No one ever said he was bright.

Its as good a fable as any and about as useful.

Saying all points of view should be available has dire implications. For example there are thousands if not millions of perspectives on how we came to be. Should science-fiction also be taught, if some whacko sincrely believes Gaiman is right? Anyone in AP Biology would fail the exam because you'd have to teach all points of view as opposed to the science that will be on the exam at the end of the year.

Make an elective class or something. This isn't science.

McCain kisses the ass of the religious right once again because he needs them for the nomination. So much for his so called principled integrity.

Ohhh Johnny, and here we all thought you had some sense and some balls. Apparently you have neither.

There isn't enough time in the school year to teach every creation myth. McCain is an opportunist and an idiot.

Intelligent Design, Day 1

1. There's so much uncertainty in how we evolved that a higher power (your choice in what to believe) must have been involved.

Class dismissed.

Day 2?
Day 3?
Day 4?
..........
..........
..........

If you accept the Spaghetti Monster as your god and creator you will get to have pasta with red sauce every sunday.

On the seventh day God took a five week retreat to cut the crass...er I mean grass at his ranch in Crawfart Texass.

Great. If McCain gets elected we Flying Spaghetti Monster devotees may finally get to see our beliefs taught in school.

And please...no disparaging remarks until you have read all 20 volumes of our religious texts in the original Spaghettiese.

He was seeking a balanced life betwixt the destruction.

Last week Lou Dobbs was pointing out our dismal drop out rate. Now McCain is joining the group that wants our graduates to be stupid too.
Next time you're on a university campus check out who the engineering and science students are. Mostly immigrants who will never be blessed to learn the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is fake and lightening is God's wrath unbound.
Islamic nations lost their edge and fell backwards when they wrapped science up with religion, we're on the way to doing the same.
RCFA

if we're going to teach children ID then we might as well reveal the truth about the timecube to them... http://www.timecube.com

The timecube will blow the lid off of civilisation when stupid evil educators accept it's wisdom. i offer $100,000 to evil monster harvard students to disprove the timecube.

There goes the last bit of respect I had for McCain.

I think the best argument against intelligent design is the overpopulation of the Earth. If the world were really intelligently designed there would be a natural method to have prevented it. the ones provided such as earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, etc. have not been effective. An intelligent designer would have forseen the problem and arranged for it to be controllable. But then, that would put God firmly on the side of birth control which he foresaw as the only hope for an overpopulated planet.

Are they going to teach the theory that life was planted on earth by aliens from the planet Zsazsagabora 8?

Since the ID-iots only apply Intelligent Design to one fantasy, the spagetti monsters and alien theories will have to be taught afterschool behind the bleachers next to the sex education classes.

If intellegent design were true I'd say it is now obvious that God had pretty much shot its wad of intellegent design looooooooooooooooong before July 6, 1946.

Watch for clarification from McCain in 3, 2, 1 . . .

Judging the recent outrage from Bush's statements, why would McCain say this? I guess he's trying to get out front and throw the christian conservatives a bone.

regards,
Theo-logic

Okay, just checked that time cube site and have to say it makes as much sense as any of Dubya's speeches.
RCFA

Just further evidence of how McCain has become Bush's bitch.

I think the best argument against intelligent design is the overpopulation of the Earth. If the world were really intelligently designed there would be a natural method to have prevented it. the ones provided such as earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, etc. have not been effective. An intelligent designer would have forseen the problem and arranged for it to be controllable. But then, that would put God firmly on the side of birth control which he foresaw as the only hope for an overpopulated planet.

Posted by danni at 2005-08-25 03:34 PM | Reply


LOL!!! LOL!!!
Overpopulation. You have got to be kidding right??? What are there too many Chinese?? Indians??? Where do you come up with these ideas???
jpd

See what years in a VC POW camp will do?
He'll say anything.

Hopefully this will clue people in once and for all that McCain is no moderate. He was one of the main voices supporting our misadventure in Iraq. He was one of the main supporters of John Bolton. And now this. Hardly the guy to take the Republican party back to its small government, realpolitik roots. But people just don't want the dream to die. What a bunch of crap.

" behind the bleachers next to the sex education classes"

How true.

McCain is likely doing it for one of three reasons.

- It is what he believes is best.
- It is what his constituents want.
- He believes it is politically advantageous.

Then again those are the reasons a senator will do *anything* publically. I doubt he's anyone's bitch.

Overpopulation. You have got to be kidding right??? What are there too many Chinese?? Indians??? Where do you come up with these ideas???


This is a joke, right?

Man, just when I was about to forgive him for becoming Bush's bitch after Bush raped him in 2000, he goes and does something really stupid like this.

There's about a billion too many Chinese and Indians as far as downsized and outsourced American workers are concerned.

McCain is smart he never said he believed in it, he knows that the Republican Party is moved by the fringe religious extreme. He would never get anywhere if he does not pay Homage to them. It's a new requirement in the GOP Pitiful but true.


-Sarge

ya know I kept reading timecube and reading it waiting for an explanation instead of inane ranting and never got one.
ZAT: see if you can make sense of it.
www.timecube.com

Hopefully this will clue people in once and for all that McCain is no moderate.

And this is the guy the rest of the rtepublicans call a rino. Tells us how insanely far to the right they have gone. "intelligent design" Bush backing McCain is called a liberal by quite a few douchebags here, as well.

I'll be back in a bit. I'm going to go slam my head in the car door. My last hope for fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate just derailed.

Matt in Texas

Lesson 1: There is a Sovereign God.

Lesson 2: We are all (yes, you too) accountable to Him.

Lesson 3: Lessons 1 and 2 will be confirmed when you stand before Him on That Day.

Briwo
Timecube reminds me of the prattle on a bottle of Dr Bronner's soap.

Lesson 4: bullshit

4:25

But how is that science? Did you ascertain that from application of the scientific method?

Zat: I was wishing he would actually advance a theory or hypothesis.

Briwo.
Hell, a complete sentence would have been nice.

Matt: stop making so much sense, you'll give them a headache.

Zat: could you glean at all what he was talking about?

Uh huh - - - and if I put a big banner up on a public school that said "Wiccan Bless America" - - he would agree that all points of view should be allowed?

I don't think so.

"Timecube reminds me of the prattle on a bottle of Dr Bronner's soap."

Yeah, but there's nothing like a peppermint soap massage.

"Yeah, but there's nothing like a peppermint soap massage."

I'll never forget my first one. heh heh
Save water, shower with your steady.

"Slip sliding away..."

One nation, under Zeus.

Or was it Ra?

Briwo
No

Someone more in need of thorazine I have not seen lately.

Zat-
I can't remember which one it was. I was waiting for the comet to pick me up.

Matt in Texas

That's it; I used to be one of those "Hell, I'd vote Republican if McCain ran..." guys, but after becoming a bitch for Dubya, and now this, forget it!

Intelligent Design is nothing for the a marketing ploy to get Creationism in the schools. It is not science, has no place being taught in a science class, and our public schools are secular, so I can't see a mandatory ID class. As part of a "Mythology/Religions of the World" course, okay; in any other forum, it's just not going to fly with me, anyway.

So in short, if you're a devout Christian and want your kid to grow up with your Christian view of the world, send him or her to a Christian school - Lord knows there are plenty of them out here in SoCal. Wouldn't the teaching of ID in public schools be tantamount to government-established religion?

My kids went to Episcopal schools. My daughter is in an Episcopal college. Of course Episcopalians would never buy into this bullshit, either.

It is amazing that these repubs think that some higher power brought about the events that led to life. These dumb asses even have college degrees & still dont undrstand evolution. Even Roberts is a religous nut. Darwin had it pegged 100 years ago, these republicruds cater to the religious groups. folks, we are one big accident-accept it!

What will be interesting to see in 2008 is how the same individuals who circulated unfounded rumors about McCain's illegitimate child will start singing his praises once the primaries start. Would have voted for McCain... didn't get the chance.

On another note, my wife and I had a discussion about ID last night. I am an Episcopalian and she is a Evangelical Free (not sure what they call themselves). She is a strong proponent of ID; I, however, while still believing in God and in the sacrifices He/His son made for us, can see a balance between evolution and the creation story. The thing to remember is that the Bible is a book written by man. In fact, the Bible is actually a collection of writings taken from a larger collection of writings sometime in, I think, the 4th century (although it might have been the Council of Nicea). Either way, these books were chosen to put forth a certain message, while other books were not chosen (possibly because they seemed contradictory or were not part of the message the early Church wished to send). Although the Jeffersonian/Deist watch make theory portrays God as a bit too detatched, I find it wholely possible that God started us down the road towards are current evolutionary state and has guided us all the while. This explains the existance of other great ape descendents like the Neandertal and Homo Habilis (small furry people, kinda like oompa loompas).

To clarify, this explains why the other great ape descendents existed...and died out. They just weren't part of the plan.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

He didn't say in what class he'd include it.

World Cultures and Religion? Fine.
I'm for that.

Science? No. It's not science. It offers no predictions that can be tested and confirmed or disconfirmed.

Lovely, Anton. Show me where he says "Science is religion, and religion, science."

Here's a thought...why can't ID be taught in an English class? The Bible is a work of literature every bit as valid as something by Toni Morrison or a biography of Ernest Hemmingway. I remember being taught the Greek and Roman creation stories in my high school English classes. Adding the Bible, and the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita (amongst others) couldn't hurt.

Because the fundies want to validate ID as a science. Being taught in English class wouldn't legitimize it as such.

Lovely, Anton. Show me where he says "Science is religion, and religion, science."

Posted by illbefrank at 2005-08-25 05:35 PM | Reply

Why?

How?

I don't think Einstein would have made such a patently absurd comment. He, however, certainly was a scientest and certainly was not a religiophobe. Many pseudo-scientists are religiophobes. Look around. It's OK. We all have our prejudices.

do Aliens count?

If we're gonna teach children that god created the universe and humans through 'intelligent design' shouldn't we also include the posibility that our planet was seeded by aliens as well?

What about alien invaders and reincarnation? If you want to be "fair and balanced" you've got to cover all your bases.

Lesson 1: There is a Sovereign God.

Lesson 2: We are all (yes, you too) accountable to Him.

Lesson 3: Lessons 1 and 2 will be confirmed when you stand before Him on That Day.

Which God? There are about a zillion. Buddha? Gitchegomi(sp)is an American God, not a ME God, shouldn't we support our own God, rather than import one with ties to Islam?
RCFA

Why?

How?

I don't think Einstein would have made such a patently absurd comment. He, however, certainly was a scientest and certainly was not a religiophobe. Many pseudo-scientists are religiophobes. Look around. It's OK. We all have our prejudices.

Posted by Anton at 2005-08-25 05:45 PM | Reply

No. He wouldn't have. I was being sarcastic, that's the point. Using the "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" quote suggests to me that you think science needs ID somehow, when it does not. If people need both, fine, but don't put them in the same class. They are not the same.

Why is there a need for an "intelligent designer" at all? If it's not to promote religion, then what scientific purpose does it serve to insert one because there is an alleged gap in knowledge?

There are always gaps in knowledge. That's what science is about. Discovery, findings, proposing a hypothesis, testing and finally production of a tested Theory.

If this isn't good enough, then the very motivation of those proposing I.D. are completely exposed for what they are. There is no middle ground. Those that propose ID are therefore inherently dishonest unless they admit their motivation is not science but justification of their pre-existing mythology by revisionist retrofitting of findings.

YAV

Intelligent design is a belief held by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, but it's certainly nothing we want our kids to know anything about. Yup, that'll prepare them for the world.

Intelligent design is a belief held by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, but it's certainly nothing we want our kids to know anything about. Yup, that'll prepare them for the world.

Posted by Hawk at 2005-08-25 08:34 PM | Reply

If hundreds of millions believe it, their children do know it. They just don't know the technical-sounding pseudo-science jargon to go with it. Run a course in jargon during Sunday school, don't kill the definition of science or breech the boundary between church and state by forcing it into science curricula.

Wow, you guys are really terrified to present an alternate viewpoint, aren't you? "Kill the definition of science" by presenting intelligent design? I really don't see that as possible.

Lol! Not terrified of I.D. or an alternative viewpoint - terrified that we as a great nation will slide down that slippery slope the "right" always fears. I mean come on - anytime you run into a gap in knowledge, just have faith! It was GOD! Why when you have an absolute answer like that would you do any more science, eh?

You're right, I'm terrified of the complete and absolute stupidity of those that have no idea what science is determining what should be taught as science. Is that wrong?

YAV

Wow, you guys are really terrified to present an alternate viewpoint, aren't you? "Kill the definition of science" by presenting intelligent design? I really don't see that as possible.

Posted by Hawk at 2005-08-25 08:46 PM | Reply


Wow. You haven't been paying attention. That's precisely what Kansas is trying to do to get the ID theory included in the science curriculum. Changing the definition of "science" for the Kansas Education System. I'm not going off the deep end, friend. I'm a realist.

This leftist site is only interested in spreading it's silly Marxist propaganda.

They won't accept any veiwpoint other than their lies.

DKIA

Hey Spoofer...learn the art of spoofing! You terrible at it!

I'm terrified of the complete and absolute stupidity of those that have no idea what science is determining what should be taught as science. Is that wrong?

No... that's sense.

It used to be called common sense.

McCain disapoints me with this unabashed pandering to the neo-luddites of the extreme right. In their ceaseless quest to cram as much of their distorted world view down as many throats as possible these folk are damaging the country.

This is not an "alternate viewpoint".
This is religion encroaching on science.
This is a further blurring of the line that seperates church and state.

This is wrong.

Be Well.

This is when liberals finally learn that John McCain is more conservative than Bush.

They shouldn't teach 'Intelligent Design' in schools unless it's foundation as a theory holds up.

That doesn't excuse the educational establish for teaching Evolution as a FACT instead of a theory.

This is when liberals finally learn that John McCain is more conservative than Bush.

Posted by laj at 2005-08-25 09:44 PM | Reply


But I thought he was a liar, communist, traitor and coward who fathered an illegitimate black child. Are those hallmarks of conservative values?

Uncle Karl Turdblossom or Turdburgular or whatever the hell you go by?

LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU,

That doesn't excuse the educational establish for teaching Evolution as a FACT instead of a theory

Actually evolution is taught as a theory that is based on a number of provable facts.

ID on the other hand is a theory based on wish fullfillment and a work of fiction.

Big difference.

Be Well.

dethspud,

I agree with you that Evolution has factual basis to it but it wasn't taught as a theory when I was in school. It was present as the single truth and way too much time was spent on it in the classroom.

Again, my opinion is that ID shouldn't be taught in the school unless it has supporting evidence. Once it does, then it can be taught but that doesn't mean you stop teaching evolution. Teaching one doesn't exclude the other from being taught in schools. I don't believe that ID will ever gain the facts to support it.

1. ID has NO supporting evidence. So until the existance of God can be proven or they interview the aliens who created humans, I guess we just have to hold off on teaching ID in schools.

Pointing out a gap in another theory's evidence chain doesnt make something else a theory. ID doesnt even QUALIFY as a theory.

Scientists don't exactly understand how gravity works. So should we be teaching 'Intelligent Falling' in schools, like The Onion suggests?

Oops, "2." should have been on the second paragraph.

GOD created evolution .

GOD created evolution

Perhaps he can assist you in evolving. As a child, I had sea monkeys that were smarter than you and probably far more successful.

They shouldn't teach 'Intelligent Design' in schools unless it's foundation as a theory holds up.

That doesn't excuse the educational establish for teaching Evolution as a FACT instead of a theory.

Posted by laj at 2005-08-25 09:47 PM | Reply


Evolution is not only taught as a theory supported by facts, but it made predictions which all available scientific evidence continues to support. It established the notion that we are all related scores of years before DNA was even discovered. DNA demonstrates similarities and the presence of identical genes across species which establishes an observable progression of descent from primitive common ancestors. If there is substantial evidence that demands that evolution be overturned, evolution, the slave to science, must acquiesce, and a new theory must take its place. It must be right 100% of the time. No such evidence has been brought forth that can dispell evolution.

ID shrugs its shoulders, pretends to make predictions, backpedals when it fails, saying any holes found in its theory only means that the Intelligent Designer was not at work in that particular instance, but may be at work in others that have not been sufficiently examined. IDers, are only looking for one piece of evidence that could overturn evolution, knowing it is impossible to disprove their own theory. They only need to be right once to overturn evolution.

Thus far, this has not happened.

Put succinctly, Intelligent Design is intellectual terrorism. Evolution has to be right 100% of the time, while ID need only disprove it once.

The only reason this has gotten as far as it has is that creationists are using the strength of the Christian Right at the moment, and because no immediately observable damage to science can be certain by its inclusion.

Laj,

Spud'll agree with you that Evolution should not be taught as an absolute fact in schools. It's a theory and like all theories it is subject to further study and analysis including a good re-think every once in a while when new information warrants it.

once it does

There's the rub. I don't think it ever can have enuff supporting evidence in that it is for the most part an attempt to have the concept of creationism given scientific creedence and that'll never happen.

Actually Spud never says never.

Actually Genesis, if not taken literally, is a very nice allegorical explanation of the process of evolutionary both in terms of the planet itself and its lifeforms. If you had to go back in time a coupla thousand years, learn the language of the time, and then try to explain in that language what we now know about evolution what you would come up with might be startlingly similiar to what we read in Genesis.

Don't get me wrong... deth is still athiest/ recovering catholic spud... I'm just sayin'.

Be Well.

If, however, one were to use the same "Phantom Cause" model of argument to assail, for instance, epidemiology, it would never pass muster. Imagine someone proposing a "Dark Force" (an unknown entity/entities/presences that are "antithetical to life") is the source of all disease. It's just that science hasn't given enough attention to this "Dark Force" (or to the pleadings of proponents of "DF Theory") to recognize that all disease has a common cause. Really, we're never really "cured" of disease -- such a term is a misnomer, really, as we remain unrestored and vulnerable to recurrences of not only different diseases, but the very same one. This is because the elitist medical community is only treating the physical symptoms, not the cause. While it may be possible to treat the cause -- Dark Force -- we may never know until the elitist and biased medical community redirects time and resources toward investigating our own theory. We may have ways to destroy Dark Force, only insufficient time has been spent studying it.

While there are myriad possibilities explaining "Dark Force", we, the proponents, wish to remain undecided until further study is done. We'd rather not make speculations.

However, those who have ventured such speculations have noted strong similarities between the descriptions of "Dark Force" and stories of plague-causing demons. While I again reiterate that we do not accept nor condone the definition of "Dark Force" as "demons", we feel that it would be remiss for the elitist medical community to dismiss it out of hand, maligning cultures that believe in such phenomena as "primitive", especially seeing as how it is an explanation that has arisen interdependently and independently through many cultures across vast expanses of time. Indeed, many modern cultures have citizens that believe in demons, and they are a feature of several mainstream religions.

Again, however, we do not wish to promote any particular religious idea or ideology, and present this only as one of many possible explanations of "Dark Force". Other explanations include super-intelligent aliens, and one radical web denizen has proposed it is actually a Nigh-Omnipotent Antipasto -- the Adversary of "The Flying Spaghetti Monster."

C'mon, people! If cancer research funds were redirected to study the possible presence of "Dark Force", there'd be riots. But if ID gets into a science class, "DF Theory" has just as much claim. And I'll fight to get it put in. In Kansas, at least.

When Intelligent Design offers some proof that it exists instead of just being an article of faith then maybe it can be taken as seriously as classical evolutionary theory which is largely supported by hard sciences such as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. Of course there are problems with it just as there are problems within mathematics, classical physics quantum mechanics and string theory. They are all works in progress which offer insights into the universe and our origins and over time will be refined to become more and more useful.

There are no serious scientists working on Creationism and ID because seious scientists, as opposed to politicians, see them as blind alleys going nowhere.

Intelligent design is a belief held by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world
So's aliens sticking probes up people's butts and Elvis hanging out in Kalamazoo.
Not to mention Buddhism and scores of other non-biblical based religions. Are they all right, or wrong, and how do you know which God is real, which God is fantasy?

"Lesson 1: There is a Sovereign God.

Lesson 2: We are all (yes, you too) accountable to Him.

Lesson 3: Lessons 1 and 2 will be confirmed when you stand before Him on That Day."

Prove it.

regards,
Theo-logic

Why don't people realize that faith is being content to rest at the door of mystery? Why do christian conservatives hate christianity?

Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
We also must teach that the Intelligent Designer must have been designed by an Even More Intelligent Designer?
Therefore, we must include EMID in science class also.
Hold up, where did the Even More Intelligent Designer come from?
He must have been designed by the Even More Intelligent than the Even More Intelligent Designer Designer.
Therefore, we must also teach EMIttEMIDD
theory in schools.
Wait a minute...

How about the schools just say we don't know how the the universe came to be. If you want to know take the elective "Origins 101" which compares and contrasts the top 10 theories for the beginning of the universe?

- Pirate who doesn't do anything

"Wouldn't the teaching of ID in public schools be tantamount to government-established religion?

Posted by evashogouki at 2005-08-25 05:08 PM | Reply"

No

"Actually Genesis, if not taken literally, is a very nice allegorical explanation of the process of evolutionary both in terms of the planet itself and its lifeforms. If you had to go back in time a coupla thousand years, learn the language of the time, and then try to explain in that language what we now know about evolution what you would come up with might be startlingly similiar to what we read in Genesis"


The most honest, rational post of the day goes to Spud. This Spuds for you.

"Evolution is not only taught as a theory supported by facts, but it made predictions which all available scientific evidence continues to support. It established the notion that we are all related scores of years before DNA was even discovered. DNA demonstrates similarities and the presence of identical genes across species which establishes an observable progression of descent from primitive common ancestors. If there is substantial evidence that demands that evolution be overturned, evolution, the slave to science, must acquiesce, and a new theory must take its place. It must be right 100% of the time. No such evidence has been brought forth that can dispell evolution.

ID shrugs its shoulders, pretends to make predictions, backpedals when it fails, saying any holes found in its theory only means that the Intelligent Designer was not at work in that particular instance, but may be at work in others that have not been sufficiently examined. IDers, are only looking for one piece of evidence that could overturn evolution, knowing it is impossible to disprove their own theory. They only need to be right once to overturn evolution.

Thus far, this has not happened.

Put succinctly, Intelligent Design is intellectual terrorism. Evolution has to be right 100% of the time, while ID need only disprove it once.

The only reason this has gotten as far as it has is that creationists are using the strength of the Christian Right at the moment, and because no immediately observable damage to science can be certain by its inclusion.


Posted by illbefrank at 2005-08-25 10:44 PM | Reply"


Frank, this is not true. The fact that so many species share the same DNA coding sequences does not "establish an observable progression of descent from primitive common ancestors". Many scientists (like this neurosurgeon) would assert that this shows that DNA is a code; encoded by God.

DNA sequences encode the instructions for building proteins, to put it simply. What you cite is evidence to me that He was simply using the same sequences to encode for the same proteins in different species. DNA is FAR too complicated to have randomly evolved. It is a code; God wrote it, plain and simple.

Darwinists will use scientific facts to support the Theory of Evolution in a very subjective way, just as Frank did. Many things such as fossil records, DNA sequence sharing, selective pressure, etc., that are tenets of Evolution could just as easily be tenets of Intelligent Design.

The only real difference between the two theories is "who" is responsible for these changes. I have faith in God; you have faith in Nature.

Why is it okay to force your faith on others in our public schools?

1258 visitor,

The best answer to your question that I have heard is that the theory of evolution stems from the scientific process and that ID does not; therefore ID has no place being taught in 'Science' classes.

The use of the term theory has been misconstrued in the academic world for decades. It behooves those who understand their use of the word to explain it to those not part of scientific academia...Theories are stronger than hypothosies but weaker than actual proven facts. That said, a theory is generally accepted as fact until such time as it can be refuted. I still need some tactile evidence that Darwin was completely unfounded. Flawed though his theorum may be, it is still the best explanation we have to date of the evolution of man (or Homo Habilis or A. Africanus, or Neandertal, I can continue if you would like...).

Visitor,
I agree completely that God could have guided the evolution of man, however, from what I understand about ID the fact that man evolves at all is under attack. Clearly, we can see from the evolution of our own species in the last millenium that nature and our choice of breeding pairs (whether guided by God or not) has an effect on our development as a species. Just look at the rash of hemophelia in the European royalty in the 1700-1800s or Prince Charles' ears as proof. To dismiss the role of natural selection/natural development is a farce.

IF ID really does exist, then the creator is not in the form of a human being but most likely a T-Rex, an Allasaurus or maybe an Allegator or Crocodile. Why, you ask? Simply because Dynosaurs and their decendents have been on the earth for over 300 MILLION YEARS. Man in his present form has been on this earth for only 10,000-20,000 years. Put in perspective, if 300 million years were 24 hours then 1 second would be equal to 3472 years. So while dynosaurs and their decendents have made it through 24 hours, modern humans have been around for the past 2.9 to 5.8 SECONDS! So if there is a GOD s/he must surely be a dynosaur or one of its decendents. Does anyone really believe humans will survive on this planet for another 1,000 years, let alone 300 million years? At the rate we are going I seriously doubt it.
So is it surprising that people have to grasp at an "afterlife"? After all, they know they are not going to be around much longer than 70-100 years total for any one person.
Is it also any wonder that all religions sell the afterlife as a "paradise"? Doing this makes it easier for the rich and powerful to subjugate the rest of the population without their uprising against them. Why do you think Constantine sold Christianity so heavily? Because of believing or realizing that this was the greatest invention to get their subjects to work to death to create wealth for the royalty, then die believing they would get rewarded in the afterlife?
EVERY NATION in Europe did this. They built the biggest, most expensive cathedrals, getting funds from the surfs to pay for it. Religeous splits within the Church were NOT over philosophy. It was over how to divide up the tithe that the flock were contributing. Many Nations didn't want to send so much to Rome so the split between Catolicism and Protestantism and then Evangelicals and on and on happened until we have untolled numbers of sects, all with their own hierarchies to support by the sweat of their flocks.
So all of you can rant on about having to face my "maker" after I die but the only maker I have is my mother and my father. If there is an afterlife they are who I will be meeting and if there isn't I will be looking at grass roots until I turn to dust. It isn't important so long as I'm a good person in this life. Being a good person is not paying for a host of fat assed church officials who do nothing but stick their hand out for more and more. It is helping people in real need of help. If that keeps me out of your "heaven", then that is a place I wouldn't want to be in anyway.

"There's about a billion too many Chinese and Indians as far as downsized and outsourced American workers are concerned."

And they are teaching them college level math and science in school instead of this stuff. India is a very religous country but if the education board were to suggest replacing the scientific thought process with whatever tickles the religous leadership even the most religous parent would have revolted.

So you guys can go ahead with adding all these ideas to the curriculum. Infact, why stop at ID, go the whole nine yard and replace all scientific syllabus with sunday school stuff. God knows we need those white collar jobs :)

p.s. before you guys go medieval on my ass, I am just kidding. I want nothing but the best for all you people (never underestimate the wrath of a blogger, as I have learned from Rob on another site)

Indian

"If you would like religious education, perhaps a religious school would be best. It's not atheistic to study how most leading scientists believe we all arrived here, is it?"

Exclusively teaching "how most leading scientists believe we all arrived here" is to secular humanism what teaching the creation story is to Sunday school; hence the growing home schooling effort across the United States. I consider secular humanism a religion itself; propagating a set of beliefs that is indeed atheistic.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie and WORSHIPPED and SERVED the creature more than the Creator." Romans 1:25

And, BTW, that "church-state thingy" was about establishmentarianism (no official state religion to the exclusion and persecution of all others - a major motivation for why many of our ancestors left Europe for religious freedom in the New World); not the eradication of religion or sequestering of the church on a "reservation" vis a vis the Native American Indian.

I find it interesting that the self professed holders of "truth" feel so threatened by what they regard as Jewish mythology.

"DNA is FAR too complicated to have randomly evolved. It is a code; God wrote it, plain and simple."

That's the funniest thing I've read so far this morning. I'll be laughing all day. Thanks. Go tell that crap to Rosalyn Franklin.

"Visitor,
I agree completely that God could have guided the evolution of man, however, from what I understand about ID the fact that man evolves at all is under attack. Clearly, we can see from the evolution of our own species in the last millenium that nature and our choice of breeding pairs (whether guided by God or not) has an effect on our development as a species. Just look at the rash of hemophelia in the European royalty in the 1700-1800s or Prince Charles' ears as proof. To dismiss the role of natural selection/natural development is a farce.

Posted by visitor at 2005-08-26 02:47 AM | Reply|"

I don't dismiss natural selection. Clearly natural selection is a phenomenon that occurs; that is unarguable.

As to your "natural selection/natural development" quote - natural selection is not "natural development". "Natural development" is not a tenet of biological understanding; I have no idea what you mean by this phrase. If you are making things up, then clearly you aren't posting things with a scientific background, but merely inventing phrases. That would be unwise in a post where you are accusing others of ignoring science.

You wrote "Clearly, we can see from the evolution of our own species in the last millenium". Our own species HAS NOT EVOLVED in the last millenium. You are still Homo Sapiens. You can mate with other Homo Sapiens; even ones from 30,000 years ago. There has been no "evolution" of the human species. Where do you people get this stuff?

You all talk about Intelligent Design being unscientific, but look at the things you write. Why do you insist upon posting unfounded, unscientific ideas like "nature and our choice of breeding pairs (whether guided by God or not) has an effect on our development as a species. Just look at the rash of hemophelia in the European royalty in the 1700-1800s or Prince Charles' ears as proof.", and then accuse others of being backwoods rednecks who are attemtping to push their faith on others?

To address the HEMOPHILIA (not hemophelia) issue you bring up - this is not any sort of example of Evolution. Hemophilia is what we refer to as an "X-linked recessive disease". It is inheirited from a parent, usually a boy from his mother, or it can arise as a mutation. It is almost always seen in boys, as women have two "X" chromosomes, and it is very unlikely that they would ever have two Hemophilia genes. A boy, on the other hand inheirits his "Y" gene from his father (that's what makes him, genetically, a man), and his "X" gene from his mother. If his mother is a "carrier" of the gene, then she has a 50% chance of passing on the disease to her son. If she is a "carrier" she will not be symptomatic. But I digress. This disease has nothing to do with Evolution, and has no relevance to your post.

"Frank, this is not true. The fact that so many species share the same DNA coding sequences does not "establish an observable progression of descent from primitive common ancestors". Many scientists (like this neurosurgeon) would assert that this shows that DNA is a code; encoded by God."

Misleading. Many men of faith who happen to be scientists would assert that. Many other scientists would not. What fascinates me is why would God perpetrate such a hoodwinking of mankind that so accurately supports the theory of evolution, that presents an unusual level of relationship between species? I don't know, but if I were God, I'd like to get creative now and then and make things that were unique and demonstrated no evidence of relationship -- for originality's sake. But maybe he's not as creative as some think. Perhaps he's The Trickster god of Native American belief. It would make more sense, then. But a benevolent god that looks to deceive his own people? Interesting.

Occam's Razor would suggest a progression over millions of years is a superior answer than creating a God that makes all the stuff, but then makes it all so similar that it looks related, but it really isn't.

But I guess Occam's Razor is out of fashion with Creationists, along with other tools of science.




"DNA sequences encode the instructions for building proteins, to put it simply. What you cite is evidence to me that He was simply using the same sequences to encode for the same proteins in different species. DNA is FAR too complicated to have randomly evolved. It is a code; God wrote it, plain and simple."

Your explanation, respectfully, is laughable. The notion that DNA is "FAR too complicated" may be true when you think the world is only 6,000 years old. But it's really quite possible, some might say likely, over the course of hundreds of millions of years as the fossil record shows.

Have you, neurosurgeon, ever examined the cortex of a person with Creutzfeldt-Jacobs Disease ("Mad Cow", in the vernacular)? Is there just one mad cow disease, or are there others? Seems to me a recent study confirmed the existence of at least three. Did God make all three (and dozens more in storage, just waiting to spread his benevolence), or is it likely that it started with a single malformed prion, that, through its passage and transmission over time and through many generations of reproduction acquired new characteristics, or additional structures (or lost unnecessary ones)? I think evolution is working before our eyes, but of course, you can attribute it to whatever "Phantom Cause" you want: God, alien, spaghetti monster, demon... Are any of those useful?

At the junction of evolution and epidemiology, my good doctor, shall we just shrug our shoulders and say the mutation of the HIV virus is the will of God, and say, "Well, that's it. I guess it's God's will. It's not really mutating, it's just God's hand looking to stay ahead of us and punish us (in His benevolence)"?

Or shall we instead, destroy these creations of God, or mutations -- however you want to quantify them -- for the interests of human health?

No, you see... ID doesn't have to account for things like that -- like survival of the fittest -- because it's a selective, and inconsistent theory. It can only apply to the things ID theorists want it to apply to -- mostly the stuff where no one has answers yet (like religion does). Once the answers come forth, then ID theory recedes and says, "Well, biology did that apart from God."

Unfortunately, evolution bears the burden of being consistent, unlike religious theories.

I have "faith" in demonstrable evidence and empiricism. My "faith" is quite different than the "faith" some would have in God. Indeed, it shouldn't share the same word, but the limitations of English being what they are, it does. Your "faith" in God involves no evidence that can be empirically tested, and likely involves a book, a church and stained glass windows. Good for you.

But make no mistake, my "faith" in science and yours in "God" are qualitatively different by virtue of empirical evidence, predictions and the scientific method.

P.S.: A prion contains no DNA. It is itself a molecule. Its evolving (or do you prefer "changes over time"?) demonstrates the ability of even molecules to "mutate", and could stand as support that over hundreds of millions of years, mere molecules could find ways through complexity to increase their likelihood of "survival". Perhaps acquiring a "cell membrane" quite by accident, by dripping into montmorillonite? After all, we've known Mad Cow for only a couple of decades -- and now we have at least three strains. Imagine what there could be, hundreds of millions of years from now, if cows still roam the Earth and it goes unchecked.

"Dynosaurs and their decendents have been on the earth for over 300 MILLION YEARS. Man in his present form has been on this earth for only 10,000-20,000 years. Put in perspective, if 300 million years were 24 hours then 1 second would be equal to 3472 years. So while dynosaurs and their decendents have made it through 24 hours, modern humans have been around for the past 2.9 to 5.8 SECONDS!"

This part of your post is true, except for Man being around for 10-20,000 years - it is estimated that we've been around for about 100-150,000 years.

But anyways, the fossil records show us that the first life on Earth was aquatic. Animals that lived on the land came later, about 400 million years ago. Then, dinosaurs gradually (gradually over a hundred million years or so) came into existence. Man is the most recent species to have "arrived on the scene". Keep that in mind when you read this excerpt from Genesis...

1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:23
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Don't let the whole "seven days" thing be a stumbling block. God is beyond time. Read Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We have no idea what the fuck "time" is.

Frank, you are not a scientist. Throwing around big words doesn't make you an intellectual heavyweight.

"But make no mistake, my "faith" in science and yours in "God" are qualitatively different by virtue of empirical evidence, predictions and the scientific method."

Give some examples. Give me some empirical evidence, predictions, and the scientific method that show that species have evolved from prior ancestors.

Frank, "Kuru" and "Scrapie" have been around for hundreds of years in the indonesian and aboriginal cultures. They have probably been infected through the ingestion of animals brains, which is supposed to be part of their diet. Please get your facts straight. And there are more than 3 kinds of prions. Different prions cause scrapie, BSS, CJD, GSS, and many more. Again, Frank, get your facts straight. Especially when talking about neurological disease LOL!

"P.S.: A prion contains no DNA. It is itself a molecule. Its evolving (or do you prefer "changes over time"?) demonstrates the ability of even molecules to "mutate", and could stand as support that over hundreds of millions of years, mere molecules could find ways through complexity to increase their likelihood of "survival". Perhaps acquiring a "cell membrane" quite by accident, by dripping into montmorillonite? After all, we've known Mad Cow for only a couple of decades -- and now we have at least three strains. Imagine what there could be, hundreds of millions of years from now, if cows still roam the Earth and it goes unchecked."

Mere molecules could find ways through complexity to increase their likelihood of "survival" huh? You're saying I'm the one who's being unscientific?

Frank, perhaps lay people who don't know anything about science, and passionately believe in your agenda, might think that what you're posting is factual evidence, but you haven't said anything scientific.

"Your explanation, respectfully, is laughable. The notion that DNA is "FAR too complicated" may be true when you think the world is only 6,000 years old. But it's really quite possible, some might say likely, over the course of hundreds of millions of years as the fossil record shows"

Unfortunately for you Frank, that was a completely accurate description of DNA. And I don't think the world is only 6,000 years old. But how would that belief have any affect on the complicated nature of the DNA code?

One last thing:

Science, thanks to empirical evidence and testable (and falsifiable) theories produces predictions and results that are valid and reliable. It is based on what you can show. In that sense, it is not "faith".

Religion, magic, psychic powers and bigfoot relies on dogma, and untestable, anecdotal "evidence". To maintain belief in it, you need "faith" in the truest sense of the word. If it were science, you could show me "God", or point to demonstrable, empirical evidence of Him (rather than the poetic answers that, "Look around you. All this is evidence of God." More useless anecdote.).

Know the difference, and keep them separate for the good of humanity.

"I think evolution is working before our eyes"

LOL, just like you said Frank - "I think evolution is working before our eyes".

You think?!

LOL, Frank that is NOT scientific. No matter how passionately you want to believe it, your beliefs are just that.

Frank
The guy who faked the Bigfoot movie fessed up on his deathbed. Yet they still believe.

"Mere molecules could find ways through complexity to increase their likelihood of "survival" huh? You're saying I'm the one who's being unscientific?"

And you could not discern what I meant? Would "continuing existence" do it for you? "Survival" was shorter, and conveyed my point adequately, especially seeing as how prions do share certain characteristics of "life" (among them, the ability to reproduce).

But I should have known better. This sort of nitpicking from a fellow who cannot discern a difference between a "faith" in observable evidence, and a "faith" in an invisible man who made everything.

Intelligent Design is just another way of saying God did it. Meanwhile back in IRAQ......

"Science, thanks to empirical evidence and testable (and falsifiable) theories produces predictions and results that are valid and reliable."

Frank, you still haven't given us any evidence that shows the evolution of one species into another. The Theory of Evolution says that the present diversity of life on Earth has arisen from previous species (through the processes of mutation and genetic change over time subject to selective pressure).

Now, if you want to define "evolution" as the generational changes in allele frequencies (in lay terms "genetic change over time", then, yes, "evolution" is true. But this generational change over time doesn't account for the amount of genetic diversity it would take for a new species to "evolve". A new species would have to be so different, genetically, from it's "ancestors", that they would no longer be able to have productive mating. To assert that this could happen is not (some would say "yet") been shown, and is therefore NOT scientifically proven. To say "nature did it" is not any more scientific than saying "God did it".

Show me God, Visitor.

LOL, what were you saying Comedian?

"I find it interesting that the self professed holders of "truth" feel so threatened by what they regard as Jewish mythology"
I can remember when self professed holders of "truth" like the equality of all men, not just arayans felt threatened by what they regarded as Arayan mythology. Nothing bad ever came out of that mythology,in the 1930s and 40s though.
Funny, ID talks of a "creating god" but all the ID people seem to think there is only one God. Why do they feel threatened by what they regard as Buddhist or native American or whoever's mythology?

Show me Love Frank. Can you see Love?

Oh, yeah, and while you're at it, show me the empirical evidence that led you to the conclusion that God exists. Then we can let ID in the schools. Howzabout that?

I can't see or feel Love, but I know it exists. But anyways, we're getting into philosophy now. And I want to save you from saying something about "oh well, the endorphins in your hypothalamus...". ;)

"Oh, yeah, and while you're at it, show me the empirical evidence that led you to the conclusion that God exists. Then we can let ID in the schools. Howzabout that?"

What empirical evidence do you have for Evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species?

Show me Love Frank. Can you see Love?

Posted by visitor at 2005-08-26 12:05 PM | Reply| IP


You, the neurosurgeon, can see the physical evidence of it in the brain, and locate the places from where it emerges. Just like epidemiologists can see the physical evidence of the presence of "Dark Force" (see way above). Please, let's include that in our textbooks, and demand science divert its resources to study "Dark Force"! It's the cause of all disease, and killing us all?

By the way, what high school class did they teach you about "love" in? Maybe it's a new one I missed.

Okay... food for thought:
Many republicans don't want to allow gay marriage, because it tarnishes the sanctity of the institution of marriage. However, they are okay with "civil unions"... just don't call it marriage. I feel the same way about intelligent design... it has nothing to hang a hypothesis on, and many who believe in the power of science (as I do) feel ID tarnishes the true credible theories of creation which are based on things which exist. So call it what you want, but not a theory. It doesn't qualify as a theory. Call it a belief which some have that is contradictory to science. And teach it as a belief which is contradictory to science... just not in science class, for the aforementioned reasons. Just my humble opinion.

Matt in Texas

Frank, what the fuck are you talking about? Dark Force? What is that?

"You, the neurosurgeon, can see the physical evidence of it in the brain, and locate the places from where it emerges"

No Frank, it would be an unscientific assumption to say that the endogenous opioid system in the hypothalamus, or phenylalanine, or GABA, or any neurotransmitter is the cause of what we refer to as Love.

Of course, you could say that. And you could point to all sorts of neuroendocrinologic studies which talk about the neurotransmitters in the brain, and you could say "I have empirical evidence", but that is not what you'd have. You'd have science that weakly linked to your theory. Kind of like Evolution. ;)

A revised Declaration of Independence for the 21st Century:

When in the Course of [primate] events, it becomes necessary for one [group of primates] to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of [nothing else] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of [primate]kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these [hypotheses] to be [empirically observable], that all [primates] are [the result of the survival of the fittest], that they are endowed by [noone] with certain [changing privileges], that among these are [abortion], [social security], and the pursuit of [sex] ....

It seems appropriate given the current debate.

"What empirical evidence do you have for Evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species?"

If indeed, you are a scientist, you know some things cannot be directly tested. Any ID'er worth their salt goes back to the defense, "Were you there when evolution happened? Were you there when these mutations occurred?"

I suppose all the alleged "mutations" of viruses toward more drug resistant strains didn't actually happen, then. They're not, in fact, becoming hardier and more "fit". I mean, we haven't really seen these mutations happen, have we? What a relief. I can stop with "zithromax", and go right back to straight old "penicillin."

ID doesn't have evidence. It points to the void of evidence, and like religion, it assumes God must be in the void. There is nothing remotely scientific about it. When the void is filled with evidence, then it can shy away, or point to some other void. The neat thing is that, while totally useless, it's unstoppable -- like Mad Cow disease.

If an ID'er notes a "hole" in the fossil record between species, and that hole is filled with a "missing link" then, on either side of that "missing link" there are two new voids. Because the mutations occurred millions of years ago, we cannot witness those particular mutations occurring in real time today. We are left with fossils -- that is, if conditions are just right so as to preserve the specimens intact. But use the fossil record to support evolution, and for every new piece of evidence presented, ID'ers see two new voids, where they plug God into.

This is probably why scientists have tried largely ignore it, because they know it's creationism in sheep's clothing, and you can't talk a religious zealot out of anything, nor can they be swayed by evidence, as many scientists can.

Evolution has made predictions about our relatedness. These predictions held up with the discovery of DNA. ID makes no predictions it can't run away from when proven wrong. It's not consistent. When it is time for evolution to be overturned (if it is), there will be evidence there, and a new theory will be formed. ID presents no evidence. It is not science. It does not belong in a science course.

"[empirically observable]"

I still like "self evident".
Ol' Ben did have a way with words.

Hey Matt
How many people have you met who actually believe men and women have a different number of ribs?

I have met quite a few, just to show that was a sincere question.

Anton-
Okay, I'm with you on the pursuit of sex. Well, not WITH you, but... Anyhow, I believe in God. I went to religious schools. My son will start Episcopalian school soon. In my religious school, we had science class and religion class. Science class taught us evolution, religion taught us Genesis' version of creation. I just can't see any logical reason to teach God in a science class. My personal belief is that God does things, and science is our way of explaining how He did them. The Bible is far too flawed to be taught as factual. If we taught it as fact, would we not then be justified in teaching proper slave purchasing, as taught in the Bible, in Economics? Or how black folks are black as punishment in Anthropology? I think if you want to pray in school, fine. You want to have after-school religious meetings? Fine. But don't TEACH any religion, that is a parent's job. Just my humble opinion.

Matt in Texas

Zat-
I have met a few. It's only true with Janet Jackson, though.

Matt in Texas

"Frank, what the fuck are you talking about? Dark Force? What is that?"

See my Alternative Theory of Epidemiology posted above at: 2005-08-25 10:44 PM.

I want it (DF Theory) included with the Kansas State Board of Education revised science curriculum. Unlike the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" of internet fame which only changes the "Phantom Cause" of ID Theory, this is an entirely new theory of epidemiology that I plan to flesh out and submit. It has just as much claim to being in a science course as ID Theory. The only thing that it lacks at the moment is support, and that's only because it is so new.



"Of course, you could say that. And you could point to all sorts of neuroendocrinologic studies which talk about the neurotransmitters in the brain, and you could say "I have empirical evidence", but that is not what you'd have. You'd have science that weakly linked to your theory. Kind of like Evolution. ;)"

You'd have correlational data that supports it, just like the data provided by the fossil record and the progress of viruses as observed today supports the tenets of evolution.

This is far more favorable and compelling than anecdotal evidence, no evidence, or simply pointing to another theory's gaps (not errors, not anything that could overturn it, but things we have yet to learn), which is what ID relies on. Show me the predictions of ID Theory.

(On an aside, at least when I argue something, I try to be original, rather than paraphrase Matthew McConaughey from the movie "Contact"... But to each his own.). ;)

Matt,

This "debate" actually makes me laugh a lot. Last night I heard a discussion on a local radio program (Dave Glover Show - 97.1 FM - St. Louis) between representatives of an ID- promoting organization and of an anti-ID group. Even the ID guy didn't think it should be taught in science class yet -- he actually suggested that, at this point at least, it is more appropriate for a "philosophy of origins" class. The other thing is, from what I have been able to discern, the "creationism" proponents don't necessarily like the ID people. They aren't the same thing by a long shot. Some people are driven to apoplexy about this. I'm not. I just hope no one hangs a copy of the Declaration of Independence in a public school science laboratory because it might violate the separation of church and state.

Anton-
There is a huge difference between talking about God and advocating a religious viewpoint. Unfortunately, not many can see that. That's why teachers who wear a crucifix get sent home from public schools... it is ridiculous. The difference is best defined by this: I'm not for school-sanctioned prayer, or, "Everyone must now pray". But I'm fine with, "If you would like to pray, you may do so now". If the football team would like to pray, fine, etc... This has been taken WAY too far. But I don't think that ID/creation has a leg to stand on from a scientific viewpoint, and THAT is the reason, in my opinion, that it shouldn't be taught... although if you were to teach just a Genesis version as a valid scientific theory, I think it would cross the church/state line. The Declaration of Independence does not hold any truths to be self evident under any PARTICULAR god, and to protest such a profound document by a founding father would be ludicrous... but I don't put it past the hardliners to do it.

Matt in Texas

Matt,

I'm not letting my kids near public schools. Most private schools that I am aware of (I know there are some exceptions) include evolution in science textbooks and exclude the first chapter of Genesis. Fine with me. For me, this issue has more to do with the rights of parents to direct the education of their children. Anyway .... my two cents ....

"I'm not letting my kids near public schools"

Anton:

I've had my kids in both, and prefered our public schools better.

I've had my kids in both, and prefered our public schools better.

Posted by InWI at 2005-08-26 01:23 PM | Reply

That is your right as a parent. I wish your children well.

Peace.

Thank you, they are just fine.

If somebody advocated teaching kids that aliens may have perhaps created life on this planet, should we teach that in public schools?

Because that is exactly how ID can be interpreted.

intelligent falling
intelligent jumping
intelligent fucking
intelligent pooping
intelligent blogging
wow this is fun, god is completly in control of every action i make.

good point just some guy.

we know have the power to colonize a planet near us and fill it up with cloned lifeforms. we can create humanoids and other creatures and watch them grow. we can come visit them and tell them we are angels. we can command them to worship us, we can even mate with them. i cant wait to be god as my new job in the near future.
d.

Smartest thing McCain has ever done.

"I suppose all the alleged "mutations" of viruses toward more drug resistant strains didn't actually happen, then. They're not, in fact, becoming hardier and more "fit". I mean, we haven't really seen these mutations happen, have we? What a relief. I can stop with "zithromax", and go right back to straight old "penicillin." "

LOL VIRUSES?! Did you say viruses?

I'm sorry. I shouldn't berate you for not knowing the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Viruses aren't mutating toward drug-resistant strains. BACTERIA are.

Some forms of drug-resistant bacteriae are being seen in an alarming number of clinical infections.

Frank, EVERYONE, listen and keep an open mind - this is not Evolution. This is the natural process of change. Change does not equal Evolution. Evolution is the process of speciation (new species arising). Bacteria that have, say the "mecA gene", which is a gene that encodes a penicillinase (an enzyme which "fights" penicillin, for lack of a better term), are able to proliferate even in the presence of the respective antibiotic. Thus, they are able to reproduce where other strains cannot (because they are being killed off by the antibiotic and the patient's immune system). All of the subsequent generations will have this gene, because they're the only ones that will have survived. This is an example of natural selection. You have a mutation giving a bacteria a selective advantage (these have an enzyme which enables them to fight the antibiotic), and because of selective pressure (the antibiotic killing off bacteria that don't have this mutation), they are the ones that survive.

Now, many reasonable scientists assert that as this applies to mating species (bacteria don't mate; they self-replicate), that over time, population would experience many mutations, genetic drift, etc., and with enough selective pressure events (like the antibiotic "selecting" for bacteria that had the gene that rendered them drug-resistant), there would be so much genetic difference in some of the species that they could no longer mate with their "ancestors". This is the Theory of Evolution.

It is a BELIEF that selective pressure, mutation, etc. would create enough genetic change that a sub-population of a species would "evolve" to become a completely new species.

You can argue that all of the scientific processes I just described support the Theory of Evolution. But MANY doctors and scientists will tell you that your belief is a "scientific jump". Just because the lay press tells you that all scientists believe in Evolution doesn't make it so.

" Or how black folks are black as punishment in Anthropology"

Matt, no where in the Bible does it say that black people are black as punishment. Please stop posting complete lies.

"If somebody advocated teaching kids that aliens may have perhaps created life on this planet, should we teach that in public schools?

Because that is exactly how ID can be interpreted.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2005-08-26 01:28 PM | Reply"


A couple of generations from now when it is generally understood that we are creations, and didn't randomly evolve, that is exactly what "The Left" will be telling everyone. If you live to be 90 years old, just remember you read it here first. ;)

". I just hope no one hangs a copy of the Declaration of Independence in a public school science laboratory because it might violate the separation of church and state.

Posted by Anton at 2005-08-26 12:59 PM | Reply"

Anton, I'm curious, what did you mean by that?

"If you live to be 90 years old, you read it here first".

Huh?

36%

Anton, I'm curious, what did you mean by that?

Posted by visitor at 2005-08-26 04:45 PM | Reply| IP

The Declaration recognizes "unalienable rights" which are endowed by a "Creator." It also refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." In a sense, the Declaration makes reference to ID.

I wonder if the ACLU is dumb enough to try and have the Declaration of Independence edited.

I wonder if you're smart enough to make an intelligent comment.

I wonder if the ACLU is dumb enough to try and have the Declaration of Independence edited.

Posted by visitor at 2005-08-26 05:18 PM | Reply| IP

I sincerely doubt it. I actually appreciate a lot of the work they do. I part company with them on some of the church and state causes they get involved with though. If Congress ever passes a bill to create "The Church of the United States of America," I will be right there with the ACLU, however.

"LOL VIRUSES?! Did you say viruses?

I'm sorry. I shouldn't berate you for not knowing the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Viruses aren't mutating toward drug-resistant strains. BACTERIA are."


For the "neurosurgeon's" education:

How do viruses mutate?

A virus is a bit of genetic information (RNA or DNA) packaged in an envelope of proteins and/or lipids sometimes including sugars. Viruses cannot live by themselves but must be able to quickly get into eukaryotic (Plant or Animal) cells to survive. They use the energy metabolism and biosynthetic machinery of the cell to replicate themselves. During the phase of replication inside the eukaryotic cell, a virus makes a copy of its RNA or DNA and from that copy duplicates itself. The RNA or DNA in a virus usually encodes enzymes involved in this process in addition to gene sequences that encode the envelop proteins.

Sometimes during the process of copying the RNA or DNA of the virus, small errors (substitutions in nucleotide base pairs) occur in the copy. These errors are replicated into subsequent copies. If the change isn't fatal to the virus and causes it to stop replicating, then the virus has resulted in a mutation. If that mutation results in a changed protein that enables the virus to survive, infect or replicate better the virus will become more infectious.

In general, most viruses don't mutate that often. Notable exceptions are the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and the Influenza Virus (Flu). HIV is a retrovirus (it has a "reverse transcriptase" enzyme that enables it to convert its RNA into a complimentary DNA that can "integrate" into the host genes. This is often a situation that results in frequent mutations due to gene sequence "reading errors." The Flu virus also mutates frequently. However, virologists and epidemiologists have found that this RNA virus changes by two mechanisms. One mechanism is by reassorting or recombining. There are many flu viruses and each has a host range specificity. That there are flu viruses that only infect animals of a given species like pigs, ducks and humans. However, passage of a duck flu virus through a pig or vice versa sometimes results in genetic adaptation through reassortment or recombination genes so it becomes infectious in humans. Therefore, monitoring duck and pig flu viruses in addition to human cases are some of the things the CDC does to determine what antigens should be in the next vaccine. In addition to these kinds of big changes in flu virus genes, there are also minor point mutation changes that cause "antigenic drift" so the virus of the same type is slightly different antigenically and can escape elimination by the body's immune response to that type's vaccine.

To your credit, "most viruses don't mutate that often." But if you're going to try to berate others on "SCIENTIFIC FACTS", perhaps you should make sure your house is in order, first.

"It is a BELIEF that selective pressure, mutation, etc. would create enough genetic change that a sub-population of a species would "evolve" to become a completely new species."

Call it a "belief" if you want. It's a theory that has yet to be disproven, has made predictions, and thus far, has panned out. And if it does indeed pan out, it is indeed a fact, though one that remains as yet, unproven.



"You can argue that all of the scientific processes I just described support the Theory of Evolution. But MANY doctors and scientists will tell you that your belief is a "scientific jump". "

And that can be their "belief", and like I said, those who stand by it, you can call "believers", too.

However, when one "believes" something that makes predictions that are upheld by evidence, it is entirely different from the "belief" in something for which there is none.

Out of curiosity, is the emphasis on "MANY doctors and scientists" meant to sway opinion by authority and an appearance of consensus? Like the claim (which I'm not questioning, by the way, I just find it curious) that you are a "neurosurgeon"? Is that supposed to imply you KNOW any better than the rest of us? it seems to me a cheap ploy used by politicians and charlatans to use that tactic rather than to discuss the positions sheerly on their merits. But, I'm not surprised. There's probably a book out there for ID'ers on how to sway opinion when you have no evidence, but only criticisms of others theories.

When ID becomes a theory they can teach it in schools as soon as they teach evolution in Sunday School.

Could it be that both "intelligent design" and "evolution" are going on?

Why all this black and white thinking?

Personally, I don't buy the Adam and Eve story. It doesn't quite work. But, "evolution" isn't quite working either, for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps, the "origin of man" is just not yet known.

Why not teach it all?

At this point, it's all just theories.

"DNA is FAR too complicated to have randomly evolved. It is a code; God wrote it, plain and simple."

Zat, this is more than just funny. Having been in computers for most of my life and both programmed myself and managed programmers, if GOD were really a programmer who developed a code like DNA I would have fired him/her.
An all powerful, perfect being who develops a code that is so shoddy that it causes creatures (of all species, not just human) to develop unusable organs and structures, inability to deal with deseases and maladies, develop grotesque malformations so bad that they reder the being incapable of survival. Yes, sterling work, to say the least. I particularly enjoy the discussion of regressive genes. GOD the all knowing, develops a code that allows regressive genes to form? A pretty run-of-the-mill mathmatician can figure the possibilities and eliminate them but GOD can't? You have to be kidding.

"Zat, this is more than just funny."

COBOL?

Excellent observation, THESHYGUY. But don't you know, putting in flaws and obstacles is God's way of testing our faith!

Peace be with you.

Neurosurgeon,
Glad to see we have a real life Witchdoctor posting here. I'm serious. Brain doctors are the closest we have to Witchdoctors. I've told my own Neurologist this many times and he's a top man in your field, Department Head, Professor at U of Chicago and well respected.
I call him and all brain doctors, Witchdoctors for the simple reason that what other medical field gives its patients medications with no clue as to how those medications operate? Drug after drug. Read the literature and you will see a phrase like the one for Zyprexa (Olanzapine), which for those of you not familiar with it is a drug for the treatment of schizophrenia, "The mechanism of action of Olanzapine, as of other drugs having efficacy in scizophrenia, is unknown".
Same thing for Depakote (Valproic Acid and Valproate), which is used to treat Bipolar Disorder, Abscence Seizures in Epilepsy and Migrane Headaches. It too has the phrase "The mechanisms by which valproate exerts its therapeutic effects have not been established. It has been suggested that its activity in epilepsy is related to increased brain concentrations of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)."
What IS contended is that it causes both birth defects in children of women who have taken it and significantly lower IQ's of children of women who take it while pregnant.
These are just a couple of the many drugs and devices used to treat brain problems that are used without understanding HOW the drugs or devices work. Devices like Vagas Nerve Stimulators (used to treat Epilepsy and Depression), Deep Brain Stimulators using a Neurostimulator to treat Parkinson's Disease, etc.
All of these are done without knowing HOW they actually accomplish what they do.
THAT is why I call Neurologists and Neurosurgeons Witchdoctors. It can be like rattling dried chicken bones over the patient's head as far as effectiveness. I have a friend flying to Houston from Holland for a MEG scan. MEG is a brain mapping machine. She is having it done because she has Epilepsy and she is contemplating having a portion of her brain cut out. The MEG mapping is to ensure that if they have to cut that they don't damage speech centers in her brain because the speech centers are pretty close to the Epileptic loci they want to remove. The MEG mapping can give loci points within 1-1.5 MM accuracy. This sounds horrible, but as our neurosurgeon friend can tell you folks, a lot of neurosurgrery isn't done with knives anymore. In fact, in many cases they don't even open up your head. They can use a "Gamma Knife", a machine as big as a room in size, to "slice" tumors, lesions, blockages, etc from your brain without opening your head. If they do open you, that is another story entirely.

Now a question for my Neurosurgeon friend here. How did you get through medical school while ignoring Evolution? After all, I assume since you obviously don't belive in evolution, why would someone using ID give the human brain a reptilian structure? After all, we are not reptiles. Or don't you prescribe to the FACT that there are THREE levels to the brain? There's the base or the "reptilian" (brain stem), the "mamillian" (Limbic) and the "cortex" (cerebral).
Don't you believe in these deliniations? The reptilian, which controls the involuntary systems such as breathing, pumping blood, fight or flight via emitting of hormones, etc. The Limbic brain which controls your emotions (you spoke of love). The cortex, which is most developed in humans, where "thinking" occurs. Logic, reasoning, communication, creativity, etc.
If you are a neurosurgeon and don't know this then I have pity upon your patients, I really do.
But I don't believe you mean what you say. You can't have studied the brain and actually believe ID is anything more than the first two letters in IDiot.

Zat,
You insult me.
COBOL was invented by a Woman! A Navy Woman!
Real men programmed in Assembler or machine code.
Of course, giving away my age, I started out WIRING boards! Then Autocoder on a 4K machine. Ran a whole company on a 16K machine with 4 2 meg drives, now with Windows XP can't take a piss with less than a half meg...
My first "laptop" was bigger than the biggest piece of Samsonite Luggage you could find and had a screen that was about 6x4 inches... a real boat anchor.
Probably still have it laying around out in the garage someplace.

TheShyGuy and illbefrank you really toasted visitor "neurosurgeon". I knew he was gonna get blown away right after he made that inane remark about viruses don't mutate! I'm really glad I sat this one out and read - you guys kicked it!

YAV
TheShyGuy: LDA, STA, ADC - oh it was so long ago...

"Excellent observation, THESHYGUY. But don't you know, putting in flaws and obstacles is God's way of testing our faith!"

Posted by visitor at 2005-08-26 10:32 PM

Great response. Now let me see if I have this right. GOD puts flaws and obstacles in creatures that existed 200, 300 and 400 MILLION years before mankind even existed on Earth in order to test our faith? Now how do you study for a test that was given 400 million years before you were born? Crib sheets? Cliff's Notes? Panteograms on cave walls? Please edify us on this minor point if you please?

I stopped reading his statement when I noticed his claim of being a scientist, then states he is a neurosurgeon.

That's like my auto mechanic saying he's a mechanical engineer.

I want someone on here to explain something to me. If there wasn't intelligent design and instead STRICTLY evolution, how did it occur? Some say it was an asteroid carrying the SOUP of life. Some say it was from ancient bacteria or that all life and everything started with an ancient atom. If that's the case, what created the atom. It had to come from somewhere, right? Where did the bacteria come from and how were they created or how did they evolve? How did the microbes come to be on Earth and why, if they came in on an asteroid, didn't they burn up on entry?

You can say that intelligent design is a bunch of crazy fucking right wing people who don't want to accept evolution. That's fine, if you can LOGICALLY explain the points I've made.

Also, don't twist it and ask who created God, etc., etc.. This is about your stance.

What do you want? A reading list?

Darkswan---read something---don't look for an education on a blog. You see an education takes more than reading a sentence or two. Educate yourself.

But you need to ask yourself those same questions---where did your god come from---if he always existed and the Earth is only 6000 years old--what has It been doing for the last zillion years? How can we see light from stars billions of light years away if they were only created 6000 years ago---or even a million years ago? The biblical god is a joke and it couldn't be sold to an adult---it has to be brainwashed into children from birth in order to be effective.

Evolution is a theory---ID is not a theory.

I am an athiest. I believe there is no God. How did i come to this conclusion?

I Take it on FAITH! LOL

(Which makes just as much sense as believing in God because you have faith.)

Actually it makes more sense.

Bob
You don't understand. It's like the fossils. God put all those photons out there in space to fool us. The universe magically "poofed" into existence 9,000 years ago just so a small number of people on one planet among billions could feel conceited.

Didn't you get the memo?


bwhahahahahahaaa
cough cough

What kills me the most is that modern humans think they invented fiction, how else could they take the Bible as totally true?

I see none of you mindless libs can answer the questions I posed to you. BB gave the response I expected and tried to twist the argument because he has no argument. He obviously didn't read the last line of my post. The fact is none of you can explain where your evolutionary lives began which is what I expected. You also attempted to talk down to me like a mindless idiot which, again, is typical of a lib who doesn't have an answer.

Darkswan---You miss the point---it is you that doesn't have an answer. You ask for an answer but the answer has always been available to you. You didn't want the answer then and you want no answer now. The only answer you want is one you supply yourself. You live in your own little fantasy world and make up your own reality. No one is going to attempt to answer your ridiculous question because you should have learned about reality long ago---that, and nobody gives a fuck what you think.

The choice to just believe in something you're told is MUCH easier than educating yourself, right Darkswan?
These bloggers missed the point, eh?

YAV

But Darkswan... You ARE a mindless idiot.

You talk to an invisible old white man (gotta be white) in the sky.

Plus you have FOX, Rush, Billy, Sean and mAnn to tell you how to think.

To mention McCain and "intelligence" in the same sentence is an affront to thinking republicans.

He's a sorry excuse for a Senator and I wish he would move across the aisle to the democrats and leave US alone.

His views are always politically motivated and he can't be trusted with his own briefcase.

BB, you obviously don't have an answer, and neither does the fucking coward visitor post. I knew you don't know, because no one knows. That's called face, you mindless monkeyfuckers!

Like it or not, you guys are the brainless fucks!

"I want someone on here to explain something to me." - You asked for an impossibility. You see, there's no one on the face of the earth who can teach anything to someone who has a closed mind (sort of a brainless fuck, as you appropriately call it - sort of "if the shoe fits...").

A Friend

That's a brilliant argument, Darkswan. But doesn't mom have your lunch ready?

"Mindless Monkeyfuckers"

Do you pray to your god with that mouth?

I'm an atheist, visitor, I swear to God! Like I said, you idiots try to come off as so intellectually superior when, in FACT, you are mindless lib drones. You can't give me an answer to my question because you don't know the answer. You tell me I should read more books, which would imply you've read the answer somewhere in some book that Carl Sagan and the like wrote. So why not tell me, How did the ancient bacteria or primordal soup come to exist? Can someone answer that....NO? I didn't think so. You're all so smart when your blather is put to a LOGICAL question.

Enough with you simpletons!

Darkswan, please stop smearing atheists by claiming to be one. Atheists are thinkers. You aren't.

You are the one that would give atheists a bad name. I actually feel sorry for them as a group to have you included.

His views are always politically motivated and he can't be trusted with his own briefcase.

Yes, because we know nothing the NeoCons do is politically motivated, and they are so trustworthy that they are above reproach.

Talk about a disconnect with reality. LZK left the 'reality based community' a LOOOOOOOOONG time ago.

See a shrink, they can probably help you.

If there wasn't intelligent design and instead STRICTLY evolution, how did it occur? Some say it was an asteroid carrying the SOUP of life. Some say it was from ancient bacteria or that all life and everything started with an ancient atom. If that's the case, what created the atom. It had to come from somewhere, right? Where did the bacteria come from and how were they created or how did they evolve? How did the microbes come to be on Earth and why, if they came in on an asteroid, didn't they burn up on entry?

Nobody knows the exact mechanism or occurance yet. Just like nobody knew how rain or earthquakes happened, until some idiot said "God did it!".

ID is some idiot looking at evolution and saying "God did it!" Even worse, they are trying to push God back into the scientific arena.

This just in- the Earth is still not flat. The Earth is still not the center of the universe. Religion has a long and glorious history of being wrong on scientific matters.

Show me ONE SINGLE ISSUE where religion was right, and science was wrong.

Anyway, my own hypothesis is that DNA is a naturally occuring combination of amino acids. Much like how crystals or salt will form naturally occuring patterns, so the same is with amino acids.

The universe magically "poofed" into existence 9,000 years ago just so a small number of people on one planet among billions could feel conceited.

Didn't you get the memo?


bwhahahahahahaaa
cough cough

Posted by zatoichi at 2005-08-27 09:27 AM | Reply


Actually it was spoken into existence by your creator.

And 2.1 billion is not that small a number.

Enjoy Culture Club.

Show me ONE SINGLE ISSUE where religion was right, and science was wrong.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2005-08-27 03:37 PM | Reply

Science eventually catches up and proves the Bible right after years and years of theory and error.

Not the other way around.

Science eventually catches up and proves the Bible right after years and years of theory and error

Bwahahahaha. Yeah right.

Show me ONE SINGLE ISSUE where religion was right, and science was wrong.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2005-08-27 03:37 PM | Reply

Science eventually catches up and proves the Bible right after years and years of theory and error.

Not the other way around.


Posted by niceville at 2005-08-27 03:45 PM

Good, so stating an example of this happening should be easy. Please do so.

"Science eventually catches up and proves the Bible right after years and years of theory and error"



That is perhaps the dumbest post ever, even in your history of dumb posts. You could never, ever, ever support that with Science. But, I'll be you can deflect!!!

CZARNICK, you say it's dumb, because you didn't post it. I'm sure that, out of all of the posts, yours are the most intellectually uplifting...Yeah right!

Niceville has it right.

Yes, science has to catch up to the fact that bats are birds, and rabbits chew cud just like the bible says. Society needs to get back to the good old days of slavery, just as it is advocated in the bible. We need to amend our marriage laws so that men can have multiple wives just like it says in the bible. When will society and science ever learn.

Nice and Dark, y'all got any examples? Right now CZARNICK has the lead. He didn't just insult, he laid down a challenge.

YAV

I want someone on here to explain something to me. If there wasn't intelligent design and instead STRICTLY evolution, how did it occur? Some say it was an asteroid carrying the SOUP of life. Some say it was from ancient bacteria or that all life and everything started with an ancient atom. If that's the case, what created the atom. It had to come from somewhere, right? Where did the bacteria come from and how were they created or how did they evolve? How did the microbes come to be on Earth and why, if they came in on an asteroid, didn't they burn up on entry?

You can say that intelligent design is a bunch of crazy fucking right wing people who don't want to accept evolution. That's fine, if you can LOGICALLY explain the points I've made.

Also, don't twist it and ask who created God, etc., etc.. This is about your stance.

Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-08-27 08:47 AM | Reply



BB, you obviously don't have an answer, and neither does the fucking coward visitor post. I knew you don't know, because no one knows. That's called face, you mindless monkeyfuckers!

Like it or not, you guys are the brainless fucks!

Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-08-27 12:10 PM | Reply



I'm an atheist, visitor, I swear to God! Like I said, you idiots try to come off as so intellectually superior when, in FACT, you are mindless lib drones. You can't give me an answer to my question because you don't know the answer. You tell me I should read more books, which would imply you've read the answer somewhere in some book that Carl Sagan and the like wrote. So why not tell me, How did the ancient bacteria or primordal soup come to exist? Can someone answer that....NO? I didn't think so. You're all so smart when your blather is put to a LOGICAL question.

Enough with you simpletons!

Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-08-27 12:51 PM | Reply


Dear DARKSWAN,

In the interest of being straight forward and doing my best to offer you some help with your question, allow me to direct you to not necessarily THE answer, but one of several reasonable possibilities as described by Richard Dawkins. This will take some effort on your part, as I was unable to find the essay available on the internet.

(continued from above)

Please go to your local bookstore. Buy a coffee, tea, or whatever you like. Go to... the philosophy section, likely. Look for a book called "Mind's I" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, and Daniel C. Dennett. Pick it up, go to the cafe, and sit and read the essay "Selfish Genes and Selfish Memes" by Richard Dawkins. Now, while the bulk of the book involves discussions on the mind and self, and what those terms actually mean, Dawkins' essay provides a little insight on how things may have started here, absent the "intergalactic bacteria" garbage people are passing around which only results in an infinite regress of asking, "Well, how did life start wherever that bacteria came from?" Something about interesting little molecules called "replicators", as I recall -- a primitive cousin, I'd suppose, of things like prions (which also self-replicate). Do a little more reading in some periodicals -- there was a feature article in Discover Magazine a year or two ago about DNA, how it may have been formed, and how scientists today are trying to create artificial life with what they're learning -- and open your mind not just to the possibilities Dawkins presents, but the other opportunities for life to start.

I regret that I do not have the time or patience to transcribe the Dawkins' essay, but suggest, if you're really interested in learning a possible answer to your question that you look into it.

And please, if you're interested in carrying on a conversation that holds any weight with anyone, it is usually best not to call them "mindless monkeyfuckers."

Now, do I really expect you to do any of this? No. Not remotely. You wouldn't want to let the thoughts of "Carl Sagan and the like" disturb your own, and it's your right to remain willfully ignorant.

Because, as "A Friend" wrote:

"You asked for an impossibility. You see, there's no one on the face of the earth who can teach anything to someone who has a closed mind (sort of a brainless fuck, as you appropriately call it - sort of "if the shoe fits...")."

An accurate observation, perhaps, but then, it's usually not nice to call anyone a "brainless fuck", either.

In any event, I suggest anyone and everyone read that essay, and actually, pick up the book, if you're interested in philosophy of mind. There's even a ficitional conversation between Man and God, as I recall, which might be of interest to the religiots.

All the best.

Oops! "religious", not "religiots"!

Oh, and this --

"If that's the case, what created the atom. It had to come from somewhere, right?"

-- is unrelated to the topic at hand. This is cosmology, not evolution. One field at a time please. Observations regarding the "Big Bang" and what, if anything came "before" are better directed there, and are up for far more conjecture, as, when objects exceed certain levels of gravity (like "Black Holes" and other "singularities" -- "naked" or otherwise), traditional laws of physics as we know them break down. As no one has ever been in a singularity, survived and returned, we have little idea of what goes on in them, but evidence points to a similar situation prior to the "Big Bang", that is, matter compressed to a point of "infinite" density. I tend to believe that the framework of time-space did not exist prior to the Big Bang, and so, trying to suggest what happened before is really rather meaningless. If you want to plug "God" into an equation, you'd have better luck with plugging Him in to singularities, where things are much more certain to remain uncertain.

And let's not even mention the fact that many scientists (including Einstein) don't believe black holes exist.

Sure Black Holes exist Just look at ANna icole Smith sometime woooweeee Talk about a Major Black Hole LMAO

Larry