ID vs. Evolution: Death Match in Louisiana, the Final Showdown

ID vs. Evolution: Death Match in Louisiana, the Final Showdown

This is it! And while you're on Opera, there's no pay-per-view. The final no-holds-barred, end-of-the-line, see-ya, GOODBYE tussle between these two formidable foes! Let's get ready to RUMBLE! The decision of the judges will be truly FINAL if the contestants have the guts to show up. Tag-teams are acceptable. This will be a death cage match, no referees, decided by the fans on an ongoing basis. (aprilmae will keep count. All you need do is say, "I vote...") The beautiful chelydraturtle will announce. Shelly?

chelydraturtle: Thank you, drycreek. The excitement here is truly electric. The crowds on both sides are going wild! I'm ready to give you the slam-by-slam report. We're waiting for the contestants to arrive...gentlemen, do you accept the challenge? (In so doing, you acknowledge that this match will be the end without spilling over to any further threads, you promise to put up your best fight, no hitting below the belt, and you promise to restrict your fight to our death cage until a final decision is reached. Do you have the courage of your convictions or not?)

drycreekturtle: There you have it! The invitation is out. The death cage is ready. The 'gators are waiting. Will anyone weigh in first?

Originally posted by Bantay:

An interesting discovery, but not surprising. Evidently, sexual reproduction in the oldest (known) fishes doesn't appear to have evolved, at all.

Evolution says that organisms (and functions) can evolve, not that they must.

Originally posted by Daveski17:

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Bantay:

An interesting discovery, but not surprising. Evidently, sexual reproduction in the oldest (known) fishes doesn't appear to have evolved, at all.

There's an old English expression:


"there's nowt so blind as won't see".


That fossil was evolution staring you in the face!

Don't be silly string...you're being irrational.

????Why??? So suddently?

Have you been infected by the ID Virus?

Maybe too much

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Bantay:

An interesting discovery, but not surprising. Evidently, sexual reproduction in the oldest (known) fishes doesn't appear to have evolved, at all.

Evolution says that organisms (and functions) can evolve, not that they must.

Who can say, without further fossil evidence precisely what the process was?

That creature was maybe the evolved form of a previous species (likely, in fact inevitable), but did it become extinct (survival of the fittest only) or did it evolve further into animals which because those which evolved to land animals, or did it simply have a large lunch the day it died?

That is the delicious nature of science, that we can ask such questions without inhibitions regarding preconceived notions about magical entities. Knowledge increases all the time and each increase brings more interesting facts and theories to examine. There is more to know that what is written in the so-called "Holy Books".

At any rate according to the artilce, "Placoderms are right at the base of the vertebrate tree. So they are distantly ancestral to us in a way".

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Daveski17:

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Bantay:

An interesting discovery, but not surprising. Evidently, sexual reproduction in the oldest (known) fishes doesn't appear to have evolved, at all.

There's an old English expression:


"there's nowt so blind as won't see".


That fossil was evolution staring you in the face!

Don't be silly string...you're being irrational.

????Why??? So suddently?

Have you been infected by the ID Virus?

Maybe too much

I didn't mean it literally string...

Originally posted by string:

Knowledge increases all the time and each increase brings more interesting facts and theories to examine.

Yes, I agree. In fact, the amount of knowledge in astronomy supposedly increases 4-fold each year. In the case of astronomical evidence for design, evidence is increasing by a factor of about a million times each month. In the case of naturalistic explanations, random chance occurences et etc...there is no significant increase in evidential support. Shouldn't science be going where the evidence best points, regardless of it's theological implications....or should science remained entrenched in a man-made, strictly naturalistic, philosophically biased belief system at an extremely high intellectual cost?

Originally posted by schapel:

evolution causes genetic information to come into being and brains develop according to the genetic information in an organism.

Are you certain? Do you realize that without the information existing first in the first DNA, there would be no such thing as natural selection to pass on genetic information? As such, evolution wouldn't occur without information existing first. What evidence is there that evolution can reasonably account for the origination of complex, specified information? Does information come into being by popping into existence, all of a sudden, out of thin air? Don't you think a more plausible explanation would be one that is consistent with observations.....that intelligence always originates from prior intelligence?

If you think you have a more plausible explanation that the widely accepted theory of evolution, feel free to post all the details. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. I've presented the evidence you're asking for many times before. I've read the competing explanations. The standard explanation that evolution is caused by random mutations and natural selection seems to best fit the available evidence to me.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Do you realize that without the information existing first in the first DNA, there would be no such thing as natural selection to pass on genetic information?

Wrong.

As such, evolution wouldn't occur without information existing first.

Wrong.

What evidence is there that evolution can reasonably account for the origination of complex, specified information?

'Complex, specified information' means nothing except as a rhetorical device.

Don't you think a more plausible explanation would be one that is consistent with observations.....that intelligence always originates from prior intelligence?

No, a plausible explanation involving intelligence would, in some way, involve defining what intelligence is - which you have consistently failed to offer.

Originally posted by schapel:

If you think you have a more plausible explanation that the widely accepted theory of evolution, feel free to post all the details. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

As is well known but widely attempted to be covered up, there is a more plausible explanation to explain what evolution cannot reasonably account for. As far as running it up the flagpole (so to speak), appealing to concensus is fallacious. Explanations should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of those who present them or if a particular number of people agree or not. As it stands, Darwinist evolution is having a real identity crisis these days. Doing damage control to try to salvage it isn't helping. New technologies are not helping. New discoveries are not helping. It's a paradigm shift. Enjoy the ride.

Originally posted by Bantay:

As such, evolution wouldn't occur without information existing first.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Wrong.

What is the origin of information?

Originally posted by Bantay:

What evidence is there that evolution can reasonably account for the origination of complex, specified information?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

'Complex, specified information' means nothing except as a rhetorical device.

So...what you're saying is that there is absolutely no difference in your sentence, to a random collection of characters that do not convey a specified message, and a pattern of characters that repeats itself? Again, I have forced you to adopt a most unreasonable, least plausible position....of simple denial.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

a plausible explanation involving intelligence would, in some way, involve defining what intelligence is - which you have consistently failed to offer.

I have on numerous occasions associated intelligence with purpose, intentionality and choice-making, the choice of one option to the exlusion of others, and that a message reflects intelligence...since only a mind (not nature) has been observed to communicate messages that are specified (as in the case of DNA). As such,

Originally posted by Bantay:

.....a more plausible explanation would be one that is consistent with observations.....that intelligence always originates from prior intelligence

Originally posted by Bantay:

.....a more plausible explanation would be one that is consistent with observations.....that intelligence always originates from prior intelligence

But then aren't we at the same creator of the creator business again?

Originally posted by Bantay:

So...what you're saying is that there is absolutely no difference in your sentence, to a random collection of characters that do not convey a specified message, and a pattern of characters that repeats itself?

Yes, but not the difference you want there to be. Wishful thinking does not make it so.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by schapel:

If you think you have a more plausible explanation that the widely accepted theory of evolution, feel free to post all the details. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

As is well known but widely attempted to be covered up, there is a more plausible explanation to explain what evolution cannot reasonably account for. As far as running it up the flagpole (so to speak), appealing to concensus is fallacious. Explanations should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of those who present them or if a particular number of people agree or not. As it stands, Darwinist evolution is having a real identity crisis these days. Doing damage control to try to salvage it isn't helping. New technologies are not helping. New discoveries are not helping. It's a paradigm shift. Enjoy the ride.

It's not going to be much a paradigm shift if you keep the hypothesis secret and never explain any way in which to test the hypothesis. Please explain in detail and provide an experiment that could be performed by a human being and could possibly provide results that show the hypothesis is incorrect.

Originally posted by schapel:

Please explain in detail and provide an experiment that could be performed by a human being and could possibly provide results that show the hypothesis is incorrect.

"Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely." There's your requested falsifiability of ID.

SOURCE:

Now, is Darwinian evolution falsifiable? What test can be conducted to show all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection?"

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by schapel:

Please explain in detail and provide an experiment that could be performed by a human being and could possibly provide results that show the hypothesis is incorrect.

"Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely." There's your requested falsifiability of ID.

That experiment would take thousands, if not millions, of years to perform. We need experiments that humans can perform. Then we need to perform them. Then we could say ID has been tested. So far, it has not been.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Now, is Darwinian evolution falsifiable? What test can be conducted to show all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection?"

We can examine the genetic differences between organisms, and if we see that there was not enough time for random mutations to create the genetic differences between organisms, that would certainly falsify evolution. If we found one organism that was vastly genetically different from all other known organisms, and we couldn't find ancestors of that organism, that would easily falsify evolution. So far, everything seems to work out, and evolution has not been falsified.

Originally posted by Bantay:

then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do.

On the general grounds of an unjustified assumption? Nice try, but unfortunately that's the concept you're being asked to falsify.

Intelligent Design is not the lack of Darwinian evolution - ID must make specific claims that can be tested and falsified. What you posted is none of the above. You cannot say that crystal healing works because feng shui doesn't.

Originally posted by schapel:

We can examine the genetic differences between organisms, and if we see that there was not enough time for random mutations to create the genetic differences between organisms, that would certainly falsify evolution.

That's already been done.

Originally posted by schapel:

If we found one organism that was vastly genetically different from all other known organisms, and we couldn't find ancestors of that organism, that would easily falsify evolution.

Appealing to some unknown organism now?

Originally posted by schapel:

So far, everything seems to work out, and evolution has not been falsified.

Keep telling yourself that a few more hundred times. It might be believable then.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You cannot say that crystal healing works because feng shui doesn't.

True. Likewise, just because a proposition is unfalsifiable does not mean it is false.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

On the general grounds of an unjustified assumption?

I would say that the assumption of design is well justified based on the observed appearance of design and the scientific principle of uniformitarianism in that it is observed that intelligence always comes from prior intelligence. Macroevolution can't claim even this much to support it's pretensions.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by schapel:

We can examine the genetic differences between organisms, and if we see that there was not enough time for random mutations to create the genetic differences between organisms, that would certainly falsify evolution.

That's already been done.

I've never seen the evidence. Please do point it out for us.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Appealing to some unknown organism now?

No, falsification, remember? You do understand that falsification involves proposing something that has not been observed yet?

Originally posted by Bantay:

in that it is observed that intelligence always comes from prior intelligence

Intelligence, how? You keep repeating it, but never explaining yourself.

In the context that you are using it, what is intelligence?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

In the context that you are using it, what is intelligence?

Originally posted by Bantay:

I have on numerous occasions associated intelligence with purpose, intentionality and choice-making, the choice of one option to the exlusion of others, and that a message reflects intelligence...since only a mind (not nature) has been observed to communicate messages that are specified (as in the case of DNA). As such, a more plausible explanation would be one that is consistent with observations.....that intelligence always originates from prior intelligence

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

No, falsification, remember?

The problem for Darwinists on the falsification issue is that there are two different statements being made. ID says that "some" features of the universe and of living things are best explained by intelligence. Darwinism says "ALL" life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection. It is realistically impossible to test "all" life, and so Darwinism is inherently unfalsifiable. One can falsify some features in life or particular forms of life, but the Darwinist will have a ready reply "oh, but you haven't tested all of them".

Originally posted by Bantay:

The problem for Darwinists on the falsification issue is that there are two different statements being made. ID says that "some" features of the universe and of living things are best explained by intelligence. Darwinism says "ALL" life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection. It is realistically impossible to test "all" life, and so Darwinism is inherently unfalsifiable. One can falsify some features in life or particular forms of life, but the Darwinist will have a ready reply "oh, but you haven't tested all of them".

You have this exactly backwards, Bantay. It's laughable.

By stating that <i>all</i> life descended from a single life form, all you need to do is to show <i>one</i> organism that did not to falsify the claim.

If the claim were the weaker <i>some</i> life descended from a single life form, then no matter how many organisms you showed did not, one could always say "Oh, but you haven't tested all of them."

It's ID that is not falsifiable. By stating that <i>some</i> features of living things are best explained by intelligence, it doesn't matter how many features we could explain by natural, undirected processes. You could always reply, "oh, but you haven't tested all of them".

Geez, think for yourself once, won't you?

Besides, you just contradicted yourself once again:

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by schapel:

We can examine the genetic differences between organisms, and if we see that there was not enough time for random mutations to create the genetic differences between organisms, that would certainly falsify evolution.

That's already been done.

So, Darwinism is inherently unfalsifiable, and yet it's already been falsified. Try to make some sense for once, and you might be into something.

Originally posted by schapel:

You have this exactly backwards, Bantay. It's laughable.

Originally posted by schapel:

If the claim were the weaker some life descended from a single life form, then no matter how many organisms you showed did not, one could always say "Oh, but you haven't tested all of them.

You're right. I'm wrong. (too much coffee!). I'm laughing at my own error actually. Thanx for pointing it out. This is on me.

Originally posted by schapel:

By stating that all life descended from a single life form, all you need to do is to show one organism that did not to falsify the claim.

I think the bacterial flagellum provides that example well enough.

Don't you find it interesting that science, even recently, has made inferences to design? For example...Orgel & Francis Cricks' inference of design from directed panspermia (not to forget Dawkins' admission of intelligent ETs possibly seeding earth with life). None of the anti-IDers object to these inferences to design. But when the [same] evidence has implications of a non-natural cause.....Whooooaaa! We can't have that!

What I find interesting is that instead of a testable hypothesis for ID, all I get is rhetoric. This is why ID is not science. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Bantay:

I think the bacterial flagellum provides that example well enough.

It was proclaimed as falsifying, sadly when the science was done, the claim melted away. There is ample evidence that the flagellum could have developed by evolution. Note that this doesn't mean it definitely did, but it does mean it doesn't stand up as a falsification.

Originally posted by Bantay:

I have on numerous occasions associated intelligence with purpose, intentionality and choice-making

Associated, yes. Which mean that you are saying that these things that you believe to exist are a result of intelligence. That doesn't define what intelligence is by any means.

Furthermore, you claim that purpose is something that you can detect by the existence of intelligence, which means your defintion is circular.
Either way, it's something you claim to exist, and have shown no means of empirically testing. Not even the psychologists have been able to do that one.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

There is ample evidence that the flagellum could have developed by evolution. Note that this doesn't mean it definitely did, but it does mean it doesn't stand up as a falsification.

If you are referring to Miller's alleged refutation of Behe's case, then I think perhaps you have not read this rebuttal to Miller's assertions. It appears that Behe's case still stands. The bacterial flagellum is still spinning just as irreducibly complex as it was before Miller tried to introduce wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Bantay:

If you are referring to Miller's alleged refutation of Behe's case, then I think perhaps you have not read this rebuttal to Miller's assertions. It appears that Behe's case still stands

No, I've read it. It doesn't add anything to the argument. It still rests on untested assumptions.

The following quoted questions are imported to this thread, more relevant to this thread topic than the one they came from.

Originally posted by Bantay:

What came first? The mutation of information that already existed independent of mutation, or the mutation of some non-information bearing molecule that created information to then mutate?

Originally posted by Bantay:

When was macroevolution ever observed in nature and how was that tested? In other words, when was macroevolution ever observed to occur where it could not be ruled out as simply an extrapolation from microevolution which is observed?

Originally posted by Bantay:

What came first? The mutation of information that already existed independent of mutation, or the mutation of some non-information bearing molecule that created information to then mutate?

Since this application of 'information' is a philosophical one, not a quantitative one, the question is unanswerable in any meaningful way.

Originally posted by Bantay:

In other words, when was macroevolution ever observed to occur where it could not be ruled out as simply an extrapolation from microevolution which is observed?

Never. Macroevolution has always been an extrapolation from microevolution - there is no observable way of separating the two.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Since this application of 'information' is a philosophical one, not a quantitative one, the question is unanswerable in any meaningful way.

No, it's unanswerable from a materialist perspective. That doesn't mean that there isn't an answer, or that an answer that has theological implications is necessarily untrue.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Macroevolution has always been an extrapolation from microevolution - there is no observable way of separating the two.

Thank you for admitting that macroevolution has always been an extrapolation from microevolution. And yes, there is a way to separate the two. It's called providing evidence, testing, observing...in other words, good science. So far, there is good evidence that microevolution occurs. There is no good evidence that macroevolution has occured. Review lesson: That is why macroevolution is an extrapolation from microevolution, which you yourself readily admit.

Originally posted by Bantay:

So far, there is good evidence that microevolution occurs. There is no good evidence that macroevolution has occured. Review lesson: That is why macroevolution is an extrapolation from microevolution, which you yourself readily admit.

No. If you could separate the two, that would be evidence that macroevolution is not an extrapolation from microevolution. So you've got it a bit backwards.

Every instance of microevolution produces two new gaps for ID aficionados.

There's no way they can lose.

The quotes display both profound ignorance of what mutations are, and a profound ignorance of what information is.

A recent intellectual tussle that may be of interest to some. It is relevant to this thread for two reasons. 1.The session asked the question of whether science and religion were compatible. This is an issue that rears it's ugly head in the form of erroneous accusations of ID being religious. 2. There are aspects of the following that directly relate to the recent expulsion of well known, substantive scientists in higher academia due to their doubting of Darwinism and general acceptance of Intelligent Design.

One of the world's foremost philosophers, Alvin Plantinga debated (so to speak) the infamous Daniel Dennett. What is most interesting is the different styles of presentation and debate. Plantinga made a supremely intellectual presentation, while Dennett stuck with sarcasm, mockery and insults. In other words, Dennett was outmatched. It was also noted that Dennett used cute humor to win his following, while Plantinga made a serious intellectual argument for his position. Is this the best that Dennett, "one of the most important early philosophers of mind that opened the field to cognitive science and evolutionary biology" can do?

The debate notes are HERE, for anyone interested in checking it out.

Another interesting part of this whole thing, is that the person who recorded his own comments as the debate progressed had this to say.

"I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion. Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly."

It's a sad state of affairs when intellectuals feel the need to remain anonymous in order to protect their career and family from those who would viciously attack, blackball and otherwise seek to "expel" them from their respective academic field....simply on account of their personal beliefs agreeing with an intellecual giant like Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. In any case, in exchanges like these, the continued derision and lack of serious rebuttals from the so-called New Atheists only makes the theistic philosopher's position more appealing to those who are undecided. A last comment by the anonymous observer...

"More engagements like this will only expand the ranks of Christian philosophers and increase the pace of academic philosophy's desecularization."

Can be heard HERE

So basically, spin, rhetoric, and anonymous claims of persecution. Have you nothing substantial to add?

It should also be noted that your interpretation of the events is grossly in opposition to many other accounts.

Originally posted by Redem:

So basically, spin, rhetoric, and anonymous claims of persecution. Have you nothing substantial to add? It should also be noted that your interpretation of the events is grossly in opposition to many other accounts.

Instead of deriding those who have a legitimate issue with persecution due to their personal religious or philosophical beliefs, I think we should examine these claims more closely. Or would you prefer those in academia who feel persecuted to simply be silenced?

Examine what claim more closely? There's nothing substantiative in the claim, it's anonymous. We've been over this when expelled was released, it's a load of crock. No one has been unfairly "expelled" from any academic position for merely professing a belief that a higher power designed life or the universe.

What you had were a bunch of liars and crooks who claimed persecution because no one would take their nonsense seriously, and a bunch of people who abused their positions to further their religious agenda and were not asked to renew their positions after they expired.

I though this might be interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/02/charles-darwin-creationism-intelligent-design

"The east of England may be the most godless region of the UK, according to a "belief map" published by a theology thinktank today. Almost half of adults there believe the theory of evolution makes God obsolete, and more than 80% disagree with creationism and intelligent design, which propose that humans were created by God in the past 10,000 years, and that life owes its complexity to divine intervention.

The map was drawn up by the thinktank Theos following a survey of 2,060 people across the country who were chosen to be representative of the adult population.

The survey, which was conducted to mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, found that nearly half of the British adult population could not name the country's greatest naturalist as the author of On the Origin of Species, the 1859 book that introduced evolution through natural selection to a sceptical Victorian society.

The poll also revealed some extraordinary views on more recent writings, with 5% of adults thinking Darwin wrote A Brief History of Time, a bestseller on the science of spacetime, which was written by the Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and is widely regarded as the most popular science book never to be completed by its readers.

A further 3% of those surveyed thought Darwin wrote The God Delusion, by the arch-atheist and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, while 1% thought Darwin was the author of The Naked Chef by Jamie Oliver.

The study found only 15% of people knew that Darwin was a self-described agnostic towards the end of his life, with a fifth believing he was an atheist. Nearly half thought evolution challenged Christianity but said it was possible to believe in both.

The survey suggests there is a widespread lack of religious sentiment across Britain. National average figures revealed that less than a third of adults see evolution as part of God's plan, 89% dismiss intelligent design and 83% reject creationism as plausible explanations for the existence of human life.

The survey reveals a relatively high proportion of people in London who believe in creationism. "Whereas the national average is 17% who believe that human beings were created by God in the last 10,000 years ... in London, that figure is 20%. That may well be due to the growth of Pentecostal churches in London, which are growing at an extraordinary rate," said Paul Woolley, director of Theos.

According to the survey, Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in intelligent design (16%) and creationism (25%).

"The research clearly indicates there is a great deal of confusion about what people believe and why they believe it," said Woolley.

"There are two lessons in particular that we can learn from Darwin. The first is that belief in God and evolution are compatible. Secondly, in a time when debates about evolution and religious belief can be aggressive and polarised, Charles Darwin remains an example of how to disagree without being disagreeable," he added."

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I though this might be interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/02/charles-darwin-creationism-intelligent-design

You do realise this is a socialist paper, don't you?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The survey reveals a relatively high proportion of people in London who believe in creationism.

There is another explantion for this. The tap water in London is polluted with heavy metals.

Originally posted by Daveski17:

You do realise this is a socialist paper, don't you?

Cor....
There's no winning with your lot's papers.
Are there any good papers?

Originally posted by Daveski17:

You do realise this is a socialist paper, don't you

I almost missed this as I wouldn't usually dare set foot in a thread like this but I saw it on my friends latest posts thingy! The Guardian is in no way a socialist paper. It's one of the few liberal papers, not a socialist one. I'm sure you must have been joking but I thought I would make that clear! Perhaps it's a socialist paper in the eyes of thedawgfan though ? The Morning Star which is still in circulation as a daily national paper was set up by the Communist Party of Great Britain although the party that did so disbanded in the 80's I think. It's a broad left paper now run by a coop of some sort, don't think there communists. Although a communist guy at a rally did try to sell me a copy. But I wouldn't really call it a radical publication...

Originally posted by street_spirit:

Originally posted by Daveski17:

You do realise this is a socialist paper, don't you

The Guardian is in no way a socialist paper. It's one of the few liberal papers, not a socialist one.

OK, I stand corrected. I know what you are saying, but according to many of the 'redtops' it is virtually the socialist worker!

Originally posted by street_spirit:

I'm sure you must have been joking but I thought I would make that clear!

I was really, in a way.

Originally posted by street_spirit:

Perhaps it's a socialist paper in the eyes of thedawgfan though ?

Yes, that's what I thought as well. Of course, the idea of socialism to an American & the concept of socialism to the English, especially the likes of you & me, are very different things! I honestly don't know what the Americans actually believe socialism is. Something to do with 'goose-stepping' moujiks I reckon...

Originally posted by article:

According to the survey, Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in intelligent design (16%) and creationism (25%).

Wow. At least someone has figured out that creationism and ID are two separate concepts. Imagine that!

Originally posted by Bantay:

Wow. At least someone has figured out that creationism and ID are two separate concepts. Imagine that!

Er, I don't see how you can conclude that from the stats. It would be just as correct to conclude that ID is perceived as a less-convincing subset of creationism.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by article:

According to the survey, Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in intelligent design (16%) and creationism (25%).

Wow. At least someone has figured out that creationism and ID are two separate concepts. Imagine that!

Wow, you actually managed to fool somebody. Enjoy the feeling while it lasts!

Originally posted by Daveski17:

Yes, that's what I thought as well. Of course, the idea of socialism to an American & the concept of socialism to the English, especially the likes of you & me, are very different things! I honestly don't know what the Americans actually believe socialism is.

Socialism simply never took root here, so by now it's no surprise that most Americans have no idea what it's all about. We do have an authentic socialist history, but there are operative myths here that have mitigated against it. Oh, and guns, too. You know little of out history, and it's borne out in the sort of stock claims that you make. And, no, I'm not going to do a review of socialist attempts to develop a base here. Obviously, they were not successful, for which there are reasons.

What do you know about Eugene V. Debbs and/or the Wobblies?

Originally posted by street_spirit:

Perhaps it's a socialist paper in the eyes of thedawgfan though ?

I wouldn't know. Dave told me it was a Socialist paper.

Originally posted by Daveski17:

Yes, that's what I thought as well. Of course, the idea of socialism to an American & the concept of socialism to the English, especially the likes of you & me, are very different things! I honestly don't know what the Americans actually believe socialism is. Something to do with 'goose-stepping' moujiks I reckon...

How the devil did you think that? It was you who told me it was a Socialist paper?
Perhaps you're covering your tracks on this one? ? :

Originally posted by Daveski17:

You do realise this is a socialist paper, don't you?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I wouldn't know. Dave told me it was a Socialist paper.

That confuses me for a sec every time you say that as my name is david.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I wouldn't know. Dave told me it was a Socialist paper.

Was a reference to your Obama/Communist picture, it was just a guess if you see what Obama is as Communist from my understanding of the paper (don't read it very often only if someone happens to leave one laying around in the vicinity of the area I am in) it's probably around Obama politically speaking, 'new establishment' some people might refer to it. Like the rest of the media they have a business section but not union/labour section.

Watched a documentary called 'Harlem County USA' yesterday, an interesting film, about the mining strikes of the 70s in the USA. In many respects it makes the British ones look rather docile in so far as how far workers were willing to go, and what they had to fight against and such like.

Road sign spotted recently.... with accompanying open letter to The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, from Mike Egnor, M.D.

Apart from being an obvious and amateurish 'shoop, is this really what IDists consider amusing?