570 Aug 20, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
Imagine the Inaugural speech...
<President Just Results> "As President, I want to say this first and foremost to the American people. You're all going to hell. That is all."
...notable as the first Presidential candidate with a historical figure as a running mate...

"I don't need no VP! Jesus is my copilot!"

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#36571 Aug 20, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
...notable as the first Presidential candidate with a historical figure as a running mate...
"I don't need no VP! Jesus is my copilot!"
<NEWS DEBATE COMMENTATOR> "...and there goes the Jesus, stepping on *top* of the water in the baby pool in front of the podium. It's been a very effective tactic so far in this campaign.."

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#36572 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The clip linked to by Ken Miller has been thoroughly debunked on the flagellum.
The flagellum is irreducibly complex. What Miller proposed as the precursor to the flagellum - the Type III secretory system, has been shown to come as a descendant of the flagellum. The flagellum is a precursor to the TIII system, not vice-versa.
Even if Miller were correct, there remains the irreducible complexity problem for him, as the 40 genes (30 more than the T-3 system) necessary for the flagellum do not produce a selective advantage individually, and could not have occured by natural selection.
This has been shown in great detail by Scott Minnich, along with a host of other scientists.
Right, Buck. "Thoroughly debunked". Please present the peer reviewed article that debunked it. <Bet ya can't...'cause it doesn't exist.>

As usual, all you are doing is parroting the Disco'tute, which has no credibility at all. They will lie trough their teeth, and often do.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#36573 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
Just stopping by.
__________
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.
__________
Both posts are entirely false on the facts.
1. "ID" has no wedge strategy. Never has.
Really funny, considering your point 2. The Wedge Document exists. It was written by the Disco'tute. It provides a strategy to get religion back into schools. Thus the term "Wedge Strategy".

Buck 0
DS 1
Buck Crick wrote:
2. The wedge strategy was never "leaked". It was published, put right out in the open.
It was never published by the Disco'tute. It was leaked by someone inside the Disco'tute. It was published by the people it was leaked to.

Buck 0
DS 2
Buck Crick wrote:
3. "ID" is not "DI". The reversal of letters is important. The Discovery Institute is a think tank with an ideology. Their goal is to compete with the ideology of "naturalism". They say so in a straightforward manner.
Well, I will agree somewhat on this one. Except for the "straight forward manner". They are quite disingenuous. They pretend to do science when all they really do is PR.

I'll call this one a tie.

Buck 1/2
DS 2 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
4. "ID" is not a political strategy. It is science.
Flat out, completely wrong...on both counts. ID is a PR stunt and you are so dense you have fallen for it. It in no way is science.

Counts for two since you made two claims.

Buck 1/2
DS 4 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
5. "ID" has never attempted to circumvent any law.
ID is just an idea. It can't circumvent anything. It is the people that push ID that do the circumventing. The whole purpose of ID is to circumvent the SCOTUS decision.

You lose this one on a category error.

Buck 1/2
DS 5 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
6. "ID" OPPOSES both creationism and intelligent design being taught in school. The idea that it is a movement to get creationism in schools is provably a lie.
Again, ID is an idea and can oppose anything. It is the people, again, that push ID that want ID and creationism taught in school.

Can you seriously claim they don't? Have you seen the number of bills in state legislatures that try to shoehorn in ID or creationism?

Buck 1/2
DS 6 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
You people are willing to lie your asses off to try to undermine intelligent design research.
No Buck. No lies. At least, not from us. From you is another story.

BTW...there IS no ID research, so it can't be undermined.
Buck Crick wrote:
Pointing out your lies is like farting in the wind. I show the necessary documentation to prove you are lying, and then you just repeat the lies.
And so it goes.
Face it Buck, you lose. On this one. But then, you lose on just about every point you ever support. How one person can be so misinformed is beyond me. But you, Buck, succeed.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#36574 Aug 20, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
FAntastic post. I'm so tired of this Obamanation of our country.
Not only is he our first black president ever, he's our worst president ever.
The problem with your country is that you idiots got together and turned your Creationist cult into an ignorant and racist political party.

Or was it the other way around?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#36575 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. ID proponents oppose having ID or creationism taught in school.
2. ID is not creationism. The major creationist organizations in the world reject ID.
Being in command of just a couple of simple facts about ID would improve your education, as you presently do not know one thing about it.
ID is Creationism. Fact. You Lose. F*ck off liar.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#36576 Aug 21, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your country is that you idiots got together and turned your Creationist cult into an ignorant and racist political party.
Or was it the other way around?
Please don't remind us, we messed that up big time.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36577 Aug 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent design is the claim that life contains designs - patterns that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.
Such designs have never been found, just claimed. For example, the flagellum and the clotting cascade were both claimed to be intelligently designed based their designs, which were called irreducible complex.
But the claim of irreducible complexity, unlike the claim of an intelligent designer, is falsifiable, and was shown to be wrong.e.
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective. An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe. In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause. At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well. A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.

Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained", but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.

A person who believes in ID and creationism, believes God built the factory of life and is designing and building each and every thing in that factory. A person who believes in ID and evolution, believes God built the factory and now the factory can run itself (which would far more intelligent than the creationist attitude). A person who does not believe in ID, believes the factory came to being over millenia of chance and randomness.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#36578 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective. An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe. In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause. At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well. A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.
Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained", but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.
A person who believes in ID and creationism, believes God built the factory of life and is designing and building each and every thing in that factory. A person who believes in ID and evolution, believes God built the factory and now the factory can run itself (which would far more intelligent than the creationist attitude). A person who does not believe in ID, believes the factory came to being over millenia of chance and randomness.
Name some of the naturally occurring "designs" and "order."

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#36579 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective. An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe. In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause. At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well. A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.
Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained", but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.
A person who believes in ID and creationism, believes God built the factory of life and is designing and building each and every thing in that factory. A person who believes in ID and evolution, believes God built the factory and now the factory can run itself (which would far more intelligent than the creationist attitude). A person who does not believe in ID, believes the factory came to being over millenia of chance and randomness.
How bout you prove your God actually exists before you start attributing things to it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Romney Leads Scattered 2016 GOP Field, Clinton ... 3 hr kuda 67
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 3 hr Le Duped 12,332
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 8 hr Here Is One 952
Private finances get new public scrutiny in France (Apr '13) Thu Swedenforever 5
On third endorsement, Cain backs Romney (May '12) Thu Swedenforever 25
Bob McDonnell: Mitt Romney will win Virginia (Apr '12) Oct 21 swedenforever 9
Cain says he won't drop out of GOP race (Nov '11) Oct 20 Bee Eff Dee 266

Mitt Romney People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE