/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3304601
>fuck intelligent design

>fuck republicans

>fuck voting

This debate has been had a million times. And you know what? Nobody really gives a fuck. Just go and fucking murder yourself, post an interesting, original topic for once, not this recycled unimaginative garbage.

>Michele Bachmann here has announced her entry into the 2012 presidential race.

Great. With a bunch of republican candidates to divide the vote, Obama will win re-election.

It doesnt matter who runs, obama is going to get re-elected.

Intelligent Design is wrong, because I can't see anything intelligent in it.
It should be renamed "Stupid Design".

>>3304616

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
It isn't science, therefore it should not be taught in science classrooms.

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
The pic is my view of them.

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
People that continue voting for the same jackasses will continue being screwed by the same jackasses. Also not American.

What you should be REALLY concerned about is that she has even the slightest possibility of becoming the president of the world's largest superpower. And is a Creationist. And would have the launch codes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pNtEe4hfk

Why does America have the best universities but seemingly the dumbest politicians

>>3304643

American universities are for members of the upper class first and foremost due to high tuition costs. Most people can't identify with the intelligentsia, and cunning pollies play on this to use a populist platform to gain votes.

Intellectuals are reviled as elitists.

It's a sorry state of affairs, really.

Seriously America. I know you don't like Obama because he raised your taxes or whatever it is you don't like about him, but you'd seriously want this instead? I mean come on, you say you're the best country in the world so please act sensibly and prove it.

>>3304637
>And would have the launch codes.

Here's something scary I read on Wikipedia:

"Bachmann says in dealing with Iran, diplomacy "is our option", but that other options, including a nuclear strike, shouldn't be taken off the table."

What the fuck is this shit? That makes it sound like a pre-emptive nuke. She's comparing it to diplomacy. She thinks that we can either calmly discuss things with Iran or just drop a fucking nuke on Tehran and be done with it.

If this woman gets into power it could be worse than if Palin got in.

Oh, Bachmann is SEETHING with crazy. There are a lot of republican districts and voters that do -NOT- like her.

She'd only win her state, maybe 2 others.

>>3304658
it's cause he's black

just kidding I voted for obama

and not just cause he's black

Michele Bachmann is trying to become the tea party candidate

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
Non-science should be kept out of the science classroom.

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
Liberal Republicans are the only ones I can stand, Conservative Republicans are just full retard.

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
Since it's a presidential election and our individual votes don't matter too much (umad Gore?) I think I'll just vote for Obama.

>>3304658
Were mostly college student without jobs, we dont pay income tax. He should raise taxes even more.

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
its like new math from the 80s but maybe even more damaging

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
right now, nothing good can come from either party

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
no one, because i lost faith in the system
voting is no longer an outlet for voice but a vacuum of futility

>>3304686
http://www.frequency.com/video/wisconsin-republicans-getting-desperate/3038053
Argh I dislike Maddow but eh

>not voting
>they actually think they're not helping to preserve the status quo more by not-voting

>mfw

>>3304637

Fucking hate people with stripped ties. I would punch my own father if he ever wore one

Here's what I'm seeing for the next election:

40% - Democratic Vote
35% - Republican Vote
15% - Tea Party
10% -Independent

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
It's fine, so long as the lesson consists of "Some religious people think evolution was guided by God, and here's all the reasons why they're wrong"

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
They sound like stereotypical Americans, tbh.. It's heartening that they're having trouble getting elected.

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
Not being from the US, I won't be voting.. but I'll be hoping Obama gets back in, because all the other candidates I'm aware of are completely insane.

>>3304727

But the tea party is the republican party. The business party.

>>3304727
>15% Tea Party

you know what? I'm just going to vote for Ron Paul.
I'm sterile, no kids... what the fuck do I care.

>>3304777
Why no Dennis Kucinich?

I know I'm getting screwed no matter what so I don't vote.

>>3304727
Tea Party aren't an actual political party. They're a protest group. They won't be standing for presidential candidacy

>>3304777
I'm not American, but Ron Paul sounds like the only reasonable guy.

Wasn't he the one who said that you needed to pull the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan because they are huge money sinks? And the one who wants to give back power to local institutions? He sounds pretty cool.

Republicans : cavemen
simple

>>3304796
>we shoulkd stop killing people in their own land not because it's bad, but because it costs money.

Stay classy americans, stay classy....

>>3304796

He's a paleoconservative who wants to go back to the gold standard.

Giving power to local institutions just makes it easier for lobbyists to put pressure on them to change laws.

>>3304796
he also thinks that fiat money is immoral and that we should return to the gold standard

>>3304812

"Bad" and "good" are subjective, which is why the debate has been waging on for so long.

EVERYONE, however, can agree that the war is incredibly expensive.

>>3304818
Decentralisation is the way to go, centralised government is akin to fascism.

>>3304824
Well, at least then money would actually have something behind it other than schemes and military power.

>f this Republican gets elected she says she's going to have Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom.
Let america fuck itself over.
Join us eurobros, fellow scientists.

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
I think philosophy of science should be taught along side science. Modern evolution presupposes naturalism. Since naturalism cannot be proven, restricting things entirely to the natural does not follow (logically). Naturalism != science, but = part of peoples religious beliefs. If one, then the other. If not one, then not the other.

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
I agree in the areas mentioned. I am libertarian when it comes to the size and scope of government though.

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
If Ron Paul is running as independent then Ron Paul. Else, voting republican. Yes, because liberal ideologies are self destructive.

We'll never have a female president if they're all females like this.

>>3304818
"A person is smart. People are stupid" This bit of truth alone is more than enough reason to give more power to the individual by not drowning his vote in a national majority. A local vote would focus the interest on what that particular region needs. The northeast shouldn't decide what's best for the West coast.

Besides, if what you say is true and lobbyists have more power, the corruption only effects those areas that get suckered in. All of the towns where people know what's good for them would prosper while the cities of saps will starve.

I am not from America but I would also probably vote Ron Paul if I was. It seems the least evil of all. Republicans=Tea Party and Democrats are both batshit crazy.

>>3304637
i lol'd.

>>3304936
i dont think you understand evolution. It is a naturalistic theory but it is well established scientifically with evidence that specifically supports evolutionary theory and precludes more traditional religious hypothesis.

Acceptance of evolution does not mandate that everything is naturalistic, if you were taught this you have been mislead

>>3304952
Ron paul would like to abolish the seperation of church and state and privatise amenities

It doesn't matter anymore, America is doomed to failure now. The population is too stupid, too unwilling to learn and too arrogant to change. It's time to abandon ship.

>>3304983
The least you could do is gird your lions and hold the line.

I think that ID should be given "A Fair Shake" in the science classroom.

And when I mean "A Fair Shake" I mean that ID should be subjected to all the same scrutiny that evolution has been subjected to, since evolution is a scientific theory.

To further explain, they should have the kids try to observe it, explain it and test it, like evolution has been obersverd, explained and tested. That should help drill into their heads why ID is a BELIEF, and evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

We should not censor our kids from stupid ideas, they need to be able to recognize what a stupid idea looks like.

>>3304986
There is no honour in fighting a lost battle.

>>3304995
why not teach a mandatory course on critical thinking?

Cover things like: basic science of testing, thought experiments, research and sourcing, how to conduct a logical debate, how to identify fallacies, how to interpret statistics and how to identify bias.

Non of this is particularly challenging and if given the amount of time as maths, english or science could be of massive benefit to students in general life and in further education

>>3305002

Why not do both? The whole purpose of mine is to protect the moronic religious freedom of expression while simultaneously destroying ID in the realm of scientific scrutiny. See everyone wins! Bonus points come in when these religious people start wanting to have ID taught in a specific way....THEN we have a problem since they are dictating how something is being taught.

>>3304995
The fact that there is absolutely zero evidence for ID means it shouldn't go anywhere near a science classroom.

>>3305002
yeah im sure the people that run this country really want a populace capable of making their own decisions

>>3304936
Naturalism doesn't need to be proven. It's simply a rejection of the super-natural. Naturalism is a rational and logical stance to take until the supernatural is proven to be true.

>>3304978
>i dont think you understand evolution. It is a naturalistic theory but it is well established scientifically with evidence that specifically supports evolutionary theory and precludes more traditional religious hypothesis.
That is my point. Creationists use the exact same evidence and interpret it a different way. Both try to make sense of it, and interpret it based on their presuppositions. That is why, if you do allow other presuppositions besides naturalism, since naturalism cannot be proven, then there is nothing unscientific about creation. So either allow both, or you are enforcing a naturalistic presupposition and excluding everything else. If you say one thing and do another you are just contradicting yourself, self-refutation.

>Acceptance of evolution does not mandate that everything is naturalistic, if you were taught this you have been mislead
Neither does intelligent design mandate a belief in the super natural... Aliens could have seeded the planet. I do not deny every aspect of "evolution". I deny the idea that all life came from common ancestry, and that is the only thing I deny.

My problem with evolution is that it DOES speak on origins of life, despite its denial of doing so.

>>3305010

Regardless, you have to teach kids what the wrong answer looks like before you teach them the right answer. There are two ways to solve problems.... deducing a plan that works and by eliminating problems that don't.

Bad ideas get torn to pieces in the science classroom, so let em try.

Bachmann's not going anywhere, thankfully. Even if her popularity explodes, the GOP bigwigs will find a way to torpedo her campaign because she has no chance of beating Obama unless unemployment hit 25% or something crazy like that.

Also, 99% of the bullshit promises that primary candidates spout wouldn't be kept anyway. In this case, it's not even possible. How the fuck is a president supposed to control science curricula?

>>3305019
>That is my point. Creationists use the exact same evidence and interpret it a different way.
no, they deny the existance of evidence, thats different entirely

>>3305010
The evidence of ID is the same evidence used for evolution... DNA is evidence for ID, but it is also evidence for evolution. You are blinded by your presuppositions.

>>3305016
>Naturalism doesn't need to be proven. It's simply a rejection of the super-natural. Naturalism is a rational and logical stance to take until the supernatural is proven to be true.
If you want to exclude the supernatural as a possibility, then you must prove naturalism. If you don't exclude the supernatural, then you are correct... but that would mean you would allow both concepts to be taught, which is not your view. In other words, you are a walking contradiction.

>>3305020
Instead of wasting time in the science classroom doing things like that, we should teach that sort of stuff in critical thinking lessons, as this anon suggested:

>>3305002

>>3305028
>The evidence of ID is the same evidence used for evolution... DNA is evidence for ID, but it is also evidence for evolution. You are blinded by your presuppositions.

Wrong. ID depends upon a creator, for which there is no evidence. Evolution is explained through processes such as natural selection.

>If you want to exclude the supernatural as a possibility, then you must prove naturalism. If you don't exclude the supernatural, then you are correct... but that would mean you would allow both concepts to be taught, which is not your view. In other words, you are a walking contradiction.

Sure is argument from ignorance in here.

hahaha.... oh wait you were serious? creationism taught in schools as legitimate theory?

usa cannot into science? why so backward america?

>>3305043
Christians. It's taught in Tennessee and Texas.

>>3305035
>If you want to exclude the supernatural as a possibility, then you must prove naturalism

>>3305035
ID depends on an intelligence, not necessarily a creator..
Natural selection is also a part of ID...

>Sure is argument from ignorance in here.
The argument from ignorance is that you don't see something therefore it doesn't exist. I have nothing to say about your use of fallacies. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't understand even that much then there is no point to continue this conversation.

>>3305047
Whoops, I quoted the wrong person. I meant to quote:

>>3305028

>>3305028
>>3305048

3/10, you almost had me. Now please leave this board, to which you are clearly new.

>>>>/b/

>The argument from ignorance is that you don't see something therefore it doesn't exist

Let's also teach children that Santa brings the presents also, shall we? After all, just because a lot of people don't believe in him, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

>>3305047
If you want to exclude the possibility of the supernatural then you must either show the supernatural does not exist, or that naturalism (only the natural exists) is correct. There is nothing not to understand. You must do this if you want your logic to follow, else you are just asserting w/e you please as an opinion. You should rephrase your response as, In my opinion naturalism is correct.

My logic is sound, so what you are doing is confusing your opinion and dislike for mine by thinking I said something that does not follow logically. I have no problem defending my logic however...

>>3305048
I actually lol'd when I read this.

You are so full of shit, it's unbelievable. Really, do you come here often? Or are you just the village troll?

This is what happens when we try to discuss science on 4chan. Someone comes along, says that ID is just as legitimate as evolution, and then uses logical fallacies to prove his point. He accepts everything in his favour, denies everything in his opponent's favour, all the while claiming that that's exactly what his opponent is doing.

The amount of contradictions you make is beyond trolling. You're either a very poor troll or just very, very dim. Clearly, you're a conservative Republican.

>>3305048
>is that you don't see something therefore it doesn't exist.

That is wrong. You must show us the observable evidence of ID, and it can't be the voices in your head.

If the evidence for ID and natural selection is the same, then just call it "natural selection", and stop being a faggot.

I don't understand the idea of teaching intelligent design is schools.
Is there an excepted theory within the community that they will Teach? Because it has nothing to do with religion.
Someone please explain.

>>3305063
There is zero evidence for the supernatural, just as there is zero for the tooth fairy. Why, then, would I give any credit to the supernatural, when no one is arguing for the existence of the tooth fairy?

I have a theory that there is a civilization living under the surface of Titan. Why don't you go there and tell me I'm wrong?

>>3305070
ID means "God did it."

>>3305047
>>3305048

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Hypotheses which dont follow methodological naturalism are inherently unscientific, since MN forms the core of scientiic method. ID is not following scientific method (its redundant by the law of parsimony, its unfalsifiable..), therefore its not science. Unscientific concepts should not be taught alongside proven scientific theories in a science classroom.

>>3305053
I am not new to /sci/ and I don't go to /b/. I am 100% serious.

>>3305056
>Let's also teach children that Santa brings the presents also, shall we? After all, just because a lot of people don't believe in him, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
I would disprove Santa the same way you would. This is called a straw-man argument. You cannot show what I said was wrong so you put up something you can attack in its place.

>>3305048
Wow, you really don't know what 'argument from ignorance' means, do you? In fact, this proves that you don't:

>>3305063

>>3305080
No, you missed my point. I can't disprove Santa -- and neither can you. However, no one logically believes in Santa because of the lack of evidence. In practice, we are all aSantaists. The same view should be directed and beliefs like ID.

>>3305079
^THIS,

A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS RIGHT HERE!

>>3305076
>There is zero evidence for the supernatural, just as there is zero for the tooth fairy. Why, then, would I give any credit to the supernatural, when no one is arguing for the existence of the tooth fairy?
That is debatable, there are events in history that could have been supernatural. If there wasn't though then that comparison is still illogical, since there is evidence against the tooth fairy, whilst there isn't evidence against the supernatural. Also a kid may have evidence in support of the tooth fairy as there tooth was taken and they were given money. Their evidence is in error though. evidence != truth, however truth does account for the evidence.

>>3305079
Good, now we are getting somewhere, into the realm of philosophy of science. I deny the falsifiability criteria because the truth cannot be falsified. i.e. the truth and science are mutually exclusive in that case.

I define science as the pursuit of truth in case you are wondering.

>>3305081
I know what it is... Since something has not been falsified it must be true. I never said super-naturalism was true because it hasn't been falsified. However the contra-positive of the argument from ignorance is: If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false. Which is what you are doing when you exclude the supernatural as a possibility. Nice try though.

>>3305084
Santa implies a series of axioms.

1) If you're a bad kid, you will receive coal.
2) If you're a good kid, you will receive presents.
3) Every kid is either good or bad.

Since there are some kids who receive neither presents nor coal, and since they are either good or bad, the definition of Santa becomes inconsistent and therefore does not exist.

>>3305103
>implying ID/god's definition is consistent

Paul/Kucinich is most probable progressive bipartisan movement.

Greens with Cynthia McKinney is fav though.

Obama is Much preferable to 99% of Republicunts though.

>canada fag here

I'm glad that I don't have to deal with religious shit, if I don't provoke it, then I can go for the rest of my life without having to deal with these people.
feelsgoodman.jpg

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
Do you even need to ask?

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
I wish the fiscally conservative party wasn't retarded in every other aspect.

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
I don't know who the Republicans are running yet. Certainly not Bachmann. If they run Ron Paul I would vote for him over Obama, or Possibly Mr. Cain, though I don't know enough about him yet.

>>3305115
ID does not imply a god did it. Even if people who hold to ID almost all believe in God, there is no necessity that God is that intelligence. I would argue that it was God, however that is not what ID is.
Whether any definition of god is consistent or not does not matter in the case of ID. Cause ID does not imply god, even if god implies ID. Evolution does not imply not god, even though not god implies evolution for instance.

>>3305095
>I deny the falsifiability criteria because the truth cannot be falsified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>3305143
That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

Fuch all that political jibber-jabber, she looks hot.

>>3305143
>That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

For something to be true it does not need to be "falsifiable", which is why I reject that condition. Just because Karl Popper tried to define science in that way doesn't mean I do, or that anyone else ought to. I define science as the pursuit of truth and nothing more.

Republicans: lower average IQ

nuff said.

>>3304829
Bad and good aren't subjective at all.

Bomb sandniggers: have morez sandniggers bombing your subways and crashing planes on building.

Nothing is subjective in there.

>>3305115
Didn't say anything about God or ID, just Santa. :)

"I don't really miss God, but I sure miss Santa Claus"
- Courtney Love

>>3305168
>Democrats: minorities, welfare recipients, and illegals.
What now?

I don't believe in a bearded man up in the clouds but I do believe in intelligent design of course.

>>3305181
And republicans somehow still manage to have the lowest average IQ

it says a lot.

Do not attack ID, attack the reasons behind the need to create such bullshit ideas.

>>3304658
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's clear something. up. I am American, and I can PROMISE you that if Michele Bachmann is elected as the president of my country, I will be somewhere beyond the Canadian border within 24 hrs. Bachmann is an embarrassment to my nation, just as she is an embarrassment to intellectuals everywhere.

>>3305193
Those charts are made up. I am surprised you didn't know that...

>>3305216
Good! Because I was actually lying. IQ averages are higher for republicans.
But now that I know that these charts are made up...

>>3305183

Logical fallacy. Every design has a designer whether you believe he has a beard or not. ID is bullshit to make theism seem relevant in modern day society.

If Bachman or any other ultra-conservative wins...

I don't even know...probably run away to Canada

>>3305246
Come here bro, France.
We like free thinkers (well, I do).

>>3305251
sounds like a plan

>>3305229
>>3305168
>>3305181

>>3305252
You're welcome, anytime.

>>3304616
That's not how voting works. Unless she wins the primary she is not a significant threat to the republican party. Please god tell me you're not a voting american.

Anyway the most realistic GOP candidate now is romney, but republicans won't vote for him because he's Mormon and had a public health plan in Massachusetts.

intelligent design is a personal conclusion one reaches based on their own personal belief system and science.
it should not be taught in the classroom, there is no connection to any experiments or observational evidence. what should be taught in science class is science.
my view on the republican party is that some of their values are okay, but they only field loud idiots that are divorced from reality. and their sophisticated propaganda machine terrifies me.
i have not determined who i will vote for really yet. if the republicans nominate a decent candidate, i will not be voting. if they nominate someone like her, i will be doing everything in my power to vote against them.

>>3305278
By not voting, your give your voice to your ideological opponents (you help them come closer to their goal from at lest one voice that didn't oppose them).
Be responsible, vote.

>>3305240
Inaccurate, also degree != high IQ. Degrees are not needed as much in rural America. While the largest cities and populations are in cities were they are needed, such as NY.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf
>>3305254
Fabricated... just check sources

American politics appears very smooth, with little difference in the beliefs of neighbouring politicians.
So it is almost trivial to approximate what this woman will do if given the opportunity - easier still she represents the Tea Party.

Why doesn't someone say it loud and clear "Here is a list of things are are direct technological descendants of evolutionary biology. Should evolution be false, the following things would absolutely not be possible ...."
Then again, the same could be said for other stupid claims like a young Earth.

>>3305254
>Massachusetts is second highest
>Re-elected Ted Kennedy until he died

yep. looks pretty fake to me.

>>3305166

Then you are not practicing science.

>>3305301
i see very little difference between the two parties. they're both pro corporate, pro interventionalist, pro israel. whoever gets in office doesn't really matter, policy will stay the same, and lobbyists and the media will still have more influence over them than i.
above is ONLY if they don't nominate a creationist retard. if they do nominate a creationist retard, i will be responsible and vote against them. otherwise ain't shit gonna really change no matter who gets elected.

I would vote for Ron Paul, I mean, if they're all the same, I'd rather vote for the guy who would at least let me smoke pot in peace.

>>3305166

How can you determine what is true if you refuse to acknowledge what could make the statement false?

If there is an object in a locked box and it can only have one of a finite range of colours, you can't say with any certainty that it is definitely red without acknowledging that it could be a different colour and then ruling out each of them.

>>3305315
Science still existed before Karl Popper. Who is given the right of defining what science is and is not. What basis are they making their definition off of. Also what presuppositions must one have in order to do "science". I am not a naturalist but I still do science and can account for natural phenomenon. ID fits in a naturalist world view though so I fail to see how it cannot be considered science. Explain to me how evolution is "falsifiable", while ID is not "falsifiable". We were not there to witness either, nor can we do an experiment to find out.

>>3305349
>nor can we do an experiment to find out

So the myriad experiments on bacteria don't count? Or did God intelligently make E. Coli bacteria be able to use citrate on the 20,000th generation, just to fool us?

>>3305349
>Who is given the right of defining what science is and is not.

Scientists. Also, falsifiability keeps science from using "FUCK YOU, IT'S MAGIC!"

Er, for a start evolution can be witnessed in a laboratory setting.

There have been countless documented examples - the best of which is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

We can make predictions based on evolutionary biology that we would expect to happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

ID doesn't make any claims other than " *my* god did it ". They have not published anything other than appeals to probability.
They effectively deny the existence of any benefit made possibly purely by evolution.
They suck at maths.

In response to creationist attempts to muddy the waters, the falsifiability of evolution is widely reported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability

>>3305349

ID doesn't even have an explanatory framework. It could only be falsifiable once it brings an idea to the table.

Instead it just says, often literally; it looks just like evolution, but I don't think it could have been evolution. With a nudge nudge wink wink about what it really was.

No sir, if it was really science it would ALREADY BE SCIENCE. It had a head start on natural selection, most of the people who studied natural selection for a hundred years started with the assumption of intelligent design, and it was still found to be a useless hypothesis.

>>3304601
There is NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL she will be president.

\thread

>>3305301

And if you don't like any candidates?

Men fought and died for your right not to participate in a political system you felt no loyalty to or confidence in. They FOUGHT AND DIED.

>>3305329
What is true is true. What relevance does "what if what is true were false, then we could show it is false" have anything to do with whether or not it is true?

>If there is an object in a locked box and it can only have one of a finite range of colours, you can't say with any certainty that it is definitely red without acknowledging that it could be a different colour and then ruling out each of them.
k?

What would make the universe falsifiable? It not existing.
What would make God (ultimate reality) falsifiable? No realities existing. Since God is supernatural in nature, therefore the supernatural is falsifiable. However what that falsifiable state would look like simply isn't the case, meaning it may be true.

What would you expect if something was not intelligently designed? No information. What do we see? Information (DNA). It isn't that ID is not falsifiable, it is that what would make it falsifiable is not the case, therefore ID may be the case.

>>3305395
They fought and died to protect your right to not vote? I must have missed that vote-boycotters' war.

if they do start teaching intelligent design in science class, i say we start teaching evolution in church goddamnit.

>>3305396

Nobody, even Dawkins, claims ID is not possible. Only that it is superfluous when it comes to explanations of the diversity of life, and that it is unsubstantiated when it comes to the explanations of the origins of life.

>>3305396
What can happens, happens (in n time)
You just don't understand it that's why you need to push the problem aside and just say "there's nothing to understand, god did it".

>>3305414

What do you think the revolutionary war was over? The right not to participate in a foreign government, the one in London. Read a book.

And besides, down to brass tacks here, the right to vote it utterly meaningless if you don't have the right not to vote.

>>3305396
>What would you expect if something was not intelligently designed? No information.

According to what? To whom? Your situation already presumes an Intelligent-Designer; what evidence is there of this? As far as is the case, there is information without a designer. When/if we observe it, then information can be altered.

>What do we see? Information (DNA). It isn't that ID is not falsifiable, it is that what would make it falsifiable is not the case, therefore ID may be the case.

Affirmation of the consequent.

>>3305414
If you would be equally happy if either of two candidates would win why would you have an obligation to vote. The same would apply if you would be equally unhappy, or not care/ignorant of which is better.

If someone doesn't feel the drive to vote, they would fit under one of these categories. Nothing good comes from ignorant voters either.

>>3305396

>What is true is true
You are very much missing the point - how can you tell what is true?
Do you have some protocol to determine fact from fiction?
And even if something does conform to reality, how do you know it isn't just an approximation on some limited scale - e.g. Newtonian physics vs Einsteinian relativity. Both give very accurate results, but one is only useful under a certain range of conditions. The other is useful over a much larger range. Yet both fail to completely define the effects of gravity.

>What would make the universe falsifiable? It not existing.
If the Universe didn't exist, you could not make such a statement. Since you can make such a statement .....

>What would make God (ultimate reality) falsifiable? .....
First you need to properly define god - which god? And which particular belief and sub-belief?
God is supposed to be supernatural, yet he has acted on the natural world. Which means he must have left evidence of some sort - not anything like fingerprints, but some discontinuity in the recorded behaviour of a predictable system. Something that simply cannot be explained by natural means. Ever.

And once again for the cheap seats, ID does not explain anything. It barely makes a guess. No argument, no evidence, no research.
If you think evolution gives the appearance of design, then you haven't grasped the enormity and complexity of the natural world.

>>3305396

>What would make the universe falsifiable? It not existing.

Do that again, and I'm posting gore, animal abuse, and gay porn.

>>3305425
The revolutionary war was a war over some taxes that Americans didn't really like, and the whole "We want to completely secede from Britain" movement didn't really kick off until Common Sense was published in 1776, during the war. People were still toasting the king until then. Furthermore, the slogan "no taxation without representation" indicates that the cause of the war was the OPPOSITE of what you said; they WANTED to participate in their foreign government, so that they wouldn't be taxed.

If you don't like anybody, vote for nobody or write someone you do like in.

>>3304601
Fuck this. I'm getting out of this POS country before it runs itself into the ground.
Fuck this.

>>3305447

Yes, they wanted to participate, as do I and many others, but they were given no good options, and so they decided to cease participation instead.

And I don't think I'll be voting. I might spoil a ballot, though.

>>3305396
"While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation."

Science can adjust it's views, based on what's observed.

>>3305469
What do you mean, decided to cease participation? They couldn't cease participation because they couldn't fucking vote in the first place. The war was a movement for more, not less, participation. I suggest you read up on your American history.

I don't understand why you would spoil a ballot, but at least you're going in and making a point. Frankly, I like Australia's system of fining you if you don't vote.

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioral program.

>>3305492

Try Brazil's system. I understand spoiled ballots go to the incumbent.

And the war was not to convince Britain to let them send MP's to Westminster. They first wanted to participate in that system, it was unresponsive, and so they said fuck you we'll do our own thing. People who don't vote because the candidates are all assholes, or because they think none of them could do any good regardless, are not voting because the system is unresponsive. If there were any kind of direct connection between their vote and their life, they would do it, but despite all the rhetoric and bluster, a lot of people can see that there really isn't that much connection. Short of organising a wasteful revolution, or starting some retarded Gulch, the most that can be done is simple, passive non-participation.

>>3305430
>According to what? To whom? Your situation already presumes an Intelligent-Designer; what evidence is there of this?
It's a theory, the evidence is DNA, fossils, variation of life, our current reality. The same evidence evolution uses can be used for ID. The difference between ID and evolution is that ID does not trace everything back to a "simple" common ancestor for all living things. That different kinds were different from at the beginning, and contained the necessary information for certain functions like eyes, without need to evolve such functions. Not that evolution cannot take place. ID and evolution are compatible if you take the origins aspect of evolution away.
>As far as is the case, there is information without a designer.
To say the present reality is not from an intelligence is also a claim. To say it could not be the case is an argument from ignorance.

>When/if we observe it, then information can be altered.
ID is a theory genius, not a deductive proof. When/If we observe evolution from a ?(origin) that is extremely simple turn into extremely complex organisms, then we can consider evolution a possibility, right? /sigh
Because it is not the case that we have witnessed this occurring, nor can we go back and witness this happening to us.

>Affirmation of the consequent.
I didn't say it was the case, I said it may be the case...

>>3305505
Natural selection is a tautology. I am a creationist even. The animals who survive to reproduce... will be the animals who reproduce. Simple huh?

>>3305558
>I am a creationist even.

What the flying fuck are you doing on /sci/?

>>3305532

I'm curious, is there anything which isn't designed in the context of intelligent design? Because if DNA can be said to contain information, so too can the distribution of the craters on the Moon, or the arrangement of pebbles on a beach. They're none of them random, each is determined by the interaction of physical laws.

No. She's not going to do that because it's unconstitutional. Religion is for private schools where the retards can spend their own money to masturbate their egos. As a taxpayer, I refuse to fund pseudo-scientific bullshit.

>>3305558

I don't think that qualifies as a tautology.

And it doesn't do anything more than describe one observation on which natural selection is based; that the animals who survive to reproduce are the ones who pass their traits to the next generation.

>>3305569
In the context of ID, yes there are many things that did not have to be designed, such as the later examples you gave. ID only accounts for the human concept of intelligence, what we would expect if we were that designer, basically. If that intelligent designer was a sovereign God, then no, everything was designed, including the other examples you gave.

>>3305558
>"Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge" By Gerard Radnitzky, William Warren Bartley, Sir Karl Raimund Popper

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.

As far as I am concerned it is OK because everyone I know including myself has never done any actually research to contribute or support the proving of evolution. So to take the stance " We evolved end of story" is kinda silly. That kind of arrogance gets people killed in very, very bad ways.

>>3305063
>If you want to exclude the possibility of the supernatural then you must either show the supernatural does not exist, or that naturalism (only the natural exists) is correct. There is nothing not to understand. You must do this if you want your logic to follow, else you are just asserting w/e you please as an opinion. You should rephrase your response as, In my opinion naturalism is correct.
wtfamireading.jpg
You can't prove a negative. Further, naturalistic phenomena have been "proven" correct since we can measure and quantify them.

>My logic is sound, so what you are doing is confusing your opinion and dislike for mine by thinking I said something that does not follow logically. I have no problem defending my logic however...
No... no it's not sound. If you wanted to make a valid argument you'd say that the "supernatural" needs to be proven that it DOES exist. You can't prove that something DOESN'T exist.

8/10. Would be trolled again.

>>3305532
>It's a theory, the evidence is DNA, fossils, variation of life, our current reality.
LOL. No it's not a theory. Post some evidence showing that ID is correct.
>The same evidence evolution uses can be used for ID.
Except it's not. ID isn't a matter of simply reinterpreting the evidence of evolution. In fact, creationists often refute evidence used for evolution rather than reinterpret it.
>The difference between ID and evolution is that ID does not trace everything back to a "simple" common ancestor for all living things. That different kinds were different from at the beginning, and contained the necessary information for certain functions like eyes, without need to evolve such functions.
>without need to evolve such functions
>Not that evolution cannot take place. ID and evolution are compatible if you take the origins aspect of evolution away.
Do you listen to yourself? Piss off simp.

>>3305632
Naturalism is the idea only the natural exists. That is not the same as saying the natural exists... What you did is called equivocation.

I never said the supernatural must exist. I said it could, to say otherwise (without it being an opinion or without proving it) is an argument from ignorance:
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

>>3305648
I meant... the mechanisms used by evolution may vary well exist and ID is still possible even if they are. ID is primarily concerned with origins. Evolution is and is not concerned with origins depending on who you talk to. If you want to say everything evolved from common ancestry you are talking about origins. If you say mutation can add genetic information and natural selection is how that information survived, you are not talking about origins. One does not imply the other, in other words.

Slapping a label that says "God did it" on a scientific theory makes it unfalsifiable.

>>3305532
>ID is a theory genius, not a deductive proof.
>ID is a theory
Nope. You don't even know what constitutes a theory. You probably wouldn't know what a theory was if it was fucking you in the ass.
>When/If we observe evolution from a ?(origin) that is extremely simple turn into extremely complex organisms, then we can consider evolution a possibility, right? /sigh
Yeah, wait around for millions if not billions of years on some other planet to observe evolution from protobionts to elephants. Fuck yourself.
Countless experiments and observations have been conducted all pointing towards evolution as the most rational explanation. The very existence of DNA, molecular units of heredity, proves that evolution is real. Our extensive fossil record, knowledge of geological time and processes, and even observations of evolution in the lab and in nature within populations further confirms its validity.
If I see you post the words 'micro-evolution' or 'macro-evolution' I will come to your house and beat you over the head with a cinderblock.

>Because it is not the case that we have witnessed this occurring, nor can we go back and witness this happening to us.
Except we HAVE witnessed it occuring. Read up on the literature or go back to sucking eggs. Stop being so fucking dense.

>republitards respect my money but fuck with my science
>democunts respect my science but fuck with my money
Goddammit

>>3305694
>but fuck with my money
I doubt you are in the top .01% income bracket of America.

>>3305711
>implying I'm not
>implying I want my money to go to some nignog on welfare for 20 years

>>3305691
>Except we HAVE witnessed it occuring. Read up on the literature or go back to sucking eggs. Stop being so fucking dense.
Witnessing the mechanisms is not the same as witnessing it happen. Nice ad hominems though, you sure convinced me.

>Nope. You don't even know what constitutes a theory. You probably wouldn't know what a theory was if it was fucking you in the ass.
Enlighten me please, what is this mysterious demarcation point when something no longer becomes a theory?
>Yeah, wait around for millions if not billions of years on some other planet to observe evolution from protobionts to elephants. Fuck yourself.
I was just following the same logic and reasoning used against intelligent design. I was not saying that you need to, but that you need to according to the logic used against ID.
>The very existence of DNA, molecular units of heredity, proves that evolution is real.
The very existence of DNA, molecular units of heredity, proves that ID is real. exactly

>>3305711
I lol'd

>>3304915

Canada here, Can we come over and join the EU?

We already have a Queen.

We're not buying any of those Greek bonds though. We can see the way the wind is turning there.

>>3305733
Except for the whole unfalsifiable "God did it." part.

>>3305095
>>3305080
>>3305019
>>3305028
>>3305048
You have got to be the most bone-headed goof I have ever seen.
First off, evolution and ID do NOT have the "same amount of evidence". ID has, quite literally, no evidence at all. Evolution is one of the most well-supported scientific theories in existence. This isn't opinion or subjective, this is how it really, literally, actually is in reality, where sane people live.

Furthermore, you're arguing from ignorance something crazy. You absolutely cannot logically make the argument that we can't disbelieve something until it has been absolutely disproven. Logic 101 goes the exact opposite direction. Only believe something that has been 100% proven.

Does god answer prayers? Saying that most prayers don't get "answered", and those that do get "answered" happen by completely normal and explainable means, any rational person would argue that no, prayers do not get deliberately answered by some omniscient guardian angel.

Naturalism is proven with your very senses. Scientific experiments, observations and studies only reinforce our knowledge of the natural. There is, quite literally, absolutely no proof for supernaturalism, besides some rather interesting and entertaining stories concocted by ancient civilizations. What you fail to realize is that existence of fables and stories about fairies are not conclusive and air tight proof for fairies.

>>3305694
>Implying republitards respect your money
Are you within the economic top 5% of Americans?
If not, then republicans don't give a flying fuck what happens to you, your job, your wallet, your bank account, or your family. To think otherwise is to proclaim ignorance of the incredibly obvious economic terrorism and plutocratic cronyism the right wing has specialized in for the last 40 years.

>>3305733
>Witnessing the mechanisms is not the same as witnessing it happen. Nice ad hominems though, you sure convinced me.
Your blatant ignorance of the scientific literature is astounding. One well known example of observed evolutionary change within a population is the peppered moth. You could also look at any model organism and observe morphological, evolutionary change in populations over time.
How do you think influenza works? Did all those influenza strains originate in different kinds? Is that why they come in seasons? Is that why we aren't exposed to all influenza strains in existence at once? Is that why we aren't immune to it?

>Enlighten me please, what is this mysterious demarcation point when something no longer becomes a theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

>I was just following the same logic and reasoning used against intelligent design.
No you're not. You simply argue from ignorance at every turn while refusing to show any evidence for ID. All the while you continuously demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding on either subject.

>The very existence of DNA, molecular units of heredity, proves that ID is real. exactly
So DNA proves that species originated in different kinds? Wow, you really are pants on head retarded.

Kill yourself and get the fuck off /sci/.

>>3305733
>The very existence of DNA, molecular units of heredity, proves that ID is real. exactly

Umm...how exactly can you argue this without stepping on the broken glass of like three dozen logical fallacies?

What you're essentially saying, as far as I care to interpret your woefully uneducated words, is that because we don't fully understand DNA, heredity, etc, then the only other option is that some kind of supernatural creator MUST have designed it. You completely reject, without even understanding them, the theories that DNA came about naturally, which are theories that have actually been repeated in lab experiments (read: Miller-Urey experiment, et al.) and are startlingly well-supported.

Frankly, you can have faith in whatever you want. But don't you even think about claiming that your faith is supported by science. Truth of the matter is, the closest thing to any religion that ANY legitimate science supports is deism...maybe, and that's only because the concept of a god cannot be proved or disproved by the very definition of a god.

OK EUROPEANS
THIS IS THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES, the rest of us are NOT retarded like the people in the south.

>>3305831
As a fellow American, this is what I've noticed.

The South, particularly the Deep South, have always been extremely religious, even legally supporting zealous violence/bigotry in the past. This intense faith has inevitably lead to a complete distrust, disdain, and even outright hatred of learning, education, science, and critical thought.
As the populations grew and cities developed, more liberal attitudes began to thrive in the urban centers. Because of constant social pushes conducted by religious leaders, we see that fundamental religious philosophies have spread out from beyond the South. Because large population centers remain steadfastly liberal and secular (relatively speaking of course...this IS still America...), the theological push outward was able to stake great territorial gains in the sparsely-populated Mid West. This continual push and (ironically) evolution of religious thought has delivered to the country a strongly conservative, Republican and Christian South and Midwest, where Mormonism, Baptism, radical Presbyterianism and Lutheranism thrive.
All of these philosophies and branching denominations actively spur any science that they recognize as a threat to their faith. Couple this with the natural ignorance of the fundamentalist religious crowd, and you have a appallingly HUGE group who reject science without understanding it because that's what their leaders say, and their leaders tell them to respect their leaders, because it's all in the "Good Book", a vile and brutal tome of violence and horrors that no rational and compassionate human being can fully read and understand and still remain a Christian.

>>3305887

theres no fucking way im reading that

>>3305759
>First off, evolution and ID do NOT have the "same amount of evidence". ID has, quite literally, no evidence at all.
Really? You mean DNA is not evidence of intelligent design? Once a piece of evidence is used for something does not make that same piece go away. Evolution did not create a monopoly and snatch up all the evidence. Evolutionary origins is an interpretation of the evidence seen, so is ID. You are confusing no evidence with "I don't agree with the conclusion".
>This isn't opinion or subjective, this is how it really, literally, actually is in reality, where sane people live.
How do you know this?
>Only believe something that has been 100% proven.
I am not saying because it has not been disproven we must believe it as true. Yet you are telling me, because it has not been proven, we must not believe it is true. Which is the actual argument from ignorance. I never said you cannot disbelieve ID.
>Does god answer prayers? Saying that most prayers don't get "answered", and those that do get "answered" happen by completely normal and explainable means, any rational person would argue that no, prayers do not get deliberately answered by some omniscient guardian angel.
Irreverent to ID. ID does not imply God. Prayer is not what I am discussing.
>Naturalism is proven with your very senses.
No, that the natural exists is proven with our senses. Naturalism is the idea ONLY the natural exists, which is not proven by our senses...
>no proof for supernaturalism, besides some rather interesting and entertaining stories concocted by ancient civilizations. you fail to realize is that existence of fables and stories about fairies are not conclusive and air tight proof for fairies.
There is no logical connection here. Whether stories exist has no bearing on whether something other then the nature exists. I would be interested in how you concluded this "stories" from the past were decisively not supernatural events. Good luck proving that one...

>>3305905
It's not even that long..

>>3305909
>You mean DNA is not evidence of intelligent design?

Correct.

>>3305183

So who made your watchmaker?

Because to make the universe, he'd have to be just as complex. Ad Infinitum. Now let that regress infinitely.

Seriously though, if God can come into being out of nothing (or always existed) how do people who believe in this shit complain about the Big Bang theory? God can be self caused, but the universe cannot? Wat?

>>3305909
>Good luck proving that one...
So first you argue against my claim that we shouldn't believe what hasn't been proven, and then you tell me that you necessarily believe the supernatural claims of ancient stories because we *can't* disprove them...
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Also, how is DNA evidence of ID? DNA is a fundamental aspect of evolution, acting in a manner of speaking as the vehicle through which genetic mutations are acquired and spread/killed off. There is no basis that DNA supports ID aside from arguing with the God of the Gaps fallacy, the Apparent Design fallacy, and the general fault of jumping to conclusions.

>>3305937

>And then later that night, 'Old Father says that the greatest trick of religions is in saving people from infinite regresses. Consider the question: "What caused the universe?" The natural answer is that God caused the universe. Aha, but then one is tempted to ask: "But what caused God?" Ho, ho. And so on – do you see? Religions break the regress. They tell us this: God caused the universe, and God causes God, and this is all that anyone needs to know.'

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
Lol.
>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
If "most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design", then lol.
>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
I'm not American.

>>3305937
>Intelligence requires design
>This designer now requires design
>ad infinium

>>3305909
Where is God?

>>3305950
No, the you could just as easily say Universe caused universe, by ID definition, universe is less complex than it's creator and thus easier to spontaneously appear than god

>>3305950
nice try. it's turles all the way down.

>>3305999
Turtles all the way down

/thread

>>3305999

Turles?

>>3304657
ummm no, most high tier schools have such high endowment they almost always meet financial aid. I would know, i can count about a dozen friends who wouldn't be where they are without that aid.

Could someone explain to me the difference between "supernatural" and "imaginary"?

>>3306044

Is <span class="math">\sqrt{-1}[/spoiler] supernatural?

>>3305947
>So first you argue against my claim that we shouldn't believe what hasn't been proven,
I am not arguing against you, I am merely pointing out a logical fallacy... Argument from ignorance:"If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false."
Also nothing has been proving, see Münchhausen Trilemma.
>and then you tell me that you necessarily believe the supernatural claims of ancient stories because we *can't* disprove them...
No. I say a supernatural explanation is possible...

>Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
Like someone who is using logic?
>Also, how is DNA evidence of ID?
Because DNA is information and given an Intelligent designer we would expect to see information. It really is that simple..

>>3306055
>Because DNA is information and given an Intelligent designer we would expect to see information.
This.

ID explains why "Sup guise, I'm there" is written in ASCII in every human's DNA. Evolution doesn't.

>>3306044
All supernatural things are imaginary, but not all imaginary things are supernatural.

Supernatural is just imaginary things that somewhere, some idiot believes in.

>>3306055
>given an Intelligent designer

The designer is the unfalsifiable part, and integral to ID. That is the part that needs to be observed.

>>3306044
>Could someone explain to me the difference between "supernatural" and "imaginary"?
Supernatural means not bound by nature. In reality it means not bound by known natural laws.
Imaginary means contradictory to reality.

>>3306044
Strictly speaking, supernatural is defined as something outside of the natural world and the laws which govern it while imaginary is a fabrication within the human mind.

To draw a distinction, something could be supernatural and be outside of the possibility of imagination, like for example time travel and all of the implications that it would have on physical reality. As time goes on however, our definition of what is imaginary will increasingly encompass more and more impossible and possible things.

tl;dr supernatural = not real
imaginary = not physically real

>What is your view on the Republican party in general
Nothing else in the OP is even worth a response, but anyway... I was a pretty hard-core conservative for most of my life (I'm now 36). I fell out with the Republicans through the Bush Jr years -- partly because of what an utter idiot he was, and partly because the party just suddenly became absolutely evil. The debate between conservatives and liberals used to boil down to freedom versus equality. Conservatives were willing to sacrifice some equality in order to gain freedom, while liberals were willing to sacrifice some freedom to gain equality. But now I have no idea what the fuck is going on in the government. Everyone on both sides is apparently just thoroughly corrupt and money is all that matters. Sure, there have always been corrupt politicians, but over the last few years, they've "won" and I don't think we have a government at all any more. Just spokespeople for the corporations.

It doesn't matter too much, though. Technology will make government obsolete. Probably soon.

>>3306080
That's not true, I could imagine a can of soda that is sitting in my fridge. Doesn't make that can of soda that is actually in my fridge and less real.

>>3306010
all the way down damnit.

>>3305909
>Really? You mean DNA is not evidence of intelligent design?
Nope, never seen them present a compelling argument using DNA evidence. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen an ID argument use DNA evidence at all. I would ask you to provide a coherent argument for ID using DNA but I figure you can't be bothered because it would probably strain you overmuch to think.
>Once a piece of evidence is used for something does not make that same piece go away.
No shit sherlock.
>Evolution did not create a monopoly and snatch up all the evidence.
No, but it explains all the facets of data and all the evidence presented coherently and soundly. Can't say the same for ID, seeing how it isn't a theory because it isn't falsifiable.
>Evolutionary origins is an interpretation of the evidence seen, so is ID.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's Abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the diversity of life.
>You are confusing no evidence with "I don't agree with the conclusion".
No, you are confusing it.

>How do you know this?
It's explained by the literal mountain of evidence and data. But I guess you and your ilk are immune to rationality because you don't understand causation.

>Yet you are telling me, because it has not been proven, we must not believe it is true.
Yup. The burden of proof is on you. Present a compelling argument for ID using sound, falsifiable evidence and you might be taken seriously.
>Which is the actual argument from ignorance.
Your obviously.

>>3306080
>The designer is the unfalsifiable part, and integral to ID. That is the part that needs to be observed.
I guess evolution is unfalsifiable as well? We have observed the mechanisms, but not working of those mechanisms from our past to our present, but merely some mechanics in the present. Why could life not have been seeded on Earth, why did life have to have started on Earth as the simplistic organisms instead of a more complex organism from the start? These are the things you are saying couldn't have happened when you reject ID as a possibility.

>>3306055
>Because DNA is information and given an Intelligent designer we would expect to see information. It really is that simple..
Immediate God of the Gaps and Ontological failure. You assume an intelligent designer would use information, you assume that information is DNA, and you assume that the DNA is not of natural origin in the first place. You're basically looking at something, and saying it was supernaturally created, and leaving it at that. Doesn't work that way.

>>3306111
(continued)

>Irreverent to ID. ID does not imply God. Prayer is not what I am discussing.
>irreverent
The word you are searching for is "irrelevant".
>ID does not imply God.
Yes it does. It implies an esoteric intelligence or designer that created all known species in kinds as an explanation of biological origins.
>Prayer is not what I am discussing.
Agreed, not sure where he was going with that one.

>No, that the natural exists is proven with our senses. Naturalism is the idea ONLY the natural exists, which is not proven by our senses...
And yet the supernatural has yet to be proven to exist. Why should I believe in the existence of supernatural if it has yet to be proven? How would you go about testing the supernatural or proving it exists in the first place? Further, if you WERE to prove the existence of the supernatural it would have to be through natural means, which would only discredit your position that what you discovered was supernatural in the first place. What you would actually discover would be natural. Supernatural implies that it's beyond our natural world and is thus unfalsifiable. It cannot be tested or proven/disproven. Therefore it cannot enter into the realm of scientific theory.

>>3306096
>Conservatives were willing to sacrifice some equality in order to gain freedom

So are you saying then that there are no Conservatives in the US government federal or state right now? How do you justify the big government fascism that the Republicans in office are throwing down across the country?

>>3306100
Suck more dick.

You need evidence of an intelligent designer.

I have not seen you present evidence, and DNA is not a soda can.

Present your evidence RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

>>3306100
>comparing god to soda

I like your style, but I hate how you argue like a retard

>>3306127
I obviously clicked the wrong post number, eat my ass.

>>3306114
>discussion evolution
>brings up origins of life
>2011

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>3306069

... What?

Seriously. What the fuck am I reading? Do you know anything about genetics? At all?

Also, if I was designing shit, I would have tried to make less mistakes. Eating through the same hole you breathe through? Choking hazard a bit.

>>3306140
You could at least apologize like a normal person, or is maturity beyond you?

>>3306069
Nice god of the gaps there bro.
Also, God seems pretty proud of a fucking mess. I can't think of any decent engineer who would be proud of such a monstrosity that allows for such gross defects.

>>3306142
Yes, I have a PhD in genetics and biology from the American Biblical Patriot Institute of Creation Science. What about you, smartass?

>mfw people are actually arguing in favour of ID on /sci/

I thought you guys were smarter than this. ALL of you.

>>3306127
DNA is the evidence. Of course the abilities animals have to adapt is also evidence. It is evidence, whether you want it to be or not lol, because it fits into the theory of ID. Anything that fits inside of ID, that ID can make sense out of is evidence, because it is what one would expect to see if the hypothesis were true. Since there is that evidence it is properly called a theory.

>>3306157

I have a PhD from wikipedia, which a quick Fermi calculation tells me is roughly 40 billion times more accurate.

>>3306069
>ID explains why "Sup guise, I'm there" is written in ASCII in every human's DNA.
Except that's exactly what we DIDN'T find in DNA, which is why DNA is such a slam dunk in favour of evolution.

>>3306119
In the next few sentences after the one you quoted, I went on to say that the government is completely corrupt on both sides... by money... Are you confused?

>Intelligent design is unsubstantiated while evolution has evidence in tremendous abundance.

>I feel conservatism as a whole is an ideology based in stagnation, and as nature has showed us time and time again, that which does not change is destroyed by virtue of a changing universe.

>Which ever candidate I most agree with. You can infer whatever you'd like from my answer to the previous question.

>>3306157
>PhD in genetics and biology
>American Biblical Patriot Institute of Creation Science
PpffffttthhhAAAAHhaAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Doho...dohohAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....

Oh fuck... oh christ, my sides.... mmheheh... mwhaAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*etc.

>>3306167

You are exactly the kind of person I want to be voting. Why are there not 300 million more of you?

>>3306169

I know right? I actually spit up a little when I read that. I know it's probably a troll, but still, 9/10, would laugh again.

>>3306159
>DNA is the evidence.
DNA shows us that every living animal shares a common ancestor, and how new information can be added through mutations.
The only place where your intelligent designer can hide atm is the very origin of self repliating molecules (which isn't even part of the theory of evolution), and no doubt will we have that explained soon enough.

>she says she's going to have Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom.

I dislike Republicants as much as the next 20-something liberal but there's a huge difference in what a politician says to get elected and what happens when they get in office. She's just pandering to the Christian Right. ID in schools has already been turned over multiple times by judges and it's not going to start being accepted because there's a Republican president.

The sky is not falling young libtard.

Democracy = just as good as the people voting

Swedish Democracy = smart

American Democracy = STUPID & FAIL

>>3306154
This is only true if you know the intent God had in creation. If His intent was to create all perfect creatures that could live forever then He failed. That was not His intent however. As it is written:
Romans 9:
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory.
Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

God wishes to express His character qualitatively, meaning all His aspects including His justice. Only a world such as our could that be possible.

>>3306157
Oh, you're a troll. That makes much more sense.

Phew, what a relief, I thought you were serious for a while. I was worried that there were actually people that stupid on this board.

>>3306186
how's those copyright laws working out guys?

>>3306157
>PhD in genetics and biology
Oh, so you must have some good peer review journals published. Care to share some of your literature?
Maybe you can explain the process of genetic regulation through the means of inhibitor proteins more clearly than my professor?

>American Biblical Patriot Institute of Creation Science
Oh.... nevermind then.

>>3306157
>American Biblical Patriot Institute of Creation Science
>The biggest joke of an attempt at an educational facility in the history of mankind
>Maybe in second place to Glenn Beck University
>Nope, it's worse than Glenn Beck University

But seriously, that place isn't accredited with any serious scientific or educational organization, including the Department of Education. A degree from their is about as useful, accurate, and honorable as a large bucket of steaming hot, wet, liquid feces extracted from a terminally diseased cow.

>>3306183
All he did was say what she said. He didn't overreact. Get over it.

>A degree from their is about as useful, accurate, and honorable as a large bucket of steaming hot, wet, liquid feces extracted from a terminally diseased cow.

>>3306199

copyright laws are unnecessary, your implicature is moot.

>>3306157
>American Biblical Patriot Institute of Creation Science
>The biggest joke of an attempt at an educational facility in the history of mankind
>Maybe in second place to Glenn Beck University
>Nope, it's worse than Glenn Beck University

But seriously, that place isn't accredited with any serious scientific or educational organization, including the Department of Education. A degree from there is about as useful, accurate, and honorable as a large bucket of steaming hot, wet, liquid feces extracted from a terminally diseased cow.

>>3306194
>Using Bible quotes
>To present a legitimate argument
You need to go back to the time-out chair.

>>3306194
>Argues that DNA is evidence for ID
>Presents evidence in the form of Bible quotes
Someone should put you in a glass jar.

>>3306207
Except if you are going to argue against God you have to attack His actual intentional not a straw-man.

>>3306194
>Bringing Bible quotes to a /sci/ence discussion

Am I being trolled?

>>3306220

But that's not his intention. It's your interpretation of what some bronze-age people wrote about their interpretation of God.

>>3306220
>if you are going to argue against God you have to attack His actual intentional not a straw-man.
What is there to attack? Arguments of the existence of god are pointless since god is unfalsifiable. Further, why are we arguing this on /sci/?

>>3306220

>>3306194

I'm going to start quoting Aristotle in my arguments for Evolution.

After all, if you can bring in evidence from a 2000 year old book which has no relevance to the current discussion, why can't I?

I mean, obviously he must have similar views on old tomes being the source of all knowledge in the modern era, right? He thought he was putting down the absolute truths of...

"Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered. (II.1269a9)"

Oh. Well then.

vote for democrats = invasion of illegal scum into the south continues, PC bullshit, lazy minority over productive majority attitude

vote for republicans = no abortion, no women/gay rights, religion and creationism bullshit, anti-social economic policies

Tough choice Americans.. Time for a new voting system, one that wont lead to two-party dictatorship? At our parlament we have 5 active partys.

>>3306220
>implying God wrote the Bible
It really says something about your "omniscient" god if he wrote a book so riddled with brutal horrors, vile and sickening practices and customs, dangerous and perverted advice, and paradoxical, hypocritical and/or self-contradictory verses.

http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/

>>3306236
What country are you from?

Britfag here: we have a pseudo-three party system. Really, we have two parties and the illusion of a third. I wish we could have as many as five parties that all had a chance of getting in.

>>3306247

In Canada we have 4-5 with regular seats. Last election we had a huge upset, and our third-fourth biggest party became the official opposition.

>>3306226
Interesting assertion. By claiming what His intention is not you are claiming to know God's intentions.

>>3306228
>What is there to attack? Arguments of the existence of god are pointless since god is unfalsifiable.
Agreed, the truth cannot be falsified, why bother.
God is falsifiable though. We would expect to see no realities without Him, since He is sovereign and the ultimate reality. That is not the case however. He is still falsifiable because of this however.

>Further, why are we arguing this on /sci/?
Because this is a thread about ID, I never brought up God, other people did.

>>3306239
God did not write the bible, He inspired it. God is sovereign over everything, how He reveals Himself is His choice too.

>>3306265

>> By claiming what His intention is not you are claiming to know God's intentions.

>>But.. you just said we need to base our logic on God's intentions, and then quoted Bible shit to make us think you know them.

>>Op Nope! I meant God's intentions are unknowable, lol! But he's still totally falsifiable! Because the universe wouldn't exist without him! and that's not a tautology at all!

>>Fuck this, I quit.

>>3306265
>God is falsifiable though.
Care to share some empirical, peer review journals on that one then?
>We would expect to see no realities without Him, since... etc.
Oh, I see... your doing a thing... right.

>>3306265
>He
>Him

Perpetuating man's projection into the ether.

>>3306265

>By claiming what His intention is not you are claiming to know God's intentions.

Sup fallacy. 1) Stop avoiding my argument by turning it around on me. 2) Claiming to not know something isn't claiming to know it. Nice try though.

>>3306206
not moot. you guys' supposedly awesome democracy is being undermined by corporate interest. now what other democracy does that happen in i wonder? hmmmm. swear i've heard of corporate interests screwing over another democratic country...

>>3306288
>Implying the masculine is not the default pronoun form in English.

>>3306265
>the truth cannot be falsified,

What truth? That you're delusional and hallucinating? That you SUCK at science? I agree, you are insane, and you are not practicing science.

>>3306247

Slovakia. We have 5 regular, and additional two a bit below the parlament entry limit. Entry limit should be abandoned IMHO, then people would vote according to their opinion, and not calculating whether their favourite party would have a chance to enter the parlament. We would have like 8 parties in it then :D

>>3306294
You said the bibles definition of God's will in creation was wrong, which is a claim about knowing God's will. If you said that may or may not be God's will, then you would be okay, but why bother. We know God's will because any other will would be contradictory to God's other attributes.

Right, I'm going to save everyone here a lot of time.

"Evolution was used by Hitler, Man! Why do you support Nazis?!!"

Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over. You can all go home now.

>>3306306

No I didn't. I said the intention of God you were expressing was not from God but it was your interpretation of an interpretation. Here, re-read it:

>It's your interpretation of what some bronze-age people wrote about their interpretation of God.

You don't speak for God. When God comes down here and signs an affidavit of his intentions, then we can talk about it. Until then, stop bearing false witness.

>>3306316

Atheists: being better Christians than Christians.

>>3306254
And our conservatives got majority.

They are like the lite republicans, want wars and military spending and shit. Also alot of people in them are anti-science, but its not generally.

This argument is as old as the internet.

If you want to teach "intelligent" design, that's fine, but not in a science class. Put it in with the theology class, because that's where it belongs. Something that doesn't use the scientific method doesn't belong in a science class, or even mentioned.

I don't agree with Obama, but he's still better than getting these fundamentalist republicans in office that will force ideologies on everyone instead of fixing the country.

Ron Paul is the only religious republican who believes that religion has no place in politics, and he doesn't have a chance of being elected

>>3306265
You've got to be the densest mother fucker I've ever had the displeasure of arguing with. Arguing with you is like trying to explain the theory of gravitation to pond scum. I hope you have a fat, dumb, happy life or whatever, but for the sake of our entire species do not reproduce and spare us all from whatever fucking disease or genetic defect it is you are carrying.

>>3306324
This comes as no surprise to me since a vast majority of "christians" in this country have barely even read their own book. And good luck getting them to turn the other cheek on just about anything.

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
It's not science, we shouldnt teach it as if it was

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
Burn it all with fire
>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
Obama or Ron Paul

>>3306359
>Ron Paul
Oh fuck...
>Supports Gold Standard
>Supports Isolationism
>Supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the Iranian Green Movement
>Pro-Life
I mean... he's got some good ideas and I respect him for going against the grain of the conservative right, but christ this guy is a bit whacko.

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms
It is not science. It should not be taught as science. If it absolutely MUST be taught in schools, then it belongs in a theology/world religions/world history class.

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life
I think that there are a few good, legitimate politicians who genuinely care about the country and the people in it (less than 5 with any significant office), but the rest are completely uncaring, bought-out corporate whores who absolutely do not care about this country whatsoever beyond their own paychecks and bribe income from lobbyists and multinational corps. The same could be said about Dems, but they aren't *nearly* as pure evil as most Repubs have become in the last ten years. I mean, Republican policy has really been little less than economic and social terrorism, eating up rights and freedoms like a swarm of locusts.
>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
I don't think I could ever bring myself to even think about voting for a modern neo conservative republican.

>>3306388
He supports not intervening.

America intervening in Iran in 53 and ousting a democratic leader(who was called a Marxist) was why Iran is in their mess.

But my only worry is that he's a fucking creationist. That shit is just wrong.

The president cannot dictate what is taught in classrooms.

>>3306460
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_department_of_education

It's at the federal level.

>my face when nobody takes creationism seriously in my country

The biggest single problem with intelligent design, as an overarching explanatory theory for complexity, is that it posits such a huge leap from nothingness or simplicity, to complexity, far larger and far more unexplained than that posited by natural selection.

Natural selection is an explanation for how complexity can arise from simplicity, by the interaction of the laws of nature. Intelligent design is not an explanation, it's a historical statement about events. Now, demonstrating the designer, or even finding an example of a process that could not arise without intelligent intervention (if one exists), would prove intelligent design conclusively. But it would still not even touch the validity and accuracy of natural selection, or the historical record demonstrating that this is how modern forms of life arose. And besides, we are then left with the problem of how the designer bootstrapped themselves to complexity. Perhaps where they come from, natural selection does not work quite as we see it, but some process brought them from simplicity to complexity.

Hence why I say; intelligent design is superfluous in explaining the diversity of life, and unsubstantiated in explaining the origins of life.

>What is your view on Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms?

It is not science, and should not be taught as such. If religion is to be taught in schools in must be held in a religion class, and the religion class must talk about all major religions. Once you get through that class with a decent grade you may go to a different class based on religious specifics (Eastern religions, Middle Easter Religions [Christianity, Islam, Judaism], mystical stuff, etc].

>What is your view on the Republican party in general, considering most Republicans are sceptical of evolution, pro-Intelligent Design, and pro-life?

I like some of the republican views, such as lower taxes and gun rights. The republicans themselves? No, most of them are IQ of 90 stupid.

>Who will you be voting for? Do you normally vote for this party? Why?
Barely any of the parties support my views, but I would probably either vote for a more liberal candidate or Ron Paul.

>/Sci/ - Politics and Religion

Stay classy, /sci/

>>3306563
>Implying a mod didn't post this thread.