“its fun to watch s-rge and his troll pitts go back and forth on a topic. Even the troll gets agitated with him =)”

“pitts - Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The most BASIC point of this discussion you have refused to discuss. I'm not talking about in this last week. We have been discussing this in the past.

It is I that refuse to answer YOUR points until you get on topic. This isn't commentary from the current back and forth, but a continuation from our ongoing discussion.

Anthing else ... expansion ... evolution ... whatever ... is NOT the point of this discussion. You seem to only want to talk about those things.

We are talking about ORIGINS.”

“You want to talk about origins. I am talking about what I will now call the "misleading propaganda" you posted about the Big Bang theory. I feel justified calling your statement this since you have refused to support your claims after repeated requests that you do so.

The misleading propaganda was:

“I would say that scientists are far from proving Big Bang. If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory. Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically. I am not suggesting it didn't happen (I think it's a close approximation of reality), I'm simply saying it hasn't been proven.

Yes, scientists are looking for "better" theories all the time to replace existing ones. One of those theories scientists and mathematitians are looking at is Intelligent Design theory.”
Sarge
1:28:04 PM

You have consistently and repeatedly refused to back up these claims as well as subsequent claims you have made. Moreover I have shown that the statements are flat-out false. I agree that we can’t go any further in this discussion, but the reason we can’t progress is because you apparently feel comfortable making claims and then not supporting them. I simply don’t trust you enough to accept what you say at face value. Why would you expect otherwise from me or anyone else for that matter?

You claimed that the Big Bang theory includes a "catalytic event" that is a precursor to the expansion of spacetime. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim. Prove it.

You claimed that there is a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang theory. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim other than a Google search which is not indication of a trend and is unacceptable. Prove it.

You claimed that the Big Bang theory has not been observationally verified. Prove it. I showed that you were wrong and quoted several observations including one for which two scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize (specifically because their observation was a verification of the theory).

You claimed that the Big Bang theory is not based on mathematics. Prove it. I showed that you were wrong.”

“Ewker - I don't think Pitts is anyone's troll.”

“pitts - I would LOVE to debate things other than the Big Bang theory. Instead of taking my claims at face value (which is fine), you'd rather debate them INSTEAD of what we are supposed to be debating.

I will debate OTHER things with you AFTER you get back on topic and actually debate THIS TOPIC of ORIGINS.

I don't know how else to say it.

All I read is you trying to change the discussion to something else. Why would I want to debate ADDITIONAL things, when you are NOT WILLING to debate the main topic?

It makes me suspicious that you are more interested in "arguing" than "debate".

Reference mapleleaf's fuego thread for additional information.”

“Instead of taking my claims at face value (which is fine), you'd rather debate them INSTEAD of what we are supposed to be debating

Totally untrue. In the course of the “debate” you made claims that I demonstrated were blatantly false. I can see no reason that you would have said them other than to influence those people that would not know otherwise, hence I have now labeled the statements "misleading propaganda”. Another way I would characterize your behavior in this regard is “intellectual bullying”. Say something with enough authority in your voice and you just might get people to believe it.

In the course of this (or any) discussion I think it is totally fair of me to ask you to support claims that you make. If you do not agree with this then you are being very unfair since I have no doubt you would ask the same of me. Since you clearly do not agree that this is a fair expectation (you refuse to support your claims) then I see no point in having any discussion with you personally.

So either back up what you said or quit and demonstrate a lack of integrity.”

“So, in other words, you want to debate things, as long as it's not THIS debate.

Good to know.”

“That’s right, make the conversation about me and not about what you said. C'mon sarge! You took the very cheap pot-shot with what I am now calling misleading propaganda:

I would say that scientists are far from proving Big Bang. If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory. Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically. I am not suggesting it didn't happen (I think it's a close approximation of reality), I'm simply saying it hasn't been proven.

Yes, scientists are looking for "better" theories all the time to replace existing ones. One of those theories scientists and mathematitians are looking at is Intelligent Design theory.”
Sarge
1:28:04 PM

All I am asking is that you support your statements. If I can’t ask this of you and expect a response then you are being very unfair and aren’t worthy to participate in any debate with anyone.”

“It's about the debate, which you aren't willing to have. If you think that's about you, fine, whatever. I don't care. What I DO care about is us debating origin theory, something you are not, and have not, done.

I have said before, I am willing to back up my statements. What I won't do is put the horse before the carriage.

You HAVE NOT responded to the most basic principles of this discussion. Instead, as in your last post, you would rather debate ANYTHING BUT origins.

pitts ... I believe you are a troll. It's obvious you have no real interest in debate, just argument.”

“I have said before, I am willing to back up my statements.

Then shut up and do it.”

“Again, you ignore context.

typical

Troll.”

“Sorry sarge but you dun been called out, You gonna have to face him or be called yellow fer the rest of yer life....

Ya yellow bellied, waffle troll.

Can we now get back to legitemate debate and quit all the stall tactics?”

“LOL! You hear that pitts?

Let's get to the debate instead of making up new ones. You have yet to talk about origin theory.”

“Quite relevant to the recent insanity on this thread...

Kansas In Battle Over "Intelligent Design" In Education
by Mike Baron
Nov 2, 2005


In 1999, the state of Kansas included Creationism, a precursor of Intelligent Design, into their school curriculum. One year later the school board overturned that directive. The board now reportedly contains enough conservative members to vote for inclusion of Intelligent Design.

Christian political activists like Reverend Jerry Johnston of First Family Church in Overland Park Kansas are reportedly supporting the effort to shape Kansas science standards according to fundamental religious beliefs. Johnston said, according to published reports, "Getting intelligent design into school curricula is the worthiest cause of our time and the key to reversing the country's moral decline."

Believers in "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" [FSMism] are lobbying the Kansas School Board, in an apparent attempt to make the inclusion of Intelligent Design into the curriculum appear foolish, to give equal time to teaching the concept of creation by The Flying Spaghetti Monster next to evolution and Intelligent Design.

It is being reported that several members of the Kansas Board of Education have already indicated that they might vote in favor of such an initiative. Board member Carol Rupe reportedly wrote, "The new version [of science standards] changes the very definition of science from 'seeking natural explanations' to 'seeking logical explanations.' That is why I think FSMism is able to be included. It is as 'logical' as any other theory."

Bobby Henderson of Corvallis, Ore., created the tongue-in-cheek deity and an accompanying mythology on the origin of mankind to reportedly satirize the Kansas Board of Education's ongoing flap over evolutionary theory, according to the Wichita Eagle.

According to the paper, since June, when the spaghetti monster made its Internet debut, the parody religion has grown into a full-fledged Internet phenomenon.

Henderson said his Web site -- http://www.venganza.org -- has received 19 million visits, including 4 million in two days last week.

A search for "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on the Google search engine turns up 96,000 hits. Yahoo offers 171,000 Web pages on the topic.

"It's amazing how big FSM has gotten," Henderson said, according to the Eagle.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2121082.shtml”

“Quite relevant to the recent insanity on this thread...

Oh, I thought it was going to be about the diminishing rain forest, or some other irrelevant topic OTHER than origins. At least they stay on topic!”

“It's the thread where you try to bully people around by making outrageously false claims that you refuse to back up when called on them.”

“Like ones about the actual topic, like "The universe DID have a beginning", AND "The universe DID NOT have a beginning."

You mean like that ON TOPIC claim?”

“A different topic? Sure... with anyone but you. No doubt you would simply continue to make statements that you would not support if I asked you for details. I am satisfied to have debunked your misleading propaganda yet again.”

“At some point eons ago someone sat down, looked at his hands and feet, saw that there were units and sets and Arithmetic was born. Later someone else considered the square and the circle, drew diagonals and diameters and discerned that regardless of size the ratios remained the same and higher mathematics was born.
At another point in time a person sat in a tub and overflowed it, noticed the volume going over the side and thought, “dang, I carried that in here and I know it weighs a lot more than I do and specific gravity was born. Sam Johnson, Boswell and friends sat around wondering how, if you were on a boat with no window, could you design an experiment to prove, or show, whether the boat was moving or not. They couldn’t – but later Einstein took this to a much higher level, and General Relativity was born.
Newton sat under a tree and was bonked on the head with an apple and thought, “gee, that didn’t hurt as much as the one yesterday that fell from further up. He then twirled some balls around on a string while he thought and ended up writing the “Principia” – and the laws of gravity and motion were born. He also noticed a prismatic effect on light while looking through a telescope – and the wave theory of light was born.
I admit that these are gross simplifications of complex developments. What I am trying to show is two things. First, that there have been brilliant minds throughout history and yet progress into the nature of Nature it has been very slow and looking back at some of the major “discoveries” we can almost say that they should have been fairly obvious. To say that they were “discoveries” is wrong though, people knew how to use levers and gravity – wheels and the wind long before their properties were “discovered”. The brilliance lies in the quantifying and codifying so that lesser men can understand and use the properties of their “discoveries” in ways not even dreamed of before. “There is nothing new under the sun”, everything has been here only not understood.
The second point I would like to make is that these men deduced the truth in their minds prior to providing the proof. When they did the math, so to speak, they knew where they were going. If the math had not gotten them there they would have come up with a different theorem and did a different set of math. The mind, most often, must have the truth set in it before it will recognize the proof when it is presented to it.
“What is truth”, as the man said add to that “what is proof?” In the later question I am reminded of the Accountant that was hired because, when asked how much is one and one, replied, “what do you want it to be”? Our truths are what we want to believe, what we are comfortable with, and please don’t rock the boat.
As I said before, I would not attempt to prove anything – and that is because I don’t presume to know what the truth is. I do believe in Intelligent Design but I don’t have a clue as to how it did its work to create all that is on the Earth and in the Universe. That puts me in the same position Sam Johnson was in relation to relativity – I need my Einstein. Someone who can imagine in their mind the process. At my age I don’t even care about the “proof”, I would be well satisfied with a description of the steps involved in the process. Until someone can do this, proof is impossible.
Can anyone give a sound postulation as to the source of the energy at the beginning (if energy it was) and what made it unstable? I have gone to sleep many nights thinking about this one. Was there an explosion? Was there heat, and if so why? Are matter and energy the same thing? Etc, etc and etc into the night. Can anyone do the same for life? How did life come from non-life and what gave it form? Among other things, I have imagined a drop of primal broth clinging to a rock under a ozone less sky being baked by the sun – but then my imagination stops.
Math is not going to do any good here – can sex and conception, eating and digestion or similar matters be explained mathematically? I think not and neither can these events.
So, until a mind pictures “the process” the journey of proof cannot begin.
Without an explainable process – Intelligent Design rules. I say this because, if the most brilliant of mortal minds cannot imagine what occurred in the transition points of a evolving process governed only by chance and natural selection, what other choice is there?”

“No doubt you would simply continue to make statements that you would not support if I asked you for details.

Again ... funny coming from somebody who on this topic claimed both (a) the universe had NO beginning, and (b) the universe had a definite beginning - both sides used to defend their argument AT THAT TIME.

hypocrite”

“Go pound sand. Once again you overextended yourself with your intellectual bullying and I spanked you in front of everyone for it. All you have left is name calling and personal insults which I have come to expect from you.”

“Yes sir Mr. Passive Aggressive.

You spanked me alright! You spanked me with your offtopic subject changing avoidance of the topic at hand semantical self absorbed patronizing display of your desire to argue and not debate.”

“If you need a summary of what you WON'T debate ...

Q. The intelligent design debate is about the origin of the universe.

TRUE or FALSE

Q. I, pitts, believe that there was a beginning of the universe.

TRUE or FALSE

THE most cornerstone of issues, and THE point, of this debate ... and you won't go there.

I know why pittsypooh ... Because going there would force you to admit that there are problems with your "argument". You don't want to answer "TRUE" or "FALSE", but would prefer to spin, slide, shuffle, and scurry your way around these key points, all throughout this entire thread.
last edited: 11/02/05 10:44:40 PM”

“I think you have a pretty firm grip on your beliefs rano, whoever you are. I have no idea who you are but your posts provide interesting insight... into what I am not sure… into you as a person probably. I have been on the Internet long enough to know that on-line personalities are generally not an accurate reflection of the real person behind the keyboard. I do appreciate what you are saying.

I’ll offer a fairly personal paragraph knowing I’ll get trounced for it.

My grandfather told me something when I was a young man that had a huge impact on me. We used to have long “scientific discussions” (as he called them) for hours on end. Generally they were on the properties of elements in the periodic table. I am not much of a chemist but I tried. He was fascinated with Potassium for some reason, probably because of his high blood pressure. He was not an educated man but he was the most brilliant person I have ever known… a true master of all things mechanical. Nothing ever went to waste. Everything had a place in a coffee can or bucket somewhere. He was a deeply religious man, a Christian of very strong conviction. He loved nature and all living things. His relationship with his Savior was quietly evident in his daily life even to a young and arrogant punk like yours truly. Anyway, during one of our conversations he was asking about the nature of stars. I explained the nature of the p-p reaction and fusion, how stars produce heavy elements, and about their end states. He was wide-eyed and at some point stopped me. He said, “You know, I am not an educated man and I have never had the chance to become educated like you. I have so many questions… so many questions. I find great joy in knowing that when I die that the Lord will take me by the hand and explain to me all the things I never had a chance to fully understand in this lifetime.” My eyes watered and I was speechless. It was (and remains) the most concise and meaningful expression of a persons reconciliation of the modern world and his religious values that I have ever heard. I cherish that mans memory and wept bitterly at my loss when he passed away. I found some margin of comfort over the years in a feeling I have to this day (not an absolute knowledge, just a feeling) that his questions were all answered.”

“Thank you for sharing that with us pitts.

I suspect I would enjoy sharing words and ideas around a campfire with you two (pitts and rano)
last edited: 11/02/05 11:30:04 PM”

“I suspect we all get our answers, when we
"graduate" from this life.

Your grandfathers comment reminds me of a quote, which I may be paraphrasing badly...

One of life's great truths is the next place we go is much better than this one... and we can't leave this one alive.”

“God has already given us the answers.

He put them in a book.

For those that refuse to believe him here on earth, what makes you think things will be different when you die?

He's told you how it will be when you die, depending on a single decidsion you make NOW, on earth.

Don't be so naive as to think He is lying now, but will somehow decide to be truthful with you when you die. He's telling you the truth now. The answers are there for you. It's up to you to recognize that.”

“I suppose if God didn't design us that when the Big Bang happened it probably scared the Hell out of Him.”

“Don't be so naive as to think He is lying now, but will somehow decide to be truthful with you when you die.
Sarge
5:40:26 AM
11/03/05

The question isn't if God is truthful or accurate. The questions are is the text that peoople say is the word of God actually the word of God, and if it is - is the interpretation offered accurate (this means both the translation and the claim of what the passages are getting at).

I disagree with Hamas because, 1) I don't think of the Koran as the word of God, 2) I am highly skeptical they they interpret it accurately (if I believed the Koran was the word of God, I would have read the whole thing and come to my own conclusions).”

“You're right. You are going to have to come to your own conclusions. It's the most important conclusion you will ever need to arive at. Good luck with that.”

“A few posters have inidcated that ID should be embraced because it is simpler, and other theories have left too many things unexplained.

One huge problem is that ID, if embraced, would leave something colossal unexplained: where did the intelligent designer came from. Who created the creator? What exist before the creator? How did the creator come into being? HOw did whatever led to the creation of the creator come into being?”

“Add to this: by what process did the creator create? How does the creator work (from a physics standpoint)? and many more questions about the creator and the creation.”

“One huge problem is that ID, if embraced, would leave something colossal unexplained: where did the intelligent designer came from. Who created the creator? What exist before the creator? How did the creator come into being? HOw did whatever led to the creation of the creator come into being?

That is answered in the very nature of the creator. He isn't tied to the physics of this "world" (dimension). He's spiritual, meaning of another dimension. Some scientists think there are approx. 11 of them - we cognitively live in 4 of them. Even science can explain this apparent dillema.”

“Thank you Pedx, You just hit on the main reason creationism and ID will never be acceptable answers to any scientist.

Science and religeon exist for very different purposes and adhere to very different standards.”

“What standard is it when science thinks "inside the box"?

da Vinci is rolling over in his grave”

“What standard is it when science thinks "inside the box"?

da Vinci is rolling over in his grave”
Sarge


Sorry but You were called out and choose to hide under your nonsense instead of actually debateing this issue. Do what you want - Id rather be wrong then cower under a web of deceit.

Iggy ----> ON”

“Excuse me Lumberjack??

Is this debate about the expansion of the universe?

Maybe you can answer that since "somebody" else won't.

This debate is about the expansion of the universe. True or False.”

“Maybe you can be specific.

What exactly did I choose NOT to debate that is "this issue".”

“Passive aggression. Baiting.”

“Passive? Aggressive?

I was told by Lumberjack I avoided a question that relates to THIS topic.

I asked him what that is, specifically.

pitts, it is quite obvious you are unfamiliar with what "passive aggressiveness" is. You do it, and don't recognize it, then claim it's there, when it's not.

I would argue I am the LEAST passive aggressive person on this entire board. If I go after you, you know it, and I don't deny it.

Baiting? Maybe you were talking to Lumberjack?

Still not going to get back on topic, huh pitts? When you do, please answer those 2 most basic question ABOUT origins for us. Thanks.”

“pitts, it is quite obvious you are unfamiliar with what "passive aggressiveness" is.

That's OK. You don't know #&%!$ about the Big Bang theory or science but that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.”

“That's fantastic.

So, anybody want to talk about origins on here, the actual topic of the thread? Obviously pitts is afraid to go there.”

“Does anyone want to talk about origins with someone that will spout out ignorant #&%!$ that they will then refuse to support even when proven wrong?”

“Proven wrong?

You proved nothing. In fact, all you did was ask for references of something THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH ORIGINS.

You haven't talked about origins YET pitts.

I wonder why you won't go there ...”

“pitts -

List one question that you have asked me that I did not answer that has to do with origins.

When you don't do that, because you can't, answer my questions ...

Q. The intelligent design debate is about the origin of the universe.

TRUE or FALSE

Q. I, pitts, believe that there was a beginning of the universe.

TRUE or FALSE”

“Then, while you're at it, explain to us (on the topic of origins), how you can claim

A) The universe DID have a definite beginning.

AND

B) The universe DID NOT have a definite beginning.”

“Sarge is hoping that if he posts enough that his failures in the past will scroll off of the top of the thread and people will forget. Pound sand mental midget. You proved you aren't qualified to debate anyone on anything.

I would say that scientists are far from proving Big Bang. If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory. Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically. I am not suggesting it didn't happen (I think it's a close approximation of reality), I'm simply saying it hasn't been proven.

Yes, scientists are looking for "better" theories all the time to replace existing ones. One of those theories scientists and mathematitians are looking at is Intelligent Design theory.”
Sarge
1:28:04 PM
11/01/05

Your words, your claims you won't support, your failure. Take your cheap "pot shots" somewhere else.”

“Sarge is hoping that if he posts enough that his failures in the past will scroll off of the top of the thread and people will forget. Pound sand mental midget. You proved you aren't qualified to debate anyone on anything.

Are you telling people what to think instead of getting back on the topic, which you've never actually been on in the first place for the many months we've had this discussion?

Your words, your claims you won't support, your failure. Take your cheap "pot shots" somewhere else.

Supporting that statement does not support my argument. Like I said, I don't need that statement to make my point. Why are you trying to tell me what my argument should be?

Maybe because by doing to it allows you the opportunity to NOT talk about origins, which by the way, is what this thread is about.

Haven't answered those most basic questions yet pitts, did'ya?

By the way, those questions were posed by me in the past (in another form, but on this thread), and you didn't answer them then either.

Anybody want to discuss origins here besides me?”

“I am sure there are plenty of people interested in discussing this topic, just not with you personally. No doubt you can bait people into a discussion and then bully them about with posturing and misleading propaganda. It’s your modus operandi.”

“Hey, serious question (for once) here: What does the ID contigent think of "creative evolution" in general and whether it should be taught along ID and evolution.
last edited: 11/03/05 10:08:21 AM”