Would you for once stop being so critical of Bahamians?
The point that I was making was pursuant to the proposal of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. It was shoddily done. Point blank. Which is why it was rejected.
But obviously you didn't follow the details of that proposal and instead berate and accuse me of aping the west because of my pointing those facts out. Sometimes you should just keep your fingers off of the keyboard and pay attention to what others are saying, instead of jumping to your own ridiculous conclusions.
Keep in mind that everything that you read on this forum is a only snapshot of what each member has to offer, intellectually or otherwise. Give other people some respect and stop announcing that they need to read this or study that as if you are the sole authority on all things intellectual.


I said that you should look at the chaos theory as an example of the process of the admission of knowledge in to the field of science. Science is not as you describe it, that is the point that i was making. Inteligent design is a theory if we open our minds and examine it there is room for it, thats what i am saying. In many ways you are ape-ing the west.:sailing: in your thinking.

There is a saying that you cannot get blood from a stone, thus if you dont know can you really say, take for instance the post of tadafalihi, who constantly post the name dr frances cress welsing but has never read her work now what do you call this, i say she is silly, now you can call it what you want.

I am saying once again that you do not have a clear grasp of the philosophy of science.

Inteligent design is a theory if we open our minds and examine it there is room for it, thats what i am saying. In many ways you are ape-ing the west.:sailing: in your thinking.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your assumption that my mind is ultimately closed to the concept. You are so quick on the draw to attempt to correct persons that you often draw the wrong conclusion about them.

All that I'm saying to you is to stop being critical. Stop making assumptions about others and their level of knowledge.


I am saying once again that you do not have a clear grasp of the philosophy of science.

You have absolutely no credibility in making this statement, but since it makes you feel good about yourself, carry on as you will. I don't believe that you will listen even if I attempt to explain my rationale to you.

By the way, let me allow someone else to explain to you why the theory of Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community. (Since you mistakenly believe that I don't have a clear grasp of the philosophy of science)
------------------------------------------
Excerpts from SHOW ME THE SCIENCE [August 29, 2005]
by Daniel C. Dennett

...To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms."

No intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

DANIEL C. DENNETT is University Professor, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. Among his books are Consciousness Explained; Darwin's Dangerous Idea; and Freedom Evolves.

i see i got something going here.

Havent intelligent design proponents work behind the theory of one supreme life force that keeps our system afloat?

I think that is what they mean in by intelligent design!
:cool:

By the way, let me allow someone else to explain to you why the theory of Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community. (Since you mistakenly believe that I don't have a clear grasp of the philosophy of science)
------------------------------------------
Excerpts from SHOW ME THE SCIENCE [August 29, 2005]
by Daniel C. Dennett

...To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms."

No intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

DANIEL C. DENNETT is University Professor, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. Among his books are Consciousness Explained; Darwin's Dangerous Idea; and Freedom Evolves.



Thanks for the artical Yorickbrown. However I would like to refer you to the following essay on The Nature and Philiosophy of Science::dancer2:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

Thanks for the artical Yorickbrown. However I would like to refer you to the following essay on The Nature and Philiosophy of Science::dancer2:
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

Listen people, if the VATICAN even rejects the theory of Intelligent Design, obviously something is amiss with the theory. Let it go A1000. Just let it go.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10932031/
Jan. 19, 2006

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying “intelligent design” is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

The article in Tuesday’s editions of L’Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials — including the pope — on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.

The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution “represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth.”

He lamented that certain American “creationists” had brought the debate back to the “dogmatic” 1800s, and said their arguments weren’t science but ideology.

“This isn’t how science is done,” he wrote. “If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it’s not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science.”

Intelligent design “doesn’t belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin’s explanation is unjustified,” he wrote.

“It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes.”

“This isn’t how science is done,” he wrote. “If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it’s not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science.”[/SIZE]

Intelligent design “doesn’t belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin’s explanation is unjustified,” he wrote.

“It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes.”




Man Oh Man, I gave you a link to an essay on the Nature and Philiosophy of Science, and you reply with a story of the Vadican?:rolleyes:

There is methodology to thinking http://www.bahamasissues.com/showthread.php?t=2572 from the Thread The Essential Theory And Praxis Of National Culture post #11:

As I have mentioned before this is Malcolm X Month, thus I am going to define the Blockhead Pathology, it is characterized by a deficiency in these ten areas of thinking skills:

1. Concentration.

2. Observation.

3. Memory.

4. Logical reasoning.

5. Making inferences.

6. Forming hypotheses.

7. Generating options.

8. Making association between ideas.

9. Recognizing patterns.

10. Spatial and Kinesthetic perception.
For more info on these see the book Brain Power Learn To Improve Your Thinking Skills by Karl Albrecht.

I submitted the essay to aid in understanding why I critique your understanding of Science. Lets just look at a small section of the essay taken from the following website http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html :

“The Nature and Philosophy of Science


Introduction

Scientists are unbiased observers who use the scientific method to conclusively confirm and conclusively falsify various theories. These experts have no preconceptions in gathering the data and logically derive theories from these objective observations. One great strength of science is that it’s self-correcting, because scientists readily abandon theories when they are shown to be irrational. Although such eminent views of science have been accepted by many people, they are almost completely untrue. Data can neither conclusively confirm nor conclusively falsify theories, there really is no such thing as the scientific method, data become somewhat subjective in practice, and scientists have displayed a surprisingly fierce loyalty to their theories. There have been many misconceptions of what science is and is not. I’ll discuss why these misconstruals are inaccurate later, but first I’d like to begin by talking about some of the basics of what science is.
Science is a project whose goal is to obtain knowledge of the natural world. The philosophy of science is a discipline that deals with the system of science itself. It examines science’s structure, components, techniques, assumptions, limitations, and so forth.

The Basic Structure of Science

To properly understand the contemporary philosophy of science, it is necessary to examine some basic components of science. The components of science are data, theories, and what is sometimes called shaping principles.[1]
Data are the collections of information about physical processes.[2] Sometimes collecting and finding data to support theories can be rather laborious. This is because the specific details of data that come into play can make science such a tricky business that some scientists, when talking to laymen, sometime leave them out. Also, it is easy to fit a theory in with the data if the data are vague and overgeneralized. It usually becomes more difficult to fit the theory with specific data, especially since the details make it more likely for the theory to become less plausible. Even so, data are important parts of theories and of science.[3]


Theories come in roughly two forms. Contrary to what some might think, a theory in the scientific sense does not have anything to do with whether or not it is supported by the evidence, contradicted by the evidence, well liked among scientists, and so forth.[4] It only has to do with its structure and the way it functions. That is, just because a theory is a scientific theory does not mean that the scientific community currently accepts it. There are many theories that, though technically scientific, have been rejected because the scientific evidence is strongly against it. Phenomenological theories are empirical generalizations of data. They merely describe the recurring processes of nature and do not refer to their causes or mechanisms. Phenomenological theories are also called scientific laws, physical laws, and natural laws. Newton’s third law is one example. It says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Explanatory theories attempt to explain the observations rather than generalize them. Whereas laws are descriptions of empirical regularities, explanatory theories are conceptual constructions to explain why the data exist. For example, atomic theory explains why we see certain observations. The same could be said with DNA and relativity. Explanatory theories are particularly helpful in such cases where the entities (like atoms, DNA, and so forth) cannot be directly observed.


Shaping principles are non-empirical factors and assumptions that form the basis of science and go into selecting a “good” theory. Why are they necessary? Can’t theories be selected solely on the basis of empirical data? Surprisingly, the answer is no. Why not? Describing some mistaken views of science come in handy for explaining the answer………………………………………………………………………”


In the discussion of intelligent design it is important to have an understanding of what science is, how it derives its view points and its limitation, once you are armed with this knowledge then we can look at The concept Of Intelligent Design. The Vatican the last time I checked never had a monopoly on thinking, so I wonder what the point is that the Vatican does not endorse Intelligence Design have to do with anything? I call this sort of logic Lazy thinking, or default existence. There are many pit falls that not have been clear in this discussion but this is what happens when a lesser mind [see the rabid threads of Tafadhali] brings forth a concept or issue that the mind is not capable of handling. :driving:

The components of science are data, theories, and what is sometimes called shaping principles.[1]
Data are the collections of information about physical processes.[2] Sometimes collecting and finding data to support theories can be rather laborious. This is because the specific details of data that come into play can make science such a tricky business that some scientists, when talking to laymen, sometime leave them out. Also, it is easy to fit a theory in with the data if the data are vague and overgeneralized. It usually becomes more difficult to fit the theory with specific data, especially since the details make it more likely for the theory to become less plausible. Even so, data are important parts of theories and of science.[3]

Let me put it simply to you, because you've obviously chosen some wannabe scientist's webpage to attempt to prove your case. (By the way, angelfire.com websites are free and anyone can cite references. Next time choose a reliable scientist as your source and not some college kid who is still trying to figure things out. Look at his use of language on the homepage of that site: "I gots me two pages here." A1000, you chose wrong in your desperation. TRY AGAIN.)

Obviously, the data is important to the process of introducing a scientific theory to be taught to others. Even your source says this. Proponents of Intelligent Design did NOT do this, so therefore the theory was rejected.

And it wasn't the Vatican, it was a scientist who's comments were printed in a Vatican publication. The clear rationale is that if even the Vatican can print that Intelligent Design was not put forth properly as a theory for inclusion in schools, then it was not done correctly. They would be the first to benefit from the introduction of I.D. (religion = intelligent design)

Do you get it now? Can you actually admit that you are incorrect in your assumptions?

Let me put it simply to you, because you've obviously chosen some wannabe scientist's webpage to attempt to prove your case. (By the way, angelfire.com websites are free and anyone can cite references. Next time choose a reliable scientist as your source and not some college kid who is still trying to figure things out. Look at his use of language on the homepage of that site: "I gots me two pages here." A1000, you chose wrong in your desperation. TRY AGAIN.)

Obviously, the data is important to the process of introducing a scientific theory to be taught to others. Even your source says this. Proponents of Intelligent Design did NOT do this, so therefore the theory was rejected.

And it wasn't the Vatican, it was a scientist who's comments were printed in a Vatican publication. The clear rationale is that if even the Vatican can print that Intelligent Design was not put forth properly as a theory for inclusion in schools, then it was not done correctly. They would be the first to benefit from the introduction of I.D. (religion = intelligent design)

Do you get it now? Can you actually admit that you are incorrect in your assumptions?



“I am a man with talent on loan from God” from Rush Limburg. I was just kicking this idea out there that I have more intelligence than any human should have but now that I think about it, there is much truth to this statement.

Yorick brown, I never claimed that the author of the essay was a scientist; in fact this is what I said:

Thanks for the article Yorickbrown. However I would like to refer you to the following essay on The Nature and Philosophy of Science:

In the vastness of my mind I had come across this essay that I had been employing in a discussion with a fellow thinker there are text that I could refer you, but I did not think that you could readily get your hands on them and I did not feel like quoteing from them at the time. Thus I suggested the essay its clear, and fill with references so that the reader can check validate the argument, this is why I chose the essay.

If you had followed my argument you would have picked up on this point:

Its amazing but when you dont study you really dont know what you are talking about. One of the fundamental tenths of science is that there is an obsever and there is an object/subject that can be observed and the two are separate. This is one of the fundamental principles of science. If you have been falling quantum physics you will be aware that this fundamental axiom is underassult. The creation of technological devices is not a proff of the exsistence of science, lol, please stop being so lazy and study these things

Go to the source some times

Along with the following one:

Unfortuntly science is a method to attempt to describe exsistence. We have to be clear on this it is not set in stone it is a theoritical argument and nothing more, If you dont read you wont know these things please see the Philosophy of science you can look it up on the web. Science is a theortical exercise that attempts to make sense of this thing called exsistence. Societies have always had their own particular ways of making sense of exsistence.

These are very important points as they challenge the validity of science as the ultimate yard stick by which reality is determined, this subject however is treated in the most dynamic cutting edge thread The Essential Theory and Praxis of National Culture.
However in your reading of the essay you missed this point, and its hard to overemphasis this point, but if you are reading Quantum physics then you would be aware of this point:

Data can neither conclusively confirm nor conclusively falsify theories, there really is no such thing as the scientific method, data become somewhat subjective in practice, and scientists have displayed a surprisingly fierce loyalty to their theories.

Also about Data the author writes:
“…………………………Also, it is easy to fit a theory in with the data if the data are vague and overgeneralized. It usually becomes more difficult to fit the theory with specific data, especially since the details make it more likely for the theory to become less plausible. Even so, data are important parts of theories and of science.[3]………………………..”


This essay on the “The Nature and Philosophy of Science
is very long thus I am breaking it down in to smaller chunks:

“………………………………….Mistaken Beliefs of the Scientific Method
Many students (including me) were brought up with a somewhat eminent view of science, or at least a fairly eminent view of science as it should be done. As I have found however, the status of science which most of us were taught may have been a bit misleading. Some ideas of what “the scientific method” is have also been erroneous. This is perhaps because scientists themselves tend to be ignorant of the philosophy of science.[5] Changes have been made in history about what science is and how it should be done.
In the early years of science, the system of acquiring knowledge was viewed as completely objective, rational, and empirical.[6] This traditional view of science held that scientific theories and laws were to be conclusively confirmed or conclusively falsified based on objective data. This was supposed to be done through “the scientific method.” Apparently some sort of method was necessary because humans seemed to have a variety of tendencies and feelings that were not very trustworthy, including biases, feelings, intuitions, and so forth. These kinds of things had to be prevented from infecting science so that knowledge could be reliably obtained.[7] Rigorous and precise procedure (“the scientific method”) was to be followed so that such imperfections of humanity would not hinder the process of discovering nature.


Baconian inductivism in the early seventeenth century was at one point considered to be the scientific method. The basic idea at the time was this: collect numerous observations (as much as humanly possible) being unaffected by any prior prejudice or theoretical preconceptions while gathering the data, inductively infer theories from those data (by generalizing the data into physical laws), and collect more data to modify or reject the hypothesis if needed.[8] In many instances, this concept seemed to work. One can collect numerous observations of physical processes and experiments to derive natural laws, such the conservation of mass-energy. Alas, Baconian inductivism is an inaccurate picture of scientific method. When using inductivism to arrive at natural laws, certain theoretical preconceptions are absolutely vital. To generalize the data into physical laws, the individual must assume that the laws apply for physical processes not observed. This results in several assumptions being held, such as the uniform operation of nature. Even if we put aside the fact that inductive logic is invariably based on such postulations, there is another problem. Science deals with concepts and explanatory theories that cannot be directly observed, including atomic theory and the theory of gravity. Many other theories include unobservable concepts like forces, fields, and subatomic particles. There is no known rigorous inductive logic that can infer those theories and concepts solely from the data they explain. If inductivism is the correct scientific method, then such theories cannot be legitimate science. As if these difficulties weren’t enough, inductivism has other major technical problems that have led to its demise.[9]


Sir Isaac Newton developed hypothetico-deductivism in the late 1600s (though the method was actually named at a later date).[10] Essentially, one starts with a hypothesis (a hypothesis is basically a provisional theory) and then deduces what we would expect to find in the empirical world as a result of that hypothesis, hence the name hypothetico-deductivism. Here the idea was to quarantine human irrationality.[11] One could make a theory for any or no reason. The sources of theories would be irrelevant in hypothetico-deductivism since the theories could be tested against the empirical world and be confirmed or refuted that way. A theory did not become a good theory by its origins, but because of the hypothetico-deductive method of verification.[12] Inductivism, recall, could not work because empirical data cannot be the sole source of a theory. Some scientists and philosophers of science who rejected inductivism embraced hypothetico-deductivism. A significant reason is that it allowed ideas like atomic theory to be legitimate science whereas they would not be in inductivism.


Unfortunately, hypothetico-deductivism also has problems. The philosophy that rigorous proof is necessary for good science has serious problems even if we assume that sense experience, memory, and testimony are all generally reliable.[13] For one thing, we cannot be sure that we have examined all the germane data.[14] There is always the opportunity for future observations to topple even the most established of theories.[15] For example, there is always the possibility that an observation could conflict with any known scientific law. This is what caused Newtonian mechanics to be cut down to size. Rather than being a total account for the nature and dynamics of the universe, Einstein, Heisenberg, and other physicists demonstrated that the realm of Newtonian mechanics is much more restricted than what was once thought. Unrevealed data can also contradict the predictions of any explanatory theory as well. Every theory has an infinite number of expected empirical outcomes, and we are incapable of testing all of those expectations. So even though a theory can be confirmed to some extent by empirical data, it can never be conclusively confirmed. Apart from this, hypothetico-deductivism’s method of verification has this sort of structure where T is a theory and D a set of data that we would expect if the theory were true:

1. If T then D.
2. D.
3. Therefore, T.


This is not a logically valid argument. Indeed, an argument of this sort of structure is called the fallacy of affirming the conclusion.[16] Have T = “An invisible unicorn from Mars flew into the sky to cause rain,” and D = “It is raining.” Logically, the first premise must be correct (If T is true, then D would be true). Suppose the second premise is correct. It is raining. Even so, the conclusion doesn’t logically follow. Why doesn’t it work? Because there could be other possibilities for D other than T. That is, more than one theory could exist to explain the data. And this is indeed the case. In this example, it could simply be natural weather patterns, not a flying invisible unicorn from Mars, that caused the rain. In science or anywhere else, any given body of data (no matter how large) will always be agreeable with an unlimited number of alternative theories. Invariably there are many theories that explain the exact same data, and at least some of the theories will contradict each other. This fact is sometimes expressed as data underdetermining theories, or is simply referred to as the underdetermination of theories.[16] Because such competing theories are consistent with the same set of data, all of these theories are empirically identical. This means that empirical data by itself cannot exclusively confirm one theory from among its empirically indistinguishable competitors. Some of these empirically indistinguishable theories may be elegantly simple and others may be outrageously complex, but multiple alternatives exist for any set of data. There are examples of this problem in the real world. In one such instance, Tyco Brahe and Copernicus each had a competing theory of the solar system. It can be shown mathematically that every bit of data that is predicted by one theory would be predicted by the other theory.[17] We may not always be able to think of alternative theories, but this only has to do with problems of human imagination in constructing such theories, not the logic of the circumstances. Of course, the underdetermination of theories also poses yet another problem for Baconian inductivism. (Explanatory theories cannot be inferred from data alone if there are always numerous alternatives that explain that same set of data.) As a result of the underdetermination of theories and the risk of undiscovered, contradictory empirical evidence, a scientific theory cannot be conclusively proven merely through the data. Even if we take out the notion of conclusive proof from hypothetico-deductivism, it seems that this idea of the scientific method dreadfully oversimplifies how science works. No rational scientist would accept the flying invisible unicorn from mars theory simply because it passed the empirical confirmation test in the above example, for instance…………………………………”

What is my argument? It is that science is not the ultimate source to describe or understand reality, in fact Science is very much in fact a creation of the European cultural/matrix.:hammer:

It is baffling how people like Yorick and Vicky can go about quotng any old web space random...and when we put up our side of the facts they get all bent out of shape!!??

It is the typical bias of certain debates and debaters that leave me feeling angry over how unfair it can be...rather than leaving on a good note!!

FYI: The world is OURS to share...not for you guys alone!!
Damnit man!!
:taped2:

It is baffling how people like Yorick and Vicky can go about quotng any old web space random...and when we put up our side of the facts they get all bent out of shape!!??
It is the typical bias of certain debates and debaters that leave me feeling angry over how unfair it can be...rather than leaving on a good note!!
FYI: The world is OURS to share...not for you guys alone!!
Damnit man!!
:taped2:

YK, I don't have any "beef" with you on this issue, so focus on the TOPIC, not me.

I have a background in science - chemistry, physics and biology. I was trying to get A1000 to understand this, but I doubt that he will. Read the entire thread over and you will come to an understanding of what I'm trying to say. My point is that both scientific and religious groups have denied the theory of Intelligent Design as not meeting the scientific standard. Therefore it cannot and should not be taught in schools as a counterargument to the established scientific theory of Evolution.

I don't usually post articles to support my side of the argument, but in this case I made an exception. And my sources are credible and qualified enough to support what I stated.

In my opinion, I made my point over and over, but yet A1000 still believes that he is "qualified" to tell me that I don't have a scientific mind. Like you, he focused on trying to diminish my credibility instead of focusing on the TOPIC. I guess this is what people do when they can't legitimately counter what has been said.

Be careful what side of the battle you choose next time, YK.

No Yorick...not having a beef with you per say, and in fact my statement was meant in the most universal way possible, and my actual thought was surrounding the entire debate here and abroad.....of what I have come to collectively call Good vs Evil!

I know you will have a problem with what i said there....but there are two very different points of veiw that everything else falls in the greying areas in between.
How murky or confusing the debate gets is up to the beholder...but there is a general principle of who sides with what!

If you are slightly left...you tend to keep drifting to the left, and vice versa....
But please..i ask you in paticular to stay at the centre, and allow us to have our chance to have as well as we allow you to have you chance to have what you have!
Think about it Yorick...we afford you the right to have that paticular view on philosophy...not many other countries or places "Vatican,Saudia Arabia and China", can afford you that right!

Respect it, respect us and everyone in it!
If we want something, and it is in a respectful tastefull manner..allow us to have just as we have allowed you to have!
Is that too much to ask??

The idea of intelligent design being taugh hurts no one...
You either accept it, or reject it!

And to me...it hedges your bets, becasue you can accept that paticular ideology and still practice modern day activity...so if it works out that some of you are right in there is no spiritual realm, then for what its worth is useless and it wont really make a difference!
But , just in case Yorick, let me have my intelligent design...

Can I have it??
Not that I have to ask you...LOL!!

The idea of intelligent design being taugh hurts no one...
You either accept it, or reject it!
And to me...it hedges your bets, becasue you can accept that paticular ideology and still practice modern day activity...so if it works out that some of you are right in there is no spiritual realm, then for what its worth is useless and it wont really make a difference!
But , just in case Yorick, let me have my intelligent design...
Can I have it??
Not that I have to ask you...LOL!!
Hey that's a good way of looking at it YK2.When you put it that way Yorick comes across as the one being intolerant. :shhh: