thelinuxlink.net

They would take over the excess automotive industry plants and build electric motor conversion units for existing cars.
" cars that run on water.
Start a computer company that builds linux based pcs, completely english speaking support staff and is not run like Dell.
Start a company that builds male and female robots for fulling person whims. Houses of prostitution as we know them would go away.
Require ethics to go back in the the educational environment so we have less of the crime we have now.
Put a conscious effort into stopping the illegal drug industry.
Turn off the TV until all the crap goes off the air.
etc

They would teach creation in schools and not evolution.

I am serious.

Kids need to know that God made the earth.

Creationism isn't a religeous belief, it's history. Read your Bible's and you will see what I mean.

I presume you were joking?
how can you honestly believe in that shit?

MattKingUSA wrote:They would teach creation in schools and not evolution.

First of all, what evidence do you have for justifying the teaching of creationism in schools? And secondly, are you in favor of violating the first amendment of your United States constitution, because creationism is clearly and transparently a religious idea, and ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

MattKingUSA wrote:They would teach creation in schools and not evolution.

I am serious.

Our constitution forbids our government from respecting any religious institutions. Not only do I object to your proposition on moral and constitutional grounds, since I believe in religious freedom and secular government, but it would be patently unfair to our children who deserve a proper education in science.

Personally I could care less about creationism and evolution. We need to teach kids how to use and take advantage of their brains in a way that what they do is not completely self serving.

MattKingUSA wrote:Kids need to know that God made the earth.

First of all, how do you know? What evidence do you base that conclusion of yours on? Secondly, have you read this little thing called the first amendment? If not, look at my earlier reply, I took the liberty of posting it for your convenience. Please do go ahead and verify that what I posted is correct, I wouldn't want you to put any blind belief into what I say.

hehe ,

Creationism would be a hard sell for the public school system in our country. A more realistic and palpable idea would be to teach intelligent design along side other theories. Although this idea has already been squashed in court there are certain scientific elements that could be presented in schools. Evolution has several problems namely irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine tuned universe. Those ideas/problems with evolution should be discussed and researched (even in schools). After all, macro evolution is a theory and has many problems.

I personally believe that macro evolution has way to many problems and I don't want it pushed on my children as the only answer.

jstgtpaid wrote:Creationism would be a hard sell for the public school system in our country. A more realistic and palpable idea would be to teach intelligent design along side other theories. Although this idea has already been squashed in court there are certain scientific elements that could be presented in schools.

Intelligent design is just creationism in a lab-coat, specifically set up to circumvent the separation of state and church, I find it laughable that you even bring it up.

jstgtpaid wrote:Evolution has several problems namely irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine tuned universe.

First of all, evolution says absolutely nothing about the universe, you're mixing together evolution and the big bang theory.

jstgtpaid wrote:Those ideas/problems with evolution should be discussed and researched (even in schools). After all, macro evolution is a theory and has many problems.

What are those problems? Also, do you realize what the word "theory" means in this context? If not, let's consult Wikipedia's dictionary companion, Wiktionary:

Noun
theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)
1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
2. (countable) (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
3. (countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.
4. (uncountable) (mathematics) A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs.

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

Feel free to go confirm that definition via other sources. But as you can see, in a scientific context, the scientific meaning for "theory" is very different from the average-on-the-street definition of it. You know the idea that the earth goes around the sun, that's a theory. Oh and this little thing called gravity, that's a theory as well.

jstgtpaid wrote:I personally believe that macro evolution has way to many problems

You say you "believe" it has many problems, well, care you enumerate what those are? I'd be interested to know.

jstgtpaid wrote:and I don't want it pushed on my children as the only answer.

Well that's all fine, you're free to raise your kids according to your conscience, but trying to push religion into schools using the "underneath the table" of putting it in a lab coat, is just ridiculous. Should Hindus then also have their creation ideas taught in the public schools? Or what about buddhists who either don't believe in a god the way you may do, or has other beliefs?
It's a giant can of worms that only leads to division, government neutrality in religion is essential.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:Creationism would be a hard sell for the public school system in our country. A more realistic and palpable idea would be to teach intelligent design along side other theories. Although this idea has already been squashed in court there are certain scientific elements that could be presented in schools.

Intelligent design is just creationism in a lab-coat, specifically set up to circumvent the separation of state and church, I find it laughable that you even bring it up.

emphasis mine... First and foremost, lets be civil and have respect for each other and our ideas; even if you think they are wrong. I respect you and your ideas, please extend the same courtesy to me.

About your first comment, that is a good analogy. I like it. Intelligent design naturally requires a designer. The theory of Intelligent design simply contends that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection. I can't speak to the goals and intentions of the scientists that proffered this theory. However, I sincerely believe that it extends beyond simply getting their ideas into the American public school system.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:Evolution has several problems namely irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine tuned universe.

First of all, evolution says absolutely nothing about the universe, you're mixing together evolution and the big bang theory.

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity are specifically related to issues with the theory of evolution. The fine tuned universe is also related because of the statistic improbability that the conditions for life occurred by chance. My statement was merely to evoke more deep thought about the baggage that goes along with the theory of evolution.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:Those ideas/problems with evolution should be discussed and researched (even in schools). After all, macro evolution is a theory and has many problems.

What are those problems? Also, do you realize what the word "theory" means in this context? If not, let's consult Wikipedia's dictionary companion, Wiktionary:

Noun
theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)
1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
2. (countable) (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
3. (countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.
4. (uncountable) (mathematics) A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs.

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

Feel free to go confirm that definition via other sources. But as you can see, in a scientific context, the scientific meaning for "theory" is very different from the average-on-the-street definition of it. You know the idea that the earth goes around the sun, that's a theory. Oh and this little thing called gravity, that's a theory as well.

I certainly don't claim to know all the problems associated with macro evolution. I am not a scientist and I don't play one on TV either so I don't have years of in depth analysis to give an exhaustive list. But that is probably assumed anyway... In my original post, I mentioned irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine tuned universe originally, so I will stick to those.

Irreducible complexity is defined as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". I personally find that a compelling argument for intelligent design. Naturally there are arguments from the evolution camp that refute that, but I don't find it as intellectually satisfying as intelligent design.

Specified complexity states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. Since I am neither a mathematician nor a philosopher I must reduce this concept to simpler terms for my own consumption. Therefore, I my simplified definition/explanation may miss the mark. So in short, you may just need to get the definition and such elsewhere. But this concept to me helps explain DNA, and other components of the body. It seems far more plausible to me that DNA was created than derived by chance.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:I personally believe that macro evolution has way to many problems

You say you "believe" it has many problems, well, care you enumerate what those are? I'd be interested to know.

I have enumerated some of them above, but I think you are getting at something else with your statement. So I will bring out the elephant now. I am a Christian. I believe that we were created by God (Genisis 2:7). I believe that everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23). I believe that because of that sin we deserve to die (Romans 6:23). I believe that Jesus paid for our sin (Romans 5:8) I believe that if anyone believes in Jesus they will be saved (10:13). What do I mean by believing in Jesus? That is simple too (Romans 10:9,10).

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:and I don't want it pushed on my children as the only answer.

Well that's all fine, you're free to raise your kids according to your conscience, but trying to push religion into schools using the "underneath the table" of putting it in a lab coat, is just ridiculous. Should Hindus then also have their creation ideas taught in the public schools? Or what about buddhists who either don't believe in a god the way you may do, or has other beliefs?
It's a giant can of worms that only leads to division, government neutrality in religion is essential.

First of all, thanks for the discussion and your thoughts. Thanks for agreeing that I should be free to raise my children as I please. If you have children, I believe you have the freedom to raise them according to your conscience as well. After all if God gave us the free choice to decide whether to believe in him or not, who am I to take that away from you or anyone else.

I am sorry that you feel that intelligent design is pushing religion into schools. However, if you were in my shoes and truly believed what God has said, then you would expect the evidence to be consistent with Gods word. I believe that intelligent design is not a threat to any religion (other than atheism). But more importantly, I believe that it is part of science, in that it asks questions and promotes thoughtful discourse.

Asking questions challenging the status quo is important in science. I am sure it would not be difficult to find an example where an extremely smart and well respected scientist postulates a theory and anyone that challenges the theory is ostracized. There was a recent example of this with adult brain cells regeneration, I just need to find the silly article (can't find it right now).

Thanks again,
Steven

jstgtpaid wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:Creationism would be a hard sell for the public school system in our country. A more realistic and palpable idea would be to teach intelligent design along side other theories. Although this idea has already been squashed in court there are certain scientific elements that could be presented in schools.

Intelligent design is just creationism in a lab-coat, specifically set up to circumvent the separation of state and church, I find it laughable that you even bring it up.

emphasis mine... First and foremost, lets be civil and have respect for each other and our ideas; even if you think they are wrong. I respect you and your ideas, please extend the same courtesy to me.

About your first comment, that is a good analogy. I like it. Intelligent design naturally requires a designer. The theory of Intelligent design simply contends that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection. I can't speak to the goals and intentions of the scientists that proffered this theory. However, I sincerely believe that it extends beyond simply getting their ideas into the American public school system.

Since you like my analogy, I want to ask you: Do you agree with separation between state and church, and government neutrality with regards to religion?
I'd hope the answer is yes, but it certainly doesn't seem that way given the fact that you think ID should be taught in schools.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:Evolution has several problems namely irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine tuned universe.

First of all, evolution says absolutely nothing about the universe, you're mixing together evolution and the big bang theory.

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity are specifically related to issues with the theory of evolution. The fine tuned universe is also related because of the statistic improbability that the conditions for life occurred by chance. My statement was merely to evoke more deep thought about the baggage that goes along with the theory of evolution.[/quote]

See the following:

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200708200219 ... tml#chance

Tsuroerusu wrote:I certainly don't claim to know all the problems associated with macro evolution. I am not a scientist and I don't play one on TV either so I don't have years of in depth analysis to give an exhaustive list. But that is probably assumed anyway... In my original post, I mentioned irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine tuned universe originally, so I will stick to those.

Irreducible complexity is defined as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". I personally find that a compelling argument for intelligent design. Naturally there are arguments from the evolution camp that refute that, but I don't find it as intellectually satisfying as intelligent design.

Specified complexity states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. Since I am neither a mathematician nor a philosopher I must reduce this concept to simpler terms for my own consumption. Therefore, I my simplified definition/explanation may miss the mark. So in short, you may just need to get the definition and such elsewhere. But this concept to me helps explain DNA, and other components of the body. It seems far more plausible to me that DNA was created than derived by chance.

Emphasis is mine, please see the above.

jstgtpaid wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:I personally believe that macro evolution has way to many problems

You say you "believe" it has many problems, well, care you enumerate what those are? I'd be interested to know. So I will bring out the elephant now. I am a Christian. I believe that we were created by God (Genisis 2:7). I believe that everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23). I believe that because of that sin we deserve to die (Romans 6:23). I believe that Jesus paid for our sin (Romans 5:8) I believe that if anyone believes in Jesus they will be saved (10:13). What do I mean by believing in Jesus? That is simple too (Romans 10:9,10).

I have enumerated some of them above, but I think you are getting at something else with your statement.

Fair enough, may I humbly ask why you believe that?

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote:I am sorry that you feel that intelligent design is pushing religion into schools.

Well, explain to me how it isn't? You agreed with me that intelligent design is creationism (A religious concept) in a lab coat. So tell me how it's not religion?

jstgtpaid wrote:I believe that intelligent design is not a threat to any religion (other than atheism).

First of all, atheism is not a religion. Theism is a "belief in the existence of one or more deities.", atheism is the "Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods.". It's like being balled, it's not a hair-style, it's the lack of hair entirely.

Sources:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheism

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jstgtpaid wrote: I am a Christian. I believe that we were created by God (Genisis 2:7). I believe that everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23). I believe that because of that sin we deserve to die (Romans 6:23). I believe that Jesus paid for our sin (Romans 5:8) I believe that if anyone believes in Jesus they will be saved (10:13). What do I mean by believing in Jesus? That is simple too (Romans 10:9,10).

Fair enough, may I humbly ask why you believe that?

Certainly. This is my personal experience. YMMV.

I always believed in 'God'. I would even go as far as saying I thought I was a Christian. However, my understanding of God and Christianity was a fabrication of my own mind and various common misconceptions. When I was getting married, my bride and I had to take an Alpha class before the priest would marry us. The class was very interesting. It was kind of a FAQ of the Christian faith. Anyway, I still hadn't caught the real thing yet (Christianity) so I continued as normal, but now I had questions. At one point my wife and I decided to embark on a two year study of the Bible, to answer these questions. I started to read about this God I thought I knew, and I started to learn Him. I always thought I was a good person and I thought I would get into Heaven because I am a nice guy, and I have a genuinely good heart. However, as I read more and more, I realized I had no basis to believe that I was going to Heaven. In fact the opposite became abundantly clear. Needless to say, I came unglued. I was very distraught and it took quite some time for me to admit that I richly deserved the fires of hell. However, when I did I was in a position to receive Jesus as my savior and I did.

I don't want to leave you with the wrong impression of me reading the Bible either. I was stunned as I read by how much God does love us. Even though we constantly reject him he has constantly reached out to us. Many people know John 3:16. But I think that 3:17 also bears notice it states; "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" So needless to say even though we have a free gift of salvation and all we have to do is admit the truth and receive our savior most will not do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBLjVqrrjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

You might find these mildly offensive, but they all make valid points.

This one's great too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfbY2lJBCQk