StarGateWars Forums

The day curiculum gets determined by popular belief is the day classes become really, and I mean really funny lol.

Schools should deal in education not indoctrination. Chuck out the reverend & pledge of allegiance and be done with it.

Brdavs wrote:Only sound theories should be tought in schools imo.


Bottom line, it`s not about the ultimate validity of one or the other.

It`s about solid scientific principles & empirical evidence. The E theory may well be flawed, but as of yet it hasnt been disproven.
Inteligent design/creationism on the other hand is based merely on "face value" and the so called "inability to disprove it" - as if that that somehow gives it credibility.

One deals in facts, other... not. Not yet anyways.

Keep science class limited to science & religious education to its appropriate environment. In a secular society that adds up to the priest teaching you creationism & the bio teacher teaching you darwin.

When intelligent design comes up with some scientific conclusions supporting it, other than just "that cant be a coincidance", then it can put dibbs on SCIENCE class.
Till then it has itsown arena. I dont see evolutionists campaigning for E theory inclusion in the sunday school curriculum.

What`s so complicated with that?

In science one uses background information to predict a hypothesis. One then conducts test's to observe a series of events, patterns or numbers that will hopefully support the hypothesis as being the most likely answer.

Denying Intelligent design to me... is just like questioning scientific method as a whole and you cannot have it both ways.

You have your background knowledge (we're all here, we're all doing things) our hypothesis is something cannot come from nothing, but all of what we observe is an intelligent, very complex system. We observer events...when we see intelligent creatures making very complex objects and systems, generally in as most objective manner as they can we then conclude that for the complexity of the universe and then for instance the 'fairness' of evolution to have come about something must have created it.

Problems arise in the fact we have not seen or been able to know this being directly..but many theories and now accepted empirical 'facts' began their life like that, and some in a far more weaker position.

You also have to remember... that human hearts and human hope makes the world go round in a lot of circumstances. You win a man's soul... and they'll believe you whether you're scientifically right or wrong.

This is absurd.

You cant equate a hypothesis that has thus far withstood all testing with the notion of inteligent design that doesnt meet any scientific standards whatsoever , based merely on the fact "it cant be disproven so youd be silly to discount it so you should teach it in class".

Christ, I can make 50 claims that cant be disproven today, shall we include them into science class lol?


In the end it`s NOT about the ultimate truth.

It`s about us humans studying and learning of our surroundings in a scientific, rational manner and in accordance to certain scientific principles and not to simply credit things to some mysterious power.

The fact any theory that holds itsown today can tommorow be disproven in a leap of human advancment has no relevance - and it certainly doesnt give weight to a "theory" that cant produce any basis to begin with.

You`re jumping from the foundations that have to be proof tested to the ultimate postulate of ID. Well that is a big difference.
Any "assumptions" a scientific theory starts out with have scientific resoning behind them & in addition have to be tested, and based on that analasys made. A testing process that yields a result.
ID just plain starts & finishes on an assumption, the first step. And then wants to pass itself as making the same journey.

You cant concievably attribute the same quality to both. You cant. CAN NOT. Stop mixing science with phylosophy.

People can belive what they want but they should recognize the difference and stop pushing squares into round holes. Teach your toddlers ID if you want. But dont call it science. Cos its not by any meaning of the word. YOu`re pushing it back into the dark ages by claiming it is.

Brdavs wrote:This is absurd.

You cant equate a hypothesis that has thus far withstood all testing with the notion of inteligent design that doesnt meet any scientific standards whatsoever , based merely on the fact "it cant be disproven so youd be silly to discount it so you should teach it in class".

Christ, I can make 50 claims that cant be disproven today, shall we include them into science class lol?


In the end it`s NOT about the ultimate truth.

It`s about us humans studying and learning of our surroundings in a scientific, rational manner and in accordance to certain scientific principles and not to simply credit things to some mysterious power.

The fact any theory that holds itsown today can tommorow be disproven in a leap of human advancment has no relevance - and it certainly doesnt give weight to a "theory" that cant produce any basis to begin with.

You`re jumping from the foundations that have to be proof tested to the ultimate postulate of ID. Well that is a big difference.
Any "assumptions" a scientific theory starts out with have scientific resoning behind them & in addition have to be tested, and based on that analasys made. A testing process that yields a result.
ID just plain starts & finishes on an assumption, the first step. And then wants to pass itself as making the same journey.

You cant concievably attribute the same quality to both. You cant. CAN NOT. Stop mixing science with phylosophy.

People can belive what they want but they should recognize the difference and stop pushing squares into round holes. Teach your toddlers ID if you want. But dont call it science. Cos its not by any meaning of the word. YOu`re pushing it back into the dark ages by claiming it is.

Are you afraid of God,of what he can do to you if you'r a sinner?Do you like science because it makes everything palpable and quantifiable and you can comprehend it with ease?
More so, the proof you so desperately need, a living god, once you can communicate directly, that can touch you and which you can see, MAKES IT A FAKE,A SCAM.its like finding a rock on which says "made by GOD", it only proves someone went through all the trouble to confirm your beliefs...nothing else.Brake from your fears,from this insecurity,death by a meaningful life with people that all care for improvement and argument.


Also please note that the use or argument in this FOLDS...You can't speak the truth and bring argument in it...you can bring PROOF but your own opinion on the "argument" that your right is nothing short of "loosing" by default...

Ashu wrote:

Brdavs wrote:This is absurd.

You cant equate a hypothesis that has thus far withstood all testing with the notion of inteligent design that doesnt meet any scientific standards whatsoever , based merely on the fact "it cant be disproven so youd be silly to discount it so you should teach it in class".

Christ, I can make 50 claims that cant be disproven today, shall we include them into science class lol?


In the end it`s NOT about the ultimate truth.

It`s about us humans studying and learning of our surroundings in a scientific, rational manner and in accordance to certain scientific principles and not to simply credit things to some mysterious power.

The fact any theory that holds itsown today can tommorow be disproven in a leap of human advancment has no relevance - and it certainly doesnt give weight to a "theory" that cant produce any basis to begin with.

You`re jumping from the foundations that have to be proof tested to the ultimate postulate of ID. Well that is a big difference.
Any "assumptions" a scientific theory starts out with have scientific resoning behind them & in addition have to be tested, and based on that analasys made. A testing process that yields a result.
ID just plain starts & finishes on an assumption, the first step. And then wants to pass itself as making the same journey.

You cant concievably attribute the same quality to both. You cant. CAN NOT. Stop mixing science with phylosophy.

People can belive what they want but they should recognize the difference and stop pushing squares into round holes. Teach your toddlers ID if you want. But dont call it science. Cos its not by any meaning of the word. YOu`re pushing it back into the dark ages by claiming it is.

Are you afraid of God,of what he can do to you if you'r a sinner?Do you like science because it makes everything palpable and quantifiable and you can comprehend it with ease?
More so, the proof you so desperately need, a living god, once you can communicate directly, that can touch you and which you can see, MAKES IT A FAKE,A SCAM.its like finding a rock on which says "made by GOD", it only proves someone went through all the trouble to confirm your beliefs...nothing else.Brake from your fears,from this insecurity,death by a meaningful life with people that all care for improvement and argument.


Also please note that the use or argument in this FOLDS...You can't speak the truth and bring argument in it...you can bring PROOF but your own opinion on the "argument" that your right is nothing short of "loosing" by default...

Well, anyone who argues a point usually beleives their right and are intrinsicly trying is demonstrate a truth.

unless your a lawyer...

Doesn't matter if you actually say you are right or not while doing so, its implied.

may not be humble or open but you cannot convey a beleived truth without thinking your right


I think you just lost by default.

Thriller wrote:

Ashu wrote:

Brdavs wrote:This is absurd.

You cant equate a hypothesis that has thus far withstood all testing with the notion of inteligent design that doesnt meet any scientific standards whatsoever , based merely on the fact "it cant be disproven so youd be silly to discount it so you should teach it in class".

Christ, I can make 50 claims that cant be disproven today, shall we include them into science class lol?


In the end it`s NOT about the ultimate truth.

It`s about us humans studying and learning of our surroundings in a scientific, rational manner and in accordance to certain scientific principles and not to simply credit things to some mysterious power.

The fact any theory that holds itsown today can tommorow be disproven in a leap of human advancment has no relevance - and it certainly doesnt give weight to a "theory" that cant produce any basis to begin with.

You`re jumping from the foundations that have to be proof tested to the ultimate postulate of ID. Well that is a big difference.
Any "assumptions" a scientific theory starts out with have scientific resoning behind them & in addition have to be tested, and based on that analasys made. A testing process that yields a result.
ID just plain starts & finishes on an assumption, the first step. And then wants to pass itself as making the same journey.

You cant concievably attribute the same quality to both. You cant. CAN NOT. Stop mixing science with phylosophy.

People can belive what they want but they should recognize the difference and stop pushing squares into round holes. Teach your toddlers ID if you want. But dont call it science. Cos its not by any meaning of the word. YOu`re pushing it back into the dark ages by claiming it is.

Are you afraid of God,of what he can do to you if you'r a sinner?Do you like science because it makes everything palpable and quantifiable and you can comprehend it with ease?
More so, the proof you so desperately need, a living god, once you can communicate directly, that can touch you and which you can see, MAKES IT A FAKE,A SCAM.its like finding a rock on which says "made by GOD", it only proves someone went through all the trouble to confirm your beliefs...nothing else.Brake from your fears,from this insecurity,death by a meaningful life with people that all care for improvement and argument.


Also please note that the use or argument in this FOLDS...You can't speak the truth and bring argument in it...you can bring PROOF but your own opinion on the "argument" that your right is nothing short of "loosing" by default...

Well, anyone who argues a point usually beleives their right and are intrinsicly trying is demonstrate a truth.

unless your a lawyer...

Doesn't matter if you actually say you are right or not while doing so, its implied.

may not be humble or open but you cannot convey a beleived truth without thinking your right


I think you just lost by default.

I think chicken are pink,i think i'm right and i can bring argument to that...I must be right then...too bad there's no proof...

I think your mean and just want to say mean things to and about people that believe in God...

brvdas wrote he beleived, you are being sarcastic. There is a difference.

beleiving your right and conveying truth are not the same

but that has always been a difficult concept for the religeous to grasp

Thriller wrote:brvdas wrote he beleived, you are being sarcastic. There is a difference.

beleiving your right and conveying truth are not the same

but that has always been a difficult concept for the religeous to grasp

It also has nothing to do with what i said,and if i'm religious doesn't mean i'm limited...
PROOF and belief or any other action that may convey or bring about something have nothing to do with each other...

Ashu wrote:

Thriller wrote:brvdas wrote he beleived, you are being sarcastic. There is a difference.

beleiving your right and conveying truth are not the same

but that has always been a difficult concept for the religeous to grasp

It also has nothing to do with what i said,and if i'm religious doesn't mean i'm limited...
PROOF and belief or any other action that may convey or bring about something have nothing to do with each other...

I don't what your going about because it has nothing to do with what i said.

Thriller wrote:

Ashu wrote:

Thriller wrote:brvdas wrote he beleived, you are being sarcastic. There is a difference.

beleiving your right and conveying truth are not the same

but that has always been a difficult concept for the religeous to grasp

It also has nothing to do with what i said,and if i'm religious doesn't mean i'm limited...
PROOF and belief or any other action that may convey or bring about something have nothing to do with each other...

I don't what your going about because it has nothing to do with what i said.

Ok, i'll post more in the morning trying to explain...

Ashu wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Ashu wrote:

Thriller wrote:brvdas wrote he beleived, you are being sarcastic. There is a difference.

beleiving your right and conveying truth are not the same

but that has always been a difficult concept for the religeous to grasp

It also has nothing to do with what i said,and if i'm religious doesn't mean i'm limited...
PROOF and belief or any other action that may convey or bring about something have nothing to do with each other...

I don't what your going about because it has nothing to do with what i said.

Ok, i'll post more in the morning trying to explain...

ill just repeat my main point more clearly: When people try to convey truth they always beleive they are right.

I dont see what my personal beliefs have to do with anyting. Dont jump to conclusions and use them to play the "religion is victimized" card.

You`re advocating inclusion of a notion into science class. Said notion doesnt have any sound scientific backing whatsoever, as of yet. Thats not my belief, thats objective quantifialbe fact. And thats the problem.
Pointing that out isnt anti faith bias. You`re shooting for a target, you have to expect and play by the rules of the sport you wish to enter. You cant refuse to do so and redefine the sport.

Beliefs are irrelevant in this context. They have their place in phylosophy class and sunday school.


Seems to me that people pushing this agenda are the ones afraid and insecure, and hence seek validation in the form of having their belief called science when it doesnt meet the criteria.

Brdavs wrote:This is absurd.

You cant equate a hypothesis that has thus far withstood all testing with the notion of inteligent design that doesnt meet any scientific standards whatsoever , based merely on the fact "it cant be disproven so youd be silly to discount it so you should teach it in class".

I wasn't saying that in my post. The Notion that.. it cannot be disproved is used when an empirically bound thinker such as yourself comes forth and see's themselves superior enough to thrust their perspective of the universe onto someone else. You're questioning peoples beliefs.. the same as trusting scientific rigour is your own...but you're not proving to them that they're wrong. Perhaps you're not quite so aggressive as to act like this...but there are plenty who are and some have shown themselves in this thread.

Most religions and believers offer their beliefs based on logical conclusions or other things... in the past they have thrust their beliefs on the world but at least now many have learnt that it's not the way to do it.. however.. many immature thinkers who grasp desperately at the certainty of science have not learned that maturity and persist in attacking faith and religion at every opportunity because they believe their way to be so superior.. and the fact of the matter is... that way is not the only way and the same way a scientist will continue to corrupt religious beliefs for personal amusement the same way a religious person will use science, the best they can, to attempt to prove and support their beliefs because they feel it necessary under constant attack.

brdvas wrote:In the end it`s NOT about the ultimate truth.

It`s about us humans studying and learning of our surroundings in a scientific, rational manner and in accordance to certain scientific principles and not to simply credit things to some mysterious power.

What is 'it'? I have to ask before I reply to this point.... because if you're talking about the meaning of our existence... then the arrogance of your words is magnificent and impressive even to me...and they're also totally wrong.

brdvas wrote:The fact any theory that holds itsown today can tommorow be disproven in a leap of human advancment has no relevance - and it certainly doesnt give weight to a "theory" that cant produce any basis to begin with.

Depends how you look at it really... this is exclusive a subjective opinion. A lot of people have begun theories on nothing but imagination to later be proven.

brdvas wrote:You`re jumping from the foundations that have to be proof tested to the ultimate postulate of ID. Well that is a big difference.
Any "assumptions" a scientific theory starts out with have scientific resoning behind them & in addition have to be tested, and based on that analasys made. A testing process that yields a result.
ID just plain starts & finishes on an assumption, the first step. And then wants to pass itself as making the same journey.

All science begins and starts on an assumption does it not? Do I really need to decant Descartes methods of doubt to you?

My method of ID DOES begin with scientific reasoning...or has science stopped with cause and effect? Does science no longer postulate the big bang? I use logic married with observations of the empirical world to come to a conclusion.... which is solved by ID. It's a theory that has theoretical and empirical support.... you've not given me ANY reason at all to explain why I am wrong...all you've done is explain the scientific process I have used to me... and reminded me of the obvious doubts every single scientific fact and theory might have at some time.

brdvas wrote:You cant concievably attribute the same quality to both. You cant. CAN NOT. Stop mixing science with phylosophy.

Starters... it's Philosophy. Secondly.... are you serious? Science uses philosophy all the time.. good grief! Most of science is philosophy! What do you do with the observations? Make a feature length film and have a chat? You critically analyse them and make conclusions using logic that's rooted in philosophy.

I seek what tools I can to make my theories that I believe to be logical. I use what empirical evidence I can find... and you know what.. I can actually do as i dam well please because I believe to make advancements you need a bit of imagination...a bit of charm.

Fact of the matter is.. I don't for one second think my logic.. and my scientific theory for ID is absolute or even infallible... but I don't think it's any more fallible than the usual scientific theory just because we don't currently have any means to further investigate whether the man or spaghetti monster in the sky is really there. If you cannot accept that, it's fine...but for a supposed supporter of science and ergo a 'free thinker' I am not impressed.

brdvas wrote:People can belive what they want but they should recognize the difference and stop pushing squares into round holes. Teach your toddlers ID if you want. But dont call it science. Cos its not by any meaning of the word. YOu`re pushing it back into the dark ages by claiming it is.

No they're not...I don't understand you guys.

You demean and assault the idea of God or an afterlife and beyond....but yet.. the fact of the matter is.. you DON'T know and it's only your belief that they're stupid and a step back...which is as shallow, illogical, stupid and uncompromising as some beliefs in God and creationism are...so the sooner you give up that belief and the reliance and belief you have that empirical evidence is the ultimate be all and end all of the universe... then I wont smile my arrogant smile when you dare to come here and assault an idea of God.

Semper wrote:
I wasn't saying that in my post. The Notion that.. it cannot be disproved is used when an empirically bound thinker such as yourself comes forth and see's themselves superior enough to thrust their perspective of the universe onto someone else. You're questioning peoples beliefs.. the same as trusting scientific rigour is your own...but you're not proving to them that they're wrong. Perhaps you're not quite so aggressive as to act like this...but there are plenty who are and some have shown themselves in this thread.

Most religions and believers offer their beliefs based on logical conclusions or other things... in the past they have thrust their beliefs on the world but at least now many have learnt that it's not the way to do it.. however.. many immature thinkers who grasp desperately at the certainty of science have not learned that maturity and persist in attacking faith and religion at every opportunity because they believe their way to be so superior.. and the fact of the matter is... that way is not the only way and the same way a scientist will continue to corrupt religious beliefs for personal amusement the same way a religious person will use science, the best they can, to attempt to prove and support their beliefs because they feel it necessary under constant attack.

Thats like jumping under a bus and claiming assault afterwards.


Not that its any of your or ashus business but I was brought up a roman catholic, was an altar boy for what ammounts a 1/3 of ashus life & still rub ellbows on a first name basis with my local priest and a fellow altar boy that went on to join the clergy.

Nobody is attacking anybodys belief, well with the exception of you two piling on me.

People are only saying that it should stay out of SCIENCE class. There are extra cricular activities doevoted to this and so are other classes kids attend.

Why the pathological need to pass itself as (the so despised) science when it cant pass as such by any standard set? WHY?

It`s like a man on a football match doing a pitch invasion and afterwards claiming he was removed cos he`s black or whatever.

There are legitimate times and places of things. Why does creationism feel the need to invade space not allocated to it? Nobody is "muscling in" on it`s teritory.

What is 'it'? I have to ask before I reply to this point.... because if you're talking about the meaning of our existence... then the arrogance of your words is magnificent and impressive even to me...and they're also totally wrong.

it = science friggin class.

stay focused man.

We`re not talking about your belief, the meaning of life etc. etc. Thats what I`m trying to get through to you.

We`re talking about an as of yet unsobstantionated theory being included on the curiculuum of a class that deals in substantionated and tested/testable theories.

Its really that simple.

Semper wrote:Depends how you look at it really... this is exclusive a subjective opinion. A lot of people have begun theories on nothing but imagination to later be proven.

And none of their scientifical theories were accepted and included into science class before they were independantly tested in a scientific process.

ID should be the exception.... why???

Semper wrote:All science begins and starts on an assumption does it not? Do I really need to decant Descartes methods of doubt to you?

My method of ID DOES begin with scientific reasoning...or has science stopped with cause and effect? Does science no longer postulate the big bang? I use logic married with observations of the empirical world to come to a conclusion.... which is solved by ID. It's a theory that has theoretical and empirical support.... you've not given me ANY reason at all to explain why I am wrong...all you've done is explain the scientific process I have used to me... and reminded me of the obvious doubts every single scientific fact and theory might have at some time.

The difference is that an assumption in a sceintific theory is of a nature that it can be tested. The succesfull testing or disproving of said assumption is the result.

In ID the assumption is what, that some intelligence is behind that cell part cos that looks too complicated to have came into being otherwise. Thats a theory but not a scientific one. THATS THE POINT.
Scientology also has their theory and hey have quite a bunch of believers (since your main arguments seems to be that a lot of people thinking it true equals something to being verefiable and scientific LOL). A Tom Cruise in every science classroom!

Semper wrote:
Starters... it's Philosophy. Secondly.... are you serious? Science uses philosophy all the time.. good grief! Most of science is philosophy! What do you do with the observations? Make a feature length film and have a chat? You critically analyse them and make conclusions using logic that's rooted in philosophy.

I seek what tools I can to make my theories that I believe to be logical. I use what empirical evidence I can find... and you know what.. I can actually do as i dam well please because I believe to make advancements you need a bit of imagination...a bit of charm.

Fact of the matter is.. I don't for one second think my logic.. and my scientific theory for ID is absolute or even infallible... but I don't think it's any more fallible than the usual scientific theory just because we don't currently have any means to further investigate whether the man or spaghetti monster in the sky is really there. If you cannot accept that, it's fine...but for a supposed supporter of science and ergo a 'free thinker' I am not impressed.

You can do as you damn well please and think your world view the supperior, but you cant pass your rationale and methodology off as scientific without metting the scientific standards, thats all I`m saying.

And you dont have a SCIENTIFIC theory of ID.

I`m sorry to burst this bubble to you, but you dont.

It doesnt meet the standard (even the Daubert one if you will) just cos you say it does.

And your (inevitable) personal take on the validity of those standards is also irrelevant.

You may also think paying taxes i silly but guess what, you dont make the rules.
Simmilarly science defined what it means to be science. And under that definition, ID is not science. Ergo since its SCIENCE class... can you put 2 and 2 together at this stage?

End of story.

Semper wrote:

No they're not...I don't understand you guys.

You demean and assault the idea of God or an afterlife and beyond....but yet.. the fact of the matter is.. you DON'T know and it's only your belief that they're stupid and a step back...which is as shallow, illogical, stupid and uncompromising as some beliefs in God and creationism are...so the sooner you give up that belief and the reliance and belief you have that empirical evidence is the ultimate be all and end all of the universe... then I wont smile my arrogant smile when you dare to come here and assault an idea of God.

Again ad hominem.

Nobody is assaulting the idea of god.

ID was subjected to a standard trying to get it into the *science* club and it FAILED. Playing victim in the aftermath will not advance its cuase.

Thats all there is.

I`m an agnostic, fyi, but I strongly BELIEVE that a class that deals with empyrically backed up theories and scientific method should NOT be bastardized with something that doesnt make the cut, just because you and enough of others fancy it.

Nobody is encroaching on faith. Nobody is dictating to you what your faith is.

We`re asking faith not encoroach on everybody. Dont dictate what science is.

Science class for science, rest to sunday school/philosophy/religions class etc.

Thriller wrote:

Ashu wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Ashu wrote:

Thriller wrote:brvdas wrote he beleived, you are being sarcastic. There is a difference.

beleiving your right and conveying truth are not the same

but that has always been a difficult concept for the religeous to grasp

It also has nothing to do with what i said,and if i'm religious doesn't mean i'm limited...
PROOF and belief or any other action that may convey or bring about something have nothing to do with each other...

I don't what your going about because it has nothing to do with what i said.

Ok, i'll post more in the morning trying to explain...

ill just repeat my main point more clearly: When people try to convey truth they always beleive they are right.

Indeed, well said.
Just look at those two posts above this one, and you'll see two people who are completely convinced that their ideas are the truth. Funny, but ultimately oh-so-very-boring.