RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Bruce Chapman is Undesirable, Oops. I meant 'and Undesirables'. Mibad.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2007,12:55   

Quote
Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute, and "Social Undesirables"
Thursday was a red letter day for intelligent design beliefniks.

At a debate between Republican presidential candidates, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo hustled votes from Christian fundamentalists by holding up their hands to say they don't believe in evolution.

The same day, in a debate with fellow conservatives Larry Arnhart and John Derbyshire at the American Enterprise Institute, Discovery fellows John West and George Gilder added flesh to the bones of their new intelligent design strategy linking Darwin and evolution to Hitler and the Nazis.


Read the rest at Red State Rabble.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2007,15:48   

I've already added the incident to the Invidious Comparisons thread as an instance.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2007,21:27   

Red State Rabble is one of the best blogs I've ever seen. Excellent work done by Pat. This stuff is maddening, but at least the DI doesn't seem to be pulling the wool over the media's eyes anymore.

Can my "storm trooper" costume have sequins...?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,12:50   

From the Red State Rabble link given above:

Quote
"It won’t do any good for Darwinists to huff and puff about West’s linkage of Darwinism and the eugenics movement that sterilized scores of thousands of Americans deemed unfit in the early decades of the last century," writes Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, "the concurrent rise of the abortion movement and the extermination of hundreds of thousands of supposed social undesirables by the Nazis in Germany."


The concurrent rise of the what?  So not only does evolution=Hitler but evolution=abortion (and presumably abortion=Hitler).

As many others have said, this is the end of the "ID=science" strategy.  They're down to a hard core of swivel-eyed wackos and they're circling the wagons.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,20:33   

I seriously don't know how you guys can praise Pat.  He is such a scare monger.

All his talk about fundies taking over the government is absolutely ridiculous.  I live in the freaking bible belt, and I don't know of ANYONE who comes even remotely close to being like the crazy fundies he constantly alludes to.

His post made mention that we home school our kids and don't let them learn about science, etc.  He's nuts.  No doubt there are some fruit loops out there who shelter their kids from the real world, but they're a minority.

I mean, let's get real.  Just about anything goes these days.  We can turn on the tube or Internet and watch any perversion known to man.  We have freedom to do just about anything we like, and being atheist/agnostic seems to be all the rage these days.  Anyone that is religious is deemed "ignorant".  

And, isn't Carl Rove an atheist?  What the heck is Bush doing with an atheist if he is planning a theocracy?  

Sheesh, you people are leading a serious paranoia club.

True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,20:43   

Quote (Ftk @ May 07 2007,20:33)
True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government.

And no true Scotsman would ever...

It's hard to argue with someone who's seen the mind of jebus.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,21:57   

Quote (Ftk @ May 07 2007,20:33)
True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government.

Um, ever heard of Howard Ahamson and the Christian Reconstructionists . . . ?

Dr Dr Bill Demsbki and all the guys at DI have.  Ahmanson writes their paychecks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,22:01   

Since FTK apparently has no idea at all whatever who is funding her Discovery Institue heroes and why, allow me to take a moment to educate her:

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rousas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book "The Genesis Flood" published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8).

The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."  

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself.  However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,23:08   

Quote

Anyone that is religious is deemed "ignorant".


I haven't run into this so much, except in reading things like the transcripts of the 2005 SBoE hearings in Kansas. The witnesses by and large had a problem with the sort of religion that about 40% of the country holds.

Quote

The answer to this question is quite simple: Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.

(Source)


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,23:10   

Quote

And, isn't Carl Rove an atheist?  What the heck is Bush doing with an atheist if he is planning a theocracy?


Does the term "Straussian" tickle any synapses? These are folks who believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, but have better PR agents than Marx did.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2007,23:35   

Quote
I live in the freaking bible belt, and I don't know of ANYONE who comes even remotely close to being like the crazy fundies he constantly alludes to.


oh how quickly they block reality out of their tiny minds.

shall we go over the proposed legislation relating to education and xianity that has come out of the "bible belt" over the last 10 years?

got an hour or so?  it's a big list.

I can even copy emails I've received from bible belt representatives that would curl your toenails.

hmm, maybe not.  projection is, after all, your defense mechanism, so likely the reason you forget all the crap evangelical politicos have pulled over the last 30 years is because you have mentally blocked it out of your mind as soon as it happens.

I'd say you need to visit a therapist, but I'm sure you couldn't see the reason why.

oh and as to the bush administration, see re Wes' post above.

do you know who Leo Strauss is?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,00:07   

Quote

True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government.


Altogether too many people view scripture as a collection of several thousand independent statements flying in close formation. Despite the plain fact that Christ's words do not justify the project of making government an arm of the church, this is nonetheless a longstanding tradition with lots of application within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations. Certain Protestant denominations apparently see this as something where they need to play catch-up. Whether or not those folks meet some criterion of "true Christian" makes little difference; they exist despite any such criticism. They certainly believe themselves to be true Christians and operate with the full intolerance that they mistakenly feel that state grants them.

Pointed critiques like these certainly underscore the appeal of the "no true Christian" form of argument:

 
Quote

Why not give Christianity a trial?   - George Bernard Shaw

Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly. He was hardly cold in his grave, or high in his heaven (as you please), before the apostles dragged the tradition of him down to the level of the thing it has remained ever since.   - George Bernard Shaw

Christ and The Church: If he were to apply for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion, he would probably get one.   - Samuel Butler

If Jesus, or his likeness, should now visit the earth, what church of the many which now go by his name would he enter? Or, if tempted by curiosity, he should incline to look into all, which do you think would not shut the door in his face?... It seems to me ... that as one who loved peace, taught industry, equality, union, and love, one towards another, Jesus were he alive at this day, would recommend you to come out of your churches of faith, and to gather into schools of knowledge.   - Frances Wright

Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.   - Voltaire [François Marie Arouet]

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.   - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

There is not a greater paradox in nature,—than that so good a religion [as Christianity] should be no better recommended by its professors.   - Laurence Sterne


Far easier to exculpate the source by posthumous (and contemporaneous) excommunication than to take responsibility for the sinners as well as the saints. It is, moreover, the attitude that nurtures and leads to the very excesses that will, in hindsight, become the excommunicated lapses that future apologists will thence ignore as pertaining to their own behavior.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,07:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 07 2007,23:10)
These are folks who believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, but have better PR agents than Marx did.

Indeed, many of the neocons are former Trotskyites.  Not much has changed for them --- as Trots, they used to hate liberals and wanted to use the power of the state to force their views onto everyone; as neocons, they STILL hate liberals and want to use the power of the state to force their views onto everyone.


It should be noted, though, that Reconstructionists and Neoconservatives are not the same.  The neocons generally think that fundamentalist religion is a load of crap, but are willing to use it as a political tool to help them gain power.  The Reconstructionists, on the other hand, do fervently believe that it is their divine duty to destroy democracy and place the entire world under "God's law".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,07:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 07 2007,23:08)
Quote

Anyone that is religious is deemed "ignorant".


I haven't run into this so much, except in reading things like the transcripts of the 2005 SBoE hearings in Kansas. The witnesses by and large had a problem with the sort of religion that about 40% of the country holds.

Indeed, since atheists make up, at most, about 15% of the US population, and since about 50% of the US population accepts evolution and thinks creationism is a load of crap, that means that some two third of those who accept evolution are *not atheists*, but are religious people.

Which makes FTK's assertion . . . well . . . awfully stupid.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,07:49   

Do any of you know any "reconstructionists" personally?

I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate.  I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government.

Where are these reconstructionists?  Do they center around certain denominations or what?  I truthfully have never met ANYONE who holds the view of these so called "reconstructionists".

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,07:56   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,07:49)
Do any of you know any "reconstructionists" personally?

I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate.  I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government.

Where are these reconstructionists?  Do they center around certain denominations or what?  I truthfully have never met ANYONE who holds the view of these so called "reconstructionists".

way to avoid the question. Don't you have any comment on Lenny's huge post as to who the paymasters are at the disco institute?

What about the accusations made on redstaterabble?
Quote
Rousas Rushdoony, the Christian Reconstructionist theologian who was a mentor and father figure to Discovery's Daddy Big Bucks, Howard Ahmanson, is on record as saying the estimates of Holocaust victims is "exagerated."

In fact, Rushdoony, whose reading of the Bible led him to call for the stoning of gays and disobedient children, viewed the "exaggeration" of the number of Holocaust victims "as a violation of the Ninth Commandment that forbid bearing false witness."


I personally don't know any Nazis skinheads, but I'm quite sure they exist!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,08:03   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,07:49)
I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate.  I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government.

It seems that even if you read it in their own words, you still do not believe it. What will it take for you to see it?

Quote
Twenty Year Goals

   * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
   * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
   * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

And as pointed out at redstate  
Quote
the extermination of hundreds of thousands of supposed social undesirables

Not millions, but thousands? Way to re-write history there DI. Shameful. How many people were killed by the Nazi's FTK? Tens of thousands? Millions? Or are you ambivalent about those numbers too? Could be 10,000 or could be 2 million. Keeping your options open on that one too?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,08:04   

I was thinking about this a bit more...

I'm not sure what exactly this Ahmanson guy is involved in as far as "reconstruction" *at the moment*, but in regard to the money he supposedly gives the DI -- so what?  Should they not accept the donations?

That would kinda be like me telling all of you to reject Dawkins, PZ, Weinberg, et. al.  They have made it quite clear that they are using science as a means to put a stop to religious nonsense.  Should we reject their scientific accomplishments because their mission is not focused on science alone?  

Do you see my point?  I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy.  That's just completely insane.  

At the religious level of the debate, there's nothing wrong with wanting people to consider that there is an ultimate source of our existence.  But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,08:07   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:04)
I was thinking about this a bit more...

I'm not sure what exactly this Ahmanson guy is involved in as far as "reconstruction" *at the moment*, but in regard to the money he supposedly gives the DI -- so what?  Should they not accept the donations?

That would kinda be like me telling all of you to reject Dawkins, PZ, Weinberg, et. al.  They have made it quite clear that they are using science as a means to put a stop to religious nonsense.  Should we reject their scientific accomplishments because their mission is not focused on science alone?  

Do you see my point?  I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy.  That's just completely insane.  

At the religious level of the debate, there's nothing wrong with wanting people to consider that there is an ultimate source of our existence.  But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government.

Quote
Should they not accept the donations?
Would you accept money from a holocaust denier?

Quote
But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government.


Can you then explain why  
Quote
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
is in the document that defines the DI's goals?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,08:12   

Wes quoted:

Quote
Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly. He was hardly cold in his grave, or high in his heaven (as you please), before the apostles dragged the tradition of him down to the level of the thing it has remained ever since.   - George Bernard Shaw


What do you think Shaw meant be this?  Elaborate...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,08:18   

Quote
way to avoid the question. Don't you have any comment on Lenny's huge post as to who the paymasters are at the disco institute?


Hey, oldman, back off.  I know how this plays out...I've been here before.  If I post something, all of a sudden there are numerous darts thrown and I'm expected to answer everyone immediately.  Screw that.  I don't have time for it.  I'll comment on what I'm interested in, and if I have time later to go back and comment on the rest, I will.

Ignore me if you don't like it, but if you start freaking and bellyaching from the get go, I'll ignore everything else you have to say as well.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,08:30   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:18)
Quote
way to avoid the question. Don't you have any comment on Lenny's huge post as to who the paymasters are at the disco institute?


Hey, oldman, back off.  I know how this plays out...I've been here before.  If I post something, all of a sudden there are numerous darts thrown and I'm expected to answer everyone immediately.  Screw that.  I don't have time for it.  I'll comment on what I'm interested in, and if I have time later to go back and comment on the rest, I will.

Ignore me if you don't like it, but if you start freaking and bellyaching from the get go, I'll ignore everything else you have to say as well.

Do what you like FTK. Ignore everything I say if you like. It don't matter to me <shrug>

Won't stop me from asking.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,09:35   

Quote (Ftk @ May 07 2007,20:33)
I seriously don't know how you guys can praise Pat.  He is such a scare monger.

All his talk about fundies taking over the government is absolutely ridiculous.  I live in the freaking bible belt, and I don't know of ANYONE who comes even remotely close to being like the crazy fundies he constantly alludes to.

I also live in the "freaking bible belt", about an hour west of FtK's pond 'n prairie paradise, and I DO know people like this.

More to the point, who wrote the Wedge Document? As oldmaninthesky points out, that thing is filled with theocratic ambitions. If Dembski doesn't believe in the ideals espoused there, as FtK asserts (without evidence, per usual), where can we read that he has denounced them? And if he doesn't believe in those notions, but still takes a check from an organization devoted to them, what does that say about his character? Can you spell hypocrite???

As for this assertion        
Quote
His post made mention that we home school our kids and don't let them learn about science, etc.

as I pointed out in a comment on RSR, science is being short-shrifted in public schools, due to the bizarre ramifications of No Child Left Behind. Bush et. al are making it more likely that American schoolkids are ignorant about science. That may not be what they specifically planned to do (I'm not sure they are that clever), but it is certainly happening.

So, For The Kids, do you think that NCLB, with the concomitant de-emphasis on science in the public school curriculum, is good For Kids?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,09:52   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:04)
I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy.  That's just completely insane.  

FTK - From the mouths of babes... (Yeah. It works on a couple of levels.  So I liked your picture...)

But the "money-quote", if I may point out is when you said "That's just completely insane".  

Yes, it is.  Maybe you begin to see a little bit of why and what we are all concerened about!

Keep asking questions!  And listening to the answers!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,10:00   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:12)
Wes quoted:

 
Quote
Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly. He was hardly cold in his grave, or high in his heaven (as you please), before the apostles dragged the tradition of him down to the level of the thing it has remained ever since.   - George Bernard Shaw


What do you think Shaw meant be this?  Elaborate...

What I said prior to the quotes:

Quote

Pointed critiques like these certainly underscore the appeal of the "no true Christian" form of argument:


Each of the quotes dealt with evaluating Christianity in terms of the behavior of ts adherents, which would make an apologist itchy to apply the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to reduce the force of the criticism.

I don't think that I was at all obscure in what I was laying out. Did everybody else get it?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,10:02   

Quote
Can you then explain why

Quote
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
is in the document that defines the DI's goals?



I truthfully do see what the big deal is about that sentence.  Design has always permeated much of society as most folks do believe in an ultimate creator of the cosmos.  

That doesn’t mean that all the world views this designer as the God of Abraham.  For those of us who are Christian and consider the designer to be “God”, we *try* to live our lives as Christ instructed.  That doesn’t mean we should feel compelled to ~take over~ the government, but that on an *individual* level we live accordingly to how Christ would have us live.  Certainly, that belief may influence our political views, but the majority of Christians in the world realize the immense problems that would follow if a religious theocracy were to replace a secular government.  

Free will enables everyone to make a choice about these issues.  If one has done the research and chooses to believe that an ultimate designer is non-existent and that we are the product of chance, then they should certainly have the right and privilege to preach that to the masses if they so desire.  

But, OTOH, this no-design based perspective should not be the only consideration in the science class.  IMO, ID should be considered at some level in the universities. Perhaps the IDEA clubs are the best place to address these issues at this moment in time due to the scare tactics being forwarded by the NCSE and other organizations.  

I mean, come on...even Dawkins, the atheist’s equivalent to Billy Graham, sees design in nature.  Science follows the evidence, yet for Dawkins his philosophical perspective won’t allow for him to do that.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,10:08   

Wes,

I understood the point, but I was wondering what you believe Shaw to be saying specifically.  I also wonder if you agree with his quote.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,10:16   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,10:02)
Quote
Can you then explain why

Quote
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
is in the document that defines the DI's goals?



I truthfully do see what the big deal is about that sentence.  Design has always permeated much of society as most folks do believe in an ultimate creator of the cosmos.  

That doesn’t mean that all the world views this designer as the God of Abraham.  For those of us who are Christian and consider the designer to be “God”, we *try* to live our lives as Christ instructed.  That doesn’t mean we should feel compelled to ~take over~ the government, but that on an *individual* level we live accordingly to how Christ would have us live.  Certainly, that belief may influence our political views, but the majority of Christians in the world realize the immense problems that would follow if a religious theocracy were to replace a secular government.  

Free will enables everyone to make a choice about these issues.  If one has done the research and chooses to believe that an ultimate designer is non-existent and that we are the product of chance, then they should certainly have the right and privilege to preach that to the masses if they so desire.  

But, OTOH, this no-design based perspective should not be the only consideration in the science class.  IMO, ID should be considered at some level in the universities. Perhaps the IDEA clubs are the best place to address these issues at this moment in time due to the scare tactics being forwarded by the NCSE and other organizations.  

I mean, come on...even Dawkins, the atheist’s equivalent to Billy Graham, sees design in nature.  Science follows the evidence, yet for Dawkins his philosophical perspective won’t allow for him to do that.

Ftk, Design has no application. Hypothesizing about little green men is exactly the same. Do you disagree with that statement?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,10:18   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,10:02)
I mean, come on...even Dawkins, the atheist’s equivalent to Billy Graham, sees design in nature.  Science follows the evidence, yet for Dawkins his philosophical perspective won’t allow for him to do that.

There is no evidence for design in nature, except for that which has been "designed" by RM+NS (and others).

Therefore there is no philosophical viewpoint preventing people from "seeing" the design in nature, they just differ from you in thinking that RM+NS (and others) can generate it or not. You think  RM+NS (and others) cannot generate the "design" we see in nature. Eyes were "designed" by RM+NS (and others)  to allow their possessors to survive a bit better.

If you had evidence for design in nature being generated by systems other then RM+NS (and others), could you let Dr Dembski know what it is?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,10:36   

I wonder what would lead a person who hasn't read a paper to opine, "It sucks".

I guess life is full of mysteries.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,11:00   

Quote
as I pointed out in a comment on RSR, science is being short-shrifted in public schools, due to the bizarre ramifications of No Child Left Behind. Bush et. al are making it more likely that American schoolkids are ignorant about science. That may not be what they specifically planned to do (I'm not sure they are that clever), but it is certainly happening.


While I think NCLB is going to fail our children in the long run, I certainly don't think that it was set up to oust science from the curriculum.  I mean, come on Dave, scientific literacy is at an all time high.  You cannot truly believe that anyone wants to purposely “short-shrift” science in the public schools.  

My kids seems to be getting a good science education.  My 6th grader spends more time on it than my 4th grader, but that probably makes sense.

IMO, reading, science and math are the most important classes for our kids, and I tell mine that all the time.

BTW, you mentioned you know some "reconstructionists".  Do they tell you that they believe there should be a Christian "theocracy"?  What are they like in general?  Do they hide the world from their children or what?  Seriously, I'd like to know what these people are like, because I honestly don't know any.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,11:30   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,11:00)
While I think NCLB is going to fail our children in the long run, I certainly don't think that it was set up to oust science from the curriculum.  I mean, come on Dave, scientific literacy is at an all time high.  You cannot truly believe that anyone wants to purposely “short-shrift” science in the public schools.  

My kids seems to be getting a good science education.  My 6th grader spends more time on it than my 4th grader, but that probably makes sense.

IMO, reading, science and math are the most important classes for our kids, and I tell mine that all the time.

FtK - Did you notice that the study you cited, and the graph you posted, show data up to 1999? Do the math; that was 8 years ago, and under a different president...

And did you notice the percentage of Americans deemed scientifically literate by the weak criteria used in this survey? Do you think that 17% is a good score?

And did you read this sentence in that aged report: "it is a level that may be too low for the requirements of a strong democratic society in a new century of accelerating scientific and technological development."

Finally, did you read Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science"? If you had read that, you might understand more clearly that the current Administration certainly does not respect science, or scientists. It is not too hard to believe that such Administrations would function more smoothly in a society where the public doesn't understand the difference between good science and bad science (i.e. the difference between evolutionary theory and IDC).

I'm glad that your kids seem to be getting a good science education. But that in itself is an unscientific statement. Anecdotes are not data. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, by myself and many others, you yourself don't understand science, or how it works. You are a pretty standard representative for the 83% of the country who take advantage of the fruits of science, but really have no clue about how it works best.

Re reconstructionists, you wrote  
Quote
you mentioned you know some "reconstructionists".  Do they tell you that they believe there should be a Christian "theocracy"?  What are they like in general?  Do they hide the world from their children or what?  Seriously, I'd like to know what these people are like, because I honestly don't know any.

Unlike you, I don't like to generalize about individuals. Some of them live in Kansas, some in Idaho, some in Utah, some in Texas. As you may have heard, the official platform of the Texas Republican Party now has a plank "to dispel the myth of the separation of church and state". That smacks of theocracy to me. Do you know people who would agree with that platform plank?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
pondscum



Posts: 1
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:05   

Just as an FYI to the discussion of the impact of NCLB at the grade school level.  I have been the biology resource person for a middle school and high school teachers workshop (Math and Science) hosted by my institution the last two summers.  This summer we have expanded the workshop to include grade school teachers.  Why?  Because they have asked for help in addressing their concerns about teaching science.  The NCLB-mandated focus on math and reading has, for many classrooms, eliminated any time for science.  The workshop resource people will spend a week this summer with these teachers, helping them to construct new curricula in which they can piggyback science onto math (or vice versa!).  It is hoped that this will give these teachers the leverage to request that science remain a subject for grade school students.  I imagine that the same issues have arisen at other public schools across the nation.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:15   

Quote
As you may have heard, the official platform of the Texas Republican Party now has a plank "to dispel the myth of the separation of church and state". That smacks of theocracy to me. Do you know people who would agree with that platform plank?


I predict that FTK will state that the separation of church and state is a myth, and then to refuse to back up her reasons for saying so.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:43   

I predict FTK will ignore the question.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:48   

So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era.  Do you have evidence to back that up?  I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns.

Personally, my family has taken a new interest in science due to this debate.  Not because we are out to stop science due to the fact that ~some~ scientists believe that the natural world is all there is.  No, it's because we find the issues in this debate extremely interesting, and I find that ID proponents have a different way of presenting science that leads to excitement in learning more about our universe.

Evolutionists act as if the world is just a chance event.  That doesn't seem terribly interesting or exciting, IMO.  Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature.  

Dawkins writes with some eloquence, but it seems that he has replaced the term “god” with “natural selection”.  The man, IMO, is just as religious as the next guy, but he has selected NS as his object of praise.  I certainly don’t think that Dawkins writing in regard to  scientific issues turns a person away from God.  He sees the design, he just can’t accept it.  Very strange, IMHO.

Two books come to mind to explain what I mean...  More than Meets the Eye, by Richard A. Swenson, M.D., and Billions of Missing Links, by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.  These two gentlemen recognize the immense complexity and awesome design in nature.  Their writing relays this wonder of science to the readers and compels them to want to explore the subject even further.  While reading those two books, I went to the net many times to learn more about the subjects they discussed.

Evolutionists are BORING because they don’t write or teach with the intensity that those who accept design do.  If they did, they’d give credence to design, and WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!!

Now, Dave, don't get all defensive on me.  I'm sure you are a wonderful and exciting teacher.  Don't blow a gasket....this is just MO, and I'm just a stupid creationist, so relax.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:55   

Wow. You can't get worked up about science unless someone's talking about god at the same time? I'd say that displays no love for science whatsoever, only for apologetics.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:55   

Quote
Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature.  


FTK, what do you make of this
Boltzmann_brain
Quote
A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self-aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of some future state of chaos. The idea is named for Ludwig Boltzmann, whose ideas led to the proposal of such entities. It is often referred to in the context of the "Boltzmann brain paradox" or "problem".

The concept arises from the need to explain why we observe such a large degree of organization in the universe. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in the universe will always increase. We may think of the most likely state of the universe as one of high entropy, closer to uniform and without order. So why is the observed entropy so low?

Boltzmann proposed that we and our observed low-entropy world are a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe. Even in a state of almost equilibrium, there will be stochastic fluctuations towards in the level of entropy. The most common will involve only small amounts of organization, with greater levels of organization being more rare. Large fluctuations would be almost unconceivably rare, but this can be explained by the enourmous size of the universe and by the idea that if we are the results of a fluctuation, there is a "selection bias": We observe this very unlikely universe because the unlikely conditions are necessary for us to be here.

This leads to the Boltzmann brain concept: If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which is only just able to create a single self-aware entity. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enourmous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. This refutes the observer argument above: the organization I see is vastly more than what is required to explain my consciousness, and therefore it is highly unlikely that I am the result of a stochastic fluctuation.

The Boltzmann brains paradox is that it is more likely that a brain randomly form out of the chaos with false memories of its life than that the universe around us would have billions of self-aware brains.


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,12:56   

Quote
This summer we have expanded the workshop to include grade school teachers.  Why?  Because they have asked for help in addressing their concerns about teaching science.  The NCLB-mandated focus on math and reading has, for many classrooms, eliminated any time for science.


I have worried about this in the past as well.  At this point, our school seems to be doing a decent job of handling the load.  But, they do spend extra time working at math and reading for the assessments.  At the beginning of the year they have early warning tests and get kids into before/after school tutoring to work specifically on math and reading.  This is a good idea, IMO, because that way they don't need to spend so much extra time on it in the classroom.  It also benefits those kids who are behind.  But, this takes time and money as well.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:07   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,12:48)
So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era.  Do you have evidence to back that up?  I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns.

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/TIMSS03Tables.asp?Quest=2&Figure=4

maybe?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:09   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,12:48)
So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era.  Do you have evidence to back that up?  I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns.

No. If you would back up and read what I wrote; rather than what you wish I had written, you would understand that I am saying that I think a 17% scientific literacy rate is frankly not good enough. And I'm not going to take that red herring bait about Clinton and interns. I'm going to ask if you think that is good enough, and, if so, why. Feel free to ignore this question again.

As for more recent statistics, I have seen none. Perhaps others on this board can cite something since 1999. I did find this 2007 article where a professor is quoted as saying that the scientific literacy rate is 16%, but there is no citation of a primary source.

   
Quote
Personally, my family has taken a new interest in science due to this debate.  Not because we are out to stop science due to the fact that ~some~ scientists believe that the natural world is all there is.  No, it's because we find the issues in this debate extremely interesting, and I find that ID proponents have a different way of presenting science that leads to excitement in learning more about our universe.


Yeah, it is easier to be exciting when you can just make shit up. I agree.

   
Quote
Evolutionists act as if the world is just a chance event.  That doesn't seem terribly interesting or exciting, IMO.  Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature.

Yawn. The verbigeration continues with "personal credulity". In actuality, since I have made my career in biology, I probably am a tad more excited about the complexity and grandeur of nature than you are. Mostly because I have learned about a lot more of the details, and know a lot more examples of incredible structures, exquisite adaptations, co-evolved relationships, etc. But that is also irrelevant.

   
Quote
Evolutionists are BORING because they won’t don’t write or teach with the intensity that those who accept design do.  If they did, they’d give credence to design, and WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!!

So if we accept design, we automatically become unboring? Do you have any evidence to back that up?  Or is this yet another example of making shit up?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:16   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,12:15)
 
Quote
As you may have heard, the official platform of the Texas Republican Party now has a plank "to dispel the myth of the separation of church and state". That smacks of theocracy to me. Do you know people who would agree with that platform plank?


I predict that FTK will state that the separation of church and state is a myth, and then to refuse to back up her reasons for saying so.

No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth.  I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably.

I saw a video by Barton one time, and thought that many of the things in it were interesting, but I didn't realize at the time that he wanted to disolve the much needed wall of separation.  

But, OTOH, I do think that there was a strong Christian influence during the time of our founding fathers.  Today we find that there is a loud movement from the left complaining about virtually everything religious, and we have found that the wall of separation is doing what it was designed to do...help keep the peace between various groups and allow for religious freedom.

Though, I do think that many times people take the socas too far.  For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away.  At the time of our founding fathers bibles were in the public schools as was prayer.  Nobody complained then, but today it's as though some people want to rid the nation of Christianity altogether.  It's a shame that something so wonderful for some can be viewed as such a negative to others.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:20   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,13:16)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,12:15)
   
Quote
As you may have heard, the official platform of the Texas Republican Party now has a plank "to dispel the myth of the separation of church and state". That smacks of theocracy to me. Do you know people who would agree with that platform plank?


I predict that FTK will state that the separation of church and state is a myth, and then to refuse to back up her reasons for saying so.

No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth.  I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably.

I saw a video by Barton one time, and thought that many of the things in it were interesting, but I didn't realize at the time that he wanted to disolve the much needed wall of separation.  

But, OTOH, I do think that there was a strong Christian influence during the time of our founding fathers.  Today we find that there is a loud movement from the left complaining about virtually everything religious, and we have found that the wall of separation is doing what it was designed to do...help keep the peace between various groups and allow for religious freedom.

Though, I do think that many times people take the socas too far.  For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away.  At the time of our founding fathers bibles were in the public schools as was prayer.  Nobody complained then, but today it's as though some people want to rid the nation of Christianity altogether.  It's a shame that something so wonderful for some can be viewed as such a negative to others.

Out of interest, do you think Church and State are equal entities? Equal in stature and one is as important as the other?

When there is a choice to be made, and Chuch is pulling one way and State the other, who should win? Always? Or can the matter be decided on merit, case by case?

EDIT:
Quote
For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away.


Are you ok with other religions adding their Icons in that case? Tributes to the Koran etc?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:21   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2007,13:07)
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,12:48)
So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era.  Do you have evidence to back that up?  I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns.

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/TIMSS03Tables.asp?Quest=2&Figure=4

maybe?

Okay, maybe.  Maybe we need to get NCLB to test on science as well.  Do they include science testing at any grade level for NCLB?  

Regardless, there is no way anyone will convince me that NCLB was set up to do away with science.  

Richard, did you notice Norway????!  -38 - holy crap.  So much for the liberal Norweigans.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:33   

Quote
Do you think that 17% is a good score?


Of course not.  But, do you think religion is what is holding the country back from doing better in science?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:35   

Quote
Evolutionists act as if the world is just a chance event.  That doesn't seem terribly interesting or exciting, IMO.  Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature.

BS, FTK.
"Evolutionists" are the ones explaining and elucidating "the grandeur and complexity of nature." Now, I realize that from some perspectives, nothing kills the buzz like a materialist explanation of something that's otherwise a complete mystery. But that's science, and I believe it speaks to something just as basic and integral to the human spirit as spirituality: the desire to understand and explain.

Creationism just says, "don't bother because we know all we need to know." Granted, not in so many words. But "the design perspective" is vacuous. It offers no way forward; no avenues for further discovery. The fact that there still is not one iota of original research coming from the DI and other such organizations just proves the point. "Design" is sterile, and much more "boring" than science, which discovers and explains more every day.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:50   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,13:16)
No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth.  I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably.

Stands and applauds.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,13:54   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,13:33)
   
Quote
Do you think that 17% is a good score?


Of course not.  But, do you think religion is what is holding the country back from doing better in science?

No. I didn't say that. And, again unlike you, I don't necessarily believe that there is only one culprit.

Religion (and religiosity) is one culprit. In most cases it is best not to think too deeply about one's religion (Why did god snuff out his son at the age of 33? Does that make any sense to anyone who did not grow up with that notion implanted in their early consciousness?). So religious institutions, by and large, can discourage thinking, questioning, and other attributes that are important to science. Think about the Dark Ages before you dismiss this argument.

But the answer is bigger than that. It is a general anti-intellectualism that pervades this country today. And the IDC movement exemplifies that anti-intellectualism.

Peer-reviewed articles?  Who needs 'em? We have books and websites!

Scientific research?  Who needs it? We have ID conferences in Dallas and Nashville where nobody talks about scientific research at all, even though we have some secret labs too!

Scientific expertise?  Who needs it? We have folks with common sense, inferences, and opinions that are just as good as those of any trained and experienced expert! We have lawyers like Casey Luskin and troglodytes like DaveScot!

This country, following the leadership of the most anti-intellectual president since Warren Harding, finds science to be boring, useless, and even pesky when it gets in the way of making bidness more profitable. Until we figure out a way to leave this medieval mindset behind us, we will remain at a 16-17% scientific literacy rate.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:06   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,12:48)
I certainly don’t think that Dawkins writing in regard to  scientific issues turns a person away from God.  He sees the design, he just can’t accept it.  Very strange, IMHO.

Two books come to mind to explain what I mean...  More than Meets the Eye, by Richard A. Swenson, M.D., and Billions of Missing Links, by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.  These two gentlemen recognize the immense complexity and awesome design in nature.  Their writing relays this wonder of science to the readers and compels them to want to explore the subject even further.  While reading those two books, I went to the net many times to learn more about the subjects they discussed.

Evolutionists are BORING because they don’t write or teach with the intensity that those who accept design do.  If they did, they’d give credence to design, and WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!!

That book, More then meets the eye. Here is what Amazon has to say  
Quote
This forgettable survey of divine design in the natural world offers an awkward treatment of what could have been a compelling topic. Swenson, a physician and consultant best known to evangelical readers as the author of Margin, alternates between schoolbook science and pious observations in a style reminiscent of the Wonders of God's Creation films put out by Moody Bible Institute a generation agoAif lacking the vividness of the latter. The book aims to illuminate both the greatness and intimacy of God's involvement with creation, spanning astronomy, biology, physiology and the microphysical world. This is a delicate task, as some resonances between science and theology are more apt than others. Swenson's attempt to quantify Jesus' red blood cells is particularly inane ("Without a doubt, he shed at least one red blood cell for every human who ever lived," he assures readers). Swenson primarily focuses on Christian devotional interests, occasionally hinting at broader discussions about biological complexity and cosmological coincidences. But the largest share of the book is devoted to more or less direct expositions of specific sciences, mining their subject matter for impressive statistics and handles for (often strained) biblical allusions. Problems of disease or suffering are not acknowledged. Christian readers looking for theological reflection on human physiology will prefer Paul Brand and Philip Yancey's near-classic Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, which approaches the topic with notably deeper insight and compassion. (Nov.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

And before you say that anybody random could have wrote that, it was from Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly!
The other reviews contained some gems also!  
Quote
I groaned audibly at the segue from a discussion of the mysterious dynamics of the inner ear to a reminder that we should use our ears to listen because "softly and tenderly Jesus is calling."


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:08   

Quote
Out of interest, do you think Church and State are equal entities? Equal in stature and one is as important as the other?


Well, let’s put it this way.  I don’t know of many people who put the church before the state.  We answer to the law of the government, not so much the law of God, and  personally I pay WAY more to the state than I do to the church.  Heck there’s nothing left to give to the church after the state takes it’s toll.  

I don’t think the Church and State are equal -- I think the State takes precedence in virtually every situation.  

On a personal level, I try to make my decisions in life based upon my understanding of scripture and Christ’s words for us.  So, I put that first... not necessarily “religion” or “church” first.  

   
Quote
When there is a choice to be made, and Church is pulling one way and State the other, who should win? Always? Or can the matter be decided on merit, case by case?


Case by case, IMO.  Paul once wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:12...What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?  Are you not to judge those inside?  God will judge those outside, “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

I think Jesus pretty much relays the same idea.  He told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world” - John 18:36.  

Hence, I have no problem with the separation of church and state.  IMO, God is more than likely cool with it as well.

   
Quote
Are you ok with other religions adding their Icons in that case? Tributes to the Koran etc?


Sure, slap a buddha right up against Christ if need be, but I don’t think that we need to hide our religious beliefs from the world, or secretly talk of them in the privacy of the church.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:12   

Oldman,

I saw that specific review before I bought the book and almost decided to skip the purchase.  In fact, I did at first and then a few weeks later decided to go ahead read it and decide for myself.  

I'm glad I did.

I agree that there were a few sentences he could have left out, but they are few and far between.  You'd have to read the book to pick up on his style.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:18   

Dave,

What the hell is "religiosity".  Sheesh, I didn't even make it past that first sentence.  Is that kinda like "Albatrossity".

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:21   

FTk, your other points - OK! Cannot argue with that!
Quote
Sure, slap a buddha right up against Christ if need be, but I don’t think that we need to hide our religious beliefs from the world, or secretly talk of them in the privacy of the church.


Can you imagine the fuss? Look at what happened when Keith Ellison wanted to swear in on the Koran!

Quote
"If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress," Prager wrote, adding that using the Koran "undermines American civilization."

FoxNews!
And the rednek reaction?

My point is that yes, its simple to agree with such a thing in principle (equal time for all religious icons at the courthouse) but in practice it's only really the one "specially chosen" religion that gets the option. So agreeing really costs nothing, and so does nothing to progress the issue, and you get to sidestep the fact that there are no Korans at the courthouse (are there? Prove me wrong!).

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:32   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,14:12)
Oldman,

I saw that specific review before I bought the book and almost decided to skip the purchase.  In fact, I did at first and then a few weeks later decided to go ahead read it and decide for myself.  

I'm glad I did.

I agree that there were a few sentences he could have left out, but they are few and far between.  You'd have to read the book to pick up on his style.

Ok, so that book seemed to have details (science?) about stuff, and then a Jesus tie-in (how unlikely is that then! Eh Eh?Must have needed Jebus).

That's passable, at least people are reading details of sciency type stuff. Better then nothing, I suppose.

My question to you is then, Ftk, why do you need an interpreter? Why do you need an intermediary to interpret the science for you? Why not just go directly to the "source" and get your science from a science book and your religion from a religious book?

Here's one

Link
Readable without advanced degrees!

My question is then, why is the science in More then meets the eye ok, and the science in the book above not? If you have no "problem" with the science per se, then why not go to the actual source material?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:40   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,14:18)
What the hell is "religiosity".  Sheesh, I didn't even make it past that first sentence.  Is that kinda like "Albatrossity".

I guess your googling skills took a day off.

From the OED, religiosity = A. Religiousness, religious feeling or sentiment,  B. Affected or excessive religiousness.

Now perhaps you can make it to the second, or even third sentence. Considering that the basic point of that message is that this nation is beset by anti-intellectualism, the irony of your response is priceless...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:51   

Quote
But, OTOH, I do think that there was a strong Christian influence during the time of our founding fathers.


now try stretching that to:

there was a strong christian influence within the founding fathers, and see just how far you get.

there's a strong xian influence now, in this country, obviously.  If you check out who americans typically think are influential people, you'll also find names like Paris Hilton.

the point you seem to miss is exactly why this should have nothing to to with how a government is formed and run, and exactly why this is so.  It also relates to why this is a republic, and not a democracy.

IOW, you give lip service only to the idea of the separation of church and state, and meanwhile haven't the slightest clue what it's all about; you seem to think it had to do with easing tensions, but that's way off.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:51   

Quote
No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth.  I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably.


One of the most sensible things I've heard you say. Glad to hear it.

Quote

Yeah, it is easier to be exciting when you can just make shit up. I agree.


You win the ATBC Gold Star for the day.  :)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:54   

Quote
One of the most sensible things I've heard you say. Glad to hear it.


oh you guys are lettin her off WAY too easy here.

scratch the surface on that one.

here's another one you shouldn't let her scrape by with:

Quote
I don’t know of many people who put the church before the state.


hmm, 30 million National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) members might disagree.  So would Hovind and his followers. I'm sure she's not only met a few in her neck of the woods, but has encouraged them on her blog.

look, FTK, you can put on all the makeup you want,  but anyone who has read your blog or seen the posts you have made over the years knows better.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,14:55   

Oldman, your agreement with most of my last reponse to you threw me for a loop so I had to go back and re-read it.

When I wrote:

"I don’t think the Church and State are equal -- I think the State takes precedence in virtually every situation. "

I was writing a bit sarcastically and I now see that it didn't come off that way.  I don't think that the state should always take precedence, but that we should consider that people hold various religious beliefs and we should try to be fair to all people.  So, it would definently be a case to case situation as to whether we side with the "church" or the state.  But, like I said, personally, I try to just follow scripture rather than rely primarily on what the clergy from a church might suggest.

As far as your statement that it's easy for me to say, but if some other religion ousted Christianity in popularity would I actually be able to live by my words?  Good question, and I honestly don't know for sure what my reaction would be.  

I can say that when atheists suggest that atheism is not a religion and their ~philosophy~ is allowed in the science room as well as other classrooms under the notion of "truth and reason" rather than faith, it is irritating to me.  I feel that they have a foot in the door that other religions do not.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,15:00   

Quote (Ichthyic @ May 08 2007,14:54)
   
Quote
One of the most sensible things I've heard you say. Glad to hear it.


oh you guys are lettin her off WAY too easy here.

scratch the surface on that one.

Unless there's something I'm missing, as a standalone statement, shorn of context, I agree with how she worded it.

Now, whether FTK really means that statement in the way I would interpret it, or whether it's sincere, or whether it's got some hidden agenda behind it is a separate question.

Elaborate, Ichthy?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,15:05   

Quote
Unless there's something I'm missing, as a standalone statement, shorn of context, I agree with how she worded it.


exactly, shorn of context.  it is a reasonable thing to say, but how can you ignore the brunt of the messages she has posted over the years, or even the rest of her statement where she tries to define why the separation is important?

really, you just WANT her to be reasonable, but she ain't.

and she's laughing at you guys for even a moment thinking you might be on the same side.

good luck.

Quote
Regardless, there is no way anyone will convince me that NCLB was set up to do away with science.


you think strawmen like that are set up by reasonable people?

hmm.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,15:21   

Quote
really, you just WANT her to be reasonable, but she ain't.

and she's laughing at you guys for even a moment thinking you might be on the same side.


Know what?  That really pisses me off.  

1.  I'm not on anyone's "side" in if we're talking about evolution vs. ID or creation science.  I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones.  

2.  The fact that you frame this issue in light of SOCAS seems to make my point that you are rejecting ID due to the fear of a theocracy rather than the science.

3.  I POINT BLANK SERIOUSLY SUPPORT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  My Mother (who is a strong Christian) once came to one of my kids "holiday" presentations at school and I told her it would be nice if they could sing a few "Christmas" songs.  She stopped me in my tracks and pretty much threw the socas in my face and what would happen if public schools went that way.  I already knew all that, but I just wanted to hear a few nice Christian Christmas Carols...so sue me for missing traditional Christmas programs.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,15:23   

Quote
That really pisses me off.


LOL.

sure it does.

Quote
I'm not on anyone's "side" in if we're talking about evolution vs. ID or creation science.  I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones.


uh, hate to break it to you, but that is exactly the position of the ID crowd, so, yeah, you've taken a side.

gawd, how you like to play these little games of yours.

you'd think that the way you post here, nobody has ever read anything else you've ever posted.

hilarious.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,15:24   

BTW, I'm not "laughing" at anyone unless they are clowning around.

Sheesh...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,15:24   

Quote
how can you ignore the brunt of the messages she has posted over the years,


It's not that I'm 'ignoring the brunt of her messages', but more that I think that by now FTK's true positions and attitudes are so obvious to everyone that it's not worth it for me to comment on them anymore unless she comes up with a real gem, like, say, the ones in my sig.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,16:22   

Quote
uh, hate to break it to you, but that exactly the position of the ID crowd, so, yeah, you've taken a side.


Of course I side with the ID crowd in that respect.  Obviously, I wasn't clear.  You said that I was trying to act as if I'm on the side of the posters here.  I said, "I'm not on anyone's side" refering to those in THIS DISCUSSION.   If there is an ID supporter posting to this thread, please let me know.

You can search 'till the cows come home, but you won't find anything from me stating that my goal is to do away with the separation of church and state!  I thought that was what we were talking about here.

I also do NOT believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. have any intention of breaking down the wall of separation.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,17:18   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,15:21)
1.  I'm not on anyone's "side" in if we're talking about evolution vs. ID or creation science.  I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones.

Ichthyic      
Quote
uh, hate to break it to you, but that exactly the position of the ID crowd, so, yeah, you've taken a side.


Ftk      
Quote
Of course I side with the ID crowd in that respect.


Of course. However, if it takes philosophy to combat "the movement" and science is not taken out of the cupboard and used (+7 Modifier), what does that say about ID? Philosophy vs philosophy in science class? Nah.

Are you implying that ID is more of an intellectual excercise with no practical use?
If not, where does ID beat conventional science? What trick is the "scientific community" missing? Why is "scientific community" in scare quotes anyway?

You see every time you say things like  
Quote
due to philosophical issues not scientific ones
it either means that the "scientific community" is not engaging the scientific arguments that ID is making, or that ID is making no scientific arguments. Either way if philosophical issues are being used to oust ID, the scientific issues should nonetheless remain (if they indeed exist).
The premier ID journal has not published in years. Where is this science you speak of?

If we can agree to call ID philosophy for now, thats something at least? Although it's a shame to drape that tawdry rag on that word.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,17:40   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,07:49)
Where are these reconstructionists?

One of them funds the Discovery Institute and sits on its board of directors.  Duane Gish and Richard Bliss from ICR were also buddy-buddy with the same guy.


And if you've never heard of them, then you need to get out of the house more often.

But then, I find it impossible to believe that you, as a, uh, expert on creationism,  have never heard of them, since you've, uh, studied the subject of creationism for decades and read gazillions of books and papers on the subject.

Unless of course there is a corollary to that . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,17:45   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:04)
 I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy.  That's just completely insane.  

And yet they get much of their money from someone who wants to do exactly that.

But wait, here's some quotes from the Wedge Document --- which was, um, written by, ya know, Dembski, Behe et al . . . .

Quote
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.





Sounds just like Ahmanson.

Perhaps you should choose your friends more carefully, hon.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,17:56   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,16:22)
I also do NOT believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. have any intention of breaking down the wall of separation.

But, my dear, they already have told us that they DO have that intention.  And so does the guy who pays them.

So tell me again why you are supporting them . . . ?

Do you, uh, actually understand what it is that you are supporting . . . . . . . .  ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,18:02   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,16:22)
You can search 'till the cows come home, but you won't find anything from me stating that my goal is to do away with the separation of church and state!

Glad to hear it.  Alas, most of the people you are supporting in the ID/creationist movement, want exactly that.

If you doubt it, well, here's your opportunity to carry out a little social-science experiment all of your very own:

Go to UD and post this simple short message, word for word:

"How does everyone here feel about 'separation of church and state'? "


Let us know what you hear.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,18:25   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,15:21)
 I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones.  

Well, since over two-thirds of the people who accept evolution and who think creationism is a big steaming pile of cow crap are, uh, theists and religious people, I'd be mildly interested in just what these, uh, "philosophical issues" might be that you refer to . . . ?

Unless, of course, you are simply (and either dishonestly or stupidly) screaming "evolution is atheism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" yet again . . . .

Perhaps that is why so many people here (including most of the Christians) think you are . . . well . .  nuts.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,18:38   

Quote
Of course I side with the ID crowd in that respect.


what other respect is there?

they haven't done any science, haven't even produced testable hypotheses.

nothing in their own journals for years now.

you keep seeming to imply there is something more to ID than a negative philosophical argument targeting the strawman of "materialism".

so, as I said, you chose your side, and are damned determined NOT to see what's in the bag of goods they sold you.

you can fool yourself, but you can't fool me.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,18:50   

Quote
Of course. However, if it takes philosophy to combat "the movement" and science is not taken out of the cupboard and used (+7 Modifier), what does that say about ID? Philosophy vs philosophy in science class? Nah.


I never said it takes philosophy to “combat” ID.  I said that, due to the philosophical position of some scientists, they reject ID and creation science as “religion” or “apologetics”.   Regardless of anything that is presented as evidence for design or creation science, it is immediately waved away as religion even though what is being presented is science.

       
Quote
Are you implying that ID is more of an intellectual exercise with no practical use?
 

No.  

       
Quote
If not, where does ID beat conventional science?
 

It doesn’t “beat conventional science”.  It’s just one little ’ol scientific inference in the whole big ’ol world of science.  It certainly doesn’t replace anything.  

       
Quote
What trick is the "scientific community" missing?


None that I know of.  

       
Quote
Why is "scientific community" in scare quotes anyway?
 

Because I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter).  I think it is the upper echelon of those who deem themselves the “scientific community” that put the scare of theocracy and other bull into the mix due to their own fears.  So, we have the NCSE and other organizations scaring the bejesus out of other scientists in general.  It’s the scare tactics that turn them off ID, not the inference itself.

       
Quote
...it either means that the "scientific community" is not engaging the scientific arguments that ID is making, or that ID is making no scientific arguments. Either way if philosophical issues are being used to oust ID, the scientific issues should nonetheless remain (if they indeed exist).


Sigh...ID is a freaking inference just as common descent is an inference or the multiverse theory is an inference.  Obviously philosophical issues will affect all three.  So what?  That doesn’t negate the inference.  I believe that mainstream scientists are addressing the scientific issues surrounding ID, and we see that daily on-line and in other venues.  It would be nice if they were more open to public debate, but I believe at some point they will have to debate or look like cowards in the public eye.  

       
Quote
The premier ID journal has not published in years. Where is this science you speak of?


There are all kinds of articles in mainstream journals that point to the inference of ID, but they certainly aren’t written by ID advocates.  Although, the writers of those articles do not support design in nature (as IDers do)  due to the reigning fear of the implications of ID.  

But, what exactly do you expect ID supporters to do?  I think it’s pretty much up to Darwinists to do the research to provide us with evidence that would dismiss the IC that Behe speaks of.  He’s done the research and finds that molecular machines are irreducibly complex.  Prove him wrong...  

As far as ID research, you’re right....I haven’t seen much from them.  Though, I think there are many avenues they could explore, such as junk DNA.   I keep hearing that there is research being done, so you might want to be patient for a bit yet before you deem ID worthless.  But, even if research is done, if an ID proponent points to design, evolutionists are going to scream “science stopper”.  At that point, the ball is in the court of the evolutionists.  Provide evidence that negates the inference.  

OTOH, creationists are writing scientific papers and providing interesting peer reviewed articles all the time.  Of course creationists are all completely insane and delusional, so we won’t go there.

       
Quote
If we can agree to call ID philosophy for now, thats something at least? Although it's a shame to drape that tawdry rag on that word.


ID is not philosophy...  It’s science.  *Your* philosophical position is what keeps you from considering it as such, “oldmanintheskydidntdoit”.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,18:54   

Quote
It’s just one little ’ol scientific inference in the whole big ’ol world of science.


It's an inference, and a bad one, but that does not make it science.

FtK lives in Kansas
Pat Heyes lives in Kansas

FtK is Pat Heyes.


Woo! Go Inference!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,18:57   

Quote
Darwinists to do the research to provide us with evidence that would dismiss the IC that Behe speaks of.  He’s done the research and finds that molecular machines are irreducibly complex.  Prove him wrong...  


He proved himself wrong - UNDER OATH.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,19:23   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,18:50)
Because I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter).

Hey hon, in case you haven't noticed, no one CARES what you think.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,20:07   

Quote
He proved himself wrong - UNDER OATH.


If that is true, why have I seen articles written since the trial trying to disprove the IC of molecular machines?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,20:20   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,20:07)
 
Quote
He proved himself wrong - UNDER OATH.


If that is true, why have I seen articles written since the trial trying to disprove the IC of molecular machines?

1) IC (if it could be demonstrated) is evidence against evolution. Such evidence (if it was available) is not automatically evidence FOR IDC.

2) Science is not usually adjudicated in courts of law. It is decided in peer-reviewed articles. That process continues, regardless of the findings of a judge. Why hasn't Behe published a peer-reviewed paper on IC since the Dover Trial. In fact, why hasn't he published a peer-reviewed article on IC since that last interglacial period?

Oh yeah. That's because IDC isn't science.

What's next?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,20:20   

FTK says  
Quote
I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter).  I think it is the upper echelon of those who deem themselves the “scientific community” that put the scare of theocracy and other bull into the mix due to their own fears.  So, we have the NCSE and other organizations scaring the bejesus out of other scientists in general.  It’s the scare tactics that turn them off to ID, not the inference itself.

Statements like this show that you don't have a clue. Have you ever actually talked to scientists about it? I suggest that you attend the next scientific conference in your area that has anything to do with evolution and ask the attendees for their views (I'm talking about real scientists who have actually published research). If you feel brave, stand up and give your views during one of the question and answer sessions, you know, those things that do not happen in creationist/ID 'conferences'. However, be prepared for people to be in hysterical laughter.

You might want to practise first by seeing how people here respond to your views, but I don't imagine you will. In all the time I've been reading your posts, here, on your blog and elsewhere, I do not recall anything that has not been completely lacking in substance as far as the science is concerned.
 
Quote
I think it’s pretty much up to Darwinists to do the research to provide us with evidence that would dismiss the IC that Behe speaks of.

Why? It has long been predicted as an inevitable consequence of evolution. Or do you mean his second or third definition of IC, the one that defines an irreducible complex system as one that can't be reached by evolution?

When a person conducts science, they are expected to make a reasonable attempt to disprove their own hypothesis, not to rely on others to do their work for them. Behe can't just hold something up and say 'See, it's IC.' He has to make an attempt to show that it is not IC before he has any chance of being treated at all seriously.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,20:27   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,10:08)
Wes,

I understood the point, but I was wondering what you believe Shaw to be saying specifically.  I also wonder if you agree with his quote.

Not answering for Wes, of course, but perhaps Shaw meant something like Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter to William Short:
 
Quote
It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,21:11   

So, evidently, according to Jefferson, much of what was written about Jesus was bogus.  So, why would one claim to be a Christian if they do not adhere to the central tenents of Chirstianity, namely Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy and his death and resurrection?  

I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.  For instance, let's take a guy like Wesley..  

~If~ he doesn't accept the death and resurrection of Christ, if he believes that the truth of scripture is not actually "truth" but the ignorance of man, or if he thinks that Paul et. al. didn't really know what they were talking about and made up lots of stuff as they went along, why claim to be a Christian? Seriously, why?

Why not just be agnostic?  I mean, if you think about it, you'd have to rip out quite a few pages of the NT to rid yourself of the notion that Christ = the Messiah.  So, what are you left with?  The Beatitudes?  What's the point?  What's the attraction?

[edit:  thanks to jim for pointing out a spelling error.]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,21:26   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
So, evidently, according to Jefferson, much of what was written about Jesus was bogus.  So, why would one claim to be a Christian if they do not adhere to the central tenants of Chirstianity, namely Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy and his death and resurrection?  

I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT.  Especially some of the Christians in this debate.  For instance, let's take a guy like Wesley..  

~If~ he doesn't accept the death and resurrection of Christ, if he believe that the truth of scripture is not actually "truth" but the ignorance of man, or if he thinks that Paul et. al. didn't really know what they were talking about and made up lots of stuff as they went along, why claim to be a Christian? Seriously, why?

Why not just be agnostic?  I mean, if you think about it, you'd have to rip out quite a few pages of the NT to rid yourself of the notion that Christ = the Messiah.  So, what are you left with?  The Beatitudes?  What's the point?  What's the attraction?

FTK SAID:  "What's the point?  What's the attraction?"

Ah yes indeed!  

You are beginning to ask questions.  Good questions!  

And IMHO, as an atheist, there IS no point, but you asked for a Christian, or an agnostic opinion, so I guess I am not really the one to answer, but I am pretty excited about your finally asking some good real, actual qustions, so that's why I chirped in. Hope you don't mind, and I can't wait to see your and DaveScots' posts tomorrow!

Cool!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,21:34   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
So, why would one claim to be a Christian if they do not adhere to the central tenants of Chirstianity, namely Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy and his death and resurrection?

Is a "tenant" of Christianity someone who rents a room in a parsonage?  I hope I don't become a pirahna for pointing out that the word is "tenets."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,21:39   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.  For instance, let's take a guy like Wesley..  

~If~ he doesn't accept the death and resurrection of Christ, if he believes that the truth of scripture is not actually "truth" but the ignorance of man, or if he thinks that Paul et. al. didn't really know what they were talking about and made up lots of stuff as they went along, why claim to be a Christian? Seriously, why?

Um, with all due respect, FTK (none), you, uh, don't get to decide who is or who isn't a True Christian™©.

See, FTK, your religious opinions are just that -- your opinions.  They are no more holy or divine or authoritative than anyone ELSE's religious opinions.  You are no more holy than anyone else is, you don't know any more about god than anyone else does, and you're not qualified to stand in Judgement of anyone else's faith but your own.

So stop being such a self-righteous arrogant pride-filled holier-than-thou (literally) asshole.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,21:40   

J-Dog, don't get too excited.  People who know me from these forums know I ask A LOT OF QUESTIONS.  

It doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that the historical inferences of the ToE are "fact".  And, I will always be open to creationist theories because personally I think they are much more logical (shut up - that's not due to my religious beliefs alone).  

When people have a hard time convincing me of their "facts", they no longer care whether I'm still questioning or not.  They turn on me immediately because I don't agree with their "science".  

ASK DAVE.  

He was nice to me for all of 10 minutes.  Then he discovered that he wasn't able to convince me....became a whole different person.  I'm still pissed about that.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,21:49   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.

Dear Pirahna Lady,

Do you presume to be the Great Arbiter of the Central "Tenants" of Christianity?  You decide who's a "true" Christian and who isn't?  Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture (or the one you've chose to become a tenant of)?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2007,22:28   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 08 2007,21:49)
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.

Dear Pirahna Lady,

Do you presume to be the Great Arbiter of the Central "Tenants" of Christianity?  You decide who's a "true" Christian and who isn't?  Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture (or the one you've chose to become a tenant of)?

Indeed, but I think Wes has to be the one to provide the real answer to this.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,02:26   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,18:50)
       
Quote
Why is "scientific community" in scare quotes anyway?
 

Because I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter).
 I think it is the upper echelon of those who deem themselves the “scientific community” that put the scare of theocracy and other bull into the mix due to their own fears.  So, we have the NCSE and other organizations scaring the bejesus out of other scientists in general.  It’s the scare tactics that turn them off ID, not the inference itself.

       

My bolding

Bloody hell! That is worthy of Larry Fafarman.

Either, you do not know what the ID movement is or you don't know what science is or you are lying (not X-OR BTW).

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,07:09   

Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:40)
When people have a hard time convincing me of their "facts", they no longer care whether I'm still questioning or not.  They turn on me immediately because I don't agree with their "science".  

ASK DAVE.  

He was nice to me for all of 10 minutes.  Then he discovered that he wasn't able to convince me....became a whole different person.  I'm still pissed about that.

Actually, the record will show that I was "nice" for several weeks.

And I have to differ on the comment about my motivations. I had only the faintest hope that I (or anyone) could convince FtK of anything; I have plenty of experience with right-wing authoritarians. And I also was pretty sure that she was ignorant about science and how it works, but my conversations with her on her blog certainly reinforced that assumption. That's OK too; I have plenty of experience with folks who are ignorant about science. I don't assume that they are bad people, or that they are stupid. Ignorance can be cured; stupid is forever. I merely hoped for a dialogue, and an opportunity to help her learn about the science that she routinely excoriated on her blog. If that led to her changing her mind about the pseudoscience of ID, that would be a bonus.

What turned me off (and still does) was when I found out that she doesn't listen at all to things that challenge her assumptions, rejecting any factual information that jars her world view. If she believes that common descent is a worthless concept and has generated no scientific progress, and you show her an example where common descent was critical in the development of a potent chemotherapeutic drug, she will come back in a week or so saying that common descent is worthless etc. Acting as if your efforts and attempts at dialogue never even existed.

After multiple experiences like that, you just get tired of it. Dialogue works; monologues get tiring. So I'm sorry if you are pissed, FTK; I guess I can't be nice if I get tired.

That said, I am encouraged by the fact that yesterday she gave the UDers something to chew on re the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, from the early responses, they are going to engage in their own monologues, per usual.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,07:28   

Ftk:

"I can say that when atheists suggest that atheism is not a religion and their ~philosophy~ is allowed in the science room as well as other classrooms under the notion of "truth and reason" rather than faith, it is irritating to me.  I feel that they have a foot in the door that other religions do not."

Funny, I don't remember atheism being mentioned in any of my science classes.  Why should religion be mentioned in science anyway?

"It doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that the historical inferences of the ToE are "fact".  And, I will always be open to creationist theories because personally I think they are much more logical (shut up - that's not due to my religious beliefs alone)."

Then perhaps you can provide us with the "science" of creationist "theories" then.  Oh right, you can't.

Stephen Elliott:

"Either, you do not know what the ID movement is or you don't know what science is or you are lying"

She knows what ID is (she's been told), she doesn't know what science is (she just doesn't get it) and unless she can provide any evidence (I don't think she understands that word) of the scientific majority being suppressed by a certain few bigwigs of science, it might be a slight possibility that (gasp) she's lying.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,07:39   

Dave,

Most of your post is BS, and I don't have time to elaborate because I'm going to be busy trying to work and post at UD at the same time.

But, there is this again:

Quote
I have plenty of experience with right-wing authoritarians.


This is the second time you've alluded to your "experience" with "authoritarians".  What are they like?  Seriously.  Do they tell you they want to establish a theocracy or what exactly?  What makes them "athoritarians"?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,07:52   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,22:28)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 08 2007,21:49)
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.

Dear Pirahna Lady,

Do you presume to be the Great Arbiter of the Central "Tenants" of Christianity?  You decide who's a "true" Christian and who isn't?  Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture (or the one you've chose to become a tenant of)?

Indeed, but I think Wes has to be the one to provide the real answer to this.

Wes won't answer it.  I've posed this question many, many times, and Christians who don't believe in a literal death and resurrection avoid the discussion like the plague.  

I just don't understand why one makes the choice to be a Christian when they reject the NT as literal and, in fact, believe that some of what is written comes from an active imagination on the part of the writers.  

It's as though they claim to be something that they completely disagree with.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,08:04   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,07:52)
I just don't understand why one makes the choice to be a Christian when they reject the NT as literal and, in fact, believe that some of what is written comes from an active imagination on the part of the writers.  

It's as though they claim to be something that they completely disagree with.

You might find some insight in this statement, made by a person who shall remain nameless.
Quote
I chose non-denominational Protestantism. It makes a great working basis for civil and productive society, the overhead is minimal (ask to be saved and you are saved), I was saved as a child so there’s nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved), it’s a common religion where I live so its easy to fit in, and so there’s really no downside unless some other religion is right but I don’t have enough evidence to make that determination. Pascal’s Wager to the letter.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,08:14   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,07:39)
Dave,

Most of your post is BS, and I don't have time to elaborate because I'm going to be busy trying to work and post at UD at the same time.

But, there is this again:

   
Quote
I have plenty of experience with right-wing authoritarians.


This is the second time you've alluded to your "experience" with "authoritarians".  What are they like?  Seriously.  Do they tell you they want to establish a theocracy or what exactly?  What makes them "athoritarians"?

FtK

Generally it is not useful to label somebody's comments as BS and then refuse to deal with the specifics by claiming to be "too busy". That strategy is called dodging.

Generally it is not useful to veer off into minor topics (e.g., right-wing authoritarianism) based on a small part of a previous message, or to twist it to include a topic (theocracy) not mentioned in the previous message. That strategy is called a red herring.

But we're used to both of those, not just from you but from many others. Have fun at UD, and ask DaveScot how many comments he has moderated out of existence on that thread...

If you are truly interested in right-wing authoritarians, take a look in the mirror, or at DaveScot's pictures, or at this wikipedia link.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,08:31   

Quote

Regardless of anything that is presented as evidence for design or creation science, it is immediately waved away as religion even though what is being presented is science.


Apparently FTK hasn't bothered to read Why Intelligent Design Fails, and is spreading falsehoods about what has gone on to date. What ID offers as putative science has been evaluated on that basis and found wanting. Of course, FTK is not interested in backing up fraudulent claims like the above, or even altering her choice to keep repeating the fraudulent claim upon correction. At least, I've seen no tendency toward correction of error thus far.

As for going from what I think about Shaw to speculations about my belief, that's a total non sequitur. I've already explained my purpose in giving the Shaw quote, which I think is a completely sufficient answer. I don't recognize any inquisitorial authority for FTK.

Her choice of action seems to follow up nicely to her deployment of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, though. Someone doesn't endorse fundamentalist literalism? Impugn their faith. And these folks wonder why plaintiffs in various of the cases involving putting antievolution in public school classrooms often include an impressive assortment of clergy, as in the McLean v. Arkansas case. Completely baffling, that. And they really don't get the Clergy Letter Project.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,08:35   

"I just don't understand why one makes the choice to be a Christian when they reject the NT as literal and, in fact, believe that some of what is written comes from an active imagination on the part of the writers."

It's probably based on a choice to still believe in God, but recognise that some parts of the Bible simply don't hold up to scientific scrutiny if taken literally.  What's wrong with trying to be realistic?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,08:48   

Quote
Someone doesn't endorse fundamentalist literalism? Impugn their faith.


I'm not challenging your faith...I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY will talk about this issue.  If you don't believe much of what the NT says, why are you Christian?  Is it more of a belonging to a community of believers that is appealing or what?  Why Christianity vs. another faith?  Is the quote provided by Carlsonjok accurate in your case?  

I keep asking these questions and no one will ever give me a clue as to why they choose Christianity above another faith.  Is it because they believe there is a higher power, but that we cannot know for certain what that is, so they just go with what is considered right within their family and their community?  What's the difference between that and agnosticism?  

And, if you believe there is a higher power, why would design not be something you are interested in?  Perhaps science will eventually discover even more evidence for design...isn't that something that, as a believer, one would be interested in considering rather than completely rejecting?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:03   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 09 2007,02:26)
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,18:50)
         
Quote
Why is "scientific community" in scare quotes anyway?
 

Because I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter).
 I think it is the upper echelon of those who deem themselves the “scientific community” that put the scare of theocracy and other bull into the mix due to their own fears.  So, we have the NCSE and other organizations scaring the bejesus out of other scientists in general.  It’s the scare tactics that turn them off ID, not the inference itself.

       

My bolding

Bloody hell! That is worthy of Larry Fafarman.

Either, you do not know what the ID movement is or you don't know what science is or you are lying (not X-OR BTW).

I'm pretty sure FTK has zero scientific training, which makes it all the more remarkable that she's able to patronizingly make pronouncements about how 'all those scientists' only reject ID and creationism because they're *ignorant*.

So in other words, 'Goddidit' and a 6,000-year-old earth would be OBVIOUS to all those scientists if only they had an open mind.

Sorry, FTK, unfortunately you're back to saying incredibly stupid things.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:04   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,08:48)
Perhaps science will eventually discover even more evidence for design.

The difficulty is that as far as most people here are concerned (if not all) is that no evidence at all has been discovered so far.

What evidence convinced you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:07   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,08:48)
snip...

And, if you believe there is a higher power, why would design not be something you are interested in?  Perhaps science will eventually discover even more evidence for design...isn't that something that, as a believer, one would be interested in considering rather than completely rejecting?

Too busy to tell me where and how I am full of BS, but not too busy to discuss religion.  As FtK would say on her blog: "Hmmmm... Interesting."

I think I can answer those questions about design, however. For the nth time.

"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism). If the designer is the Xtian God, acting supernaturally, there is no way to investigate the designer scientifically. So Design is useless scientifically. Discovering "more evidence for design" thus is also useless scientifically.

"Complete rejection" is the only scientifically valid behavior in this situation.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:07   

Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:11   

Quote
"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism).


Why?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:20   

Quote

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY will talk about this issue.


Pause to consider whether it's the issue or the interrogator. Lots of people decide to give a pass to discussions with people who start out with completely offensive rhetoric, especially when they seem not to notice that they are being offensive. I know I do.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:22   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:11)
 
Quote
"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism).


Why?

Let's turn this question around and see if critical thinking skills can be developed.

Please design a scientific experiment (including observations, testable hypothesis, doable experiment, and possible conclusions) based on the premises of ID (some "design" happened at some unknown time, by some unknown actions, at the behest of an unknown entity).

If you can do that, you will be the first ever to do so. Behe and Dembski will have to send their ID paychecks to Topeka.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:22   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
 
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:35   

Quote
Pause to consider whether it's the issue or the interrogator. Lots of people decide to give a pass to discussions with people who start out with completely offensive rhetoric, especially when they seem not to notice that they are being offensive. I know I do.


??  You mean direct, or offensive?  I'm asking direct, straight forward questions.  How could I ask these questions in a more delicate manner?

It appears that most of you are QUITE direct, and you seem to expect me to answer your questions.  How is your approach with me different than how I approach you, Wes?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:39   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
 
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
 
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.....


Maybe you need to consider that your arguments stem from your own personal credulity.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:43   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
   
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
   
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Oooh, bad move, Arden.

This will now allow her to use her favorite "personal credulity" bon mot, and then avoid addressing the issue.

(edit) - Damn, she beat me to it!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:45   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:39)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
 
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
   
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.....


Maybe you need to consider that your arguments stem from your own personal credulity.

hmm, so if you've not heard of it, it cannot exist. How arrogant.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:48   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:39)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
 
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
   
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.....


Maybe you need to consider that your arguments stem from your own personal credulity.

'Blah, blah, blah'? Perfect. You try to explain things to FTK and she replies with 'blah blah blah'.

If you had a smidgen of scientific training or knowledge, you just might realize that among educated people "I just don't find that plausible" is not considered argumentation.

Want to talk about CREDULITY? How about you share why YOU think a 6,000 year old earth is believable?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:49   

But as science is always 'incomplete' as per popper, its always credulous. It'd be dangerous if it's not, it becomes closed, like theism, and nothing new can come.

Like about science and it's method.

"God did it" - is an unprovable answer that asks no more scientific questions.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:49   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 09 2007,09:22)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:11)
   
Quote
"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism).


Why?

Let's turn this question around and see if critical thinking skills can be developed.

Please design a scientific experiment (including observations, testable hypothesis, doable experiment, and possible conclusions) based on the premises of ID (some "design" happened at some unknown time, by some unknown actions, at the behest of an unknown entity).

If you can do that, you will be the first ever to do so. Behe and Dembski will have to send their ID paychecks to Topeka.

ID is an inference....Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly.  Could they have evolved?  I think not...but in order to convince me that they could, you need to show conclusive evidence for that assumption.  If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.  

News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:51   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 09 2007,09:43)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
     
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
     
Quote
What evidence convinced you?


I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Oooh, bad move, Arden.

This will now allow her to use her favorite "personal credulity" bon mot, and then avoid addressing the issue.

(edit) - Damn, she beat me to it!

Eh, it's not like we can stop FTK from saying stupid things.

Quote
D is an inference....Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly.  Could they have evolved?  I think not...but in order to convince me that they could, you need to show conclusive evidence for that assumption.  If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.  


Herein lies the beauty of ID apologetics. You can repeat discredited arguments ad nauseum and ignore counterevidence for decades and no one on your own side will ever hold it against you. No creationist or ID argument is EVER thrown out.

And all you need is one thing you think "just isn't isn't plausible" and suddenly 'goddidit' is the inevitable default. All that pesky evidence can be tossed out. If you disagree, your objections can be thrown out because you're a 'materialist'.

FTK must be feeling like she's cornered. She only starts calling scientists 'atheists' when she's trapped and the questions she won't answer start backing up.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:58   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:49)
News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

Er, no it hasn't. It's an inference (and we've inferred that you are Pat Heyes) but it's not scientific.

We don't yet know <> God, unless proof positive is given for God, ie God = God.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,09:59   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:49)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 09 2007,09:22)
     
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:11)
         
Quote
"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism).


Why?

Let's turn this question around and see if critical thinking skills can be developed.

Please design a scientific experiment (including observations, testable hypothesis, doable experiment, and possible conclusions) based on the premises of ID (some "design" happened at some unknown time, by some unknown actions, at the behest of an unknown entity).

If you can do that, you will be the first ever to do so. Behe and Dembski will have to send their ID paychecks to Topeka.

ID is an inference....Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly.  Could they have evolved?  I think not...but in order to convince me that they could, you need to show conclusive evidence for that assumption.  If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.  

News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

That is, frankly, a worse answer than I expected. Not only does it completely avoid the question (please design an experiment, etc.), it raises a pink cloud from a deceased equine.

Inference is NOT the same as conclusion. Inference is NOT the same as evidence. As noted before, since the dawn of humankind, we all infer that the sun comes up in the east and goes around the earth every 24 hours. Additional observations and experiments proved that inference to be wrong. Despite its theological underpinnings, it has been rejected not only by "materialists", but by anyone who has two synapses to rub together. Where is the EVIDENCE for the design inference?

Please design a scientific experiment (including observations, testable hypothesis, doable experiment, and possible conclusions) based on the premises of ID (some "design" happened at some unknown time, by some unknown actions, at the behest of an unknown entity).

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:01   

Irreducibly complex molecular machines are in fact a prediction of "darwinism". Would you like me to prove that to you Ftk?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:06   

"the ID inference remains a strong conclusion."

Correction:  the ID inference remains a strong assumption.  

"News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it."

News flash... theistic evolutionists disagree with you.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:14   

Many TE are materialists as far as I can tell.  I think there is a distinction between the terms "atheist" and "materialist", but maybe I'm wrong.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:16   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:14)
Many TE are materialists as far as I can tell.  I think there is a distinction between the terms "atheist" and "materialist", but maybe I'm wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Perhaps you are thinking "naturalism"?


And then that would be methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:18   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:14)
Many TE are materialists as far as I can tell.  I think there is a distinction between the terms "atheist" and "materialist", but maybe I'm wrong.

So, a theist is a 'materialist' if they believe in evolution. Nice that you get to define who is a materialist and who isn't. I hope you wield this mighty power with caution.

I think most IDers use 'materialist' as a synonym for 'atheist' when they want to act like they're being polite and nonchurchy.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:26   

Okay, Richard's right.  My bad.  It's hard to tell where TE's stand though.  I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them.

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:32   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:26)
Okay, Richard's right.  My bad.  It's hard to tell where TE's stand though.  I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them.

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

No really, It magnifies your God in my opinion. If the designer was so perfect and flawless to leave no trace of his work......?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:38   

Quote
Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly.
The point most people miss is that this was entirely unsurprising to biologists at the time. People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.
Quote
If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.
Not without positive evidence it doesn't.
Quote
They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.
I know several who are perfectly open to the fact that design could be detected, they just think it hasn't been yet.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 09 2007,18:32)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:26)
Okay, Richard's right.  My bad.  It's hard to tell where TE's stand though.  I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them.

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

No really, It magnifies your God in my opinion. If the designer was so perfect and flawless to leave no trace of his work......?

EXCEPT IN ME, WHEN THE DESIGNER FINISHED DOING THE DODGE DICK ENHANCER HE RUBBED HIS HANDS WITH GLEE BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO DESIGN ME.

AND HE DID A PERFECT JOB. YOU CAN'T SEE THE MOULD MARKS ANYWHERE AND THE PAINT IS PERFECT. HE THREW HIS PLANS AWAY WHEN HE WAS FINISHED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T NEED TO MAKE ANYONE BETTER.

HE DID RTH NEXT AND YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU THROW AWAY YOUR BEST PLANS.

FTK IF YOU FIND THOSE PLANS, SEE IF THEY HAVE A RETURN ADDRESS ON THEM.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:51   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:26)
They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

I have often wondered what WOULDN'T be a "bizarre leap of faith" for a Christian. Transubstantiation? They're OK with that. Water into wine? No problem. Virgin birth? Fine. Dead people coming back to life? Big deal.

On some level, accepting the existence of a deity whose works are beyond their comprehension seems pretty tame.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,10:51   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 09 2007,10:38)
I know several who are perfectly open to the fact that design could be detected, they just think it hasn't been yet.

If it does happen, it wont come from *this* ID camp. legitimate scientists will find and present it, it wont be fabricated by some wedge agenda.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,11:00   

"It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO."

Religion requiring faith.  Who'da thunk it?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,12:32   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:26)
It's hard to tell where TE's stand though.  I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them.

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.


Some people ultimately believe that God has a mind, but that they cannot know it or understand it - at least in this life.  What say you, FTK?  Does God have a mind?  If so, are you astute enough to fathom It?  If you think that God has a mind but yet you are unable to fathom It - is that a bizare leap of faith on your part?  If you think that God has a mind and yet you are unable to fathom It - can that contribute to your scientific understanding of the world?

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,12:56   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:49)
News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

Let me rephrase.
Quote
News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only scientists reject it.

:D
How do you falsify ID, Ftk?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:13   

Quote
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.


Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:21   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:13)
Quote
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.


Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

So you do want to talk about science now?


Quote
Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.


Sentence 1 contradicts sentence 2.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:32   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
 Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

Hmmmm. Interesting. When asked how ID could be falsified, she "answers" by saying that she thinks evolution is not falsifiable.

Well, as we all know, evolution is supported by a vast array of observations, all of which are consistent with each other, and all of which are tied together in the fabric of evolutionary theory. So it would be difficult to falsify the theory. But not impossible. As she noted, if we somehow discovered that all of the dating techniques used to establish the age of the earth were invalid, and that the earth was only a few thousand years old, evolutionary theory would fall. If someone found, and others verified, a fossil kangaroo in pre-Cambrian strata, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble. As Futuyama noted, finding fossil or other evidence for structures which cannot have developed from known structures (e.g., a winged horse), would be difficult to explain with evolutionary theory. Etc.

More to the point, since FtK and other creationists blather all the time that evolution is false, and that evolutionary scientists consistently ignore the vast amounts of "contrary evidence", this seems to be an odd position for her to take. Either it is falsifiable (and IDCers have falsified it), or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Now back to the question that will allow her to understand why scientists say that ID is a dead end.

Please design a scientific experiment (including observations, testable hypothesis, doable experiment, and possible conclusions) based on the premises of ID (some "design" happened at some unknown time, by some unknown actions, at the behest of an unknown entity).

If you can't answer that question, perhaps you can get a glimmer of a ghost of a notion why the vast majority of the world's biologists don't bother to work on ID questions. C'mon, FtK. Follow the evidence!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:40   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
Quote
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.


Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE, but I don't remember who said it.  Some of our more erudite brethren here will know.  The key however, is that the TOE is falsifiable.  

ID on the other hand, is  not. ID only snipes at TOE, and ID always come down to god did it, or god of the gaps, despite Dembski's obfuscations, and DaveScots blusterings and blatherings.

Even Behe's IRC was stolen from a Creation Science text and was nothing new - just re-packaging.  The DI and ID are all about marketing and they want to market to you, and your Christian friends.

The DI and it's minions are snide, they are slick, and you need to keep asking real questions, and examine everything they say or write with a true skeptical view.  They want you to continue to re-act with fear and loathing to the Darwinian Bogeyman.  They plan on it, and they count on it.

Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:44   

You're confusing "not falsified" with "unfalsifiable."

There have been many instances in which, had the natural world been found to operate differently than it does, the theory would have been falsified. In all such instances to date, the natural world has been found to be consistent with the theory. Exactly as if it were true! Imagine that.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:47   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
 In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

Indeed, you have no idea what you're talkin about.

Let me help you. the ToE predicts that one humain chromosome (pair) results from the fusion of two chromosomes that are found in other great apes. The fusion would leave a signature in the chromosomal structure (two centromeric patterns instead of one).
There is no way for a chromosome to be completely lost between apes and humans, this would be lethal for a zygote, according to the theory.
So if every chimp chromosome is found to have its homologue in humans, expect for the one that is missing in our cells, which would have no equivalent, this would mean that one has just disappeared. Since it's not possible according to the ToE, such observation would falsify the theory.
And guess what, human chromosome 2 has been shown to result from the fusion of two chromosomes.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:48   

Quote
No really, It magnifies your God in my opinion. If the designer was so perfect and flawless to leave no trace of his work......?


Yet, this is not what scripture tells us.  There are numerous passages pointing to the hand of God being involved in nature.  Christ spoke about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, the Flood.....Paul writes in Roman 1:20 that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

So, again, there is so much of the bible one must reject due to the belief that when we consider the awesome complexity of the universe, it shows no appearance of design.  The TE’s I’ve had continuing conversations with state that they do see design in nature, yet they don’t.  They do - but they don’t.  ????  Just makes no sense.

I think what it really comes down to is that the TE’s who reject design are either rejecting it due to their belief that the leaders of the movement are pushing for a theocracy (which I certainly don‘t want either).  In this case, I think their fear is misplaced.  

Or, they truly don’t see design in nature and don’t believe that much of NT is even close to being accurate.  In this case, it truly makes me wonder why on earth one would bother with Christianity if they reject the teaching of the NT?

So, I don’t think one must reject evolution to be a Christian, because from what I pick up in scripture there are only a few things one must believe to truly be a Christian in the traditional sense.  But, when one starts eliminating everything they reject as storytelling, they might find that calling themselves a Christian is a bit of a farce.

Honestly, I have no clue how one cannot see design in nature, but then again, I realize that others feel exactly the opposite.  I don't know why that is.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:54   

Quote
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.


Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,13:54   

"invisible qualities...have been clearly seen"

That's unreconcilable. If you're a biblical literalist, I don't have much to work with. Nature is magnificent, but it's not signed by God. That's not to say he wasn't the author.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:01   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
 
Quote
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.


Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

my interpretation of this comment is that Ftk is alluding to the creationist tactic where they say "It does not  matter what physical evidence is found as evolution will twist and deform to accommodate it all anyway"

This is patently untrue, as previous posters have noted - there are innumerable things which if found would damage or destroy evil-ution.

Ftk, you are quite right, an old earth does not give time for evolution to happen. And if we've got an old earth, it's but a short step to saying Noah's flood really did happen (you don't think.....do you?).

If that's the case, I'd like to introcuce you to AFDave, who's currently arguing the case for a global flood/old earth with stunning sucess over at http://richarddawkins.net/forum
Seems to be down atm.

Now, after all that do you still think evolution (or darwinism) is unfalsifiable?

And on your UD thread (full marks for the follow up!) you say  
Quote
The problem is that evidence for the Christian faith is rarely discussed in church settings


Fucking Monks, MONKS taught me for far too long when I was a child. MONKS. And if there was some "evidence" for Christianity, I be sure they would have mentioned it at the time. Really quite sure. rEALLY very quite sure indeed.

What "evidence" do you mean? The Bible? What else is there? Or do you count it as self evident as your design evidence? "DNA, it's obvious!"

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:06   

FTK is an adherent of Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory(sic). So, yes, she believes in a global Noachian flood.

(Or did...)

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:08   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:48)
Honestly, I have no clue how one cannot see design in nature, but then again, I realize that others feel exactly the opposite.  I don't know why that is.

Get in a spaceship and go out into deep deep space. Look at the nearest square meter of space. Chances are good that it's empty space essentially, with a few molecules here and there of various types thrown in. Not many. It's still essentially a very hard vacuum.

Please now point to the design that can be seen? The sweeping majesty of the designers design. This is what almost all space consists of - almost nothing. So if design is so evident everywhere you look, it should be there too, no?


If (poof) we assume for a moment a living being comes to awareness in empty space, and somehow survives long enough to think, would it also come to the conclusion that what it sees is designed? Inherently so? On what basis?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:11   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 09 2007,14:06)
FTK is an adherent of Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory(sic). So, yes, she believes in a global Noachian flood.

(Or did...)

Uh-oh.

Transit problems aside, either you've got hyper-rapid speciation, or a TARDIS ark.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:12   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 09 2007,13:54)
"invisible qualities...have been clearly seen"

That's unreconcilable. If you're a biblical literalist, I don't have much to work with. Nature is magnificent, but it's not signed by God. That's not to say he wasn't the author.

Good grief, Richard...  I'm not that literal.  It would take another whole thread to explain my views on biblical interpretation.

Believe me...knowing you, you don't want to go there.  Most of you think that bible beaters believe whatever turns them on anyway, so those type of discussions are pointless.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:14   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 09 2007,14:06)
FTK is an adherent of Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory(sic). So, yes, she believes in a global Noachian flood.

(Or did...)

FTK,
Was the flood water salty or fresh? How did the salt/fresh water fish survive? :D

C'mon. Nobody really admits they believe that still do they? Not even the MONKS went that far.

:)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:25   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:54)
   
Quote
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.


Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

I think they probably would be happy if you bought more books (like those AiG dino books for your kids), videos, and perhaps a couple more copies of No Free Lunch or Darwin's Black Box for yourself.

And is "unlying devious plan" some kind of Freudian slip?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:30   

Quote
Fucking Monks, MONKS taught me for far too long when I was a child. MONKS.


Fucking monks?  Monks that FUCK??!  I didn't know that was allowed.  Who did they fuck? Inquiring minds want to know.  

Quote
And if there was some "evidence" for Christianity, I be sure they would have mentioned it at the time. Really quite sure. rEALLY very quite sure indeed.


Personally, I think Catholics do by far the worst job of teaching the bible to their parishoners.  JUST MO PEOPLE, SO DON'T BLOW A GASKET.  Catholics would rather tell people what to believe rather than encourage them to dig into scripture on their own.  Most of my Catholic friends have no clue what's in their bible, but they certainly never miss a church service.  I asked a few Catholics recently if they attend an adult sunday school, and they said SS wasn't even available for adults.  I'm sure that's not always the case, but I wonder what the monks taught you.  Care to elaborate?  How long did you attend catholic schools?  I attended Lutheran school for 8 years, and I was never taught anything about apologetics or evidence for the faith.  It centered more on teaching me bible stories and what to believe, not why I should believe it.

Quote
What "evidence" do you mean? The Bible? What else is there? Or do you count it as self evident as your design evidence? "DNA, it's obvious!"


Sigh....I'm sure you've heard it all, Oldman.  Probably just doesn't jive for you for some reason.  If you're really serious about this particular conversation, you can PM me and we'll talk further.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:38   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:54)
Quote
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.


Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

Nope!  I think their scam is just making money so they don't have to get real jobs.  No big conspiracy, just some lazy slobs (mentally and physically) .

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:39   

Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:41   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:30)
Quote
Fucking Monks, MONKS taught me for far too long when I was a child. MONKS.


Fucking monks?  Monks that FUCK??!  I didn't know that was allowed.  Who did they fuck? Inquiring minds want to know.

well, US!

Child abuse by religious authority figures was (is) rife in the UK, often with the church's collusion. Often the chuch "failed" to inform the police.
Fortunately, not at my school, that I knew of.
http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=catholic%20child%20abuse

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:48   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

Are you serious?
Quote
Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.


Do you really think that's how it's really done? What do you do for a living FTK?

Quote
I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.
Like what? What out of place fossils do you know about?

Quote
There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

Could you elaborate? Whose side does it help? ID?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:51   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:12)
Most of you think that bible beaters believe whatever turns them on

Is that *me*, FTK?

:D

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:52   

So, let me get this straight.  It's not a theocracy the DI guys are after.  It's the money!  Yeah, they allow themselves to be shunned by the scientific community because they have no better way to make a living!!  

They're pretty bright guys...I can think of better ways to make money than to scam Christians.  Honestly, Behe seems pretty darn sincere.  I'm anxious to read his new book, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can pick it up at the library.  DON'T WANT TO GET TAKEN IN BY THE SCAM!!!!!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,14:59   

Catholic TE occasional lurker here popping his head up above the parapet.

I don't see any design in nature.  Why should there be?  As previously said, a really good designer would hide all the evidence.

The TE position is really quite easy to understand if you first ditch biblical literalism.  Render under science what is science's and render under God what is God's.  Where's the problem?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:00   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

A single fossil wouldn't be sufficient to falsify the ToE since a mistake is always possible, but recurrent findings of mammals (for instance) in the middle of precambrian fauna would pose a BIG problem for the theory.

And the ToE makes no prediction about the conservation of soft tissue over time. You're confused.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:09   

Quote (J-Dog @ May 09 2007,14:38)
   
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:54)
   
Quote
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.


Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

Nope!  I think their scam is just making money so they don't have to get real jobs.  No big conspiracy, just some lazy slobs (mentally and physically) .

aye, fer real.

and fer the kids


dont wanna spoil the kids so


You'd think all that lot could between them get a few papers published? But no. There is far FAR FAR better money selling pony old shit to rubes for dirty dirty cash "me love you long time" dollars.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:17   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:52)
So, let me get this straight.  It's not a theocracy the DI guys are after.  It's the money!  Yeah, they allow themselves to be shunned by the scientific community because they have no better way to make a living!!  

They're pretty bright guys...I can think of better ways to make money than to scam Christians.  Honestly, Behe seems pretty darn sincere.  I'm anxious to read his new book, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can pick it up at the library.  DON'T WANT TO GET TAKEN IN BY THE SCAM!!!!!

But not a lot more established ones*.


*replace xian with faith-based anything.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:18   

Jeanot - Thank you yes, you are correct, and a Big Thank You to oldmainthesky too, for expressing my point much better than I did!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:20   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:52)
So, let me get this straight.  It's not a theocracy the DI guys are after.  It's the money!  Yeah, they allow themselves to be shunned by the scientific community because they have no better way to make a living!!  

They're pretty bright guys...I can think of better ways to make money than to scam Christians.  Honestly, Behe seems pretty darn sincere.  I'm anxious to read his new book, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can pick it up at the library.  DON'T WANT TO GET TAKEN IN BY THE SCAM!!!!!

Progress...

It's funny how the evidence for gods existence always seems to fit so neatly in book form. Handy for the selling thereof.
Some research projects generate terrabytes of information. A second. Hardly the same sort of thing. Surprising that proof for god can be contained in so small a set of specified complex information as found in a book.

A bloke speculating about the way things are or could be is a poor replacement for real actual science. Like I said earlier in the thread, why not study these things directly, rather then needing an interpreter like Behe? There are plenty of biology books out there, whats wrong with them? No spin allows you to make your own mind up no?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:37   

Quote (J-Dog @ May 09 2007,15:18)
Jeanot - Thank you yes, you are correct, and a Big Thank You to oldmainthesky too, for expressing my point much better than I did!

For the record, the joke about the precembrian rabbit is from JBS Haldane, unless I'm mistaken.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:47   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.

Name one. Just one. And please, please, no "polystrate" trees.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:49   

Trawling through some of the past thread, and I found this quote from FtK that I think you regulars let her off lightly on:

Quote

There are all kinds of articles in mainstream journals that point to the inference of ID, but they certainly aren’t written by ID advocates.  Although, the writers of those articles do not support design in nature (as IDers do)  due to the reigning fear of the implications of ID.  

(snip)

OTOH, creationists are writing scientific papers and providing interesting peer reviewed articles all the time.  Of course creationists are all completely insane and delusional, so we won’t go there.


Please point me to these papers!  I have yet to see a paper in a mainstream journal that was held up as supporting ID in which that support wasn't quickly rubbished.  UD often makes these claims, but when you actually read the paper (or usually just the abstract) you can see that any "design" being referred to has absolutely nothing to do with ID.  And as for peer-reviewed creationism (in quality journals!) I have yet to see any of that.

Have you honestly read these papers, read criticisms of them, and concluded that they still stand up?  Or are you simply taking the word of ID advocates that they are there and say what they do?  Really, I think you're being led up the garden path, and it doesn't lead to Eden.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,15:57   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 09 2007,15:47)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
 
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.

Name one. Just one. And please, please, no "polystrate" trees.

I'm pretty sure that AIG has a couple of "misplaced fossils". I'm also pretty sure that those artifacts have been easily explained.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,16:25   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2007,15:57)
I'm pretty sure that AIG has a couple of "misplaced fossils". I'm also pretty sure that those artifacts have been easily explained.

Let's save her the trouble of hunting up those references to misplaced fossils. See here for Walt Brown's page on "out-of-place fossils".

I particularly liked the sentence about amber    
Quote
Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

and the amazing revelation that    
Quote

Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

You're on your own, however, if you are trying to figure out how ants get much work done when they are encased in amber, or even how all this is relevant to "out-of-place fossils". I await enlightenment...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,16:58   

Jeannot sums up FTK in two words:

Quote
You're confused.


moreover, she's unwilling and unable to correct this state.

EOS.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,17:42   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:54)
Quote
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.


Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

For some of 'em, yeah.  For others it's a decent living with no heavy lifting. Some may believe lying for a good cause is OK. And some, no doubt, believe what they say.  But not all, no, not all by a long shot.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,17:49   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:49)
News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

Well, time to point out, yet again:

Atheists make up, at most, about 15% of the US population.

About half the people in the US accept evolution, and think ID/creationism is a load of crap.

Re-read the second sentence of this post.  (Here, let me help:  (ahem)  "Atheists make up, at most, about 15% of the US population".)

Re-read it again.

One more time, so it sinks in.

Now, since only 15% of the Us is atheist, and since 50% of the US thinks ID/creationism is a load of cow-crap, that means (now pay attention here, FTK -- this is the hard part) . . . that means that fewer than one of every three people who reject ID/creationism are atheists.

Whcih, logically enough means that over two out of every three people who accept evolution and think ID/creationism is a load of crap, are THEISTS.  As in "believe in God".  As in "not atheists".  As in "not materialists".


If you are STILL too goddamn stupid to grasp and understand that elementary fact, FTK, let me know and I'll try to explain it again, using smaller words . . . . .

(sigh)

No WONDER everyone thinks you are either (1) really dishonest, (2) really stupid or (3) both.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,17:53   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:26)
 They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

I've always thought it rather strange that the fundies worship a Book About God instead of a God, and seem to be too stupid to tell the difference . . . .

I'm not a theologian, but I believe that the proper term for that activity is "idol-worship".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,17:57   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
Quote
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.


Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

Does anyone else find it hysterially, gut-wrenchingly funny whenever some creatiokook spends YEARS telling everyone about all the massive scientific evidence they have which, they say, proves evolution false --------- right before they breathlessly pronounce that evolution is a religion because it can't be falsified?


Want to prove evolution false, FTK?  Show me a human fossil from the pre-Cambrian period.

That would do the trick nicely.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:02   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
 In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

(smacks forehead)

Damn, girl, you are awfully stupid . . . . .

So . . . . old-earth anti-evolution creationists (like, say, Michael Behe and William Dembski) have NO EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION ???????

None AT ALL??????????????

NONE WHATSOEVER ???????????????????????????

Ummmmmmm, then what the hell is this, uh, "teach all the evidence against evolution" thingie of theirs all about, FTK . . . . . .  . . . . .?

You really are a dumbshit, FTK.

Honestly and truly.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:06   

As regards FTK scoffing at the notion that IDers do what they do, at least in part, for the money, here is Wiliam Dembski on why he does not publish in the peer-reviewed literature:
Quote
"I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."

Quoted in The Chronicle of Higher Education

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:07   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:48)
I think what it really comes down to is that the TE’s who reject design are either rejecting it due to their belief that the leaders of the movement are pushing for a theocracy (which I certainly don‘t want either).  In this case, I think their fear is misplaced.  

Two questions for you, FTK:

(1) Why did Rousas J Rushdooney finance the initial publication of Henry Morris's book "The Genesis Flood"?

(2) Why did Howard Ahmanson finance the establishment of the DI's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, and why does he currently sit on the DI's board of directors?


I won't bother to ask you (again) why the Wedge Document is riddled, through and through, with standard Reconstructionist rhetoric . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:10   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:48)
In this case, it truly makes me wonder why on earth one would bother with Christianity if they reject the teaching of the NT?

Well, FTK, perhaps they, unlike you, worship a God instead of a Book About God, and, unlike you, are smart enough to be able to tell one from the other . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:15   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:12)
 It would take another whole thread to explain my views on biblical interpretation.

Well, FTK, since you don't seem to have time to discuus creation, uh, "science", but DO seem to have plenty of time to tell everyone all about your religious opinions, let me ask you a simple question, to determine if I should or shouldn't bother *listening* to any of your religious opinions (afetr all, you certainly wouldn't want me to learn all about Christianity from someone who doesn't have the correct opinions about it, right?):

*ahem*

What exactly is the source of your religious authority, FTK. What exactly makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s.  Are you more holy than anyone else?  Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else?  Does God love you best?  Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history?  What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else’s?  Other than your say-so?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?  Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible.  Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are?  Other than  your say-so?

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise?  Other than  your say-so?


Thanks in advance for, uh, not answering that simple question, FTK.

That will be all the answer I'd need.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:28   

Quote

Quote

People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.



Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.


Non sequitur. You might want to take a course in logic, followed by a course in philosophy of science.

Quote

Many TE are materialists as far as I can tell.


Whoa. Start with just a plain old intro to philosophy course. Maybe they can get you straightened out and reduce the Humpty-Dumpty factor in your posts.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,18:42   

Quote

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.


Remember the paper where you opined, "It sucks!" We talked about how one can legitimately do design detection within that paper. It's in the peer-reviewed literature. I'm a theist, and John is not. Holding that design detection is a legitimate activity is orthogonal to the issue of personal beliefs.

Then there's the issue of the method of design detection that Jeff Shallit and I discuss in the appendix of this essay. Again, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,20:44   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 09 2007,18:42)
Quote

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.


Remember the paper where you opined, "It sucks!" We talked about how one can legitimately do design detection within that paper. It's in the peer-reviewed literature. I'm a theist, and John is not. Holding that design detection is a legitimate activity is orthogonal to the issue of personal beliefs.

Then there's the issue of the method of design detection that Jeff Shallit and I discuss in the appendix of this essay. Again, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The 'like an outboard motor" quip is priceless.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,09:18   

Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

Once again, FtK, let's have an example of a misplaced fossil. Or are you too busy all of a sudden?

On a related note, my initial introduction to "the controversy" came in the form of a creationist coworker spouting off about misplaced fossils.  When I expressed doubt, he provided me with a list of 50 or 100--I forget--compiled by none other than the pseudonymous John Woodmorappe.  I decided to take one example at random from the list and look into it.  Turned out that not only was the "misplaced" fossil not misplaced, Woodmorappe compounded the lie by mischaracterizing the situation.

Basically, it was like this:  a fossilized mammal of a certain species was regarded to be the oldest example of its type found up to that point.  At some later point, an earlier example was found (in the correct stratum).   That was what Woodmorappe was describing as "misplaced." He said it was obvious that scientists didn't know what they were doing because they had one fossil that was they claimed was the oldest, but then someone else found an older one, so the first guys were lying.

When I pointed out the obvious folly to my coworker, he smiled ignorantly and said, "Sure. evolutionists seem to have an answer for everything, don't they.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,15:55   

What an interesting thread. I believe I can add a bit that noone else seems to have caught onto.  I’m particularly interested in Ftk’s claims that Behe has done experiments on molecular machines, and found them being IC.

Ftk from Page 3
But, what exactly do you expect ID supporters to do? I think it’s pretty much up to Darwinists to do the research to provide us with evidence that would dismiss the IC that Behe speaks of. He’s done the research and finds that molecular machines are irreducibly complex. Prove him wrong...

and

Ftk from Page 4
ID is an inference....Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly. Could they have evolved? I think not...but in order to convince me that they could, you need to show conclusive evidence for that assumption. If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.

A few years ago another anti-evolution poster made the same, or similar claim. When a pro-evolution poster disputed that claim the board administrator banned him from posting claiming he was slandering Behe about him not having performed any experiments on the molecular systems he cites in his Darwin’s Black Box book.

The board administrator contacted Behe, and his response was posted on the board. His email read in part:
 No, of course I haven't done lab research on the systems described in Darwin's Black Box. That's easily seen by looking at the references in the book. I chose widely-known, textbook examples of complex biochemical systems, not ones that would somehow depend on work I'd done in my own lab. For my money, that makes the argument more powerful, more widely accessible.

That was all a few years ago. From the transcripts of the Dover trial, I seem to remember Behe saying either the same thing, or something similar. So I’m curious, Ftk. What are the experiments on molecular machines Behe has done since then?

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,16:51   

Quote
So I’m curious, Ftk. What are the experiments on molecular machines Behe has done since then?


Perhaps they are published in the ID journal PCID? ID is a real scientific revolution which solves outstanding problems, after all. It's not like they had a fake journal for PR reasons, and abandoned it the moment they lost the court case. That's just crazy talk. Such an obvious scam would never have worked on someone like FTK.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,19:04   

Quote
That's just crazy talk. Such an obvious scam would never have worked on someone like FTK.


Of couse not, just like she wasn't fooled into thinking "of Pandas and People" had creationist roots, or fooled into thinking ID has nothing to do with science.  She's much too intelligent and well-informed to fall for that.

the sarcasm is just delectable at the bar today.

barkeep! keep 'em coming!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,19:15   

Sarcasm? I have no idea what you're talking about.

   
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,14:39   

Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2007,16:51)
Perhaps they are published in the ID journal PCID? ID is a real scientific revolution which solves outstanding problems, after all. It's not like they had a fake journal for PR reasons, and abandoned it the moment they lost the court case. That's just crazy talk. Such an obvious scam would never have worked on someone like FTK.


I guess those experiments are double super secret.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,18:46   

Did someone say Double Secret Probation?*





Louis

*Actually I know no one did, but I love that movie. In fact, if I wasn't busy tomorrow I'd get the DVD out and wtach it over the course of several beers.

--------------
Bye.

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2007,13:24   

From the UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"

Quote
Wes,

When you get rid of Lenny, I'll address your posts.


Maybe now Ftk can blame Lenny for her not answering my question either.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2007,14:48   

What worries me is that I have been unfailingly nice to FTK (well almost...well nice for me....well not very nice recently. Oh you get my drift) and she could have replied to me waaaaaaaaaaaaay before Lenny got on her case. In fact I think Lenny's been pretty fucking restrained, he at least waited until FTK pulled a few standard creationist moves before pouncing. Good work!

Oh well, she can ask here questions of me anytime she likes, I jut rather think she won't.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2007,16:25   

Quote (Louis @ May 12 2007,14:48)
In fact I think Lenny's been pretty fucking restrained, he at least waited until FTK pulled a few standard creationist moves before pouncing.

Well, it was when she started in with Wes about the "you're not a Real Christian™© unless you worship my Book" crapola, that popped my valve.  From that point on, she was firmly in my gunsights.

Fundies are all arrogant self-righteous pridefilled holier-than-thou pricks, every one of them.  It's just one of the many reasons why I detest them so much.


-edit-   Oddly enough, it was coincidentally right after that, when I began asking FTK all sorts of pointed questions about her religious opinions, that she started really getting hostile to me.  Fundies are an odd lot -- they run around LOOKING for abuse (and cherish it when they get it, since it feeds that massive martyr complex that they all have), but the one thing they absolutely will not tolerate under any circumstances is if someone simply questions why THEIR religious opinions are any better than anyone else's.  That ALWAYS gets their self-righteous blood switched to "boil".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2007,02:05   

Quote
Oddly enough, it was coincidentally right after that, when I began asking FTK all sorts of pointed questions about her religious opinions, that she started really getting hostile to me.  Fundies are an odd lot -- they run around LOOKING for abuse (and cherish it when they get it, since it feeds that massive martyr complex that they all have), but the one thing they absolutely will not tolerate under any circumstances is if someone simply questions why THEIR religious opinions are any better than anyone else's.  That ALWAYS gets their self-righteous blood switched to "boil".


That's why I've stolen your technique for use in real life. It works so damned well!

Quote
Wes about the "you're not a Real Christian™© unless you worship my Book" crapola,


But but but but Wes ISN'T a real christian. REAL christians hop on Sundays because of the virtues (faith, hop, and charity) hop is the most important. I've read my bible*, I know.

Louis

*and watched too much Red Dwarf.

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2007,07:10   

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2007,02:05)
Quote
Oddly enough, it was coincidentally right after that, when I began asking FTK all sorts of pointed questions about her religious opinions, that she started really getting hostile to me.  Fundies are an odd lot -- they run around LOOKING for abuse (and cherish it when they get it, since it feeds that massive martyr complex that they all have), but the one thing they absolutely will not tolerate under any circumstances is if someone simply questions why THEIR religious opinions are any better than anyone else's.  That ALWAYS gets their self-righteous blood switched to "boil".


That's why I've stolen your technique for use in real life. It works so damned well!

I've used it so often over the years over at Talk.Origins that it has been dubbed "The Flanking Maneuver" by some of the wags over there.

It's made my pizza boy famous all over the world.

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  189 replies since May 05 2007,12:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]