John Prezioso

Sorry Jag - I completely disagree. Religion is a vehicle by which people in different cultures try to discover and understand the divine and worship a divine being or beings according to that understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion "Religion ÔÇösometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief systemÔÇöis commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. " ID does NOTHING of the sort. It tries to say, based on uncovered EVIDENCE thus far, there might be an intelligent intervention into the scientifically prove process of evolution. That it lacks the empirical evidence to be taught as law, I agree. However, it is, as Zane has stated, worthy of discussion in a scientific forum. If we completely prohibit future scientists from doing that, how can it ever be proven or disproven? What you are doing now is essentially the same as what people did to scientists back in the dark ages. "We don't like the path your taking with this! Cease and desist, lest we burn you at the stake!" No scientific evidence will EVER exist if society steadfastly prevents scientists from pusuing the theory. quote:Evolution makes NO claims that it is random, and NEVER has.... Evolution is not random. That is not what I was saying. I was talking about that with out a Intelligent designer, the RULES of the universe were the result of randomness, not structure.

quote: Science doesn't accept the metaphysical. Ghosts might actually exist and mankind might have an inherent ability for mental telepathy but neither concept is taught in science class. I have read about countless cases of scientific research into hauntings, all to try to "prove" the metaphysical concept of ghosts. If and when concrete evidence is obtained, expect that it WILL be taught in science class. Telepathy is also scientifically researched in the process of trying to map out the large portion of the human brain about whose function we have no idea. And I'm not just talking about "Ghost Hunters" on SCIFI. ID is absolutely not religious OR metaphysical because it only suggests an antithesis to the utter randomness theory. It does NOT try to say anything ABOUT the creator, only that there may have been one.

Ultimately, seeing as how the public schools are mostly funded by tax dollars (with susidies and grants by the Federal Government), why not have the tax payers in each School district decide via a referendum vote? Maybe I'm completely out of the loop, but I have a feeling that the measure would fail in all but the most conservative and remote of counties across the nation. I don't see anything unconstitutional about it, but if the referendums are approved, then the courts would most likely have to rule on the constutionality of such teaching in each state. EDIT: Nice post Zane. I've gotta say, I think Jag is really wrong on this one.

Public schools resorting to teaching of intelligent design that incorporates a specific religion's take on creation would be dangerously close to declaring a state religion which is wholly unconstitutional, in violation of freedom of religion. Otherwise I would say no.

Well, it's like you implied earlier when you alluded to the concept of some Christians believing the earth is only 9000 years old. Science has pretty much proven that this not true. What often happens is that (though not the intitial intention of the scientists by any means) scientific evidence is wielded as a weapon against religion. That's more of what I was referring to. Essentially, when science disproves something religions have come to accept as dogma, it does not invalidate that religion in my view, but only serves as testimony to the woefully inadequate understanding we humans have of the divine. So, getting back to the original point, the earth being 5 Billion years old does not necessarily disprove Genesis, but it makes us aware that there are holes in our understanding. I wrote a term paper on this very topic in theology in college. I guess I was a pioneer in the intelligent design theory class in public schools!

quote:Let me stress that faith is for the majority of people a cultural implanted concept. That's why me or Prez, if born in Algeria, would probably be muslims, and Zane, in Japan, shintoist, etc... Except for individuals convinced they have gone through endogen revelation, it is a local culturally bound factor. So much for the inherent validity of the conveyed concepts and their supposed universality... Fundamentally, I think you are correct here. But if you boil down what Muslims believe, Jews believe, Christians believe, to the absolute basics, you'll find that there are many glaring similarities. The difference lies in the cultural interpretation of divine providence in my opinion. quote: Religion is about teaching & convictions, science is about experimenting & doubts. Both have their place. Their separate place. Again, I believe you are correct. Where ID actually falls, I'm a little unsure, but about that fundamental principle, I do concur.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/05081...ntists_god.html Admittedly, this article does not specifically address whether that belief in God extends to the acceptance of Creationism. Excerpt: " About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion." Darn. I got sucked back into the debate again. CURSE YOU, Lost and Jag!

I dont know -we've gone pretty far afield, haven't we? quote:the find would fund the fund but the fund wouldn't find the find. I don't know what to say....

I think it is the "Oil Fund" Soback refers to in his post in THIS thread. I hadn't heard of it before. Checking now.

Thanks for the link Aapen. Very interesting. I'm still confused by what an "Oil Found" is though. Please explain.

quote: I agree with Jaguar on his point. I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of scientists do not. Nor do I.

I'd like to answer the hypocricy comment. First of all, I will not back down from that statement. There is rampant hypocricy running through liberalism. That is not the same and saying every liberal is a hypocrite. Many liberals talk about how the "Good 'Ole Boy" Republicans don't care about women and minorities like the Democrats do. Unless you happen to be a minority or woman of the wrong political persuasion - like Clarence Thomas. Or Condoleeza Rice. Or Gonzalez. Or Judith Brown. Or Armstrong Williams. Or Walter Williams. Or Alan Keyes. Or Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele . Had these been conservatives, Republicans, or just white men who had done this to a Black Democrat, this would have been a national news story. As it it happened, it had to be dug out of a two-year old blog. Hypocricy.

quote: Again, do us all a favor, run for office.Does that mean I can count on your vote when I do? quote: As for my chip, I dont have one, thanks for the offer. I'm glad. You just have a habit of stalking angrily into a thread, posting a few scathing remarks, and then leaving. If that is just your style, well that's cool. quote: When I'm back in Memphis we can discuss it over some dry rub Barbecue.Hey, any member of the 3000AD community would be welcomed in my house as a friend. If you DO come to Memphis, PM me.

You know, the ironic thing, at least to me, is that I believe religion is the far weaker entity between the two. Science deals in tangible verifiable results, thus I tend to think that if the average person were going to choose one over the other, they would defer to science. Religion, being faith based as it is, is a tougher pill to swallow. In other words, I really don't see religion being able to put the clamps on science; as a matter of fact, I fear the opposite.

Race - if you need help knocking that rather large chip off your shoulder, I'm am always there for you, my friend. quote: no one enlisted you as arbiter of right and wrong.It wasn't necessary for anyone too, my friend. I have an opinion, and I WILL voice it. If that intimidates you, sorry - not my problem.

First of all, I do NOT hold myself in such high regard that I think anyone must gain my validation to hold an opinion. Second of all, if I wish to discount liberalism, I meet it head on; I dont imply or use innuendo. I am confident in my beliefs enough that I don't need to drop hints. Thirdly, I referred to your comment as moronic because it was. I only pointed that out because such nonsense from you is uncharacteric of your otherwise normally intelligent and rational arguments. If I thought that it was reflective of your overall intelligence I would have said nothing out of courtesy. And about your last point, you have mis-characterized my stance on the poor. I do not see them as my enemy; they are my brothers. From that perspective, I find it horrible to see how they have allowed themselves to be stripped of their dignity and made into political pawns by liberals. Mine is a version of tough love you might say, but I DO care about them. If I sound self-righteous, I am sorry. But you might ask yourself why you avoid debates on the intellectual level and instead prefer to sling mud. Whatever you think of other conservatives here, you must know that I maintain respect for all viewpoints and do not respond derisively to rational arguments. Stupid comparisons are another matter, but I do NOT in any way think you are stupid or a moron.

That's what I always thought, too. But when I lived in a small Pennsylvania town in the early '90's, people did just that. I lived next to a family on welfare who had 7 kids. Down the street a single woman of about 28 had three kids and was pregnant with her fourth. The point is, there is no decent living to be had off of welfare, yet people do it all the time. I was a welfare recipient for a while, and the shame I felt was immense. I don't know how someone can stand to live like that. I joined the military to try to make a better life for myself and my wife. I have no tolerance for able-bodied men sitting at home, collecting others' money when they should be making their own, nor can I stomach the thought of women digging themselves deeper in the hole by continuing to have children.

quote: increase per child in the house 0ÔÇô5(age) USD 396 increase per child in the house 6ÔÇô10(age) USD 414 increase per child in the house 11ÔÇô18 (age) USD 603 What does increase per child in the house mean then?

Exactly like the welfare system here in the U.S. in that it encourages having more children to get more public dough, thereby increasing the cycle of dependency. A terrible system no matter what country it is imho. What about healthcare? How do they do that in Norway?

quote: Hence why I said that the a government shouldn't do that indefinitely for people who choose not work when they are able to.You and I agree on that then.

I have read about the number of infant children that are born HIV positive who later shed themselves of the didease. As far as I know, doctors still are at a loss for how. One theory suggested that the tests are not reliable at too young an age for some reason or other, but that can't account for ALL cases.

Excerpt: "The game delivers exciting combat in all forms with intelligence and style. There are enormous difficulties in learning the technicalities, but it is obvious that it does this in an effort to add to the atmosphere of the game. It would be unfair to rate this as a traditional mainstream game, as it is anything but. Anyone who starts this game with preconceptions about methods of play acquired from the numerous other space strategy games on the market will be disappointed. But, given an open-minded approach, Universal Combat: A World Apart Screenshot is really an excellent game." Wow! Nice review! The above excerpt proves the reviewer considered the game for what it was and objectively rated it. It's nice to see reviewers can still do this.

The whole premise of Socialism is to take from the "haves" and give to the "have-nots". Faced with that choice, I'd be more inclined to sit on my butt and let society support me rather that be one of the ones who works hard and has the fruits of his labor re-distributed without his consent. That is precisely what has taken hold in many U.S. cities, giving birth to the welfare state.

quote: But what if the bad guys have full body armor, and everyone else have guns with 9mm ammo. and the bad guys have a MG3 that fires 18-22 bullets per second. Then I guess it's time to stay indoors, or become a bad guy and get properly equipped! LOL!

Not if all the citizens around are also armed, and therefore ready to provide the cops with the necessary back-up!