RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The kentucky Creationist Museum< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,09:30   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18061154/site/newsweek/

Intersting article

“Does Carbon-14 disprove the Bible?” The answer: “When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what he meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible.”

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,09:42   

Sources say that Eugenie has visited the museum with BBC reporters.  LOL, lordy, that had to be an interesting visit... :O

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:08   

*sigh*

If only the men who wrote it could see the long term implications of their book.

--------------
"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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,14:23   



Adam and Eve and family go for a drive.  I'm saying this has to be pre-snake, right FTK?

--------------
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: April 12 2007,15:00   

ROTL...

Nope, that's definitely post-snake.  See those cave kiddo’s in the car?  Dead give away, buddy.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,15:27   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,15:00)
ROTL...

Nope, that's definitely post-snake.  See those cave kiddo’s in the car?  Dead give away, buddy.

Ah, equating Sin and Sex. Classic.

Remind me why could sperm and egg not fuse before the fall?

--------------
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: April 12 2007,15:38   

Well, they could, but Adam didn't know where to stick his wee wee.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,15:48   

Quote
Ah, equating Sin and Sex. Classic.


Are you for real, or is that suppose to be a joke?

Go back and take a stab at those first few chapters of Genesis.  The "snake" crawled down that apple tree at the very beginning of the account of man.  

Munchins aren't mentioned until after they had been thrown out of the garden.  

And, btw, sin and sex should never be used in the same sentence.  Nothin' sinful about sex unless you're misusing the function and hurting others by your actions.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,15:52   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 12 2007,16:27)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,15:00)
ROTL...

Nope, that's definitely post-snake.  See those cave kiddo’s in the car?  Dead give away, buddy.

Ah, equating Sin and Sex. Classic.

Remind me why could sperm and egg not fuse before the fall?

There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails. This describes you, oldman.  You assume, as a scientist, that every question has a scientific answer. In this case you are wrong, wrong, wrong.  This is not a matter of science, but of history.

Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3:6, while the first bambino didn't come along until Genesis 4:1.  You should also consider that, friendly dinosaur aside, the presence of clothing is a dead giveaway that this picture is post serpent.  QED

--------------
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!)

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,15:58   

Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!!!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,16:05   

Quote
Are you for real, or is that suppose to be a joke?

Heh. Did I misunderstand something that seems obvious to you? Some tricky point of causality? Was there even time as we understand it in the Garden of Eden?
 
Quote
Munchins aren't mentioned until after they had been thrown out of the garden.  

And that answers my question about sperm and egg how? "God wanted it that way". I guess you believe in the literal reading then? If so, do you also believe Noah had all species on his Ark (or Kinds even)?
 
Quote
And, btw, sin and sex should never be used in the same sentence.  Nothin' sinful about sex unless you're misusing the function and hurting others by your actions.

IMHO I think you'll find that a large part of christianity and religion in general is about making people feel bad (i.e like they've commited a sin) when doing things that come naturally. So then can confess. And throw a few $$ in the collection plate on their way out as "thanks".  A vicious circle.

A question then, as you are in the mood for answering them it appears, FTK, is there nothing sinfull about homesexual sex or do you condone that 100%? You are fine with the whole gay thing I take it? That's not a misuse of god-given function or anything right there?[I][/I]

--------------
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: April 12 2007,16:16   

Quote
IMHO I think you'll find that a large part of christianity and religion in general is about making people feel bad (i.e like they've commited a sin) when doing things that come naturally.


Um...you evidently must not know many Christians.  I assure you that sex is something I engage in frequently, and I certainly don't feel like I've commited a "sin" afterward.  

In fact, biblically, one of the very first things God told Adam and Eve was to get it on....a lot.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,16:17   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,16:16)
 
Quote
IMHO I think you'll find that a large part of christianity and religion in general is about making people feel bad (i.e like they've commited a sin) when doing things that come naturally.


Um...you evidently must not know many Christians.  I assure you that sex is something I engage in frequently, and I certainly don't feel like I've commited a "sin" afterward.  

In fact, biblically, one of the very first things God told Adam and Eve was to get it on....a lot.

And you are 100% fine with homosexual's getting married etc? The whole gay thing? I seem to remember God having somewhat of a harsh opinion on all that.
EDIT: And sex outside marriage was what I was refering to, amongst other things, with the Sex/Sin reference. I presume you are married ForTheKids.

EDITEDIT: To clarify. Sex inside marriage (presuming you are in fact married) is presumably not defined as a sin by whatever splinter sect you are in. Therefore you do not feel sinful "getting it on". Which totally misses the point I was making. That religion, particularly Christianity, defines many  things as sinful (e.g sex outside marriage) when it's quite good odds that it's going to happen anyway. Very handy I'd say.
So 100% happy with married homosexual folk getting married FTK? Does that cancel out the sin of sex outside marriage I wonder? Hmm...One for the theologians that.

--------------
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: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,16:50   

Quote
Um...you evidently must not know many Christians


Statistically unlikely.

--------------
"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: April 12 2007,18:39   

Quote
That religion, particularly Christianity, defines many things as sinful (e.g sex outside marriage) when it's quite good odds that it's going to happen anyway. Very handy I'd say.


Hmmm...let’s put on our thinking caps and give this a go, shall we?

Let’s consider the pro’s and con’s of having sex before marriage...

Pro - It feels really, really, really, really good.  

Con - STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, problems with multiple partners, such as: doing it with so many people that it’s difficult to be content in a monogamous relationship (which leads to the breakup of families).  Feelings of being used if one person is in it for fun and the other has deeper feelings.  Feelings of jealousy when your prior partner is now getting it on with someone else because she’s done with you.  The list goes on and on in regard to our emotions.  

Now, according to the Bible, that crazy make believe dude in the sky has made up all these horrible rules to live by.  Darn - such a party pooper he is.  

Now, could these suggestions from the guy in the sky actually be of some use?  If she/he/ET actually did design the human body, chances are he/she/it might actually know a little about the best way for that body to conduct itself without getting hurt.  Hence we are provided with suggestions, rules, or whatever you are comfortable calling them.  

King David was a favorite of the big guy, though David had many wives.  If you’re familiar with biblical history, you’ll find that David’s love life, and his children’s lives, were a mess.  Check out the squabbles between Abraham’s wife and his concubine as well.  God didn’t turn his back on them because of their error in judgment, but they did suffer due to the fact that people were designed for one man, one woman relationships.  

Granted, hormones rage and odds are pretty darn high that most won’t make it down the isle with their virginity in tact, but because we are all better off waiting for that mate for life, we should try to make it a goal to live by those dratted rules.  Pretty much just makes life easier for us in the long run.

     
Quote
So 100% happy with married homosexual folk getting married FTK? Does that cancel out the sin of sex outside marriage I wonder? Hmm...One for the theologians that.


There’s not a chance in #### that I’m going down this road again.  Been there, done that.  Brace yourself, it’s 26 pages long.  And, if you decide to quote mine me, you better be darn sure you’ve read all 26 pages or it might come back to bite you.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:45   

Quote
Con - STD’s, unwanted pregnancy

I'd like to introduce you to somebody:


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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,18:51   

LOL, he's pretty cute, but personally, I seriously hate those things.

Anyway, as you can probably guess by the number of abortions taking place throughout the world, birth control isn't all it's cracked up to be.  

Now, don't give me the song and dance about people not using birth control because of their religious beliefs.  Sex ed has been taught and supported in the public & private schools for eons.  Problem is, that in the heat of the moment, shit happens.  So, unless we shoot all our girls up with birth control early on, we're screwed (and knocked up quite frequently).

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,19:11   

Why are we even talking about birth control in this context when, according to the reporter from Esquire (lionized in my story), Adam at the Creation Museum has no snakee, no T-Rex, no mini-Adam.  :(

Ya know, that just weirds me out. :O

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,19:20   

FtK wrote:
 
Quote
Now, according to the Bible, that crazy make believe dude in the sky has made up all these horrible rules to live by.


Interesting. Can you point to the passage in the Bible where the crazy make believe dude in the sky rules specifically against premarital sex? Or defines marriage?

Or is it possible that these rules were made up by the folks who wrote the Bible, ignoring the rules made up by other sky-dudes for other cultures?

Alternatively, if you'd rather not justify this statement, you could answer the questions Zach and I left for you yesterday on your blog.

thanks in advance

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

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,19:28   

Quote
Now, don't give me the song and dance about people not using birth control because of their religious beliefs.  Sex ed has been taught and supported in the public & private schools for eons.  Problem is, that in the heat of the moment, shit happens.  So, unless we shoot all our girls up with birth control early on, we're screwed (and knocked up quite frequently).

Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,22:22   

Quote
Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."


Dude, my sister is a social worker.  I can tell you that those little girls having sex with whoever is nice to them are not very good about remembering to take that pill each morning.  It is much safer to give them the shot that lasts for about 3 months.

Just fyi.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,22:25   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:22)
Quote
Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."


Dude, my sister is a social worker.  I can tell you that those little girls having sex with whoever is nice to them are not very good about remembering to take that pill each morning.  It is much safer to give them the shot that lasts for about 3 months.

Just fyi.

It is, of course, the foaming fundies who are opposed to contraception and sex education . . . right?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,22:29   

Not before marriage - but then it's "the best ever!"

--------------
"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: April 12 2007,22:41   

Quote
Interesting. Can you point to the passage in the Bible where the crazy make believe dude in the sky rules specifically against premarital sex? Or defines marriage?


Interestingly enough, I've never found any specific verses about premarital sex, that's why I engaged in lot of it.  JUST KIDDING!

But seriously, right from the very beginning the big guy points out the relationship between man and women.   We also have a big 'ol commandment about not commiting adultry, along with other guidelines for sexual conduct in the law.  

There are stories galore giving examples of the crap that follows when biblical patriarchs blew it and were constantly getting a little on the side.  Monogomy is the ticket to a happy healthy sex life, IMHO. :)  

Premarital sex - don't know what to tell ya.  But, I do know that one man/one woman for life seems to be the best option when considering all the pros and cons.

But, then what do I know...I'm actually guillible enough to believe in God <gasp!>.

         
Quote
Alternatively, if you'd rather not justify this statement, you could answer the questions Zach and I left for you yesterday on your blog.


Patience--I just posted my response to Jeremy.  You're next.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,22:51   

Quote
It is, of course, the foaming fundies who are opposed to contraception and sex education . . . right?


I know those types exist, but I don't know any of them personally.  Most parents don't want their children to end up dead, and with the STD's we've got floating around these days, you'd have to be a complete moron not to advise your kids of all the options.

But, that doesn't mean I believe it's advisable to hand out colored condoms like candy and tell them to have at it.  That's a good way to destroy something that is very special.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,03:03   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,18:39)
There’s not a chance in #### that I’m going down this road again.  Been there, done that.  Brace yourself, it’s 26 pages long.  And, if you decide to quote mine me, you better be darn sure you’ve read all 26 pages or it might come back to bite you.

I'll take that as a no to "Are homosexual relationships ok?" then.

Bigot. You disgust me.

I'll go and read your 26 page thread, and IF I feel my label is wrong, I will apologise. After all, you could have just said "it's ok" instead of linking me to a dicussion. It's a YES/NO answer you know. And as you did not just say yes...

--------------
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: April 13 2007,03:08   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:22)
Quote
Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."


Dude, my sister is a social worker.  I can tell you that those little girls having sex with whoever is nice to them are not very good about remembering to take that pill each morning.  It is much safer to give them the shot that lasts for about 3 months.

Just fyi.

Sounds to me like you are promoting eugenics. I take it that you would not advocate the 3 month pill injection for good little Christian girls then? After all, why would they need it, they are saving themselves for marriage.

And something tells me you are a W supporter. Happy for AID prevention programs to be stopped from handing out condoms and being forced to promote absitnace?

Anyway, why am I wasting any more time on you, as per my last post your sand has just run out for me.

--------------
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: April 13 2007,07:30   

I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

I suggest promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,07:30)
I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

I suggesting promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

 
Quote
I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  

No, but you are happy for it to be promoted in your name.
If birth control does not alway work (99% effective if used correctly) then how often does abstinence work? And it's not 100% I assure you.
Take 2 groups of "kids". Give one education about birth control, condoms etc. Give the other religious education, why it's a sin to have sex before marriage and promote abstinence in general.

Which do you think would have less pregnancies?

And anyway the point is that the government you support promotes abstinence over practical sex education which as a direct consequence tens of thousands of people have died. But that's ok, as at least they did not die sinners! Died from AIDS with no drug support maybe but at least they went to heaven!
 
Quote
I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.

So, get real then and stop trying to promote abstinence as *any* kind of solution to the problems you see.
 
Quote
So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

In *your* opinion. And *your* opinion seems to be that sex before marriage is one of the things that are "counter productive to a happy healthy life". Don't conflate the issue with unwanted pregnancy, AIDs etc. Sure, those are bad things, of course. But to say that sex per se is "counter productive to a happy healthy life" is just plain wrong. And that is what you are saying. Only sex in marriage between a man and a woman is not sinful, right? That's your position.
 
Quote
I suggesting promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

Yep, lets tell all those forced sex workers in India about abstinence and how it can help them avoid AIDS. Sure.
And these people "who have no self control whatsoever" or "sinners" to put it another way, if they've never been educated about Sex then how can you expect them not to behave that way? It's the government that you support that wants to not educate "kids" about sex. And so the "kids" find out themselves.

--------------
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: April 13 2007,08:16   

You are putting words in my mouth at this point, so I'll just back off and say your absolutely right.  You win.  I'm deluded.

If you seriously want to take this conversation further, let me know.  But, at that point you'll have to stop misrepresenting my position.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,08:40   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:41)
       
Quote
Interesting. Can you point to the passage in the Bible where the crazy make believe dude in the sky rules specifically against premarital sex? Or defines marriage?


Interestingly enough, I've never found any specific verses about premarital sex, that's why I engaged in lot of it.  JUST KIDDING!

But seriously, right from the very beginning the big guy points out the relationship between man and women.   We also have a big 'ol commandment about not commiting adultry, along with other guidelines for sexual conduct in the law.  

There are stories galore giving examples of the crap that follows when biblical patriarchs blew it and were constantly getting a little on the side.  Monogomy is the ticket to a happy healthy sex life, IMHO. :)  

Premarital sex - don't know what to tell ya.  But, I do know that one man/one woman for life seems to be the best option when considering all the pros and cons.

But, then what do I know...I'm actually guillible enough to believe in God <gasp!>.

                   
Quote
Alternatively, if you'd rather not justify this statement, you could answer the questions Zach and I left for you yesterday on your blog.


Patience--I just posted my response to Jeremy.  You're next.

It would have been quicker to answer my questions by just saying "No, there aren't any specific rules against premarital sex, and no definitions." The commandment against "adultry" is an interesting interpretation, since the traditional definition of adultery is "the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex" (Oxford English Dictionary). That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.

Of course theologians have been known to stretch definitions. A marriage of a Christian to a Jew was called "interpretative adultery", even within the bonds of matrimony. The fact that you interpret stuff as being consistent with how you think about it is not really on the same level of specificity. And that doesn't even begin to address the question of why folks who don't believe in your particular sky-dude should have to go along with your interpretations.

I do find it interesting that you can respond quickly and in your own words to these theological questions, but will delay several days on questions of science. You probably posted a dozen or so comments here at AtBC in the last day or so, but none were substantive discussions of science or biology. My comment on your blog only asks if you agree or disagree with 6 statements, so that I can figure out if we are able to proceed from common assumptions. How long does it take to say "agree" or "disagree" to 6 statements?  Do you have to consult with Walt Brown or Duane Gish before answering questions about what you think or what you know re biology and science? If so, doesn't that tell you something?

--------------
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: April 13 2007,09:17   

Quote
That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.


I never said it did.  I said I haven't found any verses giving specific instructions about premaritial sex.  Why do you always mess with my words?

Actually, that is why I take my time responding to you on my blog.  I have to read through my response several times before posting to be sure I'm articulate enough for you to get the message and not read something else into it.

It's easy to post here because I have no intention of putting much thought into anything. It's not worth the time, because regardless of what I say, it's going to get twisted anyway.  LOL. :p

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:48   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,09:17)
     
Quote
That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.


I never said it did.  I said I haven't found any verses giving specific instructions about premaritial sex.  Why do you always mess with my words?

Actually, that is why I take my time responding to you on my blog.  I have to read through my response several times before posting to be sure I'm articulate enough for you to get the message and not read something else into it.

It's easy to post here because I have no intention of putting much thought into anything. It's not worth the time, because regardless of what I say, it's going to get twisted anyway.  LOL. :p

Wow, that was quick ;)

Re your lack of biblical support for admonitions against premarital sex, you're right. I'm wrong. I did not acknowledge the fact that you never said anything about such verses. Mea culpa; I'll make an effort to read more closely in the future.

But in regard to my current wait for your reply to my last substantive comment on your blog, I'm pretty sure I could read and comprehend "agree" or "disagree". I don't think I would "twist" those words.

And I also note that you did not confirm or deny my supposition that you seek outside help from creationist sources before replying to science/biology-oriented comments on your blog. That makes me even more certain that I am right about that.

--------------
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: April 13 2007,09:57   

I most EMPHATICALLY here proclaim that I do not get outside help from creationists before I respond to your comments.  I thought you were kidding when you said that!

I have talked to various authors who have written books on creation, ID and evolution in the past.  But, I have NEVER contacted them about anything we've discussed.  You're questions aren't that difficult to answer, dave. ;)

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,10:32   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:16)
You are putting words in my mouth at this point, so I'll just back off and say your absolutely right.  You win.  I'm deluded.

If you seriously want to take this conversation further, let me know.  But, at that point you'll have to stop misrepresenting my position.

Hmm, I've only extrapolated from what you've said already.
Is there any specific part of what I've said that you have a problem with? Yes, I've put words in your mouth. As you will not answer simple questions like "do you think homosexuality  is a sin?" then what option do I have?

--------------
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: April 13 2007,10:45   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,09:57)
I have talked to various authors who have written books on creation, ID and evolution in the past.  But, I have NEVER contacted them about anything we've discussed.  You're questions aren't that difficult to answer, dave. ;)

No, they aren't difficult to answer. I didn't say that they were; in fact, I think I've said exactly the opposite

--------------
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: April 13 2007,10:57   

Quote
"do you think homosexuality  is a sin?"


Personally, I think it's unhealthy both emotionally and physically for ~numerous~ reasons.  You can read the thread I posted for further enlightment into my crazy and demented worldview.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,11:05   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,10:57)
Quote
"do you think homosexuality  is a sin?"


Personally, I think it's unhealthy both emotionally and physically for ~numerous~ reasons.  You can read the thread I posted for further enlightment into my crazy and demented worldview.

I'll take that as a Yes then.
What about stoning to death people who commit adultery?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,11:13   

So you won't talk science with us because we'll twist your words?

I think I could take that personally! Are you saying that I would do that? On the basis of no evidence whatsoever? Wow FTK. Arrogant and delusional much?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,11:31   

Quote (Louis @ April 13 2007,11:13)
So you won't talk science with us because we'll twist your words?

I think I could take that personally! Are you saying that I would do that? On the basis of no evidence whatsoever? Wow FTK. Arrogant and delusional much?

Louis

don't forget some people are predisposed to see their own character traits in other people and be blind to them themselves. So maybe it's not surprising FTK anticipates getting "her" words twisted, as it's par for the course round "her" neck of the woods.

--------------
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: April 13 2007,12:13   

Now, now, people.  I've alluded to the possibility that I'm delusional many times now.  I make choices based on evidence like everyone else, and merely hope I'm on the right track.  I don't make claims that something is a "fact" when there are questionable elements to my assertions.

Oh, and yes, I realize that I have a tendancy toward toward displaying arrogance.  It's a little tough to walk into god knows how many Darwinists looking for a fight and choose not to display some confidence.  Unfortunately, somehow my confidence comes off as arrogance (quite often).  It's something I'm still working on. ;)

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,12:29   

Quote
What about stoning to death people who commit adultery?


Well, certainly I don't condone stoning.

sigh....those dratted OT law codes.  I've addressed this in the past as well, so I'll post it here for kicks:

 
Quote
Below you will find quotes from Josh in regard to the OT laws. I’ve pulled them from three different threads. He has obviously given this subject a lot of thought, and it is indeed a troubling issue for many Christians.

 
Quote
"I reject a God given to malicious tricks, so there can't be a conflict between what Moses wrote in the Torah and what is written in the world around us."

"The process of accepting particular religious evidence is different from scientific evidence. Christians don't keep kosher, almost no one rejects clothes made from two forms of cloth on religious grounds, slavery is considered immoral, despite the fact that the Bible has no problem with slavery. I try to think about the Tao Te Ching, and Buddha's teachings are a powerful source of inspiration, but no one accepts every line of religious evidence as equal."

"How we pick and choose is driven by our ability to integrate a particular teaching with our understanding of the world around us and what we believe the broad religious message to be. Slavery was acceptable because a Chosen People could set itself apart from other peoples in a way that modern humans, linked by a common ancestor, culture, and world, cannot. Cotton/wool blends are comfortable in the summer. Kosher laws are a hassle."

"It's the same reason that homosexuality is a heinous sin because of what the Bible says, but eating pork is OK, despite what the Bible says."

"It's convenient for religious authoritarians to use some Bible passages for their purposes, but others are inconvenient. Clothes made of two kinds of fibers are comfortable, and planting two kinds of crops in one field is handy. Leaving fields fallow one year in seven would be expensive. Forgiving all debts every 50th year would be a pain in the neck."

"It's silly to denigrate your opponents' morality. I think it's immoral to deny basic legal protections to any loving, consenting couple. That's an "extreme" position, but it's moral. Just a different morality from some other people's."


OK, Jeremy, I’m keeping my promise here. I wanted to take some time with this as it is a touchy subject for many people.

First I’m going to share an excerpt from the Emmy-winning show The West Wing.

The president of the United States, played by Martin Sheen, is shown twisting the host of a religious radio talk show into an intellectual pretzel.

The scene is the White House, at a meeting with broadcasters. When the religious radio host affirms that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, the president explodes with sarcasm:

“Yes it does!” he shouts. “Leviticus 18:22.”

“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions,” he says, beginning his interrogation. “I’m interested in selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 . . . what would be a good price for her?

“While thinking about that, can I ask you another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?”

Now on a roll, the president steams on triumphantly. “Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

“Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?"

“Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?”

He then sneeringly refers to Bible-believers as “the monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club.” The ensuing silence is deafening. The religious radio host has been verbally chastised into silent submission, her beliefs on homosexuality and the Bible exposed as intellectually absurd and morally bigoted.

Had the president of the United States really demonstrated that the Bible was out of date? Should it indeed be relegated to the scrap heap of history? Do the very Scriptures that condemn homosexuality also give praise to slavery? If so, then how can a Christian today use Scripture to assert that homosexuality is sinful?

I think some people are very uncomfortable when they think they are being told how to live. It is much easier to try to find holes in God’s message so that we can eliminate the laws He asks us to keep. What I think people tend to forget is that God is our creator (through creation or TE - doesn’t matter). He knows what is best for our body because He was the one who created it. He made us and knows what kind of lifestyle will make us happy, healthier people. In OT history, God gave Moses many of the laws to protect them from the affects of sin. Kind of like a guidelines handbook. This would include eating, drinking, clothing, ceremonies, rituals etc. etc. Remember that they were a nomadic desert community for many years. Things would apply to them that would never be considered in the modern world of convenience. Many of these laws were done away with in the New testament with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was the fulfillment of the law, thus many of those “guidelines for early Israel” do not play any part in what is going on today with Christianity. Now let me expand on that thought.....

Some of those OT laws seem a bit bizarre to us today, but when written (approx. 3,500 yrs. ago), I’m sure these laws had significant application. It is interesting the insight that the Israelites had in regard to quarantine, waste disposal, sterilization, etc. For example:

1. When the Black Plague was killing much of Europe prior to the Renaissance, desperate nations turned to the church for guidance. Returning to the Old Testament laws of Mosses, they instituted principles practiced by the Israelites for diseases like leprosy, handling of the dead and waste disposal.

2. A Biblical insight not understood until late 1800’s is the principle of basic sterilization (washing hands and clothing). Guidelines for washing are stressed in handling of the dead (Num 19). Basic purification practices (some ceremonial) and control of contamination were also specified for many other items including: “unclean” food (Lev 11:29-40), childbirth (Lev 12), bodily discharges (Lev 15) and infection (Lev 13). Even with ceremonial sacrifice and offerings, disease protection was controlled by thorough burning and washing (eg. Lev 6:8-13).

3. In the 1840’s the tragedy of non-scientific, non-Biblical medical practices was poignantly uncovered by Viennese Doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis. In his obstetrics ward he noticed an unusually high death rate of Women examined by teachers and students. The daily practice was to perform autopsies on the dead in the morning and later (without washing) give pelvic exams to new patients. A new practice of thorough washing after autopsies was instituted by the doctor. But it was greeted by sharp ridicule and disdain from his colleagues. Although deaths dropped sharply, Semmelweis’ contract was not renewed. Upon his leaving, washing stopped and deaths again sharply increased. Guidelines within the Bible were not recognized until 1865 by Joseph Lister, an honored scientist and a Christian.

Likewise we have the Agricultural Insights:

The Bible indicates God added an important insight by commanding the Israelites to “give the land a rest every seventh year” Lev 25:4 Today, the need to replenish soil with nutrients by crop rotation and the principle of “fallow” (resting the land) is well known. Although the Leviticus command was written about 1500 BC, the first evidence of the practice (other than Israel) was by the Romans about 200 BC. And it’s conceivable Rome learned of the practice from Israel.

Likewise, the Creator God knows that planting two types of seeds together would not yield a plentiful harvest. Incidentally the Israelites, by following these laws, were practicing excellent crop husbandry. In other words, the soil/crops were being rotated to prevent the soil from becoming sterile; “zapping the nutrients”.

In regard to slavery, I believe it was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it was allowed. You must remember that even though the Israelite slaves were treated very harshly by the Egyptians, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn’t the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. Some references to this are Exodus 10:10, 21:2, 21:20, and Leviticus 22:11. Remember also, that in modern times; that is, after the Civil War when emancipation was granted to numerous slaves the majority of them chose to remain with their masters on the plantation. So who knows what the situation was in Israel at the time.

In regard to wool & linen: (Deut. 22:11 & Lev. 19:19) In Hebrew, this forbidden mixture is called “shatnez” pronounced shot-nezz. It is an acronym for “combed, spun and woven”, which describes the stages in processing fabric: combing the raw fiber, spinning fibers into thread, and weaving the threads into cloth. (Kevin, forgive me but I am showing off...... do you like it!;) hee hee har har - I’m just kidding - I’m not even sure if that’s right.

Any whoooo....the only way I understand this is that, again, God is either issuing some sort of protection for His people or there is some meaning behind it that we are not aware of. The Old Testament does not explain the reason for shatnez and this would appear to be a law whose logic is not evident. (kind of like the forbidden eating of pork).

Here is the clincher in regard to the laws. Many of the laws and the sacrificial offerings were dispelled after the death of Christ. He was in essence the sacrificial lamb. There are many verses referring to this change in the “Law (or Covenant)”. Jesus broke bread describing it as his body - “broken” for the world. Likewise after supper, referring to the 3rd cup of wine (redemption cup) Jesus called it the NEW COVENANT in his blood... poured out for many.

Now, on to homosexuality.....

There were “sexual perversions” mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. These perversions are considered especially harmful. First Corinthians 6:18 says, “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Romans 1:26-27 says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...” Romans 1:28-32 goes on further...

These passages still ring out loud and clear in the New Testament, after the death & resurrection of Christ. They were considered perversions. Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic). There has never been a civilization that has embraced homosexuality as a normal function. Tolerated? Yes. Accepted into mainstream life? Never. (even pagan Rome did not embrace it.)

OK, having said that, how do we treat homosexuals? With as much kindness & respect as we would anyone else. We love the person, but not the sin. It’s kind of like the alcoholic - we love the person but not the problem.

Josh, I’m certainly not perfect, and I’ve done many things that I don’t even care to discuss. Let’s just say that some of the stuff I’ve done is no better than the sin of homosexuality. My late teens through my 20’s were quite interesting. I was a bit of a wild child. But, I can say with all confidence, once I started living the way God intended for me to live, things all fell into place.

I have a cousin-in-law who died from aids about 12 years ago, so I know the heartache that the lifestyle can cause for families. I have 3 other cousins that are gay, and I treat them like anyone else. I’m to chicken shit to tell them they should consider a different lifestyle. I wonder sometimes if I should, because I know it’s wrong and I already have one cousin who has died from aids.
Hmm... what to do.

Anyway, I know you didn’t want to wade through this much stuff, but I hate it when a issue like this is brought up and someone supplies a pat little answer without much explanation. So there you have it....... maybe to much information. Hope some of it made sense.


HTH....probably won't, but at least it will give you something else to bitch at me about. ;)

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,13:47   

FtK wrote, re Old Testament rules and regulations that seem a tad harsh today...
 
Quote
Here is the clincher in regard to the laws. Many of the laws and the sacrificial offerings were dispelled after the death of Christ.

I'll leave the rest of that lengthy and fascinating post to someone else, and just focus on the statement above.

Let's accept that at face value, just for the sake of argument. Is there some place where we can find a list of the OT stuff that no longer applies? Is homosexuality on the list? Is the list different for Catholics and Protestants? Is the list different for different brands of Protestants (some of whom accept homosexuality as a biological fact, rather than treating it as an OT-variety sin)? Who decides?

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,13:57   

FTK,

Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?

Do you remember the TV series Quantum Leap? Where at the start there was that annoying nasal female voiceover which went something like "hoping each time that this leap, would be the leap home" with dripping over schamltzy sympathetic whining on the word "home"? Well I do even if you don't. Perhaps we seem so keen because we're hoping that this IDCist will be the one that either comes up with the good old fashion concrete evidence that we hear so much about but never see* or will actually just admit they are wrong when confronted with the usual spades of overwhelming evidence.

Louis

*And before you bother, I've read everything by Dembski, Behe, Johnson and chums, and I really wasn't impressed. Even I could tell it was crap and maths (for example) certainly isn't my field. Some of us, scratch that, ALL of us are interested in nice new ideas. We get terribly disappointed and snarky when they turn out to be old, bad ideas that are well refuted, dressed up in sparkly new clothes to fool the gullible.

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:13   

Maybe you should have gone ahead and read the rest of it.

 
Quote
There were “sexual perversions” mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. These perversions are considered especially harmful. First Corinthians 6:18 says, “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Romans 1:26-27 says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...” Romans 1:28-32 goes on further...

These passages still ring out loud and clear in the New Testament, after the death & resurrection of Christ. They were considered perversions. Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic). There has never been a civilization that has embraced homosexuality as a normal function. Tolerated? Yes. Accepted into mainstream life? Never. (even pagan Rome did not embrace it.)


There was a LOT of stuff in those law code that applied to people at the time they were given in regard to the environment they were living in.  As far as the new covenant goes, the sacrificial system was done away with due to the ultimate sacrifice.  But, the NT doesn't do away with ALL the laws and we find them scattered throughout.  There is a lot to say about how we treat each other, stuff about sexual perversions, etc.  

Jesus stated that the two most important commandments were to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.  That certainly covers a lot of ground.  Course, he wasn't the only one to mention those ground rules.  I think if we apply the sermon at the mount as well, we get a good idea of how we should live.  But, the law is not completely demolished because many of those things automatically fall under the teachings of the NT.

And, yup, I'm sure Christians vary on the interpretation of what a "sin" is and what is not.  So what?  We do the best we can.  But, I don't know of many traditional Christians who do not adhere to the new convenant in Christ.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:18   

Ah a conversation about teh gay and all the curdling little bits of good honest christian hate it engenders.

Stephen Fry again, from his autobiography, Moab Is My Washpot:

Quote
There are plenty of other things to be got up to in the homosexual world outside the orbit of the anal ring, but the concept that really gets the goat of the gay-hater, the idea that really spins their melon and sickens their stomach is that most terrible and terrifying of all human notions, love. That one can love another of the same gender, that is what the homophobe really cannot stand. Love in all eight tones and all five semitones of the word's full octave. Love as agape, eros and philos; love as romance, friendship and adoration; love as infatuation, obsession and lust; love as torture, euphoria, ecstasy and oblivion (this is beginning to read like a Calvin Klein perfume catalogue); love as need, passion and desire.


And this, from an interview in OutUK:

Quote
What you do with your penis or your bottom or anything else is so supremely irrelevant in a moral sense. It's what we do with our personalities and other people that matters.


Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:30   

Quote
Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?


Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  It is the philosophical position that everything evolved from that first molecule that renders the problem.  Hence you are considered Darwinists.  Sorry.

As far as you "spoiling for a fight", it seems that from what I've read in this forum you guys are rather delighted with the thought, and you throw out fighting words and ridicule at the drop of a hat.  So, yeah, I think some of you enjoy the "fight".

If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:36   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,14:13)
Maybe you should have gone ahead and read the rest of it.

I presume this is supposed to be a response to my post.
Well, this time I did "read the rest of it". But I didn't find a list. Therefore I requested a list, or some linkage to such a list. I don't think I got that anywhere in your response; I did get a bunch of vague handwaving about a new covenant. Who came up with this covenant, did they generate a list, and when did this occur? Has it changed since it was first devised? When?
Remember, I'm a scientist, and I prefer explicit answers rather than vagueness. If such a list doesn't exist, or if it might vary with time, or creed, or ???, then you'll have to forgive me if I don't seem too impressed with what seems to be another version of "what the Iron Age pundits mean to me, personally."
Care to try again?

--------------
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: April 13 2007,14:37   

Louis, the term "hate" is something that I hope you never apply to what you believe ~my~ feelings are toward anyone or anything.  

I do not "hate".

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

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:37   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,14:13)
Jesus stated that the two most important commandments were to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.  

Well, I have no God and so that is out.  How about my neighbour's daughter?  She is cute.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:40   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:30)
If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

which position did we miss here? And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:51   

Quote
But I didn't find a list.


LOL, well Mr. Scientist, no, I don't have a "list".  Are you familiar with the NT?  It's pretty obvious from reading it and the lessons it provides to get a fair idea how one should live their life.  I'm not sure anyone has a "list".  

I think the reason being is that although we try ~very hard~ to follow the suggestions laid out, we all fuck up quite frequently.  Hence, we're in need of and receive forgiveness.  Not to say that if we are living in opposition to how we were to designed to live we won't suffer some consequences, but there is forgiveness.  

Of course, if we run out and commit a million heinous acts because we know we merely have to kneel at the alter and ask forgiveness, that's not living as Christ would have us live, and we're obviously not taking our faith seriously.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:52   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,14:30)
 
Quote
Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?


Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  It is the philosophical position that everything evolved from that first molecule that renders the problem.  Hence you are considered Darwinists.  Sorry.

As far as you "spoiling for a fight", it seems that from what I've read in this forum you guys are rather delighted with the thought, and you throw out fighting words and ridicule at the drop of a hat.  So, yeah, I think some of you enjoy the "fight".

If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

Boy, there is a lot of stuff in that comment that needs to be unpacked.

FtK - Do you understand the difference between a personal insult (vile hag) and a pejorative term which implies that you learned all the biology you need to know from creationist websites?
Do you understand that terms have specific meanings in science, and that misuse of those terms not only impedes communication, but implies ignorance of the topic under discussion?
Do you understand that repeated misuse of terms, particularly if others have made multiple attempts to correct that misuse, marks you as not only ignorant but unwilling to engage in productive communication?
Do you understand that your perception of others "spoiling for a fight" might have a lot to do with your misuse of that (and other) terms, which automatically marks you as ignorant and unwilling to engage in productive communication?
And finally, do you understand that your self-description as being an evolutionist, while denying the fact of common descent and the evidence for macroevolution, does nothing to dispel either of those perceptions?

Words have meanings. Communication depends on understanding and accepting those meanings. Honest communication depends on not changing those meanings to suit ourselves.

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:56   

Quote
Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  


Splendid. Care to tell us:

a) do you believe the Noah's ark story literally happened?

b) how old do you think the earth is?

c) do you believe in 'macroevolution'?

d) do you believe in common descent?

Or let me simplify d) for you: do you think humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees?

if no to d), then please explain our 98% genetic similarity to chimpanzees.

Thanks in advance, since I'm sure you won't ignore or evade these questions this time, right?

 
Quote
And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?


I think I can answer that. She's totally willing to discuss science except we're all mean and uncivil. Except when we're civil, then she's already explained it all elsewhere, and she won't discuss science with us because we obviously don't want to discuss it with her and she has household chores she has to get back to anyway.

Did I guess right?

--------------
"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: April 13 2007,15:03   

Quote (stevestory @ April 13 2007,14:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:30)
If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

which position did we miss here? And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?

Honey, I'm not talking about me.  I'm talking about you people working with the big guys from my side of this debate.  

All this immature bickering back and forth is really getting us no where, and my worry is that your side is set on pushing discussions of these issues into the private sector rather than the public square.

You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church which, IMO, is going to lead to many more problems in the end.  By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:09   

Quote
Honey, I'm not talking about me.  I'm talking about you people working with the big guys from my side of this debate.  


Translated: "I'm just making shit up, so don't ask me to provide specific details about anything".

 
Quote

All this immature bickering back and forth is really getting us no where,


Yeah, a huge barrage of ignored questions will do that.

 
Quote
and my worry is that your side is set on pushing discussions of these issues into the private sector rather than the public square.


Was plate tectonics decided in the 'public square'?

--------------
"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: April 13 2007,15:32   

Dave - got it.  FTK = ignorant.  You've made that point many times in the past.  Does repeating yourself get tiring?  

Arden - NACIH (not a chance in ####) that I'd touch those topics with a ten foot pole *here*. :)

Got some "household chores" I gotta get back to.

Later people!!!!

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:42   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:32)
Arden - NACIH (not a chance in ####) that I'd touch those topics with a ten foot pole *here*. :)


Your tough gal routine here is a little unconvincing, given your fear of answering basic questions.

Simple question for you to answer:

"I believe the age of the earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years
b) around 6,000 years
c) several thousand years
d) other"

All you have to do is give one of those four letters. If you pick d), we'd appreciate it if you elaborated.

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:43   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church

You aren't paying attention. I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university. Nobody here said those classes should have been cancelled. Probably every single person here is in favor of philosophy of science classes featuring discussions of ID/creationism.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:49   

"I've got evidence God exists"
       "Show it to me then"
"No, but i've got this book....."

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:53   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:53   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:32)
Dave - got it.  FTK = ignorant.  You've made that point many times in the past.  Does repeating yourself get tiring?

Wrong, again.

FtK = ignorant about science (you might be quite intelligent about other stuff, I have no idea)

Additionally, as has been pointed out by me and lots of others, questioning your ideas and understanding of science is not personal. That's how science works (ideally). Let's talk about the ideas, and see if we can get past the personal stuff.

And yes, it does get tiring to keep saying that (and lots of other things). You could help me out by giving me a glimmer of hope that you understand 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: April 13 2007,16:05   

Click here to apply for the 2003 ISCID Undergraduate Summer Workshop.

--------------
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: April 13 2007,16:13   

Quote
I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university.


In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class).

But, the problem is that those who would be approved to teach the class would probably guys like Elsberry or Krebs.  In that case, the course would be useless.  That would be like having Kent Hovind teach a class on evolution (or ID or creation science for that matter - LOL).  

See the problem?  

It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:19   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,17:13)
Quote
I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university.


In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class).

In theory nothing. I had several of these classes. In real life. At an ordinary public university.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:23   

Quote (stevestory @ April 13 2007,16:19)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,17:13)
 
Quote
I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university.


In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class).

In theory nothing. I had several of these classes. In real life. At an ordinary public university.

Yes, it's called 'Philosophy of Science'. Many of those wicked secular humanist universities teach it.

Quote

But, the problem is that those who would be approved to teach the class would probably guys like Elsberry or Krebs.  In that case, the course would be useless.


Why? Real, informed scientists can't be trusted?

--------------
"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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:24   

Quote
It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues?

I don't think you can support this statement. Also, I'd like to second Steve's question at the top of this page.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:30   

Oh, I understand, Dave.  I simply disagree. ;)

Honestly, I do understand the concerns that many of you have.   But, I still think that ID falls under the category of science, and I don't believe that it is a threat to scientific advancement whatsoever.   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:54   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:23   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)
Oh, I understand, Dave.  I simply disagree. ;)

Before I reply in any detail, I guess I need to know with which of the (five or so) questions I posed, do you "simply disagree"? It might be interesting to see how you finesse your thinking that it is OK to appear ignorant by repeating a gratuitously insulting term, but not OK to be called ignorant when you do that...
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)
Honestly, I do understand the concerns that many of you have.   But, I still think that ID falls under the category of science, and I don't believe that it is a threat to scientific advancement whatsoever.   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.


It might not be a "threat to scientific advancement", but it will never be a contributor, either. And it is a threat to education, because it promotes unscientific and muddled thinking, conflates science with religion and philosophy, and wastes time.

Again, as just about everyone else on this thread has pointed out, ID will be seriously considered as science when ID predictions are tested, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals as well as presented (and criticized) at regular scientific meetings. The reluctance of mainstream scientists to short-circuit that pathway is something that you certainly do need to understand. You can keep saying that you you "think" it is science, but that is not going to be enough. Ever.

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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:33   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:51)
 Most parents don't want their children to end up dead, and with the STD's we've got floating around these days, you'd have to be a complete moron not to advise your kids of all the options.

Ya mean like THESE "complete morons" . . . . ?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....47.html

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:35   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,06:30)
I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

I suggest promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

Abstinence students still having sex. Which hardly surprises me.

Ftk, speaking only for me, you're talking to a nerdy bookworm who was 1) too unpopular to care about peer pressure 2) saw too many girls get pregnant and said, "Not me" 3) had an escape plan to get out of Dodge 4) was holding out for a Carl Sagan type. Believe it or not, I believe it's a good idea to wait at least until one is out of high school. But I also believe in advocating condom use.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:35   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,07:30)
 I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

So I take it then that you'd be in favor of abortion rights for people in those situations . . . . ?

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:44   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)
  The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.

Then, uh, why do so many Christians and other theists think ID/creationism is full of shit?

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

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:55   

I know this is WAAAAAY past when it appeared, but I have a little bone to pick:

" Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic)."

The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic. The vector that brought it to the US was a gay male, and therefore the epicenter of the epidemic in the US was the gay community, primarily on the west coast, in the late 70's.  However, HIV is spread by any sexual contact, and also be blood exchange (drug use or transfusion). To imply that AIDS is a consequence of same-sex unions is false. It is very much a disease of heterosexuals in many other countries, and can be contracted even if a person has done nothing "morally" wrong.

Sorry-I've been out of town and it just burns me to see this sort of stuff.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:00   

Hey FTK, I am (mildly) curious about soemthing.  In the 25 years that I have been fighting creationists/IDers, I have noticed a particular pattern amongst them all -- a pattern that you follow, too.  All of them, like you, have refused to answer any specific scientific questions, and all of them, like you, plead that they "don't have the time" for it.

Yet all of them, just like you, suddenly find all the time in the world when the discussion turns to their particular religious opinions. I've never yet, in two and a half decades, every had an ID/creationist refuse to discuss his religious opinions with me, or tell me that he "didn't have the time" to tell me all about them.

Why is that?

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:06   

Quote
Abstinence students still having sex. Which hardly surprises me.


Doesn't surprise me in the least either.  That is why I stated that I support abstinence +.  See, that way if your abstinence goal fails, you know exactly what route to take next.  Make sense?  I think that would work rather well.  I TOTALLY disagree with abstinence ~only~ classes.  

 
Quote
Ftk, speaking only for me, you're talking to a nerdy bookworm who was 1) too unpopular to care about peer pressure 2) saw too many girls get pregnant and said, "Not me" 3) had an escape plan to get out of Dodge 4) was holding out for a Carl Sagan type. Believe it or not, I believe it's a good idea to wait at least until one is out of high school. But I also believe in advocating condom use.


Again, we're very much alike.  1) Average popularity, but I was pretty shy in high school so I had a hard time striking up conversation with the guys much less get into bed with one.  LOL.  2) Also watched friends end up pregnant, and still know some of them today.  Their lives were seriously affected by their mistakes. 3)  I also wanted to "get out of Dodge" and did, but found out that "Dodge" wasn't all that bad so I hightailed it back eventually.  4)  Had way to much respect for myself to allow myself to get used like some of my friends did.  5) Also believe having sex during those high school years is usually a mistake.  6) I have no problem advocating condom use.

My "wild" days didn't include sleeping around.  Unfortunately, I was a lush.  Drank to hide the shyness - got pretty crazy.

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

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:07   

BTW
Let it be known that I in no way apply moral judgement to homosexual behavior or orientation. It has been shown that it is a natural variation in sexual behavior, and if is between consenting adults, is no one's business. I know gay adults in loving, long term monogamous relationships just as I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous and/or uncommitted to any one person. Either way, their lives are their business and it is not for me to judge.
As far as morality, my standards are simple: if what you do promotes the dignity and value of another human being, whatever their religion, sexual orientation, politics or race, then it is a good thing. If it denies them full citizenship or implies that they are not worthy of acceptance and love, then it is wrong.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:29   

Quote
Why is that?


Well, let me tell you why that is, Lenny.  Most of us have been around a while and have had the "science" discussions in the past.  I spent literally years in a forum where I carried on dialogue about the scientific issues until I finally got the boot.  I did talk about religion, philosophy and everything else under the sun as well.  But, there was a lot of science covered.  

I think many of us learn that some crowds are not really interested in our point of view.  They've heard the issues before, just as we have, so they point us to talkorigins, and we point to them trueorigins or other sites, and there is a back and forth that lasts forever without either side being able to convince the other of anything.  Then the whole discussion starts over again...and again...and again.  There are defininently different interpretations of the data and I'm convinced that we cannot state emphatically that one "side" is correct over the other.  

So, what's the point in a layperson like me going through these issues again?  Now, I can see where a thorough written or oral debate might be quite interesting.  But, that would be between the leading advocates from both sides of this controversy.  

Why do I talk about religious & philosophical issues?  Well, because people always bring up something about religion and that just automatically leads to further conversation. It doesn't take me as much time to field those questions because I don't feel like I'm being set up.  I honestly don't care what anyone thinks about my religious beliefs.  But, when I'm answering questions about science, I have to be very careful to articulate exactly what I mean because I've found that people have a knack for misunderstanding my position.  Either I'm not clear, or they unconsciously misrepresent my position.  

And, Lenny, it is interesting that this question comes from you.  I've seen you in action in many forums now.  Your approach is probably one of the worst I've seen if your goal is to actually engage in serious discussion.  I highly doubt if you have any true intention of doing that.

PS:  I thought you told me you didn't want me to talk to you, but you keep asking me questions. ;)

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:37   

Quote
The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic.


Okay, I'll buy that.  Sorry to have made that connection.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,19:33   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29)
Why do I talk about religious & philosophical issues?

Here, FTK, let me help you with a  much shorter answer:



Because that is all there is to ID/creationism.


That would also be the HONEST answer, too, but I long ago gave up expecting honesty from ID/creationists.  (shrug)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,19:47   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29)
 I've seen you in action in many forums now.  Your approach is probably one of the worst I've seen if your goal is to actually engage in serious discussion.  I highly doubt if you have any true intention of doing that.

There should be no doubt about it at all whatsoever --- I absolutely positively have no intention whatsoever of any "debate" with ID/creationists.  On the scientific front, they simply HAVE nothing to debate -- just a lot of religious opinions about God and Noah's Flood and such, dressed up in sciency-sounding language.  As for the religious front, first of all, I don't CARE about their (or your) religious opinions, since you aren't God's Spokesperson™©, you're not any more divine than anyone else is, you don't know any more about god than anyone else alive does, and your religious opinions are just that -- your opinions -- and aren't any more authoritative than my religious opinioins, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.  (shrug)

My aim is crushingly simple, and I make no secret of it whatseover ----- my aim is to point out to everyone the theocratic POLITICAL agenda behind ID/creationism, to oppose that political agenda on every front, to destroy ID/creationism as an effective political movement, and to keep it as far away from real political power as possible.

You can preach your religious opinions from now until Jesus comes back --- I couldn't care less about them. But when you and your ilk attempt to use political power to force your religious opinions onto others whether they like it or not (particularly when you lie about it by claiming your religious opinions are really "science"), then I will fight you and your ilk whenever, wherever and however I have to.  One of my best friends is from Iran, and he has seen firsthand what happens when religious nuts are allowed to gain political power.  I have no intention at all of allowing that to happen here.

Fortunately, ID/creationism is, as an effective political movement, now dead.  Dead, dead, dead.   As long as it consists solely of simple-minded uneducated preachers like you, there is nothing to fear from it, and all I'll do now is sit back and laugh at your dishonest evasive deceptive antics.

But if ID/creationism ever again gains political support for its theocratic agenda, I will again fight it, in whatever manner I need to.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,19:51   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29)
PS:  I thought you told me you didn't want me to talk to you, but you keep asking me questions. ;)

My questions make their point all by themselves, FTK, whether you answer or not.

I don't need your cooperation, and I don't really care if I get your cooperation or not.

Answer; don't answer.  Makes no difference to me.  (shrug)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,20:16   

Quote (lkeithlu @ April 13 2007,18:07)
BTW
Let it be known that I in no way apply moral judgement to homosexual behavior or orientation. It has been shown that it is a natural variation in sexual behavior, and if is between consenting adults, is no one's business. I know gay adults in loving, long term monogamous relationships just as I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous and/or uncommitted to any one person. Either way, their lives are their business and it is not for me to judge.
As far as morality, my standards are simple: if what you do promotes the dignity and value of another human being, whatever their religion, sexual orientation, politics or race, then it is a good thing. If it denies them full citizenship or implies that they are not worthy of acceptance and love, then it is wrong.

Amen, brother.

What consenting adults do with their wee-wee's is nobody else's business or concern.

Alas, the fundies don't want to "get government off our backs" --- they want to "get government in our bedrooms".

"Conservatives", my ass.



Telling people what they SHOULD do or not do, is a far different matter than telling people what they CAN do or not do.

Fundies seem quite unable to tell the difference.  Indeed, they seem quite *uninterested* in the difference.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,22:11   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 13 2007,17:44)
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)
  The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.

Then, uh, why do so many Christians and other theists think ID/creationism is full of shit?

She won't answer your question. Maintaining the 'evolutionist = atheist' myth is very important to FTK.

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,22:18   

to FtK for the third time:

 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?

And an additional question for FtK: Since you've now been informed that the claims of ID/creationism are discussed in Philosophy of Science classes in public universities in all 50 states, and nobody here has objected to that practice, will you retract the obviously wrong claim that

Quote
You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church...

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,22:27   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,17:30)
The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.

Wesley Elsberry, the christian who owns and operates this here discussion board, is afraid of the implication that god might exist?

FtK, you make it hard to be respectful sometimes.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,23:09   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 13 2007,22:11)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 13 2007,17:44)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)
  The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.

Then, uh, why do so many Christians and other theists think ID/creationism is full of shit?

She won't answer your question. Maintaining the 'evolutionist = atheist' myth is very important to FTK.

Indeed, as it is to the entire ID/creationist political movement . . . That dishonest myth is, of course, the primary reason behind much of their fundraising, much of their grassroots recruiting, and much of their political support.

Of course, though, I didn't expect any answer from FTK on the matter.

Nor do I expect any explanation from her as to why most of the plaintiffs in the 1981 Arkansas trial that outlawed creation 'science' were clergy and representatives of churches and religious groups, or why the founder of People for the American Way is an ordained minister, or why most of the Dover plaintiffs were church-going theists.

Nor do I expect any comment whatsoever from FTK if I use some simple math to make a point:  in the US, about 50% of the population accepts ID/creationism, and about 50% thinks it's a load of horsecrap.  In the US, the percentage of the population that is atheist and/or agnostic is, at most, around 15%.  Using fourth grade mathematics, we can see that (assuming that each and every atheist/agnostic accepts evolution and rejects ID), then about 35% of the US population is both theistic and accepts evolution/rejects ID.  Over twice as many as those who are atheist and who accept evolution/reject ID.  Or, to put it another way, more than two out of every three people in the US who accept evolution and reject creationism/ID are not atheists -- i.e., most of the people in the US who accept evolution and reject creationism/ID are, uh, theists.  Ya know, as in "believe in God".  As in "not atheist".

Which makes the shrill "evolution equals atheism!!!!" crapola that comes from ID/creationists look . . . well . . . pretty stupid.  And pretty dishonest.

Nope, I don't expect any response from FTK about that.  None at all whatsoever.

But if I *do* get one, then I hope --- please, please, pretty please -- that it's the same ole  "well, ya see, they're not Real Christians™© like I am"  refrain.

I want everyone to see just what self-righteous arrogant holier-than-thou (literally) pride-filled pricks, people like FTK actually are.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,23:53   

Quote
Wesley Elsberry, the christian who owns and operates this here discussion board, is afraid of the implication that god might exist?


I'm relatively sure (though I'm not a mind reader) that even though Wesley is a Christian, he is on some level concerned about the religious implications of ID.  So, yes, I do think that even TE's are in this debate due to the religious implications.  They feel their religious beliefs are on the line as well.  

I've found that many TE's think that those who support ID have a hidden agenda to bring a particular religious belief into the public schools.  Obviously, they wouldn't want that.  Some TE's believe that ID supporters want to actually teach biblical creation in the science class.  

Others TE's don't want ID taught because they believe it is in conflict with their Christian beliefs in which they hold that the Creator created all of life through the mechanisms of evolution.   I've had a TE tell me that he did not want his children to feel uncomfortable in school due to their Christian belief that God created the world through evolutionary means, and he felt that ID may create that type of atmosphere.

So, yes, I think virtually everyone (if they are honest) must admit that the religious implications do have great bearing on their involvement in this debate.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,00:30   

Quote

So, yes, I think virtually everyone (if they are honest) must admit that the religious implications do have great bearing on their involvement in this debate.


Yes, in the sense that ID is misdirected religion and not science, and so many people are understandably uncomfortable calling it science.

--------------
"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

  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,01:13   

I realize this is a little late (and OT), but I have always wanted to be able to question somebody who believes that slavery "Bible style" is okay. FtK, I realize that you are up front about not putting much thought into what you write here, but I have never been able to wrap my head around the idea of using anything as a moral guide which allows the ownership of another person, and I'm hoping, at least, for a peek further inside the reasoning of somebody who does.

First of, let me emphasize the parts of what you already wrote that I find most puzzling.

Quote
In regard to slavery, I believe it was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it was allowed. You must remember that even though the Israelite slaves were treated very harshly by the Egyptians, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn’t the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. Some references to this are Exodus 10:10, 21:2, 21:20, and Leviticus 22:11. Remember also, that in modern times; that is, after the Civil War when emancipation was granted to numerous slaves the majority of them chose to remain with their masters on the plantation. So who knows what the situation was in Israel at the time.


What I take away from the above is that you believe that God allows slavery because he allows evil into the world, but he only does so grudgingly, and he makes sure that there are rules about how masters should treat their slaves.

What I would like is a little clarification on two issues. The first is why slavery is the exception. Sure, there's evil in the world and we have free will to chose, but there are still plenty of rules in the Bible about the right choice and the wrong choice. Why allow the existence of slavery (and legitimize it by making rules which govern it) while making a commandment against coveting your neighbor's possessions? It would seem, from a naive standpoint, to be marking some actions as as worse than others. Do you think this means that coveting is worse than slavery?

The second issue I have would like clarification on is whether you really feel that the rules laid on on how to treat slaves are proper. Some of them seem outright cruel in my eyes (e.g. allowing a slave to go free but not letting the family go, allowing the death of a slave to go unpunished if he holds out for two days before dying). Since you pointed these out as examples, I assume that you feel that these are some of the proper rules on how to treat a slave, and I would like to know what context makes these moral actions.

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,04:15   

FTK,
Quote
I've found that many TE's think that those who support ID have a hidden agenda to bring a particular religious belief into the public schools


I think many of us are puzzled as to what exactly that it is ID would like to teach kids?
The vast majority (www.uncommondescent.com) of ID seems to be about picking minor holes in "darwinism" and not providing positive proof for ID itself. It's almost as if they think that if they disprove "darwinism" ID is true by default.

FTK, what specifically would you want taught in ID Class? Icons of evolution? Pandas and People? What?

FTK, do you realise that you have no credibility whatsoever because you refuse to "go there" on the subject of the earths age, and the other simple questions you've been asked. You might not realize, but we're not interested in going there either, because there's nothing there but a fact! We're not after a discussion on the age of the earth, because there's nothing to discuss!

What colour is red?
How heavy is a one ton weight?
Is water wet?
How old is the earth?
Does gravity work?

--------------
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: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,04:29   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:13)
Quote
I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university.


In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class).

But, the problem is that those who would be approved to teach the class would probably guys like Elsberry or Krebs.  In that case, the course would be useless.  That would be like having Kent Hovind teach a class on evolution (or ID or creation science for that matter - LOL).  

See the problem?  

It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues?

I don't think that I've ever been so thoroughly insulted before. What was that about IDC advocates not hurling insults?

Convicted felon "Dr." Kent Hovind teaching a course on evolution would be useless because he does not know the topic. If I were teaching a course on philosophy of science that took up IDC, there certainly would be no such problem on my part. FtK apparently does have an issue that is based simply on advocacy status.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,04:42   

Quote

Honestly, I do understand the concerns that many of you have.   But, I still think that ID falls under the category of science, and I don't believe that it is a threat to scientific advancement whatsoever.   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.


My religion says that lying is wrong. Yours apparently doesn't.

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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,07:35   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29)
 Your approach is probably one of the worst I've seen if your goal is to actually engage in serious discussion.  

By the way, let's just make mention of what FTK herself wrote, on her very first days here:

Quote
Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  


I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.



You are, like every other ID/creationist I've met in the last 25 years, a dishonest evasive deceptive hypocritical liar.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,07:42   

Hey FTK, since you seem to have no interest in discussing creation, uh, "science", but lots of interest in telling everyone all about your religious opinions, I have a couple questions for you.  I want to see just how nutty you really are:

*ahem*


Quote
I Corinthians:  34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.




Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church, FTK?



Quote
Exodus 22:18   Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.



Do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist, FTK?  If so, do you think they should be killed?

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

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,07:45   

Okay, I'm coming here a little late.
What, then, do you, FTK, plan to discuss?
I thought that ID was being touted as science. Why not discuss the "science"?
Afterall, that's what the DI wants, for ID to be discussed in the scientific arena (only, they want to change the ground rules for how that is done)
Just curious (to save having to slog through pages) is your background in one of the fields of science? in secondary school education?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,07:52   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,23:53)
I've found that many TE's think that those who support ID have a hidden agenda to bring a particular religious belief into the public schools.  Obviously, they wouldn't want that.  Some TE's believe that ID supporters want to actually teach biblical creation in the science class.

Well heck, the ID agenda isn't "hidden" at all.  Indeed, anyone can read it for themselves -- just do a Google search for "the wedge document".

Some excerpts:

Quote
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.


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.



FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation






Gee, FTK, I certainly can't see any reason why anyone would think that ID is just an agenda to bring a particular religious belief into schools, or to think that ID supporters want to actually teach biblical creation (or "traditional doctrine of creation") in the science class.  Can you?

Are you really this dishonest, deceptive and evasive, FTK?  Or are you just not terribly bright and woefully uninformed?

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,08:38   

Quote (cdesign proponentsist @ April 14 2007,01:13)
I realize this is a little late (and OT), but I have always wanted to be able to question somebody who believes that slavery "Bible style" is okay. FtK, I realize that you are up front about not putting much thought into what you write here, but I have never been able to wrap my head around the idea of using anything as a moral guide which allows the ownership of another person, and I'm hoping, at least, for a peek further inside the reasoning of somebody who does.

First of, let me emphasize the parts of what you already wrote that I find most puzzling.

 
Quote
In regard to slavery, I believe it was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it was allowed. You must remember that even though the Israelite slaves were treated very harshly by the Egyptians, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn’t the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. Some references to this are Exodus 10:10, 21:2, 21:20, and Leviticus 22:11. Remember also, that in modern times; that is, after the Civil War when emancipation was granted to numerous slaves the majority of them chose to remain with their masters on the plantation. So who knows what the situation was in Israel at the time.


What I take away from the above is that you believe that God allows slavery because he allows evil into the world, but he only does so grudgingly, and he makes sure that there are rules about how masters should treat their slaves.

It sounds to me as if FTK is a "situational ethicist", who thinks that things are not *inherently* right or wrong, in all times and places, but that right and wrong vary from time to time and place to place, depending upon local cultures and history.  I.e., slavery might be wrong here and now, but was OK there and then.  Things outlawed in the Old Testament times were wrong then, but not wrong in New Testament times. Divine rules change from time to time and place to place.

Right, FTK?

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,08:42   

Another quick question for you, FTK:

Quote

Acts 2:44 --- And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45.  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.




It sounds like the Apostles were, um, Communists.

Would you like to comment on that, please?

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,09:21   

cdesign proponentsist,

I'd be happy to address your post, but Lenny et. al.  are sick of the religious mumbo jumbo.  Want me to send a response to you privately?  Just let me know.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,09:28   

Quote
FTK, do you realise that you have no credibility whatsoever because you refuse to "go there" on the subject of the earths age, and the other simple questions you've been asked.


Fine...age of the earth....maybe 4.5 billion/maybe somewhere around 10,000.  I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

As far as some of the other questions being asked, I've rambled on and on about many of them at my blog and in other forums.  I'm almost ready to post a response to Dave, and no doubt he'll bring it back over here for you all to critique and reject on account of my "dishonestly".

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,09:53   

Quote
I don't think that I've ever been so thoroughly insulted before. What was that about IDC advocates not hurling insults?


You and I disagree on our term “insult”.  What bothers me in these forums is that many evolutionists are vicious in their name calling routine.  There are thousands of examples to choose from, but here are just a couple that were recently thrown at Dr. Egnor:

Quote
“Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,”

“..compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.”

“...let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,”

“...if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.”


I do apologize for comparing you to Hovind, and I agree that was a bit over the top.  I was trying to make a strong point.  I would be very uncomfortable having you teach a course on ID because you obviously believe that all ID supporters are liars, so it would be questionable as to how you would approach the topic of ID with your students.  Now, obviously, I don’t know you at all.  So, it could be that you are one of the few who would be able to leave their emotional baggage at the door and teach ID as an ID advocate would teach it.  I believe that would be quite difficult for a guy who works for an organization who is out to stop the movement at all cost, but who knows.  

Quote
My religion says that lying is wrong. Yours apparently doesn't.


Well, for a guy who doesn’t like getting insulted, you certainly have no problem insulting others.  I’m not a liar.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,10:15   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:28)
Quote
FTK, do you realise that you have no credibility whatsoever because you refuse to "go there" on the subject of the earths age, and the other simple questions you've been asked.


Fine...age of the earth....maybe 4.5 billion/maybe somewhere around 10,000.  I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

You tell 'em, FTK! Don't let yourself be pushed around by them pointy-headed atheist meanie scientists with their 'evidence' and their 150+ years of scientific consensus! If you want to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old then you go right ahead and believe that, since when it comes to science, any opinion is as good as any other!

--------------
"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: April 14 2007,10:18   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:53)
 
Quote
I don't think that I've ever been so thoroughly insulted before. What was that about IDC advocates not hurling insults?


You and I disagree on our term “insult”.  What bothers me in these forums is that many evolutionists are vicious in their name calling routine.  There are thousands of examples to choose from, but here are just a couple that were recently thrown at Dr. Egnor:

   
Quote
“Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,”

“..compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.”

“...let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,”

“...if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.”


I do apologize for comparing you to Hovind, and I agree that was a bit over the top.  I was trying to make a strong point.  I would be very uncomfortable having you teach a course on ID because you obviously believe that all ID supporters are liars, so it would be questionable as to how you would approach the topic of ID with your students.  Now, obviously, I don’t know you at all.  So, it could be that you are one of the few who would be able to leave their emotional baggage at the door and teach ID as an ID advocate would teach it.  I believe that would be quite difficult for a guy who works for an organization who is out to stop the movement at all cost, but who knows.  

   
Quote
My religion says that lying is wrong. Yours apparently doesn't.


Well, for a guy who doesn’t like getting insulted, you certainly have no problem insulting others.  I’m not a liar.

If these are thousands of examples of insults to choose from, I find it strange all of your's were cherry picked for you by The Discovery Institute?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007....ri.html
 
Quote
In fact, Darwinist attacks upon Egnor are nothing new. Last summer a Darwinist wrote that “Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,” and compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.” More recently, Egnor pointed out the viciousness of Darwinist attacks upon Michael Behe. Egnor was then greeted with telling replies from Darwinist commenters on PZ Myers’ blog who wrote things like: “let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,” and explained away Behe's perseverance through the attacks by saying “if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.” Yet for all their numbers and name-calling, not a single one has answered Egnor’s question: How does Darwinian mechanisms produce new biological information?

Are you a paid shill for the disco institute?

--------------
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: April 14 2007,10:38   

LOL.  No, though it certainly would be cool to get paid to play on the internet!!!  Shoot, as much time as I've spent in cyberspace the last few years, I'd be a milionaire by now.  

From what I read in Monkey Girl, it appears that Matzke gets paid to play.  Hmmm...there must be a few DI guys that check in here every once in a great while to see what Elsberry is up to...

[ANY OF YOU DI GUYS WANNA PAY ME TO MIX IT UP WITH THESE NASTY 'OL DARWINISTS??????]

Actually, that's a pretty funny accusation, Oldguy.  The DI guys would probably be more comfortable having me disappear from the Internet due to the fact that I'm nothin' other than a layperson.  I probably do them more harm than good.

I used Casey's stuff because it was handy.  I already had it on my blog and rather than go through individual blogs and forum, I just pulled the quotes from what I had.

Although, I suppose I'd merely have to go through a couple of Lenny's posts from the past few days and have plenty to work with.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,10:43   

God Ftk you take the cake.

What do you do for a crust, sell used cars or something?

I'll bet you know every trick in the book.

Come on give us some more 'honesty'.

Shouldn't you be peeling bannas and stuffing them in gearboxes or winding back speedometers?

Do you have any idea .....even just an inkling, that you are a total moron?

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,10:49   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,10:38)
Although, I suppose I'd merely have to go through a couple of Lenny's posts from the past few days and have plenty to work with.

Then do so! Or apologise to Lenny!

--------------
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: April 14 2007,10:51   

Quote
Do you have any idea .....even just an inkling, that you are a total moron?


Well, I certainly consider that possibility ever single day.  God knows, I get my daily dose of evolutionists telling me what a complete moronic idiot I am.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,10:58   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,10:38)
I used Casey's stuff because it was handy.  I already had it on my blog and rather than go through individual blogs and forum, I just pulled the quotes from what I had.

I wonder did you even check the quotes to see if they were accurate (and in fact existed) before "using them on your blog"? Or did you just repeat what Casey had to say?
If a "darwinist" used data without checking it's veracity you would no doubt be the first in line to call them out!
But like you say    
Quote
My personal opinion is that I see no reason to disregard portions of God’s word for current scientific theories that are certainly questionable. Scientific theories postulated by mere human intellect are always changing.

Out of interest FTK, do you think 2+2 has always been 4 and always will be? Or is that also a scientific theory postulated by mere human intellect and therefore subject to change too?
EDIT: BTW, FTK - How's your other blog at overwhelmingevidence going?
Link
Quote
I look forward to discussing the issues with pro-ID folks for a change.

Yeah, no comments to either of your posts, and about a comment a week on the rest of the site on average since then! This is how popluar ID is "with the kids" (and the comments were generally trolls anyhow, v funny).

--------------
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: April 14 2007,11:00   

Once again, FTK proves herself impossible to parody:

parody:
 
Quote

How old is the earth?

Somewhere between six thousand and 5 billion years.

FTK:

 
Quote
age of the earth....maybe 4.5 billion/maybe somewhere around 10,000.


--------------
"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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:02   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:53)
 I’m not a liar.

Yes you are, FTK.  A deliberate one.

After all, YOU just told everyone here that (1) ID isn't an attempt to force a particular religious agenda into public schools and (2) ID isn't about Biblical creation.

I quoted the DI's very own words, in the Wedge Document, demonstrating that BOTH of those statements are wrong.  Crashingly wrong.  Bone-numbingly wrong.  Nuclear-level wrong.  So wrong that a blind person could not miss their wrongness.

That, logically, either means (1) you don't know what you are talking about, or (2) you are lying to us.

Since you yourself have gone on at great length about how well-informed you are and how many ID books and peer-reviewed science articles you have read in your yearsa nd years of research, I appear to have no choice but to rule out option number 1.

That leaves option number 2.  I.e., you are a liar.  A deliberate one.

That is not an "insult", my dear FTK.  It is a simple observation.  You say things that are not true.  That is called "lying".  People who lie, are called "liars".

Ergo, you are a liar.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to demonstrate to us that you are NOT really a deliberate deceitful deceptive liar, but just a pig-ignorant putz who has no idea what she's blithering about because she's never actually read it, then I welcome any and all evidence you'd like to present for that.  It may help change my opinion about you.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:06   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:21)
I'd be happy to address your post, but Lenny et. al.  are sick of the religious mumbo jumbo.  

Nice evasion.


So let's see . . . you won't discuss science.

You won't discuss religion, either.

What the #### WILL you discuss?

Heck, even when you were just talking about how cute your ass is, you STILL did the typical creationist/ID thing, and didn't present a shred of evidence to support your assertion . . . . . . Or won't you discuss THAT either, now?

(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:10   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,10:38)
Although, I suppose I'd merely have to go through a couple of Lenny's posts from the past few days and have plenty to work with.

Please do.  I invite you to try.

Unlike you, I can back up everything I say.

But then, unlike you, I am not an evasive dishonest deceptive liar who refuses to answer direct questions.

And no, FTK, that is not an "insult".  It is a simple statement of observed fact.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:13   

Quote
I wonder did you even check the quotes to see if they were accurate (and in fact existed) before "using them on your blog"? Or did you just repeat what Casey had to say?


Of course I do.  I don't think you realize the depth of my obsession with this subject.  I have PZ, Good Math/Bad Math, Orac, PT, and many other science blogs & forums bookmarked.  I peek in all the time.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:18   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:28)
Fine...age of the earth....maybe 4.5 billion/maybe somewhere around 10,000.  I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.


And naturally you come to that conclusion based on the best scientific data and evidence, right FTK . . . . ?

(snicker)  (giggle)


Hey, what OTHER scientific conclusions do you, uh, not allow yourself to be "bullied into", FTK?

Maybe heliocentrism/maybe geocentrism?

Maybe germs cause disease/maybe evil spirits cause disease?

Maybe flat earth/maybe round earth?


You go, girl.  Don't you let those evil atheistic god-hating scientific conspiracists bully YOU into believing their "billions-year-old/heliocentric/round earth/germs cause diseases"  crap.

And make sure you tell EVERYBODY, absolutely EVERYBODY, about it.

(snicker)  (giggle)  BWA HA HA HA HA AHA  !!!!!!!!

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:24   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,10:38)
 The DI guys would probably be more comfortable having me disappear from the Internet due to the fact that I'm nothin' other than a layperson.  I probably do them more harm than good.

Wow, your martyr complex runs far far deeper than most other fundies' -- YOU even want to be oppressed by your *own* side.


Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.


BTW, FTK, *nobody* does any good for ID.  Nobody.  As I long ago noted, the best way to destroy ID is to simply let them talk (on the witness stand, if possible).  They quite happily shoot themselves in the head every time.  

I suppose that helps explain why ID is dead, dead, dead, dead.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:28   

Quote
The DI guys would probably be more comfortable having me disappear from the Internet due to the fact that I'm nothin' other than a layperson.  I probably do them more harm than good.


Believe me, you are no less qualified than anyone else advocating Intelligent Design on the internet.

--------------
"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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:47   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:53)
Quote
I don't think that I've ever been so thoroughly insulted before. What was that about IDC advocates not hurling insults?


You and I disagree on our term “insult”.  What bothers me in these forums is that many evolutionists are vicious in their name calling routine.  There are thousands of examples to choose from, but here are just a couple that were recently thrown at Dr. Egnor:

 
Quote
“Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,”

“..compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.”

“...let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,”

“...if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.”


I do apologize for comparing you to Hovind, and I agree that was a bit over the top.  I was trying to make a strong point.  I would be very uncomfortable having you teach a course on ID because you obviously believe that all ID supporters are liars, so it would be questionable as to how you would approach the topic of ID with your students.  Now, obviously, I don’t know you at all.  So, it could be that you are one of the few who would be able to leave their emotional baggage at the door and teach ID as an ID advocate would teach it.  I believe that would be quite difficult for a guy who works for an organization who is out to stop the movement at all cost, but who knows.  

 
Quote
My religion says that lying is wrong. Yours apparently doesn't.


Well, for a guy who doesn’t like getting insulted, you certainly have no problem insulting others.  I’m not a liar.

FtK, you might work harder on your reading comprehension.

I'll have more about the Hovind thing later.

As for hurling insults, I've never tried to claim that none come from pro-science people. What I've documented is that IDC advocates, even or especially the big names, do routinely deploy invidious comparisons of the most extreme sorts, contra the various claims that they are always the victims and never the slingers of mud.

Here's a link to my earlier statement on the symmetry of insult flow.

And the invidious comparisons thread.

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

    
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,11:52   

Quote

My personal opinion is that I see no reason to disregard portions of God’s word for current scientific theories that are certainly questionable. Scientific theories postulated by mere human intellect are always changing.


Well I'm glad your personal opinion is so useful and authoritive and on Par with 'God's words'.

I'm also grateful (to god if you will) that you are not in a position to implement those opinions since I'm pretty #### sure any Airplane you designed or drugs you designed would be be less than useless.

Or even High School Biology lessons.

In fact as an exemplar of 'mere human intellect' I'd like to wager you have few peers.

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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,13:31   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,11:38)
Hmmm...there must be a few DI guys that check in here every once in a great while to see what Elsberry is up to...

[ANY OF YOU DI GUYS WANNA PAY ME TO MIX IT UP WITH THESE NASTY 'OL DARWINISTS??????]

There was a DI Fellow (with a capital F) that showed up here for a short period. His name was Cornelius Hunter.   He didn't stick around very long when he was asked a bunch of detailed question exposing the vacuity of his "science."

Good times.

 
Quote

Actually, that's a pretty funny accusation, Oldguy.  The DI guys would probably be more comfortable having me disappear from the Internet due to the fact that I'm nothin' other than a layperson.  I probably do them more harm than good.

After watching Hunter flop around, I sincerely doubt you could do them any more damage then they do themselves.  It isn't that they always shoot themselves in the foot that surprises me so much as the rapidity with which they reload.

--------------
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!)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,14:23   

Quote

I do apologize for comparing you to Hovind, and I agree that was a bit over the top.  I was trying to make a strong point.  I would be very uncomfortable having you teach a course on ID because you obviously believe that all ID supporters are liars,


Incorrect.

Quote

so it would be questionable as to how you would approach the topic of ID with your students.


Non sequitur.

Quote

Now, obviously, I don’t know you at all.


I noticed.

Quote

So, it could be that you are one of the few who would be able to leave their emotional baggage at the door and teach ID as an ID advocate would teach it.


More insults. I'm not in the habit of misquoting sources, ignoring whole fields of study, selective presentation of data, and other demonstrated faults of IDC advocates and teachers of IDC. And I know how to spell "bigoted".

Quote

 I believe that would be quite difficult for a guy who works for an organization who is out to stop the movement at all cost, but who knows.


Is that what Michigan State University does? Wow, I didn't know that.

Even NCSE's mission, where I worked before, doesn't match up to that.

In 2005, I taught a five-day seminar. The two books I assigned for pre-class reading were "Signs of Intelligence" and "Why Intelligent Design Fails". The first book is entirely by major IDC advocates making their case, edited and published by the IDC advocates. The second book is a collection of critical essays that take up the claims to science that IDC makes. IDC advocate "T. Russ" even got a chunk of time to talk to my seminar group, as well as an astronomer keen to present the anthropic principle as something worth considering.

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

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,17:27   

You don't work for NSCE anymore?  I just assumed that you did because you're still listed on their site as staff.

As far as you relaying a fair account on ID, I still have to wonder.  Right off the bat I noticed that you use the term - "IDC" instead of "ID".  I think that says something right there.  I know a bit about "creation" science and I don't think there is a creation scientist on earth who would state that ID falls in line with "C"reationist claims.  

That term is misleading because, although I'm sure you have some contrived justification for the initials, when people look at it without your specific reason for using it, they assume it means ID is part of creation science, and it's not.

Anyway, perhaps you are "fair and unbiased" when you cover intelligent design.  There's no way for me to judge that unless I have the opportunity to listen to you speak.  I just recently read Monkey Girl and listened to Humes lecture at KU.  He has been labeled as "fair and unbiased", but nothing could be farther from the truth.  

So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have a special knack for keeping your own bias thoroughly hidden when teaching about ID.  Fair enough? :)

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,17:36   

Quote

As far as you relaying a fair account on ID, I still have to wonder.  Right off the bat I noticed that you use the term - "IDC" instead of "ID".  I think that says something right there.  I know a bit about "creation" science and I don't think there is a creation scientist on earth who would state that ID falls in line with "Creationist claims.  


Of course, that would explain why there are NEVER any Creationists posting at UD, and why you, an ID advocate, would never entertain the idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old. I mean, only CREATIONISTS believe that.

 
Quote
That term is misleading because, although I'm sure you have some contrived justification for the initials, when people look at it without your specific reason for using it, they assume it means ID is part of creation science, and it's not.


Sure, they had to do that global search-and-replace of 'CREATION' with 'DESIGN' when they made that textbook. That's a HUGE difference. [roll eyes here]

 
Quote
Anyway, perhaps you are "fair and unbiased" when you cover intelligent design.  There's no way for me to judge that unless I have the opportunity to listen to you speak.  I just recently read Monkey Girl and listened to Humes lecture at KU.  He has been labeled as "fair and unbiased", but nothing could be farther from the truth.


So only 'unbiased' people can be trusted, and the only way to be 'unbiased' is to have no opinion whatsoever. To view all the evidence and draw no conclusion at all. Right?

 
Quote
So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have a special knack for keeping your own bias thoroughly hidden when teaching about ID.  Fair enough? :)


Just a hint, a smiley face does not make slimy disingenous insults any less obnoxious.

--------------
"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

  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,17:44   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:21)
cdesign proponentsist,

I'd be happy to address your post, but Lenny et. al.  are sick of the religious mumbo jumbo.  Want me to send a response to you privately?  Just let me know.

I'd love to hear your response Ftk. Feel free to send it privately or tell me where you posted it.

P.S.
I sent a PM, but I never check for them myself, so I figured I'd let you know here too.

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,17:54   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:27)
 Right off the bat I noticed that you use the term - "IDC" instead of "ID".  I think that says something right there.  I know a bit about "creation" science and I don't think there is a creation scientist on earth who would state that ID falls in line with "C"reationist claims.  

Well, let's ask the Discovery Institute, shall we . . . ?

Quote
Five Year Objectives:

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditioanl doctrine of creation


Um, hey FTK, if ID isn't about creationism, then, uh, what the heck is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and, um, why does it want them to defend it . . . . .

You know that "lying" thingie we talked aqbout earlier, FTK?  You are, uh, doing it again.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,17:58   

I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,17:59   

Since I used to maintain the web page for NCSE and they have not yet found someone to do that job, there is small wonder that the page hasn't changed yet.

Where did that "fair and unbiased" phrasing come from? What I am claiming is that I am comprehensive and that I am not credulous. I am getting the impression that FtK would not consider any presentation of IDC "fair" that was not credulous and deferred showing what happened when IDC claims met criticism. Teaching students only the hype about IDC would be wrong. As I noted, I selected an IDC text as required reading for my seminar class. Unless FtK wants to argue that even IDC advocates cannot make their own case in a book-length treatment, I think that I discharged my responsibility to expose the seminar students to IDC thoroughly, and that's even without considering the two speakers from the IDC side who presented.

IDC is the appropriate acronym because ID is simply a subset of "creation science" argumentation. This was thoroughly documented in the Kitzmiller trial, and stands unrebutted. There was a period in which I refrained from use of the IDC acronym because the issue was at that point not settled. It is now, and in line with my personal view that using "ID" unadorned would be making me complicit in passing on false information, I try not to do that anymore.

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

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,18:12   

Quote
I am getting the impression that FtK would not consider any presentation of IDC "fair" that was not credulous and deferred showing what happened when IDC claims met criticism. Teaching students only the hype about IDC would be wrong.


Hey, man, I'm good with "fair".  I'm just saying I'd have to hear you speak before I came to the conclusion that you'd be "fair".  I certainly want students to understand every facet of this controversy, and that would include the view from opponents of ID.  The topics surrounding this debate are extremely interesting and I believe it would spark the interest of students and lead more of them into the field of science.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,18:18   

As teachers can be good and bad, a good lesson plan is vital. Could you summarize a short lesson plan you would be happy to see implemented in classrooms. I'm not asking for an essay, just bullet points as to the essential points you believe would give a fair hearing to 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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,18:58   

Why should I care whether an IDC cheerleader approved of the way I taught a class? I'm certainly not seeking FtK's personal approval; I'm just documenting that the sneering dismissals don't match up with reality.

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

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,19:09   

Hey, man, I'm cool with that.  I certainly can understand why you wouldn't give two hoots about what I think.

ID cheerleader - hmmm...okay, I can deal with that description.  I do whip out the 'ol holler back girls at my blog quite frequently to acknowledge slam dunks made by my team.

Show 'em your stuff girls...



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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,19:11   

Quote
I certainly want students to understand every facet of this controversy, and that would include the view from opponents of ID.  The topics surrounding this debate are extremely interesting and I believe it would spark the interest of students and lead more of them into the field of science.
I don't think it would be very easy to make it sound fair, in the end any scientific explanation of 'both sides' of ID has to conclude with an explanation of why virtually all biologists (whether your talking about biologists in general or those who have studied ID) don't agree with it. If it was me my explanation wouldn't include the words 'conspiracy', 'darwinism', 'materialism', 'atheism' or 'worldview' so I suspect I would be accused of being biased.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,19:29   

De-lurking to ask FtK a couple of questions; I'm really just too curious as to why you're here.  What, again, do you hope to accomplish?   What, after 115 posts, do you think you have accomplished thus far?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,19:32   

Quote
If it was me my explanation wouldn't include the words 'conspiracy', 'darwinism', 'materialism', 'atheism' or 'worldview' so I suspect I would be accused of being biased.


Neither would mine.  I think it would be biased to use those words, don't you?

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,19:37   

Quote
De-lurking to ask FtK a couple of questions; I'm really just too curious as to why you're here.  What, again, do you hope to accomplish?


Nothing, other than just having some fun.

Quote
What, after 115 posts, do you think you have accomplished thus far?


Not a thing.  I'm basically just shooting the breeze and getting to know some interesting folks.  That's pretty much it.

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

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,19:43   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,19:37)
 
Quote
De-lurking to ask FtK a couple of questions; I'm really just too curious as to why you're here.  What, again, do you hope to accomplish?


Nothing, other than just having some fun.

   
Quote
What, after 115 posts, do you think you have accomplished thus far?


Not a thing.  I'm basically just shooting the breeze and getting to know some interesting folks.  That's pretty much it.

Thanks for answering my questions.  I did quite rudely cut in front of some other people who had some questions for you as well.  Perhaps if you have the time you could answer some of their questions as well.  Thanks again.

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,20:12   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

ID is creation science cut down to the absolute minimal claims that the creationists think are closest to being able to pass scientific muster.

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,20:37   

Quote (ToSeek @ April 14 2007,18:12)
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

ID is creation science cut down to the absolute minimal claims that the creationists think are closest to being able to pass scientific legal muster.

I fixed it for you.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,21:25   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

And of course the fact that Creationists now regularly parrot ID arguments is just an accident. As is the fact that almost all ID advocates are fundamentalist Christians. Purely accidental.

I don't think you're lying, just delusional.

--------------
"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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,21:59   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.

Then, uh, what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and why does DI want Christian churches to defend it.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,00:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 14 2007,22:59)
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.

Then, uh, what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and why does DI want Christian churches to defend it.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Quote
Claim CI001.2:
Intelligent design (ID) is quite different from creationism, because

  1. "Intelligent design creationism" is a pejorative term, not a term used by members of the ID movement.
  2. Creationists and fair-minded critics recognize a difference between ID and creationism.
  3. ID is scientific.
  4. ID's religious implications are distinct from its science program.

Source:
West, John G. Jr., 2003. Intelligent design and creationism just aren't the same. http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/idandcreationismnotsame011503.htm
Response:

  1. The reasons given for ID not being creationism fail:
        1. The term "Intelligent design creationism" is used because it is descriptive. The fact that the ID movement does not use it themselves means nothing, because the movement is based on propaganda and image manipulation (Branch 2002; CRSC 1998; Forrest 2002).

           Claiming this reason is also blatant hypocrisy. ID members are relentless in referring to evolution as Darwinism and evolutionary scientists as Darwinists, despite the fact that evolutionary scientists do not use those labels in such a way.

        2. There are differences between ID creationism, young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, gap creationism, Vedic creationism, and other forms of creationism. Still, they are all creationism.

        3. ID is anything but scientific.

        4. Since ID has no science program at all, their last point is meaningless.

  2. Intelligent design is defined and treated as a form of creationism by its supporters. (The ideas listed here are prevalent in the ID movement, but there may be individual members who disagree with some of them.) Intelligent design's main characteristics -- rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" -- are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s (Forrest 2005).

         * The internet domain www.creation-science.com (as of Sept. 17, 2004) is registered by Access Research Network, a major ID organization, and directs you to their Web site.
         * One prominent ID book captures the idea of creation in its definition:

               Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Davis and Kenyon 1989, 99-100)

     The ID movement rejects naturalistic explanations for origins and seeks to replace them with one or a few sudden creations by a supernatural agent whom almost everyone in the movement identifies as the Christian God. That is creationism, plainly.

  3. The "intelligent design" strategy evolved from creationism. A main textbook for intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, was in draft stage in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teach "creation science" unconstitutional. Early drafts of the book show that it was a creationism book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout. Drafts made after the Edwards decision show that the authors simply substituted the term "intelligent design" for "creation" (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005).

Links:
Forrest, Barbara. 2005. From "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design": Tracing ID's Creationist ancestry. http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Tracing_ID_Ancestry.pdf

Thomas, Dave. 2003. The C-Files: The smoking gun - "intelligent design" IS creationism! http://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm
References:

  1. CRSC. 1998. The wedge strategy. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html or http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/wedge_document.html
  2. Branch, Glenn. 2002. Evolving banners at the Discovery Institute. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(5): 12. http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....002.asp
  3. Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (2nd ed.). Dallas, TX: Haughton.
  4. Forrest, Barbara. 2002. The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In Pennock, Robert T. (ed.), Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 5-53.
  5. Forrest, Barbara. 2005. From "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design": Tracing ID's Creationist ancestry. http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Tracing_ID_Ancestry.pdf
  6. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005. Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 2, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am539


   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,00:36   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,19:37)
Quote
The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic.


Okay, I'll buy that.  Sorry to have made that connection.

I think FTK deserves some credit for dropping the gay epidemic thing.

If AIDS were some kind of divine punishment to homosexuals, it would be a revealing and unflattering comment on god. We generally try to minimize collateral damage. If AIDS is a bunker buster from god, it's a pretty indiscriminate one, blasting hemophiliacs, organ recipients, newborn babies, rape victims, and more heterosexuals than targeted homosexuals.

The homephiliac thing always saddened me. You're born with this terrible disease, that stupid rube-goldberg clotting system in your body is awry, and ta-da! medical science figures out how to fix it, and here you go, here's your bottle of Factor VIII, everything's all better, oh wait now you have AIDS.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,01:25   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 14 2007,21:25)
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

And of course the fact that Creationists now regularly parrot ID arguments is just an accident. As is the fact that almost all ID advocates are fundamentalist Christians. Purely accidental.

I don't think you're lying, just delusional.

Geez, Arden - Its not like someone did a find-and-replace for creation and design...

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html

--------------
"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: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,01:29   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 14 2007,17:59)
Since I used to maintain the web page for NCSE and they have not yet found someone to do that job, there is small wonder that the page hasn't changed yet.

Where did that "fair and unbiased" phrasing come from? What I am claiming is that I am comprehensive and that I am not credulous. I am getting the impression that FtK would not consider any presentation of IDC "fair" that was not credulous and deferred showing what happened when IDC claims met criticism. Teaching students only the hype about IDC would be wrong. As I noted, I selected an IDC text as required reading for my seminar class. Unless FtK wants to argue that even IDC advocates cannot make their own case in a book-length treatment, I think that I discharged my responsibility to expose the seminar students to IDC thoroughly, and that's even without considering the two speakers from the IDC side who presented.

IDC is the appropriate acronym because ID is simply a subset of "creation science" argumentation. This was thoroughly documented in the Kitzmiller trial, and stands unrebutted. There was a period in which I refrained from use of the IDC acronym because the issue was at that point not settled. It is now, and in line with my personal view that using "ID" unadorned would be making me complicit in passing on false information, I try not to do that anymore.

Quote
Where did that "fair and unbiased" phrasing come from?


Fox 'News' Channel, with transcription errors.

--------------
"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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,03:31   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,18:12)
Hey, man, I'm good with "fair".  I'm just saying I'd have to hear you speak before I came to the conclusion that you'd be "fair".  I certainly want students to understand every facet of this controversy, and that would include the view from opponents of ID.  The topics surrounding this debate are extremely interesting and I believe it would spark the interest of students and lead more of them into the field of science.

Ftk, help us out.

How do you falsify ID?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,06:59   

Quote
Neither would mine.  I think it would be biased to use those words, don't you?
I'd be interested to hear your explanation then because I haven't met an ID advocate who thinks that the scientific consensus is because the scientists just don't agree with the ID arguments for scientific reasons.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,08:31   

Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:28)
Fine...age of the earth....maybe 4.5 billion/maybe somewhere around 10,000.  I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

Suuure, Ftk.

Oh, and the Earth? Could be round, could fe flat. I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

Does it orbit the Sun, or does the Sun go round it? I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

Crust, mantle and core, or is it HOLLOW, with an inner sun and holes at the poles and ancient civilisations living inside? I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

What else... Oh! Disease: caused by germs or divine wrath? I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

The Pyramids: Ancient Egyptians, or laser-wielding Ancient Astronauts? I'm open to either and...

...you get the picture.


You're a blast, Ftk. Were you AFDave's secret friend, the one who told him he should go about "showing" that both ToE and Creationism are unfalsifiable? Seems quite possible!

;)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,10:14   

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,00:36)
We generally try to minimize collateral damage. If AIDS is a bunker buster from god, it's a pretty indiscriminate one, blasting hemophiliacs, organ recipients, newborn babies, rape victims, and more heterosexuals than targeted homosexuals.

Kind of like, oh, a global flood that kills every single living thing on the planet instead of just the wicked sinful humans.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,10:41   

Quote
We generally try to minimize collateral damage. If AIDS is a bunker buster from god, it's a pretty indiscriminate one, blasting hemophiliacs, organ recipients, newborn babies, rape victims, and more heterosexuals than targeted homosexuals.


And of course the awkward fact that lesbians as well as homosexual males in longterm monogamous relationships are spared, for some reason. Shitty aim for God's wrath, if you ask me...

--------------
"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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2007,13:05   

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,00:28)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 14 2007,22:59)
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.

Then, uh, what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and why does DI want Christian churches to defend it.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[quote]Claim CI001.2:
Intelligent design (ID) is quite different from creationism, because

Indeed, we can also ask *more* IDers themselves if ID is different from creation 'science'  (and we can ask them right in FTK's own backyard, to boot):


Of the six defining characteristics of creation "science" as listed in the Maclean v Arkansas case:

"Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and  inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes  the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1)  Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2)  The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about  development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes  only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and  animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of
the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a  worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth  and living kinds.


Every IDer I've ever heard of accepts at MINIMUM characteristics 2  and 4, (Behe being the only exception to 4, and he has been  waffling), nearly all of them accept 1 and (by rejecting  "macroevolution") 3, and a very large proportion of those who  testified in Kansas either accepted 6 outright, or hemmed and hawed
in an effort to avoid pissing off advocates of number 6.  The Kansas  Kangaroo Kourt didn't ask about characteristic 5 ("Flood geology"),  but it's a certain bet that everyone who accepts 6 also accepts 5.  

As for 5 and 6, keep in mind that rejecting them does NOT mean that one is not a creationist --- the old-earth creationists like Ross,  for instance, reject them, and by no stretch of the imagination can  they be considered anything other than creation "scientists", as the  Maclean decision applies to them.

So, of the six characteristics of creationism, nearly all of the IDers  who testified in the Kansas Kangaroo kourt accept four of them, and a very high proportion of IDers accept the  remaining two of them (or at least have no objections to accomodating  them).

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

  
  150 replies since April 12 2007,09:30 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]